Jump to content

The illuminati


SpringDon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Of course it doesnt, it also doesnt mean they can do it all the time either.

Try it, set up a 12 inch target at 80 yards,  scope on 4xmag ,8 seconds , see how many you can put on target, then imagine it moving.
Its not impossible, its just improbable.

I had idea jfk was so small!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Scully said:

I think the only conspiracy theory that truly fascinates me are those surrounding the assassination of JFK, but I don't lose sleep over it. :) 

That's an easy one Scully.......it was the Russians..:lol:

Documentary I watched said up till then there was 360 ish conspiracies surrounding JFK IIRC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, PPP said:

I had idea jfk was so small!

It depends how much of him could be seen from the vantage point, you can make it 24 inch if you like , but the trick is staying on target for your next 2 shots as you work the bolt.
Ive skimmed a bit of to compensate for the fact you probably wont be using a 4 x 20 scope :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

This makes an interesting read, no conspiracy theories, just an honest test of the rifle and ammunition.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/lee-harvey-oswalds-carcano-rifle-shooting-it-today/

There was a good programme on TV last year, as US documentary showing a number of renowned shots attempting to make the shots that Oswald is alleged to have made. IMSC, they all made the shots, but after many, many attempts.

 

The documentary where it's alleged the killing shot was a negligent discharge from an agent in the car behind was interesting and quite compelling too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Penelope said:

There was a good programme on TV last year, as US documentary showing a number of renowned shots attempting to make the shots that Oswald is alleged to have made. IMSC, they all made the shots, but after many, many attempts.

 

The documentary where it's alleged the killing shot was a negligent discharge from an agent in the car behind was interesting and quite compelling too.

Some say not so negligent as deliberate, Ive seen theories where the driver of Kennedys car is supposed to have delivered the head shot.
Others where a man is shooting from a drain !
There is a myriad of conspiracies out there regarding JFK, and 55 years later we are still talking about it !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the earlier types of thread slightly amusing, though I understand the scepticism the conspiracy stuff is something else.  I have people fairly close to me, some very bright,  who quote from the near propaganda 'news' sites that are mouthpieces for the cult of the new bearded leader and who are incapable of recognising them as such.  

It ought to be of concern as even his MPs are at it.  Remember Emma Dent-Coad MP who claimed that the former Army Officer and helicopter pilot Prince Harry couldn't fly a helicopter?  I believe she then later went on to say she'd heard it somewhere and was just repeating it.  Unfortunately, that was also the line from David Lammy MP who made some incredible (now discredited) claims about the number of deaths at Grenfell, first the claim, then that he was just repeating what he'd heard.  Brendan Cox (husband of Jo Cox MP) and formerly of Save the Children headed a campaign that the BBC said manipulated what were dubious statistics to start but many took it as gospel as it suited their agenda.  Even Labour's latest antisemitism row has conspiracy running right through it with Jewish bankers at the centre of some shadowy web running the world.  

This is why I don't mind some scepticism but that is rather different to being selective with information to support what you want to believe and finding a conspiracy at every turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rewulf said:

But it is a strange one is JFK, 3 shots, 2 on target, at 80 yards moving target , from a bolt action rifle, from a man with virtually no training

The quote in the link you posted contradicts this.

Edited by 39TDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

The quote in the link you posted contradicts this.

You mean this bit ?

 'Even with a little bit of bolt trouble this would be feasable, because Oswald had qualified twice at Marksman level in the Marines. That test is rapid fire, 50 rounds at 200 yards at a man-sized target. He scored 48 and 49. You would also have to assume that Oswald knew how to not only properly zero the firearm, but also make sure that it worked properly with the en-bloc clip that was found in the gun.'

Which is a little misleading.

