.... after spending many billions of our tax dollars in the sham investigations.Well...wasting millions at least.
Well...wasting millions at least.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/HZkAAOSwF~hb3esN/s-l1600.jpg)
Not saying this particular magazine does, but sometimes the "Special" magazines have some good-resolution photographs and film grabs.
"The declassified documents that expose the facts"
There's nothing in the booklet that is new or revealing. It's an LNer support for the big lie dumped on us by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" and exploitation, for profit, of the murder of JFK.
Thank you for posting the photo of the booklet.... Notice the title "Who Killed Kennedy" And I ask... Does that title not suggest that they are presenting the answer to the question on millions of American lips? There are millions of Americans that do not believe the official government proffered tale that says that the arch villain Lee Harrrrrvey Osssswald ( Booo Hisss )
all alone , and for no reason murdered President Kennedy. The vast majority of those millions of Americans are looking for the easy ( and comfortable) answer, and the fact that most Americans are too apathetic to use their God given brain enables the Lners to continue to peddle the BS.
Tell us why JFK-assassination conspiracy believers have dropped from 81% to 61% since 2003On this forum? It figures.
On this forum? It figures.
Isn't it the dream of many on here, part time researchers, conspiracy theorists, lone nut theory, to actually write a book extolling their pet theories. Whilst not wanting to insult Mr.Cakebread but doesn't he fall within this category.
The JFK assassination industry has many facets, many income streams for many. Many of them are a work of fiction or twisting and distorting the available data to fit their agenda. Nothing is sacred as regards making a fast buck.
Complaining about The H Channel making a profit sounds a little disingenuous. Publications keep the kettle boiling. If the kettle goes silent have to find something else to carp about.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/HZkAAOSwF~hb3esN/s-l1600.jpg)
Not saying this particular magazine does, but sometimes the "Special" magazines have some good-resolution photographs and film grabs.
Jerry, Since you have posted the image of the booklet's cover, I wonder if you have the ability to post a page from the booklet? There is a letter from J E Hoover to Lee Rankin ( Warren Commission Counsel) published on page 82 of the booklet, that I would like to comment on. Can you post that letter?Sorry, Walt. I don't own a copy. My scanner is from Windows XP or something (no generic driver will run it in Windows 10). Can't be bothered to buy a new one for the amount of scanning I do now. Last thing I scanned was at the library for 15? a copy.
Sorry, Walt. I don't own a copy. My scanner is from Windows XP or something (no generic driver will run it in Windows 10). Can't be bothered to buy a new one for the amount of scanning I do now. Last thing I scanned was at the library for 15? a copy.
Maybe do a search with reference nos. in the letter printed in the magazine, and find a copy on the Internet to post.
I looked though a "Special" magazine a few days ago and saw a Backyard Photo with all the rifle detail. It looked something like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/96/132696-004-1B6A5A8A.jpg)
I think it's tweaking the contrast.
Sorry, Walt. I don't own a copy. My scanner is from Windows XP or something (no generic driver will run it in Windows 10). Can't be bothered to buy a new one for the amount of scanning I do now. Last thing I scanned was at the library for 15? a copy.
Maybe do a search with reference nos. in the letter printed in the magazine, and find a copy on the Internet to post.
I looked though a "Special" magazine a few days ago and saw a Backyard Photo with all the rifle detail. It looked something like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/96/132696-004-1B6A5A8A.jpg)
I think it's tweaking the contrast.
Sorry, Walt. I don't own a copy. My scanner is from Windows XP or something (no generic driver will run it in Windows 10). Can't be bothered to buy a new one for the amount of scanning I do now. Last thing I scanned was at the library for 15? a copy.
Maybe do a search with reference nos. in the letter printed in the magazine, and find a copy on the Internet to post.
I looked though a "Special" magazine a few days ago and saw a Backyard Photo with all the rifle detail. It looked something like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/96/132696-004-1B6A5A8A.jpg)
I think it's tweaking the contrast.
https://zmail04-mta.peak.org/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=5745&part=2
I think it's tweaking the contrast.Well, just wait until John Mytton gets a hold of everything...he will tweak the snot out of it ;)
Sorry, Walt. I don't own a copy. My scanner is from Windows XP or something (no generic driver will run it in Windows 10). Can't be bothered to buy a new one for the amount of scanning I do now. Last thing I scanned was at the library for 15? a copy.
Maybe do a search with reference nos. in the letter printed in the magazine, and find a copy on the Internet to post.
I looked though a "Special" magazine a few days ago and saw a Backyard Photo with all the rifle detail. It looked something like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/96/132696-004-1B6A5A8A.jpg)
I think it's tweaking the contrast.
Thanks, I'll try to figger out a way to post the Hoover letter that is printed on page 82 of the booklet....
And this photo is GREAT for showing that the "sling" that tricks the viewer into thinking that the "sling" is on the rifle is something that was added to the photo by the artist who altered the photo ( I believe the artist was Lee Oswald)
(https://cdn.britannica.com/96/132696-004-1B6A5A8A.jpg)
The old default image format for scanners was a TIF file. But anyone using the scanner can change the output format. I just reserve (through their website) the library's one computer station that has a scanner attached. I get a one-hour slot (usually for the next day). I scan stuff myself and save it onto a flash drive or to a personal account on an image-hosting service or cloud drive. Be sure to check that you don't leave things on the scanner bed before you leave.
Jerry I went to the library and they scanned page 82 and sent the scan to my computer ....How do I post the scan?
The old default image format for scanners was a TIF file. But anyone using the scanner can change the output format. I just reserve (through their website) the library's one computer station that has a scanner attached. I get a one-hour slot (usually for the next day). I scan stuff myself and save it onto a flash drive or to a personal account on an image-hosting service or cloud drive. Be sure to check that you don't leave things on the scanner bed before you leave.
If it's a TIF file (ie: ends in .tif or .tiff), you should convert it to a PNG or JPG file, which I believe is more acceptable to the Forum (along with the GIF format). Use an online graphics program that works in your browser ( ie Pixlr at link (https://pixlr.com/editor/) ). Upload the image and then do a "Save As" (in PNG or JPG) to your "Downloads" folder or some place you can find it later.
Then upload the new file to a free online image-hosting service. You will have to set up an account (that the FBI and CIA will monitor, alas) with the hosting service. They (the hosters, not the feds) will assign a link to that image that you can then post to the Forum To make the link appear as a photo, you have to paste the link after clicking onto the Forum's tiny picture frame ("Mona Lisa") icon among the icons that are above the "Reply" window.
The "sling" shows that an "artist" worked on the photo.... Surely, everybody can see that there is no sling attached to the rifle...
Every photo presented of the particular pose shows a sling to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the quality of each. Jerry has presented a high quality version.
Google it and learn something
You lot are so desparate you'll bleat anything just to protect your batspombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy pet theories
My Dear Dumb ass... The point is:.... There is no sling on the rifle in the photo ( CE 133A) What appears as a "sling" in the photo is a ludicrous artist's idea of a sling that was added to the photo. The version of the photo that Jerry presented makes this FACT very obvious.
The point is.... FBI photo experts examined the photo... They most certainly knew that what appeared to be a sling was added to the photo and is definitely an alteration of the photo...
Have you ever seen any official acknowledgement that the photo has been altered?
My Dear Dumb ass... The point is:.... There is no sling on the rifle in the photo ( CE 133A) What appears as a "sling" in the photo is a ludicrous artist's idea of a sling that was added to the photo. The version of the photo that Jerry presented makes this FACT very obvious.
The point is.... FBI photo experts examined the photo... They most certainly knew that what appeared to be a sling was added to the photo and is definitely an alteration of the photo...
Have you ever seen any official acknowledgement that the photo has been altered?
