6 ms·

I saw a documentary which analyzed footage found around 2000 iirc (discovered old footage) of the murder. The conclusion was that due to the wound exit, the sho

I saw a documentary which analyzed footage found around 2000 iirc (discovered old footage) of the murder. The conclusion was that due to the wound exit, the shooter could never have been Oswald. It convinced me. Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? Is there consensus for some theory?

lstyls 9y ago
> Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? What does this have to do with anything? Reality isn't a democracy. It's absolutely possible the shot came from Oswald. Tastelessness aside, try playing JFK Reloaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded). Claiming the ballistics don't make sense is as debunked as claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  They melted. There's no doubt about that. I should note that NIST disagrees with you if you mean they melted before the three buildings were destroyed... or after. http://archive.is/5dz5G http://archive.is/5dz5G more: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Prete...
  - tzakrajs 9y ago
    Turns out jet fuel can catalyze fires that burn hotter than jet fuel.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      It's interesting. Oxygen poor fires that melt steel and last for months. http://archive.is/VrfXW http://archive.is/VrfXW
- dragontamer 9y ago
  > claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams Just note: Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams, because steel has a significantly higher melting point than the temperature of jet fuel. Of course, Steel Beams are about as strong as a wet-noodle at Jet-fuel temperatures: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s Which of course, would cause the towers to collapse. But seriously, Jet Fuel doesn't "melt" steel beams. It just weakens them tot he point where they break easily. You can't make ANY mistakes when talking to a conspiracy theorist. They are right about the melting point of steel, but that doesn't help their argument at all.
  - tzakrajs 9y ago
    Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This was due to regular office debris being burnt quickly, thanks to the jet fuel that had catalyzed it when it sprayed out into the center and floors above and below the crash site. I read about this in the excellent 9/11 debunk series by Popular Mechanics.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      PM is correct about the hotspots existing. Here are the AVIRIS files: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines We tried the (UL approved) office debris theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw (yt may axe that chan)
    - dragontamer 9y ago
      Conspiracy theorists will come up with anything to prove themselves correct. For example: > Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job. -------- When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell you, and you debunk what they're saying individually. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers believe in "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so you must FOCUS on this argument. A conspiracy theorist will always, always, ALWAYS "out fact" you. Because their community is making up bull----, they have way more "facts" than you ever will have. You can't win by "breadth" of argument, you can only win with "depth" of argument. NEVER broaden an argument against a conspiracy theorist. That's how they win.
- onion2k 9y ago
  Reality isn't a democracy. Most people are actually quite intelligent and generally rational. If a large number of people finding something unconvincing is very often an indication that it warrants further investigation. Sometimes it turns out that all those people are wrong, but also, sometimes it doesn't.
  - jmcqk6 9y ago
    Look at the percentage of americans that reject the theory of evolution or climate change, and then give me this argument again.
protomyth 9y ago
You probably would be interested in the results of United States House Select Committee on Assassinations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_C...
jcranmer 9y ago
> I saw a documentary which analyzed footage found around 2000 iirc (discovered old footage) of the murder. The conclusion was that due to the wound exit, the shooter could never have been Oswald. It convinced me. According to Wikipedia, what you may be thinking of is a 2007 discovery of an previously unknown film of that day taken over a minute before the shooting. That exactly three shots were fired is fairly well-established by the available evidence. That a single shot went through Kennedy's back and throat into Connally is incredibly well-established. This ends up meaning that theories with a second shooter create even larger holes than they're trying to close with the second shooter, sort of like 9/11 controlled demolition theories. > Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? Is there consensus for some theory? I believe the majority of Americans believe Oswald to be the sole shooter. While a majority do believe in some conspiracy theory, I think the bulk of the conspiracy theory tends to be that Oswald was the shooter for some nebulous conspiratorial group.
jayess 9y ago
I don't know the film you're referring to, but 100% of the available physical evidence points to Oswald.
losteverything 9y ago
<never have been Oswald. It convinced me. If you ever go to Dallas visit the Sixth Floor (jfk.org). A 30min - 2 hour visit. Stand near where oswald stood. Talk to employee/volunteers about jfk the movie and other theories. It's moving and if you were alive in '63 a place you recognize
orwin 9y ago
Yeah, i'm not from america but i'd favor a theory similar to 9/11, it could have been stopped but incompetency and paperwork allowed this to happen, hence the non-disclosure. Incompetency explain this as well as conspiracy, and respect Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
dmode 9y ago
Right now the consensus is that it is Ted Cruz's dad.
unabridged 9y ago
When I was young and loved the movie JFK I thought it was a huge conspiracy. Then I went to Daley plaza, its so much smaller than it seems on tv, that window is really close. I think any reasonably trained shooter could have got him.
- cafard 9y ago
  A movie that set up Jim Garrison as one of its heroes was going to have problems.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

