Posted:
#1
Conspiracy or lone gunman? And one or two reasons why you think that is the case.
GO!
GO!
0
JFK Assassination
Posted:
#3
Conspiracy for certain.
1. The CIA played JFK for a fool in the Bay of Pigs. He was forever lost from their control after that. He swore to dismantle their little geopolitical terror party. (Too many with too much to lose, therefore he had to be eliminated)
2. Oswald smells like he a was a former or current CIA asset. Of course, he was conveniently murdered to complete the deception.
1. The CIA played JFK for a fool in the Bay of Pigs. He was forever lost from their control after that. He swore to dismantle their little geopolitical terror party. (Too many with too much to lose, therefore he had to be eliminated)
2. Oswald smells like he a was a former or current CIA asset. Of course, he was conveniently murdered to complete the deception.
0
Posted:
#5
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Rear head shot has me confused.
Rear head shot has me confused.
In the London trial, Bugliosi proved (using the Zapruder film) that JFK's head actually moved a couple of inches forward at impact and then 8 inches backward after that. But you have to watch it frame by frame to see it. Now you still might believe someone shot him from the front, but these are the facts.
0
Posted:
#7
Quote Originally Posted by slikstiks99:
Conspiracy for certain.
1. The CIA played JFK for a fool in the Bay of Pigs. He was forever lost from their control after that. He swore to dismantle their little geopolitical terror party. (Too many with too much to lose, therefore he had to be eliminated)
2. Oswald smells like he a was a former or current CIA asset. Of course, he was conveniently murdered to complete the deception.
Conspiracy for certain.
1. The CIA played JFK for a fool in the Bay of Pigs. He was forever lost from their control after that. He swore to dismantle their little geopolitical terror party. (Too many with too much to lose, therefore he had to be eliminated)
2. Oswald smells like he a was a former or current CIA asset. Of course, he was conveniently murdered to complete the deception.
Why did he have to be murdered to complete the deception? And why Jack Ruby? Jack Ruby was mentally unstable.....a blabber mouth. A guy who loved the police (let them into his clubs for free all the time). If Oswald had to be murdered to complete the deception, why wasn't Ruby murdered to silence him? Why choose a baffoon (and Ruby most assuredly was one) to off Oswald?
Both these guys were unstable and unpredictable. That's the type of person that the government and the mob hire to do such an important job?
0
Posted:
#10
one of my earliest memories as a child. I was four years old and everyone was watching tv and crying. so strange
I can't go into too much detail for fear of my well being.....but everyone in La knows the New Orleans mob conducted the hit. I'm not typing the name of the boss in the Crescent City at the time, but you know who he was.....or google it or whatever
Jack Ruby belonged to him.
Jack Ruby belonged to him.Payback for brother Bobby's agressive litigation against la cosa nostra as Attorney General...... Plain and simple because those people were friends of the president's dad when he was a bootlegger during prohibition. they controlled the polls in many areas and got Jack elected to POTUS.
End of story..IMO
0
Posted:
#12
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
In the London trial, Bugliosi proved (using the Zapruder film) that JFK's head actually moved a couple of inches forward at impact and then 8 inches backward after that. But you have to watch it frame by frame to see it. Now you still might believe someone shot him from the front, but these are the facts.
Hutchman I've only seen the movie that was made. The slow motion frame by frame was pretty thorough I thought. Only explanation I can think of is that the brain stem and reflexes might react with unpredictable movements front and back on impact. Just guessing here. Be difficult to test unless we can find some deathrow inmate that's willing to take a headshot in a convertable.
0
Posted:
#18
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
....either way, bullistics back then were borderline non existent.
I go with two shooters. One rifle more advanced then Oswalt's with a higher velocity round being fired. That round would spin and twist all over that vehicle after impact.
able to check dna from a cold case file 30 yrs ago but they cant check the bullets fired from the gun now? where is oswalts gun now?
0
Posted:
#25
Quote Originally Posted by searchwarrant:
Gun powder on Oswalt's hand/forearm? You positively cannot fire a rifle or handgun without residual on exposed skin, especially on a bolt action rifle when you're clearing multiple rounds out of the ejection port.
Dig up the body.
Even if residue was found how would you know it was from the rifle or from the pistol used by Jack Ruby? I'm sure there residue would be left after being shot at point blank.
0
Hot Forum Topics
