Even the government itself admitted in the 70's there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.

 

[Freewill]

I notice the magic bullet theorists ignored this post,ignoring the FACT that the lead prosecuter in the HSCA investigation,Robert Blakey wrote a book detailing the facts of a conspiracy,that there was a second shooter involved.I noticed the magic bullet theorists true to form,evaded that little pesky fact.

Ok. You read "Reclaiming History" then get back to me.

Here is the problem for the conspiracy theory side?

They must prove Oswald did not act alone.

Why? Because no one would use someone like Oswald with his mail order gun, As CC points out the whole plot was too complicated, there were many better opportunities.

Since it can not be proved. Then Oswald acted alone.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.

 

[dcraelin]

The story the two sons provided, that E. Howard Hunt left a deathbed confession, was investigated in 2007 by the LA Times who concluded that the information provided by the sons was “inconclusive” and that “none of the accounts provides evidence to convincingly validate that their father disclosed anything revelatory.” [11] St. John’s and David’s own family have rejected their claims. E. Howard Hunt’s widow Laura (married since 1977) and their children Austin (who lived with his father) and Hollis rejected the two son’s story saying they had been “coaching” Hunt to say something as his lucidity deteriorated in his final months. Kevan, St. John’s sister, accused her brothers of “elder abuse”, telling the LA Times that the two sons “pressured their father for dramatic scenarios for their own financial gain”. Hunt’s personal lawyer Bill Snyder even said “Howard was just speculating. He had no hard evidence.” [11] A personal statement was uploaded to the internet on behalf of E. Howard Hunt’s family, responding to the claims made by St. John and David. The statement reads [12]:
There is no such thing as E. Howard Hunt’s “Last Confession,” contrary to claims currently being circulated by Mr. Hunt’s two elder sons, Howard St. John and David Hunt… Motivated by an apparent need for notoriety and financial gains, these theories regarding Mr. Hunt’s alleged knowledge of a JFK assassination conspiracy involving the late President Johnson and now dead CIA agents have no basis in fact… In 2005, Mr. Hunt’s two elder sons proposed a book project in conjunction with an individual with film industry connections. Unfortunately, as things developed, it was clear that the project was not about the interesting details of Mr. Hunt’s life. Rather, it was a vehicle to promote further conspiracy-fueled speculations involving rogue CIA agents and LBJ in the Kennedy assassination. Mr. Hunt definitively rejected that project, and he specifically rejected the theories it contained, both to his attorney, William A. Snyder, Jr. and to his youngest son, Austin, who was living at home and finishing his college courses. When that project did not proceed because of the bizarre conspiracy theories initially promoted, the elder brothers’ opportunities for financial gain faded. Their resulting reaction has been to continue to exploit Mr. Hunt, to create conflict and division within the family, to threaten their siblings and worst of all, to further a very selfish and greedy personal agenda.
Sincerely,The Hunt Estate and the Hunt Family
In February 2007 (a month after his death) E. Howard Hunt’s memoir was published in a book titled American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond. Hunt devotes all of chapter 12 to the assassination which he titles The Assassination of President Kennedy. Hunt says emphatically that he was in no way involved in the assassination, “Let me say clearly that if there was such a scheme, I had nothing to do with it. I was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963; I was not part of a plot to kill the president; and I had no knowledge of the planned assassination. The thought of perpetrating any crime against the president, even though I disagreed with many of his policies, is completely against my innermost convictions, as anyone who truly knows me would attest.” [13] [Emphasis mine] He goes onto say that he thinks it probably was a conspiracy but has no evidence to that effect. He says this and that could have happened but ultimately concludes he doesn’t know (see endnote for Hunt’s comments).

Jesse Ventura actually has footage of Hunt saying himself he was involved.....not that I believe what he said necessarily ..him being a scum spook and all.

Candycorn!...you seemed so reasonable earlier...now "an exotic breed of dumbass?!!" ... lol...

