JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

Cheerful Spring

weisses wrote: »

So Oswald could not have been at that meeting because he didn't move house then ?

According to the official story, Oswald wife and child moved to Dallas n September. They claim Oswald did not go he went to Mexico instead. Supposedly he went to the Russian Embassy and Cuban Embassy. Leaks have come out over the years since the killing, there was an imposter in Mexico claiming to be Lee Oswald. This further evidence of ongoing intelligence operation to place Lee Oswald in places he wasn't

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in your contributions ... stop demanding stuff you cannot provide yourself ... its silly

I'm asking someone what they believed happened to JFK

If they are going to sit here demanding that others support a theory down to the tiniest details, then it's only fair we ask them to support their own version of events

As it turns out (unsurprisingly) they're not even sure what their theory is

That doesn't make sense

This poster is demanding that every part of the "main" theory is supported by evidence to the nth degree, that everything is explained, and even then they don't support it. That's fine. But then they support their cover-up theory with little or no evidence.

Well, which is it?

TLDR "No amount of evidence will make me believe theory A. I accept theory B with little or no evidence". There's your hypocrisy

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to the official story, Oswald wife and child moved to Dallas n September. They claim Oswald did not go he went to Mexico instead. Supposedly he went to the Russian Embassy and Cuban Embassy. Leaks have come out over the years since the killing, there was an imposter in Mexico claiming to be Lee Oswald. This further evidence of ongoing intelligence operation to place Lee Oswald in places he wasn't

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

According to the story he didn't.

Stop posting lies.

Oswald moved to New Orleans partly at Marina urging after he tried to kill Walker in April 63. She moved back to Dallas on September 23rd 1963. Oswald stayed in New Orleans for two days and then went to Mexico City for 5 days where he visited the Cuban and Russian embassies. The people he met there are known and have spoken about it. Silvia Duran, Oleg Nechiporenko, Valery Kostikov. Two Australian women met him on the bus to Mexico City.

From 1.02 here

https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-who-was-lee-harvey-oswald/

His visa application from the Cuban embassy and the log in the hotel he stayed in were both signed by him. 100% verified as his signature. He was in Mexico. Thats a fact.





He returned to Dallas on October 3rd 1963. So, how did he meet the person you claim in late August or early September in Dallas?

Why do you refuse to read about Oswald? Hes the chief suspect and yet you don't know about him and show no interest in doing so.

And back to common sense, if Oswald was part of a conspiracy - which there is no evidence for - what was he doing in New Orleans handing out pro Cuban literature, on radio debates, claiming to be a Marxist and so on? During the cold war. Thats just attracting attention. Presidential assassins aren't that loud. It makes no sense.

ligerdub

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm asking someone what they believed happened to JFK

If they are going to sit here demanding that others support a theory down to the tiniest details, then it's only fair we ask them to support their own version of events

As it turns out (unsurprisingly) they're not even sure what their theory is

That doesn't make sense

This poster is demanding that every part of the "main" theory is supported by evidence to the nth degree, that everything is explained, and even then they don't support it. That's fine. But then they support their cover-up theory with little or no evidence.

Well, which is it?

TLDR "No amount of evidence will make me believe theory A. I accept theory B with little or no evidence". There's your hypocrisy

Nail on head.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Stop posting lies.

Oswald moved to New Orleans partly at Marina urging after he tried to kill Walker in April 63. She moved back to Dallas on September 23rd 1963. Oswald stayed in New Orleans for two days and then went to Mexico City for 5 days where he visited the Cuban and Russian embassies. The people he met there are known and have spoken about it. Silvia Duran, Oleg Nechiporenko, Valery Kostikov. Two Australian women met him on the bus to Mexico City.

From 1.02 here

https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-who-was-lee-harvey-oswald/

His visa application from the Cuban embassy and the log in the hotel he stayed in were both signed by him. 100% verified as his signature. He was in Mexico. Thats a fact.

He returned to Dallas on October 3rd 1963. So, how did he meet the person you claim in late August or early September in Dallas?

Why do you refuse to read about Oswald? Hes the chief suspect and yet you don't know about him and show no interest in doing so.

And back to common sense, if Oswald was part of a conspiracy - which there is no evidence for - what was he doing in New Orleans handing out pro Cuban literature, on radio debates, claiming to be a Marxist and so on? During the cold war. Thats just attracting attention. Presidential assassins aren't that loud. It makes no sense.

You clearly can't follow the problems with this story.

The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages.

Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

They saw Photographs of this man in Mexico claiming to be Oswald and heard the voice and said was not Oswald. The CIA monitors who go in and out of the Russian Embassy and Cuban Embassy in Mexico. That memo was dated Oct 1, 1963, before the killing of JFK.

That solid proof someone was impersonating Oswald a month or two before the shooting of JFK.

There FBI memos from Hoover himself who was in charge of the FBI stating someone in Mexico was using Lee Oswald name. The FBI memos even state photographs and voice recording exist. These tapes and photographs were destroyed or least were never shown to the public.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Stop posting lies.

O

His visa application from the Cuban embassy and the log in the hotel he stayed in were both signed by him. 100% verified as his signature. He was in Mexico. Thats a fact.





He returned to Dallas on October 3rd 1963. So, how did he meet the person you claim in late August or early September in Dallas?

Why do you refuse to read about Oswald? Hes the chief suspect and yet you don't know about him and show no interest in doing so.

And back to common sense, if Oswald was part of a conspiracy - which there is no evidence for - what was he doing in New Orleans handing out pro Cuban literature, on radio debates, claiming to be a Marxist and so on? During the cold war. Thats just attracting attention. Presidential assassins aren't that loud. It makes no sense.

Simple he was not in Mexico. He was impersonated. Oswald was an assassin for the Russians and Cubans was the cover story.

He, not the chief suspect.

There plenty of evidence. Oswald stayed at Ruth Paine house the gun was stored there. You don't find it strange her father had intelligence connections with the CIA. Her brother and her sister worked for the CIA. She clearly CIA herself. Her family knew Allan Dulles the head of the CIA. He was on the Warren Commission cover-up panel.

Oswald was an intelligence asset. He was doing surveillance for the CIA and monitoring the pro-Castro groups in New Orleans. He was a low-level operative. Jim Garrison discovered Oswald was printing pro-Castro leaflets in the same building as Guy Bannister.

Cheerful Spring

Ruth Paine who told Oswald about the job at TSBD and advised him on it. Clearly, she is part of set up and plot. Oswald was involved in the conspiracy or was framed. He had to be killed because he would expose the plot again him.

Cheerful Spring

All the CIA and FBI had to do is redact and destroy incriminating evidence linking Oswald to them. And we know that occurred, all documented.

So they were able to convince some of the public Oswald was just a communist sympathiser and a lone nut. When in reality he was an intelligence asset and was carrying out surveillance of pro-Castro groups. He probably realised what was up least some of it when they came after him. I would not be surprised if he went to the Cinema to meet a contact of his and he never showed up.

The Nal

Youre just ranting and ignoring fact now. Youre the worst type of poster.

Oswald got the job before the motorcade was announced.

How did Oswalds signature get on the hotel guestbook in Mexico and the visa in the Cuban embassy? Explain that.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Youre just ranting and ignoring fact now. Youre the worst type of poster.

Oswald got the job before the motorcade was announced.

How did Oswalds signature get on the hotel guestbook in Mexico and the visa in the Cuban embassy? Explain that.

Oswald was already set up in TSBD to be framed or be involved. There were other shooters so they could change the location if need be. You forget there were plots to kill JFK in Florida and Chicago all documented and none of them included as far as we know Oswald. They had some time to plan this as Dallas trip was announced. If the CIA and higher-ups in government are involved as seems to be the case they would have got information about the likely route many weeks in advance.

Forged documents what else? Just like the autopsy images are not the originals taken during the autopsy.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Oswald was already set up in TSBD to be framed or be involved. There were other shooters so they could change the location if need be. You forget there were plots to kill JFK in Florida and Chicago all documented and none of them included as far as we know Oswald. They had some time to plan this as Dallas trip was announced. If the CIA and higher-ups in government are involved as seems to be the case they would have got information about the likely route many weeks in advance.

Forged documents what else? Just like the autopsy images are not the originals taken during the autopsy.

The HSCA used independent handwriting experts on both documents. Same result for any handwriting experts who studied it. Its Oswalds signature. Oswald was in Mexico.

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm

The rest of your post is nonsense speculation, which is what you do.

As for Oswald and Ruth Paine "clearly" being CIA (lol), Oswald got the job in mid October. The parade route wasn't even discussed until the 2nd week of November and made by Winston Lawson who drove the lead car. So unless he was in on a conspiracy - which he wasn't - the case for that conspiracy falls flat right there.

You still haven't explained how the people near the knoll didn't hear the shots.

BloodBath

ligerdub wrote: »

Nail on head.

No the problem is most of you skeptics posting here don't know jack **** about the case like most topics yet you still talk about them as if you do.

I can see Cheerful Spring has looked deep into it even if I don't agree with some of what he says.

None of you have looked deep into it. Outside of reading some main stream book or documentary and now you think you are clued up on the case.

When presented with evidence that would take time to review you ignore it. Some of us have gone deep into this subject and the deeper you go into it the more you see it points to others than just Oswald.

Yes yes they heard shots, a lot thought it came from that direction, maybe over there etc. Maybe 600 people in the plaza at the time and Ed Hoffman aside, no one claims to have seen a shooter on the knoll. However Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the window, with a rifle, shooting. James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman were on the 5th floor and could hear the action of the bolt and the cartridges drop on the floor. Theres a man in the 6th floor window who looks like Oswald, wearing a white tshirt, moments before the shooting. Thats on video. Oswald was the only person on that 6th floor at the time. It was Oswalds rifle. He brought a rifle into the building that day. He fled the scene. He killed Tippet. These are facts.

You cant just chuck all this out because of ear witnesses, a lot of whom "thought" the shots or a shot came from that direction and so on. Theres no factual basis for a shooter on the knoll.

Bollocks could you make a positive ID from outside if he was set up in that nest. Show us this video of Oswald in the window then. Also forgetting at least 2-3 members of staff saw Oswald in the canteen eating a sandwich and drinking a coke minutes before the shooting. Bit casual for a man prepping to kill the president.

Also there were only about 100 people in Dealey Plaza, not 600. 1/3 of these witnesses reported shots from the knoll/traintrack area. Do I have to keep discrediting the bull**** you are spouting?

You still haven't explained how the people near the knoll didn't hear the shots.

Why are you still claiming this, the people near the knoll did hear shots. I linked you the bloody transcripts. The wilfully ignorant are the worst kind of ignoramus.

Cheerful Spring

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

The Nal wrote: »

The HSCA used independent handwriting experts on both documents. Same result for any handwriting experts who studied it. Its Oswalds signature. Oswald was in Mexico.

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm

The rest of your post is nonsense speculation, which is what you do.

As for Oswald and Ruth Paine "clearly" being CIA (lol), Oswald got the job in mid October. The parade route wasn't even discussed until the 2nd week of November and made by Winston Lawson who drove the lead car. So unless he was in on a conspiracy - which he wasn't - the case for that conspiracy falls flat right there.

You still haven't explained how the people near the knoll didn't hear the shots.

You need to watch this.

He was a lawyer doing investigative research for HSCA to find out if Oswald has visited Mexico in the closing weeks of Sep and early Oct. He stated he had not based on the evidence they had, and they went to Mexico to find out.

Got the job based on the recommendation from Ruth Paine. You seem to want to ignore her family connections to the CIA? I thought the CIA was anti--soviet and anti- Castro?

ligerdub

BloodBath wrote: »

No the problem is most of you skeptics posting here don't know jack **** about the case like most topics yet you still talk about them as if you do.

