Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
    The fact you say, "...we don't need to know..." is an immediate disqualifier in your regard. Your mind is shut tight. If Oswald  did leave the wedding ring behind, that bullhorns his involvement in the assassination. I do believe there was an escape plan which would have separated him from his family. So, he carries that rifle all the way across the 6th floor and THEN hides it? And then he jumps through several hoops to get to his boarding house and arm himself with yet another gun? And after all of this he just sits inside a theater that's showing a bad movie?  But again, "....we don't need to know....".
\

Of course we don't need to know why Oswald did it. It would be nice if we could figure it out but not necessary in order to prove that he did. Proving motive is not something that is required to convict a person for murder. All that is necessary is to prove that the accused committed the act. We have ample proof of Oswald's guilt.

Oswald didn't duck into the theater to watch a bad movie. He did that to escape detection from the police who were looking for a cop killer. If not for an alert Johnny Brewer, it might have worked. He could have sat through the double feature until dark and then left with the other patrons. Who knows where he would have gone after that. Who cares. It is a moot point.

You seem skeptical that Oswald would carry the rifle across the sixth floor and then hide it. What was he supposed to do with it? Walk out the front door carrying the rifle on his shoulder. He wasn't stupid. He would have known the rifle would eventually be found whether he left it in the sniper's nest or hid it between rows of boxes. Perhaps he thought, hiding it as he did might by him a little more time to escape. We don't need to read Oswald's mind or second guess every decision he made to know he was the assassin. We have ample proof of that.

The difference between you and me is that most of what I believe is based on rock solid evidence with a few loose ends that are left to speculation, such as Oswald's motive or what his plan was once he left the TSBD. My own belief, which is pure speculation, is he had no plan. I think he was surprised he got away from the TSBD, but that's something we can never know nor do we need to. On the other hand, EVERRYTHING you believe is based on speculation, and then only after you invent one cockamamie excuse after another to ignore each and every piece of evidence that screams to us that Oswald was the assassin.

The assassination of JFK is not a mystery and never has been. Within the first four hours, the DPD believed they had their man and in roughly 12 hours, they had accumulated enough evidence to formally charge him. Since that time, the case against Oswald has only gotten stronger. The only question that remained after that was whether he had one or more accomplices. Two government investigations and legions of amateur sleuths looking for evidence of such accomplices over six decades, no one has found any evidence to identify any accomplices. The JFK conspiracy hobby is an exercise in futility that has been striking out over and over again for 62 years. If you haven't found evidence in that time of any accomplices, what makes you think you ever will.
52
There is little doubt that President JFK, and brother RFK, were dreadnought in their intent to liberate Cuba from communism and Castro. Indeed, so much so that the Kennedy brothers abided by a few assassination attempts of Fidel.

To which Castro publicly responded in September of 1963 that assassinations could go both ways. Two months after Castro's not-so-veiled threat, JFK was dead. Castro's G2 had deeply penetrated Cuban exile groups, and thus parts of US intel services. 

See JFK's speech to the Orange Bowl Miami Dec. 29 1962, if you have any doubts about JFK felt about Cuba: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxVl0x49zwA

JFK in his own words in Miami, and draw your own conclusions. JFK remains the best public speaker of the postwar era, and this presentation, to a packed Orange Bowl, is another gem.

In one of the more curious twists in history, the garish President Donald Trump, a far different character from JFK, may finally execute on JFK's dream of a Free Cuba. Secy of State Marco Rubio, a Cubano who speaks flawless Spanish, is apparently in the lead.

May it be so. The communist government in Havana is the usual thug-state excrement: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/cuba

Trump has but few redeeming features, but he seems willing to take on ghouls in Havana, Caracas and Tehran.

I think JFK, in this regard, would have done the same, although likely much more smoothly.

If he is, the method cruel and inhumane.
53
There is little doubt that President JFK, and brother RFK, were dreadnought in their intent to liberate Cuba from communism and Castro. Indeed, so much so that the Kennedy brothers abided by a few assassination attempts of Fidel.

To which Castro publicly responded in September of 1963 that assassinations could go both ways. Two months after Castro's not-so-veiled threat, JFK was dead. Castro's G2 had deeply penetrated Cuban exile groups, and thus parts of US intel services. 

See JFK's speech to the Orange Bowl Miami Dec. 29 1962, if you have any doubts about JFK felt about Cuba: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxVl0x49zwA

JFK in his own words in Miami, and draw your own conclusions. JFK remains the best public speaker of the postwar era, and this presentation, to a packed Orange Bowl, is another gem.

In one of the more curious twists in history, the garish President Donald Trump, a far different character from JFK, may finally execute on JFK's dream of a Free Cuba. Secy of State Marco Rubio, a Cubano who speaks flawless Spanish, is apparently in the lead.

May it be so. The communist government in Havana is the usual thug-state excrement: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/cuba

Trump has but few redeeming features, but he seems willing to take on ghouls in Havana, Caracas and Tehran.

I think JFK, in this regard, would have done the same, although likely much more smoothly.

54
Of course it fits. It was the only option available to Oswald once he made the decision to kill JFK. We'll never know why he made that decision but we know that he did. It isn't necessary to know why. It was a crime of opportunity. Oswald was dealt a golden opportunity to become infamous but his options were limited. He had to take the shot when it was presented to him using the only tools he had. He smuggled the rifle into the TSBD. He could not have escaped the TSBD if he took his rifle with him. He had to leave it behind.

I'm not sure he even had to construct sniper's nest. A crew was laying a new floor and a lot of boxes had already been moved to the section of the 6th floor. He could have just used what was there or he could have built the wall of boxes himself. We don't know and we don't need to know. He really didn't need that wall of boxes because at the time of the shooting, he was the only one on the 6th floor. Bonnie Ray Williams had been on the floor a little earlier but he opted to join Jarman and Norman. Interesting to speculate what Oswald would have done had BRW remained on the sixth floor, but not terribly useful.

I keep asking you to present your evidence that Oswald knew something had gone wrong and you keep declining to do so. Why is that?

    The fact you say, "...we don't need to know..." is an immediate disqualifier in your regard. Your mind is shut tight. If Oswald  did leave the wedding ring behind, that bullhorns his involvement in the assassination. I do believe there was an escape plan which would have separated him from his family. So, he carries that rifle all the way across the 6th floor and THEN hides it? And then he jumps through several hoops to get to his boarding house and arm himself with yet another gun? And after all of this he just sits inside a theater that's showing a bad movie?  But again, "....we don't need to know....".   
55

Page 32 of the Warren Report indicates that a test run was performed on the 18th of November and the most practical route from Main Street to the Trade Mart was by using Elm street because as seen above, Main Street was blocked from a direct route to Stemmons Freeway.



JohnM

 Thumb1: ...and a map with a previous route that was published on the morning of.
56
so what?

 :D when you have nothing; there is nothing there.
57

Page 32 of the Warren Report indicates that a test run was performed on the 18th of November and the most practical route from Main Street to the Trade Mart was by using Elm street because as seen above, Main Street was blocked from a direct route to Stemmons Freeway.



JohnM
58
Opinions of a fictional movie.
So what?

btw BS: the previous parade route was published on the 22nd.



C'mon Capasse even you aren't this desperate. The lane divider stopping a direct path from Main to Stemmons Freeway was there long before 11/22/63. And since the Trade Mart was the destination the parade route followed the local traffic route.







The newspaper approximate route summation has the triple underpass after the Stemmons turnoff but as can be seen, this is not close to being accurate. To allow traffic to use the freeway the traffic was redirected to Elm so as not to create congestion on the short distance between the underpass on Main street and Stemmons.



The people of Dallas lined Houston and Elm, lucky they didn't read the paper that day. :D



JohnM
59
There's too much John Mytton disinformation here to fix.  Read my 9/11 Science 101 posts.

1) Yes, Larry Silverstein slipped up when he admitted that he "told them to pull" WTC7 before it collapsed in a perfectly managed explosive demolition.

2) Yes, international demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, confirmed that WTC7 collapsed in an expert explosive demolition.  Any idiot can see that.

      It collapsed abruptly to the ground in a symmetrical free fall.  No panicking of floors.

       Even Dan Rather called that no brainer on 9/11.

        Mytton doesn't realize that the NIST "pancake" commentary about WTC7 doesn't explain the free fall collapse to the ground.  The distance between upper floors remains constant during the collapse!

Quote
1) Yes, Larry Silverstein slipped up when he admitted that he "told them to pull" WTC7 before it collapsed in a perfectly managed explosive demolition.

That's what you're going with? A slip up? Really?
So on national TV, an interview that Silverstein has spent much time preparing let's "slip" that he is guilty of insurance fraud, wired his building with explosives, and in conversation with the Fire Department Commander talks about avoiding loss of life and incredibly lets the Fire Chief make the decision to "pull it" which "obviously" doesn't refer to keeping firemen alive but for some unknown reason, known only to you, is an authorization for the Fire Department to demolish WTC7 with silent explosives?!

Quote
2) Yes, international demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, confirmed that WTC7 collapsed in an expert explosive demolition.

Okay, let's examine what Jowenko an effective outlier in this case, was aware of;

Jowenko wasn't aware of the construction of WTC7, not off to a good start, are we!



And again.



What did Jowenko have to make his analysis, a couple of top down plans......
 




....which didn't show the unique arrangements and weak points of the supporting structure.



Jowenko has trouble getting his head around exactly how the "controlled demolition" was carried out, he assumes that the fires were put out and then the explosives were inserted but when the interviewer tells him that there were raging fires within WTC7, Jowenko has difficulty understanding what happened because presumably it's clear to him that these fires would have a dramatic consequence for pre-planted wiring and explosives.



And finally Jowenko admits to guessing of certain aspects. Oops!



As can be seen in ALL the videos, the very heavy newly added penthouse collapses first due to multiple supports giving way because of the raging fires, then....





.....several seconds later the unique specially designed transfer trusses under increased strain give way causing the building to collapse.





JohnM
60
Over on the Ed Forum, Niederhut called me a "fan of Greg Doudna" (who believes Larry Crafard killed Tippit) and stated that I looked like one of the Road Warriors from the Mad Max movie.

I simply responded with one sentence, saying that he was confused.  I said nothing more, nothing less.

Even though he started it, he suspended me from posting over there for 4 months  LOL  The Mods are over there are clowns.  All of them.  W. Niederhut is a tinfoil hat wearing KOOK and it is clear and obvious.

Hey Bill,

I hope you are well!

There's no doubt that Niederhut is a paranoid screwball which is not uncommon in the CT community but the problem here is that in the Real World Neiderhut was at one time(according to him) a man of some importance and now he is a useless nobody so when he gets a little power by becoming a "moderator" he becomes delusional with power, and rules with a self serving Iron Fist. Sad!
I see that he also banned Griffith for 8 months, WOW!, I have debated and strongly disagreed with Griffith over hundreds of posts over the years and he is hardly a Government stooge and regarding the JFK assassination holds 99% of the exact same views as Neiderhut but since Griffith has an opposing view of Prouty, suddenly Griffith is the arch enemy? You can't make this sh!t up
BTW, I hope that Neiderhut sticks around long enough to see how a real moderator(Duncan) runs a Forum, Duncan endorses free speech and allows opposing points of view and very, very rarely will ban anyone and even then the suspensions last not much more than a week or two.

JohnM
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10