THE ASSASSIN & IT WAS NOT OSWALD NOR ANY 1 MENTIONED SAVED MORE LIVES THAN ALL GODS COMBINE INCLUDING JESUS & INCLUDING YOUR OWN LIFE! JFK A DOUBLE O O SPIDER (USE IR METER OR = TO CONFIRM) HELL BENT ON THE EXTICTION OF MANKIND. JFK PLOT GLOBAL NUCLEAR AHNALIATION PHASE 1. ANTICIPAITE CASUALTIES 600 MILLION WHILE JFK THREDIIDAE FAMILY WAITED SAFELY IN CAVES BY THE MILLIONS PHASE 3. TO EMERGE AFTER THE HOLOCAUST FANG ENVENOMATE ANY SURVIVOR COLLECT FLESH & BONE REVENUE! (Kindle ePub- VIP2RIP).
@TheAmbassador11 Yes he did. When he was photographed days later he was wearing a different shirt. You can see Lovelady in the films taken at Dallas Police Headquaters when they march Oswald into an office to be questioned. Also robert Groden in his book The Killing of a President proved without doubt that it is Lovelady.
I have reserched this assaination for about 10 years trying to find one point of
proof that it was a conspiracy, Well in my opinion one lone nutcase Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Its hard to swallow that 1 lone nut a nobody can be the one who did it, but that is what happened .
@01clarkman you dont think theres a problem with a bullet ce399 (the magic bullet ) ,the warren commissions own experts said it was improbable that ce399 shattered some 5 inches of rib and a dense wrist bone and emerged in its near pristine condition . you have no problem with o p wright saying the bullet was pointed (which ce399 most certainly wasnt ) ,you have no problem with the fbi saying agent odum brought the bullet ce399 to parklands to show tomlinson and wright -------------
@01clarkman The fbi memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the bullet “appears to be the same one” ,the problem is that odum himself said he never ever saw ce399 and never brought it any where .
"I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” bardwell odum
Dr. Evalea Glanges at Parklands hospital: "I realised there was a bullet hole in the windshield. It was very clear, it was a 'through-and-through' bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the FRONT to the BACK. It seemed like a high velocity bullet that had penetrated from front to back.
Motorcycle officer Stavis 'Steve' Ellis: "you could put a pencil through the hole"
Carl Renas of Ford Motor saw several holes in the chrome.
The FBI claimed the damage to the windshield chrome (severe indentation) had been done prior to 11/22/63, but photos from the day before in San Antonio show the chrome to be intact.
Officer J.W.Foster saw a bullet strike the grass on the south side of Elm street near a manhole cover.
Edna Hartman also saw the hole in the grass where the bullet struck. A policeman appeared and he also looked at the bullet strike. He said to Edna Hartman "that's where a bullet went through".
The video is right in one aspect - LBJ WAS behind the assassination. His former mistress's comments in another youtube video back that up. Both Hoover and LBJ hated the Kennedys. Hoover played the biggest part in covering up what really happened.
2:30 "condensation trails" ...what?!? The bullets would create NO condensation trails. Tracer can leave a faint smoke trail but only hot objects create contrails and only in very cold air
Who really cares? He was a scumbag and it's comical coming up all the people and groups that wanted him offed!! Certainly a lot of mistresses and fathers of women he all but raped using the power and authority of his office.
@univibe23 lots of people care ,i dont particulary like the man clearly like his father and brothers bobby and ted he was a womaniser but its not about who he slept with its about the reasons he was killed .
This is NOT Oswald in this photo. It is Billy Lovelady an employee of the Book Depository. This was proven by one of the biggest conspiracy advocates Robert Groden. He interviewed Lovelady and photographed him years later standing in the same spot with the same shirt on. Check out Groden's book The Killing of a President.
@399er How many times do you nitwits need the facts? He tested negative for gunshot residue on his cheek. The palm print wasn't found until they brought the gun to the morgue! He had a revolver and the shell casings at the Tippit scene were from an automatic. The rifle had a misaligned scope. It had a different sling mount than the one in the backyard photos. The pipes were in the way at the window. The tree was in the way. He was drinking a Coke in the lunchroom. A guilty man flees!!!
@399er You are still a moron because you are obviously ignorant since three quarters of the people know it was a conspiracy! You don't even know how to spell!
@399er Oswald worked for the CIA and Ruby for the FBI! Oswald had a Minox spy camera. He denied killing anyone while the media lied about his statements. He said now the whole world would know about him in a dejected way but the media repoted it as a boast! Dan Rather lied about what the Z film showed. The Dallas doctors were all called liars. The Z film shows Oswald does not fire the killing shot. Watch The Men Who Killed Kennedy! Only a pre-planned patsy can be identified so quickly!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tregoj1 I've seen The Men Who Killed Kennedy, not a good source for accurate information. There is no evidence at all that Oswald worked for the CIA !! Ruby, FBI, ha, ha, ha, ha !! That's a real good one. Where did you find that tid bit of information, the X-Files ? If all of your bizare accusations are true where are your corroborating facts, your independent sources and forensic evidence ? There is none, because what you are saying is pure made-up fiction.
@399er My critic LoneNutter has been flagged as spam! You are probably going to be next! Everything I have said are found in the major works on the assassination. Ever hear of Craig Zirbel, Robert Groden, and Jim Marrs? Mark Lane? Michael Collins Piper could only write Final Judgment based on the fact of a conspiracy so that he could focus on the ties to the case. The forensics are proven from the witnesses that very day-Kilduff, Zapruder, and the Dallas doctors.
@399er "I've seen The Men Who Killed Kennedy, not a good source for accurate information"
why is this ? ,yes in episode 2 i believe it is the names of 3 men were given which proved to be incorrect and thats the only criticism ive ever seen people make about it or atleast the only part they could prove was inaccurate . and i know a latter episode i believe it was the guilty men was dropped from the history channel for legal reasons .
@fobrien1 I'd say that's a pretty big mistake. You name the assassin and he's in jail on 11/22/63. This point was made to the producers and they released the film anyway. That fact alone calls much of the"so called facts" in this film into question.
@399er "I'd say that's a pretty big mistake. You name the assassin and he's in jail on 11/22/63"
i agree ,but you have to realise that the guy in the documentary (i believe steve rivell )got the information from a source that even the fbi vouched for . your talking about 20 minutes (which admitadely is in error) of an 8 hour 8 episode program but your impying that the whole documentary is in error and thats false your throwing the baby out with the bath water .
@fobrien1 "That fact alone calls much of the"so called facts" in this film into question"
so by your logic if i can point out one error in say jfk inside the target car would that thro the whole documentary into question ? ,if i pointed out one error in reclaiming history would the whole book be in question?.
@tregoj1 Oh, so you watched that tripe called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and obviously swallowed everything that they said. I didn't realize that you were such an assassination scholar . . . . .
@399er "He tested negative for gunshot residue on his cheek"
this is also correct ,so tregoj1 as far as the evidence goes is not wrong on all counts in fact thats 4 points tregoj1 is correct on so either YOU dont know the evidence or your simply trying to mislead .
@tregoj1 The FBI test fired the rifle, no residue on the cheek of the agent. Since the parafin test was developed for hand guns and a rife has no opening near the cheek for gas to escape, this is no surprise. The palm print as well as partial finger prints were photographed by the Dallas Police on the day of the assassination. His revolver was quite capable of fireing automatic shells. The witnesses to Oswald killing Tippit are are knee deep.
@399er If paraffin test didn't work with rifles then why was the test done? The palm print was not found until Oswald was dead. It went to Washington and the FBI could find no fingerprints! The point is that a revolver, no matter what ammo is in it, doesn't eject shells! You have to take them out by hand. His revolver was fully loaded whenn he was arrested. He didn't use it! He had 8 minutes to get to Tippitt. The theater guy said Oswald was there shortly after 1 when the movie began!
@399er "The FBI test fired the rifle, no residue on the cheek of the agent"
which tests or book are you quoting from ? as far as im aware when tests were performed (firing the rifle ) nitrates were found on all those that fired it .
@fobrien1 Nitrates were found on their hands only, not their cheeks. There is very little chance that nitrates would show up on the cheek anyway because the cartridge is sealed into the chamber by the bolt of the rifle being closed behind it. In any case, Oswald tested positive for nitrates on his hands.
@399er "Nitrates were found on their hands only, not their cheeks"
the warren commission conducted nitrate tests on 7 people after they fired the rifle and all 7 tested positive on their cheek ,harold weisberg got this information from documents obtained in a freedom of information law suit .
@fobrien1 Well good for Weisberg. The FBI had agent Charles L. Killion fire 3 rounds from Oswald's carcano and the paraffin test conducted on him was negative for both his cheek and hands. The residue on Oswald's hands came from the pistol from shooting Tippit. The residue test was devised for hand guns not rifles.
@399er "The residue on Oswald's hands came from the pistol from shooting Tippit. The residue test was devised for hand guns not rifles."
i see your one of those that accepts defeat badly ,7 men fired the rifle (not a pistol) and 7 cheeks were tested and 7 cheeks tested positive .thats 7 out of 7 which is 100% ) so in that respect oswald (cheek wise ) tested negative 100% .
@fobrien1 The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek was negative. Both of his hands were positive !! The paraffin test is what is used to test for nitrates.I don't know what copy of the WC Report you were reading, but my copy, page 560, states; "The paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the test."
