Then you must have closed your eyes at the right moment. It proves that Kennedy was killed by a frontal shot - Unless you are invested in the wonky/comical theorical physics that are usually uttered in defense of the WC. What we see on the film isn't the light of Venus reflected on a weather balloon trapped in an air pocket or such elaborately twisted (*)(*)(*)(*). It was a high-velocity bullet colliding with the President's head from ahead. Case closed. As soon as the autopsy was botched, the officials zealously destroyed every bit of evidence. What does that tell you? Who are you trying to convince? Me... or yourself ??? If you are trying to convince me, you are losing your time, as I say the film of the assassination, and place its credibility above yours (or that of the guys that used weird physics as the norm to tell me that I didn't saw what I saw). So don't argue with me - argue against Zapruder's film, the most solid piece of evidence in all of this sad american chapter. Tell Zapruder that he merely filmed what he imagined, a false reality, and not the real events that took place on that day.
No you are quite wrong and he was not shot from the front. The film does not show where the bullet came from. I had my eyes open watching it and so did you. The difference is that you watched it as you have always watched TV and movies. Sorry to break it to you but bodies do NOT always move away from the gun when they are hit by a bullet. Sometimes they move away from the gun, sometimes towards it, sometimes they simply fall down and sometimes they do not move at all. Furthermore any such impact from a high velocity bullet will not move the body or head much at all. The backwards movement came from some other force, neuromuscular reaction or the let affect or a combination. I know you are not well educated about these facts but they are facts and you are wrong/. You should turn off the TV and learn about the real world. Your premise is strictly and absolutely predicated on the notion that the movement has to prove a shot from in front and this is simply a false and childish assumption. They did not destroy every bit of evidence from the autopsy it is publically available and the autopsy was not botched. Physics do not prove you correct. I know i am not convincing you because you are refusing to think and instead are indoctrinated with fiction which replaces thought. The film does not prove what you claim.
Yes, it does. It comes from the front of the calvacade. We can see it by the way the President's body respond to it. It's not because I never saw a man being shot in front of me that I can buy that they turn into lamp posts or are sucked into the sky when they do. It offends my intelligence, and it should offend yours as well, if you do have some. I shoot at things myself and they don't react one bit as oddly as the President would according to you or those that made up these wonky physics (in which you place all of your faith) proposed. This is as if, getting home early, one catches me with his GF, naked and in bed; If one is desperate, he just might force himself to believe that all I was doing was giving her a massage or such schnitz that deep inside he know isn't true, because he saw it - but he is more ready to live with the lie rather than face the consequence what reality would bring - that his GF is a cheater and probably doesn't love him. That's what's happening here. The President would have to be made out of stone if his head didn't moved from being hit so near its top. You see, that's your side's problem; Instead of believing in what's utterly obvious, you propose theorical, one-in-million-and-never-seen-before-but-nonetheless-theorically-possible "alternatives" not once, not two times but about a dozen times in all of the affair. If such a porous story took place in the old USSR instead of in the US, would you believe the official's conclusion if it were the same? Of course you wouldn't, you would keep a healthy dose of skeptimism and that's the reason why nobody in the world outside of the US believes it for a second. There only so much incredible "disbelief suspension" concidences one can take.
Once again you are wrong. the only people you have ever seen shot is on TV and that has conditioned you to accept such foolishness. No one is suggesting any such thing as one in a million chance reasons but in fact logical, common and rationale reasons for his movement. The movement was not caused by the bullet that is simple fact. It is not your intelligence deceiving you but your sheltered video game world view. The evidence proves you wrong in any part of the world
A debate requires capacity to read and argumentation, not just mantra-shouting. This is no longer a debate.
What you call "facts" is (in fact) the very same fantaisist mantra that failed to convince the world for more than 50 years now. If you ever wonder why, just look at your own writings.
It's so obvious JFK was killed by a front shot, it's not even questionable. You will find several posters here who will defend the WC until their fingertips bleed from all the typing. They will never claim JFK was killed by a front shot even though they can see it with their own eyes from the Zapruder film. Arguing with these posters is an exercise in futility. The same goes for the OBVIOUS stand down by the Secret Service just before the limo turned the corner to move into position for the kill. They will argue there was no stand down because the Secret Service said there wasn't and they of course could be trusted just like the WC. [video=youtube;eP6jDM6sXhA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6jDM6sXhA[/video]
The Zapruder movie is, IMO, the sole thing in all of this history that wasn't tempered with or dependant on someone's subjective conclusion. That's why it is such a powerful document. We may make theories about all of the rest, but in the end that's mostly conjecture. Zapruder's movie is the sole reliable witness of this drama, and that's why I tend to focus on it when talking about the Kennedy assassination. Now that being said, it's an interesting document, that I didn't knew existed. I figure that a conspiracy would have to involve some of the people that were the closest to the President. If I were a conspirator myself, that what I would try to do, yes. But once again, this is conjecture.