My Dear Dumb ass... The point is:.... There is no sling on the rifle in the photo ( CE 133A) What appears as a "sling" in the photo is a ludicrous artist's idea of a sling that was added to the photo. The version of the photo that Jerry presented makes this FACT very obvious.I believe part of the sling got between Oswald's left hand and the rifle in CE-133A. Another portion of the sling is seen by the bolt action.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-2008x2104.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg) | |
CE-133B | CE-133C |
I believe part of the sling got between Oswald's left hand and the rifle in CE-133A. Another portion of the sling is seen by the bolt action.
(https://images.newrepublic.com/369f68525e4dbfa137509ac3aa3b272ea18fc1c7.jpeg?w=1109&h=577&crop=faces&fit=crop&fm=jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-2008x2104.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
Other photos (above) show the full sling and its attachment points on the left side of the rifle, where both mounts were. CE-133A doesn't show the left side of the rifle. But there are in CE-133A what could be rope strands in the area of a metal band that went around the rifle's forestock. This band also supported a vertical metal loop that acted as the forward sling mount. Thus the forward end of the sling in CE-133A was tied to the sling mount but we can only see some loose rope strands that are beyond the knot.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/backyardphoto/slingmount.jpg)
Both sling mounts are on the left side of the rifle, as seen in this photo (below) of a Carcano which has a replica of the improvised leather sling that was found on the rifle in the Depository. This sling--the one in evidence--differs from the ad hoc rudimentary sling seen in the Backyard Photos.
Jerry, let's not attempt to confuse this very simple statement ( the photo that you presented)(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
This photo clearly shows that what an ignorant fool might believe is a sling , is in reality merely a addition to the photo to fool a sucker into believing that the rifle has a sling attached to it. As you can see in the photo of the replica carcano the rear sling loop is only a couple inches from the butt plate of the rifle ....and the imaginary sling in the BY photo CE 133A would have to be attached about ten inches forward of the butt plate......
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
We can see (because of the different angle in other photos) that the sling in 133A did go to tie at the area of the rear sling mount. Probably the sling was pinned between Oswald's upper thigh and the rifle in 133A. And so we end up only seeing a little loop of the sling hanging. Interesting the only photo showing the sling incomplete happens to be the only photo where the left side of the rifle is against Oswald's body. Poo-poo happens.
Note that in 133B and C the butt of the rifle is dragging onto his shirt, pinning fabric wrinkles. This means to me he's using his body to steady the rifle. In 133A he would be contacting the left side of the rifle against parts of his thigh and waist. A sling tied some ten inches from the butt plate would go around the stock itself and thus be visible when the right side can only be seen, as in 133A.
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
We can see (because of the different angle in other photos) that the sling in 133A did go to tie at the area of the rear sling mount. Probably the sling was pinned between Oswald's upper thigh and the rifle in 133A. And so we end up only seeing a little loop of the sling hanging. Interesting the only photo showing the sling incomplete happens to be the only photo where the left side of the rifle is against Oswald's body. Poo-poo happens.
Note that in 133B and C the butt of the rifle is dragging onto his shirt, pinning fabric wrinkles. This means to me he's using his body to steady the rifle. In 133A he would be contacting the left side of the rifle against parts of his thigh and waist. A sling tied some ten inches from the butt plate would go around the stock itself and thus be visible when the right side can only be seen, as in 133A.
One of the most glaring differences in the "slings" when comparing Ce 133A with 133c is: that is apparent the the "sling in CE 133A appears to be a flat strap, or a much larger diameter rope than is seen in 133c
We can see that the "sling" in 133c appears to be made from light "clothesline" rope.....As I recall the FBI examiner used the term "flimsy light weight rope" in referring to what appears to be a sling in 133c.
At any rate it's obvious that the "sling" in 133C appears to be smaller diameter rope than the "sling in CE 133A.
| (https://images.newrepublic.com/369f68525e4dbfa137509ac3aa3b272ea18fc1c7.jpeg?w=460&h=260&crop=faces&fit=crop&fm=jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg) |
Ever hear tell of perspective and 3D?
Another glaring problem with 133c is the bottom of the "sling" is attached too far forward to be looped through the rear sling loop on the left side of the stock. The actual measurement of that sling loop is exactly two inches forward of the butt plate.
