JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Patrick Jackson on November 12, 2021, 11:42:16 AM
-
Since the forum was hacked and deleted in January 2018, I was in great doubt if to post my theory and findings again.
As 11/22 approaches again, I have decided to write few lines mostly to see if there are more researchers now who think, believe or know that JFK did not die that day in Dallas.
If you remember, my theory is that the "assassination" in Dallas was a staged event with aim to pull heavily ill JFK out of politics. Many wanted to kill him and it was almost inevitable and at some point JFK, Jackie, SS and Hoover came to an idea to fake assassination as a win win for everybody.
JFK was leading US and world politics towards more humanity, dignity and world as a better place to live and many did not like it. Dozens of groups and organizations wanted to kill him, from CIA, Federal reserve to mafia and military capitalist earning huge money out of wars.
I believe that on 11/22/1963 JFK left Dallas alive onboard his "Caroline" plane and went to Florida Winter White House. He died in March 1967 and buried at Arlington cemetery on March 14-15, 1967. Official story states his casket moved to a better spot that night but it was a cover up for his real burial.
Several participants of this staged assassination on 11/22/1963 are still alive.
*My original post back in 2015 was named "Final Solution" but at that time a was not aware this term was used by Nazis to describe mass murders across Europe in WWII.
-
Yes, Patrick, he died that day. You may have read too many National Enquirers back in the 70s that said folks were wheeling him around in a wheelchair alive.
-
Hey Patrick, way back when, one of our members complimented you for being tenacious re your theory and I always admired you for being very polite when you answered any criticism. Questions. If JFK faked his shooting how does Connally factor in
your theory because he supposedly was shot as well? When would the both of them rehearse their reactions as if they were indeed shot at the same time? And, would they have done that faked shooting in front of their wives? In front of thousands of people? Possibly on film? Let alone going to the hospital with their fake wounds? Etc.
-
Hey Patrick, way back when, one of our members complimented you for being tenacious re your theory and I always admired you for being very polite when you answered any criticism. Questions. If JFK faked his shooting how does Connally factor in
your theory because he supposedly was shot as well? When would the both of them rehearse their reactions as if they were indeed shot at the same time? And, would they have done that faked shooting in front of their wives? In front of thousands of people? Possibly on film? Let alone going to the hospital with their fake wounds? Etc.
Thank you very much Dan. I always tried to keep calm as much as possible and carry on research.
John and Nellie Connally did not know what was really going on, they were not among those who knew it was faked.
There were two small pyrotechnical devices with aim to sound as gun shots when activated.
First was activated in Zapruder frame 223 and my conclusion is that it was hidden behind presidential blanket hanged on right rear doors. When activated it created a strong wave causing Connally right hand to fly violently and I believe this is when his wrist broke. In the same time JFK raised his hands acting as hit.
Second device was activated in Zapruder frame 313 and it was hidden in a flower decorated pouch between JFK and Jackie.
The trouble with second device was that it was over-dimensioned causing it to explode in pieces like a hand grenade hitting Connally like "shower of bullets". One larger piece hit inner windshield frame.
Dealey plaza was chosen because it was at the end of the motorcade and there were not "thousands" of people but not more than 50 who had clear sight on the limo in Zapruder 223. This number of people was enough to wittiness the "assassination".
Zapruder position on Dealey plaza was pure coincidence.
-
That's far out stuff but when you think it about it, it is not any more baseless than any of the other CTer theories in this case. Body alterations, shooters hiding in the bushes, random citizens lying to implicate Oswald, the involvement of high level government officials in the murder of the President. Given the evidence that implicates Oswald in this crime is beyond any doubt, any alternative theory is far out by necessity. So I give Patrick an A for creativity.
-
Hey Patrick, more questions if you don't mind.
Why would JFK want to fake a throat wound before faking his own death?
If there was a device to cause the sound of a shot in the roses given to Jackie at Love Field how would she not notice that something is wrong here? Was it metal? Was there a timer?
You also stated that one of the devices placed in the car caused a the hole in the windshield. Would the trajectory of that
shrapnel from inside the limo fit ... to cause Tague's minor wound down the street?
-
Thank you very much Dan. I always tried to keep calm as much as possible and carry on research.
John and Nellie Connally did not know what was really going on, they were not among those who knew it was faked.
There were two small pyrotechnical devices with aim to sound as gun shots when activated.
First was activated in Zapruder frame 223 and my conclusion is that it was hidden behind presidential blanket hanged on right rear doors. When activated it created a strong wave causing Connally right hand to fly violently and I believe this is when his wrist broke. In the same time JFK raised his hands acting as hit.
Second device was activated in Zapruder frame 313 and it was hidden in a flower decorated pouch between JFK and Jackie.
The trouble with second device was that it was over-dimensioned causing it to explode in pieces like a hand grenade hitting Connally like "shower of bullets". One larger piece hit inner windshield frame.
Dealey plaza was chosen because it was at the end of the motorcade and there were not "thousands" of people but not more than 50 who had clear sight on the limo in Zapruder 223. This number of people was enough to wittiness the "assassination".
Zapruder position on Dealey plaza was pure coincidence.
Thank you very much Dan. I always tried to keep calm as much as possible and carry on research.
_That would be the meds-in-charge-of-calmness talking
John and Nellie Connally did not know what was really going on, they were not among those who knew it was faked.
_or planted or altered in some way
First was activated in Zapruder frame 223 and my conclusion is that it was hidden behind presidential blanket hanged on right rear doors
_'my conclusion confusion'
When activated it created a strong wave causing Connally right hand to fly violently and I believe this is when his wrist broke.
_which he didn't notice until Monday
In the same time JFK raised his hands acting as hit.
_Jackie threw a punch at the womanizer
Second device was activated in Zapruder frame 313 and it was hidden in a flower decorated pouch between JFK and Jackie.
_'flower decorated pouch pooch
The trouble with second device was that it was over-dimensioned causing it to explode in pieces like a hand grenade hitting Connally like "shower of bullets".
_'over other-dimensioned
In closing, I agree that you are polite and are probably sincere and a nice guy.
But have a few loose screws. Possibly from one of your devices.
-
Given the evidence that implicates Oswald in this crime is beyond any doubt...
Each and every evidence and "evidence" you touch connected to Oswald is absolutely doubted for 58 years now. You do not have one single 100% clear evidence connecting Oswald to that rifle and three shots. What ever you mention, researchers found numerous irregularities in the past six decades from where he was to where he went not to mention rusted rifle...
-
Hey Patrick, more questions if you don't mind.
Why would JFK want to fake a throat wound before faking his own death?
If there was a device to cause the sound of a shot in the roses given to Jackie at Love Field how would she not notice that something is wrong here? Was it metal? Was there a timer?
You also stated that one of the devices placed in the car caused a the hole in the windshield. Would the trajectory of that
shrapnel from inside the limo fit ... to cause Tague's minor wound down the street?
I do not have answers for all the questions for sure.
I think that original plan was not to fake throat wound but chest wound. After the first device was activated, JFK acted like hit, like he wanted to rip his tie and shirt out of pain. When they were planing everything, they most probably decided to have at least two "shots" to be more realistic.
Jackie knew what was going on but she was not aware the devices were too powerful. I believe they tried everything before Dallas. The devices were activated remotely, I believe by Dark-Complected Man who was never identified.
I did not stated that parts of the device caused hole in the windshield but on the inner windshield frame. That is the famous damage near the right sun visor.
-
But have a few loose screws. Possibly from one of your devices.
If there are "few" only than I might be on the right track?
-
I hesitate to ask, but why wouldn't JFK just have resigned if he had health conditions that rendered him unable to continue as president instead of staging this elaborate hoax?
-
Hey Patrick, just to see if I'm correct re your theory. There were two devices in the limo which would give off sounds as if they were shots but they were more severe than they should have been. One actually wounded Connally and the second caused JFK to be in extreme pain. So, JFK could have accidently caused his own death as he was in the process of his faking his own death? And, the blood? If I'm not mistaken there were cannisters which JFK would have pressed (in pain) to spray something resembling blood which would have sprayed on Jackie and himself? On the outside on Jackie and within the clothes of JFK, himself? Am I correct on that?
-
Each and every evidence and "evidence" you touch connected to Oswald is absolutely doubted for 58 years now. You do not have one single 100% clear evidence connecting Oswald to that rifle and three shots. What ever you mention, researchers found numerous irregularities in the past six decades from where he was to where he went not to mention rusted rifle...
---------------------
CT WONDERLAND
BOOK OF OSWALD
---------------------
BOOK I: LUNATIC FRINGE
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable
-
Hey Patrick, just to see if I'm correct re your theory. There were two devices in the limo which would give off sounds as if they were shots but they were more severe than they should have been. One actually wounded Connally and the second caused JFK to be in extreme pain. So, JFK could have accidently caused his own death as he was in the process of his faking his own death? And, the blood? If I'm not mistaken there were cannisters which JFK would have pressed (in pain) to spray something resembling blood which would have sprayed on Jackie and himself? On the outside on Jackie and within the clothes of JFK, himself? Am I correct on that?
Maybe Oswald was recruited to fire a blank and by mistake like Alec Baldwin he accidentally fired a real shot. Realizing his mistake he said "Go-o-o-o-lly" like Gomer Pyle and made tracks.
-
Maybe rebrand this thread to 'Final Confusion'
-
I hesitate to ask, but why wouldn't JFK just have resigned if he had health conditions that rendered him unable to continue as president instead of staging this elaborate hoax?
That is a good question and for sure I do not have the best answer.
Many wanted him dead so maybe at some point of time he said if you want me dead you will have me dead.
On the other hand, his illness was still not severe in 1963 and resigning due to illness was like defeat. If Roosevelt was president with his Paralytic illness than JFK would stand for one more year for sure.
-
Hey Patrick, just to see if I'm correct re your theory. There were two devices in the limo which would give off sounds as if they were shots but they were more severe than they should have been. One actually wounded Connally and the second caused JFK to be in extreme pain. So, JFK could have accidently caused his own death as he was in the process of his faking his own death? And, the blood? If I'm not mistaken there were cannisters which JFK would have pressed (in pain) to spray something resembling blood which would have sprayed on Jackie and himself? On the outside on Jackie and within the clothes of JFK, himself? Am I correct on that?
Second device was activated violently in Zapruder frame 313, flew up between Jackie and JFK and hit JFK in his face and I believe he got some injuries from that device. It was hidden in a pouch given to Jackie and inside the pouch there was red liquid to act as blood, maybe a real blood. When exploded, the blast sprayed the liquid mostly upward and towards JFK torso.
If you set your mind that there was small explosion coming between JFK and Jackie, I am sure you will easily understand what I am writing. Go back to frames 310-320 and check. Try to forget everything you know about assassination and expect a blast from bellow. It is like if you would show this 10 frames to a person knowing nothing about it, I am sure many would tell you, it is a blast between them.
First device was activated in Zapruder Z223 frame and did not have red liquid.
-
Maybe Oswald was recruited to fire a blank and by mistake like Alec Baldwin he accidentally fired a real shot. Realizing his mistake he said "Go-o-o-o-lly" like Gomer Pyle and made tracks.
I believe Oswald had nothing to do with it and that he was on the TSBD steps in Zapruder frame 313.
The answer I am looking for is who, how and when planted a gun on the sixth floor. Was it Mauser or Carcano?
-
How did you come up with this "theory"?
-
I believe Oswald had nothing to do with it and that he was on the TSBD steps in Zapruder frame 313.
The answer I am looking for is who, how and when planted a gun on the sixth floor. Was it Mauser or Carcano?
So you are suggesting that JFK would knowingly allow an innocent man to take the blame for his assassination and spend the rest of his life in jail or perhaps even be executed? Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of JFK's character. You do raise some interesting points regarding JFK's health. We now know that JFK suffered from numerous health conditions which were treated with a laundry list of drugs. JFK lied and covered up his health conditions while running for office. Under modern standards and perhaps even at that time, he would have been deemed incapable of being president had those facts come to light. Imagine if the press found out that President Trump had been taking the same list of drugs as JFK including amphetamines while president? They would have called for his resignation and claimed he was a risk to national security. But JFK got a pass from the leftist press. Some things never change.
-
So you are suggesting that JFK would knowingly allow an innocent man to take the blame for his assassination and spend the rest of his life in jail or perhaps even be executed? Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of JFK's character. You do raise some interesting points regarding JFK's health. We now know that JFK suffered from numerous health conditions which were treated with a laundry list of drugs. JFK lied and covered up his health conditions while running for office. Under modern standards and perhaps even at that time, he would have been deemed incapable of being president had those facts come to light. Imagine if the press found out that President Trump had been taking the same list of drugs as JFK including amphetamines while president? They would have called for his resignation and claimed he was a risk to national security. But JFK got a pass from the leftist press. Some things never change.
How did JFK "get a pass" about this matter? The evidence is that the drug regimen he was on was a well-guarded secret. No one outside a small circle of people knew about it. Robert Dallek only broke it in 2002 when he was given access to JFK's medical records.
It was a different era, a time when the media was much more supportive of the presidency. Any president. Especially on private matters.
-
How did JFK "get a pass" about this matter? The evidence is that the drug regimen he was on was a well-guarded secret. No one outside a small circle of people knew about it. Robert Dallek only broke it in 2002 when he was given access to JFK's medical records.
It was a different era, a time when the media was much more supportive of the presidency. Any president. Especially on private matters.
I'm pretty sure Nixon would not have been treated the same. In fact, a few years later the media basically ended his presidency. But the real point is that JFK suffered from serious health concerns and took a laundry list of drugs that should have precluded him from ever being president. He lied about those conditions and no one from the press ever bothered to investigate.
-
So you are suggesting that JFK would knowingly allow an innocent man to take the blame for his assassination and spend the rest of his life in jail or perhaps even be executed?
Of course not. Oswald was a wrong man on the wrong place. Because of his life in USSR and coming back to the US, he was a person of interest. If he did not left TSBD in panic, if he was calm and waited everything to settle that day, most probably he would not be charged. When he saw the "assassination" he left TSBD in panic knowing that he will be prime suspect. I am sure you would do the same.
-
How did you come up with this "theory"?
Everything is in photos, videos, testimonies... When I started researching, I set my mind to see if there is something else apart CT and LN and it showed that the truth is somewhere between.
-
Of course not. Oswald was a wrong man on the wrong place. Because of his life in USSR and coming back to the US, he was a person of interest. If he did not left TSBD in panic, if he was calm and waited everything to settle that day, most probably he would not be charged. When he saw the "assassination" he left TSBD in panic knowing that he will be prime suspect. I am sure you would do the same.
How do you figure that since Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene by someone? Obviously, he either left it there or someone else left it there to frame him for the crime.
-
Of course not. Oswald was a wrong man on the wrong place. Because of his life in USSR and coming back to the US, he was a person of interest. If he did not left TSBD in panic, if he was calm and waited everything to settle that day, most probably he would not be charged. When he saw the "assassination" he left TSBD in panic knowing that he will be prime suspect. I am sure you would do the same.
How did he know the "assassination" occurred? How did he know he would be the suspect? If he was having lunch at the time of the shooting, then came out to see what happened, how did he know anything about what happened? People around the TSBD were unsure as to what happened. They heard shots but weren't' sure whether the president was hit or not.
According to the people who where there and from photos and films, it was chaos. Nobody really knew what happened. It was all confusion and rumors. But you think Oswald saw all of this, concluded the president was shot, and then further concluded I better run because I'm going to be blamed? Why not stay and show he couldn't have done it?
-
I'm pretty sure Nixon would not have been treated the same. In fact, a few years later the media basically ended his presidency. But the real point is that JFK suffered from serious health concerns and took a laundry list of drugs that should have precluded him from ever being president. He lied about those conditions and no one from the press ever bothered to investigate.
My question as to how the media gave him a pass for his drug regimen is still on the table. Dallek broke the story in 2002. He says the treatment was closely held and only known by a small group in the Kennedy circle. The media didn't know about it so they couldn't have given JFK a "pass."
As to the press: RFK and JFK had to answer the claims that JFK suffered from serious illness, specifically Addison's Disease. He lied. It was a different era, the media were simply not as confrontational or challenging as they are now. And JFK appeared remarkably healthy except for his bad back problems. There was nothing indicating outwardly that he was as ill as he was.
-
My question as to how the media gave him a pass for his drug regimen is still on the table. Dallek broke the story in 2002. He says the treatment was closely held and only known by a small group in the Kennedy circle. The media didn't know about it so they couldn't have given JFK a "pass."
As to the press: RFK and JFK had to answer the claims that JFK suffered from serious illness, specifically Addison's Disease. He lied. It was a different era, the media were simply not as confrontational or challenging as they are now. And JFK appeared remarkably healthy except for his bad problems. There was nothing indicating outwardly that he was as ill as he was.
Nixon lied to the media as well. The media didn't give him a pass. They investigated and found sources. DC is full of folks willing to leak information. JFK had long, well publicized stays in the hospital over the years including during his term in Congress. He almost died. It was a different time but the media gave him a pass on many topics including his health, womanizing etc. Had they been interested in doing his administration harm, as they did with Nixon, he would have been toast. But they were elitist liberals and JFK was their president.
-
How do you figure that since Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene by someone? Obviously, he either left it there or someone else left it there to frame him for the crime.
There are testimonies that one TSBD employee brought Mauser rifle the previous day and showed to his colleagues. In this moment I cannot search for exact data but it is there for sure. Nobody investigated what exactly happened to that Mauser and I believe that was the rifle found in TSBD, not Oswalds Carcano. There are many discussions and comparisons between this two rifles.
-
How did he know the "assassination" occurred? How did he know he would be the suspect? If he was having lunch at the time of the shooting, then came out to see what happened, how did he know anything about what happened? People around the TSBD were unsure as to what happened. They heard shots but weren't' sure whether the president was hit or not.
