RFK Jr. and the media reluctant to cover his candidacy

[Estro Felino]

If the gunshot came from the front, then please explain why he had a small entry point wound in the back of his head and the entire right side of his frontal bone was blasted outward.

If you have a picture that show this, let me see it. I trust my eyes only.

. Also, if the shots came from the front, then please explain how the Governor of Texas, who was sitting in front of Kennedy was hit by one of the bullets...from the back. He survived and lived until 1993, he was also ex-military. Are you claiming your eyes are better than an eye witness and survivor?

The footage clearly shows that the first 2 gunshots come from behind. The third, the deadly one, from the front. This proves there were at least two shooters (probably three)

Jackie had no idea what was going on, she cradled him when he slumped from the first shot then went into a full-blown panic after she saw his head explode. She was attempting to get to the secret service agent who was behind the vehicle.

why didn't she simply get off the car?

 

[Callisto]

If you have a picture that show this, let me see it. I trust my eyes only.

Google is your friend. The autopsy photos were released to the public after having been sealed for 50 years

The footage clearly shows that the first 2 gunshots come from behind. This proves there were at least two shooters (probably three)

Hang on... isn't it your assertion that the shots came from the front? Now it clearly shows the shots came from the back? Which is it?

why didn't she simply get off the car?

Are you completely unable to comprehend the state of mind this woman would have been in? Do you understand the hysteria and trauma Jackie was in the midst of, barely understanding what just happened? Have you never dealt with a person in a panic state? Seriously, "why didn't she simply get off the car"? Firstly, if she was thinking clearly, the car was still moving. Are you asking why she didn't roll out of a moving vehicle? Secondly, she couldn't scramble to the front seat, there were occupants and the Governor was slumped over, being cradled by his wife as he'd been shot too. The only place to go was the sizable trunk of the car. And when she climbed on to it, the secret service agent bolted to the car, climbed up, and shielded her.

 

[Stevicus]

I think it's a psychological thing.
Americans have this rosy vision of the Government made up of immaculate saints who would never kill anybody.

I have never had such vision about any Government. Especially mine.

Many Americans have that rosy vision of government, although even more so back in JFK's time. However, there are indications that Americans started to see the light during the late 1960s and early 70s, during the Vietnam/Watergate era, when people were far more cynical and skeptical about what politicians and government officials proclaimed.

But then, the Reagan era seemed to be a return and doubling down of delusions, where war became cool again, public opinion turned against the anti-war/anti-government protesters (many of whom also reversed their positions, such as the Clintons), and in many people's eyes, the government could do no wrong (especially any agencies related to national security).

 

[F1fan]

If you have a picture that show this, let me see it. I trust my eyes only.

But you don't know the science.

The footage clearly shows that the first 2 gunshots come from behind. The third, the deadly one, from the front. This proves there were at least two shooters (probably three)

I watched a video a few days ago by a guy testing whether the Carcano bullet would have deformed more after hitting Kennedy and Connally. The tests replicated passing through soft tissue of multiple targets. The test bullets actually looked better than the Kennedy bullet, which really surprised the experimenters. But anyway, my point is that during the tests they had numerous cameras set up including side views of the test targets that included barrels of water to catch the bullets. Every time they showed bullets hitting the targets and water barrels there was debris and water that splashed towards the shooter. I found that very interesting. I've seen this tested before and confirmed that debris does splatter back towards where a bullet comes from. What "trust your eyes of seeing" is probably inaccurate because you don't understand the physics.

 

[Stevicus]

The problem is that I see in that footage a man who is shot from the front. Not from behind.
And the depository was behind the car.

I can see perfectly. I have 10/10 eyesight.

As I said, there's too many unanswered questions to make any firm conclusions. It will remain a mystery. My only point is that there's not enough conclusive evidence to be able to say "case closed," as some people insist on doing. It's obviously a dead case which may never be solved, but that's true for a lot of murder cases (or possible murder cases) throughout history. I remember when some people wanted to exhume Zachary Taylor's body because they thought he might have been poisoned. The tests were inconclusive, but maybe he was poisoned? Who knows?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Many Americans have that rosy vision of government, although even more so back in JFK's time. However, there are indications that Americans started to see the light during the late 1960s and early 70s, during the Vietnam/Watergate era, when people were far more cynical and skeptical about what politicians and government officials proclaimed.