And when viewing 133c, the sling loop would have to be about four inches from the butt plate
And what's more....The distance (space) between the wood of the stock and the metal of the sling mount is only 1/8".
IOW....A rope of the diameter( 3/8") shown in the photo (133C) would be too large to pass between the wooden stock and the metal rod.
| (http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/23572/21629120_4.jpg) | (https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4241203238/14445319/20170506143250-1692.jpg) |
(https://images.newrepublic.com/369f68525e4dbfa137509ac3aa3b272ea18fc1c7.jpeg?w=460&h=260&crop=faces&fit=crop&fm=jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
There's a narrow part of the sling that widens about the same area in both photos above. Possibly two rope strands are braided together or the sling was flattened somehow.
Ever hear tell of perspective and 3D?
(http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/23572/21629120_4.jpg) (https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4241203238/14445319/20170506143250-1692.jpg)
Yes. Would be impossible to get a piece of rope through there.
(https://images.newrepublic.com/369f68525e4dbfa137509ac3aa3b272ea18fc1c7.jpeg?w=460&h=260&crop=faces&fit=crop&fm=jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
There's a narrow part of the sling that widens about the same area in both photos above. Possibly two rope strands are braided together or the sling was flattened somehow.
Ever hear tell of perspective and 3D?
(http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/23572/21629120_4.jpg) (https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4241203238/14445319/20170506143250-1692.jpg)
Yes. Would be impossible to get a piece of rope through there.
(https://images.newrepublic.com/369f68525e4dbfa137509ac3aa3b272ea18fc1c7.jpeg?w=460&h=260&crop=faces&fit=crop&fm=jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
There's a narrow part of the sling that widens about the same area in both photos above. Possibly two rope strands are braided together or the sling was flattened somehow.
Ever hear tell of perspective and 3D?
(http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/23572/21629120_4.jpg) (https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4241203238/14445319/20170506143250-1692.jpg)
Yes. Would be impossible to get a piece of rope through there.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/HZkAAOSwF~hb3esN/s-l1600.jpg)
Not saying this particular magazine does, but sometimes the "Special" magazines have some good-resolution photographs and film grabs.
(https://images.newrepublic.com/369f68525e4dbfa137509ac3aa3b272ea18fc1c7.jpeg?w=460&h=260&crop=faces&fit=crop&fm=jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133c-crop-1200x800.jpg)
There's a narrow part of the sling that widens about the same area in both photos above. Possibly two rope strands are braided together or the sling was flattened somehow.
Ever hear tell of perspective and 3D?
(http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/23572/21629120_4.jpg) (https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4241203238/14445319/20170506143250-1692.jpg)
Yes. Would be impossible to get a piece of rope through there.
None of this really matters guys
We have seen the Zapruder film
He was shot through the right temple
It's as clear as day
move on
Oh, but it DOES matter.... The FBI weren't numbskulls.... They knew everything that has been posted on the subject of the difference between the TSBD carcano, and the carcano in the BY photo......but instead of telling us the truth...They lied and covered up the truth.
Back in the day....The FBI had access to all of the information that researchers have diligently uncovered and presented.
Thanks to the internet, and computers, we now know a portion of what they knew...when LBJ was in control.
Thanks to computers we can now examine evidence like the BY photo and see with our own eyes details that they knew way back in 1963. We no longer have to accept their lies... They KNEW that the carcano in Lee's hands in the B.Y. photo DID NOT match the carcano that was found in the TSBD. .... But they pretended that they couldn't determine if it was, or was not, the same rifle. Then they invented a fanciful tale about Lee fabricating a sling for the rifle so it would appear that the TSBD rifle was the same rifle that Lee held in his hand when the photo was taken.
Thanks to computers every screwball with a baseless theory can post it endlessly and believe that gives it validity. They can do this over and over until the end of times. If you believe that you have actual evidence here that Oswald was not the assassin, then present it to the NY Times and DPD. I'm sure they would be interested in any credible evidence that Oswald was not the assassin. You seem convinced that you have such evidence. Don't waste your time here. Let us know the results. If, however, you make no effort to do so, that simply confirms that you don't believe your own nonsense.