According to the people who where there and from photos and films, it was chaos. Nobody really knew what happened. It was all confusion and rumors. But you think Oswald saw all of this, concluded the president was shot, and then further concluded I better run because I'm going to be blamed? Why not stay and show he couldn't have done it?
At the very instant there were people who claimed it was assassination. If Oswald was on the TSBD steps he must have heard the sounds and saw the commotion, people running towards Grassy knoll. If you were there, what would you think that is happening? Firecrackers, motorcycle backfires or gun shots? People reactions corresponds to what? Nah, it was firecrackers guys, clam down and go home... Nah, it was back fire... Or, it were gun shots and people got panic? Immediate reaction of everybody could only mean that there were gun shots and there was no reason Oswald to think about anything else but gun shots.
Why he did not stay? Well, he got panicked as everybody else.
-
Since the forum was hacked and deleted in January 2018, I was in great doubt if to post my theory and findings again.
As 11/22 approaches again, I have decided to write few lines mostly to see if there are more researchers now who think, believe or know that JFK did not die that day in Dallas.
If you remember, my theory is that the "assassination" in Dallas was a staged event with aim to pull heavily ill JFK out of politics. Many wanted to kill him and it was almost inevitable and at some point JFK, Jackie, SS and Hoover came to an idea to fake assassination as a win win for everybody.
JFK was leading US and world politics towards more humanity, dignity and world as a better place to live and many did not like it. Dozens of groups and organizations wanted to kill him, from CIA, Federal reserve to mafia and military capitalist earning huge money out of wars.
I believe that on 11/22/1963 JFK left Dallas alive onboard his "Caroline" plane and went to Florida Winter White House. He died in March 1967 and buried at Arlington cemetery on March 14-15, 1967. Official story states his casket moved to a better spot that night but it was a cover up for his real burial.
Several participants of this staged assassination on 11/22/1963 are still alive.
*My original post back in 2015 was named "Final Solution" but at that time a was not aware this term was used by Nazis to describe mass murders across Europe in WWII.
Totally absurd.
-
So you are suggesting that JFK would knowingly allow an innocent man to take the blame for his assassination and spend the rest of his life in jail or perhaps even be executed? Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of JFK's character. You do raise some interesting points regarding JFK's health. We now know that JFK suffered from numerous health conditions which were treated with a laundry list of drugs. JFK lied and covered up his health conditions while running for office. Under modern standards and perhaps even at that time, he would have been deemed incapable of being president had those facts come to light. Imagine if the press found out that President Trump had been taking the same list of drugs as JFK including amphetamines while president? They would have called for his resignation and claimed he was a risk to national security. But JFK got a pass from the leftist press. Some things never change.
"Leftist Press" :D
There is no "leftist press". There was never a "leftist press" in the 60's or 70's either.
Back then, an FCC rule called the Fairness Doctrine existed. That rule mandated that radio and tv stations must have a conservative and a liberal balance of news on every station so no bias could occur. If a station violated the rule then they would be subjected to fines. So, it was impossible to have a "leftist media" as you continue to falsely claim.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan let the Fairness Doctrine expire which paved the way for the right wing media takeover we continue to see today. Rupert Murdoch immediately swooped in a bought up independent tv stations in all major media markets and turned them into FOX tv stations. Clear Channel radio bought up radio stations all across America and started syndicating right wing talk shows. Sinclair Broadcasting bought up hundreds of local ABC, CBS, NBC tv affiliates and began pushing far right wing propaganda into their local news in major cities all across America. The Fairness Doctine was gone and the right was able to start their assault in every form of mass communication because they were allowed to and no laws prevented them from doing it.
The same thing happened with newspapers and now with CNN and news sites like Politico being bought out by right wing corporations or individuals. So, this "leftist media" is a myth being propagated by the right. They do that for two reasons: One is to keep the mainstream media from reporting all the GOP corruption because the MSM is afraid to appear to look biased for actually doing the job they are supposed to be doing. And two, it allows the right to justify buying up more media outlets. All they say is "it's a liberal media so we need to compete" which is false because they own everything.
When Faux Propaganda gets sued in court their own lawyers tell the judge "Don't listen to Carlson, Hannity, or Ingraham because they are not news, they are entertainment". Their own lawyers in a court of law argue that Faux is indeed the lying propaganda that is. They constantly lie about imaginary election fraud, the insurrection, and Criminal Donald's crimes. GOP politicians echo the same lies and the sheep on the right believe it all. It's just one big right wing echo chamber and propaganda machine.
And you continue to disparage the legacy of JFK with conspiracy theories.
Back in the day, the private personal lives of presidents was never reported. The press never reported stuff about FDR, Truman, Ike, Johnson, and even Nixon. So, don't push propaganda trying to claim it was a "leftist press" that gave JFK a pass. And also, these are after the fact claims with swirling conspiracy theories trying to discredit JFK.
Criminal Donald was reported to be addicted to Adderall and his mental health alone should have disqualified him from even being in office. Even his own cabinet was looking for a way to invoke the 25th Amendment because he was insane and was a threat to our national security. This was a lunatic who wanted to start a nuclear war with China to stay in power. A maniac who incited an insurrection to illegally seize power. A loser who continues to lie about non existent voter fraud because he can't admit he lost in a blowout election since his narcissistic ego can't handle it. Even his own former officials said he is mentally ill. 27 top Psychologists said he is nuts. He was a risk to national security and still is according to many top officials that witnessed his insane manic behavior.
These 27 Top Shrinks Think Trump Might Be Nuts
https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-27-top-shrinks-think-trump-might-be-nuts
With regards to Nixon, the only reason that he resigned was because Republicans back in the 70's cared about America and supported the Constitution and the rule of law holding a President accountable for his crimes in office. We also had a fair and respected media that didn't push outright lies and propaganda 24/7 on right wing cable news outlets. They did investigative reporting and just reported straight news without the spin. If the right wing media was around back in 1974 along with the same GOP traitors we have in office today, Nixon never would have resigned because the GOP traitors would have protected him like they did for Criminal Donald and the right wing media would have been brainwashing the people on the right just like they do today.
-
Totally absurd.
If so, than nothing more than LN and CT theories.
-
Get help . What the f happened to this forum ?
-
Get help .
Writes the forum member who can not write more that two lines in his posts...
-
Writes the forum member who can not write more that two lines in his posts...
Says the guy who had just previously written just one line, in his reply. 😂
-
Says the guy who had just previously written just one line, in his reply. 😂
Writes a Hero Member who does not know that I am not saying anything but writing.
-
It's hilarious to see CTers calling out Patrick. At least he has the courage to admit that he is a CTer and offer a narrative. Our resident contrarians won't even try. And the more generally espoused JFK theories such as those from Oliver Stone are no less nutty than Patrick's theory. The body alterations, people hiding in the bushes, faking of all manner of evidence implicating hundreds of people from all walks of life into a conspiracy to kill the President. LOL. But Patrick is the nutty one according to these people.
-
At the very instant there were people who claimed it was assassination. If Oswald was on the TSBD steps he must have heard the sounds and saw the commotion, people running towards Grassy knoll. If you were there, what would you think that is happening? Firecrackers, motorcycle backfires or gun shots? People reactions corresponds to what? Nah, it was firecrackers guys, clam down and go home... Nah, it was back fire... Or, it were gun shots and people got panic? Immediate reaction of everybody could only mean that there were gun shots and there was no reason Oswald to think about anything else but gun shots.
Why he did not stay? Well, he got panicked as everybody else.
If he was on the steps of the TSBD then he was surrounded by people, by his fellow co-workers like Frazier and others. They can give him an alibi. There's no need to take off. But I thought you believed he was inside having lunch? He said in a brief interview that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting.
Again: the people who were there, around the steps, didn't know exactly what happened. It was chaos and confusion. Nobody knew what happened. Those who were there said they asked each other about what was going on. In fact, a number of people ran to the Grassy Knoll, fence and overpass. That's where some people thought the shots came from.
Oswald did numerous things after the shooting that I simply don't think an innocent person would have done. In fact, he did things that a guilty person would do. But others, like you, obviously disagree.
I
-
It's hilarious to see CTers calling out Patrick. At least he has the courage to admit that he is a CTer and offer a narrative. Our resident contrarians won't even try. And the more generally espoused JFK theories such as those from Oliver Stone are no less nutty than Patrick's theory. The body alterations, people hiding in the bushes, faking of all manner of evidence implicating hundreds of people from all walks of life into a conspiracy to kill the President. LOL. But Patrick is the nutty one according to these people.
Well, yes, I am a CTst but my CT goes towards framing Oswald. I think that everything was done to show Oswald did it. Also, there is no doubt there was conspiracy to kill JFK. Many wanted him dead but when Oswald arose as a prime suspect everything was done to frame him and show he did it. Each and every evidence about Oswald is doubted for 58 years, you do not have single 100% clear evidence about him but you have numerous items connected to him on the clumsy and unprofessional way.
-
If he was on the steps of the TSBD then he was surrounded by people, by his fellow co-workers like Frazier and others. They can give him an alibi. There's no need to take off. But I thought you believed he was inside having lunch? He said in a brief interview that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting.
