Creative Speculation

Richard Charnin

(69 posts)

13. Compelling evidence? You want it; you got it.

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 02:40 AM

Dec 2011

Here is your compelling evidence of a controlled demolition:
Even NIST admits free-fall = controlled demolition.

Listen to the experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZEvA8BCoBw#

Here is your mathematical proof of a JFK conspiracy.
Probability of 15 witnesses unnatural deaths within 1 year of the JFK murder:
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

146 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's...... [View all] Logical Dec 2011 OP

I don't have an answer to your question, but one has to look at the evidence teddy51 Dec 2011 #1

The cracking of the Enigma Code was not leaked until the 1970s after it was offiically announced. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #2

And that allso goes for the capture of a German sub with the enignama machien zeemike Dec 2011 #28

If you were asked to participate in either operation, what would you do? cpwm17 Dec 2011 #29

Well that is a fair question and a fair point. zeemike Dec 2011 #30

There's no way that there's the expertise to pull it off cpwm17 Dec 2011 #31

Well then how does the mob and other organized crime do it? zeemike Dec 2011 #32

Since mob informers are the key to most police investigations hack89 Feb 2012 #39

But that is because their are police and law enforcement. zeemike Feb 2012 #40

You are naive if you believe that. zeemike Feb 2012 #41

you would have to be a sociopath BobbyBoring Feb 2012 #37

Well I would know only what I needed to know to do my part of the plan zeemike Feb 2012 #46

You've been watching too many movies Confusious Feb 2012 #43

And you perhaps not enough history. zeemike Feb 2012 #45

Nope, not me Confusious Feb 2012 #47

Well I never saw it in the movies zeemike Feb 2012 #49

do I detect some contempt from you about people that you consider CTers? Confusious Feb 2012 #50

Do you know what disinformation is? zeemike Feb 2012 #53

So you're spreading disinformation? Confusious Feb 2012 #55

Well it is astounding to me that people can buy that . zeemike Feb 2012 #56

"that is just basic science" William Seger Feb 2012 #57

The first frame is before the impact.of the head shot. zeemike Feb 2012 #59

Nope William Seger Feb 2012 #61

No that is the frame where the bullet struck zeemike Feb 2012 #64

Utter nonsense William Seger Feb 2012 #68

Well look this is not nonsense zeemike Feb 2012 #69

If the Zapruder film is REALLY what made you believe that Oswald didn't shoot JFK, William Seger Feb 2012 #71

You mean to tell me zeemike Feb 2012 #72

in what sense do you "see" that? OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #73

Because if the bullet did not strike in 312 zeemike Feb 2012 #74

didn't you just say yourself... OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #75

Well let me try again to explain. zeemike Feb 2012 #76

OK, let's think about this OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #77

Some good points zeemike Feb 2012 #78

meh OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #79

Well how about we just declare you the winner zeemike Feb 2012 #80

This is NOT a "small point" William Seger Feb 2012 #81

Now this is how you control the discussion... zeemike Feb 2012 #84

yo, if you're so free from fear, get the heck out of fetal position OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #82

We are discussing it on your terms. zeemike Feb 2012 #83

jeepers OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #85

Again we are back to math. zeemike Feb 2012 #86

so you don't think the head changes position from 312 to 313? OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #87

Well let me try to be clear. zeemike Feb 2012 #89

well, no OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #91

Really? zeemike Feb 2012 #95

"And you cannot explain that backward movement with any thing that makes sense" William Seger Feb 2012 #97

Well you can't prove a negative zeemike Feb 2012 #100

Another myth. Actually, it IS sometimes possible to prove a negative William Seger Feb 2012 #105

This is getting kinda bizarre William Seger Feb 2012 #93

OK...so the ejected material is several feet away zeemike Feb 2012 #96

In other words, you've got nothing William Seger Feb 2012 #98

Now with the ridicule. zeemike Feb 2012 #101

Your theory is all assumption and no fact. zappaman Feb 2012 #102

The facts presented is what we see in the film. zeemike Feb 2012 #107

Here's what's ridiculous about it, by the way William Seger Feb 2012 #108

No that is not what I said. zeemike Feb 2012 #109

"The shutter on frame 313 was open for 1/30 of a second" zappaman Feb 2012 #110

Frames per second is different from shutter speed. zeemike Feb 2012 #115

The camera's manual says a nominal 16 fps and 1/35th sec exposure William Seger Feb 2012 #119

Well thanks for looking that up zeemike Feb 2012 #120

WTF? William Seger Feb 2012 #112

No sir the shutter speed is all that is relevant. zeemike Feb 2012 #116

I seriously doubt that a timeline is going to unconfuse you, but let's try: William Seger Feb 2012 #118

I get what you are claiming. zeemike Feb 2012 #121

So you have no explanation for the forward head snap William Seger Feb 2012 #122

Can't let it end when you say inertia is imaginary physics zeemike Feb 2012 #123

No, it's your claimed "DELAY due to inertia" that's imaginary William Seger Feb 2012 #124