Thanks to computers every screwball with a baseless theory can post it endlessly and believe that gives it validity. They can do this over and over until the end of times. If you believe that you have actual evidence here that Oswald was not the assassin, then present it to the NY Times and DPD. I'm sure they would be interested in any credible evidence that Oswald was not the assassin. You seem convinced that you have such evidence. Don't waste your time here. Let us know the results. If, however, you make no effort to do so, that simply confirms that you don't believe your own nonsense.
Let us know the results. If, however, you make no effort to do so, that simply confirms that you don't believe your own nonsense.
I'm Sorry, Mr "Smith" ... I have no cure for cranialrectalitis ....Nor do I have a cranium extraction tool... And I might ad...YOU, Mr "Smith" would be one that might benefit from either a cure, or a cranialrectumology.
I keep waiting for these brainiacs to call their press conferences, what with all these 'revelations' about what 'really' went down that day.
Yes, if I had what I believed to be credible evidence to solve a murder or absolve someone wrongly accused, I would not spend my time on an Internet forum trying to convince random people. I would take it to the authorities or media. Particularly if it involved the assassination of the president. The fact that folks like Walt apparently make no effort whatsoever to do so confirms they are not serious about this or believe half of their own nonsense. It is just a game to pass the time.
Yes, if I had what I believed to be credible evidence to solve a murder or absolve someone wrongly accused, I would not spend my time on an Internet forum trying to convince random people. I would take it to the authorities or media. Particularly if it involved the assassination of the president. The fact that folks like Walt apparently make no effort whatsoever to do so confirms they are not serious about this or believe half of their own nonsense. It is just a game to pass the time.
No time / inkling to refute (or even raise an eyebrow) the lie that LHO killed JFK is uttered/written. Very few "youngsters" today are even interested in the shooting, let alone dig into to the details.
Entirely predictable. I reckon the same thing was the case 55 years on from the Lincoln assassination. People move on.
I did my own little "study" of that a few years back when my daugther was in high school. Not many kids her age really gave a "rats behind" about the JFK assassination, many knew very little about it and nary a one had even seen the Zapruder film. When I showed that film to my daughter and about 6-7 of her friends, I then asked which direction did the head shot come from. "From in front of the car somewhere..." was the general retort.
Then I tell them about the SBT.
They were all shocked at the WC version, even laughed about "how stupid people were back then" to believe that one. I'm guessing the same goes for most under the age of 25 these days - that have never read/seen anything other than the "History Channel" or read a "history book" in school.
I bet that they would see things differently if they were presented with the actual evidence rather than the superficial fluff that CTers get wrapped up in. Did you explain to them the two Oswald theory? What about the body alteration rubbish that supposedly occurred between Dallas and Washington?
Which basically mirrors our society here in the U.S. as the aging population dies off.
Our youth have been given plenty of distractions (since 9/11 especially) to keep them busy. No time / inkling to refute (or even raise an eyebrow) the lie that LHO killed JFK is uttered/written. Very few "youngsters" today are even interested in the shooting, let alone dig into to the details.
I did my own little "study" of that a few years back when my daugther was in high school. Not many kids her age really gave a "rats behind" about the JFK assassination, many knew very little about it and nary a one had even seen the Zapruder film. When I showed that film to my daughter and about 6-7 of her friends, I then asked which direction did the head shot come from. "From in front of the car somewhere..." was the general retort.
Then I tell them about the SBT.
They were all shocked at the WC version, even laughed about "how stupid people were back then" to believe that one. I'm guessing the same goes for most under the age of 25 these days - that have never read/seen anything other than the "History Channel" or read a "history book" in school.
As to presenting those kids with additional CTer angles and theories, one need not go to those lengths. Common sense dictates when presented with that piece of AZ film.
You're a fool Mr Smith.... The government has muzzled men who are far more learned and powerful than I......Have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Judge James Garrison? Even Garrison was rendered impotent by the US Government....
