Author Topic: Up close shot to Tippit's head and no spatter detected on shoes or pants? (Read 27171 times)

Jerry Organ · « **Reply #56 on:** January 26, 2018, 04:31:27 AM »

The images above aren't holding up well to online scrutiny. They have their passionate defenders but I believe both were staged events.

JFK Assassination Forum · « **Reply #56 on:** January 26, 2018, 04:31:27 AM »

Bill Brown · « **Reply #57 on:** January 26, 2018, 10:38:23 AM »

Quote from: Rob Caprio on January 26, 2018, 04:30:00 AM

You are playing games again. He would NOT positively identify the man he saw as being LHO. Period. Thus, legally he never said it was LHO UNTIL he was shot in the head.

But how does that qualify as Warren Reynolds saying that the man was NOT Lee Oswald?

Bill Brown · « **Reply #58 on:** January 26, 2018, 10:40:11 AM »

Quote from: Rob Caprio on January 26, 2018, 04:36:22 AM

What evidence points to LHO? <Head Scratch>

What evidence points anywhere other than Oswald?

JFK Assassination Forum · « **Reply #58 on:** January 26, 2018, 10:40:11 AM »

Walt Cakebread · « **Reply #59 on:** January 26, 2018, 11:47:01 AM »

Quote from: Allan Fritzke on January 26, 2018, 03:21:29 AM

All these variances of the story are called rabbit trails/red herring. Look at all the coincidences and then say that you believe in the lone gunman theory. The umbrella was an umbrella, which in and of itself is highly suspicious, and I've never met any serious assassination researcher that believes this man was shooting poison darts. This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.

If someone's theory cannot be refuted, then they are ignored, misrepresented and/or attacked in the media on a personal level, i.e., according to Posner and Bugliosi, 3/4 of the citizens of Dallas must be both drunk and insane publicity seekers. If you are as yet undecided on JFK assassination, I would recommend you look for the points that the various theories have in common. Think about how outlandish and improbable the Lone Nut THEORY is.
1) Did Oswald screw up the autopsy of the president?

2) Did Oswald cause forty different doctors and nurses at Parkland to describe wounds entirely inconsistent with the official autopsy?

3) Did Oswald appoint the Warren Commission?

4) Did Oswald harass/buy off/kill off the witnesses? Did Oswald alter the Zapruder film?

5) Did Oswald damage all of the existing assassination films at the exact same spot?

6) Did Oswald confiscate all of the other films that were never returned? In the Z film you can plainly see two men on the south side of Elm who appear to be filming the assassination at point blank range at the exact instant of the head shot...did Oswald steal their films? What happened to them?

7) Did Oswald sequester the evidence for 75 years? Why would National Security concerns require them to withhold the tax returns of a minimum wage lone nut malcontent? The truth is somewhere in there.

The media learned a lesson in 1963, so much so that they barely even questioned the official party line when MLK and RFK were assassinated, and by 9/ll they just read the script they were given like they couldn't see in their own video that there was neither a plane or any human remains in Shanksville. ....wake up...

This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.

WHO ?? Would benefit from discrediting the critics of the officially approved tale? Who controls the information that is broadcast by he mainstream media as the truth?

If you doubt and criticize the officially approved tale, you're simply a Kook......

Dan DAlimonte · « **Reply #60 on:** January 26, 2018, 01:28:04 PM »

Quote from: Allan Fritzke on January 26, 2018, 03:21:29 AM

All these variances of the story are called rabbit trails/red herring. Look at all the coincidences and then say that you believe in the lone gunman theory. The umbrella was an umbrella, which in and of itself is highly suspicious, and I've never met any serious assassination researcher that believes this man was shooting poison darts. This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.

If someone's theory cannot be refuted, then they are ignored, misrepresented and/or attacked in the media on a personal level, i.e., according to Posner and Bugliosi, 3/4 of the citizens of Dallas must be both drunk and insane publicity seekers. If you are as yet undecided on JFK assassination, I would recommend you look for the points that the various theories have in common. Think about how outlandish and improbable the Lone Nut THEORY is.
1) Did Oswald screw up the autopsy of the president?

2) Did Oswald cause forty different doctors and nurses at Parkland to describe wounds entirely inconsistent with the official autopsy?

3) Did Oswald appoint the Warren Commission?

4) Did Oswald harass/buy off/kill off the witnesses? Did Oswald alter the Zapruder film?

5) Did Oswald damage all of the existing assassination films at the exact same spot?

6) Did Oswald confiscate all of the other films that were never returned? In the Z film you can plainly see two men on the south side of Elm who appear to be filming the assassination at point blank range at the exact instant of the head shot...did Oswald steal their films? What happened to them?

7) Did Oswald sequester the evidence for 75 years? Why would National Security concerns require them to withhold the tax returns of a minimum wage lone nut malcontent? The truth is somewhere in there.

The media learned a lesson in 1963, so much so that they barely even questioned the official party line when MLK and RFK were assassinated, and by 9/ll they just read the script they were given like they couldn't see in their own video that there was neither a plane or any human remains in Shanksville. ....wake up...

Hey, Allan. This should be a thread onto itself. Why don't you post it as such?
What questionable evidence (which was out of Oswald's control) which supports
the lone gunman theory?

There would be fireworks, no doubt. But the odds that there's way too much of it
would support something must have happened other than the conclusion we were given.

JFK Assassination Forum · « **Reply #60 on:** January 26, 2018, 01:28:04 PM »

Jerry Organ · « **Reply #61 on:** January 26, 2018, 05:32:07 PM »

Quote from: Allan Fritzke on January 26, 2018, 03:21:29 AM

All these variances of the story are called rabbit trails/red herring. Look at all the coincidences and then say that you believe in the lone gunman theory. The umbrella was an umbrella, which in and of itself is highly suspicious, and I've never met any serious assassination researcher that believes this man was shooting poison darts.

Some prefer it being rocket-propelled flechettes.

Quote

This is how it works: someone comes out with an outlandish, impossible theory (the poison dart, the driver did it, they were shooting from the gutter, etc.), they get all over the mainstream media and all researchers are tarred with the same brush.

Where's the justice when shade gets thrown over a gem like this?

Quote

... In the Z film you can plainly see two men on the south side of Elm who appear to be filming the assassination at point blank range at the exact instant of the head shot...did Oswald steal their films? What happened to them?

John Anderson · « **Reply #62 on:** January 26, 2018, 05:51:05 PM »

Nowt queer as folk.

JFK Assassination Forum · « **Reply #62 on:** January 26, 2018, 05:51:05 PM »

Jerry Organ · « **Reply #63 on:** January 26, 2018, 09:15:26 PM »

Quote from: Tom Sorensen on January 26, 2018, 08:54:08 PM

Mr. BALL. The jacket was underneath a car?
Mr. WESTBROOK. But, I am guessing on this--slightly underneath a car.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean you are guessing on this--what are you guessing about?
Mr. WESTBROOK. About where the jacket was found in this picture.

Seems to me they're asking the wrong guy what do you think?

Still "slightly underneath" the car.

You implied it was under a part of the car that dripped oil.

"nor any oil or dirt from being under a car either,
its actually a pretty clean jacket when "found"
by a mystery cop, under a car."

JFK Assassination Forum

News: