No, it's called satire.Didn't realize Duncan appointed you as moderator.
And of course interjecting yourself into this thread to call me a pre-adolescent posturing troll is productive conversation and discussion of the actual evidence.
Who's moderating?That's because you injected yourself into the thread with pre-adolescent posturing trolling...er I mean "satire". But valid point, you're better off just ignored.
It's called satire, Johnboi.Get a life.
What's that got to do with the OP?Hijacker, GTF off my thread
your suggestion that the shooting of Oswald by Ruby relates to the gorilla experiment.
Exactly. Going by the tasks given to IG testers, Oswald was the 'basketball' in the room. The 'invisible* Ruby' competes the relationship here.*during his approach
Williams, Jarman and Norman conspired and decided to lie immediately after the assassination.They did so because they felt guilty about causing the assassination.How did they cause the assassination, you ask ?Here's how...Williams, Jarman and Norman accidently discovered the 3+ foot cheese sandwich that Saint Patsy had smuggled into the depository. Without any consideration for Saint Oz, each of them ate a foot of the sandwich and left nothing but a few crumbs for Oz.Naturally, Oz was livid when he discovered his gigantic cheese sandwich had been stolen and devoured.Oz was so ticked off that he decided to shoot all 3 of the cheese sandwich thieves.But at the last minute he changed his mind and decided to shoot JFK instead.The whole BRW story about eating a bone-in chicken sandwich is an obvious fabrication designed to cover up the fact that he was part of the cheese sandwich theft which ultimately resulted in JFK getting his melon blown off.If they had only known how attached Oz was to his cheese sandwich and how grumpy he got when he was hungry, the entire assassination could have been avoided.That's why they conspired and lied.