Reasonable. So with the CIA director who meets regularly with the President and any number of government officials meeting with the President regularly...you find it reasonable to believe that the CIA would first consult with the Soviets (for some reason--what could they add?) and then pull off an execution in Dallas with a moving vehicle from an elevated position 300 yards away?
Not when JFK left the hotel in Fort Worth that morning, not when JFK was working the rope line at Love Field in Dallas...no...you wait until you get a 300 yard shot at a moving target. Please explain to me what you think is reasonable about why the CIA would work with the KGB--again the KGB can add nothing in the form of logistics, training, access, intel, etc...--and then they come up with a scheme that is needlessly complicated?
Yeah..you're the one being unreasonable.

I believe our government has worked with other "intelligence" services....we worked with the USSR in WWII, so why is that so unbelievable?

A) Not to kill our president
B) Where was WWII fought? If you're planning an op in your kitchen, would you consult some loser idiot who lives in Kansas City (provided you're not in KC)? What could they add?

....wouldnt have to be that the head guys were aware, perhaps just some part of an agency. Stone's movie actually alludes to the possibility in a conversation Garrison has with his staff.

It is a movie; not an investigation. Again...if the hit had occurred in Russia or Eastern Europe...sure. What expertise does the KGB have for Dallas?
Sorry but the larger the conspiracy, the easier it is to unearth and involving a governmental agency in the planning or carrying out is the worst thing a conspirator could do and if you're talking about the cellular level of one of these agencies...okay but at some point there is an umbilical to the parent agency. Involving a foreign intel agency is batshit crazy. Because whenever, in the future, you know something they don't, they could bring this up an force you to hand over whatever it is.
Fail.

I believe it is now accepted history that we ourselves have been involved in foreign leader assassinations. For whatever reasons governments have done this stuff.

The KGB could've provided a convenient patsy for the CIA in Oswald. Or have been mocking some branch of our own "intelligence' services by throwing our own agent back at us.

the fact that it was in Stone's movie shows it must have been one of the things talked about in conspiracy circles.

some of the shots you talked about would probably be more dangerous to innocent bystanders. The fact that it was a shot from an elevated position may show their was a conspiracy in that a crazed gunman probably would have used a pistol at short range. This was entirely possible with Oswald as we know he was caught with a pistol. Actually you got me thinking the rifle shot, from an elevated position and a distance tends to show Oswald wasn't seeking his place in history as most other crazed gunmen firing at close range have done.

 

[daws101]

Ok. You read "Reclaiming History" then get back to me.

Here is the problem for the conspiracy theory side?

They must prove Oswald did not act alone.

Why? Because no one would use someone like Oswald with his mail order gun, As CC points out the whole plot was too complicated, there were many better opportunities.

Since it can not be proved. Then Oswald acted alone.

congratulations freewill you've now joined the fellowship of the farts....
it's a truly exclusive club filled with handjob's most hated....
welcome aboard.

 

[candycorn]

Jesse Ventura actually has footage of Hunt saying himself he was involved.....not that I believe what he said necessarily ..him being a scum spook and all.

Candycorn!...you seemed so reasonable earlier...now "an exotic breed of dumbass?!!" ... lol...

Reasonable. So with the CIA director who meets regularly with the President and any number of government officials meeting with the President regularly...you find it reasonable to believe that the CIA would first consult with the Soviets (for some reason--what could they add?) and then pull off an execution in Dallas with a moving vehicle from an elevated position 300 yards away?
Not when JFK left the hotel in Fort Worth that morning, not when JFK was working the rope line at Love Field in Dallas...no...you wait until you get a 300 yard shot at a moving target. Please explain to me what you think is reasonable about why the CIA would work with the KGB--again the KGB can add nothing in the form of logistics, training, access, intel, etc...--and then they come up with a scheme that is needlessly complicated?
Yeah..you're the one being unreasonable.

A) Not to kill our president
B) Where was WWII fought? If you're planning an op in your kitchen, would you consult some loser idiot who lives in Kansas City (provided you're not in KC)? What could they add?

....wouldnt have to be that the head guys were aware, perhaps just some part of an agency. Stone's movie actually alludes to the possibility in a conversation Garrison has with his staff.

