Bruce Willis Joins the Woo (on JFK that is)

[Arus808]

Of Course Prisonplanet is all over it:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507brucewillis.htm


In a new magazine interview, Bruce Willis spills the beans on his skepticism that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK, and suggests that the some of the same criminals who killed Kennedy are still in power today.

"They still haven't caught the guy that killed [President] Kennedy," Willis told Vanity Fair's June issue, according to the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05052007/gossip/pagesix/humble_skeptic_pagesix_.htm).


and of course Prisonplanet puts their spin on it.

[Hourglassmemory]

If you want my opinion I think that's the website from where he got his ideas.

[Thunder]

I would not be surprised if some day we find out that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK. He annoyed a lot of people, and killing him would not have required a huge conspiracy, as 9-11 would.

5 guys...like minded views...two sniper rifles...thats all it takes.

[notheist]

I would not be surprised if some day we find out that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK. He annoyed a lot of people, and killing him would not have required a huge conspiracy, as 9-11 would.

5 guys...like minded views...two sniper rifles...thats all it takes.


Better yet, make it simpler, One guy, One sniper rifle.

[CurtC]

5 guys...like minded views...two sniper rifles...thats all it takes.
Until you involve all the people it would take to cover the tracks.

The JFK conspiracy guys have as many self-contradicting theories as the 9/11 CTs do, but let's try to follow your example of the minimalist conspiracy.

I guess the very smallest would be to just get LHO to be your patsy. However, given that he was a complete flake and completely untrustworthy (he fancied himself as a double agent), it's just not plausible that a small set of competent conspirators would choose him.

So two guys with rifles - where were they? Do you put them both in the same window, and paint one all black so that no one will see him? How were they to get out of the building without being spotted? Wouldn't LHO have known about the second gunman, since his shots would have had to come from the same location? Or were the Dallas Police in on the conspiracy, and let that guy slip away?

The minute you start supposing there was a conspiracy, suddenly the numbers of people involved skyrockets, given the details that we know to be true. And then there's the other way of looking at it - if a handful of conspirators had wanted him dead, there are about a million ways to have done it without the exposure risks of a very public shooting.

Sorry, there's just no way to craft a plausible conspiracy theory around the facts. Just like in 9/11.

[Big Les]

parky76 - Anyone's assessment of the relative plausibility of a conspiracy theory is entirely subjective - evidence is not. That's why the former isn't worth jack, and is what most conspiranerds dine out on as far as the bulk of the population are concerned: your typical citizen isn't aware of the myriad theories and points of contention, and doesn't have the time or inclination to look them up, except maybe biggies like the grassy knoll. They hear the claim that the US government let the towers be destroyed; they know governments lie, they apply whatever personal bias they have, and they decide whether or not it's plausible, without looking at the available evidence. Just like you're doing here.

[gumboot]

It's worth point out that in the same interview Bruce Willis says he doesn't know why people listen to actors because their opinions are not worth "jack [rule8]".

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So Bruce finally joined the huge majority. So what? You still call JFK conspiracists "woo?" Sheesh.

[ConspiRaider]

So Bruce finally joined the huge majority. So what? You still call JFK conspiracists "woo?" Sheesh.
The huge majority also believes that their lives here on Earth aren't really what it's all about - that the real living begins - excuse me - after they die. The vast majority of humans buys into that nonsense.

That is the most ridiculous mindset ever. So why should we - or you - be surprised that a majority believes JFK's killer was never found?

[Oliver]

So Bruce finally joined the huge majority. So what? You still call JFK conspiracists "woo?" Sheesh.


The huge majority of what? C R E A T I O N I S T S ? :rolleyes:

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The huge majority also believes that their lives here on Earth aren't really what it's all about - that the real living begins - excuse me - after they die. The vast majority of humans buys into that nonsense.

That is the most ridiculous mindset ever. So why should we - or you - be surprised that a majority believes JFK's killer was never found?

Just because you don't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that Oswald acted alone. :D

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Back and to the left.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

For your comedy enjoyment

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123478329757426695

[NeoRicen]

I don't know much at all about the JFK assasination but I highly doubt the government was involved, at MOST the Mob might be suspect, can someone give me some proof and debunking etc. and reasons to believe Oswald didn't act alone?

[beachnut]

So Bruce finally joined the huge majority. So what? You still call JFK conspiracists "woo?" Sheesh.
No facts and evidence just, woo. Looks like critical thinking and knowledge are not a big trait of some actors and the lack are a must to be a CT believer. Looks like CT guys are big movies fantasy guys too.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I don't know much at all about the JFK assasination but I highly doubt the government was involved, at MOST the Mob might be suspect, can someone give me some proof and debunking etc. and reasons to believe Oswald didn't act alone?

Sure! Here ya go:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3967677791931129793&q=jfk+ii&hl=en

[skepticalcriticalguy]

No facts and evidence just, woo. Looks like critical thinking and knowledge are not a big trait of some actors and the lack are a must to be a CT believer. Looks like CT guys are big movies fantasy guys too.


How do you know that Willis hasn't looked at the facts and evidence?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I don't know much at all about the JFK assasination but I highly doubt the government was involved, at MOST the Mob might be suspect, can someone give me some proof and debunking etc. and reasons to believe Oswald didn't act alone?

You say you don't know much about it, but say that "at MOST the mob might be suspect." Why is that? Why would the mob be suspect?

[The Doc]

I think you'd find a lot more people believing the JFK conspiracy than the 9/11 conspiracy.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I think you'd find a lot more people believing the JFK conspiracy than the 9/11 conspiracy.

Probably so; it's easier for one to accept sinister acts out of one's control that are further removed from here and now.

[Dog Town]

Why is that? Why would the mob be suspect?

Poppa Joe buys Illinois elections, through the Teamsters. JFK barely wins election, mob got him the job. JFK then goes on to make little brother Bobby top cop. Little brother, goes after the mob, with a vengence. Gee I don't know why, that would piss them off? Hmmmm...

[The Doc]

Probably so; it's easier for one to accept sinister acts out of one's control that are further removed from here and now.

No. Not at all. What a horrible ideology that is. I suggest you rethink it.

It is because the 9/11 theories are utterly ludicrous. JFK theories are a lot more complex and take more effort to research, due to less media and documentation being available. It is so incredibly easy to debunk 9/11 theories, to the point where there is a large group of debunkers (not just Official Story believers, but actual debunkers). There isn't really such a thing for the JFK conspiracy.

I have not formed an opinion on JFK's death, as I have not researched it.

[beachnut]

How do you know that Willis hasn't looked at the facts and evidence?Bring it on. If he had it he would tell us. He has as many facts about JFK, as Charlie Sheen has about 9/11. Oswald could have killed the president with a stone from the damn window. The shot was too easy to make from the window. You would have to be the worse shot not to get close that day, from that window with the way the car drives directly away from the window, not even a tough moving target, more of a fading target.

I would love to see some woo from Bruce. Let us see who has more facts Brucie or Charlie.

I may believe Bruce has more facts on JFK than any 9/11 truther has on 9/11. But I doubt Bruce has a fact. Which makes him par with all 9/11 truthers.

[boloboffin]

Bring it on. If he had it he would tell us. He has as many facts about JFK, as Charlie Sheen has about 9/11. Oswald could have killed the president with a stone from the damn window. The shot was too easy to make from the window. You would have to be the worse shot not to get close that day, from that window with the way the car drives directly away from the window, not even a tough moving target, more of a fading target.

This is true. I live in Dallas now and have been to the plaza. Some kid who had just unwrapped his first Red Ryder BB gun that morning could have hit JFK from the sixth floor window. Oswald was a decorated Marine-trained marksman.

I look forward to the upcoming Bugliosi book on the assassination.

[beachnut]

This is true. I live in Dallas now and have been to the plaza. Some kid who had just unwrapped his first Red Ryder BB gun that morning could have hit JFK from the sixth floor window. Oswald was a decorated Marine-trained marksman.