But then, the Reagan era seemed to be a return and doubling down of delusions, where war became cool again, public opinion turned against the anti-war/anti-government protesters (many of whom also reversed their positions, such as the Clintons), and in many people's eyes, the government could do no wrong (especially any agencies related to national security).

Yep, and it's switched again a couple of times since then. Now we're back in the Reagan era of the cycle, but lacking the coolness and with some added authoritarianism, scarily. If you disagree with the government, corporations and media these days, you are a "conspiracy theorist/anti-vaxxer/far-right extremist/Russian shill/insurrectionist/white supremacist/blahblahblah".

 

[Stevicus]

Yep, and it's switched again a couple of times since then. Now we're back in the Reagan era of the cycle, but lacking the coolness and with some added authoritarianism, scarily. If you disagree with the government, corporations and media these days, you are a "conspiracy theorist/anti-vaxxer/far-right extremist/Russian shill/insurrectionist/white supremacist/blahblahblah".

Yeah, although I think that tactic has been wearing off in recent years.

 

[Estro Felino]

But you don't know the science.

I watched a video a few days ago by a guy testing whether the Carcano bullet would have deformed more after hitting Kennedy and Connally. The tests replicated passing through soft tissue of multiple targets. The test bullets actually looked better than the Kennedy bullet, which really surprised the experimenters. But anyway, my point is that during the tests they had numerous cameras set up including side views of the test targets that included barrels of water to catch the bullets. Every time they showed bullets hitting the targets and water barrels there was debris and water that splashed towards the shooter. I found that very interesting. I've seen this tested before and confirmed that debris does splatter back towards where a bullet comes from. What "trust your eyes of seeing" is probably inaccurate because you don't understand the physics.

I do understand computer programs, and after enlarging the image I can clearly see the bullet before entering Kennedy's forehead.
The narrow part between the eye and the ear. That's where he was hit. But always forehead.
Forehead,...not neck. Forehead. Also because the trajectories are straight lines. They are not curves. So the bullet comes from the grassy knoll.

The truth is that some Americans will never believe that their Government is made up of people who are ready to hire hitmen to eliminate opponents.
With this psychological bias, there's no chance of having a debate.

 

[Estro Felino]

As I said, there's too many unanswered questions to make any firm conclusions. It will remain a mystery. My only point is that there's not enough conclusive evidence to be able to say "case closed," as some people insist on doing. It's obviously a dead case which may never be solved, but that's true for a lot of murder cases (or possible murder cases) throughout history. I remember when some people wanted to exhume Zachary Taylor's body because they thought he might have been poisoned. The tests were inconclusive, but maybe he was poisoned? Who knows?

Do you think that it's normal that James Files accuses himself of killing JFK, and nobody believes him?
Only in America confessions to murder are ignored.
The only place in the world.

It's not normal.

There were at least three shooters. One on the grassy knoll. One hidden among the trees. One in the depository.

 

[Estro Felino]

Many Americans have that rosy vision of government, although even more so back in JFK's time. However, there are indications that Americans started to see the light during the late 1960s and early 70s, during the Vietnam/Watergate era, when people were far more cynical and skeptical about what politicians and government officials proclaimed.

But then, the Reagan era seemed to be a return and doubling down of delusions, where war became cool again, public opinion turned against the anti-war/anti-government protesters (many of whom also reversed their positions, such as the Clintons), and in many people's eyes, the government could do no wrong (especially any agencies related to national security).

Thank you for acknowledging.

 

[Estro Felino]

Google is your friend. The autopsy photos were released to the public after having been sealed for 50 years

I have seen it. It is perfectly consistent with what I see on tape.
The first gunshots fired from behind (upward-downward) and hit the neckline entering the body and coming out the trachea.
The third gunshot fired from the front hits the part of the forehead between eye and ear...the right side of Kennedy's face.
Because the third shooter fired from the front- right side.

 

[Callisto]

I have seen it. It is perfectly consistent with what I see on tape.
The first gunshots fired from behind (upward-downward) and hit the neck entering the body and coming out the trachea.
The third gunshot fired from the front hits the part of the forehead between eye and ear...the right part of Kennedy.
Because the third shooter fired from the front. Right side.

That's incorrect but you're keen to believe as you will so it really doesn't matter.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's incorrect but you're keen to believe as you will so it really doesn't matter.

Enlighten me, then.
Give me a link of the picture you have examined and prove me wrong.