@tregoj1 Do you think the scope on the rifle might have been pushed out of whack when he tossed it behind the boxes ? And gee, he changed the sling mount. I've done it myself, big deal. The pipes ?? Never heard this stupid theory. I put it up there with the Limo Driver did it. The tree was not in the way. All the reconstructions of the shooting prove that. Coke, I'm a Dr. Pepper man myself. Why do CTers take a cross country flight just to cross the street ? This is old and tiresome.
@399er Why would he change the sling mount? It had no sling on it before! Why didn't he hide the rifle? Hwe didn''t flee the scene, he bought a Coke! The pipes are in photos! In the book Crossfire! The tree most definitely blocked potential shots! Photos prove that! He had several other windows to choose from. The framers chose that end since they could build the nest without being seen. One reconstruction moved the sandbags to the outside lane so they could shoot over the tree. You lie!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tregoj1 Your full of it !! Your claims are wild speculation without fact or supporting evidence. You seem to think if you state your misguided points long enough people will believe them. You ignore established fact or simply call it lies, you present no corroborating evidence to support your claim and you site a fully discredited documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, as fact. Liar, I'd say that term best describes yourself. I don't know why I waste time arguing with you !!
indeed it was for atleast the first shot ,even gerald posner (im quite sure you know him) is of the opinion that the first shot was deflected off a branch of the tree .
@fobrien1 No kidding !! I never said it wasn't in the way for the first shot. The first shot is the shot that missed. It may have hit the tree branch. The tree was not in the way of the last two shots.
@399er "No kidding !! I never said it wasn't in the way for the first shot"
(well ok but thats not quite what you said originaly )
"The tree was not in the way. All the reconstructions of the shooting prove that"
(so just for clarification so everyone is clear your saying the tree was in the way for the first shot but was not in the way for shots 2 and 3 ,atleast now people reading will have a clear understanding of the tree issue.
@tregoj1 Oh and by the way, he did flee. He shot a policeman, tried to shoot another one when he was arrested at the Texas Theater. Sounds guilty as hell to me.
@399er " tried to shoot another one when he was arrested at the Texas Theater."
ever read this ?
" told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, BRINGING UP BOTH HANDS . He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.--------------
@399er oswald was asked by mcdonald to stand up (he did ) he had both hands up (he had no pistol in his hands ) it was tucked in his waist ,he was all but saying ok ill come quietly and only reacted when mcdonald reached for his pistol . oswald did strike mcdonald but he did not attempt to shoot him or any officer in the theatre .
@tregoj1 i would agree with you on the maters of the sling mounting /the scope being misaligned /and a tree was in the way for the first shot /and the gun shot residue.. i think the points regarding the palm print and the revolver casings are open to debate but to my thinking they are suspect . i dont think the pipes were an obstruction to a sniper (atleast not a right handed sniper) but maybe they would be to a left handed sniper but i guess that would be debatable too.
@399er its interesting how you blocked me posting comments on your thread and all i did was post abraham zapruders own words
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the rRIGHT SIDE OF THE HEAD and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
@399er Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the BACK OF ME.
@399er Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you indicated that they could have come also from behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because they could have been from behind or even from the front.
zapruder is not even 100% sure he is only saying he thought a shot came from in back of him or behind him so why are you so afraid to have his words ----
@399er on your thread ? why is it that all i do is post mr zapruders own words and you block me what are you afraid of ? the truth perhaps . you sent me a pm because you didnt want to debate openly with me and when i write a comment on your channel inviting you to debate openly for all to see as opposed to pms you delete my comment (in fact 2 comments ) what are you so afraid of the truth ? . you fire names and insults at me on autoads thread ---------------------------
@399er while autoad falsely accuses me of being a liar and dishonest and i remained polite and answered all comments directed at me . autoad has the gall to threaten to block me for asking him to prove his accusations (well so be it ) and you block me for simply posting mr zapruders testimony (again so be it ) ,the truth is a beautifull thing why not try it some time .
@399er how said are you ?you even deleted mr zapruders testimony because he says it sounded like a shot came from in back of me /behind me ,that tells everyone the truth means nothing what so ever to you .
@fobrien1 Not at all. I've read it myself a number of times. I deleted it and blocked you because you wouldn't play ball. When you finally decided to it was to late. I don't know why I wasted so much time on semantic games with you.
@399er "I deleted it and blocked you because you wouldn't play ball. When you finally decided to it was to late"
what 399er means is that i asked him if he could provide proof that his accusations were true ,he didnt want to do that for obvious reasons .and this is what he calls not playing ball ,really what i did that wasnt playing ball was that i didnt run scared and said ok lets debate .i also asked his buddy autoad if he was willing to provide proof that ---------------
@399er his accusations were true (including his accustaions that i was liar and dishonest ) i was promptly told
"Demanding proof of events and happenings that surround the assassination is no longer acceptable Your dishonest behavior has been tolerated long enough. In most discussion threads you wouldn't get a warning. Here, you have"
i made no demands but i did say if your going to make accusations then im going to ask you to prove them . autoad called me a liar ----------------
@399er because i replied to a comment of his where he said he would take posner and bugliosis word over mine ,and i said both authors are guilty of omitions /distortions and even lies .i gave one example bugliosi said oswald claimed he ate with jarmin ,the reply from autoad was i wasnt to be believed im a liar .so i said ok check for your self which autoad said he would ,2 days later he still had not admitted he was wrong yet still calling me a liar -----------------------
@399er so today i posted my proof that oswald never claimed he ate with jarmin with segments from will fritz and bookhouts interrogation notes . what does autoad do when shown the proof he blocks me .this should tell people all they need to know about 399er (who deletes testimony and lies about it ) and autoad (who fasely accuses a person of being a liar ) both of who have blocked me for having the gall to ask them for a bit of proof .
@fobrien1 After I gave you a fair warning about your tactics on my thread, and gave you ample opportunity to share with us your opinion/version of what happened in Dallas, you continued your disingenuous position that you had no opinion, just facts. You were not required to agree with me or anyone else who posted messages, but you were fixated on tossing stones from the highway overpass onto the passing traffic below. You announced you had read one book on the topic. Later on you insinuated
@autoad "After I gave you a fair warning about your tactics on my thread"
if you have some strange idea in your head that i may be employing some sort of tactic well thats your concern not mine ,i merely wanted and asked you numerous times to prove your case . meaning if your saying oswald bought the rifle ok thats fine and good but can i please see your proof that he did indeed buy it . you decided you didnt want to do that .
@autoad "and gave you ample opportunity to share with us your opinion/version of what happened in Dallas"
i told you what my opinion was was of no consequence because its not proof (you yourself say the same thing dont you ) and i dont indulge in theories nor do i say oswald was innocent ,again i merely wanted to discuss the facts as we know them but you did not .you and 399er harped on about oliver for about 3 days and i simply asked if we could discuss the facts and evidence ---------
@autoad and i stated clearly that i didnt think oliver or her claims added anything to the facts and evidence regarding the events in dealey and 10th and patton .for the simple reason that a lot of what she said is neither proven or disproven ,but you seemed to prefer talking about that which can neither be proven nor disproved because i guess it means you couldnt be proven wrong .
@autoad "You announced you had read one book on the topic"
not true ,either you are 399er stated i probably got all my info from conspiracy related books and authors and books were mentioned ,i replied no i only read one CONSPIRACY book (not one of the books mentioned) and that that was in the 80s . lets say for argument sake i read no actual books at all not one ,what does that matter ? surely that would make it easier for you to prove me wrong on all points i might raise ? .----------
@autoad so why should you be worried at all about what i read or didnt read ,why should you care if i read one book /no books /or 50 books ? as long as i accurately present the facts after all its just about the facts isnt it ?. and thats whats important isnt it ? well thats what you say on other threads
"13.It dosen't matter what people believe; it's about FACTS and EVIDENCE and not opinion"
@autoad i attemped a civil debate with you on another thread where i presented numerous facts and went into detail about who was where in the TSBD (including oswald ) between 11.40 and 12.30 ,but you opted not to debate or to attempt to refute what i said because you know it was accurate .so your well aware that i present facts and evidence and i do so truthfully/honestly and in a civil manner .
@fobrien1 you had read all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission testimony and evidence AND the testimony and evidence from the HSCA hearings "for starters".You were encouraged to participate in the discussion but you were adamant on demanding people prove things they had nothing to do in their creation. You demanded "evidence" that is impossible to produce in this venue. Furthermore, you refused to accept a public apology from another participant. You chose to be a bad contributor to the thread.
@autoad "You were encouraged to participate in the discussion but you were adamant on demanding people prove things they had nothing to do in their creation"
i participated fully i answered all comments directed at me and i did so honestly and in a civil manner ,the only time i was less than 100% civil was when i got sick of the nemerous comments by your cohort 399er containing bad language and what i term abusive content (which by the way you had no problem with ) i saw you
@autoad give no warning what so ever to your cohort 399er for his behaviour . i didnt accept an apology from 399er because he is just another in a long line of LNers on these threads who think its ok to insult and abuse people ,and by allowing such behaviour which you did you condone such behaviour .and the funny thing is you only complained about my refual of the apology and gave no thought to why 399er offered it in the first place for being abusive .
@autoad "you were adamant on demanding people prove things"
i demanded nothing but yes i asked if your going to say ( for example) that oswald bought the rifle via money order that you can provide proof of this ,this is perfectly reasonable and acceptable on jfk forums . in fact (to use your word ) people would demand proof on jfk forums and on some forums one would be severly abused by some members for not providing it . so in that respect yes if one makes a claim like above -------
@autoad i will say can you please provide proof that this is the case ,there are to many false claims on these threads either by mistaken people or by people attempting to mislead sofor me accuracy is essential . in fact you yourself made a few claims today on a thread that were not strictly accurate youtube.com/all_comments?v=UqEjGuGKiJ8 and i added some information to correct the inaccurate claims .so you see thats why i ask for proof as to often people are actually mistaken.
@autoad "You demanded "evidence" that is impossible to produce in this venue"
i demanded nothing but yes i did ask for proof ,i accept youtube is not a great media to provide proof but it can be done and i know this because i do it my self every day .if one cant post a picture or document one can provide a broken link ,for instance if you claim oswald bought and posted the money order i can say heres a link showing oswalds jaggers chiles choval time sheet -------------------------
@autoad and this jaggers chiles stoval time sheet shows oswald was at work at the time the money order was bought and posted . so i respectfully disagree its quite possible to present much evidence in this media (all tho restrictive ) even it means typing 4 or 5 or more comments in a row as im doing now .
@autoad "Furthermore, you refused to accept a public apology from another participant"
if you had warned 399er for posting abusive comments he would im sure have stopped and no apology would have been necessary ,but you were happy to allow such behaviour on your thread . but when it comes to abusive comments youve posted a few yourself havent you ? im sure you remember your unprovoked highly abusive attack on me . and your false and unproven accusations that i am a liar ----------------
@autoad and you decided on your own thread say that i wasnt to be believed and to again falsely accuse me of being a liar . this was in relation to bugliosis false claim where he says oswald claimed he ate with jarmin ,when i posted the FACTS and the EVIDENCE proving both you and bugliosi wrong you blocked me .so you will have to forgive me for not accepting an apology from people (including yourself) who abused and falsely labeled me a liar .
@fobrien1 So I gave you a fair warning what was going to happen if you persisted. You kept acting out so I had no choice but to give you the boot.
You were dishonest in your motives and intentions. You tried to play a slick game of hiding in the cracks of the discussion claiming you were only discussing "facts" yet you openly defended to actions of Hoffman, Oliver, and Arnold and explaining them away with bizarre theories of stolen cameras that didn't exit until years later.
@autoad "So I gave you a fair warning what was going to happen if you persisted. You kept acting out so I had no choice but to give you the boot."
you falsely accused me of being a liar (on two threads now ) and i simply asked you if thats the true case to prove me wrong and prove your false claim (you didnt ), im sure if you were falsely accused you would expect nothing less .i posted the evidence on your thread that i was truthfull and you and bugliosi are wrong .
@autoad "You were dishonest in your motives and intentions"
i invited you to point out any comment of mine (and there are lots on youtube )or one instance in any of my comments where i have been untruthfull and dishonest (not in your opinion but in fact ) and again you failed to provide any proof of your false accusations . and the reason is because im honest and truthfull ,and if i err i admit it ,some thing obviously you were unwilling to do on your thread .
@autoad "You tried to play a slick game of hiding in the cracks of the discussion claiming you were only discussing "facts""
i claimed no such thing i said i only deal in facts and evidence ,and i wanted to discuss the facts and the evidence for instance the TSBD /the knoll /10th and patton and the witnesses you know those who actually claim to have seen or spoken with oswald . you wanted only to discuss the existance (or lack there of ) of a camera in 1963 ----------------
@autoad you said the camera didnt exist in 1963 (i said oliver said it was a prototype not avilable to the general public untill some time in 1965) .i simply argued that because it wasnt avilable to BUY in november 1963 doesnt mean there werent prototypes in november 1963 . after all all inventions have prototypes dont they ? , i said a few times what you were arguing (oliver and her camera ) was moot because she saw no shooter oswald or otherwise ,she saw nothing that afternoon ------
@autoad so discussing if she was there or what camera she had was moot .heres one of my replies
"the funny thing is im not focusing on the camera or oliver YOU ARE ,ive said a few times allready that what your arguing is moot yet you still harp on about it ,oliver saw no one shooting she can tell us nothing about the events on elm (other than jfk was shot) or on 10th and patton ."
@autoad i merely said we can neither prove nor disprove that arnold was there on the knoll ,and i never presented any thing he said as factual . i said hoffman was a deaf mute who could neither hear nor speak and he had poor writing skills ,so what he said was translated by a third party and as we know sign language is open to interpretation .also it was said hoffman couldnt see the knoll area from the flyover ,thats patently false .--------------
@autoad i guess unlike you and your ilk i dont feel the need to trample on people graves ,i dont feel the need to attack a person who is no longer capable of defending them selves because they are dead .yes we should assess a persons reliability and credibility as a witness through research and honest debate but not by attacking people with no capacity to defend them selves .
@fobrien1 You're entitled to your opinion but you presented yourself as someone without an opinion. That's dishonest and tantamount to lying, which you did. If you're looking for a villain between breaths of your whining, look in the mirror. Your wounds were self inflicted. Go complain to yourself.
@autoad "You're entitled to your opinion but you presented yourself as someone without an opinion. That's dishonest and tantamount to lying, WHICH YOU DID"
again im happy to invite you to point to or copy and paste from any comment of mine on your thread or others where i have lied been untruthfull or dishonest (not in your opinion but in fact ) ,this is called proving your alegation .if you cant or your unwilling to do so then have the good grace to admit your wrong .
@autoad "If you're looking for a villain between breaths of your whining, look in the mirror"
im very happy with what i see in the mirror and im very happy with my reserach .and thats why im 100% comfortable in the knowledge that you will never prove your allegations that im a liar because they are patently false ,they are false because you made them up . you know only to well that im well researched and your afraid to debate with me because of that -------------------
@autoad the same applies to 399er . you wont debate with me because you know all your false facts /errors and mistakes (and lies) will be there for all to see . so you resort to an abusive and unprovoked attack on me ,and you allow 399er to post abusive comments in reply to mine ,and thats not enough is it you try to assassinate my character by falsely labeling me a liar on 3 threads now . well now people reading will see you and 399er for what you really are .
@tregoj1 Why do you believe Oswald was in the lunchroom? Because he said he was? Oswald told police he had lunch that day with people he worked with. But none of the employees of Texas Schoolbooks vouched for him. Oswald wasn't a Coke drinker. His favorite beverage was Dr. Pepper. The evidence agains LHO is ironclad and overwhelming. I'm still amazed at the people who ignore the evidence and expect everyone else to accept their beliefs that are based on opinion, conjecture and denial.
@LoneNutter1 The Warren Commission was a whitewash! We experienced a coup run by Lyndon Johnson. Research the man! He was an 8 time murderer! Billie Sol Estes his friend fingered him. We went to Vietnam because of the CIA-Johnson-mafia murder. Johnson was vile and ruthless. His buddy Hoover was a pervert who dressed in drag while denying the existence of his mob friends! The evidence is strongly refuted by attorney Mark Lane! If it was so good there never would have been an argument
@tregoj1 And you don't have a stitch of evidence to support your position. All you have is opinion, conjecture, supposition and innuendo and none of that is considered evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ofcoarse any guy with a long head and is white in dallas must be lee harvy oswald. Tht is clear proof tht is oswald in the photo. Thts sarcasm. Plain and simple oswald seems to make sense as the assasin. Its an easy shot and he was a marine sniper.
@mrogers301 Why miss then? A misaligned scope. Why buy a Coke in the lunchroom- innocent. He was a poor shot- innocent. A carbine would never do- innocent. No gunpowder residue-innocent. On and on the evidence is the most flimsy evidence possible. Johnson and Hoover were the crooks that preceded Nixon and Ford!
@mrogers301 It's not an easy shot! Ever gone deer hunting and try to hit a moving target! A smart assassin would have picked a better window, hidden his gun very well, picked up his spent cartridges, bought a quality deer hunting rifle leaving no paper trail, had a getaway car waiting for him, and probably pick a place on the ground where he could run away. There are evidences of windshield and car frame damsge, a curb shot, a grass shot, and something like 7 injuries! One guy???
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tregoj1 It was an easy shot. Especialy for someone with his training. 88 yards at a very slow moving target. If you do your research Oswalds best shooting scores while in the Marines were at moving targets and you can look it up !!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tregoj1 Site your sources of your so called evidence. You don't know the case. What independent outside source backs up these wild claims. None, because they are fiction.JFK rode through American citys in an open car. If the government wanted to get him there were dozens of opportunites. No Patsy or elaborite scheme was needed. It would have been simple, very few people involved and quick. Oswald did it. Get over it !!!
Watch Zapruder film jfk put something in his mouth frame 227 (probably cyanide) he is already dead as she puts her hand on his arm before he gets shot, also at frame 227 the man sitting directly in front of jfk is seen tucking or reaching under his RIGHT arm and turning probably to line up the shot or feel.
It looks as tho they all acted on some que like if the sign board at frame 214 was supposed to block the setup.
WATCH ANY FOOTAGE HE IS ALREADY DEAD BEFORE SHOT !
