|
|
|
|
|
 January 19, 2012, 05:14:14 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 134
|
There is overwhelming evidence against Oswald and eye witnesses that he pulled the trigger but the one thing that bugs me is that Mexico city picture of Oswald, that's not Oswald.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 05:47:35 PM by Jon Davies »
|
-------------------------
Oswald admitted his guilt when he claimed to have been a patsy.
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 19, 2012, 05:20:51 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
There is overwhelming evidence against Oswald and eye witnesses that he pulled the trigger but the one thing that bugs me is that Mexico city picture of Oswald, that's not Oswald.
Still eye witnesses saw him pull the trigger so there is no doubt.
Why not cite/quote these witnesses for me? How about citing some of the "overwhelming" evidence against LHO for me too? Oh wait, where did he go?  !
-------------------------
-------------------------
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
"Benavides- Saw Oswald kill Tippit, picked him out of a lineup." - Brian "Doesn't Know His Rear From His Back" Walker
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 19, 2012, 05:29:53 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2338
|
Vestan
I am a reformed CT. Once I too, believed much of what we see here, but not any more. I don't necessarily believe that the WC report was right on the money, but I think they were very close. I am not sure what the Mexico thing is all about, except to state I think the US Goverment has to be the only sensible choice there is, if someone was using his identity.
I am not sure if the SBT is a fact or not. To me it sure looks like 1 shot hits both men. But if not, I think that Oswald could certainly fire quickly enough to do all 3 shots. Fact is, there are no facts to work with, in terms of shot timing, instead there is opinion and speculation.
Too many people expect every last puzzle piece to fit perfectly. But if you ask real cops, real homicide detectives, it almost never works that way.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"you're the cop, you figure it out"
-Lee H. Oswald to Dallas Police detectives, weekend
of 11-22-63.
"Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say."
-James. J. Humes, excerpt of ARRB statement, 2-13-96
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 19, 2012, 05:32:52 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
Vestan
I am a reformed CT. Once I too, believed much of what we see here, but not any more. I don't necessarily believe that the WC report was right on the money, but I think they were very close. I am not sure what the Mexico thing is all about, except to state I think the US Goverment has to be the only sensible choice there is, if someone was using his identity.
I am not sure if the SBT is a fact or not. To me it sure looks like 1 shot hits both men. But if not, I think that Oswald could certainly fire quickly enough to do all 3 shots. Fact is, there are no facts to work with, in terms of shot timing, instead there is opinion and speculation.
Too many people expect every last puzzle piece to fit perfectly. But if you ask real cops, real homicide detectives, it almost never works that way.
And of course Geoff couldn't cite one piece of evidence that supposedly changed his mind either! I wonder why that is?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 19, 2012, 05:53:47 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 352
|
I don't "run" from anything, but yes, in any case, there are going to be unanswered questions. For me:
1. The shot order. I have mentioned this before, at the assumed moments of the first shot, the Z-film shows no reaction from the crowd except for Rosemary Willis. The behavior of the limo passengers is ambiguous. I would like to know what happened to the missing shot, and apparently never will. Plus, it was never found.
2. The SB hits behind the Stemmons Freeway sign and because of the location of JFK's hands as he emerges behind it, it looks like he's reacting an instant before Connally. We would have a clearer picture if that sign wasn't there.
3. The Robert Hughes film cuts out almost exactly at the moment Oswald should emerge from the Sixth Floor window. I mean, the man had the sixth floor window as the limo turned. Another second or two -- which he wasted on the getaway -- would have given us crucial info. It opens up a CT claim that the Hughes film was cropped.
4. Howard Brennan does not move or react at all in the Z-film. He testifies that he looks up, but as it seems so often in this case, this happens apparently immediately off camera, because in the Z-film, Brennan's not moving. It's frustrating.
5. The condition of the SB. I know it's counter-intuitive, and from a conspiracy perspective it makes no sense to plant a bullet, but it bugs me because it's another weird-ass thing that requires a long explanation and bogs down the discussion.
6. Silvia Odio was clearly telling the truth and I don't believe she was mistaken. Something's not known there.
7. There is an apparent partial government cover-up of some sorts. I suspect it's not the assassination, but bureaucratic ass-covering. But we won't know.
8. "The Wink."
9. The fact that our intelligence services did engage in political assassination and assassination attempts abroad. It's not like they wouldn't do it.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 05:55:04 PM by Lee Johnson »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 19, 2012, 06:42:03 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 8302
|
If I did Rob, you'd tell me the evidence didn't exist, that there is no evidence. You're purposely evading evidence when it is shown to you, a horse wearing blinders. By your choice. So whats the point in going there?
Vestan did not ask for evidence, he asked if anything was troubling.
Why can't you simply cite the evidence that changed your mind? Why is this soooooo hard for you? Why does what I may say affect your ability to cite? I smell a load of B.S. here. You can't cite the evidence because you were never a CTer in the first place in all likelihood OR you are paid to support the nonsense the WC gave us.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 19, 2012, 06:49:31 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 5253
|
I don't "run" from anything, but yes, in any case, there are going to be unanswered questions. For me:
1. The shot order. I have mentioned this before, at the assumed moments of the first shot, the Z-film shows no reaction from the crowd except for Rosemary Willis. The behavior of the limo passengers is ambiguous. I would like to know what happened to the missing shot, and apparently never will. Plus, it was never found.
2. The SB hits behind the Stemmons Freeway sign and because of the location of JFK's hands as he emerges behind it, it looks like he's reacting an instant before Connally. We would have a clearer picture if that sign wasn't there.
3. The Robert Hughes film cuts out almost exactly at the moment Oswald should emerge from the Sixth Floor window. I mean, the man had the sixth floor window as the limo turned. Another second or two -- which he wasted on the getaway -- would have given us crucial info. It opens up a CT claim that the Hughes film was cropped.
4. Howard Brennan does not move or react at all in the Z-film. He testifies that he looks up, but as it seems so often in this case, this happens apparently immediately off camera, because in the Z-film, Brennan's not moving. It's frustrating.
5. The condition of the SB. I know it's counter-intuitive, and from a conspiracy perspective it makes no sense to plant a bullet, but it bugs me because it's another weird-ass thing that requires a long explanation and bogs down the discussion.
6. Silvia Odio was clearly telling the truth and I don't believe she was mistaken. Something's not known there.
7. There is an apparent partial government cover-up of some sorts. I suspect it's not the assassination, but bureaucratic ass-covering. But we won't know.
8. "The Wink."
9. The fact that our intelligence services did engage in political assassination and assassination attempts abroad. It's not like they wouldn't do it.
ME TOO!.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Some things we know we know,the rest we have to find out for ourselves
One of the first things we found out was that the Warren Commission never pursued a conspiracy investigation.
Louis Stokes
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 19, 2012, 06:52:22 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1627
|
Why can't you simply cite the evidence that changed your mind? Why is this soooooo hard for you? Why does what I may say affect your ability to cite? I smell a load of B.S. here.
You can't cite the evidence because you were never a CTer in the first place in all likelihood OR you are paid to support the nonsense the WC gave us.
Let them rot Rob... If he wants to believe the bogus WCR and be another one of vinnies lap dogs like herr von pein let him.. I hope i live to see the day they will all have to eat there words in disgrace for perpetuating the biggest historic falsification of the past century.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions." Jerry Falwell " I'm not  " T Winky
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 20, 2012, 02:08:57 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1168
|
There is overwhelming evidence against Oswald and eye witnesses that he pulled the trigger but the one thing that bugs me is that Mexico city picture of Oswald, that's not Oswald.
I believe there was a request for a picture of Oswald entering the embassy in Mexico. A picture was not taken of everyone who entered the embassy, only of some. And Oswald was not one of those photographed. I don't know if Oswald entered through a different entrance than the one covered by a camera, of if Oswald did not seem interesting enough to photograph. They should have looked carefully at the pictures they did have, see that Oswald was not in any of the pictures, and report back that they did not have any pictures of Oswald. Instead they just sent the picture they did have for that day, and let Washington judge whether it was Oswald or not. When this picture was sent back, I don't think anyone reported that this was definitely a picture of Oswald. If anyone did, they did not study the picture carefully. I think this whole thing is just a typical government foul up. Someone receives a request for some information. They spend an hour or two handling this request, foul up the job and go on to the next item in their in box.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