It is a movie; not an investigation. Again...if the hit had occurred in Russia or Eastern Europe...sure. What expertise does the KGB have for Dallas?
Sorry but the larger the conspiracy, the easier it is to unearth and involving a governmental agency in the planning or carrying out is the worst thing a conspirator could do and if you're talking about the cellular level of one of these agencies...okay but at some point there is an umbilical to the parent agency. Involving a foreign intel agency is batshit crazy. Because whenever, in the future, you know something they don't, they could bring this up an force you to hand over whatever it is.
Fail.

I believe it is now accepted history that we ourselves have been involved in foreign leader assassinations. For whatever reasons governments have done this stuff.

Yes and when we did it, we didn't coordinate with the sitting government to remove it's leader. If a nation was at revolt, perhaps some would consider it as the guys who tried to knock off Hitler did but in the 1960's USA...no way.

The KGB could've provided a convenient patsy for the CIA in Oswald. Or have been mocking some branch of our own "intelligence' services by throwing our own agent back at us.

Seriously? You're stating that the government would need help from the KGB in coming up with a patsy?

I'm sorry but that is a retarded take on things.

the fact that it was in Stone's movie shows it must have been one of the things talked about in conspiracy circles.

Means zilch.

some of the shots you talked about would probably be more dangerous to innocent bystanders. The fact that it was a shot from an elevated position may show their was a conspiracy in that a crazed gunman probably would have used a pistol at short range. This was entirely possible with Oswald as we know he was caught with a pistol. Actually you got me thinking the rifle shot, from an elevated position and a distance tends to show Oswald wasn't seeking his place in history as most other crazed gunmen firing at close range have done.

Not sure what any of that means.

But if you're going to sit there and say the CIA was involved, you have to own that and all that goes with it.

If it rained that day, the top is on the limo and the plan is called off. If there was a bird that was overly aggressive, eyes may be cast upward. It would be called off. A bee nest on the overhang...may not lend itself to convenience. So many process variables...why do you add those in when, if you're the CIA, you can come up with thousands of easier scenarios at a closer range.... As you said, the CIA does this for a living and what happened in Dallas, you're saying, is the best they can come up with?

Seriously dude...think about what you're trying to convince someone of.

 

[Freewill]

congratulations freewill you've now joined the fellowship of the farts....
it's a truly exclusive club filled with handjob's most hated....
welcome aboard.

Well I am an old fart.

I Guess providing links and logic causes gas.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Well I am an old fart.

I Guess providing links and logic causes gas.

You provide links, not sure I buy into their logic. I don't believe Connally's body was contorted in the way the video portrayed. And there is evidence of a second gunman. I have been to Dealey Plaza.

 

[dcraelin]

I believe it is now accepted history that we ourselves have been involved in foreign leader assassinations. For whatever reasons governments have done this stuff.

Yes and when we did it, we didn't coordinate with the sitting government to remove it's leader.

We coordinated with elements within countries just as I am suggesting perhaps the KGB might have.

You're stating that the government would need help from the KGB in coming up with a patsy?
I'm sorry but that is a retarded take on things.

A convincing patsy yes, or it could be as apparently suggested in previous book I refered to the KGB came up with own patsy...call it whatever you like...just theorizing

the fact that it was in Stone's movie shows it must have been one of the things talked about in conspiracy circles.

Means zilch.

whatever

some of the shots you talked about would probably be more dangerous to innocent bystanders. The fact that it was a shot from an elevated position may show their was a conspiracy in that a crazed gunman probably would have used a pistol at short range. This was entirely possible with Oswald as we know he was caught with a pistol. Actually you got me thinking the rifle shot, from an elevated position and a distance tends to show Oswald wasn't seeking his place in history as most other crazed gunmen firing at close range have done.

Not sure what any of that means.
But if you're going to sit there and say the CIA was involved, you have to own that and all that goes with it.

It means that your providing some 'circumstancial' evidence that Oswald was not a lone nut or he wouldv't just walked up to kennedy in the motorcade and shot him. .... I didn't say anything about the CIA that in that part.

