Did Jackie Kennedy kill JFK?

Sledge said:
No. A .32 is normally regarded as negligible for self defense purposes. It's certainly not going to replicate the effects of a rifle bullet.

This thread is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a small weapon with an expanding bullet being able to cause that kind of damage. Even a .32 perhaps with enough gunpowder.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a small weapon with an expanding bullet being able to cause that kind of damage. Even a .32 perhaps with enough gunpowder.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what you think, it won't change how firearms work. You're wrong.
 
BobHaulk said:
i think Mr Zapruder did it, he had a camera pointed right at him and it could have been a camera gun. Who's gonna notice a gun when you've got a camera in your hand and he's perfect on the angle of the head shot. No doubt about it, Zapruder done it.
Click to expand...

These people were filming the event and were recording audio from a much closer position:

http://www.realityreviewed.com/Frame 342 CIA.png

What happened to that film and audio? ;)

From: http://www.realityreviewed.com/JFK murder.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain_Swoop said:
they have stills cameras. How do they record sound?
Click to expand...

It looks to me in the Zapruder film that one man is filming and the other man is holding some device, such as:

"Kudelski SA have also produced a series of miniaturised reel-to-reel recorders using 1/8" tape. These machines are referred to as SN (for Série Noire) and production was originally ordered by President Kennedy for the United States Secret Service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=155ow-iLV9g
 
lionking said:
I must say that JFK CTs, while quite silly, are usually variations around the "second gunman" theme. This one sets the bar incredibly high. Is it possible for anyone to formulate a more ridiculous theory?
Click to expand...

The car did it
 
Anders Lindman said:
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a small weapon with an expanding bullet being able to cause that kind of damage. Even a .32 perhaps with enough gunpowder.
Click to expand...


Then the gun would have simply exploded in her hand. Listen, you probably know nothing about bullets or firearms, so let me fill you in. There are many factors to consider when you buy a firearm for a specific task: Size of bullet, velocity of bullet, and weight of gun, to name a few. A heavy, fast, bullet will produce a lot of recoil in even a heavy gun. Thus, if you goal is to manage recoil, you either go with a smaller, lighter, bullet; or a bigger and heavier, but much slower bullet. Your scenario requires a large, fast bullet, that has little to no recoil. This is impossible. F (last time I checked) still = ma. You cannot have a low recoil bullet (at least in a weapon as small as you are conjecturing) do the damage seen, end of story.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Then the gun would have simply exploded in her hand. Listen, you probably know nothing about bullets or firearms, so let me fill you in. There are many factors to consider when you buy a firearm for a specific task: Size of bullet, velocity of bullet, and weight of gun, to name a few. A heavy, fast, bullet will produce a lot of recoil in even a heavy gun. Thus, if you goal is to manage recoil, you either go with a smaller, lighter, bullet; or a bigger and heavier, but much slower bullet. Your scenario requires a large, fast bullet, that has little to no recoil. This is impossible. F (last time I checked) still = ma. You cannot have a low recoil bullet (at least in a weapon as small as you are conjecturing) do the damage seen, end of story.
Click to expand...

I looks like Jackie is holding the weapon with both hands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-cri43ttTo

The right elbow doesn't recoil much, but the recoil could have been mostly affecting her left arm.
 
Doesn't matter. Any recoil in a gun that light with a bullet that can do that amount of damage would be significant. No way around that, no way she is actually firing a gun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if that were common back then, it still wouldn't do the damage seen. But you know what would? A high powered rifle fired from less than 100 yards away.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The assassination of JFK was a part of a larger plan.

In a memorandum to JFK, 28 April 1961, LBJ writes: "Manned exploration of the moon, for example, is not only an achievement with great propaganda value, but it is essential as an objective..." -- From: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/apollo2.pdf

This was probably a lie, since scientists later told JFK:

Part of a transcript of a Presidential Meeting, 21 November 1962:

"President Kennedy: Look, I know all these other things and the satellite and the communications and weather and all, they’re all desirable, but they can wait.

James Webb: I’m not putting those…. I am talking now about the scientific program to understand the space environment within which you got to fly Apollo and make a landing on the Moon.

