Quote:

---

Someone else will inevitably come along and refute certain Guitarsoup points, in relatively convincing fashion, and round and round we'll go.

---

No one has even attempted to refute him with any coherent argument. It's been "he was shot in the front. Duh. It's obvious".

I typed that less than 24 hours ago.

And A) did so more to underline the fact that we're simply having a discussion, and B) gave Guitarsoup credit in that very same post.

Some of you are taking this waaaaay too seriously.

Look, I'm no JFK expert. I saw what I found to be an interesting doc on his assassination. Then I posted about it. Part of me wanted to go down the rabbit hole and discuss all the crazy theories, while another part of me wanted people here to poke holes in the doc so I/we could try and separate fact from fiction.

Instead, we got a version of the latter, except it devolved into a handful of Kennedy obsessives who haven't yet watched the doc soapboxing and condescendingly telling the rest of us we've been duped (when, again, I haven't even picked a side), while others are treating this like a political debate, the score of which is apparently going to be tattooed on the "loser's" forehead.

Again, I legit appreciate Guitarsoup's knowledge. I learned a lot. But can we talk about this subject without the weird condescension/scorekeeping?

I didn't take any of Soup's posts as condescending with the exception of maybe a comment or two when he was replying to a comment calling him out.

He's replied to each theory with facts and context. I haven't taken any of his comments as "scoreboard". I made a mic drop comment more in admiration of him dismantling all of the softballs out of left field but that was about it.

Quote:

---

Some of you are taking this waaaaay too seriously.

---

You previously said this " Don't joke about this. It's no laughing matter." but we are taking this too seriously? Now that's rich!

Guitarsoup he's destroyed the "good points" you claim others have raised when in fact the others brought no facts, juts conjecture.

TCTTS said:

---

I typed that less than 24 hours ago.

And A) did so more to underline the fact that we're simply having a discussion, and B) gave Guitarsoup credit in that very same post.

Some of you are taking this waaaaay too seriously.

Look, I'm no JFK expert. I saw what I found to be an interesting doc on his assassination. Then I posted about it. Part of me wanted to go down the rabbit hole and discuss all the crazy theories, while another part of me wanted people here to poke holes in the doc so I/we could try and separate fact from fiction.

Instead, we got a version of the latter, except it devolved into a handful of Kennedy obsessives who haven't yet watched the doc soapboxing and condescendingly telling the rest of us we've been duped (when, again, I haven't even picked a side), while others are treating this like a political debate, the score of which is apparently going to be tattooed on the "loser's" forehead.

Again, I legit appreciate Guitarsoup's knowledge. I learned a lot. But can we talk about this subject without the weird condescension/scorekeeping?

---

I think you are being disingenuous. You have very clearly picked a side. Not that any of this matters and myself even spending the minute it takes to reply on this thread is time poorly spent, but you are the quintessential "I'm just asking questions" guy. Anyone who is applauding conspiracy theorists and getting upset with Soup for very well reasoned and sourced arguments claiming he is "obsessive", "condescending", and taking it way too seriously has clearly come out on the side of the conspiracy theorists. Also, you can't get upset at people ignoring the documentary and then simultaneously cheering on people that are also ignoring the documentary but support your pet theories.

It's fine to be a conspiracy theorist, but at least own it.

snowdog90 said:

---

I just have one question, and I apologize if it's been asked and answered.

If JFK was shot from behind, how did parts of his brain and skull end up on the trunk?

---

The car was moving forward. His skull and brain matter was found all over the car and in the street, including in the front seat of the three row limo. The majority of the skull and brain matter was in the rear seat

Part of the third bullet (headshot) flew forward and cracked the windshield. WC Exhibits 350 and 351 show it. That bullet fragmented, and a lot of it came to rest behind Kennedy's right eye. Had he been shot from the front, it would have come to rest in the base/back of his skull.



If you look at Zapruder frames 311-320, you see that the red cloud of brain matter moves forward from his head. The head is down and to his left, so the right side of it is up. After that exit wound going forward, his head jerks back as an equal and opposite reaction of the exit wound.

