John Simkin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If you look on Wikipedia, it mentions the Rockefeller commission, which says it disproved that the 'head snap' in the Zapruder footage indicated a shot from the front.Has anyone heard of the Rockefeller Commission before? See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...ts_rockcomm.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If you look on Wikipedia, it mentions the Rockefeller commission, which says it disproved that the 'head snap' in the Zapruder footage indicated a shot from the front.Has anyone heard of the Rockefeller Commission before? See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...ts_rockcomm.htm I have read all the medical evidence related to the Rockefeller Commission, and it proved no such thing. The Commission spoke to a number of doctors, most with ties to doctors to previously examine the case. One, Dr. Olivier, actually had worked for the Warren Commission. Some of these doctors, in their interviews and reports, dismissed that the head snap proved the shot came from the front. But no tests were conducted to actually "prove" their opinions were valid, or that the head snap suggested the shot came from the rear. The interviews and reports of the Rockefeller Commission were largely secret until a few years ago, when Rex Bradford put them up on the Mary Ferrell site. One of the great and recurrent pieces of misinfo about the assassination is that every doctor since 1968 has confirmed the Clark Panel's conclusion that the bullet entrance on the back of the head was in the parietal bone, roughly 4 inches higher than as measured and described by the autopsists. I believe I was the first one to realize that this was yet another LN myth. Dr. Fred Hodges, the Rockefeller Commission's radiologist, specified that the bullet entrance on the back of the head was in the occipital bone, in the location described in the autopsy report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Meyer Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 If you look on Wikipedia, it mentions the Rockefeller commission, which says it disproved that the 'head snap' in the Zapruder footage indicated a shot from the front.Has anyone heard of the Rockefeller Commission before? See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...ts_rockcomm.htm For dubious or questionable claims in Wikipedia given without specific citation, practice is to tag them with {{fact}} (or if you're a bit more experienced user, something like {{Citation needed|date=September 2010}}). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 If you look on Wikipedia, it mentions the Rockefeller commission, which says it disproved that the 'head snap' in the Zapruder footage indicated a shot from the front.Has anyone heard of the Rockefeller Commission before? See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...ts_rockcomm.htm For dubious or questionable claims in Wikipedia given without specific citation, practice is to tag them with {{fact}} (or if you're a bit more experienced user, something like {{Citation needed|date=September 2010}}). The Rockefeller Commission as in NELSON ROCKEFELLER was very important in that it was yet ANOTHER cover up of the JFK Assassination. Nelson Rockefeller was very deep CIA and shadow government player in addition to being governor of New York. He was also very tight with Lyndon Johnson and LBJ was secretly for Rockefeller for president in 1968. The members of the Rockefeller Commision were yet another stacked deck against truth in the JFK assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 The thing I always think of first about the Rockefeller Commission is that it admitted (or at least claimed) that it couldn't find out where E. Howard Hunt was on 11/22/63. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 The thing I always think of first about the Rockefeller Commission is that it admitted (or at least claimed) that it couldn't find out where E. Howard Hunt was on 11/22/63. They adopted the language which was used so often in the Warren Report: "It cannot be determined with certainty where Hunt and Sturgis actually were on the day of the assassination. However, no credible evidence was found which would contradict their testimony that they were in Washington, D.C., and Miami, Florida, respectively." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 The thing I always think of first about the Rockefeller Commission is that it admitted (or at least claimed) that it couldn't find out where E. Howard Hunt was on 11/22/63. They adopted the language which was used so often in the Warren Report: "It cannot be determined with certainty where Hunt and Sturgis actually were on the day of the assassination. However, no credible evidence was found which would contradict their testimony that they were in Washington, D.C., and Miami, Florida, respectively." The Rockefeller Commission was full of a bunch of lies. I wish they would have addressed where they thought CIA, General Edward Lansdale was on 11/22/63 and how much blood he had on his hands for JFK's murder: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.prouty.org/tramps1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.prouty.org/photos.html&usg=__UbtEJvPLEsQPQ0OEXR8aYC02Tn8=&h=360&w=480&sz=41&hl=en&start=3&sig2=RaAVC1tHJ7ks3DvCTgkSFA&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=vVGPFyBTERACBM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dedward%2Blansdale%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=4xKkTMTsDsGBlAftgYmsCw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now