Did Jackie Kennedy kill JFK?

Anders Lindman said:
The fake moon mission is a big part of the JFK assassination and it could help explain why such huge plan could involve even having Jackie trained as an assassin.
Click to expand...


A) As I have already demonstrated, she did not shoot JFK and,
B) Do you actually believe these things, or are you just here to troll?

If you are here to troll, which is fine, just let me know and I won't respond to you anymore.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The fake moon mission is a big part of the JFK assassination and it could help explain why such huge plan could involve even having Jackie trained as an assassin.
Click to expand...

Don't care. Arguing about why Jackie might have been trained to kill JFK is pointless when she didn't.
 
TheRedWorm said:
A) As I have already demonstrated, she did not shoot JFK and,
B) Do you actually believe these things, or are you just here to troll?

If you are here to troll, which is fine, just let me know and I won't respond to you anymore.
Click to expand...

No, no, I'm not trolling. I think there is something to this theory. And if I'm correct (needless to say, I am) then all those other theories that have existed for decades are basically controlled opposition! Created as smokescreens for conspiracy believers to endlessly chew on, like: "Here Fido, catch."
 
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...

Better rule it out. It appears that you have never actually held a 32 acp cartridge in your hands. It is a puny round, less than half a cubic centimeter of space available for gun powder. So how are you going to fit enough gunpowder in it to do the kind of damage shown? The answer is you can't. There is a reason that rifle cartridges capable of causing lots of damage to the body are large. They need room to hold enough gun powder to do so. Time to give up on this line of reasoning.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Better rule it out. It appears that you have never actually held a 32 acp cartridge in your hands. It is a puny round, less than half a cubic centimeter of space available for gun powder. So how are you going to fit enough gunpowder in it to do the kind of damage shown? The answer is you can't. There is a reason that rifle cartridges capable of causing lots of damage to the body are large. They need room to hold enough gun powder to do so. Time to give up on this line of reasoning.

Ranb
Click to expand...

It was a MIL-SPEC secret gun powder capable of much more than ordinary gunpowder.:covereyes

ETA: or the round itself was a secret 'rocket-round' that was capable of vastly increased muzzle velocity.
 
Last edited:
Sledge said:
The moon landing happened.
Click to expand...

Really? Then how do you explain the below image?

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/5205/88768851.gif

Maybe a cloud was blocking the sunlight? :rolleyes: Or a UFO. Not likely. The truth is that they didn't even bother to put a strong spotlight on the upper part of the lunar module.

I think the moon landing hoax is very much connected to the JFK assassination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ranb said:
Better rule it out. It appears that you have never actually held a 32 acp cartridge in your hands. It is a puny round, less than half a cubic centimeter of space available for gun powder. So how are you going to fit enough gunpowder in it to do the kind of damage shown? The answer is you can't. There is a reason that rifle cartridges capable of causing lots of damage to the body are large. They need room to hold enough gun powder to do so. Time to give up on this line of reasoning.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Single bullet .45 gun:

http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/golden-gun-500x300.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anders Lindman said:
Really? Then how do you explain the below image?

[qimg]http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/5205/88768851.gif[/qimg]

Maybe a cloud was blocking the sunlight? :rolleyes: Or a UFO. Not likely. The truth is that they didn't even bother to put a strong spotlight on the upper part of the lunar module.

I think the moon landing hoax is very much connected to the JFK assassination.
Click to expand...
maybe LHO wasn't in the school book depository but on the moon with a super duper rifle. It would be a tough shot but after five years training with the russians oswald was a crack shot
 
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Frame 342 CIA.png

Anders Lindman said:
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
Click to expand...

Person A has a single lens reflex Camera and Person B is using a twin lens camera probably a Rolleiflex.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anders Lindman said:
Really? Then how do you explain the below image?
Click to expand...
Someone's doodled on a photo from one of the moon landings. I'm sure if you look around you'll be able to find one without those doodles.
Anders Lindman said:
Single bullet .45 gun:

[qimg]http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/golden-gun-500x300.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
And? This isn't the weapons board on 4chan, we expect slightly more than pretty pictures of firearms.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
[qimg]http://www.realityreviewed.com/Frame%20342%20CIA.png[/qimg]



Person A has a single lens reflex Camera and Person B is using a twin lens camera probably a Rolleiflex.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it could be a twin lens camera that the second person has, but he is standing still and could be holding a tape recorder plus microphone. The other person is following the car like he is filming. It's not very clear in the Zapruder film, but compare the totally different movements of the two men (who happen to be positioned exactly right for recording the head shot from a position that would show Jackie as the shooter): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irJaRhg1kr8
 
Actually, JFK was not killed by a bullet.

It was the flag ship of the interstellar exploration fleet from Antares. Unfortunately, they lost control of their ship as they came in for a landing and crashed into the president's head. The flagship was destroyed. When the second in comand, "Zaphog 'eha riwooo," (his friends call him 'hog) realized what had happened, he withdrew the fleet in shame and humiliation and fear, since they had not until that time realized that the Planet Earth was settled by intergalactic race known as siertests (i.e. the common dandelion). The Antarians had just concluded a long and devastating war with the siertests and they were in mortal fear of violation the terms of the peace agreement.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, it could be a twin lens camera that the second person has, but he is standing still and could be holding a tape recorder plus microphone.
Click to expand...

And I could be the lost Dauphin.



The other person is following the car like he is filming.
Click to expand...

So? that is a common still photography technique to capture a moving subject without blurring.
 
See, I told you you could do it. Now if we can get back to the JFK assassination.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
So? that is a common still photography technique to capture a moving subject without blurring.
Click to expand...

I think it's difficult to tell. I still think it looks more like he uses a motion film camera than a still picture camera. And another suspicious thing. Notice how he STOPS filming shortly after the head shot. Why? He calmly moves the camera down even as an extremely dramatic event is playing out right in front of him. Did he run out of film? :rolleyes: Or, was he only interesting in capturing the actual assassination? This is NOT the behavior of an ordinary bystander: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPdBXh-ltaA
 
Anders, if everything you're going to cite as proof of your claim is "I think" or "it looks to me," then you're going to need to explain why your analysis of some film nearly half a century after the fact is more likely to be accurate than that of trained investigators who examined the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom