Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 112158 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #200 on: March 01, 2018, 05:32:42 PM »
Advertisement
Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

It sure is easy to make an argument when you just assume that the thing you're trying to prove is true.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #200 on: March 01, 2018, 05:32:42 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: A straight line
« Reply #201 on: March 01, 2018, 05:57:07 PM »
Sigh.  No, Bill.  It's a lame excuse because it's completely contrived with no evidence whatsoever that Oswald wanted to "look like a sniper" while shooting the president.  If that was the case, and he had actually done it, why would he deny doing it?

You mean the same Marina who said there was no scope on this rifle at the time?

Sigh




Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: A straight line
« Reply #202 on: March 01, 2018, 07:43:54 PM »
Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Tell us if the poster claimed, or merely suggested that Oswald did or might want 'look like a sniper'.

I personally think it was an interesting take on the possibilities given Oswald's aforementioned BY antics, History diary, wanting to be remembered for the next 10,000 years...

Any hints in there for you, Martini?

Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse.

No. It's utterly amazing that you don't (want to) get such a simple concept.

Any sane rational individual understands that a claim or even a suggestion solely based upon what one individual speculates about what another individual might have thought is complete and utter BS and thus lame excuse.

But perhaps it's hardly a surprise that you don't get that after all, as LN's desperately need that kind of speculation to support their fairytale.


After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Really? Who exactly are those "busybodies" and show us please where they have actually tried to protect anybody?

Btw, could it possibly be true that for you disagreeing with the BS arguments you post somehow equals defending a killer?

I personally think it was an interesting take

Of course that's what you personally think, because it lets you speculate and make up stuff as much as you want. It's typical for an average LN. In the real world nobody cares what you think.

Any hints in there for you, Martini?

Oh sure, but I'll spare your feelings by mentioning any of it. One must have pity for a guy who can't even write my name correctly....
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 08:34:04 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #202 on: March 01, 2018, 07:43:54 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: A straight line
« Reply #203 on: March 01, 2018, 08:17:31 PM »
No, I don't. Tell me how difficult it would be.

Damned near impossible. And at the very least, Oswald must have taken the time AFTER the shooting to wipe his prints off the stock, bolt and trigger, before ditching the weapon. You give LHO way too much credit. No one could have done this, let alone patsy Oswald.

Quote
Or to a PO Box registered under "AJ HIDELL". And my name is Andrew, BTW.
Sorry Andrew, but Shirley LHO knew that any rifle found in the building would come back to him. The FBI linked the gun to Oswald in less than 12 hours! Imagine that.

Quote
According to Robert Frazier of the FBI, the scope was slightly out but if the target was moving in the direction away and to the right, the error was reduced. So by aiming at the president's head it would have hit 6 inches lower in the upper back. 3 H 409

Frazier said the scope needed 3 shims for it to even hit the target. That is no where near "slightly out". Face it, the scope was useless, even IF Oswald was a practiced marksman. No one could have used the scope to make 2 of 3 shots, which includes the head shot. And Oswald was NOT a practiced marksman by any stretch, he was a patsy that didn't even take a shot.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #204 on: March 01, 2018, 10:08:57 PM »
No, I don't. Tell me how difficult it would be.  Or to a PO Box registered under "AJ HIDELL".

What gave you the idea that there was a PO box registered under AJ HIDELL?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #204 on: March 01, 2018, 10:08:57 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: A straight line
« Reply #205 on: March 02, 2018, 12:59:02 AM »
Damned near impossible. And at the very least, Oswald must have taken the time AFTER the shooting to wipe his prints off the stock, bolt and trigger, before ditching the weapon. You give LHO way too much credit. No one could have done this, let alone patsy Oswald.

You state that as if you know it from experience.  Are you a forensic crime analyst as well? That's quite a resume you've got there.

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
    • SPMLaw
Re: A straight line
« Reply #206 on: March 02, 2018, 01:39:18 AM »
What gave you the idea that there was a PO box registered under AJ HIDELL?
I am assuming or inferring that. The actual registration documents for that box were destroyed.. A Hidell was likely registered to receive mail at that box because mail addressed to that name was received at that box. When Oswald moved to New Orleans he registered A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail there.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #206 on: March 02, 2018, 01:39:18 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: A straight line
« Reply #207 on: March 02, 2018, 03:28:15 AM »
It sure is easy to make an argument when you just assume that the thing you're trying to prove is true.

Iacoletti = 787 posts in less than two months.

Pretty damn busy, John