https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.h ... n%2C%20L.J.jerrab » 06 Apr 2025, 2:05 pm » wrote: ↑ --------------------------
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
Do you believe this woman?jerrab » 06 Apr 2025, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑ 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....jerrab » 06 Apr 2025, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑ she saw two men- one short and fat and another tall and thin. oswald was thin and short.
https://youtu.be/Z6xHGwUHZAA?si=HE3NtGBtvRgbsAGz
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.JohnnyYou » 06 Apr 2025, 12:55 am » wrote: ↑"Hands Off" Protests were enormous yesterday. No windows got smashed, no cars burned up, no cops got beaten.
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 » 06 Apr 2025, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑ 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
No, you're going on faith, and you're retarded enough to call your faith facts.
Numerous people SAID that, and you have faith they told you the truth. But being stupid, you cannot make such fine distinctions.HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑ FACTS:
The fact is numerous people saw Oswald inside the TSBD
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.HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
That is what I just said. Hundreds were turned away.HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑ 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?
Are you an adult?
Read a **** book in your life.HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑ 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?
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.HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 9:01 am » wrote: ↑ So you're now suggesting bullets might have been found and numerous others are involved in the conspiracy or the cover up or both?
You wouldn't know a fact if it grabbed you by the ******.
On faith, dummy - not facts.HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 9:01 am » wrote: ↑ I'm basing my opinion on facts
Not speculation or what ifs
HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑ 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
HarperLee » 06 Apr 2025, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑ 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
Did you see the guy on the video in "The MAGAts are Coming"?Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2025, 7:54 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
So now you're back to Kennedy?jerrab » 06 Apr 2025, 10:36 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.jerrab » 06 Apr 2025, 10:36 pm » wrote: ↑ not even wiki says he was shot in the back of his neck because then he would have been paralyzed instantly or dead immediately.
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.HarperLee » 07 Apr 2025, 4:35 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
You're wrong.jerrab » 07 Apr 2025, 4:47 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
and he would either dead or paralyzed.HarperLee » 07 Apr 2025, 4:57 am » wrote: ↑ 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
Yes..jerrab » 07 Apr 2025, 5:16 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
his reaction was in accordance with a pain from a shot to the front of the neckHarperLee » 07 Apr 2025, 5:21 am » wrote: ↑ 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?
Doctors and autopsy reports say differently.jerrab » 07 Apr 2025, 5:34 am » wrote: ↑ his reaction was in accordance with a pain from a shot to the front of the neck