I wasn't going to post today (Thanksgiving Day), but I was thinking about JFK, commented on it on FB, and that turned into something that may as well be a post. Plus, in communicating with family today spilling over from yesterday, I thought I'd mention Thanksgiving in a different way from the ordinary "Happy Thanksgiving Day," which I do want for everyone regardless.
They say that the one bullet (the "magic" one) went in his upper back and came out his throat and then hit Connally. Another bullet hit Kennedy in the head blowing out a large chunk of the side of his head. The big question has always been whether he was shot in the head from the front and side from the grassy knoll by at least a second shooter. Much of that is based upon that the President's head moved back and away from the grassy knoll and that his head wound was consistent with being hit in the front and to the side from the knoll. There's been an image of that second shooter available all along [however, see the video immediately below]. It just had to be enlarged and then the image area with the gun flash pointed out. Do you remember seeing it? I do.
To be fair to those promoting the official version and to explain, I wrote the above before seeing this:
I must admit that I took it for granted that, that sort of thinking (proportional sizes) had already been taken into account by the "Badge Man" promoters. That said, I would still feel more confident had they made the calculations based upon physical measurements at the scene rather than estimating from the image itself; however, I also feel that if there is any merit to the proportional method (and I do think it has plenty of merit), then the estimated height and size of the "Badge Man" derived via the video/image method when compared to the results of on-site measurements would not be off enough to debunk the video's theory. Also, I've seen photography enhancements of the photo that seems much better than what was produced in the video. Perhaps those who enhanced it took way too many liberties in attempting to convince people. That seems highly likely what with how bad the original is (blurry at that distance).
I also remember all the people running up the hill to see who fired the shot they thought they heard coming from there. They all talked about it afterwards; but from my understanding (which is admittedly limited) that was ignored by the "investigation." Anyway, the vast majority of people who testified said they heard 3 shots. The official report, The Warren Report, says one of the 3 bullets missed the entire car.
Here's a snippet from the Wikipedia article on it:
According to the Single Bullet Theory, a three-centimeter (1.2")-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy's neck and Governor Connally's chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor's thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The bullet was found on a gurney in the corridor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, after the assassination.
They claim that firing the same kind of bullet from the same kind of gun can actually traverse all of that material and come out fairly undeformed and fairly intact (nearly all there).
I find this very interesting though:
In a 1966 interview with author Josiah Thompson, one of the men who found the bullet — Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright — cast doubt on whether the bullet subsequently entered into evidence as CE 399 was the same bullet he held in his hand that day. Wright told Thompson that the bullet they found was point nosed, whereas CE 399 is round nosed.
There's also this (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl4.htm), but I don't find it convincing because it presupposes the head wounds were reported correctly. The description given by many people, including examining doctors, of the head wounds, front, side, and back, were later ignored. The official description of the wounds was dramatically and suddenly different from those initial descriptions.
So, I'm not firm on who shot whom and when and from where, but I can see that the "official" version has been bolstered by all of the latest efforts with higher tech and against long-standing "magic bullet"/unofficial versions/theories.
However, I suggest you read this before being too easily swayed by the "new" information: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2007/08/30/chapter-100-the-shadows-bidding-assassinations-and-coup-detats-supplement-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-conservative-republican-christian-jesus-is-a-small-c-communist.html
After thinking more about the whole subject, I determined to dig deeper; but first, let me give a little background.
I was born in August of 1953. JFK was assassinated in November of 1963. I was only 10-years-and-three-months old and totally accepted the official version of his assassination believing that the US government would not lie.
However, I became quite disillusioned as a result of the following (among other things):
Those are just some of the main things that had led me long ago not to simply trust the US government's official version of anything. I knew the US government is capable of great deceptions.
Then, I never believed the official Building-7 version concerning 9/11. Because of 9/11, I revisited everything I knew or thought I knew. I started from scratch as much, as that's humanly possible. In doing so, I understandably came up against the assassination of JFK.
I had seen the movie "JFK" by Oliver Stone but had never looked at any conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination. There were only so many hours in a day, and I had financial and other "issues" more immediate to my "survival." At least I thought I did at the time. I didn't know at the time that Oliver Stone was intending to make a real statement about the "magic bullet's" trajectory. When I later discovered that the movie was serious (rather than taking huge dramatic liberties to create a deliberately fictional but "entertaining" account about the "impossible" trajectory), I conflated the Building-7 lies/evil and US-governmental evil in general with the JFK assassination (at least the "magic bullet" aspect). I'm still not ruling out governmental conspiracy just because the "magic" in the bullet may not have been, likely was not, justified speculation at the level of Oliver Stone's movie.
The following images are used here under the fair-use doctrine.
Click thumbnails to enlarge.
So, this is a continuing learning experience. I already knew that governments lie and that just because they do doesn't mean that every anti-government conspiracy is true. It means that before running with an Â anti-government conspiracy, it takes even more digging and a more skeptical and cynical attitude about both sides: governmental and anti-governmental.
Oh, this was supposed to be about Thanksgiving Day too. Here you go:
I think the retailers who are open today ought to be taken out and shot. I think the ones who invented Black Friday (appropriate name that) ought to be shot next. All of the people who decided to schedule football games on Thanksgiving should also be shot. Shouldn't the football players be home with their families and friends all day rather than pulling in millions and millions of dollars for their various universities? The parade organizers (retailers) would already have been shot, so I don't need to mention them. Now, the question is shot with what? Ha! How about anti-greed bullets? Afterall, all of what they have done has been centered on satisfying (temporarily) their insatiable greed at the expense of people gathering to really be thankful for the bounty (which will disappear if these ______ [you fill in the blank] keep it up). Bless their ______ selves.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)