I look forward to the upcoming Bugliosi book on the assassination.
The road cuts away from the window at an angle so the shot is at a fading target, just aim fire, aim fire, aim fire. No change in left and right, just shoot down that road that angles away lined up with the window.

That damn 8 mm movie makes it look like a big giant area. No CT needed to make the shot.

Many of the JFK CT claims are like the 9/11 claims. Just talk and made up stuff. The movie "JFK" was fiction, and I expect many CTers on JFK use it as their "LC".

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Poppa Joe buys Illinois elections, through the Teamsters. JFK barely wins election, mob got him the job. JFK then goes on to make little brother Bobby top cop. Little brother, goes after the mob, with a vengence. Gee I don't know why, that would piss them off? Hmmmm...

Well, he pissed off a lot of oil oligarchs too. And CIA guys.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The movie "JFK" was fiction,

The Zapruder film was not.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

This is true. I live in Dallas now and have been to the plaza. Some kid who had just unwrapped his first Red Ryder BB gun that morning could have hit JFK from the sixth floor window. Oswald was a decorated Marine-trained marksman.


Back and to the left.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Bring it on. If he had it he would tell us. He has as many facts about JFK, as Charlie Sheen has about 9/11. Oswald could have killed the president with a stone from the damn window. The shot was too easy to make from the window. You would have to be the worse shot not to get close that day, from that window with the way the car drives directly away from the window, not even a tough moving target, more of a fading target.



Well, if it was such an easy shot for Oswald to make, then perhaps it would have been just as easy for somebody else in that window.

Easy shot from the footbridge and knoll too.

[beachnut]

Still no facts or evidence to support CT ideas on 9/11. The movie "JFK" was about a character, almost a CT guy. But no facts or evidence yet. Keep digging. But since you have visited the place you know how easy the shot was, and now I wonder why Oswald killed the cop? Any ideas?

Your "JFK" movie quote is cute, but sounds like a "pull it" thing.

Too bad there were no bullets hitting anyone from those places. Next.

OMG, I hope you are not a Ron Brown CTer too.

Chemtrails? UFOs? BigFoot? Is it cheaper by the dozen?

One big thing now against CT on JFK is Fetzer being a big CTer on JFK. I find that so ironic. I find it sad the history channel actually lets some of the CT junk about JFK float without pointing out it is hearsay.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I have not formed an opinion on JFK's death, as I have not researched it.

Good, I hope your research into it goes beyond the JREF forum and Gerald Posner.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Still no facts or evidence to support CT ideas on 9/11. The movie "JFK" was about a character, almost a CT guy. But no facts or evidence yet. Keep digging. But since you have visited the place you know how easy the shot was, and now I wonder why Oswald killed the cop? Any ideas?

Your "JFK" movie quote is cute, but sounds like a "pull it" thing.

Too bad there were no bullets hitting anyone from those places. Next.

The "character" in JFK was a real live prosecutor, who was intimidated and had his investigation marred by political forces.

There is plenty of FACTS and evidence, if you care to acknowledge it. Which you don't.

Maybe Oswald killed the cop because he figured out that he was set up?

[boloboffin]

Back and to the left.

Explosive exit wound.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Explosive exit wound.

From front and to the right.

[boloboffin]

From front and to the right.

Nuh uh.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Nuh uh.

Yuh huh.

[boloboffin]

Yuh huh.

Prove it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Prove it.

You prove it. I'll await your proof. Burden is on you, since it's so woo-ish to think that JFK's brains were found BACK AND TO THE LEFT, the same direction his head jerked when hit.

[OMGturt1es]

You prove it. I'll await your proof. Burden is on you, since it's so woo-ish to think that JFK's brains were found BACK AND TO THE LEFT, the same direction FROM WHICH his head jerked when hit.
(fixed. i know what you meant, so i thought i'd make it more clear to others.)

anyways...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2410170009812779914&q=penn+and+teller+********&hl=en

[boloboffin]

You prove it. I'll await your proof. Burden is on you, since it's so woo-ish to think that JFK's brains were found BACK AND TO THE LEFT, the same direction his head jerked when hit.

