Focuspuller wrote:
Yeah but a shame to allow an obsessive conspiracist to hijack this thread. [...]...

JSouthworth wrote:
Okay, so you didn't know that to fire a revolver, you have to puill the trigger, you can't do it simply by pulling back the hammer part way and then releasing it. I'm sorry about that.

Focuspuller wrote:
Unless the gun was defective. Sorry about that.

rfordphotos wrote:
uhm, didnt the forensic examination of the gun prove it was defective, and would fire if the hammer was released?

Focuspuller wrote:
Bingo!

yeah, thought so.....

just JSouthworth continuing to make a fool of himself. You would think he would get tired of proving he is clueless, wouldnt you?

rfordphotos wrote:

uhm, didnt the forensic examination of the gun prove it was defective, and would fire if the hammer was released?

No, we've been told that the hammer wasn't locking in the cocked position. But the hammer block (the mechanical safety interlock) would still have prevented the firing pin from contacting the primer, unless the trigger was pulled.

Baldwin has categorically denied pulling the trigger, but he must have pulled it for the gun to fire.

The armorer has tried to sue Baldwin on the grounds that he didn't attend a training course in cross-draw technique, implying that the fatal shooting happened because Baldwin didn't draw the gun correctly. There are a couple of possible interpretations of this; one would be that this is simply an attempt to support the idea that the shooting was accidental. Another would be that the armorer is saying that Baldwin pulled the trigger as he drew the gun, in order to contradict his denial of that.

LightDreams wrote:
"You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it.  If you let it go, the firing pin hits the primer of the bullet and fires it"

  - Santa Fe County D.A. Mary Carmack-Altwies

(describing some tests that were conducted by her investigators)




JSouthworth posts another lie.  Once again.  ANYTHING, so that he doesn't have to face, or admit, what is extremely obvious...

What she forgot to mention, is that the gun will only fire if the trigger is pulled as the hammer is pulled back and released.

Reasonable article here;

https://news.yahoo.com/alec-baldwin-apo … oOXBC87mac

JSouthworth wrote:
What she forgot to mention, is that the gun will only fire if the trigger is pulled as the hammer is pulled back and released.

ANOTHER LIE.  JUST READ HER QUOTE.

She SPECIFICALLY said, "WITHOUT ACTUALLY PULLING THE TRIGGER" and that it "FIRES IT".

You just lied yet again.  It's so difficult to watch you flailing about, desperately trying to avoid facing the facts.

---

Anyway, this wasn't for you.  It was for everyone else, so that they clearly understand that there wasn't the slightest truth to your latest claims where you attempted to try and save your absurd grand "murder conspiracy".

JSouthworth wrote:
The armorer has tried to sue Baldwin on the grounds that he didn't attend a training course in cross-draw technique, implying that the fatal shooting happened because Baldwin didn't draw the gun correctly.

Wrong. Again. The armorer is suing Baldwin for the purpose of deflecting blame away from her negligence. PERIOD. Whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or not is IRRELEVANT. The ONLY question: How did a live round get loaded into that weapon? "The fatal shooting happened" because a live round was in the gun. Absent the live round, this thread would not exist.

And neither would absurd speculations of murder plots by obsessive conspiracist minds.

JSouthworth wrote:
"You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it.  If you let it go, the firing pin hits the primer of the bullet and fires it"

  - Santa Fe County D.A. Mary Carmack-Altwies

(describing some tests that were conducted by her investigators)


What she forgot to mention, is that the gun will only fire if the trigger is pulled as the hammer is pulled back and released.

She specifically mentioned that the gun would fire exactly as she described. She left out nothing, on the other hand The link you supplied doesn't describe the guns defective nature at all and in fact bolsters Baldwins claim he did not pull the trigger.

You on the other hand have never seen the gun, let alone examined or tested it, yet you pretend to be some sort of technical firearms expert bent on continuing to make up reasons why the gun will not work in exactly the way the actual experts have said repeatedly that it did. Perhaps you are a firearms expert I really don't know, however your continued inability to grasp the simple facts as supplied by individuals that have actually inspected the weapon and tested it in addition to actually interviewing the people involved seems to reveal to all that you are at best little more than a speculative know nothing and at worst an internet troll.

So again just stop. You have no credibility, all your theories are nothing more than tripe and anything else you have to say whether 100% correct (extremely doubtful) or not will only be viewed with derision based upon the completely ludicrous conjecture of your previous posts.

JQuest wrote:
[...]

You on the other hand have never seen the gun, let alone examined or tested it, yet you pretend to be some sort of technical firearms expert bent on continuing to make up reasons why the gun will not work in exactly the way the actual experts have said repeatedly that it did. Perhaps you are a firearms expert I really don't know, [....]

He has never held a single action Colt in his hands, never fired one. I dont believe he owns ANY pistols or revolvers, and seriously doubt he has ever fired a firearm of ANY kind.

His alleged "expertise" comes from his READING of a couple gun books.

He seems to thrive on making a total fool of himself.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Many photographers I know have photographed models with guns. I've even done so many years .. make that decades ago. Some images I've seen even have the model pointing the gun at the camera.    I have friends here and on Facebook who are gun collectors and/or enjoy the sport of shooting.   I used to be a gun owner.  I have enjoyed target shooting.  Something happened to me where I had a change of heart regarding guns.  The fact is that I am not into hunting, and I have even reduced the amount of meat I eat.  However, I DO NOT tell my gun owner friends that they should not use their guns in images or videos.  You know where this is going ....

So by now I'm sure that most of you are aware that there was a tragic mishap where a director on a movie set was shot and killed by a gun that was thought to be "cold" but was actually loaded with live ammo.  The actor is well known, and distraught.  My father who taught me about gun safety told me NEVER point a gun at someone or something unless you intend to shoot it.  Also ALWAYS consider that the gun is loaded .. do not assume it is unloaded, as that is when accidents can happen. If I ever shot someone and they died, even if it was justified .. I wouldn't be able to cope.  That is why I changed my mind about being a law enforcement officer a very long time ago.  I feel horrible for Alic Baldwin.  He has to live with this the rest of his life.  . 

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/ … 69ce5.html   

Photographers, does this make you rethink how and why you would use guns on your own set?  Do you think that the film industry will ban live ammunition from being on the set of future movies?   Models, are you okay with doing shoots with guns in your hands, or have you decided it's not for you?  It seems like gun pictures are becoming cliche and about as dangerous as railroad tracks.  I believe that IF done right with safety in mind, it is possible to get great images with guns or around railroad tracks.  I've done both, but not anymore.  I understad that the crew (union) walked off the set of 'Rust' due to safety concerns and that they continued work with a bare bones and non union crew.   -sigh-

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:

JSouthworth wrote:
The only trouble with that is that if he denies loading the gun with live rounds himself, it implies that someone else must have done that. By casting suspicion on others, he gives them a reason to cast suspicion on him.

BULLSHIT! Why do you INSIST on foisting your monumental IGNORANCE on us? No actor would EVER load a gun to be used in a scene unless the scene WAS about the actor loading the gun. In this instance that was not the case so not admitting to loading the weapon is total nonsense and proof of NOTHING. Your reckless fantasies have degraded and demeaned a tragic accidentaal death caused by massive negligence of responsible parties. PERIOD.

Focuspuller wrote:

Your reckless fantasies have degraded and demeaned a tragic accidentaal death caused by massive negligence of responsible parties. PERIOD.

He doesn't care what impact his nonsense has on tragically affected people.

https://twitter.com/JohnSou74706125/with_replies

Somewhere in there you'll find the murdered girl's poor mum imploring him to stop.

P R E S T O N wrote:

He doesn't care what impact his nonsense has on tragically affected people.

https://twitter.com/JohnSou74706125/with_replies

Somewhere in there you'll find the murdered girl's poor mum imploring him to stop.

Sad, and he seems intent on filling these forums with vanity threads of his various and sundry obsessive delusions.

Focuspuller wrote:

BULLSHIT! Why do you INSIST on foisting your monumental IGNORANCE on us? No actor would EVER load a gun to be used in a scene unless the scene WAS about the actor loading the gun. In this instance that was not the case so not admitting to loading the weapon is total nonsense and proof of NOTHING. Your reckless fantasies have degraded and demeaned a tragic accidentaal death caused by massive negligence of responsible parties. PERIOD.

If Baldwin intended to shoot the cinematographer and/or the director, then obviously he would load the gun with live rounds, unless somebody else had already done that for him. The question of who did in fact load the gun with live rounds is of some importance.

Focuspuller wrote:

Sad, and he seems intent on filling these forums with vanity threads of his various and sundry obsessive delusions.

Trust me, he's barely started. You have so much joy yet to come.

JSouthworth wrote:

If Baldwin intended to shoot the cinematographer and/or the director, then obviously he would load the gun with live rounds, unless somebody else had already done that for him.The question of who did in fact load the gun with live rounds is of some importance.

BALDWIN. WOULD. NEVER. HAVE. LOADED. THE. GUN. NEVER.

"unless somebody else had already done that for him"

A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER THE CINEMATOGRAPHER AND DIRECTOR?

Seriously, SEEK HELP.

JSouthworth wrote:
If Baldwin intended to shoot the cinematographer and/or the director, then obviously he would load the gun with live rounds, unless somebody else had already done that for him. The question of who did in fact load the gun with live rounds is of some importance.

The attempt by the armorer to sue the ammunition supplier suggests that she loaded the live rounds into the gun, because if someone else loaded the gun, she wouldn't be in a position to say whether the rounds that went into the gun came out of the box labelled "dummies" and that would obviously undermine any case she might otherwise have.

It would be quite possible for someone to take six rounds out of the box of dummies, put them in their pocket, then take six live rounds out of their other pocket and load those into the gun.

Nevertheless the armorer denies loading the gun with live rounds.

JSouthworth wrote:
Nevertheless the armorer denies loading the gun with live rounds.

Don't worry, the armorer and Baldwin will confess when they hear you are on to them.

JSouthworth wrote:
At the moment we seem to be looking at multiple levels of denial and deception on the part of both actor Baldwin and armorer Gutierrez-Reed.

Looking again at the question of why Baldwin would go head to head with the laws of mechanics and mathematical probability by denying that he pulled the trigger, as opposed to simply saying that he didn't know the gun was loaded with live rounds, one explanation is that someone else loaded the gun with live rounds with his knowledge, and if that person goes down, they can take him with them. If he simply denies knowing the gun was loaded, then he places the blame squarely on that person, thereby giving him, or her a reason to implicate him. So the only option he has is to blame the gun, or rather the supplier of the gun for the fatal shooting, which coincidentally or otherwise, is also what armorer Gutierrez-Reed has been trying to do with her lawsuit concerning the box of dummy rounds.

The "mathematical probability" of your ignorance-based speculations being true is <0. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. OF COURSE Baldwin "didn't know the gun was loaded with live rounds". He was TOLD it was a "cold gun." on the set by the AD where everyone heard it. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO MURDER THE CINEMATOGRAPHER AND DIRECTOR. Only gross negligence and malfeasance by several responsible parties, AND BALDWIN IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Stop posting this shit and for God's sake, SEEK HELP.

LightDreams wrote:
JSouthworth takes his "Rust murder conspiracy" claims into month TEN...

We are dealing with a very disturbed mind.

Focuspuller wrote:
Enough of this shit. Why haven't the mods not put an end to this projectile vomit LIBEL they are permitting on their site?

I can't explain why they continue to permit it. It's not as if they're not aware of his prior history elsewhere as I provided them with that information on 15 December 2021. I can only assume that they believe that JSouthworth's use of the forum here to continually peddle his conspiracy theories fits with the site's objectives. Or maybe they're just desperate for any kind of activity whatsoever?

P R E S T O N wrote:

I can't explain why they continue to permit it. It's not as if they're not aware of his prior history elsewhere as I provided them with that information on 15 December 2021. I can only assume that they believe that JSouthworth's use of the forum here to continually peddle his conspiracy theories fits with the site's objectives. Or maybe they're just desperate for any kind of activity whatsoever?

Actually I think it's also a case of a sadistic personality pouring hot water on an anthill and watching the little buggers scrambling madly in the chaos. Like most trolls. Add extreme narcissism and here we are.

JSouthworth wrote:
"Who handed me a live gun"- Baldwin's first words after the fatal shooting.

That isn't an attempt to blame the armorer, it's simply an attempt to create an excuse for his own action in shooting the cimematographer and director. And it appears that the correct answer to the question was "nobody", because Baldwin had picked up the gun himself from a trolley.

If the shooting had been accidental, and if Baldwin thought the armorer had caused it by inadvertently loading the gun with live rounds, he'd probably have said something else, like "that stupid b****"!, or "what the f**k!"

Until recently, Baldwin was quite happy to go along with the armorer's excuse that there were live rounds in a box of dummies. Now he probably realises that with the increased critical attention resulting from the revelation that he must have pulled the trigger that fired the fatal shot, that story isn't going to stand up anymore, if it ever did.

UTTER BULLSHIT.

If the armorer had done her job IT WOULD NOT HAVE MATTERED HOW MANY TIMES BALDWIN PULLED THE FUCKING TRIGGER. That is the reality of a film set, something you know precisely NOTHING about.

Are you through vomiting today? Maybe then you should get busy preparing for martial law in Great Britain, as you've raised the specter of war with Russia in the next 12 months, per your vanity thread you insist on maintaining.

Focuspuller wrote:
UTTER BULLSHIT.

If the armorer had done her job IT WOULD NOT HAVE MATTERED HOW MANY TIMES BALDWIN PULLED THE FUCKING TRIGGER. That is the reality of a film set, something you know precisely NOTHING about.

Are you through vomiting today?

So if Baldwin thought it was the armorers fault, if he thought she'd inadvertently loaded the gun with live rounds instead of dummies, why would Baldwin deny pulling the trigger, given that that was what he was supposed to do in that particular scene, draw the gun and pull the trigger?
It doesn't make sense, and you're not making sense, you're just chucking capitalisations and expletives around as usual.

JSouthworth wrote:
So if Baldwin thought it was the armorers fault, if he thought she'd inadvertently loaded the gun with live rounds instead of dummies, why would Baldwin deny pulling the trigger, given that that was what he was supposed to do in that particular scene, draw the gun and pull the trigger?
It doesn't make sense, and you're not making sense. You're just chucking a lot of capitalisations and expletives around, as usual.

"why would Baldwin deny pulling the trigger,"

Oh, I don't know, maybe the TOTAL SHOCK AND CHAOS of just having shot two people with a gun that was supposed to be "cold" had something to do with it. Is that just too simple for your fevered mind to comprehend?

Your arguments are SHIT because you started with a presumption of murder and have fit details and drawn false conclusions to support that. Produce ONE SHRED of proven evidence. Just ONE.

JSouthworth wrote:

If you concerned yourself with your own bad behavior, then there would be nothing for you to complain about regarding the reactions you are drawing.

Recently, I got two file folders out of my car when I had to leave the car for repairs.  I had to carry the folders around with me for a couple of hours.  My wife picked me up after her work hours and when I got home, I brought the folders into the house.  I can't find them.  I know I brought them in the house.  They aren't in my car.  They aren't in my wife's car.  I KNOW I brought them in the house, but I can't find them.  Maybe you can use the crystal ball that allows you to know what everyone else did on the set of "Rust" and tell me what I really did with my folders. 

In order for your murder and conspiracy theories to be true, a lot had to happen and you admit you are lacking an important component- the motive. 

For this to be an accident, a lot had to happen.  There had to be live ammo on site.  The armourer had to load the live ammo without checking each cartridge for the rattle.  The gun had to be pointed at a person and the gun had to fire.  But, the only thing that had to happen to prevent the accident was for the armourer to rattle test each dummy round she was putting in the gun.  The armourer was there to prevent accidents and ensure safety, right?  That is the Occam’s razor principle.  The simplest explanation is the most likely one. 

Also, what Baldwin said first, is not required to be what he thought first.  We do not know what ran through his mind before he asked who gave him a hot gun. 

Why don't you, please, wait for the rest of the results from the investigation to be made public instead of what you are doing?  And please, as soon as possible, tell me where I put my folders.  I need the purple one.  I don't care if the gray one is lost.

JSouthworth wrote:
So if Baldwin thought it was the armorers fault, if he thought she'd inadvertently loaded the gun with live rounds instead of dummies, why would Baldwin deny pulling the trigger, given that that was what he was supposed to do in that particular scene, draw the gun and pull the trigger?

If you go back to the very beginning of this, you will be reminded that the director and cinematographer were where they were because they were looking at the possibilities regarding the positioning of the gun in the scene.  Please show us where someone knowledgable of the day's activities said that Baldwin was supposed to pull the trigger at this time.

I believe that you are making up your own facts.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
[...]
I believe that you are making up your own facts.

or:
I believe that you are making up your own facts fiction.

Since his posts seem to be 100% fact free.

Focuspuller wrote:
Actually I think it's also a case of a sadistic personality pouring hot water on an anthill and watching the little buggers scrambling madly in the chaos. Like most trolls. Add extreme narcissism and here we are.

I don't think he qualifies as a troll. Whilst much of his forum behaviour seems, on the face of it, troll-like, trolling requires conscious, calculated effort IMO. Whereas I'm certain that JSouthworth honestly believes that he possesses some kind of superior insight/intellect and craves recognition of it. It's all very real in his mind, and I'm also certain that he'd never consider himself to be a troll. You might say that his bizarre forum behaviour is nothing more than a symptom of NPD, and that he therefore lacks sufficient capacity for the level of conscious, calculated effort typically attributed to trolls and trolling. I'm far from being a psychologist, but I can't help thinking that his persistent failure to achieve the acknowledgement he craves (for his theories) isn't going to be good for his mental health.

But what do I know, maybe you're right and he is a troll. Either way I think you'll have his forum contributions to look forward to for some time yet. Enjoy.

P R E S T O N wrote:
...
Either way I think you'll have his forum contributions to look forward to for some time yet. Enjoy.

We do get a temporary (moderator imposed) break.  For comments he made to a model in another thread.