November of this year will mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I am curious as to what people think about this event.
Here are five possibilities. Which one do you consider most likely?
1) Oswald acted alone.
2) Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill the president, but only Oswald actually shot at the president.
3) Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill the president, but the actual shooting was done by some one or more people and Oswald did not fire a weapon.
4) Oswald was part of a conspiracy and he plus at least one other person fired weapons.
5) Oswald had no involvement in carrying out the assassination.
If you have time, tell what you think the key evidence is to support your contention.
The five options could be split further. For instance, if you go with number 5, do you think the conspirators planted false evidence that pointed to Oswald in order to incriminate him? Or was it just bad luck that he was thought by law enforcement to be the one?
Optional bonus questions:
a) Did Oswald take a bag of curtain rods to work that day?
b) Did Oswald shoot patrolman Tippit?
c) Why did Oswald not stay at the depository to work the post-lunch part of his shift?
d) Why was he in a movie theatre that afternoon?
e) If you go with 1, 2, 3, or 4 above, where do you think Oswald intended to go to keep from being arrested as the days and weeks went by?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II"If you have time, tell what you think the key evidence is to support your contention."
November of this year will mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I am curious as to what people think about this event.
Here are five possibilities. Which one do you consider most likely?
1) Oswald acted alone.
2) Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill the president, but only Oswald actually shot at the president.
...[text shortened]... re do you think Oswald intended to go to keep from being arrested as the days and weeks went by?
I have no contention. It is a done deal.
I think Oswald was paid, either by the mob or some secret right-wing group. This group kills liberals that have too much power (Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Jimmy Hoffa). One of them (an expert shot from the mob or the group) had a rifle like the one the gave Oswald, who they knew would probably miss. Oswald fired and missed and the assassin, from another close location) didn't.
Jack Ruby, either a member of that group or mob, or maybe another one paid by either, shot and killed Oswald before he could talk. Ruby was dying so he agreed to kill Oswald if the mob or group would take care of his loved ones financially after he died.
I have no evidence, just what I saw on the news as an 8-year old.
As it happens, the last book I read was Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination by Richard Belzer and David Wayne. They make a compelling case for mob involvement in conjunction with some agents of the CIA as well as some pro-Cuba supporters. They also answer your questions about Who killed Tippet and others.
Edit: I heard a quote the other day on the History channel that was someone in the mob talking about the Kennedy brothers, John and Bobby: "If we cut off the tail (Bobby), then the head (John) will turn around and chew us up. So we cut the head off, and the tail will keep on wagging."
Originally posted by mikelom"I'm more interested in Russ's profits... "
Who Cares?
Who gave birth to Hitler? Anybody know?
Why did David Carradine die in Bangkok?
I mean, I'm more interested in Russ's profits, and what other websites he runs and makes dosh from, rather than ancient conspiracies.
-m. 😴
Then increase the volume of your posting activity to this centerpiece forum
to help increase 'eyeball hits' which still drive site advertising revenues.
-b.