JFK Assassination Forum

Hasn't anyone considered That a Full metal jacket (the only projectile for any military rifle) makes ONLY thru and thru wounds ? It is Specifically made NOT to fragment.

But the Only thing that can make a mans head vaporize is a Hollow Point projectile

This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.

In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.

Let us begin by looking at the key issue of motive.

-- The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.

But Oswald behaved in a completely different manner. At every opportunity, whether under police interrogation or when speaking with journalists, he fiercely denied shooting anyone, and he told the police--and his brother--that the evidence against him was fraudulent, even going so far as to claim he was a patsy.

Furthermore, according to the lone-gunman theory, Oswald tried to shoot right-wing extremist General Edwin Walker in April 1963. Now why, oh why, oh why would the same allegedly pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban Marxist who supposedly tried to shoot the ultra-conservative General Walker turn around and shoot the center-left JFK, who was publicly trying to make peace with the Soviets, especially given the fact that JFK had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? That makes no sense.

-- The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects. It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.

One of the best books on evidence that some CIA officers and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination is former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation.

There is even stronger evidence of motive for certain Mafia elements. The historical record is clear, and no reputable scholar denies, that the Kennedy administration was waging an intense war against the Mafia, and that the Mafia viewed JFK and RFK as threats to their very existence.

Wiretaps recorded some Mafia leaders expressing a wish to see JFK dead before the assassination, and two informants reported that they heard Mafia leaders talking about a plot to kill Kennedy in the months leading up to JFK's death. Moreover, after the assassination, a government informant heard Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello admit to playing a role in the assassination.

Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.

Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.

Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)

Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.

The problem I have with all these types of discussions is that it's just regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over, ad nauseam. Virtually everything MTG posts is right out of one of his previous writings, to which he endlessly refers us. Unless it's just self-promotion, which I suspect it mostly is in the case of MTG and Jimbo and many others, what's the point? I assume that 99% of people who gravitate to a site such as this have a pretty fair base of knowledge about the JFKA, so what is the point of regurgitating "What about this?" and "What about that?" over and over and over as though the audience were junior high schoolers? And then those regurgitated points generate the same countervailing points that have likewise been regurgitated over and over and over. Is there some purpose in all this, or is it just self-promotion and mental masturbation? Every time I participate for any length of time, I start asking myself these questions and coming up with no better answer than mental masturbation (but at least I'm having fun with it!).

This was why I was excited to read Phantom Shot. It was something NEW! I hadn't heard it 974 times before. It was pretty persuasive and made me think. Ditto with John Orr's work. It's not just regurgitating the same tired talking points, and the same tired responses, for the 974th time.

Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.

Now, come on people: MTG's tedious posts or THIS? No contest.