Well I can't compete with that zeemike Feb 2012 #125

Hopeless William Seger Feb 2012 #126

You are right it is hopeless zeemike Feb 2012 #127

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read about the JFK assassination in some time. zappaman Feb 2012 #99

there is only one reason I am still here zeemike Feb 2012 #103

"this is like a case study in how debunking CTs work" William Seger Feb 2012 #106

it's kind of hilarious-- if a "conspiracy theorist" had presented this as proof he'd be laughed at. NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #137

It's motion blur caused by camera motion William Seger Apr 2012 #139

that may be, but your data is still inconclusive NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #141

Neither William Seger Apr 2012 #142

Frame 313 is not an instant, it is a duration. And during that duration the head may have travelled eomer Feb 2012 #88

OK, where does that get us? OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #90

Back to square one. eomer Feb 2012 #92

See gif in post #93. There was no forward motion before frame 312 William Seger Feb 2012 #94

"square one" was trash talk about "the power of fear" OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #104

Well, you've just proved my point Confusious Feb 2012 #58

I want to listen and have been listening. zeemike Feb 2012 #60

I've seen IN PLANE SITE zappaman Feb 2012 #62

Well a 757 is consistent with what I saw zeemike Feb 2012 #66

Really Confusious Feb 2012 #63

You present questions that are easy to answer zeemike Feb 2012 #65

Well if you make up stuff Confusious Feb 2012 #67

Well I don't have all the answers...and no one could zeemike Feb 2012 #70

Two other things Confusious Feb 2012 #51

Have you seen the original movie The Day The Earth Stood Still? zeemike Feb 2012 #54

A brief visit to one secure in their findings..... AlwaysQuestion Apr 2012 #132

Well thanks for that vote of confidence. zeemike Apr 2012 #133

Jeez, what a pantload William Seger Apr 2012 #134

Do you believe? AlwaysQuestion Apr 2012 #136

Ohmygawd, do you actually READ what I write? William Seger Apr 2012 #138

Then why the cover up? tblue Dec 2011 #3

Plenty of reasons for a coverup without positing guilt in the 9/11 attack Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #6

I remember people telling me.... lib2DaBone Dec 2011 #4

We have no idea what happened to that drone hack89 Dec 2011 #19

Regardless of what happened to that drone, there's no connection to 9-11 cpwm17 Dec 2011 #20

You seem to ignore terrafirma Dec 2011 #27

You need to read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #5

That's the problem with EVERY conspiracy theory RZM Dec 2011 #7

But if the conspirators know that someone will eventually talk.... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #9

Exactly RZM Dec 2011 #10

Not quite. You miss the point. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #11

Of course there have been conspiracies RZM Dec 2011 #12

Compelling evidence? You want it; you got it. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #13

Wow. Ed Asner and some random blogger RZM Dec 2011 #14

15 unnatural deaths within a year! Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #15

Nope zappaman Dec 2011 #16

You mean like the 9/11 Commission conspiracy to not talk about Building 7 in their Report? Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #8

The 9/11 Commission Report was not meant to be an exhaustive examination of all aspects Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #17

theories Tunkamerica Dec 2011 #18

You're conflating and collapsing all conspiracy theories into a single monolith (npi), coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #21

Truthers rarely correct other truthers when they promote total nonsense cpwm17 Dec 2011 #23

I grant you a lot of it is nonsense, but there are some troubling coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #24

The put options on United and American were explained. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #25

Thank you for that. At some point, I am going to have to make time coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #26

Oh, please. You believe THAT? Remember Me Dec 2011 #33

Thanks for your opinion. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #34

Yeah, you'd think Remember Me Dec 2011 #35

One major airline (Ansett Australia) was folding at the time KDLarsen Dec 2011 #36

"So it is fair to criticize almost all truthers for any truther nonsense." ocpagu Apr 2012 #140

It's called COMPARTMENTALIZATION, dude! Uranus Needs Men Dec 2011 #22

I want to know who is behind the Unwarranted Apostrophe Conspiracy. Codeine Feb 2012 #38

Hasn't stopped the UK libodem Feb 2012 #42

It had to be hundreds but couldn't have been hundreds? Why couldn't it have been a few or a dozen? eomer Feb 2012 #44

What would the scenario be in which only a few know? Ohio Joe Feb 2012 #48

That would be the scenario in which only a few were part of the consipiracy. eomer Feb 2012 #52

... which really just demonstrates the pointlessness of idle speculation. William Seger Feb 2012 #114

Leads that the "investigation" didn't follow; additional parties surely were involved. eomer Feb 2012 #117

WT7 didn't have enough damage to fall like that in my opinion deadinsider Feb 2012 #111

"Damage" was not the reason for WTC7's collapse William Seger Feb 2012 #113

Heck, we might as well argue here too right? cbrer Feb 2012 #128

Nope William Seger Feb 2012 #129

That actually cbrer Feb 2012 #130

NIST simulation deadinsider May 2012 #144

Finally getting back 2 u... deadinsider May 2012 #145

Oh, well, nothing else going on around here, so... William Seger Jun 2012 #146

The steel portions of the Madrid tower collapsed due to fire. hack89 Apr 2012 #135

People who haven't mastered the difference between plural and possessive... JackRiddler Apr 2012 #131

911? dukie Apr 2012 #143