Saturday, 22 November 2008

The JFK Assassination: The Core PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, simply explained, showing that the Official Account is a LIE

The physical evidence in relation to the assassination confirms that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the lone gunman in this crime. To recap:

According to the official story Oswald could only have fired three shots (it was impossible to fire more from his position when compared to the film evidence), that the first shot went through the President and into Governor Connolly, the second shot missed (it hit the sidewalk), while the final shot was into JFK's head.

1. An audio recording of the attack clearly indicates more than three shots were fired. According the the official story it was impossible for Oswald to have fired more than three times, therefore a second gunman must have been present.

2. The "magic bullet", that MUST have caused wounds to both JFK and Governor Connolly, if the official story is to be believed, is planted evidence. It's impossible for this particular bullet to have remained in such a pristine condition after punching though the muscle and bone of two people. The one claim saying that the bullet could have survived with so little deformation should be viewed suspiciously, seeing as there has never been a successful repetition of this questionable ballistics test.

3. The Zapruder Film indicates the head shot came from the front. Oswald was shooting from behind.

When we take the physical evidence together with the witness testimony from Governor Connolly, who said he heard gunfire BEFORE he was shot (you can see him turning around in the car to look while JFK is struggling with the wound in his neck) it's obvious the official timeline is false. Remember the official story has JFK shot through the neck, with the first round, simultaneous to Connolly being hit. Yet we have Connolly indicating he was still unhurt after already hearing the first shot. The Zapruder film confirms this account rather than the official narrative.

So we have one shot to JFK's neck, one into the road, one to Connolly and one more to JFK's head. That is 4. The sound recording also shows that there were at least 4, maybe up to 7 shots. If there were more than 3 shots, then there must have been more than one shooter.

It's more than likely that Oswald did not fire any shots at all and was, as he claimed, "just a patsy."

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 22nd, 2008.]


steven andresen said...

Thank you for the summarization.

I have heard that Thom Hartmann, a radio guy on air amarica, I believe, has co written a book coming out this month arguing that the mob, based in Louisiana, was behind the shooting of the President. This radio person said the FBI had gathered evidence from some one in prison.

It seems there are too many possible explanations of this hit as there are too many about 9-11.

I have a hard time sifting. Is that the point?

SpookyOne said...

I think a proper investigation will illuminate a lot of details in both cases, moreso with 911. Already we have seen a lot of research, especially with 911, that points to specific individuals who could easily be taken in for questioning and/or arrested.

I think the main problem with the JFK conspiracy is that there seems to be a lot of contenders for the job. Lots of parties were tied to one another, the mob, CIA, FBI, anti-communist Cuban groups etc. The assassination would have seen a mixture of people from these organisations acting together. How the operation was carried out is very hard to pin down.

Certainly with JFK there is an element of mob involvement- think about Jack Juby. I even think that LBJ might have been involved- see the deathbed confession (taped) of ex-CIA man E. Howard Hunt.

Pinning down exactly what happened might prove very difficult, but remember, we have NEVER seen a proper investigation. There are also classified files relating to what happened which are locked away.

One thing is certain, Oswald could not have been a lone shooter. So you go with what you know for sure (and the research done by others)...

With 911 we also know from the physical evidence that the attack was an inside job. Here we can actually pin down key individuals for committing perjury. We know who has lied at the 911 Commission, and we also have a number of suspects who were picked up by the cops on the day driving those white vans.

If there was a criminal investigation of 911 a number of people could immediately be brought in for questioning and/or charged.

And then you follow further leads from there ...

I think 911 is less murky that the JFK assassination. The possible explanations are pretty limited in my opinion, and certainly we have a number of definite suspects that are known to us ...

In the right situation I think one could go very far in seeing justice served. The problem in the past is we have not had the opportunity to stop the rot which has ment we continue to face threats coming from the corrupt establishment.