I can see Cheerful Spring has looked deep into it even if I don't agree with some of what he says.

None of you have looked deep into it. Outside of reading some main stream book or documentary and now you think you are clued up on the case.

When presented with evidence that would take time to review you ignore it. Some of us have gone deep into this subject and the deeper you go into it the more you see it points to others than just Oswald.



Bollocks could you make a positive ID from outside if he was set up in that nest. Show us this video of Oswald in the window then. Also forgetting at least 2-3 members of staff saw Oswald in the canteen eating a sandwich and drinking a coke minutes before the shooting. Bit casual for a man prepping to kill the president.

Also there were only about 100 people in Dealey Plaza, not 600. 1/3 of these witnesses reported shots from the knoll/traintrack area. Do I have to keep discrediting the bull**** you are spouting?



Why are you still claiming this, the people near the knoll did hear shots. I linked you the bloody transcripts. The wilfully ignorant are the worst kind of ignoramus.

Another piss taker. Maybe you should review the replies many of us have given to Cheerful Spring and consider who exactly is ignoring who.

I can't speak for the minutiae of other posters (as I'm obviously not going to remember theirs as much as my own) but from my own part I have given painstakingly detailed responses to the most minor detail of Cheerful Spring's post, and HE (assuming it's a dude) was the one who failed to consider those points.


A standard response would be to pick up on a tiny segment of a post and then consider some wacky explanation for it with an accompanying youtube clip which may or may not have any credibility whatsoever. There's usually a standard approach of introducing something entirely unrelated to the discussion. Not all of us are going to have viewpoints on every point of this story. From my own point of view I've stuck primarily to the discussion on whether or not all the shots (the 3 shots) came from behind, from the TSBD.

How are we expecting to have a reasonable discussion when that's what happening! It's infuriating, and to be honest is a total waste of time. So yes, I may well be ignoring his posts now, because I gave him more than a reasonable amount of opportunities to engage in a proper debate and he chose not to. Not my fault, nor anybody else who may elect to ignore him.

Anyway, back to voyeur following on this ****show. Carry on.

The Nal

BloodBath wrote: »

Also there were only about 100 people in Dealey Plaza, not 600. 1/3 of these witnesses reported shots from the knoll/traintrack area. Do I have to keep discrediting the bull**** you are spouting?

Calm down dear.

Official interviews or statements exist for about 200 witnesses. Not 100. You're just wrong. Yet again. Estimates from photos, home movies etc are at about the 600 mark all told. Including all the building, the end of main st etc. You haven't looked deep enough seemingly.

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

BloodBath wrote: »

Why are you still claiming this, the people near the knoll did hear shots. I linked you the bloody transcripts. The wilfully ignorant are the worst kind of ignoramus.

Lots heard shots from the knoll, lots heard shots from the TSBD, lots heard shots from both places, lots didn't know where the shots came from.

I specifically asked about Zapruder, Sitzman and Emmett Hudson. I got no answer. Thats what I was referring to.

BloodBath

ligerdub wrote: »

Another piss taker. Maybe you should review the replies many of us have given to Cheerful Spring and consider who exactly is ignoring who.

I can't speak for the minutiae of other posters (as I'm obviously not going to remember theirs as much as my own) but from my own part I have given painstakingly detailed responses to the most minor detail of Cheerful Spring's post, and HE (assuming it's a dude) was the one who failed to consider those points.


A standard response would be to pick up on a tiny segment of a post and then consider some wacky explanation for it with an accompanying youtube clip which may or may not have any credibility whatsoever. There's usually a standard approach of introducing something entirely unrelated to the discussion. Not all of us are going to have viewpoints on every point of this story. From my own point of view I've stuck primarily to the discussion on whether or not all the shots (the 3 shots) came from behind, from the TSBD.

How are we expecting to have a reasonable discussion when that's what happening! It's infuriating, and to be honest is a total waste of time. So yes, I may well be ignoring his posts now, because I gave him more than a reasonable amount of opportunities to engage in a proper debate and he chose not to. Not my fault, nor anybody else who may elect to ignore him.

