Warren Commission was correct........Oswald acted alone

[Soupnazi630]

Oswald acted alone

You have posted nothing to prove otherwise

<Note: emojis don’t help prove your case, try FACTS>

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

If Qswald had just kept his mouth shut, Ruby would never have shot him. The dummy.

That was not Ruby's motive.

Unlike Oswald we have a clear motive from ruby as he lived to explain why he did it and it had nothing to do with any conspiracy

 

[percysunshine]

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

If Qswald had just kept his mouth shut, Ruby would never have shot him. The dummy.

That was not Ruby's motive.

Unlike Oswald we have a clear motive from ruby as he lived to explain why he did it and it had nothing to do with any conspiracy

Your unimpeachable source is the killer?

Sure...that works....

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

If Qswald had just kept his mouth shut, Ruby would never have shot him. The dummy.

That was not Ruby's motive.

Unlike Oswald we have a clear motive from ruby as he lived to explain why he did it and it had nothing to do with any conspiracy

Your unimpeachable source is the killer?

Sure...that works....

When a killer confesses to their crime then their claim of motive is in fact pretty reliable yes.

What precisely is your source?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

If Qswald had just kept his mouth shut, Ruby would never have shot him. The dummy.

That was not Ruby's motive.

Unlike Oswald we have a clear motive from ruby as he lived to explain why he did it and it had nothing to do with any conspiracy

Your unimpeachable source is the killer?

Sure...that works....

First name specifically who your source is and then explain why someone's else's explanation for a killers motive is more valid than the killers own confession.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Oswald acted alone

You have posted nothing to prove otherwise

<Note: emojis don’t help prove your case, try FACTS>

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

If Qswald had just kept his mouth shut, Ruby would never have shot him. The dummy.

I doubt that,he was connected to the CIA and was their patsy selected by them to take the fall for them and he would spilled too many details on who was really behind it at the trial and they could not risk that with so many highly influenced people connected to the assassination being exposed. He would have spilled the beans how the mob was illegally working for the CIA ,how the CIA used the mob all the time and their real role the CIA plays in world events,ect,ect had Oswald gone to trial.they were never going to allow that to happen.

 

[Soupnazi630]

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

If Qswald had just kept his mouth shut, Ruby would never have shot him. The dummy.

I doubt that,he was connected to the CIA and was their patsy selected by them to take the fall for them and he would spilled too many details on who was really behind it at the trial and they could not risk that with so many highly influenced people connected to the assassination being exposed. He would have spilled the beans how the mob was illegally working for the CIA ,how the CIA used the mob all the time and their real role the CIA plays in world events,ect,ect had Oswald gone to trial.they were never going to allow that to happen.

Except there is no evidence of such connection to the CIA.

Since your entire claim rests on such a false premise your post is simply fictitious.

 

[gipper]

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

Lies lies and more lies.

From you yes.

From me facts facts and more facts which prove you wrong.

Cite some evidence boy.

The evidence is overwhelming but you ignore it and instead, believe a statist fairy tale.

 

[JohnPrewett]

The late Dr Crenshaw is more credible than any of the shills trashing him.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong he was murdered days after being arrested and had a great deal o time to talk

Which, obviously, was a mistake.

No it was what happened.

First you claim it was evidence of a conspiracy but when you are proven wrong on the details you claim that your error is the evidence.

You can't have it both ways. Either he was IMMEDIATELY killed to keep him quiet or he was not because there was no conspiracy/

We know he was not immediately killed therefore it argues against conspiracy. We also know Ruby lived on for years and consistently stated he acted alone. If it were necessary to kill Oswald to silence him it would have been equally necessary to kill ruby for the same reason.

For that matter it would have been necessary to kill endless witnesses none of whom died in any out of the ordinary ways or in unusual numbers.

Lies lies and more lies.

From you yes.

From me facts facts and more facts which prove you wrong.

Cite some evidence boy.

The evidence is overwhelming but you ignore it and instead, believe a statist fairy tale.

There is no such evidence or you would have cited some by now.

Unlike you I cite specific evidence and it proves you wrong. Despite being asked at least a hundred times you cannot cite any evidence at all

 

[Soupnazi630]

The late Dr Crenshaw is more credible than any of the shills trashing him.

No he really is not.

He was an intern at the time who was not even present when the doctors were attempting to save JFK's life. His entire experience was glancing at the presidents body after he was declared dead.

This is not the sort of observation which can dispute or trump an autopsy which was done at Bethesda by experienced experts.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Only a shill would say the Bethesda autopsy (a charade) was done by "experienced experts."

 

[Soupnazi630]

Only a shill would say the Bethesda autopsy (a charade) was done by "experienced experts."

There is no such thing as a shill on obscure political forums. Only someone ignorant in the extreme of the subject at hand would resort to calling someone a shill when they have no evidence to back up their idiotic claims.