lstyls 9y ago

> Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? What does this have to do with anything? Reality isn't a democracy. It's absolutely possible the shot came from Oswald. Tastelessness aside, try playing JFK Reloaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded). Claiming the ballistics don't make sense is as debunked as claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

jakeogh 9y ago
They melted. There's no doubt about that. I should note that NIST disagrees with you if you mean they melted before the three buildings were destroyed... or after. http://archive.is/5dz5G http://archive.is/5dz5G more: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/Prete...
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  Turns out jet fuel can catalyze fires that burn hotter than jet fuel.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    It's interesting. Oxygen poor fires that melt steel and last for months. http://archive.is/VrfXW http://archive.is/VrfXW
dragontamer 9y ago
> claiming jet fuel can't melt steel beams Just note: Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams, because steel has a significantly higher melting point than the temperature of jet fuel. Of course, Steel Beams are about as strong as a wet-noodle at Jet-fuel temperatures: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA?t=1m55s Which of course, would cause the towers to collapse. But seriously, Jet Fuel doesn't "melt" steel beams. It just weakens them tot he point where they break easily. You can't make ANY mistakes when talking to a conspiracy theorist. They are right about the melting point of steel, but that doesn't help their argument at all.
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This was due to regular office debris being burnt quickly, thanks to the jet fuel that had catalyzed it when it sprayed out into the center and floors above and below the crash site. I read about this in the excellent 9/11 debunk series by Popular Mechanics.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    PM is correct about the hotspots existing. Here are the AVIRIS files: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines We tried the (UL approved) office debris theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw (yt may axe that chan)
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    Conspiracy theorists will come up with anything to prove themselves correct. For example: > Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job. -------- When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell you, and you debunk what they're saying individually. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers believe in "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so you must FOCUS on this argument. A conspiracy theorist will always, always, ALWAYS "out fact" you. Because their community is making up bull----, they have way more "facts" than you ever will have. You can't win by "breadth" of argument, you can only win with "depth" of argument. NEVER broaden an argument against a conspiracy theorist. That's how they win.
onion2k 9y ago
Reality isn't a democracy. Most people are actually quite intelligent and generally rational. If a large number of people finding something unconvincing is very often an indication that it warrants further investigation. Sometimes it turns out that all those people are wrong, but also, sometimes it doesn't.
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  Look at the percentage of americans that reject the theory of evolution or climate change, and then give me this argument again.

protomyth 9y ago

You probably would be interested in the results of United States House Select Committee on Assassinations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_C...

jcranmer 9y ago

> I saw a documentary which analyzed footage found around 2000 iirc (discovered old footage) of the murder. The conclusion was that due to the wound exit, the shooter could never have been Oswald. It convinced me. According to Wikipedia, what you may be thinking of is a 2007 discovery of an previously unknown film of that day taken over a minute before the shooting. That exactly three shots were fired is fairly well-established by the available evidence. That a single shot went through Kennedy's back and throat into Connally is incredibly well-established. This ends up meaning that theories with a second shooter create even larger holes than they're trying to close with the second shooter, sort of like 9/11 controlled demolition theories. > Who does the American public currently believe to be the shooter? Is there consensus for some theory? I believe the majority of Americans believe Oswald to be the sole shooter. While a majority do believe in some conspiracy theory, I think the bulk of the conspiracy theory tends to be that Oswald was the shooter for some nebulous conspiratorial group.

jayess 9y ago

I don't know the film you're referring to, but 100% of the available physical evidence points to Oswald.

losteverything 9y ago

<never have been Oswald. It convinced me. If you ever go to Dallas visit the Sixth Floor (jfk.org). A 30min - 2 hour visit. Stand near where oswald stood. Talk to employee/volunteers about jfk the movie and other theories. It's moving and if you were alive in '63 a place you recognize

orwin 9y ago

Yeah, i'm not from america but i'd favor a theory similar to 9/11, it could have been stopped but incompetency and paperwork allowed this to happen, hence the non-disclosure. Incompetency explain this as well as conspiracy, and respect Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

dmode 9y ago

Right now the consensus is that it is Ted Cruz's dad.

unabridged 9y ago

When I was young and loved the movie JFK I thought it was a huge conspiracy. Then I went to Daley plaza, its so much smaller than it seems on tv, that window is really close. I think any reasonably trained shooter could have got him.

cafard 9y ago
A movie that set up Jim Garrison as one of its heroes was going to have problems.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]