Anyway, back to voyeur following on this ****show. Carry on.

I've said that to him before. He ping pongs around topics too much and focuses on weaker elements of evidence rather than stronger ones. I can still see he's done his research from this though. He just needs to focus his arguments a bit better.

Cheerful Spring

BloodBath wrote: »

I've said that to him before. He ping pongs around topics too much and focuses on weaker elements of evidence rather than stronger ones. I can still see he's done his research from this though. He just needs to focus his arguments a bit better.

I don't agree with that though. We both agree the magic bullet theory is bull****. So we both agree the official story is a cover-up.

It important to highlight every flaw in this cover-up. You not going to convince these guys anyhow. They'll ignore the better evidence anyhow you have seen that in this thread.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't agree with that though.

Everyone else does.

BloodBath

The Nal wrote: »

Calm down dear.

Official interviews or statements exist for about 200 witnesses. Not 100. You're just wrong. Yet again. Estimates from photos, home movies etc are at about the 600 mark all told. Including all the building, the end of main st etc. You haven't looked deep enough seemingly.

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm



Lots heard shots from the knoll, lots heard shots from the TSBD, lots heard shots from both places, lots didn't know where the shots came from.

I specifically asked about Zapruder, Sitzman and Emmett Hudson. I got no answer. Thats what I was referring to.

So still not quite the 600 you claimed is it and it depends on where we start counting from and who were actual witnesses. AFAIK the witness numbers were just over 100, many of those were part of the motorcade. You can see from the videos that there is not many in that plaza especially past the TSBD where most of the crowd is in single file.

You also claimed nobody heard shots from the knoll area. It's a shame you don't hold yourself to the high standards of factual information that you seem to expect from others.

Also where is this video of Oswald in the window?

Also Zapruder wasn't sure where the shots came from. That is not the same as not hearing shots at all. He has made multiple statements saying the shots were behind him but he wasn't sure because it echoed around the plaza. I've said it before the acoustics of the area do make it hard to rely on witness statements but we can at least stick to the facts.

I don't agree with that though. We both agree the magic bullet theory is bull****. So we both agree the official story is a cover-up.

It important to highlight every flaw in this cover-up. You not going to convince these guys anyhow. They'll ignore the better evidence anyhow you have seen that in this thread.

I'm on your side but you aren't helping your case by trying to see something in some old blurry photo that's completely open to interpretation. Stick to the facts. They are strong enough that you don't need to speculate crap like this. I've also already told you that you are wasting your time. Nothing could possibly convince these guys.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Everyone else does.

Bloodbath agrees there was a cover-up. He disagrees with some of my points is fine by me. You guys, however, will dispute hard evidence and witness testimony. Boodbath has called you out on your lying numerous times now in this thread.

Whiplash85

The Nal wrote: »

It is but he had no time for that shot. When the motorcade turns onto Houston from Main theres only about 50m until it turns onto Elm. We're looking back now retrospectively but Oswald wouldn't have even known what car JFK was in, where he was sitting. He didn't see the motorcade until it turned off Main street. He may have been expecting secret service men all over the car or the bubble top on. And then he risked missing the shot from the front and the car speeding away down Houston St behind the TSBD.

As for the double bang, most people heard 3 shots. And lots of people said they had no idea where they came from and lots heard echoes. Its quite a complicated place acoustically. Buildings to the back, concrete, fences and trees on the knoll side and then a huge open area and underpasses lower down the road. Zapruder couldn't tell where the shots came from. "Too much reverberation.....There was an echo which gave me a sound all over".

The main thing for me which no one can answer about a grassy knoll shooter is how the people closest to the knoll - Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Emmett Hudson - didn't hear a rifle going off at ear level mere feet from them. Marilyn Sitzman in particular dismissed the knoll shooter. "I would have heard the sounding of the gun much closer, and I probably had a ringing in my head because the fence was quite close to where we were standing, very close.".

They didn't hear it? Sorry, but thats just impossible.



Yes yes they heard shots, a lot thought it came from that direction, maybe over there etc. Maybe 600 people in the plaza at the time and Ed Hoffman aside, no one claims to have seen a shooter on the knoll. However Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the window, with a rifle, shooting. James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman were on the 5th floor and could hear the action of the bolt and the cartridges drop on the floor. Theres a man in the 6th floor window who looks like Oswald, wearing a white tshirt, moments before the shooting. Thats on video. Oswald was the only person on that 6th floor at the time. It was Oswalds rifle. He brought a rifle into the building that day. He fled the scene. He killed Tippet. These are facts.

You cant just chuck all this out because of ear witnesses, a lot of whom "thought" the shots or a shot came from that direction and so on. Theres no factual basis for a shooter on the knoll.

Incorrect it's 2 blocks away. Ample time to identify him in the open top car in the motorcade. Also if he missed the car couldn't speed away as it would have had to take a sharp turn onto Elm. Oswald wasn't to know Greer who was driving the car was incompetent and breaks as the assassination is being carried out. If he had being doing his job right he would have high tailed it to the safety of the triple underpass.

The bizarre circumstances in which Oswald himself meets his demise surrounded by dozens of Dallas police officers on national TV is surreal. We are expected to believe that Jack Ruby - a pimp acted out of some patriotic duty and empathy with Jackie. Allied to this is the nearly equally bizarre death of Tippet where the whole timeline of events here don't fit.

The reason why it's so hard to pin down an alternate theory is because no other line of enquiry was ever really pursued. A square illogical peg has been hammered into a round hole for the last 2 generations. Did the killing of Tippet allegedly perpetrated by Oswald mean that Dallas police dept had their fill in Oswald.

My alternate theory for what it's worth is this.
4 teams of 2 shooters. One in DBS. One in storm drain between underpass and grassy knoll. One in the old Dallas prison (not sure what it is used for now) and one behind grassy knoll. 4 shots. One from behind that hits him in the back and the fatal shot from the front.

The Nal

BloodBath wrote: »

So still not quite the 600 you claimed is it and it depends on where we start counting from and who were actual witnesses. AFAIK the witness numbers were just over 100, many of those were part of the motorcade. You can see from the videos that there is not many in that plaza especially past the TSBD where most of the crowd is in single file.

You also claimed nobody heard shots from the knoll area. It's a shame you don't hold yourself to the high standards of factual information that you seem to expect from others.

Also Zapruder wasn't sure where the shots came from. That is not the same as not hearing shots at all. He has made multiple statements saying the shots were behind him but he wasn't sure because it echoed around the plaza. I've said it before the acoustics of the area do make it hard to rely on witness statements but we can at least stick to the facts.

Ive just posted a link showing 216 identified witnesses. Yet you claim 100? Im sticking to facts.

I didnt say nobody heard shots from the knoll. Im interested to hear peoples thoughts on how the specific people I mentioned didnt hear a high powered rifle mere feet from their heads. Youve been there right? Its just not possible for them not to have noticed.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Ive just posted a link showing 216 identified witnesses. Yet you claim 100? Im sticking to facts.

I didnt say nobody heard shots from the knoll. Im interested to hear peoples thoughts on how the specific people I mentioned didnt hear a high powered rifle mere feet from their heads. Youve been there right? Its just not possible for them not to have noticed.

You don't even look at your own links. 100 extra people heard no shots from these locations.

52 Knoll

48 Depository

BloodBath

Whiplash85 wrote: »

Incorrect it's 2 blocks away. Ample time to identify him in the open top car in the motorcade. Also if he missed the car couldn't speed away as it would have had to take a sharp turn onto Elm. Oswald wasn't to know Greer who was driving the car was incompetent and breaks as the assassination is being carried out. If he had being doing his job right he would have high tailed it to the safety of the triple underpass.

