It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The "Smoking Gun"... Literally

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by butcherguy

Someone always beats me to it
but that was going to be my question...

What kind of "gun" would create such a seemingly huge cloud of smoke? I'm not very savvy about firearms as they are all illegal in the places I've lived but the cloud makes me think more cannon than ordinary over-the-shelf type stuff. Great post OP, nothing to add really as its not something I know much about apart from having seen the JFK movie only recently. (It blew me away and is a great movie even if you aren't interested in the subject) You seem to have covered the subject well. Thanks.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:00 AM
Has anyone read this book? It is listed as historical fiction.

The Secret of the Century
By Roger Levine

I got it on my Kindle. I found it interesting, it melds into the known story.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
Modern arms use smokeless powder, but that is just what is says.... smoke less. Smokeless powder makes smoke, but in relationship to black powder that preceded it, it makes much, much less.

A rifle that is chambered for a round that has a large cartridge will generate a puff of smoke that is visible. The larger the capacity of the cartridge case, the more smoke that is visible. As the particles that make up the smoke are tiny and relatively light, the smoke and gases tend to slow down quickly when they hit the still air outside the gun and form a 'blossom' around the muzzle of the gun. Then the 'blossom' rolls out away from the muzzle.

Generally, it is very difficult to see a muzzle flash (the light from still combusting powder exiting the muzzle) in full daylight, unless the gun is being fired directly at you (or the camera). I think the photo showing the three men may show smoke, but not muzzle flash.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:47 AM
Very interesting read indeed. I have only one problem:

Here's the one single frame where It's claimed we can just make out smoke originating from the exact location as claimed by Holland, Bowers, Simmons and many others - smoke rising around 8 or so feet from the picket fence:

The smoke. I know environmental conditions play a part in how things work a look but I have never seen at least any of the rifles I have shot leave smoke rising about 8 feet. So I decided to see how this gun shoots. I have enclosed a couple of vids of this rifle firing. So see the difference in how the smoke would look.

Now granted these may not be the "EXACT" models but you get the idea. What am I saying? I don't know, it was just a thought.

Not sure what is going on with the vids?..ah got it!

edit on 1-9-2011 by the4thhorseman because: Link issue

edit on 1-9-2011 by the4thhorseman because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2011 by the4thhorseman because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2011 by the4thhorseman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

The use of explosive or mercury tipped bullets is more than likely considering the damage done. We don't know what weapon was used but the last video posted by the the4thhorseman firing a Carcano shows smoke.

As RA already mentioned, at least seven witnesses testified, some under oath for the Warren Commission, to seeing a puff of smoke coming from the Grassy Knoll.


But the real question is why was there any smoke there at all? Unless someone was setting off fireworks, there was a weapon fired from the Grassy Knoll.
edit on 1-9-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: removed black powder video which might be misleading

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by butcherguy

Thanbks for the detailed and most informative answer. I learned something new today
Smoke-less I understand, we used to have to burn smoke-less coal, but they called it smokeless too which it obviously wasn't.

The vid posted by Nicolas Flamel (sorry, haven't worked out how to reply to 2 posts in one post yet) was a good one too. The sound made me think of how the rifles sound in the old Western movies. Kayow-wow-wow...fading away slowly. (Its hard to describe the sound phonetically but the vid demonstrates it well) I can see that if such a method was used in Dallas that people would have heard it for miles and been able to pinpoint its direction if they were within a few hundred yards, hence everyone running towards the grassy knoll. Good post! Thanks you two.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel

The gun I posted was "the gun" used. As you can see I posted 3 vids with 3 different lighting and I believe at least 2 different seasons warm and cool/cold. The last vid you do see the smoke and it seems darker in the vid like the one you posted. So lighting may play a part in it.

But fireworks is an interesting twist. What if it was? I believe Cherry Bombs were still around then or something similar. They do give that same gun powder smell an I believe they would leave enough smoke to be seen.

Could this be a distraction from even something else? As we like to call it here a "false flag" crazy idea I know..but its the

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Just to be clear, the last video I posted used black powder bullets. They are still used for hunting.

Since we don't know what weapon was used on the Grassy Knoll (the Carcano was found in the TSBD) the amount of smoke produced may be somewhere in between my video and the4thhorseman's video.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by Nicolas Flamel
What is the guy firing in your pic?
It looks more like black powder, with the amount of smoke. The smoke is thick and white too.

A better question would be why is he shooting so close to that building?

Edit to add:
Thanks for the clarification, I just read your last post.
edit on 1-9-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by the4thhorseman

But fireworks is an interesting twist. What if it was?

Some JFK researchers say that firecrackers could have been set off as a distraction for the kill shot. It's unlikely the conspirators would want to draw attention to themselves by setting off fireworks.

The acoustical evidence presented from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that shots were fired from the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll.

They did this by analyzing the recordings made when one of the police officers on a motorcycle left his microphone open. The tape showed "spikes" which represented bullet shots. This is a little annoying because there were more than 4 spikes on the tape, but the HSCA only investigated 4. Which by the way already proves a conspiracy.

edit on 1-9-2011 by Nicolas Flamel because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:48 AM
I just had a thought on this whole thing. Mind you I have never looked into the JFK information until now so please keep in mind that I have very little knowledge in this. I am just thinking out loud.

Follow me down this rabbit hole. What if the conspirators had hired two gunmen? Each gunmen did not know of each other and were given the same target. With a target such as this one would want to take full advantage of it. Think about it two shooters one gets a shot off first the second moments later. Call it an insurance plan for the conspirators so to speak.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by the4thhorseman

There were probably at least three sniper teams:

1. Texas School Book Depository
2. Dal-Tex building (next to the TSBD)
3. Grassy Knoll

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Awesome details and information RA, I've read your writings and theyre great.
I would bet Barbara Bush could tell us what really happened.

It seems everyone and their brother was in Dallas that day.

Nixon visiting a Pepsi Cola convention (confirmed), E. Howard Hunt, CIA (speculative picture of one of the hobos), Joseph Milteer (ultra-right wing fanatic who was taped by the FBI saying they could kill Kennedy with a high powered rifle from a tall building, possibly photographed on sidewalk on motor route) and other assorted spooks and mobsters.

This picture below is from outside the TSBD shortly after the assassination, look familiar?

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:31 PM
Truly great thread, big kudos for OP!

What really always baffled me, beside from everything what happened on the day of shooting was Lew Harvey Oswald himself.
While in marines he was court-marshalled THREE times, also his pro-soviet sympathies were 'widely known' (in 1958, dig this). Story of deflection to soviet union smells desinformation for a mile
here we go, from wiki

In October 1959, just before turning 20, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, the trip planned well in advance. On September 11, 1959, he received a hardship discharge from active service, claiming his mother needed care, and was put on reserve.[11][26][27] Along with his self-taught Russian, he had saved $1,500 of his Marine Corps salary,[n 3] obtained a passport, and submitted several fictional applications to foreign universities in order to obtain a student visa.[clarification needed] Oswald spent two days with his mother in Fort Worth, then embarked by ship from New Orleans on September 20 to Le Havre, France, then immediately proceeded to England. Arriving in Southampton on October 9, he told officials he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for one week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, where he was issued a Soviet visa on October 14. Oswald left Helsinki by train on the following day, crossed the Soviet border at Vainikkala, and arrived in Moscow on October 16.[28]

Almost immediately, Oswald told his Intourist guide of his desire to become a Soviet citizen,[29] but was told on October 21 that his application had been refused. Oswald then inflicted a minor but bloody wound to his left wrist in his hotel room bathtub, after which the Soviets put him under psychiatric observation at a hospital.[30][31]
On October 31, Oswald appeared at the United States embassy in Moscow, declaring a desire to renounce his U.S. citizenship.[32][33] Oswald told the interviewing officer at the U.S. embassy, Richard Snyder, "...that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he had voluntarily stated to unnamed Soviet officials that as a Soviet citizen he would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his specialty as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest."

Yet, he possessed security clearence while being a radar operator.

And then, miracously...

In March 1961, Oswald met Marina Nikolayevna Prusakova, a 19-year-old pharmacology student; they married less than six weeks later in April.[n 4][42] The Oswalds' first child, June, was born on February 15, 1962. On May 24, 1962, Oswald and Marina applied at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for documents enabling her to immigrate to the U.S. and, on June 1, the U.S. Embassy gave Oswald a repatriation loan of $435.71

Really?! Week later?! In peak of cold war, just after CC? Im tempted to make an entire thread out of it, as my first on ATS.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:51 PM
The death of JFK was a ritual and he had to have been in on it.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:29 PM
I cant remember at the moment exactly where i got this idea from, perhaps some light reading, or maybe just searching the net, but nevertheless it stuck as an interesting means of thinking.....

Over history there have been numerous terrible occurrences where there was a person to blame. JFK assassination, the Lincoln assassination, the world trade center bombing(s), etc.

Here is where it got interesting.....

The idea was this, well who shot jfk? lee harvey oswald.... well who shot lincoln, john wilkes booth (sp?), etc.....
i would think most people have this knowledge....

these stories are highly speculated by people...... so as sort of a "brain wash" technique, they introduce the use of the middle name......

Now.... OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD....... since we can just google anything today..... What was the unibombers full name? how bout the norway shooter? whats dhalmers middle name? etc.....

It would seem as though when (tptb, msm, whoever) want to cover something up, they force a more personal connection by "fully introducing" someone.....

i know the connection is a bit rough as i'm sort of just throwing together ideas in my head, i just wanted to throw the idea out there.....

This is in no way factual and no i cannot prove it....... it is solely food for thought......

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:39 PM
I'm currently at work so its hard for me to go on youtube or reference any good info to contribute....

However, I believe that fateful day in Texas was simply the nail in the coffin for the coup that was taking place within the power elite.

Jesse Ventura's special on this topic was probably the best summary of theories combined with facts that I've seen yet on mainstream media.

There were some shadowy high ranking members of the CIA that were on the scene of the assassination, in plain clothes, and later reportedly denied even being in the state of Texas. That alone to me screams CIA coverup

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Rising Against

JFK was killed because he wanted to do a joint operation to the moon with the russians. With the discrimination and racism that was so rampant in those days there was no way the secret govt was gonna let him have us work WITH the soviets. No way at all!!

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:51 PM
No way do I believe that JFK assassination was a lone nut thing. It certainly was without any doubt a conspiracy.

However, over time it appears that about everybody shot JFK, according to a multitude of theories. It was CIA, Mossad, the FED, the Mafia, Cubans, LBJ, you name it. All of these theories make some sense but still you have that impossible official story in place. It never changes no matter how often or in which ways you refute parts of it or its entirety. So, everybody shot JFK which eventually means that nobody shot JFK according to all those theories. The end result sadly is that it all helps keep the impossible official story prolong its own existence. It will just keep on being constant in a sea of diverse conspiracy theories refuting it.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:10 PM
Gordon Arnold is completely full of it and if you can't see that just from hearing him talk, I don't know what to tell you. And the blown-up photo... utter nonsense. People see faces in clouds, too.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in