If it rained that day, the top is on the limo and the plan is called off. If there was a bird that was overly aggressive, eyes may be cast upward. It would be called off. A bee nest on the overhang...may not lend itself to convenience. So many process variables...why do you add those in when, if you're the CIA, you can come up with thousands of easier scenarios at a closer range.... As you said, the CIA does this for a living and what happened in Dallas, you're saying, is the best they can come up with?
Seriously dude...think about what you're trying to convince someone of.

The top was not bullet proof and might not have altered plans at all.

So if you think it is so obviously a bad plan, how would you have done it.?

 

[candycorn]

I believe it is now accepted history that we ourselves have been involved in foreign leader assassinations. For whatever reasons governments have done this stuff.

Yes and when we did it, we didn't coordinate with the sitting government to remove it's leader.

We coordinated with elements within countries just as I am suggesting perhaps the KGB might have.

Oh, so the KGB was quarterbacking...happened to reach out to the CIA, found sympathetic agents and pulled it off.

A convincing patsy yes, or it could be as apparently suggested in previous book I refered to the KGB came up with own patsy...call it whatever you like...just theorizing

That the CIA and FBI and Warren Commision agree upon; independently.

Not sure what any of that means.
But if you're going to sit there and say the CIA was involved, you have to own that and all that goes with it.

It means that your providing some 'circumstancial' evidence that Oswald was not a lone nut or he wouldv't just walked up to kennedy in the motorcade and shot him. .... I didn't say anything about the CIA that in that part.

It's hard to figure out what you're stating and why you're putting together this elaborate multi-national hit where any one of the moving parts can fail and the whole thing comes unraveled. None of it makes sense.

If it rained that day, the top is on the limo and the plan is called off. If there was a bird that was overly aggressive, eyes may be cast upward. It would be called off. A bee nest on the overhang...may not lend itself to convenience. So many process variables...why do you add those in when, if you're the CIA, you can come up with thousands of easier scenarios at a closer range.... As you said, the CIA does this for a living and what happened in Dallas, you're saying, is the best they can come up with?
Seriously dude...think about what you're trying to convince someone of.

The top was not bullet proof and might not have altered plans at all.
So if you think it is so obviously a bad plan, how would you have done it.?

Poisoning the food of the President for one thing. Easy to do, would have access, if you think the actual autopsy was intentionally botched, that would not be an issue.

Kennedy was medically under care, having a procedure go poorly with fatal results.

Plane crash of AF1

Anything other than one with all of the process variables that you're saying took place.

 

[Freewill]

You provide links, not sure I buy into their logic. I don't believe Connally's body was contorted in the way the video portrayed. And there is evidence of a second gunman. I have been to Dealey Plaza.

If you were planning the "big event" would you really plan it in such a way? In my opinion the only evidence of a second gunman is if that is what one wants to believe. Unlike some you notice I don't insult those who believe, I just think I have looked at the evidence and have come to the conclusion
that there is reasonable doubt.

 

[daws101]

Well I am an old fart.

I Guess providing links and logic causes gas.

looks like another technical fuck up had job did not post that, I did.

 

[daws101]

You provide links, not sure I buy into their logic. I don't believe Connally's body was contorted in the way the video portrayed. And there is evidence of a second gunman. I have been to Dealey Plaza.

been there too....

 

[Truthseeker420]

been there too....

Did you buy any of the papers or DVDs ? or talk to the guys that say they were there that day.?

 

[daws101]

Did you buy any of the papers or DVDs ? or talk to the guys that say they were there that day.?

no. only an idiot would line the pockets of charlatans profiting from tragedy.
we did the walking tour.
saw no problem with shooting the president from the "nest".

 

[Bfgrn]

If you were planning the "big event" would you really plan it in such a way? In my opinion the only evidence of a second gunman is if that is what one wants to believe. Unlike some you notice I don't insult those who believe, I just think I have looked at the evidence and have come to the conclusion
that there is reasonable doubt.

No evidence of a second gunman? Then the single bullet theory HAS to be true, because one of your 3 bullets missed the limousine.

So now we are back to...

a) You can start by explaining how Oswald was able to fire off the last 2 shots almost simultaneously using a poorly operating bolt action rifle?

b) Then explain how John Connolly could have possibly had a 'delayed reaction' to the grievous wounds that ripped through his chest. To his dying day Connolly vehemently said he was not hit by the first bullet.