Just like the Penn and Teller video I referenced before: [I reference it simply because it is short, to the point, and shows with high speed cameras exactly what happens. Comparing to the Z film, it lines up pretty evenly.]



So brain matter was all over. The car was going 12-15mph (driver Greer's testimony) and if you throw some stuff in the air at 12-15mph, some will end up behind you just by wind resistance.

I've started the Stone documentary. So far, about how I expected.

Stone: Starts with JFK commencement address talking about peace, while simultaneously showing videos fo bombs and stuff in Vietnam.


Soup:
However, in Robert F. Kennedy's Oral History interview with NY Times Columnist Anthony Lewis, RFK was adamant that JFK was not going to back down in Vietnam. It is about a 4 hour interview and really interesting to listen to. https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKOH/Kennedy%2C%20Robert%20F/JFKOH-RFK-03/JFKOH-RFK-03

When JFK was sworn in, we had 700 troops in Vietnam, when he died 2.5 years later, we had 16,000. In 1961, he signed an aid package with South Vietnam which included us bringing troops to Vietnam. LBJ was definitely more of a warhawk than JFK, but JFK still escalated things in Vietnam and was committed to fighting communism.

Stone: Shows archival footage of TV briefs, people huddled around car radios, while blasting some ominous music. I like how this was packaged, especially for those of us that didn't live through that.

Stone (2m:30s): Plays interview with Texan that says a gunshot from the top of the hill hit the President in the head. Then radio interview with a woman that said shots came from the hill.

Soup: Of the nearly 200 eyewitnesses interviewed, 88% heard exactly three shots, less than 7% heard fewer than 3 shots, and less than 5% heard more than 3 shots.
Of the nearly 200 eyewitnesses interviewed, only 12% said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Two percent said the shots came from more than one location. https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2021/09/20/lessons-from-the-kennedy-assassination-about-eyewitness-testimony/?slreturn=20211111134936

"Three critical "ear-witnesses" were Oswald's co-workers, Bonnie Ray Williams, Junior Jarman, and Harold Norman. They were on the fifth floor of the Depository, directly under Oswald on the sixth floor when the shots were fired. Through the thin plywood decking separating the fifth and sixth floors, they distinctly heard three shots fired. In fact, before anyone discovered Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor, Norman correctly described the sounds of a bolt-action rifle being fired directly above his head. Norman said that he heard "the click-click, boom, click-click, boom," "the sound of the click [bolt action]," "the sound of the shells hitting the floor," and "three shots, no doubt in my mind."

This seems like a great account to include. But Stone doesn't, because it doesn't fit his preconceived narrative.

"What did the eyewitnesses see? Howard Brennan saw probably more than any other eyewitness. He was sitting on top of a four-foot-high retaining wall directly across the street from the Depository, just 100 feet from the sixth-floor window. He saw an "unsmiling and calm" man matching Oswald's description in the sixth-floor window fire three shots from a rifle in the direction of the President's limousine."


Another narrative, this time from a Pulitzer-Prize winning Photojournalist that is universally respected in the industry.

"Other witnesses saw things consistent with what Brennan saw. Two of those witnesses were Robert Jackson, a Dallas Times Herald photographer who was riding in an open convertible about one block behind the President's limousine, and James Worrell, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the Depository when he heard shots coming from directly over his head. Jackson looked towards the Depository as the shots were being fired and saw the tip of a rifle being drawn slowly back into a window on the sixth-floor of the building. Worrell looked up when he heard the first shot and saw about six inches of a rifle extending from a window in the Depository."

Bob Jackson is who took the famous picture of Ruby shooting Oswald.


Stone Picking from the vast, vast minority of witnesses to show already shows his bias, and we are less than 3 minutes into the documentary. This is very on par for Stone, and I assume we will see a lot more of this as we more forward. He doesn't want to give you the whole picture, but he will isolate the vast minority if it fits his narrative.

Stone: [4m:30s] Lyndon Johnson being sworn in. All the visuals the last 90 seconds are great. Really do love seeing the reactions from people. It really places you at the time, which is obviously such a different time than today or what most of us have experienced.