You and your kindred freely post your opinions endlessly here and other places. That is hard to square with the government "muzzling" anyone. Are you claiming that you have evidence of a conspiracy but are afraid to present that evidence to the NY Times or the authorities even though you post endlessly here on a public forum? Can you understand how that is a cowardly ad hoc excuse to explain away why no one else takes you seriously and that even you don't really believe your own nonsense? This is just a way to pass the time as a hobby. If you truly believed you had credible evidence that proves a conspiracy to murder the president, you would feel compelled to go to some respected media outlet like the NY Times and present your case. Not doing that tells us everything we need to know. You are either a coward or a kook.
You and your kindred freely post your opinions endlessly here and other places. That is hard to square with the government "muzzling" anyone.
Muzzles??... The government simply discredits ( or attempts to discredit ) anybody who criticizes the official government approved tale.
If you truly believed you had credible evidence that proves a conspiracy to murder the president, you would feel compelled to go to some respected media outlet like the NY Times and present your case.
I should go to the very ones who have dumped the big lie on us???
no one else takes you seriously and that even you don't really believe your own nonsense?
You're a liar Mr "smith... The very fact that you constantly feel compelled to discredit me, speaks loud and clear that "someone" takes me seriously.
Surely there must be one media outlet over 55 years after the event that is not under the control of the conspirators? And you would be compelled as someone with the evidence that absolves Oswald to approach them in a matter of this importance. Anyone involved in a JFK conspiracy in 1963 is either dead or drooling their soup in a senior citizens home. Not very dangerous or powerful. Just own up to the truth for once. You don't have confidence in the "evidence" that you present here. It is not credible. No informed source in the real world beyond these Internet forums would do anything other than fall over laughing at such claims.
Which basically mirrors our society here in the U.S. as the aging population dies off.
Our youth have been given plenty of distractions (since 9/11 especially) to keep them busy. No time / inkling to refute (or even raise an eyebrow) the lie that LHO killed JFK is uttered/written. Very few "youngsters" today are even interested in the shooting, let alone dig into to the details.
I did my own little "study" of that a few years back when my daugther was in high school. Not many kids her age really gave a "rats behind" about the JFK assassination, many knew very little about it and nary a one had even seen the Zapruder film. When I showed that film to my daughter and about 6-7 of her friends, I then asked which direction did the head shot come from. "From in front of the car somewhere..." was the general retort.
Then I tell them about the SBT.
They were all shocked at the WC version, even laughed about "how stupid people were back then" to believe that one. I'm guessing the same goes for most under the age of 25 these days - that have never read/seen anything other than the "History Channel" or read a "history book" in school.
Surely there must be one media outlet over 55 years after the event that is not under the control of the conspirators? And you would be compelled as someone with the evidence that absolves Oswald to approach them in a matter of this importance. Anyone involved in a JFK conspiracy in 1963 is either dead or drooling their soup in a senior citizens home. Not very dangerous or powerful. Just own up to the truth for once. You don't have confidence in the "evidence" that you present here. It is not credible. No informed source in the real world beyond these Internet forums would do anything other than fall over laughing at such claims.
The sane-stream media currently has their hands full laughing at Trump.
Waldo could always try Fox & Friends...
ok forget the kids
convince ME of the SBT please
please show me how a bullet goes from the 3rd thoracic to the throat
you couldn't recreate that shot lying down.
please enlighten us with your evidence
Quote from: Richard Smith on Today at 05:13:03 PMWe see what happened to Alex Jones' freedom of speech. No, the spineless will never stand up to the politically correct establishment. It started with the Garrison inquiry....how dare one question the letter perfect Warren Report.
Surely there must be one media outlet over 55 years after the event that is not under the control of the conspirators?
quote author=Bill Chapman link=topic=1431.msg39288#msg39288 date=1544811841]Actually, it's more like the lame-stream media...a topic of it's own.
The sane-stream media currently has their hands full...
the trouble with this case is that there were a whole lot of people with motive. Some of them were in the Cuban community, literally had bumper stickers on their cars suggesting JFK be killed.
Thanks to computers every screwball with a baseless theory can post it endlessly and believe that gives it validity.