OK. You want proof that a projectile coming from the rear can cause an explosive exit wound in the front.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/wtc2_crash1.jpg

Back and to the left.

[jhunter1163]

Do I really have to link to McAdams' site? It appears so...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

This site contains complete and utter destruction of all of the most common JFK conspiracy theories and most of the minor ones. I would encourage any believers in such claptrap to browse it.

I'm sure SCG won't, and even if he does, he won't believe it. His "back and to the left" contention is specifically addressed, in detail, with videos (including a test done on a live goat, so NSFW), here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

Scroll about a third of the way down the page.

[Big Les]

You prove it. I'll await your proof. Burden is on you, since it's so woo-ish to think that JFK's brains were found BACK AND TO THE LEFT, the same direction his head jerked when hit.

Not so; the burden of proof is on you; the fact that you personally are incredulous that a head could move toward the shooter, does not alter the fact that it happens. Regardless; here's your answer:

Rifle bullets travel at high velocity and characteristically produce both a permanent wound channel by cutting/crushing tissue, and a temporary one by essentially flinging the tissue aside after the bullet has passed through. It's this second effect that produces the jet of tissue (brain matter, blood, etc) which pushes the head toward the direction of fire.

In fact the head did move slightly backward just prior to this, as a result of the initial bullet impact. So the sequence of events (all visible in the Zapruder film) looks like this:

1) Bullet contacts and penetrates JFK's skull with most of its energy intact, transfers some of its momentum, pushing the head backward slightly.

2) Bullet passes through the skull, creating a large exit wound.

3) Just behind the bullet is created an expanding temporary cavity, destroying the skull contents.

4) The contents are ejected from the exit wound in a jet, pushing the head toward the direction of fire to a much greater (and more obvious) degree.

People seem to think that bullets have the power to knock back their target. If you've seen Mythbusters you'll know that, as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the momentum (which is the only force involved in moving a target, aside from muscle spasm) is very little due to the relatively small mass of the bullet. Whereas this gout of goo from the skull has rather more mass, propelling the head forward somewhat.

Think of it another way; exit wounds are typically larger than entry wounds, right? You only have to have watched CSI to know that. Well, guess on which side of JFK's head the large, gaping wound was...

If you'd like to actually do some reading, try these:
List of sources re wound ballistics. (http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm)
Discussion of JFK-specific wound ballistics (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/4-Wound_ballistics.html)
Expert testimony re the "jet effect". (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm)

Or if you only have the patience for a Youtube video, watch this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1J3-QxFBQA)and let us know your thought.

[CurtC]

The Zapruder film was not.
But it's the conspiracy theorists who say that the Zapruder film was faked. James Fetzer is infamous for making that assertion. He knows that the Zapruder film is inconsistent with a conspiracy, so his wild imagination substitutes some crazy scheme about the government faking video so well that it fools experts 40 years later.

Easy shot from the footbridge and knoll too.Except the knoll was right there where dozens of people were looking towards, and Abraham Zapruder was standing within a few feet of, and no one saw a shooter. And that would not have been an ideal shot angle, either. The bridge (not a footbridge, Dallasites don't walk) was not a good location because the limo's windshield would have been in the path.

The "character" in JFK was a real live prosecutor, who was intimidated and had his investigation marred by political forces.Jim Garrison was crazier than Judy Wood.

The people Garrison thought were conspirators (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/suspects.htm)
Garrison uses what he thinks is cryptography to point to suspects (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrisn1.txt) (read this one if nothing else)
Jim explains that the assassination was a homosexual thrill killing (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm)
Outright lies in Garrison's book (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm)


Lots more here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So Bruce finally joined the huge majority. So what? You still call JFK conspiracists "woo?" Sheesh.
Argumentum ad populum (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_populum)

[Belz...]

How do you know that Willis hasn't looked at the facts and evidence?

Because if he had, he wouldn't be saying that.