@999worlddestroyer He was not dead but paralyzed by poisoned ice pellets shot- which explains why both the throat wound and the back wounds are entrance wounds that have no exit! The thoat wound was as tiny as a .22 caliber! The CIA did the whole thing.
There is very little (if any) evidence connecting Oswald to the JFK killing. If he was involved, it was probably at only a low level. Most likely he was planted there, just like he said. It was obviously a massive conspiracy since the evidence demonstrates multiple gunmen and a coverup and destruction of evidence that has lasted decades. There were also many witness & journalists murdered. Oswald is innocent until proven guilty, and the WC did not make their case (& were not a court anyway).
The man standing outside the Book Depository is Billy Lovelady not Lee Harvey Oswald. However, if Oswald did it and did it alone, why were there men with fake Secret Service credentials shooing people away from the railyards behind the grassy knoll?
Nonsense...they even found LHO's shirt fibers on the rifle..along with his index prints on the box that supported the rifle....along with the picture of him with the rifle and even the alias name he used on the receipt he still had for the rifle.
@clev9980 LHO owned the rifle so shirt fibers on the rifle don't prove anything except that it was his rifle and at some point came into contact with it. However, the pictures of him with it have been forged. The light and shadow inconsistencies show that whoever forged the photos simply pasted Oswald's face on someone else's body.
@bigjohnmac His shirt fibers came into contact with the rifle while he was firing bullets into the presidents body !!! His wife has NEVER said she didn't take that photograph. LHO was the killer of JFK.
This video is ridiculous. I t is known for years that the man on the photo was Billy Lovelady. He has been identified a long time ago. Oswald has no aliby. No one saw him at the time of the shooting. Johnson continued Kennedy policies. All this videos is ridiculous.
@captainkavern You are correct. The man standing there is Billy Lovelady and you are also correct that no one saw him at the time of the shooting. However, Oswald was seen in the second floor lunchroom at the precise time the motorcade was scheduled to pass Dealey Plaza. Oswald had no idea the motorcade was running late so it stands to reason that if Oswald had planned to shoot JFK from the 6th floor snipers nest, he would have been there waiting and not having lunch on the second floor.
Please, for God's sake, don't call or consider Oswald innocent. A person who deliberately involves himself in a crime is equally guilty even though he might have not pulled the trigger. He knew throughout what was happening for months and he did nothing. It does not matter whether he hated JFK personally or liked him, he was involved in the plot to kill him and was ready to become their fall guy and should be considered equally guilty.
@sidrahsiddiqui There are those who say LHO did it and did it alone. There are others who said he had nothing to do with it. The truth--as is often the case--falls somewhere in the middle. The cops never had any evidence linking LHO to firing the rifle on November 22, 1963. There is solid evidence that LHO was connected to people and groups that had the means, motive and opportunity to kill JFK--Guy Bannister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw just to mention a few.
The guy standing in the doorway has been identified as Bill Lovelady, not Oswald, although I do agree with you that the case against Oswald is EXTREMELY weak and I too find him innocent of killing Kennedy.
A. Thats NOT Oswald in the doorway. It is a known fact that the man you claim is Oswald is actually Billy Nolan Lovelady. B. Mrs JFK is not trying to "save and collect parts of her husbands brain" from the trunk lid of the car. She is doing no such thing.
@IwshIcldstrtover A. is correct but is disputed by many. Lovelady years later went to the FBI in the shirt he wore that day. it was a similar shirt but had stripes or a plaid design. (not sure what its called) B. mrs kennedy was grabbing a piece of her husbands skull/ hair / flesh/ brain that came off and landed on the trunk. she gave the piece to a dallas dr. LHO in my opinion penetrated an assassination ring by rogue CIA/ Cuban guys who planted evidence on him. he warned the FBI on 2 occasions
@pat442389 Oswald was a CIA plant. They previously used him to leak U2 secrets to the Soviets when he was in the SU to undermine the 1960 Geneva Peace Conference between Eisenhower and Kruschev. He obviously was part of a double operation since there are rumors that at this time, he was training in Louisiana for the Bay of Pigs invasion. He came back to the US and became an FBI informant probably under the direction of RFK himself. RFK visited him in his cell the night of JFK's assassination too
@R3DF00T It is probable that LHO worked for American intelligence (CIA or ONI). This explains how easy it was for LHO to get back to the USA and bring a Russian born wife with him. Documents also show LHO was a paid FBI informant and his assignment may have been either to infiltrate the conspiracy or take part in it. This would explain why the conspirators hired Ruby to kill him. Oswald knew a lot of information that would embarrass and criminally implicate the CIA, FBI and others
RFK did not plan on Oswald being silenced by Ruby, and the police notes likely were destroyed to protect his identity. JFK didn't want another Bay of Pigs invasion and Oswald was sent out to find these people and inform on them. James Files even says he went with Oswald out into the country to test fire the weapons they used to kill Kennedy, and he has also gone on record as saying that Johnny Roselli and Charles Nicoletti were part of the killing as well.
@R3DF00T What is interesting is that none of Oswald's interrogations were recorded in any way. No notes, no tape recording, nothing. I wonder if the Dallas police knew right then that Oswald was not going to live to stand trial. Because if he had, the DPD would need a record to prove his guilt.
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ASSASSIN & IT WAS NOT OSWALD NOR ANY 1 MENTIONED SAVED MORE LIVES THAN ALL GODS COMBINE INCLUDING JESUS & INCLUDING YOUR OWN LIFE! JFK A DOUBLE O O SPIDER (USE IR METER OR = TO CONFIRM) HELL BENT ON THE EXTICTION OF MANKIND. JFK PLOT GLOBAL NUCLEAR AHNALIATION PHASE 1. ANTICIPAITE CASUALTIES 600 MILLION WHILE JFK THREDIIDAE FAMILY WAITED SAFELY IN CAVES BY THE MILLIONS PHASE 3. TO EMERGE AFTER THE HOLOCAUST FANG ENVENOMATE ANY SURVIVOR COLLECT FLESH & BONE REVENUE! (Kindle ePub- VIP2RIP).
inspectorcritic 5 days ago
That LOOKS like Billy Lovelady in the door alright; the problem is he didn't have that shirt on.That shirt looks more like the shirt LHO was wearing.
TheAmbassador11 6 days ago
@TheAmbassador11 Yes he did. When he was photographed days later he was wearing a different shirt. You can see Lovelady in the films taken at Dallas Police Headquaters when they march Oswald into an office to be questioned. Also robert Groden in his book The Killing of a President proved without doubt that it is Lovelady.
399er 6 days ago
@TheAmbassador11 It's so obviously Lovelady, you'd have to have a brain injury to believe it was LHO. Oh, but I guess Lovelady was in on it too then?
flouride666 6 days ago
Oswald innocent
BarryBazzaRyder 2 weeks ago
I have reserched this assaination for about 10 years trying to find one point of
proof that it was a conspiracy, Well in my opinion one lone nutcase Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Its hard to swallow that 1 lone nut a nobody can be the one who did it, but that is what happened .
01clarkman 2 weeks ago
@01clarkman you dont think theres a problem with a bullet ce399 (the magic bullet ) ,the warren commissions own experts said it was improbable that ce399 shattered some 5 inches of rib and a dense wrist bone and emerged in its near pristine condition . you have no problem with o p wright saying the bullet was pointed (which ce399 most certainly wasnt ) ,you have no problem with the fbi saying agent odum brought the bullet ce399 to parklands to show tomlinson and wright -------------
fobrien1 1 week ago
@01clarkman The fbi memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the bullet “appears to be the same one” ,the problem is that odum himself said he never ever saw ce399 and never brought it any where .
"I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” bardwell odum
fobrien1 1 week ago
Dr. Evalea Glanges at Parklands hospital: "I realised there was a bullet hole in the windshield. It was very clear, it was a 'through-and-through' bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the FRONT to the BACK. It seemed like a high velocity bullet that had penetrated from front to back.
Motorcycle officer Stavis 'Steve' Ellis: "you could put a pencil through the hole"
Carl Renas of Ford Motor saw several holes in the chrome.
funkmasterjee 2 weeks ago
The FBI claimed the damage to the windshield chrome (severe indentation) had been done prior to 11/22/63, but photos from the day before in San Antonio show the chrome to be intact.
Officer J.W.Foster saw a bullet strike the grass on the south side of Elm street near a manhole cover.
Edna Hartman also saw the hole in the grass where the bullet struck. A policeman appeared and he also looked at the bullet strike. He said to Edna Hartman "that's where a bullet went through".
funkmasterjee 2 weeks ago
Bullets -
One through JFK and Conally.
One through JFK's head.
One hitting the curb
One through the windshield (front to back) - (more than one witness)
One hitting the chrome over the windshield
One in the grass near to manhole cover on Elm st.
that's SIX bullets (even if you accept that JFK and Conally were hit by the same bullet), plus a possible 7.65mm shell!