Governor Connally told the Warren Commission, "I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."(1) He elaborated to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) "...so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and to the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (2)

(1) Robert J. Groden & Harrison Edward Livingstone, "High Treason" (New York: Berkley Book 1990) p.272-273
(2)The Report of the Select Committee on Asssassinations U.S. House of Representatives; Vol. 1, p.42

c) Explain how the bullet that entered the President's back and created a shallow wound which was probed during the autopsy and the bottom of the wound could be reached with a human finger exited his throat, from a wound described as an entrance wound by Parkland doctors that was 6 inches higher than the back wound?

NOW answer those questions.

 

[Freewill]

No evidence of a second gunman? Then the single bullet theory HAS to be true, because one of your 3 bullets missed the limousine.

So now we are back to...

a) You can start by explaining how Oswald was able to fire off the last 2 shots almost simultaneously using a poorly operating bolt action rifle?

This didn't happen and can't obviously happen. Your whole remise is based on the Zapurder film which if I read you right was doctored. Interesting that you would use it as a base for anything. But that said, the majority of the people heard 3 shots, both the Connelys testify to that fact.

b) Then explain how John Connolly could have possibly had a 'delayed reaction' to the grievous wounds that ripped through his chest. To his dying day Connolly vehemently said he was not hit by the first bullet.

Governor Connally told the Warren Commission, "I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."(1) He elaborated to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) "...so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and to the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (2)

(1) Robert J. Groden & Harrison Edward Livingstone, "High Treason" (New York: Berkley Book 1990) p.272-273
(2)The Report of the Select Committee on Asssassinations U.S. House of Representatives; Vol. 1, p.42

I was actually accidentally shot once in the hand. My recollection of that many years later is that I felt almost no pain at first. Connely testified that he never felt his thigh wound and he held onto his hat all the way to the hospital even with a fractured wrist. Many men shot in battle do not feel the shot especially in the back. There is also evidence that his collar does flip up at the time of the shot and his image is blurred at the right time when the rest of the car is not. At best his reaction, or apparent reaction, in the car is not an indication of when the bullets were fired.

So if we subscribe to what people said and the evidence the first shot rings out then a pause then two more in rapid succession. I see it going down this way, maybe, Oswald takes aim and shoots, the bullet hits the tree on Elm Street and is a miss. Oswald is looking for a reaction but sees none. His adredlin is running and he fires two more shots. I am sure you have been in situations where you are excited and it appears time slows. This is actually a true reaction of the body which could never be simulated. But many times the shots were simulated so they could have occurred.

The other thought is that if you were planning this would you have Oswald shoot at all? All the evidence points to three shots. Oswald had three shell casings. If you were planning on shooting more times would you not have planted more shell casings?

c) Explain how the bullet that entered the President's back and created a shallow wound which was probed during the autopsy and the bottom of the wound could be reached with a human finger exited his throat, from a wound described as an entrance wound by Parkland doctors that was 6 inches higher than the back wound?

Explain, if there was a shallow wound, how it was produced by a high powered rifle, or a handgun for that matter and where it was shot. The ballistics have been shown that the SBT is quite possible. All the shots have been explained. But let's say there was a shallow wound in the back, which I don't think is true. Explain the neck wound. Now the neck wound could have been, but wasn't, caused by a tracheostomy done trying to save the presidents life. But, why would it be needed if there was not throat damage? If he were just hit in the head and back there would be no need for a tracheostomy. There were three shots, Oswald shot three times, case closed.

NOW answer those questions.

Your turn.

 

[dcraelin]

Yes and when we did it, we didn't coordinate with the sitting government to remove it's leader.

We coordinated with elements within countries just as I am suggesting perhaps the KGB might have.

Oh, so the KGB was quarterbacking...happened to reach out to the CIA, found sympathetic agents and pulled it off.
That the CIA and FBI and Warren Commision agree upon; independently.
It's hard to figure out what you're stating and why you're putting together this elaborate multi-national hit where any one of the moving parts can fail and the whole thing comes unraveled. None of it makes sense.