Stone: [6m41s]: Shows the photo that wasn't taken by Bob Jackson of the Ruby shot of Oswald.

Soup: Bob Jackson's shot is vastly superior and taken in a better moment, which is why it won the Pulitzer. Interesting Stone used a worse image, but maybe because he also ignored Jackson's witness testimony as I mentioned above.

Stone: [9m00s] Everything so far is archival footage, and at this point it is flipping between DC/Jackie and Oswald/Ruby/Dallas and I really like how that is put together. All of this happened within just a few days. I think the shortish cuts and film reel effect heighten that feeling. All that archive backstory done at 9m. Starting at 9m, we get to see Oliver Stone take a stroll around Dealey plaza.

Stone: [10m] Starts going into CIA history of assassinations for foreign leaders and that the Warren Commission was unreliable.


Soup: But most of what we know is that they had supported or looked the other ways during coups, but didn't commit assassinations. The "Family Jewels" is the part of the Church Commission that included the wrong doing of the CIA, and it included assassination plots against four foreign leaders. However, the CIA's role seemed to be to support locals that were against those leaders, rather than having someone in the CIA kill the person. Such as in the Dominican Republic, the leaders targeted were generally dictators, and the new western government system was implemented. Castro was never assassinated. Trujilo was killed while Kennedy was president, Schneider was killed in the 70s and he survived multiple plots. The Church committee found that the CIA had planned to murder Lumumba, but was not actually involved in his murder.


Stone (11m45s): Starts getting into the House Select Committee and editorializes the reason, citing inconsistencies in the Warren Commission report.

Soup: What Stone seems to leave out is that the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that the wounds in Kennedy and Connally were made by bullets fired by Oswald's gun from the TBD. Also, it wasn't just about JFK, but they also studied MLK as well.

Dr. Vincent Guinn's testimony: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0908_8_Guinn.pdf

Dr. Guinn's clip used by Stone seems to make it look like he is a doctor or pathologist. He was a chemist at UC-Irvine. When you read Dr. Guinn's full testimony, it is clear that Stone is taking it out of context. Guinn is saying the bullets from Connally's wounds are from the same bullet, and he was the first person to be able to scientifically prove that. He is also saying that the headshot bullet was also the fragments of the bullet found in the front seat as well as behind Kennedy's eye and that all fragments of bullets he tested could be chemically traced to be two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle at the TBD.

Oliver Stone is being dishonest with how he cut that testimony and reading the full testimony shows that.








Probably going to be broken up into a few posts, but I am going to try to timestamp things as best I can.

TCTTS said:

---

I typed that less than 24 hours ago.

And A) did so more to underline the fact that we're simply having a discussion, and B) gave Guitarsoup credit in that very same post.

Some of you are taking this waaaaay too seriously.

Look, I'm no JFK expert. I saw what I found to be an interesting doc on his assassination. Then I posted about it. Part of me wanted to go down the rabbit hole and discuss all the crazy theories, while another part of me wanted people here to poke holes in the doc so I/we could try and separate fact from fiction.

Instead, we got a version of the latter, except it devolved into a handful of Kennedy obsessives who haven't yet watched the doc soapboxing and condescendingly telling the rest of us we've been duped (when, again, I haven't even picked a side), while others are treating this like a political debate, the score of which is apparently going to be tattooed on the "loser's" forehead.

Again, I legit appreciate Guitarsoup's knowledge. I learned a lot. But can we talk about this subject without the weird condescension/scorekeeping?

---

LOFL.

First reply on thread: "Oswald was the lone gunman"

Second reply (you): "Not a chance"

You clearly have picked a side and believe Stone is peeling the layers back on a conspiracy. Guitarsoup came in here, mushroom stamped you with facts, and now you have the gall to post that blatantly disingenuous drivel?!?
C'mon man.

Quote:

---

I watched the documentary - lost count how many medical experts were quoted as saying the entry wounds were from the front.

---

How many of them examined JFK before he had a trach put into his neck gunshot wound? None of them.