I hate to say it but one can make an argument that it's ALL conjecture, including what one sees from the Zapruder film, and as you can see, they do, there's two sides to the argument, not just one. [video=youtube;foQCA4MpRDs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foQCA4MpRDs[/video] IMO there's nothing in the stand down video to suggest anything other than a stand down. The fairy tale story given by the Secret Service (agent Clint Hill) is an insult to intelligence, rivaling any idiotic story about JFK's head violently lurching forward from an alleged shot to the back of the head.
What I meant is that there's little room for theory in the Zapruder movie; We are presented with a simple fact - a man being shot from ahead, and the more theory we make about it, the more we stray from an objective path. The Zapruder movie isn't a theory in itself, but rather a demolisher of theories. In your "security stand down" video, we have to create a theory because we lack elements (we don't hear what's being said). By doing this we put a subjective taint on the document. Yep, yep - that's also what I believe.
No it is fact and reality which you cannot refute. The world means nothing and popular opinion is not a definition of truth. Essentially you think you know better because you blindly follow along with pop culture. Those capable of thinking for themselves go with the evidence which you ignore. My writings are accurate yours are not.
Then why are you proselytizing, then? Why the denial campaign? Don't you have some kool-aid to drink? Once again you appear trying to convince yourself - and even at that, it won't work, because deep inside you know you're wrong.
No i do not and i am doing none of those things. I am correcting your fallacies and you know that to be true.
There is simply no evidence he was shot from the front. Much like the other poster you simply think he was because you have only seen people shot in movies. Reality is different and that is fact regardless of how much you deny it. The secret service denied such a stand down and the film proves no such stand down and that is also fact. The WC has not been discredited it has mountains of evidence while the conspiracy theories have none whatsoever. Deal with those facts
You want to convince people with such feeble argumentation? How do you think you compare with the live shooting of the assassination credibility-wise? You sure you're not a "conspiracy" fan that tries to caricature how ressourceless the pro-WC crowd are?
Facts are not feeble. Looking at a video and thinking it is evidence of a zany theory is feeble. Once again why do you keep ignoring fact that the video proves no frontal shot?
The hardest part in this debate is try to get the pro-WC to use their own senses - that they are not idiots. Always has been. I'll try again, as a sign of good faith; Who proposes the zaniest theory - the one who says this is a man obviously killed by a frontal shot, or the one which proposes a reverse shot and the mother of all spams? Did you saw the effects of the shot? The cranial cavity was destroyed. Now you tell me that a hit like that wouldn't enough force to make a body jerk? A higher-velocity hit of the sort that would not have moved the body would have made simple entry and exit holes - not turn the head into such a massive mess. I do shoot. The same target can move differently depending where you shoot it - the more you shoot it near the edges, the more it moves. Do you have a firearm at home, like a .22 or something? Take it to the woods and shoot a coconut with it. Now tell me if the main mass of the fruit jumps towards you, because I personally never experienced this.
You obviously know little about ballistics or forensis. The bullet hit from behind and caused wounds typical with such bullet wounds. You are making idiotic assumptions of what bullets do just as you assume the body will always move away from the gun when struck. The simple fact is regardless of where bullets come from the reactions are unpredictable and do not prove such details as you claim
The facts are that you're posting your own personal opinion, nothing more, and it has nothing to do with the OBVIOUS or the facts about the JFK assassination. No one is ever going to admit to a stand down and anyone who deliberately stood down will always claim some other excuse. One has to be incredibly gullible to believe otherwise. - - - Updated - - - Well you see that was a waste of time, I told you that many posts ago.
No they are not my opinion they are absolute concrete facts which destroy your argument and which you cannot refute. When a silent film shows SOMETHING which is vague and not specific you have no choie b ut to ask the people in the film " what happened "? The answer they give is fact unless you can prove otherwise which you cannot. There are also no other obvious facts about the assassination which support your argument. All evidence destroys your opinion and beliefs. Yes you call it a waste of time when proven wrong but you KNOW you have been so proven