Six bullets in approx 8 seconds from a bolt-action rifle with a misaligned scope that was notorious for jamming ???
funkmasterjee 2 weeks ago
The video is right in one aspect - LBJ WAS behind the assassination. His former mistress's comments in another youtube video back that up. Both Hoover and LBJ hated the Kennedys. Hoover played the biggest part in covering up what really happened.
funkmasterjee 2 weeks ago
2:30 "condensation trails" ...what?!? The bullets would create NO condensation trails. Tracer can leave a faint smoke trail but only hot objects create contrails and only in very cold air
funkmasterjee 2 weeks ago
At 1:10 that's Billy Lovelady, another TSBD employee. NOT Oswald
funkmasterjee 2 weeks ago
Who really cares? He was a scumbag and it's comical coming up all the people and groups that wanted him offed!! Certainly a lot of mistresses and fathers of women he all but raped using the power and authority of his office.
univibe23 2 weeks ago
@univibe23 lots of people care ,i dont particulary like the man clearly like his father and brothers bobby and ted he was a womaniser but its not about who he slept with its about the reasons he was killed .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
The CT'ers are clearly scared to death of 399er!
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
@LoneNutter1 yea he got me shaking in my boots ha ha .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
This is NOT Oswald in this photo. It is Billy Lovelady an employee of the Book Depository. This was proven by one of the biggest conspiracy advocates Robert Groden. He interviewed Lovelady and photographed him years later standing in the same spot with the same shirt on. Check out Groden's book The Killing of a President.
399er 1 month ago
@399er It is Lovelady but Oswald was in the lunchroom! Nuff said.
tregoj1 1 month ago
@tregoj1 It was Oswald. The evidence against him is overwhelming !! Nuff said.
399er 1 month ago
@399er How many times do you nitwits need the facts? He tested negative for gunshot residue on his cheek. The palm print wasn't found until they brought the gun to the morgue! He had a revolver and the shell casings at the Tippit scene were from an automatic. The rifle had a misaligned scope. It had a different sling mount than the one in the backyard photos. The pipes were in the way at the window. The tree was in the way. He was drinking a Coke in the lunchroom. A guilty man flees!!!
tregoj1 1 month ago
@tregoj1 Your wrong on all counts. Oswald did it. Get over it !!
399er 1 month ago
@399er Oswald never fired a shot! You are a moron.
tregoj1 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tregoj1 Ah yes, name calling. The tactic of an individual who is loosing the argument !! Get lost.
399er 1 month ago
@399er You are still a moron because you are obviously ignorant since three quarters of the people know it was a conspiracy! You don't even know how to spell!
tregoj1 1 month ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tregoj1 Oh, spelling errors. I guess that means it was a conspiracy.
399er 1 month ago
@tregoj1 People stood in line to buy tickets for the Titanic as well . . . that does not prove the majority of people to be right.
In 48 years there has never been one single shred of verifiable physical evidence to prove a conspiracy in the assassination of Kennedy.
BlueWolfe38 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er "Ah yes, name calling. The tactic of an individual who is loosing the argument !! Get lost." a tactic LNs use so often .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@399er Oswald worked for the CIA and Ruby for the FBI! Oswald had a Minox spy camera. He denied killing anyone while the media lied about his statements. He said now the whole world would know about him in a dejected way but the media repoted it as a boast! Dan Rather lied about what the Z film showed. The Dallas doctors were all called liars. The Z film shows Oswald does not fire the killing shot. Watch The Men Who Killed Kennedy! Only a pre-planned patsy can be identified so quickly!
tregoj1 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tregoj1 I've seen The Men Who Killed Kennedy, not a good source for accurate information. There is no evidence at all that Oswald worked for the CIA !! Ruby, FBI, ha, ha, ha, ha !! That's a real good one. Where did you find that tid bit of information, the X-Files ? If all of your bizare accusations are true where are your corroborating facts, your independent sources and forensic evidence ? There is none, because what you are saying is pure made-up fiction.
399er 1 month ago
@399er Try readfing Crossfire!
tregoj1 1 month ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tregoj1 I read it, not impressed !! Try reading Reclaiming History !! I know you won't !!
399er 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er "I read it, not impressed !! Try reading Reclaiming History !! I know you won't !!"
mr bugliosi has a big problem with giving accurate truthfull information based on the best possible sources .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@399er My critic LoneNutter has been flagged as spam! You are probably going to be next! Everything I have said are found in the major works on the assassination. Ever hear of Craig Zirbel, Robert Groden, and Jim Marrs? Mark Lane? Michael Collins Piper could only write Final Judgment based on the fact of a conspiracy so that he could focus on the ties to the case. The forensics are proven from the witnesses that very day-Kilduff, Zapruder, and the Dallas doctors.
tregoj1 1 month ago 10
@399er "I've seen The Men Who Killed Kennedy, not a good source for accurate information"
why is this ? ,yes in episode 2 i believe it is the names of 3 men were given which proved to be incorrect and thats the only criticism ive ever seen people make about it or atleast the only part they could prove was inaccurate . and i know a latter episode i believe it was the guilty men was dropped from the history channel for legal reasons .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@fobrien1 I'd say that's a pretty big mistake. You name the assassin and he's in jail on 11/22/63. This point was made to the producers and they released the film anyway. That fact alone calls much of the"so called facts" in this film into question.
399er 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er "I'd say that's a pretty big mistake. You name the assassin and he's in jail on 11/22/63"
i agree ,but you have to realise that the guy in the documentary (i believe steve rivell )got the information from a source that even the fbi vouched for . your talking about 20 minutes (which admitadely is in error) of an 8 hour 8 episode program but your impying that the whole documentary is in error and thats false your throwing the baby out with the bath water .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@fobrien1 "That fact alone calls much of the"so called facts" in this film into question"
so by your logic if i can point out one error in say jfk inside the target car would that thro the whole documentary into question ? ,if i pointed out one error in reclaiming history would the whole book be in question?.
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@tregoj1 Oh, so you watched that tripe called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and obviously swallowed everything that they said. I didn't realize that you were such an assassination scholar . . . . .
BlueWolfe38 4 days ago
@399er "The rifle had a misaligned scope"
when the fbi examined the rifle the scope was indeed misaligned in fact it was loose and they had to use 3 metal shims to secure the scope .
"It had a different sling mount than the one in the backyard photos"
the sling in the BYF is bottom mounted where as the sling in the archives is side mounted .
"The tree was in the way"
a tree was in the way for the first shot in fact some claim the first bullet bounced off it .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@399er "He tested negative for gunshot residue on his cheek"
this is also correct ,so tregoj1 as far as the evidence goes is not wrong on all counts in fact thats 4 points tregoj1 is correct on so either YOU dont know the evidence or your simply trying to mislead .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@tregoj1 The FBI test fired the rifle, no residue on the cheek of the agent. Since the parafin test was developed for hand guns and a rife has no opening near the cheek for gas to escape, this is no surprise. The palm print as well as partial finger prints were photographed by the Dallas Police on the day of the assassination. His revolver was quite capable of fireing automatic shells. The witnesses to Oswald killing Tippit are are knee deep.
399er 1 month ago
@399er If paraffin test didn't work with rifles then why was the test done? The palm print was not found until Oswald was dead. It went to Washington and the FBI could find no fingerprints! The point is that a revolver, no matter what ammo is in it, doesn't eject shells! You have to take them out by hand. His revolver was fully loaded whenn he was arrested. He didn't use it! He had 8 minutes to get to Tippitt. The theater guy said Oswald was there shortly after 1 when the movie began!
tregoj1 1 month ago
@399er "The FBI test fired the rifle, no residue on the cheek of the agent"
which tests or book are you quoting from ? as far as im aware when tests were performed (firing the rifle ) nitrates were found on all those that fired it .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@fobrien1 Nitrates were found on their hands only, not their cheeks. There is very little chance that nitrates would show up on the cheek anyway because the cartridge is sealed into the chamber by the bolt of the rifle being closed behind it. In any case, Oswald tested positive for nitrates on his hands.
399er 2 weeks ago
@399er "Nitrates were found on their hands only, not their cheeks"
the warren commission conducted nitrate tests on 7 people after they fired the rifle and all 7 tested positive on their cheek ,harold weisberg got this information from documents obtained in a freedom of information law suit .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@fobrien1 Well good for Weisberg. The FBI had agent Charles L. Killion fire 3 rounds from Oswald's carcano and the paraffin test conducted on him was negative for both his cheek and hands. The residue on Oswald's hands came from the pistol from shooting Tippit. The residue test was devised for hand guns not rifles.
399er 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er "The residue on Oswald's hands came from the pistol from shooting Tippit. The residue test was devised for hand guns not rifles."
i see your one of those that accepts defeat badly ,7 men fired the rifle (not a pistol) and 7 cheeks were tested and 7 cheeks tested positive .thats 7 out of 7 which is 100% ) so in that respect oswald (cheek wise ) tested negative 100% .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er what was published in the WC and what was later leraned via the freedom of information act law suits were two differnet things .
"The residue on Oswald's hands came from the pistol from shooting Tippit"
really ? ok i await your proof of this claim .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@399er "In any case, Oswald tested positive for nitrates on his hands"
"a paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and right cheek ,both of his hands and his cheek tested negative " warren report page 562
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@fobrien1 The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek was negative. Both of his hands were positive !! The paraffin test is what is used to test for nitrates.I don't know what copy of the WC Report you were reading, but my copy, page 560, states; "The paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the test."
399er 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er "His revolver was quite capable of fireing automatic shells"
are you saying the shells were automatic?.
"The witnesses to Oswald killing Tippit are are knee deep"
why not list all these witnesses and well discuss them and any identification they may have made.
