JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Assassination was Sloppy and Amateurish
Dr Alan Howard Davis:
just one American citizen
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Dr Alan Howard Davis on July 13, 2025, 01:20:09 PM ---The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional. It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him. The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape. The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!
--- End quote ---
"The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional."
Okay, a strong opening statement - the assassination was "slick and professional".
Detailed arguments and supporting evidence have been put forward in this thread demonstrating that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish. It's a pity Dr Alan doesn't deal with a single point but not to worry, I'm sure his arguments supporting his belief that it was a professional job will shine through.
"It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him."
Errrm...does anyone know what this means?
It didn't matter where the bullets ended up?
What?
Surely it was the rifle that was used to implicate Oswald.
And the fact he left the TSBD building.
Maybe Dr Alan can expand on this statement because it's hard to understand
A] What it means.
B] How it supports his claim that the assassination was professional.
"The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape."
As has already been dealt with earlier in the thread, there was no shooter behind the picket fence, so let's not bother with that.
I'm more interested in this "distraction". Surely the shooter in the TSBD building was trying to assassinate JFK, not trying to cause a distraction.
"The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!"
Hmmmm...the shooter in the TSBD building wanted to be seen?
I'd really like to hear the logic supporting this statement.
How does this help the shooter in the TSBD building escape?
How is this "slick"?
Doesn't the fact that the shooter in the TSBD building was wearing a white shirt demonstrate that it wasn't a professional hit?
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Dr Alan Howard Davis on July 13, 2025, 11:08:53 PM ---Just one American citizen
--- End quote ---
Really?
You mean evil, evil, evil James JESUS Angleton did the shooting, too?
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on July 13, 2025, 11:19:19 PM ---"The assassination was neither sloppy or amateurish - but slick and professional."
Okay, a strong opening statement - the assassination was "slick and professional".
Detailed arguments and supporting evidence have been put forward in this thread demonstrating that the assassination was sloppy and amateurish. It's a pity Dr Alan doesn't deal with a single point but not to worry, I'm sure his arguments supporting his belief that it was a professional job will shine through.
"It didn't matter where the bullets from Oswald gun ended up as long as they were recoverable -to implicate him."
Errrm...does anyone know what this means?
It didn't matter where the bullets ended up?
What?
Surely it was the rifle that was used to implicate Oswald.
And the fact he left the TSBD building.
Maybe Dr Alan can expand on this statement because it's hard to understand
A] What it means.
B] How it supports his claim that the assassination was professional.
"The professional gunman behind the picket fence did his job but needed a distraction from the shooter in the TSBD to be able to escape."
As has already been dealt with earlier in the thread, there was no shooter behind the picket fence, so let's not bother with that.
I'm more interested in this "distraction". Surely the shooter in the TSBD building was trying to assassinate JFK, not trying to cause a distraction.
"The shooter (not Oswald) in the TSBD was wearing a white (look at me!) top -which is certainly not in the the sniper's handbook - he wanted to be seen!!"
Hmmmm...the shooter in the TSBD building wanted to be seen?
I'd really like to hear the logic supporting this statement.
How does this help the shooter in the TSBD building escape?
How is this "slick"?
Doesn't the fact that the shooter in the TSBD building was wearing a white shirt demonstrate that it wasn't a professional hit?
--- End quote ---
Since when was it established that Oswald wore a White Shirt to work on 11/22/63? If some of you are going to accept this White Shirt Shooter stuff, then you also have to buy into the sniper's nest shooter NOT being Oswald.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Royell Storing on July 14, 2025, 06:27:19 AM ---Since when was it established that Oswald wore a White Shirt to work on 11/22/63? If some of you are going to accept this White Shirt Shooter stuff, then you also have to buy into the sniper's nest shooter NOT being Oswald.
--- End quote ---
Storing,
Weren't T-shirts usually white in 1963?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version