[MG1962]

Well if both Red Dwarf and X Files showed that Oswald didn't act alone, thats good enough for me

[Regnad Kcin]

So Bruce finally joined the huge majority. So what? You still call JFK conspiracists "woo?" Sheesh.And the "huge majority" are conversant on every factor of the killing, so much so that they can discourse at length on all matter of details, not to mention their level of scholarship having been achieved before pronouncing their beliefs? That "huge majority?"

[Regnad Kcin]

In a couple of weeks you'll be able to read it and weep (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0393045250/ref=s9_asin_image_1-2288_g1/002-7315792-1461615?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=07RTENKP0MA5CHXKMM0X&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240701&pf_rd_i=507846), SCG. Of course you won't. And why is that?

[Schmitt.]

Back and to the left.
Since we're basing this entirely on rhetorical flair I'll raise you with back and to the left (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4).

[Undesired Walrus]

r..right, so this is supposed to be George H.W Bush? A blurry guy who we cant make out? http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2007/300407jfkbush.jpg

Isn't it funny, this comes from prison planet, the same type of people who claim the bin laden picture is too blurry and thus isn't him....

[Lonewulf]

The "character" in JFK was a real live prosecutor, who was intimidated and had his investigation marred by political forces.

Wrong. He was a prosecutor that distorted the truth, intimidated "witnesses", and attacked individuals to further his agenda. He did not "investigate" anything, he drew a conclusion and tried to mesh everything to fit with that conclusion.

Since you seem to be getting your information off JFK, I recommend you read this:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

Anybody that's interested in the JFK conspiracy is suggested to do the same. The information on that site is tremendous, and he cites his sources.

[beachnut]

OK. You want proof that a projectile coming from the rear can cause an explosive exit wound in the front.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/wtc2_crash1.jpg

Back and to the left.
SCG is using Hollywood to make his case, fiction to prove a point, a crazy character study to say JFK was an inside job.

I told him it was fiction, and he changed the subject. Back and to the movie. He will not find facts and evidence from a fictional movie. We are waiting for some facts. Back and to the left, is that a political statement, or a fictional dance step? Dance step of woo?

[kookbreaker]

The "character" in JFK was a real live prosecutor, who was intimidated and had his investigation marred by political forces.

Bull. Jim Garrison was a nutcase who, by admission of many JFK CTs, made a hash of things and was an embarassment. He spent much of his time prosecuting an innocent man because he was gay (and therefore killed JFK). There's no evidence of 'politcal forces' beyond the local ones telling him to quit wasting taxpayer tme and money.


There is plenty of FACTS and evidence, if you care to acknowledge it. Which you don't.

So far, all you've given us is 'back and to the left', which doesn't make much of a case.


Maybe Oswald killed the cop because he figured out that he was set up?

Then tried to kill another? Yeah. That's convincing. :rolleyes:

[kookbreaker]

Rifle bullets travel at high velocity and characteristically produce both a permanent wound channel by cutting/crushing tissue, and a temporary one by essentially flinging the tissue aside after the bullet has passed through. It's this second effect that produces the jet of tissue (brain matter, blood, etc) which pushes the head toward the direction of fire.


You should note that this really only happens with military FMJ rounds. Hunting rounds are designed to squash on impact, minimizing the travel-through.

Oswald, since he had a surplus battle rifle, was using FMJ.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

r..right, so this is supposed to be George H.W Bush? A blurry guy who we cant make out? http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2007/300407jfkbush.jpg

Isn't it funny, this comes from prison planet, the same type of people who claim the bin laden picture is too blurry and thus isn't him....

Prison Planet was not the first to show this picture. You guys give that site way too much credit. ;)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

SCG is using Hollywood to make his case, fiction to prove a point, a crazy character study to say JFK was an inside job.

I told him it was fiction, and he changed the subject. Back and to the movie. He will not find facts and evidence from a fictional movie. We are waiting for some facts. Back and to the left, is that a political statement, or a fictional dance step? Dance step of woo?