President Kennedy: Wait a minute—is that saying that the lunar program to land the man on the Moon is the top priority of the Agency, is it?

Unknown speaker: And the science that goes with it….

Robert Seamans: Well, yes, if you add that, the science that is necessary….

President Kennedy: The science…. Going to the Moon is the top-priority project. Now, there are a lot of related scientific information and developments that will come from that which are important. But the whole thrust of the Agency, in my opinion, is the lunar program. The rest of it can wait six or nine months.

...

James Webb: All right, then let me say this: if I go out and say that this is the number-one priority and that everything else must give way to it, I’m going to lose an important element of support for your program and for your administration.

President Kennedy [interrupting]: By who? Who? What people? Who?

James Webb: By a large number of people.

President Kennedy: Who? Who?

James Webb: Well, particularly the brainy people in industry and in the universities who are looking at a solid base."

From: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+Jerome+Wiesner&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&lr=lang_en
Click to expand...

My theory is that the assassination was carried out to create a large effect on the public. Why? Because as indicated in the quote above, the scientists and other people in the know knew that the moon mission was scientifically not remotely possible in practice. Yet these experts had to be silenced, and that was the purpose of the traumatic assassination of JFK; to make the public first believe in the moon mission by fooling JFK to announce it, and then have him assassinated in a for the public traumatic way so that the experts then couldn't tell the people that the moon mission was not feasible, because the public was traumatized already and to abandon the moon mission after the assassination of JFK would have had very bad consequences for the entire nation, especially during the Cold War.
 
So you can't deal with the fact that your whole hypothesis is blown out of the water on technical aspects, so you go on a paranoid rant. Classic.
 
What the top U.S. powers wanted in the late 50s, early 60s was not some moon mission but a strong military presence in space, a weaponization of space plus spy satellites before the Soviet Union, who already had sent Sputnik into orbit.

But they needed the American people to go along with a massive budget for such military space program. And the moon mission was used as a peaceful smokescreen to fool the masses. Heck, even the hippies couldn't say no to a moon mission.
 
Anders Lindman said:
the moon mission was scientifically not remotely possible in practice.
Click to expand...
And yet it happened.

Please stop the insane ranting. It was impossible for Jackie to have shot JFK in the manner you described. The moon landing happened. There has been no weaponisation of space. Are there any other blatantly ridiculous claims you're going to have to make to support this lunacy?
 
In Oliver Stone's JFK movie, Mr. X says (about JFK): "... he wanted to call off the moon race..." Listen from about 2:40 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyJEWHUyh0o

What a load of crock! I'm sure most of the statements in the JFK movie are true, but the part about the moon mission, here is what JFK said (as I have already posted before):


Part of a transcript of a Presidential Meeting, 21 November 1962:

"President Kennedy: Look, I know all these other things and the satellite and the communications and weather and all, they’re all desirable, but they can wait.

James Webb: I’m not putting those…. I am talking now about the scientific program to understand the space environment within which you got to fly Apollo and make a landing on the Moon.

President Kennedy: Wait a minute—is that saying that the lunar program to land the man on the Moon is the top priority of the Agency, is it?

Unknown speaker: And the science that goes with it….

Robert Seamans: Well, yes, if you add that, the science that is necessary….

President Kennedy: The science…. Going to the Moon is the top-priority project. Now, there are a lot of related scientific information and developments that will come from that which are important. But the whole thrust of the Agency, in my opinion, is the lunar program. The rest of it can wait six or nine months.

...

James Webb: All right, then let me say this: if I go out and say that this is the number-one priority and that everything else must give way to it, I’m going to lose an important element of support for your program and for your administration.

President Kennedy [interrupting]: By who? Who? What people? Who?

James Webb: By a large number of people.

President Kennedy: Who? Who?

James Webb: Well, particularly the brainy people in industry and in the universities who are looking at a solid base."

From: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+Jerome+Wiesner&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&lr=lang_en

So why did Oliver Stone allow such blatant lie to be put into his movie? Or maybe he didn't check the facts himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom