Liberal Forum

jerrab » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

--------------------------

Other Witnesses:

• Some witnesses did not make a positive identification of Oswald initially, but later changed their minds. 
• One witness stated there were two men and refused to identify Oswald as the shooter

https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.h ... n%2C%20L.J.

Here's 11 people that saw Oswald shoot Tippit...
Or saw him fleeing from the scene

And of course a few minutes later he had the gun on him that killed the officer

Rather convincing
 

jerrab » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

she saw two men- one short and fat and another tall and thin. oswald was thin and short.

https://youtu.be/Z6xHGwUHZAA?si=HE3NtGBtvRgbsAGz

Do you believe this woman?
Or the other 11?

And if Oswald was so innocent then what's he doing with the murder weapon?

jerrab » Today, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:13 pm

she saw two men- one short and fat and another tall and thin. oswald was thin and short.

https://youtu.be/Z6xHGwUHZAA?si=HE3NtGBtvRgbsAGz

BTW....
That's Mark Lane asking her questions....

He wrote a book about the conspiracy.

I believe the 11 other documented witnesses that saw Oswald and Tippet
 

JohnnyYou » Today, 12:55 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:55 am

"Hands Off" Protests were enormous yesterday. No windows got smashed, no cars burned up, no cops got beaten.

You must be mighty proud that the left finally had a protest that didn't involve looting, burning, cop-killing, attacks on public property, insurrection and secession from the United States with stolen land. No little old ladies got punched for being "nazis" or NUTHIN. Good on you queers. It's never too late to act like human beings. 
 

HarperLee » Today, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:15 am

If there's a video of Oswald outside the TSBD when the shots rang out then please show it.

Again....you say IF...

Then just show us the video

Dummy, I'm not the one who has the video - assuming such a video exists at all. I'M the guy who was telling you that your response to the video was a shouting-down, not an argument.

HarperLee » Today, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:15 am

I'm going on facts
Not "if"..

No, you're going on faith, and you're retarded enough to call your faith facts.

HarperLee » Today, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:15 am

FACTS:
The fact is numerous people saw Oswald inside the TSBD

Numerous people SAID that, and you have faith they told you the truth. But being stupid, you cannot make such fine distinctions.

HarperLee » Today, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:15 am

They testified he was INSIDE at the time of the shooting.
He walked in with "curtain rods".
They were never found.
What was found was a rifle with his fingerprints and a gun he ordered.
He went back to his apartment and quickly left after going inside.
He left the scene and was approached by a cop and shot him 4 times.
There's numerous people that witnessed this shooting and when arrested at the theatre he had the gun on him.

Those are FACTS.

If you have video outside of the TSBD at the time of the shooting please post it.

It is a fact that our intelligence community brought Oswald back from Russia and then assigned handlers that subsidized his political agitations in New Orleans. It is a fact that our intelligence services then allowed Oswald to take a shot at the president - notwithstanding he was a known and marked political radical and it was their job to know his whereabouts on the day the President was taken like a fish in a barrel through the streets beneath a window where we are told he lay in wait.

Even if Oswald DID fire the fatal shots, and even if the WAS a "lone" gunman, the secret service and the CIA were manifestly in on it. If you understood what facts are, you would understand that.

Rocks are hard. Water is wet. The secret service can and does keep known radicals under surveillance when presidents make public appearances. It is SOP - and that's a fact.
We both know it doesn't exist.[/quote]

HarperLee » Today, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:25 am

I do not know the law about re-entry after defecting.
Are you saying Oswald was the only one in history that reentered after defecting?

That is what I just said. Hundreds were turned away.

HarperLee » Today, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:25 am

"Allowed to be near the president"...???

Are you an adult?

HarperLee » Today, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:25 am

He was working in Dallas.
The president flew to Dallas.  To my knowledge Oswald never made any threats againt JFK that was so alarming that he should have been detained.
Even though it appears Oswald was known to the FBI I don't recall your Secret Service claim.

Anything you can share?

Read a **** book in your life.

Political radicals are not allowed near enough presidents to murder them. You can google it, child. The secret service has files on all such people, and it knows their whereabouts when the president appears in public.

THAT is an actual fact - not faith-based pabulum like you're spreading about as one would spread manure on a field. 
 

HarperLee » Today, 9:01 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:01 am

So you're now suggesting bullets might have been found and numerous others are involved in the conspiracy or the cover up or both?

Involved would be the childish word, so it is the one that you chose. You've clearly led such an uninteresting life that you've never been coerced. You cannot IMAGINE a carrot and a stick being brought to bear against you, because you've never risen to the level of generating opposition.

People can be shut up and shut down without being participants in a conspiracy. It is very easy to scare people out of opening their mouths. Threaten their kid - et voila. Ambassador to Iraq April Gillespie spoke to the media - which was in a feeding frenzy after Iraq invaded Kuwait and George Bush the elder went into actual hiding for three days of incommunicado. Gillespie told the media that she had informed Saddam - on Bush's instructions - that the U.S. "took no position on Iraq's reacquisition of its lost province." Never mind Iraq is a box country and so can have no "lost province" - this is what Gillespie told CNN. And the administration needed her to take that back, because it went against the narrative they had concocted.

She refused. Then she went off the grid. They were interviewing **** janitors, if those janitors had any connection to someone whose cousin knew a guy who had been to Iraq. But Gillespie was just G O N E. Then her son was arrested for possession of heroin with intent. And then she came forward and walked back her statements.

And in your retarded world, she was "in on it." Just like any investigator who found a bullet.

HarperLee » Today, 9:01 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:01 am

I'm going on facts.

You wouldn't know a fact if it grabbed you by the ******.

HarperLee » Today, 9:01 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:01 am

I'm basing my opinion on facts
Not speculation or what ifs

On faith, dummy - not facts.
 

HarperLee » Today, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:14 pm

BTW....
That's Mark Lane asking her questions....

He wrote a book about the conspiracy.

I believe the 11 other documented witnesses that saw Oswald and Tippet

if kennedy was shot in the  back of his neck he would have been paralyzed instantly, or may be even dead right then.

HarperLee » Today, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:22 pm

https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.h ... n%2C%20L.J.

Here's 11 people that saw Oswald shoot Tippit...
Or saw him fleeing from the scene

And of course a few minutes later he had the gun on him that killed the officer

Rather convincing

not even wiki says he was shot in the back of his neck because then he would have been paralyzed instantly or dead immediately.

--------------------------

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3822000949

The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, unofficially the Warren Commission, released its final report in 1964 and attributed the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) to three shots fired from a single marksman behind the presidential limousine with two bullets striking the president from the rear. While the first shot missed, the second shot caused a neck wound to Kennedy. The third and fatal shot hit Kennedy in the head [84].
Controversy concerning the commission report arose due to a physician in the overall disarray describing the neck wound from the second shot as a bullet entrance from the front throat [26], [76], [84], [88]. Considerable doubt regarding the shot direction was further raised by the testimony of over 40 eye witnesses, including treating doctors, who unanimously reported a large wound in the right back of Kennedy’s head [15], [2], [20], [50], [84], contradicting the official version of a large wound in the temple region of the right frontal bone. Further contradiction was added by the film from a civilian bystander [91], known as the Zapruder Film, showing the president’s head snapping violently backward upon impact with the third shot. Intuitive interpretation of this backward movement led to a lay verdict that the projectile must have come from the front.
 
 

Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 7:54 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:54 pm

You must be mighty proud that the left finally had a protest that didn't involve looting, burning, cop-killing, attacks on public property, insurrection and secession from the United States with stolen land. No little old ladies got punched for being "nazis" or NUTHIN. Good on you queers. It's never too late to act like human beings.

Did you see the guy on the video in "The MAGAts are Coming"?

I am suspicious right wing phoolks hijacked the Floyd Protests and instigated the looting and mayhem.

The dude on  the video was a self entitled MAGA ****. 

jerrab » Yesterday, 10:36 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:36 pm

not even wiki says he was shot in the back of his neck because then he would have been paralyzed instantly or dead immediately.

So now you're back to Kennedy?

11 people saw Oswald shoot or run from the Tippet murder.
You find Mark Lane and HIS witness said the shooter was "short and heavy".......
And that means Oswald is innocent?

But the other 11 doesn't matter?

 

jerrab » Yesterday, 10:36 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 10:36 pm

not even wiki says he was shot in the back of his neck because then he would have been paralyzed instantly or dead immediately.

I just found rather easily he was shot through the neck and it exited his throat.
The next shot was in the head.

If you look at the film he raises his hands to his throat.


 

HarperLee » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

I just found rather easily he was shot through the neck and it exited his throat.
The next shot was in the head.

If you look at the film he raises his hands to his throat.

he could not do that if he was paralyzed which he would have if he was shot in the back in the neck, where the spinal cord is. 

jerrab » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

he could not do that if he was paralyzed which he would have if he was shot in the back in the neck, where the spinal cord is.

You're wrong.

He was shot in the back of the neck according to the autopsy.
His reaction was to reach out to his throat where the bullet exited.
 
It's not the complicated 

HarperLee » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

You're wrong.

He was shot in the back of the neck according to the autopsy.
His reaction was to reach out to his throat where the bullet exited.
 
It's not the complicated

and he would either dead or paralyzed.
the spinal cord runs down the  neck and back.

he reached out to where it hurt, the front of the neck.

jerrab » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

and he would either dead or paralyzed.
the spinal cord runs down the  neck and back.

he reached out to where it hurt, the front of the neck.

Yes..
The bullet came from the back according to the autopsy and exited the neck

He reached for his neck
 
Don't you think in that spilt second it's a normal reaction?

HarperLee » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

Yes..
The bullet came from the back according to the autopsy and exited the neck

He reached for his neck
 
Don't you think in that spilt second it's a normal reaction?

his reaction was in accordance with a pain from a shot to the front of the neck

jerrab » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

his reaction was in accordance with a pain from a shot to the front of the neck

Doctors and autopsy reports say differently.

Throat was an exit wound according to doctors that looked the body.

And if you think the shot came from the grassy knoll then the bullet would enter from the "side".

 

Please remember....
It was you that showed a video saying 4 other shooters that day...

What happened to all the damage?
There should be numerous other wounds in Kennedy or the limo.
Bystanders shot ?

Nope

Other gunmen.
But everyone actually missed except the guy from the TSBD?

I base my opinion on facts.

What we know
Not speculation.