Paul Baker

No, I got that. I just thought you were interested in an explanation, of sorts ... Those who think his head moved back and to the left because of a shot from the right front certainly need one.

Bullets are designed to penetrate. They're also very small and very fast. So the fast moving projectile imparts hardly any of its movement to the comparatively large, heavy stationary head. Even if the bullet imparted all of its momentum to the head (an elastic collision), I'm not sure whether you could call the resulting head movement violent. With a bullet weighing 10g moving at 500m/s hitting a stationary head weighing 5kg, the velocity imparted to the head will be 1m/s (one metre per second). In reality this will never happen; 1m/s represents a maximum theoretical value.

The high contrast picture of Z313 which shows a cloud of blood and brain matter in front of Kennedy's head proves nothing either, I suppose. I'm not sure why I've been accused of trolling. This is a fair question, based on perfectly simple and well understood concept, yet most conspiracy theorists don't agree with it. No suprises there, but I do find that fascinating. It says a lot about the general mindset of those who tow the conspiracy line, that there are a majority who are prepared to dismiss a simple, unassailable truth. As far as they are concerned, the laws of physics don't apply to the assassination. So I wonder what the motivation is of someone who dismisses reality. I think in many cases this can be accounted for by plain ol' stupidity. But I would like to know, how does someone like DiEugenio work? He doesn't sound too deranged (execpt perhaps when he's laughing). Yet he's proved yet again (above) that he cannot address a fundamental question about a subject he claims to be an authority on. He and many others can't even tell when he's received an ass-whipping from McAdams on Black Op Radio! I still enjoy listening to him fail to answer John's final question. Of course, if we put DiEugenio in the limo in place of JFK, we wouldn't be having this debate, as his head would just deflate. The Z-film is a complete fabrication in any case. I wonder if the assassination happened at all. Perhaps it just exists in our collective imaginations.

Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers. Anyone who's been to school care to contribute?

If Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a NASA physicist, believes that if you fire a small, high velocity projectile at a person, that person will move violently in the same directon, then yes, he has no understanding of the basic laws of physics. Martin, have you ever heard of a bloke called Newton? He worked this out about 300 years ago. The question stands. Is it possible for everyone to agree that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front?

Hi, I've just watched 3 Shots That Changed America. A superb film, for those who haven't seen it. A superb film for those who have seen it. It doesn't tow any particular line. In the second part, there is a clip of the first showing of the Zapruder film, on Goodnight America in 1975. We all know what happened to JFK following the headshot; he moved violently backwards, and to the left. Now, anyone who has no understanding of the basic laws of physics (possibly having watched too many films), will assume, as Robert Groden did on that broadcast, that this demonstrates a shot from the front (later in the film, Robert Groden repeated this fallacy during the HSCA meetings: 'Entirely consistent with a shot from the front,' he said). I wondered then if it was possible for everyone here to agree on one thing, that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front. Paul.

The best book on the subject is, of course, Reclaiming History. Every nail in the conspiracy coffin is hammered home. I've just read Assassination Logic, which is also superb. Frank something-or-other recently 'reviewed' it on Black Op, without offering a scintilla of counterpoint. Laughable.

Boom Bang-a-Bang (three shots)

Jimbo, There are fundamental aspects of this case which you call into doubt, presumably in order to give your outlandish half theories some credence. It works on some people, just not those blessed with intelligence. It's Lovelady. There is no doubt about it. Either you haven't examined the photograph, or you're attempting to inject doubt. (Place your bets folks ...) Evidence puts that fact beyond reasonable doubt. Naturally you'll want to load up the bull$hit blunderbus and attempt to confuse the issue, Jimbo. It's what you do. Yes. Why not? Mr McAdams seemed to me to maintain his composure throughout the debate, which is more than you managed to achieve. Whereas he presented cogent arguments backed with real evidence, you performed your usual trick of laughing like a hyena and spouting crap. That might be good enough for some people, but I found you - as usual - totally unconvincing. On the whole your skits on Black Op are repetitive and of little consequence. I think the transcripts could be condensed to fit on a single sheet of toilet paper without suffering any loss of information. Paul.

