JFK

[better dead than red]

What about the fact that the bullets that came out of his gun could not have done that to JFKs head. He was firing full metal jackets. They go right through a person. They were designed for that purpose for the battlefield (idea being that you can remove a combatant from the war but not necessarily kill him--admittedly a weird perspective for war but that is what it is...).

The bullet that hit him in the head exploded inside his skull leaving fragments throughout his skull. Full metal jacket bullets simply do not do that.

The bullet that Oswald fired that did hit Kennedy did exactly what you would expect from a full metal jacket. it went right through him and then went through Governor Connelly where it stayed until the removed it in the hospital. It was slightly dented but otherwise fully in tact.

The bullet that hit Kennedy's head did not come from Oswald's rifle. Full Stop.

Ironically, if he was using the weapon that did fire the kill shot, his shot that did hit JFK in the neck almost certainly would have killed him.

If you are wounded your buddies will likely try to save you. Then they will get shot too. Dead aren't usually run out into gunfire to save.

 

[BlueDeadHead]

If you are wounded your buddies will likely try to save you. Then they will get shot too. Dead aren't usually run out into gunfire to save.

I don't think this is still in practice. Our military shoots to kill. I believe it dates back a good 60 years or so. Regardless, full metal jackets exist. They perform as I have described and that was what Oswald was shooting.

 

[idahoblues]

If you are wounded your buddies will likely try to save you. Then they will get shot too. Dead aren't usually run out into gunfire to save.

Haven't been following this thread but more importantly the reason for not killing your enemy is that it takes several people out of the field of war to rescue the wounded, it also fills the mash units involved to max capacity and has a huge psychological effect with multiple personnel potentially maimed for life

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

What about the fact that the bullets that came out of his gun could not have done that to JFKs head. He was firing full metal jackets. They go right through a person. They were designed for that purpose for the battlefield (idea being that you can remove a combatant from the war but not necessarily kill him--admittedly a weird perspective for war but that is what it is...).

The bullet that hit him in the head exploded inside his skull leaving fragments throughout his skull. It was a bullet that is designed to inflict maximum damage. Full metal jacket bullets simply do not do that.

I agree that a FMJ's would go 'right through people' but what's your basis that a FMJ headshot wouldn't do that to his head?

The make-up of a head and a body are totally different. In the Head, bone & skin thickness/density is relatively thin and the cavity is essentially filled with something that is 90% + water. Then things like the shockwave from the bullet need to be taken into account.

Can you direct me to something that will show FMJ's don't produce those type of head wounds?

Also, i can't remember the specifics about any bullet fragments left in the skull. Point me in the right direction where i can find details of those, and what the connotations of them might mean, and i'll have a look.

If you can provide decent evidence of the above then i'll happily review my stance on what is the likely truth.

 

[BlueDeadHead]

I agree that a FMJ's would go 'right through people' but what's your basis that a FMJ headshot wouldn't do that to his head?

The make-up of a head and a body are totally different. In the Head, bone & skin thickness/density is relatively thin and the cavity is essentially filled with something that is 90% + water. Then things like the shockwave from the bullet need to be taken into account.

Can you direct me to something that will show FMJ's don't produce those type of head wounds?

Also, i can't remember the specifics about any bullet fragments left in the skull. Point me in the right direction where i can find details of those, and what the connotations of them might mean, and i'll have a look.

If you can provide decent evidence of the above then i'll happily review my stance on what is the likely truth.

Its not what it did to his head (I misspoke I suppose--although I assume it would leave a much cleaner exit wound, I just don't know). Its the fact that the bullet exploded leaving fragments in his skull. That is how we like our bullets these days (maximum damage) but a FMJ would not explode. This is coming from a documentary I saw a few years back. Can't track it down now but I will post it later.

 

[better dead than red]

Haven't been following this thread but more importantly the reason for not killing your enemy is that it takes several people out of the field of war to rescue the wounded, it also fills the mash units involved to max capacity and has a huge psychological effect with multiple personnel potentially maimed for life

Yes.

 

[better dead than red]

If you are interested, and I didn't know this, the U.S. House of Representatives held another inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination in the 1970's. They did believe a conspiracy was afoot.

I posted in the Conspiracy theory thread 33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True. Kennedy is #23.I was going to cut and paste it but didn't know if that was allowed. It is fairly long and I didn't know if Ric & the mods prefer links.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Its not what it did to his head (I misspoke I suppose--although I assume it would leave a much cleaner exit wound, I just don't know). Its the fact that the bullet exploded leaving fragments in his skull. That is how we like our bullets these days (maximum damage) but a FMJ would not explode. This is coming from a documentary I saw a few years back. Can't track it down now but I will post it later.

It did not explode

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I am not going to wade into your debate with BDTR. I agree with you (I think you are arguing that LHO had the time and ability to shoot Kennedy) that Oswald was capable of the act. Does that mean you think he was a lone gunman?

Absolutely. And it is proven. It really is very straightforward, in fact its simplicity makes it even more tragic I suppose.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I wasn't questioning whether Oswald could have made the shot. It was more his outright calling Jesse Ventura's assertion rubbish.

I know Ventura is a kook, more or less. But he has received top notch weapons training so imo he has a certain amount of credibility compared to "just some guy" on Blue Moon. That is why I asked him those questions to see if he had any familiarity. Apologies for any confusion.

As for myself, I don't know what I believe anymore. Perhaps Oswald was the only gunman. Do I think he acted alone? I think the convenience of "patriotic" Jack Ruby shooting him dead raises questions in my mind.

Jack Ruby was a nutter, no more in it than that. Unstable and unhinged