The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
On 10/11/2012 10:50 PM, Research wrote:
> I read you post and agree with what you said. Thanks for intrest in myYour question is nonsense. People seeing a rifle in the window does not
> thoughts. You answer, even though intriging, did not answer the question.
> The question was, was there any other witnesses who saw the rifle in the
> window? Cause I don't think there was only three shot. I do think the
> assassin's nest a ploy and the MC was a throw down. But proving it is the
> million dollar answer.
prove it was fired and does not rule out a second rifle from somewhere
else. That's why we pushed for the HSCA and their tests PROVED that
three shots were fired from the sniper's nest and one shot was fired
from the grassy knoll.
Maybe more refined tests could even prove that it was Oswald's rifle
that fired all three shots. But in the meantime the recovered bullet and
fragments were fired from Oswald's rifle.
Only two did WHAT? Looked up? Saw the rifle? Maybe many more did, but
> I also find it curious that only two (so far) witnesses out of the over 3
were never questioned.
> corner around the building and only two looked up. I can't believe in onlySomething like that. I'd like to see you document whatever you think you
> 3 shots and that these shots came from the dep. Many of the people the WC
> claimed heard 3 shots from the dep was not even asked. Some of these
> witneses claimed the FBI had them sign blank affidavids and when they
> found out the affidavids were falsified, it was to late.
> All the evidence around the MC can be discredited. Oswald had to die toNot true. Remember where this case would be tried. Dallas, Texas. Wade
> keep him out of court. The circumstantial evidence of the case would not
> hold up. The bent shell is only one example. The "eye" witnesses who did
had 25 convictions out of 26 cases. Wade could have convicted a ham
> not see the large scope mounted on the rifle is another issue. TheyNever rely on witnesses.
> described they saw the shooter's finger on the trigger. But they did not
> see the scope? I personally think the shooter, if there really was one,
> used an automatic rifle without a scope. I say automatic because the shots
> sound timing were to close together to be a bolt-action. The second andThe acoustical evidence rules out an automatic.
> third shots were reported to almost on top of each other. The dictabelt
> showed them 1/2 second apart. Could have been from the dep but I ratherYou know nothing about the Dictabelt. Those two shots separated by less
than a second are not from the same weapon. They are from two weapons in
two different locations. Try reading the evidence before setting out to
dream up wacky theories.
> think from two different directions. And I also think the dictabelt was aSo your brilliant conspirators cover up their conspiracy by planting a
> fake, to cover up the fact that there was a conspiracy and shots were
> fired from different directions. I'm not saying Oswald was a patsy. It
> might have been him in the window, but with help from the knoll.
fake Dictabelt which proves conspiracy? Boy are these guys brilliant. So
Nixon planted a fake WH tape of an innocent conversation which had
dozens of erasures over 18-1/2 minutes only to MAKE it look like he was
destroying evidence of conspiracy?
Ah ha, but what he didn't know is that the real conversation was
accidentally duplicated on an early part of the tape via printthtough!
You know, that aside to Haldeman where he said, "God damn it, I covered
up for Helms when he killed Kennedy and now God damn it, he's going to
cover up for me."
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.