Jimbo, On Black Op Radio you expressed an opinion that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest window of the TSBD. Fairly recently on Black Op radio you called into doubt the identity of the person standing on the steps of the TSBD in the famous Altgens photograph, which I find interesting since his identity was established rather a long time ago. Even today anyone with functioning eyeballs can see who it is and who it isn't. So personally I wouldn't be at all surprised if you believe that Elvis is still alive. As for Black Op Radio, the best shows by far are #442 and #443, which feature you getting your a$$ royally kicked by the very man you're hell-bent on discrediting. I'll never cease to enjoy listening to you fail to answer his rather simple closing question. Paul.

I find this claim astonishing, Jack, given that you have yet to prove that even one single image has been tampered with.

I've read enough to realise that Garrison is just another zany cog in the conspiracy machine. When he did bother to address real evidence instead of pluck dubious ideas (or lies) out of thin air he got that wrong too.

Most historical films are inaccurate for the simple reason that they wouldn't make any money otherwise, and for the sake of sparing the audience the inconvienience of slipping into a coma. I'm sure most normal people would guess that the famous shootout scene in The Untouchables didn't really happen. Does that matter? I'd argue that JFK is different in that it was filmed, marketed and sold as a true story. The audience were led to believe that it was accurate, when the reality is that it is almost one continuous lie. Think about the implications of that fantastic lie. Does that matter? As Bugliosi said, Stone got two things right in that film. The date and the victim.

Makes a change from being all mouth I suppose.

The jurors took just under an hour to acquit Clay Shaw. Taking into account the time taken shuffling in and out of the courtroom, settling down, the time to select a foreman and taking a single unanimous vote, I think it's clear that they were convinced. Not in the way that Mark Lane would have us believe though. (Did he ever publish his interviews with the jurors?)

This makes for interesting reading, I find: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm. This quote always makes me chuckle, for some reason: "[Oswald] was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and was obviously drawn into a scapegoat situation and made to believe ultimately that he was penetrating the assassination. And then when the time came, they took the scapegoat ... and killed him real quick. And then the machinery, disinformation machinery, started turning and they started making a villain out of a man who genuinely was probably a hero." - Jim Garrison

In order to keep the astronauts on the surface of the moon, their backpacks were each filled with some of Earth's gravity before leaving. Because this gravity wasn't returned, people on Earth became lighter as a result of the Apollo missons, though only by several billionths of a gram each.

So these clever conpiracists allowed their patsy to roam around at leisure during the shooting? What if he had gone outside and was captured in a photograph taken during the shooting sequence? That would have scuppered their cunning plan. I'd be amazed if they hadn't thought of that.

Lee Harvey Oswald was at the corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (the location of the "sniper's nest") at the time of the shooting. At the time of the shooting, Howard Brennan, sitting across the street outside the TSBD, saw Oswald at that location. Oswald was aiming and shooting a rifle in the direction of the President.

I can't say I'm enjoying this. Reading Jim's words, and listening to his words on Black Op Radio ... well, to be honest I can't help but feel sorry for him. He doesn't believe Oswald shot anyone. He doesn't even think that any shots were fired from the sniper's nest window. I read somewhere that he believes (or at one time believed) that Walter Kronkite was part of the plan.

Yup ... it's still Lovelady.

For blind people perhaps. *Yawn* Isn't it great when an old chestnut does the rounds again? It clearly isn't Oswald in that picture. Look at the hairline for one thing. In any case, if Oswald was on the steps at the time, why didn't anyone else see him, and why didn't he simply tell the truth and state that he was on the steps as the motorcade passed, rather than lie?

I apologise Bill, sincerely. I won't bother lowering myself to Lee's level ever again, although it is kind of fun. Kind Regards Paul.

xxx xxxx xxxx? x xxxxxxx xx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxx xxxxx xx xxx-xxx. xx xx! xxxx xxx xxx! xxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx!

David! Stop eating Lee!