The bizarre circumstances in which Oswald himself meets his demise surrounded by dozens of Dallas police officers on national TV is surreal. We are expected to believe that Jack Ruby - a pimp acted out of some patriotic duty and empathy with Jackie. Allied to this is the nearly equally bizarre death of Tippet where the whole timeline of events here don't fit.

The reason why it's so hard to pin down an alternate theory is because no other line of enquiry was ever really pursued. A square illogical peg has been hammered into a round hole for the last 2 generations. Did the killing of Tippet allegedly perpetrated by Oswald mean that Dallas police dept had their fill in Oswald.

My alternate theory for what it's worth is this.
4 teams of 2 shooters. One in DBS. One in storm drain between underpass and grassy knoll. One in the old Dallas prison (not sure what it is used for now) and one behind grassy knoll. 4 shots. One from behind that hits him in the back and the fatal shot from the front.

We already have Ruby's confession on video that he was forced to shoot LHO by people in high positions of power. Whether that be government or mafia or both is open to discussion but it certainly wasn't out of any obligation to Jackie.

I notice how the sceptics completely ignored this the last time I posted it as well.

BloodBath

The Nal wrote: »

Ive just posted a link showing 216 identified witnesses. Yet you claim 100? Im sticking to facts.

I didnt say nobody heard shots from the knoll. Im interested to hear peoples thoughts on how the specific people I mentioned didnt hear a high powered rifle mere feet from their heads. Youve been there right? Its just not possible for them not to have noticed.

Even if it's 216 I'm still a lot closer with 100 than your 600. I'm guessing the motorcade numbers pushed that right up.

I already told you Zapruder did hear shots behind him as he stated multiple times but he flip flopped with leading questions and wasn't sure with the echos. Your straw man argument focuses on 3 witnesses out of the 216 you claim didn't hear shots from the knoll. I already pointed 1 out heard shots behind him, which was the knoll area but wasn't sure. What about the 35-40 that positively identified the knoll/track area?

The Nal

Whiplash85 wrote: »

Incorrect it's 2 blocks away.

Its 1 block. The TSBD is on Houston and Elm and the next block turns onto Main St.

Coming from Main St theres about 50m before the car turns onto Elm.

Cheerful Spring

BloodBath wrote: »

We already have Ruby's confession on video that he was forced to shoot LHO by people in high positions of power. Whether that be government or mafia or both is open to discussion but it certainly wasn't out of any obligation to Jackie.

I notice how the sceptics completely ignored this the last time I posed it as well.

Nal made some excuse for this in the thread about a Jewish conspiracy or something against Ruby. I might be recalling this wrong and I have to look again but he had an excuse.

Dohnjoe

BloodBath wrote: »

I can see Cheerful Spring has looked deep into it even if I don't agree with some of what he says.

Looking "deep" into a subject doesn't constitute anything if the person can't apply basic logic, objectivity, reason and consistency. Likewise quantity of research is pointless if someone can't correctly disseminate it. "Deep" knowledge of pseudo-science and disinformation is not valid knowledge.

Well prepared and convincing-sounding bull**** is still bull****.

BloodBath

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Looking "deep" into a subject doesn't constitute anything if the person can't apply basic logic, objectivity, reason and consistency. Likewise quantity of research is pointless if someone can't correctly disseminate it. "Deep" knowledge of pseudo-science and disinformation is not valid knowledge.

Well prepared and convincing-sounding bull**** is still bull****.

That is a fair point but most of the people refuting it haven't researched it at all.

Cheerful Spring

BloodBath wrote: »

Even if it's 216 I'm still a lot closer with 100 than your 600. I'm guessing the motorcade numbers pushed that right up.

I already told you Zapruder did hear shots behind him as he stated multiple times but he flip flopped with leading questions and wasn't sure with the echos. Your straw man argument focuses on 3 witnesses out of the 216 you claim didn't hear shots from the knoll. I already pointed 1 out heard shots behind him, which was the knoll area but wasn't sure. What about the 35-40 that positively identified the knoll/track area?

Numbers are listed in his own link you not wrong.



I posted Zapruder testimony he ignored it.