On Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 1:10:12 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *Do you buy the story of the lone assassin* *Yes.* *> whose motive we still don't know,* *Yes we do, Oswald wanted to kill Kennedy because he thought Kennedy was being unfair to communist Cuba, and of course because Oswald wanted to be famous. * *If fame was Oswald's objective, he would have admitted to the crime, instead of denying he was responsible. AG* *And thanks to ballistic evidence, we know that 7 months before the Kennedy assassination, Oswald used the same 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that he would later use to kill President Kennedy in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate right wing Major General Edwin Walker. Walker only received a minor injury. * *Good point. Nonetheless, it seems peculiar how the police located Oswald in the movie theater. How did they manage to find him so quickly if he wasn't a "patsy"? AG * *> who was not an expert markman,* *Oswald was not good enough to be considered an "expert marksman" by the Marines but he was good enough to be considered a "sharpshooter", and the Marines had very high standards. And it was not a difficult shot for a man with a high powered rifle that had a 4 power telescopic sight, Oswald was only 260 feet from Kennedy when the shot was taken.* *Not what Stone claimed. He said Osward was a "marksman", one level below "sharpshooter, two levels below "expert". What does AI say on this issue? AG * *> Why wasn't Ruby called to testify? * *First b**ecause Ruby was already charged, but not tried, for a related murder, and because of the fifth amendment he could not be forced to testify. And then because Ruby was a very sick man who died of cancer just three years after Kennedy and Oswald. * *I recall some murmurings from Rudy while he was in prison, that he had some information the Warren Commission would be interested in, but needed protection. He was fearful of being murdered in prison if he talked. AG * *>>> And of course, the Zapruder film which clearly shows JFK's skull being blow BACK,* *>> That was explained by Nobel prize winning physicist Walter Alvarez in a paper he wrote in 1976. Here is his conclusion from the abstract: * *> I am aware of that interpretation, but I believe what I see, and it's JFK being shot from the front.* *But you never saw the bullet, all you saw was the way Kennedy's head moved, and from that deduced a direction where you think the bullet must've come from. However your deduction was flawed because you failed to remember that a bullet's exit wound is always much larger than its entry wound. * *No, I didn't forget that, but what I'm pretty sure I read is the claim that the wounds were doctored, and a small entry wound was initially observed in the front, near the throat. AG* *And you failed to take into consideration the momentum produced by the jet of brain matter shooting out of Kennedy's head which contained far more momentum than what the bullet had. Walter Alverez, being an experimental physicist and one of the very best, understood how real things behave, not just over simplified examples in physics textbooks. So he remembered both of those things. * *> Witnesses reported hearing a shot from the grassy knoll. They can't summarily dismissed. AG* *I think they can be because in an urban environment it's difficult to tell what direction a short loud sound came from due to echoes produced by large buildings.* *> I think we can believe Trafficante's attorney that the mob boss said what he reported.* *Right, because the only one more believable than a mob boss would be a mob boss's attorney. * * >**What could be the motive of Trafficante lying on his deathbed?* *If he actually said that, a very big if, then he may have done so to enhance his posthumous reputation, he wanted to be remembered as an important man of substance who pulled the strings behind the scenes. Now let me ask you a question. If you're a mob boss then for your entire adult life your default answer when asked any question is always to lie, so why would such a man tell the truth? * *I don't agree that admitting he was part of a plot to assassinate JFK would have enhanced his posthumous reputation. I also don't agree that Trafficante's attorney is totally untrustworthy. After all, we have an example of a mob attorney who is now considered trustworthy; Michael Cohen. AG* * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* *"a theoretical and experimental investigation of the "backward snap" of the President's head immediately after he was killed yielded the surprising result that it was consistent with a shot fired from the rear, the speed at which the camera was running, and a previously undetected deceleration of the President's automobile just before the final shot." * *And then Alverez gets more graphic and says this: * *"I differ from most of the critics in that they treat the problem as though it involved only two interacting masses: the bullet and the head. My analysis involves three interacting masses, the bullet, the jet of brain matter observable in frame 313, and the remaining part of the head. It will turn out that the jet can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet, and the head recoils backward, as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected."* *And remember Walter Alvarez was not a Roger Stone style crackpot, he was a Nobel Prize winning physicist. * *The full paper can be found here: * *A physicist examines the Kennedy assassination film <https://fisherp.scripts.mit.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/American-Journal-of-Physics-1976-alvarez.pdf>* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5bc93e65-7249-48ae-8e3f-5832067235e0n%40googlegroups.com.
