Western Union, 1963

I don't get it. The Costner movie was great but Parkland shows that filming Around that there was no shooting elsewhere than the Oswald position most likely. Visiting Russia made him think against FDR. Like said, do you for fun take a rifle to your working place? If you do, why? For fun? Visit your local psychiatric!

 

So if there was no other shooter, why does Kennedy's head go "back and to the left" ?

That was the whole point of viewing the Zapruder film. It showed the obvious, that a frontal shot HAD to be involved, otherwise why does Kennedy's head move the way it does?

It's plain for all but the Warren Commission and its supporters, still practicing a willing suspension of belief that a shot from behind can force Kennedy's head to be thrown "back and to the left"...it was emphasized over and over in the film, because it's demonstrates clearly that the government case is a lie

But silencing Oswald and then blaming a dead man just put the whole mess to sleep and saved all those government jobs and pensions.

Yowzah!

 

It's PHYSICS Jim!(said in my best Dr. McCoy voice)
Gunshot-wound dynamics model for John F. Kennedy assassination

 

Physics?
So now the laws of physics are different as well?
We have a bullet doing right and left hand turns, now we have a president that follows no path of momentum for the object that hit him?

This case has more and more lies every time someone examines it.

And that's exactly what happens when the essential premise is a lie to begin with. Lie piled on top of lie to cover and cover and re cover.

It truly was all finished by Ruby. He silenced everything forever by silencing Lee.

No other correspondence can be entered into once the government makes up it's mind.

Doubters be damned

What the paper essentially claims is that a "jet" of blood snapped the presidential head in a "back and to the left" motion, giving the impression that an impact was taken from the front.

The real question is, is a "jet" strong enough to achieve this?
The only real way to test it would be to shoot someone from behind and see what happens.

This paper relies on computer modelling. It has no basis for experimental re-enactment, which is actually what would be required to prove the assumptions of the computer.

And of course, we all know an experiment like that with real people is unethical and will most likely never be put into practice.

So, the above paper isn't really admissible as evidence of anything else except it's own assumptions.

Good try. But the American people are still not convinced.

As always in this case, people will believe anything that matches their preconceived notions of what others think.

In the case of Lee Oswald, he's been painted as a killer, and railroaded into responsibility without ever being formally put before a court to test many of the assumptions before a jury.

And where on earth would we find jurors in this day and age that have heard nothing about it?

Impossible!