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@tregoj1 Do you think the scope on the rifle might have been pushed out of whack when he tossed it behind the boxes ? And gee, he changed the sling mount. I've done it myself, big deal. The pipes ?? Never heard this stupid theory. I put it up there with the Limo Driver did it. The tree was not in the way. All the reconstructions of the shooting prove that. Coke, I'm a Dr. Pepper man myself. Why do CTers take a cross country flight just to cross the street ? This is old and tiresome.
399er 1 month ago
@399er Why would he change the sling mount? It had no sling on it before! Why didn't he hide the rifle? Hwe didn''t flee the scene, he bought a Coke! The pipes are in photos! In the book Crossfire! The tree most definitely blocked potential shots! Photos prove that! He had several other windows to choose from. The framers chose that end since they could build the nest without being seen. One reconstruction moved the sandbags to the outside lane so they could shoot over the tree. You lie!
tregoj1 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tregoj1 Your full of it !! Your claims are wild speculation without fact or supporting evidence. You seem to think if you state your misguided points long enough people will believe them. You ignore established fact or simply call it lies, you present no corroborating evidence to support your claim and you site a fully discredited documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, as fact. Liar, I'd say that term best describes yourself. I don't know why I waste time arguing with you !!
399er 1 month ago
@399er "Do you think the scope on the rifle might have been pushed out of whack when he tossed it behind the boxes ?"
theres no evidence the rifle was simply tossed (if you have some please post it ) in fact the evidence is that it was purposely hidden .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@399er "The tree was not in the way"
indeed it was for atleast the first shot ,even gerald posner (im quite sure you know him) is of the opinion that the first shot was deflected off a branch of the tree .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@fobrien1 No kidding !! I never said it wasn't in the way for the first shot. The first shot is the shot that missed. It may have hit the tree branch. The tree was not in the way of the last two shots.
399er 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er "No kidding !! I never said it wasn't in the way for the first shot"
(well ok but thats not quite what you said originaly )
"The tree was not in the way. All the reconstructions of the shooting prove that"
(so just for clarification so everyone is clear your saying the tree was in the way for the first shot but was not in the way for shots 2 and 3 ,atleast now people reading will have a clear understanding of the tree issue.
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@tregoj1 Oh and by the way, he did flee. He shot a policeman, tried to shoot another one when he was arrested at the Texas Theater. Sounds guilty as hell to me.
399er 1 month ago
@399er " tried to shoot another one when he was arrested at the Texas Theater."
ever read this ?
" told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, BRINGING UP BOTH HANDS . He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.--------------
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@399er oswald was asked by mcdonald to stand up (he did ) he had both hands up (he had no pistol in his hands ) it was tucked in his waist ,he was all but saying ok ill come quietly and only reacted when mcdonald reached for his pistol . oswald did strike mcdonald but he did not attempt to shoot him or any officer in the theatre .
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@tregoj1 i would agree with you on the maters of the sling mounting /the scope being misaligned /and a tree was in the way for the first shot /and the gun shot residue.. i think the points regarding the palm print and the revolver casings are open to debate but to my thinking they are suspect . i dont think the pipes were an obstruction to a sniper (atleast not a right handed sniper) but maybe they would be to a left handed sniper but i guess that would be debatable too.
fobrien1 2 weeks ago
@399er its interesting how you blocked me posting comments on your thread and all i did was post abraham zapruders own words
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er from here and it could come from there.
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the rRIGHT SIDE OF THE HEAD and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. From the direction behind you?
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the BACK OF ME.
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you indicated that they could have come also from behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left, because they could have been from behind or even from the front.
zapruder is not even 100% sure he is only saying he thought a shot came from in back of him or behind him so why are you so afraid to have his words ----
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er on your thread ? why is it that all i do is post mr zapruders own words and you block me what are you afraid of ? the truth perhaps . you sent me a pm because you didnt want to debate openly with me and when i write a comment on your channel inviting you to debate openly for all to see as opposed to pms you delete my comment (in fact 2 comments ) what are you so afraid of the truth ? . you fire names and insults at me on autoads thread ---------------------------
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er while autoad falsely accuses me of being a liar and dishonest and i remained polite and answered all comments directed at me . autoad has the gall to threaten to block me for asking him to prove his accusations (well so be it ) and you block me for simply posting mr zapruders testimony (again so be it ) ,the truth is a beautifull thing why not try it some time .
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er how said are you ?you even deleted mr zapruders testimony because he says it sounded like a shot came from in back of me /behind me ,that tells everyone the truth means nothing what so ever to you .
fobrien1 1 week ago
@fobrien1 Not at all. I've read it myself a number of times. I deleted it and blocked you because you wouldn't play ball. When you finally decided to it was to late. I don't know why I wasted so much time on semantic games with you.
399er 1 week ago
@399er "I deleted it and blocked you because you wouldn't play ball"
you just told me by pm you didnt delete anything on your thread ,why do you lie ?.
"What are talking about ? I deleted no comments by anyone. I think I've only been on that thread once today"
your own words prove that your a liar ,you deleted mr zapruders testimony because he said he believed a shot came from in back of him .behind him .
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er "I deleted it and blocked you because you wouldn't play ball. When you finally decided to it was to late"
what 399er means is that i asked him if he could provide proof that his accusations were true ,he didnt want to do that for obvious reasons .and this is what he calls not playing ball ,really what i did that wasnt playing ball was that i didnt run scared and said ok lets debate .i also asked his buddy autoad if he was willing to provide proof that ---------------
fobrien1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@399er his accusations were true (including his accustaions that i was liar and dishonest ) i was promptly told
"Demanding proof of events and happenings that surround the assassination is no longer acceptable Your dishonest behavior has been tolerated long enough. In most discussion threads you wouldn't get a warning. Here, you have"
i made no demands but i did say if your going to make accusations then im going to ask you to prove them . autoad called me a liar ----------------
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er because i replied to a comment of his where he said he would take posner and bugliosis word over mine ,and i said both authors are guilty of omitions /distortions and even lies .i gave one example bugliosi said oswald claimed he ate with jarmin ,the reply from autoad was i wasnt to be believed im a liar .so i said ok check for your self which autoad said he would ,2 days later he still had not admitted he was wrong yet still calling me a liar -----------------------
fobrien1 1 week ago
@399er so today i posted my proof that oswald never claimed he ate with jarmin with segments from will fritz and bookhouts interrogation notes . what does autoad do when shown the proof he blocks me .this should tell people all they need to know about 399er (who deletes testimony and lies about it ) and autoad (who fasely accuses a person of being a liar ) both of who have blocked me for having the gall to ask them for a bit of proof .
fobrien1 1 week ago
@fobrien1 After I gave you a fair warning about your tactics on my thread, and gave you ample opportunity to share with us your opinion/version of what happened in Dallas, you continued your disingenuous position that you had no opinion, just facts. You were not required to agree with me or anyone else who posted messages, but you were fixated on tossing stones from the highway overpass onto the passing traffic below. You announced you had read one book on the topic. Later on you insinuated
autoad 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "After I gave you a fair warning about your tactics on my thread"
if you have some strange idea in your head that i may be employing some sort of tactic well thats your concern not mine ,i merely wanted and asked you numerous times to prove your case . meaning if your saying oswald bought the rifle ok thats fine and good but can i please see your proof that he did indeed buy it . you decided you didnt want to do that .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "and gave you ample opportunity to share with us your opinion/version of what happened in Dallas"
i told you what my opinion was was of no consequence because its not proof (you yourself say the same thing dont you ) and i dont indulge in theories nor do i say oswald was innocent ,again i merely wanted to discuss the facts as we know them but you did not .you and 399er harped on about oliver for about 3 days and i simply asked if we could discuss the facts and evidence ---------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad and i stated clearly that i didnt think oliver or her claims added anything to the facts and evidence regarding the events in dealey and 10th and patton .for the simple reason that a lot of what she said is neither proven or disproven ,but you seemed to prefer talking about that which can neither be proven nor disproved because i guess it means you couldnt be proven wrong .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "You announced you had read one book on the topic"
not true ,either you are 399er stated i probably got all my info from conspiracy related books and authors and books were mentioned ,i replied no i only read one CONSPIRACY book (not one of the books mentioned) and that that was in the 80s . lets say for argument sake i read no actual books at all not one ,what does that matter ? surely that would make it easier for you to prove me wrong on all points i might raise ? .----------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad so why should you be worried at all about what i read or didnt read ,why should you care if i read one book /no books /or 50 books ? as long as i accurately present the facts after all its just about the facts isnt it ?. and thats whats important isnt it ? well thats what you say on other threads
"13.It dosen't matter what people believe; it's about FACTS and EVIDENCE and not opinion"
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad i attemped a civil debate with you on another thread where i presented numerous facts and went into detail about who was where in the TSBD (including oswald ) between 11.40 and 12.30 ,but you opted not to debate or to attempt to refute what i said because you know it was accurate .so your well aware that i present facts and evidence and i do so truthfully/honestly and in a civil manner .
fobrien1 6 days ago
@fobrien1 you had read all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission testimony and evidence AND the testimony and evidence from the HSCA hearings "for starters".You were encouraged to participate in the discussion but you were adamant on demanding people prove things they had nothing to do in their creation. You demanded "evidence" that is impossible to produce in this venue. Furthermore, you refused to accept a public apology from another participant. You chose to be a bad contributor to the thread.