Again: the people who were there, around the steps, didn't know exactly what happened. It was chaos and confusion. Nobody knew what happened. Those who were there said they asked each other about what was going on. In fact, a number of people ran to the Grassy Knoll, fence and overpass. That's where some people thought the shots came from.
Oswald did numerous things after the shooting that I simply don't think an innocent person would have done. In fact, he did things that a guilty person would do. But others, like you, obviously disagree.
I
There were not many Oswald coworkers to give him alibi being on the TSBD front steps, two or three, not more... Shelley, Lovelady, Fraizer... He was standing at the back row and everybodys attention was forward. In addition, he might went out minute before motorcade arrived. Now, If you look on how DPD handled Oswald, dragging and pulling him back and forward, if you look Ruby killing him, if you look crowd celebrating his murder, if you are 19 years old in a community hating communists (as Oswald was presented at the very start)... if you take everything into the consideration, will YOU ONLY step up and say he was on the steps? No, sir, you would not have courage same as Frazier never did, nobody would have courage for sure. Fraizer is still alive and I think that one day he will say it but who knows.
People did not know what was going on because of a simple reason: there were NO three gun shots but three sounds. You can search Youtube for videos of people reacting on shooting and gun shoots. Reaction is dunk, run away and hide. If the shots came from the TSBD sixth floor, many, many would dunk, run away and hide but almost nobody did. Instead you have only people next to the limo at Zapruder frame 313 who reacted as people react on shooting. This made you to conclude that shots came from the limo area...
It is true that Oswald did some things that a guilty person would do but that does not makes him guilty, right? Lets say you have illegal gun and you walk down the street and see a murder. What would you do? You know you are not guilty but you still have a gun with you. Will you keep it or throw it away?If you keep it and police finds it, they will interrogate you, maybe make you a suspect. So, you will get rid of it for sure as soon as possible, right? Same as Oswald, leaving TSBD right away, does not make him guilty, having a gun also, resisting a rest also does not make him guilty. Does leaving a wedding ring makes him guilty!? Absolutely not.
-
There were not many Oswald coworkers to give him alibi being on the TSBD front steps, two or three, not more... Shelley, Lovelady, Fraizer... He was standing at the back row and everybodys attention was forward. In addition, he might went out minute before motorcade arrived. Now, If you look on how DPD handled Oswald, dragging and pulling him back and forward, if you look Ruby killing him, if you look crowd celebrating his murder, if you are 19 years old in a community hating communists (as Oswald was presented at the very start)... if you take everything into the consideration, will YOU ONLY step up and say he was on the steps? No, sir, you would not have courage same as Frazier never did, nobody would have courage for sure. Fraizer is still alive and I think that one day he will say it but who knows.
People did not know what was going on because of a simple reason: there were NO three gun shots but three sounds. You can search Youtube for videos of people reacting on shooting and gun shoots. Reaction is dunk, run away and hide. If the shots came from the TSBD sixth floor, many, many would dunk, run away and hide but almost nobody did. Instead you have only people next to the limo at Zapruder frame 313 who reacted as people react on shooting. This made you to conclude that shots came from the limo area...
It is true that Oswald did some things that a guilty person would do but that does not makes him guilty, right? Lets say you have illegal gun and you walk down the street and see a murder. What would you do? You know you are not guilty but you still have a gun with you. Will you keep it or throw it away?If you keep it and police finds it, they will interrogate you, maybe make you a suspect. So, you will get rid of it for sure as soon as possible, right? Same as Oswald, leaving TSBD right away, does not make him guilty, having a gun also, resisting a rest also does not make him guilty. Does leaving a wedding ring makes him guilty!? Absolutely not.
Does leaving a wedding ring makes him guilty!? Absolutely not.
In the mind of a die hard LN it most certainly does..... They are so obsessed with Oswald being a lone nut shooter, that him leaving a light on is for them conclusive evidence of guilt
-
Does leaving a wedding ring makes him guilty!? Absolutely not.
_Agreed
In the mind of a die hard LN it most certainly does..... They are so obsessed with Oswald being a lone nut shooter, that him leaving a light on is for them conclusive evidence of guilt
_Leaving all his money AND wedding ring behind was strange
_Eliminate one of those and fewer LN eyebrows will be raised
-
Does leaving a wedding ring makes him guilty!? Absolutely not.
_Agreed
In the mind of a die hard LN it most certainly does..... They are so obsessed with Oswald being a lone nut shooter, that him leaving a light on is for them conclusive evidence of guilt
_Leaving all his money AND wedding ring behind was strange
_Eliminate one of those and fewer LN eyebrows will be raised
And let's not forget, Oswald did something similar when he missed sitting duck Walker.
-
And let's not forget, Oswald did something similar when he missed sitting duck Walker.
A little different than paper
-
Does leaving a wedding ring makes him guilty!? Absolutely not.
In the mind of a die hard LN it most certainly does..... They are so obsessed with Oswald being a lone nut shooter, that him leaving a light on is for them conclusive evidence of guilt
Among all the people at Dealey Plaza at 12:30PM, Oswald was probably the only one person of interest due to his life in USSR. If you would line them all together, you would only pick him for further interrogation. He was aware of this and he run away even he had nothing to do with it.
OK, he left the ring and the money, probably expecting he will be apprehended and questioned.
Still, you come to a gun question, why did he take the gun? He was in a great fear and could not think clearly.
All in all, when you take everything into the consideration, it is very hard to accept he did it as a LN.
-
Does leaving a wedding ring makes him guilty!? Absolutely not.
In the mind of a die hard LN it most certainly does..... They are so obsessed with Oswald being a lone nut shooter, that him leaving a light on is for them conclusive evidence of guilt
Talk about a strawman. No LNer in history has ever suggested that the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning "makes him guilty." LOL. Rather, in the context of the totality of circumstances and evidence that links Oswald to this crime, it is just another brick in the wall of his guilt. For the first and only time of his marriage according to Marina, Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning after an unscheduled visit to the Paine home (where he also kept his rifle). The same day he would be arrested for the assassination of JFK. What a coincidence. Tell us again how you are impartial and not a CTer. Whew.
-
Talk about a strawman. No LNer in history has ever suggested that the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning "makes him guilty." LOL. Rather, in the context of the totality of circumstances and evidence that links Oswald to this crime, it is just another brick in the wall of his guilt. For the first and only time of his marriage according to Marina, Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning after an unscheduled visit to the Paine home (where he also kept his rifle). The same day he would be arrested for the assassination of JFK. What a coincidence. Tell us again how you are impartial and not a CTer. Whew.
It's interesting (but not really) that Mr. "I challenge all claims equally and it's a lie to say otherwise" is completely silent about challenging Patrick Jackson's conspiracy claims. No, he makes a claim up about the wedding ring. No lone assassin believer has said what he claims. It's not just a strawman it's an invisible man. It's nowhere to be seen.
There are about a dozen posts/threads here - the Stone movie, another conspiracy book, et cetera - making conspiracy arguments. And Mr. "I challenge all claims equally" has posted zero times at any of those challenging those allegations.
I do agree with him on one thing, though. Somebody in this exchange with him is making things up. They certainly are.
-
Talk about a strawman. No LNer in history has ever suggested that the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning "makes him guilty." LOL. Rather, in the context of the totality of circumstances and evidence that links Oswald to this crime, it is just another brick in the wall of his guilt. For the first and only time of his marriage according to Marina, Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning after an unscheduled visit to the Paine home (where he also kept his rifle). The same day he would be arrested for the assassination of JFK. What a coincidence. Tell us again how you are impartial and not a CTer. Whew.
Talk about a strawman.
So, you don't know what a strawman actually is.... that explains a lot Thumb1:
-
It's interesting (but not really) that Mr. "I challenge all claims equally and it's a lie to say otherwise" is completely silent about challenging Patrick Jackson's conspiracy claims. No, he makes a claim up about the wedding ring. No lone assassin believer has said what he claims. It's not just a strawman it's an invisible man. It's nowhere to be seen.
There are about a dozen posts/threads here - the Stone movie, another conspiracy book, et cetera - making conspiracy arguments. And Mr. "I challenge all claims equally" has posted zero times at any of those challenging those allegations.
I do agree with him on one thing, though. Somebody in this exchange with him is making things up. They certainly are.
Please show us all where I actually said what you have quoted here;
"I challenge all claims equally and it's a lie to say otherwise"
or be exposed as a liar.
-
Talk about a strawman. No LNer in history has ever suggested that the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning "makes him guilty." LOL. Rather, in the context of the totality of circumstances and evidence that links Oswald to this crime, it is just another brick in the wall of his guilt. For the first and only time of his marriage according to Marina, Oswald left his wedding ring at home that morning after an unscheduled visit to the Paine home (where he also kept his rifle). The same day he would be arrested for the assassination of JFK. What a coincidence. Tell us again how you are impartial and not a CTer. Whew.
Wall of Oswald guilt is full of missing bricks from the very begining and LNrs are trying to fill it for 58 years now. Not a single brick in your wall is 100% true evidence for his guilt. It seems that the only true thing about Oswald and 11/22/63 is that he was working at TSBD. Everything else is conspiracy to frame him.
-
Talk about a strawman.
So, you don't know what a strawman actually is.... that explains a lot Thumb1:
Most people who use the term "strawman" have no clue what it means. They use it as a desperation attempt when they've lost the debate as a pathetic way to accuse you of being wrong when they no longer have a valid argument to make. It's a gaslighters tactic.
-
Talk about a strawman.
So, you don't know what a strawman actually is.... that explains a lot Thumb1:
Another strawman. You can tell as Martin/Otto get increasingly hysterical that their silly arguments are coming apart. The posts get shorter, contain insults, and do not even attempt to address any substantive points being made. Destination rabbit hole!
-
Another strawman. You can tell as Martin/Otto get increasingly hysterical that their silly arguments are coming apart. The posts get shorter, contain insults, and do not even attempt to address any substantive points being made. Destination rabbit hole!
Another strawman.
Nope... not a strawman at all, but you wouldn't understand that as it has already been established that you don't know the meaning of the word.
Beyond that, there isn't much reason for lengthy replies to the BS you write as you ignore it anyway and keep on repeating the same crap over and over again.
do not even attempt to address any substantive points being made
Could it be that you also do not know the meaning of the words "substantive points"?
-
Wall of Oswald guilt is full of missing bricks from the very begining and LNrs are trying to fill it for 58 years now. Not a single brick in your wall is 100% true evidence for his guilt.
Just like no single pixel in a photograph is proof of the overall picture. The case against Oswald, as set out by Vincent Bugliosi, is not made up of 53 facts each of which prove Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by themselves. Rather, those 53 very probable facts together provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
One undisputable fact, however, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is that JFK did not fake his own assassination.
-
One undisputable fact, however, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is that JFK did not fake his own assassination.
Proved by who? It was never an object of any official investigation so you absolutely can not write what you wrote.
-
Proved by who? It was never an object of any official investigation so you absolutely can not write what you wrote.
To any reasonable person.
In order to have an investigation one needs some evidence that gives some reason to suspect that JFK faked his death and that the abundant evidence that he didn't was false.
Some facts are so clear that an investigation is not warranted. For example, it is proven that Hitler lost WWII As far as I can see, no one has ever investigated whether he lost. Similarly, no one will ever investigate whether JFK really died. It is obvious to any reasonable person that he died on 22Nov63.
-
To any reasonable person.
In order to have an investigation one needs some evidence that gives some reason to suspect that JFK faked his death and that the abundant evidence that he didn't was false.
Some facts are so clear that an investigation is not warranted. For example, it is proven that Hitler lost WWII As far as I can see, no one has ever investigated whether he lost. Similarly, no one will ever investigate whether JFK really died. It is obvious to any reasonable person that he died on 22Nov63.
Well, what a reasonable person see after 58 years now is that there is something very wrong with the official story told by the Warren Report. When I started researching, I wanted to see is there something else besides WR, LN, CT... My research lead me to a conclusion that JFK did not die that day in Dallas.
No, I do not have evidences in my possession but they do exist. One of them is Dr. Robert N. McClelland blood stained shirt he wore at the Trauma room 1. National Archives have cloths JFK wore that day, too. Would be interesting to see what the DNA analysis would bring as a result. Also, several participants are still alive such as Clint Hill and Caroline Kennedy who were never asked this question.
If you are a reasonable person in 21st century, knowing everything you know about US politics of deceptions, conspiracies and cover-ups in the last 5-6 decades, I am sure you will be able to at least accept possibility that there is something else that might happen in Dallas that day.
-
To any reasonable person.
In order to have an investigation one needs some evidence that gives some reason to suspect that JFK faked his death and that the abundant evidence that he didn't was false.
Some facts are so clear that an investigation is not warranted. For example, it is proven that Hitler lost WWII As far as I can see, no one has ever investigated whether he lost. Similarly, no one will ever investigate whether JFK really died. It is obvious to any reasonable person that he died on 22Nov63.
A reasonable person standard has never stood between any CTer and a good yarn. In that regard, Patrick's theory is no less outlandish and baseless than many of the more commonly accepted JFK theories such as body alterations, Oswald doubles, random citizens lying to implicate Oswald, and all manner of evidence being faked or planted by persons unknown to name just a few. I give Patrick some credit for at least having a theory no matter how bizarre. Some of these CTers are just contrarian nitpickers of the evidence against Oswald leaving what they believed happened to our imagination but that is the laziest way to be a CTer (i.e. purport to have no theory but endlessly imply Oswald didn't do it).
-
Well, what a reasonable person see after 58 years now is that there is something very wrong with the official story told by the Warren Report. When I started researching, I wanted to see is there something else besides WR, LN, CT... My research lead me to a conclusion that JFK did not die that day in Dallas.
No, I do not have evidences in my possession but they do exist. One of them is Dr. Robert N. McClelland blood stained shirt he wore at the Trauma room 1. National Archives have cloths JFK wore that day, too. Would be interesting to see what the DNA analysis would bring as a result. Also, several participants are still alive such as Clint Hill and Caroline Kennedy who were never asked this question.
If you are a reasonable person in 21st century, knowing everything you know about US politics of deceptions, conspiracies and cover-ups in the last 5-6 decades, I am sure you will be able to at least accept possibility that there is something else that might happen in Dallas that day.
So, Patrick, is it also your theory that Officer Tippit faked his death too? Why would that have been part of the plan? Or was the plan so clever that even Oswald thought he had killed President Kennedy? And, if so, how did "they" do that?
-
A reasonable person standard has never stood between any CTer and a good yarn. In that regard, Patrick's theory is no less outlandish and baseless than many of the more commonly accepted JFK theories such as body alterations, Oswald doubles, random citizens lying to implicate Oswald, and all manner of evidence being faked or planted by persons unknown to name just a few. I give Patrick some credit for at least having a theory no matter how bizarre. Some of these CTers are just contrarian nitpickers of the evidence against Oswald leaving what they believed happened to our imagination but that is the laziest way to be a CTer (i.e. purport to have no theory but endlessly imply Oswald didn't do it).
A reasonable person standard has never stood between any CTer and a good yarn.
And what exactly would that standard for a "reasonable" person be?
The only standard I have seen from you is no standard at all. Anything, no matter how far fetched, that possibly could point to Oswald's guilt is automatically accepted and everything else, including the many discrepancies are totally ignored and instantly dismissed as nitpicking.
You considering yourself to be a reasonable person defies all reasonability and logic.
-
I give Patrick some credit for at least having a theory no matter how bizarre.
The trouble with theories other than CT and LN is that they are thrown away right away without any effort to investigate further.
The thing is very simple: 58 years both CT and LN are strongly disputed. Why is it impossible that there was something else? Is it absolutely, zillion percent impossible JFK faked his death? No, it is absolutely possible.
-
So, Patrick, is it also your theory that Officer Tippit faked his death too? Why would that have been part of the plan? Or was the plan so clever that even Oswald thought he had killed President Kennedy? And, if so, how did "they" do that?
No, my theory and conclusion does not mean that Tippit faked his death. I think that Tippit was murdered in an independent incident not related to Oswald.
-
Hey Patrick, if JFK wanted to fake his own death why all the drama of an assassination? Wouldn't he have done it in the easiest way possible and with the least amount of witnesses? While sleeping last night JFK died of a stroke. Poor JFK. JFK was on his sailboat and he tripped and fell in the ocean. THE SS agents onboard tried to save him but he ended up drowning? His body was lost at sea. Poor JFK. Things like that. Why have dozens of people - if not more - needed to support a fake
assassination? Let alone the consequences afterwards as to who or what group would be blamed for killing Kennedy which
he faked.
-
No, my theory and conclusion does not mean that Tippit faked his death. I think that Tippit was murdered in an independent incident not related to Oswald.
So it was just a coincidence that Oswald fit the description of Tippit's murderer, that Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down, that Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant and had bullets that matched the type used to kill Tippit, that Oswald pulled his gun out in the Texas Theatre and said "Well, it's all over now" and tried to shoot the arresting officer?
-
Hey Patrick, if JFK wanted to fake his own death why all the drama of an assassination? Wouldn't he have done it in the easiest way possible and with the least amount of witnesses? While sleeping last night JFK died of a stroke. Poor JFK. JFK was on his sailboat and he tripped and fell in the ocean. THE SS agents onboard tried to save him but he ended up drowning? His body was lost at sea. Poor JFK. Things like that. Why have dozens of people - if not more - needed to support a fake
assassination? Let alone the consequences afterwards as to who or what group would be blamed for killing Kennedy which
he faked.
So, imagine that you owe a huge amount of money to some criminals and that at some point of time you realize you must escape to save your life. But if you escape, they will hunt you to the end of the world so you come to an idea that the best would be to fake your death and start new identity (place yourself in 1960s when things were much, much easier).
Now, what would be more convincing and effective in front of those criminals, somebody to machine gun shoot you somewhere in public in front of many witnesses or to die out of stroke in your bed who knows where?
Of course, you will need some help to fake it, but no matter what it is very plausible.
When we speak about JFK, there is no doubt that many wanted him dead and if he chose a stroke death his coffin would be open, many would be able to see him, the whole thing would be too slow. On the opposite, the way it was faked in Dallas provided speed and chaos, not many questions asked, coffin closed and buried in two days...
-
So, I assume you worked your way backwards from the day he actually died to his faked assassination which leads me to believe you have rock solid evidence in the form of witnesses like doctors, nurses, staff etc. who interacted with him.
Or some kind of physical evidence linked to him.
Correct?
Wrong, of course. I do not have rock solid evidences, same as you do not have any for what you believe in. I do not have possibility to gather solid evidences since I do not live in US nor have funds for travel. I made my conclusions out of many testimonies and photos available online. At some point a draw lines and made connections and I believe my connections are true and correct.
-
So it was just a coincidence that Oswald fit the description of Tippit's murderer, that Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down, that Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant and had bullets that matched the type used to kill Tippit, that Oswald pulled his gun out in the Texas Theatre and said "Well, it's all over now" and tried to shoot the arresting officer?
Are all these coincidences impossible?
Was Oswald the only one to fit the description? No.
Jacket found seems never to be linked to Oswald.
Carrying the similar gun does not prove he was the murderer, right.
As I know, bullets never matched Oswald gun.
How do you know he tried to shot arresting officer? Everybody wanted to be heroes that day in Dallas, is there a chance you can give some possibility that some testimonies were exaggerated?
-
So, imagine that you owe a huge amount of money to some criminals and that at some point of time you realize you must escape to save your life. But if you escape, they will hunt you to the end of the world so you come to an idea that the best would be to fake your death and start new identity (place yourself in 1960s when things were much, much easier).
Now, what would be more convincing and effective in front of those criminals, somebody to machine gun shoot you somewhere in public in front of many witnesses or to die out of stroke in your bed who knows where?
Of course, you will need some help to fake it, but no matter what it is very plausible.
When we speak about JFK, there is no doubt that many wanted him dead and if he chose a stroke death his coffin would be open, many would be able to see him, the whole thing would be too slow. On the opposite, the way it was faked in Dallas provided speed and chaos, not many questions asked, coffin closed and buried in two days...
Hey, Patrick. I did present another scenario that JFK could have did while he was on his sailboat. Lost at sea with no body to be buried with very few witnesses who saw it ... so to speak. But lets look at something else. If your reverse conspiracy theory is correct, how many people were in the loop and how many people had to be drawn into the loop after the ruse? Did Bobby, Ted. his mother know beforehand? His relatives? Close friends? Etc? Now the ones who would have been drawn into the loop with no choice. Doctors? Nurses? A priest? People taking autopsy pictures? An undertaker? God knows how many more. I don't see it.
-
Hey, Patrick. I did present another scenario that JFK could have did while he was on his sailboat. Lost at sea with no body to be buried with very few witnesses who saw it ... so to speak. But lets look at something else. If your reverse conspiracy theory is correct, how many people were in the loop and how many people had to be drawn into the loop after the ruse? Did Bobby, Ted. his mother know beforehand? His relatives? Close friends? Etc? Now the ones who would have been drawn into the loop with no choice. Doctors? Nurses? A priest? People taking autopsy pictures? An undertaker? God knows how many more. I don't see it.
That is the good question and number of people was not huge. You have two groups, first are those directly participated in the plot and second group are those who knew about it.
Direct participants were JFK, Jackie, Clint Hill, Jack Ready, Kellerman, Greer, Landis, Kinney, Roberts, Hickey, O'Donnell, McIntyre and Malcolm Killduff. Possibly 2-3 SS agents more.
The main issue was to provide a switch body at Parkland hospital. On November 21st there was a murder and suicide at Abilene when a man (similar age and constitution as JFK) killed his wife and then committed a suicide by shooting at his head through his mouth and his body was used as switch body at Parkland Trauma room 1. There were at least two doctors who prepared his body and helped with the switch. One of them was Dr Fouad Bashour. Among this 19-20 people, there were pilots of the JFKs Caroline plane and there was Hoover who also knew about the plot and there were two ladies at the Love Field. So, in total, not more that 30 people knew what is really happening.
RFK and Ted Kennedy knew about it, JFK mother also knew but I think that it was kept secret from his father. Caroline and John Jr were the greatest risk but I also think they both knew and spent great time with their father until he died in 1967.
Also, there were more people who knew it after 11/22/63, mostly doctors and nurses who treated JFK in Florida.
One of the main participants is still alive, Clint Hill and he was never asked the question if the assassination was faked and maybe it is better to remain that way.
-
So, in total, not more that 30 people knew what is really happening.
RFK and Ted Kennedy knew about it, JFK mother also knew but I think that it was kept secret from his father.
You think they told the father that JFK had died and didn't tell him that, in fact, JFK was still alive? That is as absurd as your fantasy that JFK faked his death, but for some strange reason I would be interested in knowing why you would think the family would do that....
Caroline and John Jr were the greatest risk but I also think they both knew and spent great time with their father until he died in 1967.
How about all the children of Bobby and Ethel Kennedy? What about JFK's sisters and their families? What about JFK's fortune? Why would JFK let that go?
One of the main participants is still alive, Clint Hill and he was never asked the question if the assassination was faked and maybe it is better to remain that way.
He was never asked because the thought has not occurred to anyone but you.
-
You think they told the father that JFK had died and didn't tell him that, in fact, JFK was still alive? That is as absurd as your fantasy that JFK faked his death, but for some strange reason I would be interested in knowing why you would think the family would do that....
How about all the children of Bobby and Ethel Kennedy? What about JFK's sisters and their families? What about JFK's fortune? Why would JFK let that go?
He was never asked because the thought has not occurred to anyone but you.
I was absolutely not the first person to investigate faked assassination. There were theories before me for sure.
I think that I have established almost the full line from Love Field via Parkland to Florida.
-
I was absolutely not the first person to investigate faked assassination. There were theories before me for sure.
I think that I have established almost the full line from Love Field via Parkland to Florida.
You did not answer my questions.
-
That is the good question and number of people was not huge. You have two groups, first are those directly participated in the plot and second group are those who knew about it.
Direct participants were JFK, Jackie, Clint Hill, Jack Ready, Kellerman, Greer, Landis, Kinney, Roberts, Hickey, O'Donnell, McIntyre and Malcolm Killduff. Possibly 2-3 SS agents more.
The main issue was to provide a switch body at Parkland hospital. On November 21st there was a murder and suicide at Abilene when a man (similar age and constitution as JFK) killed his wife and then committed a suicide by shooting at his head through his mouth and his body was used as switch body at Parkland Trauma room 1. There were at least two doctors who prepared his body and helped with the switch. One of them was Dr Fouad Bashour. Among this 19-20 people, there were pilots of the JFKs Caroline plane and there was Hoover who also knew about the plot and there were two ladies at the Love Field. So, in total, not more that 30 people knew what is really happening.
RFK and Ted Kennedy knew about it, JFK mother also knew but I think that it was kept secret from his father. Caroline and John Jr were the greatest risk but I also think they both knew and spent great time with their father until he died in 1967.
Also, there were more people who knew it after 11/22/63, mostly doctors and nurses who treated JFK in Florida.
One of the main participants is still alive, Clint Hill and he was never asked the question if the assassination was faked and maybe it is better to remain that way.
Hey, Patrick just to comment re the above and please excuse the musical reference. If I accept your theory then President Kennedy wanted to fake a dead Kennedy situation - re him - but he couldn't move forward with his plan unless there was a dead Kennedy look-a-like to take his place in the coffin. Now, on the day before a look-a-like Kennedy killed his wife and then himself and this allowed the real Kennedy to become a fake dead Kennedy. So, if that event didn't take place then the real Kennedy wouldn't have died - so to speak - in Dallas but in whatever city where there will be a look-a-like dead Kennedy. Am I right about that? Also who informed JFK that a look-a-like killed himself the day before? Did his look-a-like and his dead wife have funerals? Was it in the papers? Were relatives notified? Why isn't my brother in a funeral home by now? Etc.
Btw ... the Dead Kennedys was a Rock Band way back when.
-
You did not answer my questions.
Well, I do not know all the answers of course... You want me to write you exactly who knew, it is absurd to expect that from me. I THINK that his brothers and sisters knew he is alive, not their children and I have impresion it was kept secret from his father.
As I always write, put yourself in the position somebody wants to kill you and you decide to fake your death. Will you say it to everybody or not?
As of the fortune, you have to realize that JFK was aware he was deadly ill. What exact fortune do you think and who got it after his "death"?
-
Hey, Patrick just to comment re the above and please excuse the musical reference. If I accept your theory then President Kennedy wanted to fake a dead Kennedy situation - re him - but he couldn't move forward with his plan unless there was a dead Kennedy look-a-like to take his place in the coffin. Now, on the day before a look-a-like Kennedy killed his wife and then himself and this allowed the real Kennedy to become a fake dead Kennedy. So, if that event didn't take place then the real Kennedy wouldn't have died - so to speak - in Dallas but in whatever city where there will be a look-a-like dead Kennedy. Am I right about that? Also who informed JFK that a look-a-like killed himself the day before? Did his look-a-like and his dead wife have funerals? Was it in the papers? Were relatives notified? Why isn't my brother in a funeral home by now? Etc.