If it rained that day, the top is on the limo and the plan is called off. If there was a bird that was overly aggressive, eyes may be cast upward. It would be called off. A bee nest on the overhang...may not lend itself to convenience. So many process variables...why do you add those in when, if you're the CIA, you can come up with thousands of easier scenarios at a closer range.... As you said, the CIA does this for a living and what happened in Dallas, you're saying, is the best they can come up with? Seriously dude...think about what you're trying to convince someone of.

The top was not bullet proof and might not have altered plans at all. So if you think it is so obviously a bad plan, how would you have done it.?

Poisoning the food of the President for one thing. Easy to do, would have access, if you think the actual autopsy was intentionally botched, that would not be an issue. Kennedy was medically under care, having a procedure go poorly with fatal results.Plane crash of AF1Anything other than one with all of the process variables that you're saying took place.

the methods you suggest are all problematic as they require close proximity to president or risk injury to bystanders. fellow diners can be poisoned. AS far as I know Kennedy had no medical procedures during his presidency. Crash of AF1 would have killed many. Also any method with a hidden killer would bring on a more balanced inquiry/investigation....not the rush to judgement that happened with Oswald. (this goes against idea that Oswald wasn't a patsy)

I didnt say "happened to reach out", KGB probably had some ties with CIA, some back-channels say, left over from WWII.

noticed you ignored statement about non-bullet-proof top

 

[daws101]

we coordinated with elements within countries just as i am suggesting perhaps the kgb might have.

oh, so the kgb was quarterbacking...happened to reach out to the cia, found sympathetic agents and pulled it off.
That the cia and fbi and warren commision agree upon; independently.
It's hard to figure out what you're stating and why you're putting together this elaborate multi-national hit where any one of the moving parts can fail and the whole thing comes unraveled. None of it makes sense.

the top was not bullet proof and might not have altered plans at all. So if you think it is so obviously a bad plan, how would you have done it.?

poisoning the food of the president for one thing. Easy to do, would have access, if you think the actual autopsy was intentionally botched, that would not be an issue. Kennedy was medically under care, having a procedure go poorly with fatal results.plane crash of af1anything other than one with all of the process variables that you're saying took place.

the methods you suggest are all problematic as they require close proximity to president or risk injury to bystanders. Fellow diners can be poisoned. As far as i know kennedy had no medical procedures during his presidency. Crash of af1 would have killed many. Also any method with a hidden killer would bring on a more balanced inquiry/investigation....not the rush to judgement that happened with oswald. (this goes against idea that oswald wasn't a patsy)

i didnt say "happened to reach out", kgb probably had some ties with cia, some back-channels say, left over from wwii.

Noticed you ignored statement about non-bullet-proof top

the limos top?
Kinda irrelevant as it was not on the limo at the time...

 

[dcraelin]

oh, so the kgb was quarterbacking...happened to reach out to the cia, found sympathetic agents and pulled it off.
That the cia and fbi and warren commision agree upon; independently.
It's hard to figure out what you're stating and why you're putting together this elaborate multi-national hit where any one of the moving parts can fail and the whole thing comes unraveled. None of it makes sense.poisoning the food of the president for one thing. Easy to do, would have access, if you think the actual autopsy was intentionally botched, that would not be an issue. Kennedy was medically under care, having a procedure go poorly with fatal results.plane crash of af1anything other than one with all of the process variables that you're saying took place.

the methods you suggest are all problematic as they require close proximity to president or risk injury to bystanders. Fellow diners can be poisoned. As far as i know kennedy had no medical procedures during his presidency. Crash of af1 would have killed many. Also any method with a hidden killer would bring on a more balanced inquiry/investigation....not the rush to judgement that happened with oswald. (this goes against idea that oswald wasn't a patsy)

i didnt say "happened to reach out", kgb probably had some ties with cia, some back-channels say, left over from wwii.

Noticed you ignored statement about non-bullet-proof top

the limos top?
Kinda irrelevant as it was not on the limo at the time...

well Candy-corn was saying that its possible use is evidence against a conspiracy