autoad 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "You were encouraged to participate in the discussion but you were adamant on demanding people prove things they had nothing to do in their creation"
i participated fully i answered all comments directed at me and i did so honestly and in a civil manner ,the only time i was less than 100% civil was when i got sick of the nemerous comments by your cohort 399er containing bad language and what i term abusive content (which by the way you had no problem with ) i saw you
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad give no warning what so ever to your cohort 399er for his behaviour . i didnt accept an apology from 399er because he is just another in a long line of LNers on these threads who think its ok to insult and abuse people ,and by allowing such behaviour which you did you condone such behaviour .and the funny thing is you only complained about my refual of the apology and gave no thought to why 399er offered it in the first place for being abusive .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "you were adamant on demanding people prove things"
i demanded nothing but yes i asked if your going to say ( for example) that oswald bought the rifle via money order that you can provide proof of this ,this is perfectly reasonable and acceptable on jfk forums . in fact (to use your word ) people would demand proof on jfk forums and on some forums one would be severly abused by some members for not providing it . so in that respect yes if one makes a claim like above -------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad i will say can you please provide proof that this is the case ,there are to many false claims on these threads either by mistaken people or by people attempting to mislead sofor me accuracy is essential . in fact you yourself made a few claims today on a thread that were not strictly accurate youtube.com/all_comments?v=UqEjGuGKiJ8 and i added some information to correct the inaccurate claims .so you see thats why i ask for proof as to often people are actually mistaken.
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "You demanded "evidence" that is impossible to produce in this venue"
i demanded nothing but yes i did ask for proof ,i accept youtube is not a great media to provide proof but it can be done and i know this because i do it my self every day .if one cant post a picture or document one can provide a broken link ,for instance if you claim oswald bought and posted the money order i can say heres a link showing oswalds jaggers chiles choval time sheet -------------------------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad and this jaggers chiles stoval time sheet shows oswald was at work at the time the money order was bought and posted . so i respectfully disagree its quite possible to present much evidence in this media (all tho restrictive ) even it means typing 4 or 5 or more comments in a row as im doing now .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "Furthermore, you refused to accept a public apology from another participant"
if you had warned 399er for posting abusive comments he would im sure have stopped and no apology would have been necessary ,but you were happy to allow such behaviour on your thread . but when it comes to abusive comments youve posted a few yourself havent you ? im sure you remember your unprovoked highly abusive attack on me . and your false and unproven accusations that i am a liar ----------------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad and you decided on your own thread say that i wasnt to be believed and to again falsely accuse me of being a liar . this was in relation to bugliosis false claim where he says oswald claimed he ate with jarmin ,when i posted the FACTS and the EVIDENCE proving both you and bugliosi wrong you blocked me .so you will have to forgive me for not accepting an apology from people (including yourself) who abused and falsely labeled me a liar .
fobrien1 6 days ago
@fobrien1 So I gave you a fair warning what was going to happen if you persisted. You kept acting out so I had no choice but to give you the boot.
You were dishonest in your motives and intentions. You tried to play a slick game of hiding in the cracks of the discussion claiming you were only discussing "facts" yet you openly defended to actions of Hoffman, Oliver, and Arnold and explaining them away with bizarre theories of stolen cameras that didn't exit until years later.
autoad 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "So I gave you a fair warning what was going to happen if you persisted. You kept acting out so I had no choice but to give you the boot."
you falsely accused me of being a liar (on two threads now ) and i simply asked you if thats the true case to prove me wrong and prove your false claim (you didnt ), im sure if you were falsely accused you would expect nothing less .i posted the evidence on your thread that i was truthfull and you and bugliosi are wrong .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "You were dishonest in your motives and intentions"
i invited you to point out any comment of mine (and there are lots on youtube )or one instance in any of my comments where i have been untruthfull and dishonest (not in your opinion but in fact ) and again you failed to provide any proof of your false accusations . and the reason is because im honest and truthfull ,and if i err i admit it ,some thing obviously you were unwilling to do on your thread .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "You tried to play a slick game of hiding in the cracks of the discussion claiming you were only discussing "facts""
i claimed no such thing i said i only deal in facts and evidence ,and i wanted to discuss the facts and the evidence for instance the TSBD /the knoll /10th and patton and the witnesses you know those who actually claim to have seen or spoken with oswald . you wanted only to discuss the existance (or lack there of ) of a camera in 1963 ----------------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad you said the camera didnt exist in 1963 (i said oliver said it was a prototype not avilable to the general public untill some time in 1965) .i simply argued that because it wasnt avilable to BUY in november 1963 doesnt mean there werent prototypes in november 1963 . after all all inventions have prototypes dont they ? , i said a few times what you were arguing (oliver and her camera ) was moot because she saw no shooter oswald or otherwise ,she saw nothing that afternoon ------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad so discussing if she was there or what camera she had was moot .heres one of my replies
"the funny thing is im not focusing on the camera or oliver YOU ARE ,ive said a few times allready that what your arguing is moot yet you still harp on about it ,oliver saw no one shooting she can tell us nothing about the events on elm (other than jfk was shot) or on 10th and patton ."
when i tried to move on you didnt want to .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad i merely said we can neither prove nor disprove that arnold was there on the knoll ,and i never presented any thing he said as factual . i said hoffman was a deaf mute who could neither hear nor speak and he had poor writing skills ,so what he said was translated by a third party and as we know sign language is open to interpretation .also it was said hoffman couldnt see the knoll area from the flyover ,thats patently false .--------------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad i guess unlike you and your ilk i dont feel the need to trample on people graves ,i dont feel the need to attack a person who is no longer capable of defending them selves because they are dead .yes we should assess a persons reliability and credibility as a witness through research and honest debate but not by attacking people with no capacity to defend them selves .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "and explaining them away with bizarre theories of stolen cameras that didn't exit until years later"
when i mentioned the camera being stolen it was in reply to this ridiculous and unreasonable comment by you
""Perhaps her boyfriend could travel forward"
to which i replied
"or perhaps he was light fingered and stole one of the cameras kodak was testing their film in to impress his pretty girlfriend"
which i simply thought was a far more reasonable explanation .
fobrien1 6 days ago
@fobrien1 You're entitled to your opinion but you presented yourself as someone without an opinion. That's dishonest and tantamount to lying, which you did. If you're looking for a villain between breaths of your whining, look in the mirror. Your wounds were self inflicted. Go complain to yourself.
autoad 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "You're entitled to your opinion but you presented yourself as someone without an opinion. That's dishonest and tantamount to lying, WHICH YOU DID"
again im happy to invite you to point to or copy and paste from any comment of mine on your thread or others where i have lied been untruthfull or dishonest (not in your opinion but in fact ) ,this is called proving your alegation .if you cant or your unwilling to do so then have the good grace to admit your wrong .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad "If you're looking for a villain between breaths of your whining, look in the mirror"
im very happy with what i see in the mirror and im very happy with my reserach .and thats why im 100% comfortable in the knowledge that you will never prove your allegations that im a liar because they are patently false ,they are false because you made them up . you know only to well that im well researched and your afraid to debate with me because of that -------------------
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autoad the same applies to 399er . you wont debate with me because you know all your false facts /errors and mistakes (and lies) will be there for all to see . so you resort to an abusive and unprovoked attack on me ,and you allow 399er to post abusive comments in reply to mine ,and thats not enough is it you try to assassinate my character by falsely labeling me a liar on 3 threads now . well now people reading will see you and 399er for what you really are .
fobrien1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tregoj1 Why do you believe Oswald was in the lunchroom? Because he said he was? Oswald told police he had lunch that day with people he worked with. But none of the employees of Texas Schoolbooks vouched for him. Oswald wasn't a Coke drinker. His favorite beverage was Dr. Pepper. The evidence agains LHO is ironclad and overwhelming. I'm still amazed at the people who ignore the evidence and expect everyone else to accept their beliefs that are based on opinion, conjecture and denial.
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
@LoneNutter1 The Warren Commission was a whitewash! We experienced a coup run by Lyndon Johnson. Research the man! He was an 8 time murderer! Billie Sol Estes his friend fingered him. We went to Vietnam because of the CIA-Johnson-mafia murder. Johnson was vile and ruthless. His buddy Hoover was a pervert who dressed in drag while denying the existence of his mob friends! The evidence is strongly refuted by attorney Mark Lane! If it was so good there never would have been an argument
tregoj1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tregoj1 And you don't have a stitch of evidence to support your position. All you have is opinion, conjecture, supposition and innuendo and none of that is considered evidence.
LoneNutter1 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ofcoarse any guy with a long head and is white in dallas must be lee harvy oswald. Tht is clear proof tht is oswald in the photo. Thts sarcasm. Plain and simple oswald seems to make sense as the assasin. Its an easy shot and he was a marine sniper.
mrogers301 1 month ago
@mrogers301
Or maybe look at this video
/watch?v=S1pinIxI71I&feature=colike
And realy do you believe one man for no reason just killed the USA president ALONE????
1jnkz 1 month ago
@1jnkz I don't know, was Oswald Polish? If he was then he certainly didn't shoot Kennedy by himself.
victimofsoicumstance 2 weeks ago
@mrogers301 listen u werent there, u didnt know what REALLY happen. u cant make a conclusion by a film clip or the FBI's statment.
