So you haven't actually ever been to the site and walked it yourself, eh Sherlock?
Posted on 07/30/2013 10:20:03 PM PDT by grundle
Ah. I think I misunderstood your original post, then. My mistake.
Well, like I said, if it’s so obvious that you can deduce the trajectories by common sense, then common sense must qualify one to be a forensic expert. Why people are pursuing degrees to qualify for those jobs is beyond me, when you can just look at an 8mm film and deduce what happened.
So you haven't actually ever been to the site and walked it yourself, eh Sherlock?
It wasn’t my uncle’s gun!
You have your opinions and I have mine.Lets just leave it there.
That is a lame debating point. I was not at Omaha beach on d day either but could clearly see from the footage that those pillboxes were mowing down our troopers. I could also clearly see Jfk sustaining multiple shots and the killer one blew the back of his head back and out. Then a multitude of people rushed the knoll area. I mean, how dumb can one be to be blind to the very obvious. Sort of sad.
Other than that, Mrs Kennedy, how was the drive through Dallas in a in brand new 64 Chevy convertible?
That makes about as much sense as this.
FWIW, the Kennedys were in touch with the Chicago mob. Ruby was a mob hanger-on. Isn't it more likely that the Kennedys conspired to have Oswald taken out than that Oswald was part of a conspiracy against Kennedy?
I'm not saying that they did, just that more of a connection was there between Giancana and the Kennedys than between some of the principal figures in other conspiracy theories.
nice try...but is is kooky to not see the obvious here!
Pretty sure LHO did he shooting on his own, but....there’s a lot of strange things that happened around him that had some kind of U.S. intelligence connection attached to him. I suspect Oswald was some low level street contact, and when TSHTF American intelligence wen into a panic & messed up the case somewhat by trying to get some distance from him.
There is no evidence that the back of his head was blown out.
Some people ran up to the knoll later, but not because anyone shot from there. They weren't chasing some guy with a gun. Does that really make sense to you? You think that's what people would do?
What mangled forensic evidence?
"In addition any detailed analysis of Oswald will bring up too many inconsistencies about his movements and whereabouts 1959-1963."
Inconsistencies? I don't think so.
"Ruby's background is also very suspicious. I see the mob as deeply involved too."
What is suspicious about Ruby's background? What evidence is there of any mob involvement?
"Oslwald was capable of firing a shot but his movements immediately after the shooting are bizarre."
It was a bizarre situation. He shot the President from his workplace. He left, went home and got his pistol, and took off. He tried to hide out in a theater when police were out looking for him. What should he have done?
Your repetition that it's obvious is just a declaration that you refuse to think about it.
I have been researching this case since 1974, though it is a hobby that I delve into once every few months now.
I read a lot of books and I read, a few years ago, a well researched book called:
Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK
I know we all tire about the Castro-Cuba connection but this book tipped the scales for me, even though, I was already in the conspiracy camp.
more denial...people like me have researched it thoroughly. Sorry you are so blind. Wow.
“There is no evidence that the back of his head was blown out.” Now you are lying..there are forensic photos of the back top of his head blown out. That is indeed what his wife scrambled back to pick up off of the trunk. I think you are some sort of plant or something...weird.
Reading a bunch of conspiracy books is not research. I'm willing to bet I know a lot more about the actual facts, not conspiracy book "facts", than you do.
Back up your statements. Saying other people are denial, or that everything is obvious, are empty words.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. There are no such photos. If you think there are, post one. Go ahead.
Some people think she was trying to retrieve something, but there's no evidence of it. Nothing to be retrieved is visible on the trunk. It's not consistent with her movement. It looks more like a panicked reaction to get away.
But the important part is no inferring motivation into someone else but looking at the evidence. The explosive hole was on the top right side of the head, not the back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.