Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Erm, I know what really happened. I know a former Secret Service agent who said this: When he heard the first shot, he turned around and pulled his gun, so he was looking at the president (who was in a car behind him) but the gun was faulty and it went off, killing JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 it was colonel mustard in the dining room with the candlestick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 JFK (the film) has much to answer for. It makes up evidence for a conspiracy in the shooting itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 I saw a show talking about how there was a bullet hole (entry going in the car) in the windshield. They took the windshield to Detroit and destroyed it. Oh, and the Smithsonian was keeping his brain, and that would have all the bullet evidence, but they lost the brain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 I saw a show talking about how all the evidence pointed to a lone gunman. As it had proper pathologists and the like on it, and was made by the BBC, I trust it rather more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 But the one I saw was on the History Channel. Oh, and the files about him are screwed up, saying someone said "There was one guy" but acually he didn't. And the stereoscopic pictures of his head after the shooting look modified because parts aren't stereoscpic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post #30 :Iloan gunman. dear me. their appears to be a spelling mistake in they're someware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Dear me. There appears to be a spelling mistake in that "they're" is incorrect. "there" is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Well one out of five ain't too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 AIN'T? AAAAAAAAAAH! Make that two out of six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #33 :Dear me. There appears to be a spelling mistake in that "they're" is incorrect. "there" is correct. Except it says 'their' And Duncan, bless his little cotten socks, appears to be telling me that there's a spelling mistake in my post if you edit my post to have a spelling mistake in. Are we following the Bertrand Russell guide to rigor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Mark, it was in there to start with. Refsmmat, go look up "irony". Any more of these shenanigans and you'll all be going to bed without supper. PS - "Cotton". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I was confused because he typo'd my mispelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Rad managed to get both "their" and "they're" in "there". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post #38 :I was confused because he typo'd my mispelling didn't delete all the redundant parts of the post, is that a typo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Radical Edward said in post #40 : didn't delete all the redundant parts of the post, is that a typo? Of course it's a typographical error you buffoon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfson Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I had already concluded this in previous post. As for the C.I.A. man shooting the pres. the only word that springs to mind is deluded!!!!! (note evidence shows No CIA agent shooting president!!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Not cia, SS. Did you hear me say there was a bullet hole in the windsheild of the car? And it was an entry hole? And then they took it and destroyed it? Sounds conspiracy to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post #41 : Of course it's a typographical error you buffoon! it wuz the CIA that did it because they think that we are too close to uncovering the kennedy conspiriacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gampin Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 According to a US News (1990s) article I read, his head movement might be because of a reflex that was made when the bullet struck some nerve. Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 But... nerves aren't stimulated by pressure... Reflexes hit a sensor, not a nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #43 :Not cia, SS. Did you hear me say there was a bullet hole in the windsheild of the car? And it was an entry hole? And then they took it and destroyed it? Sounds conspiracy to me! Dude, the CIA ARE a secret service. Unless you mean the Nazi Stormtroopers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superchump Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Given that the bullet was moving at supersonic speeds, it would have entered his skull like a hot knife through butter. But as the bullet passed through the skull it would have set up a pressure wave that would continue to travel forward. Now as the bullet moving through his brain it is liquifying the tissue. Given that is was a rifle bullet that was not ment to balloon out (it passed through the head/seat and logged into a person up front), it would have created a small hole, not a large gap (not yet at least). Through vacuum pressure, liquified brain would have followed the bullet out in a jet causing quit a bit of thrust in the process (equate it to those special tank shells that fire through a tank and suck everything out not bolted down). But the pressure wave is still traveling, abit slower than the bullet, so now his head opens up like a watermellon as the wave dispells energy. Given the entry of the bullet, how would his head move? Back and to the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Conspiracy theories without evidence belong in the pseudoscience forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfson Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 As again if I must repeat there is NO, NONE, NIL evidence that the CIA/SS men/man shot the president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts