Author Topic: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots  (Read 602576 times)

Offline DataCable

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1110 on: June 16, 2012, 11:30:42 PM »
Do you know if it would have been possible for an expert to take a film similar to the z-film and add special effects to it?
No, it wouldn't, because it's impossible to add special effects to a film after it's been shot.  You don't even know the correct terminology, therefore you don't have even the faintest clue if it were possible, much less be able to detect if it actually was.

Quote
My understanding is the chain of custody was broken by the CIA, this comes form Douglas P. Horne "inside the ARRB", I know blah blah blah
My understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society.  Can you refute this?
Bearer of the highly coveted "I Found Venus In 9 Apollo Photos" sweatsocks.

"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime

DataCable2015 A+

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1111 on: June 17, 2012, 12:54:35 AM »
No, it wouldn't, because it's impossible to add special effects to a film after it's been shot.  You don't even know the correct terminology,
I assume you mean optical effects? I suppose they're now more properly called digital effects, because that's how they're now done. Special effects include things like blood squibs on the actual actors and controlled fires and explosions on the actual set. Am I right?
Quote
My understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society.  Can you refute this?
Good one!


Offline DataCable

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1112 on: June 17, 2012, 06:32:04 AM »
I assume you mean optical effects?
"Visual effects" is the term I'm familiar with, the catch-all for anything done in post-production to alter the appearance of footage shot on the practical stage.

Quote
Special effects include things like blood squibs on the actual actors and controlled fires and explosions on the actual set. Am I right?
You are correct, sir.  I see that virtually everyone else responding to this claim also repeated his error, but I am far less prone to cut Bluster Boy any slack.

Quote
Quote
My understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society.  Can you refute this?
Good one!
Danke.  Prof has crossed the boundary, for me, from "his claims require a rational rebuttal" to "point and laugh."
Bearer of the highly coveted "I Found Venus In 9 Apollo Photos" sweatsocks.

"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime

DataCable2015 A+

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1113 on: June 22, 2012, 05:06:32 AM »
I know this thread pretty much ended with profmunkin's departure, but there are some more interesting tidbits about the JFK assassination.

A while ago we speculated on where LHO may have been headed when he encountered Officer Tippit. I still think he had some sort of vague idea of finding his way back to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and making a grand re-entrance as a triumphant Hero of the Cuban Revolution. But he couldn't have planned the assassination itself more than a couple days in advance when he first learned of JFK's route, so he certainly couldn't have spent much (if any) time on an escape plan. But he knew he'd be picked up in a matter if minutes at either his rooming house or the Paines', so he probably figured he had nothing to lose by staying on the move.

I recently came across another intriguing theory: Oswald, now on a roll, was returning to General Walker's house to finish the job he'd failed to do in April. That, not just evading the police, was the reason he fetched his pistol.

Personally I don't think this is very likely. Walker's house was well north of downtown Dallas, on the other side of town exactly opposite from Oak Cliff to the south. Oswald might have been seeking a bus that would take him there, just as he had used the bus (and his own feet) during his April murder attempt. But Oswald had been headed mostly south from his rooming house when he encountered Tippit.

A bigger problem is that Walker was not in Dallas on November 22, though Oswald may not have known this. Walker was flying from New Orleans to Shreveport LA when JFK's assassination was announced.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1114 on: June 22, 2012, 02:54:25 PM »
And I strongly suspect he'd stopped following Walker's movements once the motorcade route was announced, if not well before.  Lee wasn't a guy who took defeat well.

I was talking to my boyfriend about this last night (he smiled at your joke, which is a pretty good reaction from him), and he said he's never for a minute doubted that Oswald did it, because in the right circumstances, it's still possible.  The only prevention they have for it is to keep the President from making public appearances in open areas with tall buildings around.  That's not a thing that they're completely able to stop.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1115 on: June 22, 2012, 05:52:59 PM »
That seems like a simple enough argument, but I never seem to get anywhere with it. I'll ask a conspiracy fan to explain exactly why it was so impossible for some loser to take his rifle to work and shoot the President of the United States as he rides past the building in an open car.

They just stare blankly and insist "but...but... the government always lies!"


Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1116 on: June 22, 2012, 07:53:21 PM »
And of course, before Kennedy, two out of three successful Presidential assassinations in the US were of the lone-nut variety.  They tried to pin McKinley on the anarchists, but even the anarchists agreed that Leon Czolgosz was crazy.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1117 on: June 22, 2012, 09:37:10 PM »
The conspiracists point out that all three prior presidential assassins readily admitted it. Not even the crazy ones thought that they could plausibly deny it, since they used pistols at close range with plenty of witnesses. Jack Ruby would have had an easier time denying that he shot Oswald.

Only Oswald used a rifle from a distance, only Oswald denied his action, and only one eyewitness could actually identify him as the shooter.

Offline SolusLupus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1118 on: June 22, 2012, 09:58:32 PM »
Well, I certainly know that John Wilkes Booth had an incredibly theatrical flair, and purposefully set things up so that he could say something dramatic to the audience at large.
“Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love.” -- Kahlil Gibran

My blog about life, universe, and everything: http://solusl.blogspot.com/

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1119 on: June 23, 2012, 01:58:14 AM »
Breaking his ankle in the process, the git.  The thing is, though, one of the people who was hanged for the conspiracy to kill Lincoln didn't admit it, and her guilt is debated to this day.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1120 on: July 17, 2012, 08:41:14 PM »
And you're an idiot. The bullet that passed through JFK and Connally did NOT 'smash through' bones. It passed through not one bone in JFK's body and hit side on in Connally's wrist, breaking the bone and flattening the side of the bullet.
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/22nd_Issue/sbt.html
"He had three wounds, a perforating wound of the chest which had shattered 10 cm of rib and damaged the pleural sac covering his right lung, a perforating wound of the right wrist which had shattered his radius and a penetrating wound of the left thigh."

Humes talking about Exhibit CE399 and the wounds of JFK and JC
"I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in the wrist"
"I think it highly unlikely" that CE399 could have been the missle

Boswell said Humes spoke for him as well.

Dr Shaw testified that the bullet that caused the wounds would not be intact or could not possibly be CE399

"hit side on in Connally's wrist" ...Rolling on floor laughing...
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 10:45:07 PM by profmunkin »

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1121 on: July 18, 2012, 07:04:25 AM »
So nothing new to report then, prof? No actual answers to the questions that have been put to you? You've had all that time off to answer them, and yet you come back with this?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1122 on: July 18, 2012, 09:15:48 AM »
So nothing new to report then, prof? No actual answers to the questions that have been put to you? You've had all that time off to answer them, and yet you come back with this?
Just want to show what the actual evidence is.

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1123 on: July 18, 2012, 09:30:35 AM »
Do you have a diagram yet of how the shots were made? If there are no more convincing configurations, surely the official version will have to stand, as unlikely as you may find it.

I wonder what Dr. Shaw might have to say about your idea of a bullet hitting JFK from the front right, and then completely disintegrating, so that no trace of it could be found, and without anything hitting Jackie.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #1124 on: July 18, 2012, 02:49:47 PM »
By the way, prof, were you hoping we'd all have forgotten this, posted by Lunar Orbit in post #1073 on this thread?

Profmunkin, you have until the end of the day Friday (June 15, 2012) to provide us with the answers to our questions. Who fired the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and what was the location of the assassin (or assassins)? Explain to us why your scenario makes more sense than Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman.

If you do not provide these answers in the time I have allotted you will be permanently banned. I believe I have been extremely generous in allowing you to make over 400 posts despite what you did to the Proboards forum, but it's time for you to prove you're not just a troll.

Your convenient disappearance on that day, followed by your reappearance a month later was presumably in the hope that none of us would remember that you are still being held to this requirement to present the answers to those questions.

You're not fooling anyone. Put up, shut up, or get banned. Up to you.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain