JFK

I admire Oliver Stone for making a film about the JFK assassination, although I wish he had a better story for the film than the Garrison investigation. Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was shaky to begin with. Also, by hanging his film on Garrison's far fetched case, Stone opened the film up to attacks from everyone who either fervently believes the Warren Commission or is afraid to contradict it. We did need a forum to bring out the inconsistencies such as the "magic bullet" and the wounds the President suffered in relation to a "lone gunman" in a building behind him. There may not be hard evidence of a conspiracy, but that does not mean there was not one. After all, there is no hard evidence that God exists, yet millions believe in His existence.

I didn't see the BBC documentary, much as I'd like to have, but I'm sure it can all be explained, one way or another.

I do think the film JFK is excellent though, and even if it is all bollocks, you've got to admit, they do put forward a pretty good case for the conspiracy. I always like a good consipracy theory, and that film, despite being 16 hours long, does do a great job!

Guess what I found folks... - http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2427/Beyond%20Conspiracy.torrent

The documentay is on Supernova.org! I'm gonna download it immediately. Love to keep this.

Watch it. That's all I'll say.

Peace,
Adam.

Thanks for the link Adam!

"For instance, the fatal blow where Kennedy pulls back and to the left - It is explained that a body being shot does not have to act in any specific way i.e. shot from the back or the front doesn't matter. A myth explained."

My old Uni professor (an expert in US history - what he didn't know about US history, wasn't worth knowing!) said the same thing.

The BBC documentary did make me think about what I considered to be facts in the whole JFK case.

- I'll enjoy watching it again.

I believe there were at least 2 shooters - based on my own, in depth, pure guesswork ;-)

"Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

Overrated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap."

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ian R wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I suppose you also think that the Moon landings were faked by the 'evil' US government then, Lucy?[/QUOTE]

I wish I could say I wasn't considering the possibility. But think about it... just about everything else in space was done by Russia first, so the US had every motivation in the world to fake it out. One theory says it was all done in Sudbury, ON. I wouldn't doubt ANYTHING in regards to the power of the US.

sorry, double post

Anyone who seriously thinks that the Moon landings were faked is either a conspiracy theorist or simply misinformed.

The Russians were only ahead of the Americans until the Gemini missions of the mid 1960's proved that NASA had mastered many of the techniques needed for a successful Moon landing, i.e., Rendezvous and Docking, EVA, etc.

At this time, the Russians had many problems with their version of the Saturn V rocket (the N1), which had an unfortunate tendancy to explode on take-off. This, essentially, was why America got to the Moon and the Russians didn't.

Here is a more in-depth response to the suggestion that the Russians did just about everything in space first before the Americans:

http://www.clavius.org/techsoviet.html

Read also:

http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

Adam - I have the BBC JFK doc you refer to on DVD. (I own a DVD recorder). It shed no new light on the subject at all. In fact, all the BBC "Uncovered" was broadcast over 10 years ago on a NOVA special broadcast in the USA - and available as an official NOVA NTSC video release.

The problem for Nova is that it used a very primitive BBC computer at the time so the effects look very "Space Invaders"!

Regurgetated using new high powered digitally generated graphics - it was indeed very convincing - but those graphics are "programmed" into a PC - not physical evidence. Also graphics can be manipulated.

Rather, I suggest you search out a book called "The Death Of A President" - it should be available from on-line book sellers like Amazon.

It is not a "read", but a collection of all known photographs of the assassination - and it is a revelation, as the President's car is vrtually riddled with bullets and bullet holes.

One through the windscreen. Another in the dashboard (Under the windscreen and can not be the same bullet). One in the back seat. One bullet hit James Tague standing in the underpass.
One hit a manhole cover. One hit the kerb. One hit the grassy verge opposite Zeprudder. Another was supposed to have lodged in Conelly's thigh.

This is all documented, physical evidence the BBC ignored. I make that at least six bullet holes - from six different bullets - which kind of buggers the three shot magic bullet theory!

Do some research of your own. The BBC is a powerful persuader, but it is British propaganda as much as Pravda is Russian propaganda.

If the above is correct, it can not be explained away so "magically".

I watched the Capricorn One film yesterday. Now that was cool! I remember a crazy story that Kubrick did the filming of the moon landings. Heeheee. Yeah, I've begun questioning whether they did go to the moon. Nice conspiracy progs on tv about it in the last few years. Interesting evidence.

Getting past all the evidence in pictures etc. - The one thing that always confuses me is how they didn't get poisoned by the radiation above Earth. Could someone explain that?

Peace,
Adam.

Curious, "The Death Of A President" was one of the books I referred to in my old school report. I'll take another look.

But I don't think they'd intentionally manipulate the graphics to support the show. They do show how the images are matched frame by frame to the footage. So, I'm confused - what's manipulated about it?

Peace,
Adam.

Here is a little teaser.

A fragment from the President's skull was found by a Mr Billy Harper. Here is a picture of the Harper fragment. (You can also read about it if you like on the link underneath).

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Photos/Harper_fragment.html

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

Yet, here is a copy of the official autopsy photograph.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/autop04.JPEG

As you can see, the large red dot in the centre of the crown (by the end of the ruler) is supposed to be the bullet entrance wound.

However, the harper fragment is bigger than the entrance hole! So, who faked this autopsy photo - and why? It could not be Oswald - as the pictures were released after his death.

If the autopsy pictures are faked, what is that if not conspiracy - but the BBC failed to deal with this also.

Finally: Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis, riding to Kennedy's left and a bit behind him, was hit by human brain matter blown out from Kennedy's skull,
while his wife Jackie and Conelly was not.
Draw from this what you will, but without all the evidence presented fairly, the BBC did a really good stitch-up job!