It's easy to say: you're wrong, without saying the correct answer.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you think that it's normal that James Files accuses himself of killing JFK, and nobody believes him?
Only in America confessions to murder are ignored.
The only place in the world.

It's not normal.

There were at least three shooters. One on the grassy knoll. One hidden among the trees. One in the depository.

I'm not sure about Files, although I knew a guy who was convinced that E. Howard Hunt (of Watergate fame) was the shooter on the grassy knoll (he said one of the transients caught in the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll bore a strong resemblance to Hunt). I've also read that Hunt himself allegedly made a death bed confession to killing JFK.

The truth is that some Americans will never believe that their Government is made up of people who are ready to hire hitmen to eliminate opponents.
With this psychological bias, there's no chance of having a debate.

It largely depends on the timeframe we're talking about. If we're talking about the early part of the 19th century, when guys like Andrew Jackson were President, it can be said that our government's character was not that much different than that of the imperial powers of Europe at the time - aggressive, warlike, expansionist, nationalist, racist. Even the ending of slavery didn't really change that fundamental character of our government and political culture.

Ironically, the now-maligned and discredited "Lost Cause" version of history was also a factor in whitewashing the U.S. government and transforming it into the paragon of virtue which many people view it nowadays.

World War 2 and the transition to the Cold War seemed to be the major game-changer in how the people viewed the government. The government itself also apparently underwent its own image changes, as image became all-important in the eyes of America's leadership as it sought to expand its influence in a world which had been racked by World Wars and the disintegration of the European colonial powers. Culturally, the Hays Code had strict standards as to what kind of imagery would be considered acceptable to the American people, as part of what appears to be a general thrust towards improving America's image not just with Americans, but with the entire world. This was because we were struggling to gain hearts and minds from those in the former Colonial world and try to woo them away from communist agitators.

Our government's obsession with image has been their primary weakness. It was their inordinate attention to image which caused them to lose Cuba and Vietnam, two enemies which we could have easily defeated if we wanted to, but our government obviously didn't want to because it would have been bad for their image. It's for much the same reason that we see many people responding so vindictively and viscerally to what they see as attacks on the image and reputation of the U.S. government (aka "conspiracy theories"). Many act like Mafia attorneys, struggling to find loopholes and falling all over themselves to try to discredit any and all pieces of evidence which might harm the image of the US government.

One might well wonder: Why would anyone care so much about the reputation of the US government as to become so obsessive about wanting to defend its image no matter what? That's what's always floored me about the anti-CT crowd. The question of "who's right" is overshadowed by which side seems to be the most obsessed with wanting to advance their viewpoint.

For my part, I really don't care about the image of the US government, and even if I did, I would think that the US government is big enough to defend itself.

 

[pearl]

Was not the Governor, riding in the front seat of the same car shot at the same time?

 

[F1fan]

I do understand computer programs, and after enlarging the image I can clearly see the bullet before entering Kennedy's forehead.
The narrow part between the eye and the ear. That's where he was hit. But always forehead.
Forehead,...not neck. Forehead. Also because the trajectories are straight lines. They are not curves. So the bullet comes from the grassy knoll.

Well thanks for your expert analysis, and I have to wonder why all the experts over the decades haven't seen this bullet.

Given your openness to conspiracy theories my first thought is that you saw doctored video. Remember the Zapruder film wasn't video and there is data missing between frames. So we rely on what actual experts conclude given the availble images.

The truth is that some Americans will never believe that their Government is made up of people who are ready to hire hitmen to eliminate opponents.

Well there are plenty who believe it. It's just that I haven't seen any compelling argument that there was a conspiracy among the list of suspects. There are many possible scenarios, but we need evidence to believe them likely true, and there isn't enough.

With this psychological bias, there's no chance of having a debate.

Oh the irony.

 

[F1fan]

Was not the Governor, riding in the front seat of the same car shot at the same time?

Yes, Connally, who was a republican, was hit by accident because he was in the line of fire.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, Connally, who was a republican, was hit by accident because he was in the line of fire.

Connally was a Democrat in 1963. He switched to Republican in 1973.

 

[F1fan]

Connally was a Democrat in 1963. He switched to Republican in 1973.

So HE did it. I knew he was involved.

 

[Callisto]

Enlighten me, then.
Give me a link of the picture you have examined and prove me wrong.

It's easy to say: you're wrong, without saying the correct answer.

Try answering the questions you've ignored before pointing fingers.