Find the part where I mention the JFK movie. That would be you who brought it up. Jim Garrison wasn't a fictional movie character, as was mentioned here.

[kookbreaker]

Find the part where I mention the JFK movie.

OK.

Back and to the left

Quote direct from the movie.

That would be you who brought it up.

"Back and to the left"


Jim Garrison wasn't a fictional movie character, as was mentioned here.

There was a real Jim Garrison. The Jim Garrison in JFK movie resembles him like a iron pan resembles the omlette cooking in it.

[Undesired Walrus]

Jim Garrison wasn't a fictional movie character, as was mentioned here.

Fraid to tell you, He never met Donald Sutherland in real life....

Oh, and the speech at the end?

But as the government sees you as children...
...who might be too disturbed to face this reality...
...or because you might lynch those involved...
...you cannot see these documents for another 75 years.
I'm in my 40's...
...so I'll have "shuffled off this mortal coil" by then.
But I'm telling my eight-year-old son to keep himself physically fit...
...so that one glorious September morning, in 2038...
...he can go to the National Archives and learn what the CIA and FBI knew.
They may push it back then.
It may become a generational affair. Questions passed from parent to child.
But someday, somewhere, someone may find out the damn truth.
We better.
Or we might just as well build ourselves another government...
...like the Declaration of Independence says to, when the old one don't work.
Just a bit farther out West.
An American naturalist wrote:
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country...
"...against its government."
I'd hate to be in your shoes today.
You have a lot to think about. You've seen evidence the public hasn't seen.
Going back to when we were children...
...I think most of us in this courtroom...
...thought justice came automatically.
That virtue was its own reward.
That good triumphs over evil.
But as we get older we know this isn't true.
Individual human beings have to create justice, and this is not easy...
...because the truth often poses a threat to power...
...and one often has to fight power at great risk to themselves.
People like S.M. Holland...
...Lee Bowers...
...Jean Hill, Willie O'Keefe...
...have all taken that risk and they've all come forward.
I have here some $8,000 in these letters...
...sent from all over the country.
Quarters, dimes, dollars from housewives...
...plumbers, car salesmen, teachers, invalids.
These are people who cannot afford to send money but do.
People who drive cabs...
...who nurse in hospitals...
...who see their kids go to Vietnam.
Why?
Because they care.
Because they want to know the truth.
Because they want their country back.
Because it still belongs to us...
...as long as the people have the guts to fight for what they believe in.
The truth is the most important value we have because if it doesn't endure...
...if the government murders truth...
...if we cannot respect these people...
...then this is not the country I was born in, or the country I want to die in.
Tennyson wrote:
"Authority forgets a dying king."
This was never more true than for John F. Kennedy...
...whose murder was probably one of the most terrible moments...
...in the history of our country.
We, the people, the jury system sitting in judgment on Clay Shaw...
...represent the hope...
...of humanity against government power.
In discharging your duty...
...to bring a first conviction in this house of cards...
...against Clay Shaw...
"...ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."
Do not forget...
...your dying king.
Show this world...
...this is still a government "of the people, for the people and by the people."
Nothing as long as you live...
...will ever be more important.
It's up to you.


...Never happened....

[skepticalcriticalguy]

But it's the conspiracy theorists who say that the Zapruder film was faked. James Fetzer is infamous for making that assertion. He knows that the Zapruder film is inconsistent with a conspiracy, so his wild imagination substitutes some crazy scheme about the government faking video so well that it fools experts 40 years later.

Except the knoll was right there where dozens of people were looking towards, and Abraham Zapruder was standing within a few feet of, and no one saw a shooter. And that would not have been an ideal shot angle, either. The bridge (not a footbridge, Dallasites don't walk) was not a good location because the limo's windshield would have been in the path.



Fetzer wasn't the first. Jack White analyzed the film.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6264396057713515921&q=zapruder&hl=en

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Fraid to tell you, He never met Donald Sutherland in real life....

Oh, and the speech at the end?



...Never happened....