Btw ... the Dead Kennedys was a Rock Band way back when.
When I was researching, I came accross this murder/suicide the day earlier in Abilene but it does not mean they used this body. Key object here was to find hospital personel to perform the switch and participate in the whole thing. They could find the body somewhere else as well. Will try to find you that Abilene case. I had all names but have to search through files.
-
Just like no single pixel in a photograph is proof of the overall picture. The case against Oswald, as set out by Vincent Bugliosi, is not made up of 53 facts each of which prove Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by themselves. Rather, those 53 very probable facts together provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
No. Something is either evidence of guilt or it is not. A bunch of things that are not evidence at all (like a ring in a cup) do not magically combine into evidence of murder. All they are is rhetorical padding for a weak case.
Lots of us had a laugh at Patrick's blood cannons the first time he broached the subject. But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Oswald did it" cult. It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.
-
A reasonable person standard has never stood between any CTer and a good yarn. In that regard, Patrick's theory is no less outlandish and baseless than many of the more commonly accepted JFK theories such as body alterations, Oswald doubles, random citizens lying to implicate Oswald, and all manner of evidence being faked or planted by persons unknown to name just a few. I give Patrick some credit for at least having a theory no matter how bizarre. Some of these CTers are just contrarian nitpickers of the evidence against Oswald leaving what they believed happened to our imagination but that is the laziest way to be a CTer (i.e. purport to have no theory but endlessly imply Oswald didn't do it).
I wonder how many different ways "Richard" can say "my story is correct by default unless you concoct a better story".
-
So it was just a coincidence that Oswald fit the description of Tippit's murderer, that Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down, that Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant and had bullets that matched the type used to kill Tippit, that Oswald pulled his gun out in the Texas Theatre and said "Well, it's all over now" and tried to shoot the arresting officer?
No, those aren't "coincidences", they are flat out false or unsubstantiated claims.
-
It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.
I have based my theory on direct statements and known evidences. Statements like the one made by Clint Hill that when arrived at Parkland, JFK body was "cold and pinkish" but also of full range of statements inconsistencies. When you take everything into consideration, my conclusion is that it did not happen. For example, three shots, hundreds of people around and none dunked on the first two?
-
No, those aren't "coincidences", they are flat out false or unsubstantiated claims.
I am not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated. There is evidence for each. In order to reach a rational conclusion that they are "flat out false" you would need strong contrary evidence. What is the evidence that is contrary to the evidence I have outlined?
-
No. Something is either evidence of guilt or it is not. A bunch of things that are not evidence at all (like a ring in a cup) do not magically combine into evidence of murder. All they are is rhetorical padding for a weak case.
Lots of us had a laugh at Patrick's blood cannons the first time he broached the subject. But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Oswald did it" cult. It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.
The "Oswald did it" cult at least has evidence that Oswald did it. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that JFK survived, there is abundant, overwhelming evidence that he did not. Those who saw the head shot live knew immediately that it was a fatal wound. Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film can see the head rupture and conclude that it was a fatal shot.
-
I am not sure what you mean by unsubstantiated. There is evidence for each. In order to reach a rational conclusion that they are "flat out false" you would need strong contrary evidence. What is the evidence that is contrary to the evidence I have outlined?
You didn't outline any evidence, you just made a series of claims. For example, what is your evidence that Oswald pulled a gun out in the theater and attempted to shoot an arresting officer? There is testimony specifically contradicting that claim. McDonald said the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald's hand and they pulled it out together. Walker said that several hands were on the gun and it was waist high at a 45 degree angle and pointed toward the screen when he heard a click. Hutson said that the gun was waving around towards the back of the seat when he heard the snap. So what evidence justifies you cavalierly parroting the myth that Oswald tried to shoot an officer?
Another example. You claimed "Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down". First of all, the jacket was never proven to be Oswald's. Secondly, it wasn't found in an alley, it was (allegedly) found in a parking lot, though the police couldn't figure out who actually found it. Thirdly, nobody saw any "Tippit assailant" run into the parking lot.
Another example. You claimed "Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant". What is your basis for knowing what gun "the assailant" carried? Or what gun (if any) that Oswald "carried"?
-
You didn't outline any evidence, you just made a series of claims. For example, what is your evidence that Oswald pulled a gun out in the theater and attempted to shoot an arresting officer? There is testimony specifically contradicting that claim. McDonald said the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald's hand and they pulled it out together. Walker said that several hands were on the gun and it was waist high at a 45 degree angle and pointed toward the screen when he heard a click. Hutson said that the gun was waving around towards the back of the seat when he heard the snap. So what evidence justifies you cavalierly parroting the myth that Oswald tried to shoot an officer?
All the officers said that Oswald and McDonald were in a struggle and that Oswald's gun came out in the struggle. Here is what McDonald said (3H300):
"And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, “Well, it is all over now.”
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir ; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. MCDONALD. His left fist.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. MCDONALD. Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction
was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL.. Right hand?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him
on the face, but I don’t know where. And with my band, that was on his hand
over the pistol.
Mr. BALL. Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which hand was-was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. MCDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?
Mr. MCDONALD. My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol-
Mr. MCDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL. From his waist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.
No one contradicted this evidence that Oswald punched McDonald, pulled his gun out and said "Well, it's all over now"?
Another example. You claimed "Oswald's jacket was dropped in the alley that the Tippit assailant ran down". First of all, the jacket was never proven to be Oswald's.
There was evidence that Marina identified it (CE162) as Oswald's jacket (1H122):
"Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee’s-an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes."
What do you want? DNA evidence?
Secondly, it wasn't found in an alley, it was (allegedly) found in a parking lot, though the police couldn't figure out who actually found it.
Capt. Westbrook testified that it was found under the rear bumper of a car that was parked in the parking lot but backing onto the alley:
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0375b.jpg)
Thirdly, nobody saw any "Tippit assailant" run into the parking lot.
Oswald ran down the alley. He did not have to run into the parking lot to put it under the back of that car (location of the jacket marked on photo 38 above).
Another example. You claimed "Oswald carried a gun similar to that of the assailant". What is your basis for knowing what gun "the assailant" carried? Or what gun (if any) that Oswald "carried"?
If I recall correctly, the assailant had a revolver that contained bullets and the shells found at the scene of the Tippit shooting were indistinguishable from the shells in Oswald's gun. It was not possible to positively identify the bullets themselves because they were undersized for the barrel and did not have the characteristic lands and grooves used to make positive identifications.
-
All the officers said that Oswald and McDonald were in a struggle and that Oswald's gun came out in the struggle.
By McDonald’s account, the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald’s hand, which he said was over the pistol. If it was still in the waistband, then Oswald didn’t pull out a gun. It’s as simple as that.
Nobody else said anything about hearing him say “this is it” or “it’s all over now” (which btw sound nothing alike).
There was evidence that Marina identified it (CE162) as Oswald's jacket (1H122):
"Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee’s-an old shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. Sort of a jacket?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes."
Rankin’s blatant witness leading aside, she thought they were showing her an old shirt. Not much of an identification.
What do you want? DNA evidence?
Yes, that would be very helpful. Why not?
Not that it matters much — unless they find Tippit’s DNA on it too.
Capt. Westbrook testified that it was found under the rear bumper of a car that was parked in the parking lot but backing onto the alley:
He also said that he didn’t find it and didn’t know who did.
If I recall correctly, the assailant had a revolver that contained bullets and the shells found at the scene of the Tippit shooting were indistinguishable from the shells in Oswald's gun.
Except because of the way the crime scene and the evidence was handled, we don’t actually know that the shells in evidence were “found at the scene” or that the gun they matched was “Oswald’s gun”. Nor do we know that the shells in evidence had anything to do with Tippit’s murder.
-
Just Old Lee knocking off for the day because something happened at work, getting his gun, looking just like the person who killed Tippit on the way to the movies, having the same two brands of ammo as the killer, ducking into the movie theatre without buying a ticket, acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of random citizens, drawing his weapon on a police officer who interrupted his movie! Nothing to see there. Bad luck. In fact he is victim! A violation of his rights. LOL. Unreal. These contrarians have no shame. At least they could try a bit harder.
-
No. Something is either evidence of guilt or it is not. A bunch of things that are not evidence at all (like a ring in a cup) do not magically combine into evidence of murder. All they are is rhetorical padding for a weak case.
Lots of us had a laugh at Patrick's blood cannons the first time he broached the subject. But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Oswald did it" cult. It's based on a fanciful story filled with assumptions and speculation and hardly any direct evidence.
But if you think about it, it's not that much different from the narrative of the "Anybody but Oswald" cult
Hey man, what the hell is going on?
-
By McDonald’s account, the gun was still in the waistband when he grabbed Oswald’s hand, which he said was over the pistol. If it was still in the waistband, then Oswald didn’t pull out a gun. It’s as simple as that.
So are you saying that McDonald pulled it out? Because it came out. And Oswald's hand was on it first.