Dr. Malcom Perry was the Parkland Emergency, who initially treated Kennedy and put the tracheotomy into Kennedy's neck from the wound testified as to this, "full jacketed bullet without deformation passing through the skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound; I believe that [the neck] was an exit wound."

Once Dr. Perry put that tracheotomy in, no one could examine the wound and tell if it was an entrance or exit. Putting a trach in and putting Kennedy on a Vent was about the first thing they did. Had to get breathing stabilized and he breathing was not stable when brought in - plus the hole in the windpipe is obviously an issue.

So Dr. Perry, the doctor that performed the tracheotomy believes it was an exit wound. The pathologists that examined Kennedy that are unquestionably experts believe it is an exit wound.

But you have "experts" that did not examine Kennedy, did not see his wound before the trach, and you believe them over the actual doctors that examined the wound? I fail to see the logic here.

Quote:

---

The use of the Navy Doctors doing the autopsy is an eye opener. I'm sure they were good physicians, but when it's the President, you use the best experts available who know about gunshot deaths.

---

Who would you expect to do the autopsy at a Navy base?

In addition to Commander James Humes, Navy Pathologist, and Commander J. Thornton Boswell, the two Navy pathologists, Dr. Pierre Finck was there as well.

Why is Dr. Finck important? He was chief of the wound ballistics pathology branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. So he was unquestionably an expert about gunshot deaths.


Dr. Humes was chief of anatomic pathology at Bethesda and director of the laboratories at the National Medical Center. Dr. Boswell was Chief of Pathology. These weren't just doctors that happened to be on duty at the time. They were experts in the field.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-05-20-1992141182-story.html

Quote:

---

I do not believe the story line that Mrs Kennedy wanted the autopsy performed at Bethesda.

---

Based on what? Because it doesn't work for your beliefs? This is literally not debated at all, because it is agreed on universally.

Dr. Boswell at Bethesda actually recommended it be done at the AFIAP, but because Jackie insisted it be done at Bethesda, they brought Dr. Pierre Finck over from AFIAP.

edit: here is Admiral George Burkley's Oral History interview with the JFK Library. He was JFK's personal doctor and travelled with him everywhere. He told Jackie that there would need to be an autopsy, and suggested Walter Reed, but said it was her choice and JFK could be taken anywhere. She didn't want an autopsy done and he insisted, so she chose Bethesda. So he made the calls to set that up while on the plane.

Top of page 17

https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKOH/Burkley%2C%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf

Hey Nav said:

---

I understand you are very well versed on this subject.

The documentary indicated Dr Perry first indicated entry wound and then later changed his mind. Is that not what I watched?

---

Thanks for replying. I think we will all learn more through discussion.

I am taking a lot of notes while I watch and looking up the specific quotes when possible to see if they are taken out of context like the one above with Dr. Guinn clearly was, so I haven't gotten that far.

When I get to that part in Stone's work, I will address it more, but my memory (which obviously could be faulty) is that Dr. Perry saw the wound on the neck, checked the back of the neck and found no wound and assumed it was an entrance wound. He said it was fairly smooth. The doctors at Parkland never knew that Kennedy even had the back wound, that the pathologists at Bethesda obviously saw in the autopsy. In the absence of finding a corresponding second wound, most doctors would assume that it is an entrance wound.

Dr. Perry didn't do many interviews and didn't like to talk about that day. Here is an article he did in the early 70s:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19731119&id=IqArAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XfwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6247,2559356&hl=en

I screen shot the relevant part:

I really appreciate you breaking it all down like this. This is all incredibly interesting, exactly what I was looking for, and great to know.

Thank you.

So my mother worked for the Dallas PD and her office was right above where Oswald was shot, Whenever I would see video of that ambulance coming up that ramp with Oswald, I thought "gee that's mom's office".



Also, I knew Msgr. Huber, who performed last rights for JFK. Fine man. I never heard him describe details of what he saw other than Jackie showed unbelievable composure in that ER room.

Are you trying to claim that the people in a hospital emergency room in the middle of one of the most chaotic, pressure-packed moments in its history, are able to remember with absolute clarity who was there and how many fragments they did or didn't remove from a person, or where a bullet came from, etc? That's your evidence?