MegaGibby96 1 month ago
@mrogers301 Why miss then? A misaligned scope. Why buy a Coke in the lunchroom- innocent. He was a poor shot- innocent. A carbine would never do- innocent. No gunpowder residue-innocent. On and on the evidence is the most flimsy evidence possible. Johnson and Hoover were the crooks that preceded Nixon and Ford!
tregoj1 1 month ago
@mrogers301 It's not an easy shot! Ever gone deer hunting and try to hit a moving target! A smart assassin would have picked a better window, hidden his gun very well, picked up his spent cartridges, bought a quality deer hunting rifle leaving no paper trail, had a getaway car waiting for him, and probably pick a place on the ground where he could run away. There are evidences of windshield and car frame damsge, a curb shot, a grass shot, and something like 7 injuries! One guy???
tregoj1 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tregoj1 It was an easy shot. Especialy for someone with his training. 88 yards at a very slow moving target. If you do your research Oswalds best shooting scores while in the Marines were at moving targets and you can look it up !!
399er 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tregoj1 Site your sources of your so called evidence. You don't know the case. What independent outside source backs up these wild claims. None, because they are fiction.JFK rode through American citys in an open car. If the government wanted to get him there were dozens of opportunites. No Patsy or elaborite scheme was needed. It would have been simple, very few people involved and quick. Oswald did it. Get over it !!!
399er 1 month ago
Watch Zapruder film jfk put something in his mouth frame 227 (probably cyanide) he is already dead as she puts her hand on his arm before he gets shot, also at frame 227 the man sitting directly in front of jfk is seen tucking or reaching under his RIGHT arm and turning probably to line up the shot or feel.
It looks as tho they all acted on some que like if the sign board at frame 214 was supposed to block the setup.
WATCH ANY FOOTAGE HE IS ALREADY DEAD BEFORE SHOT !
999worlddestroyer 1 month ago
@999worlddestroyer He was not dead but paralyzed by poisoned ice pellets shot- which explains why both the throat wound and the back wounds are entrance wounds that have no exit! The thoat wound was as tiny as a .22 caliber! The CIA did the whole thing.
tregoj1 1 month ago
That was not Oswald in the doorway.
Oswald shot JFK and he acted alone.
If Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, then why did he run from the scene?
Why did he shoot a cop?
The rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository belonged to Oswald.
Shots were fired from that rifle.
Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 1 month ago
watch the clip carefully at 1:52,you can see the driver aim his pistol with left hand and shot JFK........or my eyes got trouble ????!!!!
keibee2792 1 month ago
Who is the guy giving his opinion on the murder? And is it from a documentary
UNIQUE1982 1 month ago
@UNIQUE1982
Illuminati Vol 4 - Brotherhood of the Beast, by CHRIS EVERARD
1jnkz 1 month ago
There is very little (if any) evidence connecting Oswald to the JFK killing. If he was involved, it was probably at only a low level. Most likely he was planted there, just like he said. It was obviously a massive conspiracy since the evidence demonstrates multiple gunmen and a coverup and destruction of evidence that has lasted decades. There were also many witness & journalists murdered. Oswald is innocent until proven guilty, and the WC did not make their case (& were not a court anyway).
TheLensSolution 1 month ago
lee oswald is standing in the doorway and did not fire a shot
cramersmagic 1 month ago
The man standing outside the Book Depository is Billy Lovelady not Lee Harvey Oswald. However, if Oswald did it and did it alone, why were there men with fake Secret Service credentials shooing people away from the railyards behind the grassy knoll?
bigjohnmac 1 month ago
Every few years some "researcher" regurgitates the same nonsense that has been disproved time and time again...
bibbler227 1 month ago
Nonsense...they even found LHO's shirt fibers on the rifle..along with his index prints on the box that supported the rifle....along with the picture of him with the rifle and even the alias name he used on the receipt he still had for the rifle.
clev9980 2 months ago
@clev9980 LHO owned the rifle so shirt fibers on the rifle don't prove anything except that it was his rifle and at some point came into contact with it. However, the pictures of him with it have been forged. The light and shadow inconsistencies show that whoever forged the photos simply pasted Oswald's face on someone else's body.
bigjohnmac 1 month ago
@bigjohnmac His shirt fibers came into contact with the rifle while he was firing bullets into the presidents body !!! His wife has NEVER said she didn't take that photograph. LHO was the killer of JFK.
clev9980 1 month ago
@clev9980 Marina Oswald said what she HAD to say.
TheAmbassador11 1 month ago
Popular? Not by me. Lee Harvey Oswald innocent? were you there. What a bunch of british SHITE
democratichypocrit 2 months ago
Trying to collect the brain!!!!!
jkamwal2 2 months ago
Those photos are not even close enough to get a look at who they are....this is silly.
Marksnotebook 3 months ago 2
This video is ridiculous. I t is known for years that the man on the photo was Billy Lovelady. He has been identified a long time ago. Oswald has no aliby. No one saw him at the time of the shooting. Johnson continued Kennedy policies. All this videos is ridiculous.
captainkavern 3 months ago
@captainkavern You are correct. The man standing there is Billy Lovelady and you are also correct that no one saw him at the time of the shooting. However, Oswald was seen in the second floor lunchroom at the precise time the motorcade was scheduled to pass Dealey Plaza. Oswald had no idea the motorcade was running late so it stands to reason that if Oswald had planned to shoot JFK from the 6th floor snipers nest, he would have been there waiting and not having lunch on the second floor.
bigjohnmac 1 month ago
Please, for God's sake, don't call or consider Oswald innocent. A person who deliberately involves himself in a crime is equally guilty even though he might have not pulled the trigger. He knew throughout what was happening for months and he did nothing. It does not matter whether he hated JFK personally or liked him, he was involved in the plot to kill him and was ready to become their fall guy and should be considered equally guilty.
sidrahsiddiqui 3 months ago
@sidrahsiddiqui There are those who say LHO did it and did it alone. There are others who said he had nothing to do with it. The truth--as is often the case--falls somewhere in the middle. The cops never had any evidence linking LHO to firing the rifle on November 22, 1963. There is solid evidence that LHO was connected to people and groups that had the means, motive and opportunity to kill JFK--Guy Bannister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw just to mention a few.
bigjohnmac 1 month ago
@bigjohnmac Yes, I agree. That is what I also made the point about.
sidrahsiddiqui 1 month ago
The guy standing in the doorway has been identified as Bill Lovelady, not Oswald, although I do agree with you that the case against Oswald is EXTREMELY weak and I too find him innocent of killing Kennedy.
R3DF00T 4 months ago
Yes, LBJ knew what happened and I'm sure that LEE HARVEY OSWALD didn't kill JFK. It was a conspiracy, everybody knows that.
I think that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to save and collect parts of her husbands brain
natelle81 4 months ago
LBJ knew what happened
Jeannenyc57 4 months ago
A. Thats NOT Oswald in the doorway. It is a known fact that the man you claim is Oswald is actually Billy Nolan Lovelady. B. Mrs JFK is not trying to "save and collect parts of her husbands brain" from the trunk lid of the car. She is doing no such thing.
IwshIcldstrtover 5 months ago
@IwshIcldstrtover A. is correct but is disputed by many. Lovelady years later went to the FBI in the shirt he wore that day. it was a similar shirt but had stripes or a plaid design. (not sure what its called) B. mrs kennedy was grabbing a piece of her husbands skull/ hair / flesh/ brain that came off and landed on the trunk. she gave the piece to a dallas dr. LHO in my opinion penetrated an assassination ring by rogue CIA/ Cuban guys who planted evidence on him. he warned the FBI on 2 occasions
pat442389 4 months ago
@pat442389 Oswald was a CIA plant. They previously used him to leak U2 secrets to the Soviets when he was in the SU to undermine the 1960 Geneva Peace Conference between Eisenhower and Kruschev. He obviously was part of a double operation since there are rumors that at this time, he was training in Louisiana for the Bay of Pigs invasion. He came back to the US and became an FBI informant probably under the direction of RFK himself. RFK visited him in his cell the night of JFK's assassination too
R3DF00T 4 months ago
@R3DF00T It is probable that LHO worked for American intelligence (CIA or ONI). This explains how easy it was for LHO to get back to the USA and bring a Russian born wife with him. Documents also show LHO was a paid FBI informant and his assignment may have been either to infiltrate the conspiracy or take part in it. This would explain why the conspirators hired Ruby to kill him. Oswald knew a lot of information that would embarrass and criminally implicate the CIA, FBI and others
bigjohnmac 1 month ago
@R3DF00T RFK visited Oswald??
TheAmbassador11 1 month ago
RFK did not plan on Oswald being silenced by Ruby, and the police notes likely were destroyed to protect his identity. JFK didn't want another Bay of Pigs invasion and Oswald was sent out to find these people and inform on them. James Files even says he went with Oswald out into the country to test fire the weapons they used to kill Kennedy, and he has also gone on record as saying that Johnny Roselli and Charles Nicoletti were part of the killing as well.
R3DF00T 4 months ago
@R3DF00T What is interesting is that none of Oswald's interrogations were recorded in any way. No notes, no tape recording, nothing. I wonder if the Dallas police knew right then that Oswald was not going to live to stand trial. Because if he had, the DPD would need a record to prove his guilt.
bigjohnmac 1 month ago