How many questionable deaths of witnesses possibly related to the assassination?

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: How many questionable deaths of witnesses possibly related to the assassination?  (Read 6317 times)

Offline Jake Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 783
Does anyone have a list of questionable deaths of witnesses possibly related to the assassination?

Offline Lance Payette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Let's pretend we're sane and start with Mysterious Non-Deaths:

1. Ruth Paine
2. Michael Paine
3. Roy Truly
4. Bill Shelley
5. Buell Frazier
6. Lots and lots of others.

Geez, that's no fun, is it?

Offline Tom Sorensen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Let's pretend we're sane and start with Mysterious Non-Deaths:

1. Ruth Paine
2. Michael Paine
3. Roy Truly
4. Bill Shelley
5. Buell Frazier
6. Lots and lots of others.

Geez, that's no fun, is it?

Both Truly and Shelley died.

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Both Truly and Shelley died.

You do realize that if Truly was alive today he'd be 118 years old and Shelley would be 99 years old!

Both men survived decades after the event and lived into their 70's, but did you expect the geriatric Death Squad to break into their nursing homes and silence them? ROFL!

JohnM

Offline Tom Sorensen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
You do realize that if Truly was alive today he'd be 118 years old and Shelley would be 99 years old!

Both men survived decades after the event and lived into their 70's, but did you expect the geriatric Death Squad to break into their nursing homes and silence them? ROFL!

JohnM

My reply clearly went over your head. You're looking like a complete fool now. Thanks!

Offline Lance Payette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
You do realize that if Truly was alive today he'd be 118 years old and Shelley would be 99 years old!

Both men survived decades after the event and lived into their 70's, but did you expect the geriatric Death Squad to break into their nursing homes and silence them? ROFL!

JohnM
Far from missing my point, John, you are the one who understood it. Yes, I am sufficiently well-informed to know that Michael Paine, Truly and Shelley are deceased. The point being the one you recognize: they, and umpteen others who figure prominently in Conspiracy World, lived long after the JFKA. Truly died in 1985, Shelley in 1996 and Paine in 2018. As I asked in another thread, what sense does it make for Ruth Paine to still be alive at 92, having been a veritable fount of interviews and appearances for the past six decades? She could be trusted but Lee Bowers and Dorothy Kilgallen had to be eliminated? Really? For Ruth to still be alive makes no sense AT ALL if you believe that a myriad of mostly bit players were "mysteriously rubbed out" because they "knew too much." It's absolutely classic Conspiracy Logic - i.e., it Makes No Sense Whatsoever unless one locked into the bizarre mindset of Conspiracy Think.

Offline Tom Sorensen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Far from missing my point, John, you are the one who understood it. Yes, I am sufficiently well-informed to know that Michael Paine, Truly and Shelley are deceased. The point being the one you recognize: they, and umpteen others who figure prominently in Conspiracy World, lived long after the JFKA. Truly died in 1985, Shelley in 1996 and Paine in 2018. As I asked in another thread, what sense does it make for Ruth Paine to still be alive at 92, having been a veritable fount of interviews and appearances for the past six decades? She could be trusted but Lee Bowers and Dorothy Kilgallen had to be eliminated? Really? For Ruth to still be alive makes no sense AT ALL if you believe that a myriad of mostly bit players were "mysteriously rubbed out" because they "knew too much." It's absolutely classic Conspiracy Logic - i.e., it Makes No Sense Whatsoever unless one locked into the bizarre mindset of Conspiracy Think.

So you started a new thread under the same implicit, ridiculous presumption that the only criteria for bumping witnesses off is that they "knew too much," whatever that is supposed to mean. If this actually is the case, why don't you cite your source?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2025, 08:29:06 PM by Tom Sorensen »