That's fine. I never mentioned the JFK movie. That was a movie. Other posters are obsessed with it.

I guess some of you here never heard of Jim Garrison until the Oliver Stone movie.

[gumboot]

Fetzer wasn't the first. Jack White analyzed the film.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6264396057713515921&q=zapruder&hl=en



The world's expert on that particular type of film stock also analysed it, and found it to be untampered and genuine.

In fact he wasn't only the world exert on that type of film, he led the team that invented it.

-Gumboot

[ConspiRaider]

r..right, so this is supposed to be George H.W Bush? A blurry guy who we cant make out? http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2007/300407jfkbush.jpg

Isn't it funny, this comes from prison planet, the same type of people who claim the bin laden picture is too blurry and thus isn't him....
Good stuff, UW.

Three things:

1. The eyes. In the Depository pic, the man's face is probably more angular than Bush Sr. Look at the shadow caused by the brow ridge. Doesn't look the same as Bush's.

2. The head height. Bush's head appears to be "taller" from eyes to crown than the guy in the fuzzy pic.

3. The overall height. Bush Sr. is 6'2". This guy definitely appears shorter. With enough measurement, someone could probably determine just how tall the Depository guy was (or is). My guess? 5'9".

[gumboot]

He has too much hair too. It's deceptive, because of the shadow on the left of his face.

-Gumboot

[kookbreaker]

Fetzer wasn't the first. Jack White analyzed the film.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6264396057713515921&q=zapruder&hl=en

Unfortunately for you, Jack White just tends to embarass himself alot (http://www.clavius.org/jackwhite.html) with his various claims.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

OK.



Quote direct from the movie.



"Back and to the left"



There was a real Jim Garrison. The Jim Garrison in JFK movie resembles him like a iron pan resembles the omlette cooking in it.

Oh, so sorry that something as universally discussed as "back and to the left" was mentioned in the movie, too.

Actually, I was quoting Bill Hicks. Maybe he was quoting the movie. But I don't think that Kevin Costner/Oliver Stone were the first to use the phrase. In fact, I'll just betcha Jim Garrison said it a few times, in real life. :p

[ConspiRaider]

He has too much hair too. It's deceptive, because of the shadow on the left of his face.

-Gumboot
Roger that.

And as Perry Logan was always fond of pointing out when he posted here: The very fact that such a picture exists proves the Gov did NOT have anything to do with this - especially not George Bush.

BUSH SR
My God I'll have been responsible for this! Oh my! Well then I better get as far as possibly away from Dallas as I can!!!

KILL TEAM
No. We want you right on the Depository steps, wait for a nice "casual" press pic, so that it implicates you and all of us. Don't forget to smile!

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Good stuff, UW.

Three things:

1. The eyes. In the Depository pic, the man's face is probably more angular than Bush Sr. Look at the shadow caused by the brow ridge. Doesn't look the same as Bush's.

2. The head height. Bush's head appears to be "taller" from eyes to crown than the guy in the fuzzy pic.

3. The overall height. Bush Sr. is 6'2". This guy definitely appears shorter. With enough measurement, someone could probably determine just how tall the Depository guy was (or is). My guess? 5'9".

Maybe he's a double! :cool:

[kookbreaker]

Oh, so sorry that something as universally discussed as "back and to the left" was mentioned in the movie, too.

Yes. It is. The quote sources from that movie. There was an episode of 'The Critic' where one of the fake upcoming movies was JFK2, which has Kevin Costner going 'Back, and to the left' for 3 hours. SNL made fun with Oliver Stone slow motioning the pictures of George the Elder puking in Japan (actually Dana Carvey) while repeating 'Down, and too the left'.


Actually, I was quoting Bill Hicks. Maybe he was quoting the movie. But I don't think that Kevin Costner/Oliver Stone were the first to use the phrase.


Then you'll need to prove otherwise.


In fact, I'll just betcha Jim Garrison said it a few times, in real life. :p

If he did, he did not do so in any trial. He didn't use frame one of teh Zapruder film. He was a very bad investigator. Read: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm