- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Ain't
Ready
.................To Be
Marines
Yet. :mrgreen:
Most, if not all of "these people" are dead by now.
If some men were involved in a conspitacy, why has NO-ONE come forward - 10-20 years ago ??
really? we set up a moving target at a olympic training camp and used a similar rifle. most of us had no problem making the same shot.
I think the doubts largely stem from how his head recoiled back and to the left. From the knoll, that would make more sense. Anyway, i'm more of the opinion he could have acted alone but with the guidance and complicity of others.
Other lingering questions like why did he recant his confession, and why was he killed right after?
Because it doesn't need to be a large group, and they didn't want to undermine or put at risk whatever they worked under (CIA, secret service). I mean if secret service was involved at all and one of them came forward, no one will ever trust them again.
Certain facts. You know Oswald had to work for US Intelligence. He defected to spill radar secrets and wasn't prosecuted when he came back. All the Cuban groups he was associated with were CIA sponsored. Clay Shaw was acknowledged as CIA by Richard Helms. Carlos Marcello told a jailhouse cellmate informer that he had to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was trying to shut down the CIA, and the Cuban fiascos, and Vietnam, and minimize the military and he could have suffered blowback. That is a lot easier than Oswald's magic bullet turning around and hitting Kennedy in the front. That encapsulates my major points. No trace of nitrates on Oswald. No prints on gun during the week the FBI checked, and then , wowser, palm print. Why say conspiracy theory when you have a real conspiracy. Follow the money.
This is what I believe. There is no way Oswald could have assassinated President Kennedy all by himself.
Because it doesn't need to be a large group, and they didn't want to undermine or put at risk whatever they worked under (CIA, secret service). I mean if secret service was involved at all and one of them came forward, no one will ever trust them again.
You read Mark Lane's book.
You read Mark Lane's book.
Certain facts. You know Oswald had to work for US Intelligence. He defected to spill radar secrets and wasn't prosecuted when he came back. All the Cuban groups he was associated with were CIA sponsored. Clay Shaw was acknowledged as CIA by Richard Helms. Carlos Marcello told a jailhouse cellmate informer that he had to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was trying to shut down the CIA, and the Cuban fiascos, and Vietnam, and minimize the military and he could have suffered blowback. That is a lot easier than Oswald's magic bullet turning around and hitting Kennedy in the front. That encapsulates my major points. No trace of nitrates on Oswald. No prints on gun during the week the FBI checked, and then , wowser, palm print. Why say conspiracy theory when you have a real conspiracy. Follow the money.
No, and I don't know who Mark Lane is. What I quoted is historical information.
Is that the Clay Shaw that it took a jury less time to acquit than it did to watch the filth that was Oliver Stone's ludicrous bit of fiction.
and there was nothing 'magic' about the bullet at all. Recent scientific experiments have proven fairly conclusively that the same bullet hit Kennedy and Connally. Of course its always possible that the people who produced that research and did those re-enactments and experiments were all part of the same conspiracy.:lamo
Here's one of the conspirators:
The JFK Assassination Single Bullet Theory
No, and I don't know who Mark Lane is. What I quoted is historical information.
No, its conspiracy theory bull****.
Oh yeah? I can't wait to see a link for that.
Why not? It's these kinds of stupid statements that drive me crazy. He worked in the building that overlooked the motorcade - a route he knew because they had published it in the newspaper. He bought the rifle and took it into the building. It was an easy shot for even a mediocre marksman, which he was not. Why couldn't he have assassinated the President by himself?
I know many people graduate from fairly tales to conspiracy theories as they get older, but perhaps you could tell us why he couldn't have acted alone.
Because I believe the 2nd and 3rd shots came right on top of each other. Oswald wouldn't have had time to readjust (is that the word?) his rifle. Also, there is evidence that bullets were coming from more than one direction. I'm sorry, but the lone gunman story just doesn't hold up.
Your beliefs sound like religious conviction. Go with the flow. Ignore reality. No point in risking your sanity by allowing logic and reason to interfere, eh?
I believe Oswald shot him at least once. I have a big problem with him making the second shot with a mauser type rifle and get back on target and actually aim. Possible but not too likely.
Well, you are incorrect about the shots. There were three and any competent marksman could have done it, which has been proven time and time again. There was no second gunman. Nobody has reported seeing one. What does exist is a lot of gullible people willing to believe any crazy theory out there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?