Edmund MurphyOCTOBER 30, 2017, 10:56 AM

Correction: Oswald would have shot 9 out of 10 rounds rather than 9 out of 19. Furthermore, when firing rapid fire, you had a 50 second time limit to fire 10 rounds. You are not shooting at a bullseye but human sillouette from the shoulders up- a lot bigger target. There is nothing remarkable with a score of 48/49. In shooting , each round is worth max, 5 points, totaling 50 if he had gotten every shot in the sillouette. They do not fire 50 rounds rapid fire. They shoot 50 rounds per the whole course, which covers the the 200,300, and 500 yard lines in various positions (standing, sitting, kneeling and prone) . The maximum score you could attain is 250 points; 5 points for each of the 50 shots. As a marksman, Oswald would have shot 190 to 209 for the whole course. He struggled in various parts of the course, which verifies my conclusion that it is unlikely that he was capable of pulling it off. He would have had to have extensive rifle range practice on a range, to zero the rifle in, between the time he aquired the rifle and the assasination to be able to pull it off.

Many say he could not have used the scope, as it wasnt zeroed, and in forensic tests ,couldnt be, so he was in fact using the iron sights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Penelope said:

There was a good programme on TV last year, as US documentary showing a number of renowned shots attempting to make the shots that Oswald is alleged to have made. IMSC, they all made the shots, but after many, many attempts.

 

The documentary where it's alleged the killing shot was a negligent discharge from an agent in the car behind was interesting and quite compelling too.

If you look at every sport in the world you will find an example at some point where someone has broken a world record and then failed to be able to rematch that standard ever again and all those that are also the very best in the world at what they do fail to achieve that standard as well.

If we were to follow the logic of those that try to debunk the official narrative by saying 'we tried loads of time to recreate it and couldn't do it so therefor it cannot be', then the same logic must be applied to everything ever that has been achieved, but not repeatedly reliably, ergo we need to practically discard every world record, every crazy escape from almost certain death, every crazy accident that did result in death, etc and say they didn't happen too.

Was it a bit of a fluke that Oswald managed to do what he did? Quite possibly, but does the inability to reliably recreate that shot mean that it didn't happen?  Absolutely not, there is no logic in that assessment at all.

How many failed assassination attempts have there been because the 1 in a thousand chance failed to materialise, but because they failed they don't have any scrutiny whatsoever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

Wasn't that spock? 

Benjamin Spock  quote ..... "To win in Vietnam, we will have to exterminate a nation". or more controversially " When women are encouraged to be competitive, too many of them become disagreeable..  I guess its not the same spock your talking about though. "beam me up"..:|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, grrclark said:

If you look at every sport in the world you will find an example at some point where someone has broken a world record and then failed to be able to rematch that standard ever again and all those that are also the very best in the world at what they do fail to achieve that standard as well.

If we were to follow the logic of those that try to debunk the official narrative by saying 'we tried loads of time to recreate it and couldn't do it so therefor it cannot be', then the same logic must be applied to everything ever that has been achieved, but not repeatedly reliably, ergo we need to practically discard every world record, every crazy escape from almost certain death, every crazy accident that did result in death, etc and say they didn't happen too.

Was it a bit of a fluke that Oswald managed to do what he did? Quite possibly, but does the inability to reliably recreate that shot mean that it didn't happen?  Absolutely not, there is no logic in that assessment at all.

How many failed assassination attempts have there been because the 1 in a thousand chance failed to materialise, but because they failed they don't have any scrutiny whatsoever?

It's not about what is impossible or possible, it's about what is improbable or probable. 

If I told you I could shoot a 1 inch group at 1000 yards off hand with a. 308, many would say its impossible, but it's not, it's highly improbable. And somewhat unbelievable. 

The supposed 2 bullets that caused all the injuries to JFK and Connally, one of them went through 2 people, multiple limbs, bone, clothes and a car seat! With no deformation whatsoever. 

The other fragmented into dust, that's just another improbable part of the story, with many others, at what point does the official narrative become that improbable, it seems unbelievable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for a lot of conspiracy theories is because people sense that they are not being told the whole truth. Most conspiracy theories do highlight genuinely implausible gaps in the official version of events. People are not stupid

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...