|
|
Post by georgevreelandhill on Feb 19, 2011 21:41:46 GMT -4
I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only killer of John F. Kennedy.
There is no proof, or really anything close to proof that would prove that there was another killer or killers.
Oswald did fire from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and that is a fact.
He left that building on his own.
He got a ride on his own.
When he was caught, he was alone.
He was the only member of his Fair Play For Cuba Committee.
He had very few friends and was mad at the world.
Oswald liked Communism, as he felt that it gave people like him an equal place with all others.
Of course, he wanted more than that, but Cuba, Russia, and other matters of his interest would at least give him a better chance in life.
He grew bitter because Russia did not work out and America scoffed at him because of his beliefs.
He liked Castro, but that went awry too.
He lived in a dream world, but his fantasy blew up and he wound up killing President Kennedy.
It is funny (I do not mean funny, ha ha) that all the pictures of a second shooter behind the Grassy Knoll are all fuzzy, and kind of look like someone may be there, or they could be leaves, branches, trees and other things.
The imagination of people can really run wild.
YET … some people still try to link these pictures to something or someone.
It is kind of like those pictures of Elvis being alive, but you could only see Elvis from his back, or side.
I kind of think that if the photographer were to take his picture from the front, then we would know that it was not Elvis.
My point of the Elvis pictures is, that there is nothing really there that will say … YES, THIS IS PROOF!
The FBI, CIA, Castro, Russia, and others, were just not in on the assassination.
You would have to involve way too many people, and someone would have talked by now.
Thank you.
I am,
George Vreeland Hill
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 20, 2011 2:39:58 GMT -4
Um . . . I think you may be missing the general feel around here.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 20, 2011 12:45:48 GMT -4
OK! You posts are rather declarative and your conclusions are not really in dispute. Are you interested in engaging in a conversation?
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 20, 2011 14:32:53 GMT -4
Also, saying Lee had "very few friends" rather implies that he had any friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 5, 2011 6:16:53 GMT -4
George, I agree with you that Oswald was solely responsible for the murder of JFK and the wounding of John Connally. The evidence is so overwhelming that I am simply baffled that so many people still insist on a huge conspiracy.
But you left out a very important supporting detail that ought to be much better known: Oswald's unsuccessful attempt to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963 with the same rifle he used to kill JFK 7 months later.
The next time somebody tries to convince you that Oswald was an innocent patsy, see if he knows about Oswald's attempt on Walker; a lot of people don't. Ask how many "patsies" have histories of attempted murder with the same weapon. And ask if emptying a revolver into a cop who rolls up to ask a question is typical behavior for an innocent man.
For some reason the JFK conspiracy fanatics don't like to bring up anything that would tend to make Oswald look less than angelic. And so they leave out quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Dec 5, 2011 6:29:58 GMT -4
There was a independent study done in 1997 using 30 different individual experts in their respective fields. It ranged from ballistics, trajectory animation experts, sound, weapons, criminal investigators among others. EVERY single one of them went into that study believing there was something to find and believed that their was a coverup or conspiracy at play. When they collectively studied and finished their testing not only did they concur that Oswald was the only shooter..it would be impossible for any other solution to have existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 5, 2011 7:18:33 GMT -4
I love hearing the conspiracy theorists point out that if there was a second shooter than that is proof of a conspiracy. While that is perfectly true, it is also a damn good reason not to use a second shooter even if it was a conspiracy!
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 5, 2011 7:50:46 GMT -4
I love hearing the conspiracy theorists point out that if there was a second shooter than that is proof of a conspiracy. While that is perfectly true, it is also a damn good reason not to use a second shooter even if it was a conspiracy! I haven't heard it expressed quite that way before. You're absolutely right! I look forward to using this argument on the next conspiracy fan who insists there had to be multiple shooters. But as we've noticed with Apollo hoaxers, it's hard to get them to think like the conspirators they insist existed. Ask why the conspirators didn't just add stars to the fake pictures or dig a crater under the fake LM and they'll stare blankly back at you. Their photographic "anomaly" is all the proof they need. Tracing out all the necessary implications of their hypothesis only risks running into contradictions -- and what's the fun in that? Might as well quit while you're ahead... |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 5, 2011 16:44:13 GMT -4
I love hearing the conspiracy theorists point out that if there was a second shooter than that is proof of a conspiracy. While that is perfectly true, it is also a damn good reason not to use a second shooter even if it was a conspiracy! And it's not even technically true. It's technically possible for it to have been a total coincidence--two people taking the same opportunity at the same time without knowledge of one another. Oh, I'm certainly not saying that's at all likely, and I don't use it in my "make a JFK conspiracy possible and still fit the evidence" scenario (which, of course, I don't believe anyway), but it's not entirely true that two gunmen mean a conspiracy. It's still a good reason not to use two gunmen, though, because it goes a long way toward implying a conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 5, 2011 18:19:10 GMT -4
As has been recently expressed elsewhere, the conspirators go to all the trouble of planting a patsy, framing him with buying the rifle that will be used for the assassination, plating that rifle in his work place, then you shoot JFK from an angle entirely different from your patsy???
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 5, 2011 18:37:51 GMT -4
Oh, yeah. The JFK assassination falls on logic grounds, if you're trying for a conspiracy. It's just such a dumb conspiracy. All that tinkering with the body at the airport and so forth? If you've thought ahead, you wouldn't need to do that, and if you haven't thought ahead, you aren't good enough to avoid getting caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Dec 5, 2011 19:21:51 GMT -4
The CTs say Oswald was a lousy shot and couldn't have pulled off the feat he was credited with. Yet the conspirators used, by most looney accounts, 3 or 4 assassins, each of whom was a worse shot than Oswald. One assassin missed the car entirely, another missed JFK's head and hit him in the neck, another missed JFK entirely and hit Connally, until the GK assassin got lucky and hit JFK's head.
Who were these incompetent conspirators who hired these inept snipers and how did they manage to get selected for the job in the first place? Did they not like their job and were trying to get fired so they could collect unemployment?
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 5, 2011 20:28:39 GMT -4
And ask if emptying a revolver into a cop who rolls up to ask a question is typical behavior for an innocent man. Or attempting to shoot the one who arrested him in the theatre, something only prevented by the cop getting his finger between the hammer and the pin. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 6, 2011 8:06:55 GMT -4
Thing is, if I was orchestrating a conspiracy to kill the President, I'd get a trained marksman and put him in a location away from the crowd, say in a building on an upper floor, and have him shoot the President at a point in the journey when his car was moving almost directly away from my gunman so as to minimise the 'moving target' problem... Oh, wait...  |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 6, 2011 12:18:09 GMT -4
And ask if emptying a revolver into a cop who rolls up to ask a question is typical behavior for an innocent man. Or attempting to shoot the one who arrested him in the theatre, something only prevented by the cop getting his finger between the hammer and the pin. Maybe he just really hated being interrupted while he was trying to watch a movie. |
|