Nobody else said anything about hearing him say “this is it” or “it’s all over now” (which btw sound nothing alike).
McDonald didn't say that Oswald shouted it. McDonald was closest to him. Oswald's punching McDonald in the face is certainly consistent with Oswald making one last gasp, thinking that it was all over. Sometimes actions speak for themselves.
Rankin’s blatant witness leading aside, she thought they were showing her an old shirt. Not much of an identification.
Marina's English vocabulary should be taken into account. She certainly recognized the garment as Oswald's, without any prompting by counsel. In any event, it IS a jacket.
Yes, that would be very helpful. Why not?
Not that it matters much — unless they find Tippit’s DNA on it too.
You weren't expecting a DNA comparison in 1964 were you? T
Although they could do a DNA profile now but they would need a sample of Oswald's DNA to compare it to. Not a simple task. I am not sure that would be high on the FBI lab's list of things to do at the moment.
He also said that he didn’t find it and didn’t know who did.
He was there when an officer, whose name he could not recall, announced that they had found a jacket under a car. Of course if your premise is that all officers were in on the conspiracy to fabricate evidence, that may not impress you. But this is what Westbrook said (7 H 115-117):
p115
"Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn’t find it-it was pointed out to me by either
some officer that-that was while we were going over the scene in the close
area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed out a jacket to me
that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take
the license number. "
....
p 117
"Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; behind the Texaco service station, and some officer, I
feel sure it was an officer, I still can’t be positive-pointed this jacket out to me
and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a car was it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That, I couldn’t tell you. I told the officer to take the make
and the license number.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the number yourself?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No.
Mr. BALL. What was the name of the officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I couldn’t tell you that, sir. "
Except because of the way the crime scene and the evidence was handled, we don’t actually know that the shells in evidence were “found at the scene” or that the gun they matched was “Oswald’s gun”. Nor do we know that the shells in evidence had anything to do with Tippit’s murder.
You don't, perhaps. But maybe that is because you think there was this widespread conspiracy at every level of every organization involved. According to the best available evidence, the shells were found at the scene and matched the shells still in Oswald's gun. This was summarized by the HSCA at p. 59 of their report (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0045a.htm):
"(a) The Tippit murder
The committee investigated the murder of Officer Tippit primarily for its implications concerning the assassination of the President. The committee relied primarily on scientific evidence. The committee's firearms panel determined positively that all four cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from the pistol that was found in Lee Harvey Oswald's possession when he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre 35 minutes after the murder.13(128)
In addition, the committee's investigators interviewed witnesses present at the scene of the Tippit murder.(129) Based on Oswald's possession of the murder weapon a short time after the murder and the eyewitness identifications of Oswald as the gunman, the committee concluded that Oswald shot and killed Officer Tippit. The committee further concluded that this crime, committed while fleeing the scene of the assassination, was consistent with a finding that Oswald assassinated the President."
-
Just Old Lee knocking off for the day because something happened at work, getting his gun, looking just like the person who killed Tippit on the way to the movies, having the same two brands of ammo as the killer, ducking into the movie theatre without buying a ticket, acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of random citizens, drawing his weapon on a police officer who interrupted his movie! Nothing to see there.
Is that misrepresented litany of claims supposed to constitute evidence of murder?
-
So are you saying that McDonald pulled it out? Because it came out.
Yes. By McDonald's account, the gun came out when he grabbed Oswald's hand and pulled, causing the gun to come out.
McDonald didn't say that Oswald shouted it. McDonald was closest to him.
What did he do, whisper it in his ear? And which thing did he say, "this is it" or "it's all over now"? Or both? Or maybe the serial embellisher McDonald was embellishing.
Oswald's punching McDonald in the face is certainly consistent with Oswald making one last gasp, thinking that it was all over.
And yet the arrest report says nothing about punching an officer. In fact the box for "officer injured" is not even checked. Maybe the "punch" was a cover story for why the cops beat the sh*t out of a man in a theater and arrested him for murder with no probable cause.
Sometimes actions speak for themselves.
And sometimes police make up stories to cover up their misconduct.
Marina's English vocabulary should be taken into account.
That's a fair point.
She certainly recognized the garment as Oswald's, without any prompting by counsel. In any event, it IS a jacket.
I don't know how certain it is. Marina made a lot of contradictory statements about lots of things. She couldn't explain the laundry tags either.
You weren't expecting a DNA comparison in 1964 were you?
No, but why not now? It could only add to our understanding of the evidence, right?
Although they could do a DNA profile now but they would need a sample of Oswald's DNA to compare it to. Not a simple task.
They could get samples from his daughters. Hell, they could exhume his body.
I am not sure that would be high on the FBI lab's list of things to do at the moment.
I'm sure it's not. They wouldn't want to turn up any inconvenient results.
He was there when an officer, whose name he could not recall, announced that they had found a jacket under a car.
Like I said, "found by nobody knows who".
You don't, perhaps. But maybe that is because you think there was this widespread conspiracy at every level of every organization involved.
Where did you get the silly idea that I "think there was this widespread conspiracy at every level of every organization involved"? I do think that the CE162 jacket is worthless as evidence of anybody murdering anybody. Feel free to explain what it is evidence of.
According to the best available evidence, the shells were found at the scene and matched the shells still in Oswald's gun.
No, they didn't match fired shells with unfired shells. How would that work?
The committee investigated the murder of Officer Tippit primarily for its implications concerning the assassination of the President. The committee relied primarily on scientific evidence. The committee's firearms panel determined positively that all four cartridge cases found at the scene of the Tippit murder were fired from the pistol that was found in Lee Harvey Oswald's possession when he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre 35 minutes after the murder.13(128)
Correction: four cartridge cases that can't be authenticated as having come from the scene or as having been connected to Tippit's murder were fired from the revolver that can't be authenticated as having ever been in Oswald's possession.
-
I was watching the JFK: One Day in America documentary on NatGeo the other day and most of all was fascinated by the quality of movies shown. Could not find anything like that for years on the net.
I was particularly focused on Love Field arrival and the movie showing JFK and Jackie sitting in the limo.
Jackie was given a small flower decorated pouch by the journalist Val Imm Bashour. As I believe, the pouch contained a small pyrotechnical device that simulated gun shot. There was one more identical device but could not determine who gave it to JFK or Jackie.
The footage showing JFK and Jackie entering the limo, sitting on the back seat and Jackie showing a small pouch to the JFK moving it from one hand to another. She puts it next to the JFK and as soon as the limo starts moving, JFK takes it with his left hand and puts it behind his back. If you take a look into the footage, pay special attention on JFK looking at the camera and as soon as he thinks he is behind the Jackie he grabs the pouch and puts it back.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMftmr8j/jackie.jpg)
I have no doubt JFK did not die that day in Dallas. Assassination was a staged event with aim to pull him out of the politics. I believe he died in 1967 in his Palm Beach Winter White House.
-
I was watching the JFK: One Day in America documentary on NatGeo the other day and most of all was fascinated by the quality of movies shown. Could not find anything like that for years on the net.
I was particularly focused on Love Field arrival and the movie showing JFK and Jackie sitting in the limo.
Jackie was given a small flower decorated pouch by the journalist Val Imm Bashour. As I believe, the pouch contained a small pyrotechnical device that simulated gun shot. There was one more identical device but could not determine who gave it to JFK or Jackie.
The footage showing JFK and Jackie entering the limo, sitting on the back seat and Jackie showing a small pouch to the JFK moving it from one hand to another. She puts it next to the JFK and as soon as the limo starts moving, JFK takes it with his left hand and puts it behind his back. If you take a look into the footage, pay special attention on JFK looking at the camera and as soon as he thinks he is behind the Jackie he grabs the pouch and puts it back.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMftmr8j/jackie.jpg)
I have no doubt JFK did not die that day in Dallas. Assassination was a staged event with aim to pull him out of the politics. I believe he died in 1967 in his Palm Beach Winter White House.
I believe, the pouch contained a small pyrotechnical device
I have no doubt JFK did not die that day in Dallas.
Either you've got a truly bizarre sense of humour or you are so xxxxxx mental it's genuinely disturbing.
That you are taken seriously on any level pisses in the face of any kind of conclusion regarding this case, let alone the "Final Conclusion".
[Is this the thread that use to be called The Final Solution?]
-
I believe, the pouch contained a small pyrotechnical device
I have no doubt JFK did not die that day in Dallas.
Either you've got a truly bizarre sense of humour or you are so xxxxxx mental it's genuinely disturbing.
That you are taken seriously on any level pisses in the face of any kind of conclusion regarding this case, let alone the "Final Conclusion".
[Is this the thread that use to be called The Final Solution?]
Nothing less xxxxxx mental than whatever you believe in, LN or whatever. Nothing less bizarre than Magic bullet theory and the whole WR. Nothing less pisses in the face than whatever you believe in.
After everything we know today and everything we do not know, theory that JFK did not die that day is the most probable. You need to be able to understand it and you are not.
-
Whatever you're taking you're taking too much of it.
-
Whatever you're taking you're taking too much of it.
No worries, mate. Keep scrolling...