Despite the false accusations the doctors who performed the autopsy at bethesda were experienced experts.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Charade of an autopsy with military at elbow of doctor telling him what to do ..... having "drawing" of alleged back wounds instead of coherent photos ...
finding pristine bullet on stretcher that allegedly worked its way out of Connally after previously going through JFK .... what a farce
shills infest the internet ... including forums such as this one

 

[Soupnazi630]

Charade of an autopsy with military at elbow of doctor telling him what to do ..... having "drawing" of alleged back wounds instead of coherent photos ...
finding pristine bullet on stretcher that allegedly worked its way out of Connally after previously going through JFK .... what a farce
shills infest the internet ... including forums such as this one

Shills are imaginary and a total fantasy for those who have no coherent argument.

The military was not at anyone's elbow during JFK's autopsy. That particular detail was dreamed up in the movie JFK and is total fiction. In reality the pathologists had total control.

Drawings were and still are standard.

The bullet was not found during the autopsy it was found in Texas. It was not pristine and there is nothing abnormal about a bullet passing through two bodies.

At least learn some facts before trying to argue.

 

[gipper]

Clearly JFK was shot from the front, hence a conspiracy on the part of many in our government. Numerous witnesses confirm this.

Only silly statist shills disagree.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Clearly JFK was shot from the front, hence a conspiracy on the part of many in our government. Numerous witnesses confirm this.

Only silly statist shills disagree.

Wrong.

No witness confirms it and there is no evidence he was shot from the front.

There is no such thing as a shill on here.

 

[gipper]

Clearly JFK was shot from the front, hence a conspiracy on the part of many in our government. Numerous witnesses confirm this.

Only silly statist shills disagree.

Wrong.

No witness confirms it and there is no evidence he was shot from the front.

There is no such thing as a shill on here.

More lies. Numerous witnesses confirmed shots from the front, but you won’t find them in the fictional novel entitled the Warren Commission Report.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Clearly JFK was shot from the front, hence a conspiracy on the part of many in our government. Numerous witnesses confirm this.

Only silly statist shills disagree.

Wrong.

No witness confirms it and there is no evidence he was shot from the front.

There is no such thing as a shill on here.

More lies. Numerous witnesses confirmed shots from the front, but you won’t find them in the fictional novel entitled the Warren Commission Report.

Wrong there are no witnesses at all who confirm shots from the front.

The vast majority of witnesses heard the shots coming from above and behind only a few heard shots coming from elsewhere.

Sorry but the Warren Commission report included both groups. The point is a few witnesses confirms nothing. The physical evidence and the vast majority of witnesses are in sync and prove Oswald shot kennedy from the TSBD.

You are proven wrong by the evidence and you are the only liar as no evidence of any sort supports your uneducated assertions

 

[gipper]

Clearly JFK was shot from the front, hence a conspiracy on the part of many in our government. Numerous witnesses confirm this.

Only silly statist shills disagree.

Wrong.

No witness confirms it and there is no evidence he was shot from the front.

There is no such thing as a shill on here.

More lies. Numerous witnesses confirmed shots from the front, but you won’t find them in the fictional novel entitled the Warren Commission Report.

Wrong there are no witnesses at all who confirm shots from the front.

The vast majority of witnesses heard the shots coming from above and behind only a few heard shots coming from elsewhere.

Sorry but the Warren Commission report included both groups. The point is a few witnesses confirms nothing. The physical evidence and the vast majority of witnesses are in sync and prove Oswald shot kennedy from the TSBD.

You are proven wrong by the evidence and you are the only liar as no evidence of any sort supports your uneducated assertions

More lies...

Numerous witnesses confirmed shots from your buddies hiding on the grassy knoll.

Doctors at Parkland confirm shots from front.

JFK's assistant press secretary confirmed shots from front.

You must admit your beloved government lied to you and you being a statist dummy, gladly accepted those lies.

 

[candycorn]

there is one of the agents i was talking about ^ WRONGwinger,alerted by his boss to come and shit all over the floor just now as he does everyday everytime he opens his mouth. this stupid **** troll mac the knife can never admit when he has been proven wrong even over a little tiny thing like the rams being back in LA when he said they would NEVER come back.this troll STILL whines and whines like a three year old crybaby about being proven wrong on THAT all the time.pretty pathetic anybody here would agree except his buttlover shills candyass and the evil NAZI agent.

Oswald acted alone

You have posted nothing to prove otherwise

<Note: emojis don’t help prove your case, try FACTS>

.
Oswald was a patsy...come on RW...he was assasinated before he could testify.

Personally, I think Hillary was behind the entire thing.

Everyone who is arrested claims they are a patsy

It wasn’t me.......I was set up........Honest

I'm not so sure about that.

It is one thing to say "I didn't do it". It is something a bit different to, in the hours right after the assassination say, "I'm just a patsy". Now, if you're sitting in your cell a few days or weeks later and decide to go to the patsy card, I can more readily dismiss that. Because the word "patsy" breathes breath into the body of other actors being involved and your being set up to take the fall by yourself. Saying "I didn't do it" is what is expected and implicates someone else but not necessarily that you were set up by someone else.