What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

THAT market is cornered by the CTroll#FAIL#ARMY

Oh, by the way: BUMP

We believe an angry, disaffected individual took a rifle and shot the president.

They believe legions of people - waitresses, shoe salesmen, steam fitters, bus drivers, used car salesmen, warehouse workers along with multiple government agencies - conspired to kill JFK and lie about Lee Oswald.

Which side is telling stories again?

[Michael O'Brian]

They believe legions of people - waitresses, shoe salesmen, steam fitters, bus drivers, used car salesmen, warehouse workers along with multiple government agencies - conspired to kill JFK and lie about Lee Oswald.

Sounds a lot like the K.K.K you might be onto something here, just like Milteer he did say they would throw someone similar to Oswald out there to put the public off course. and dopes like you are still falling for it.
Brewer lied for sure about not seeing Oswald before the 22/11 when he had in fact previously sold him the very shoes which he had on him that day

[John Iacoletti]

We believe an angry, disaffected individual took a rifle and shot the president.

Great.  Now all you have to do is prove it.

They believe legions of people - waitresses, shoe salesmen, steam fitters, bus drivers, used car salesmen, warehouse workers along with multiple government agencies - conspired to kill JFK and lie about Lee Oswald.

Who believes that?  Be specific.

[Steve Howsley]

"Read the reports".   That's your evidence.  LOL.

Still.

Not.

A.

Single.

Piece.

You have nothing as you have admitted. I refer you to the volumes of the two major commissions. If you think you are on equal terms then you are a bigger fool that I suspected. You can't even piece together a sketch of what happened over that November weekend. Your complete argument is that a man was shot then another man was shot, then two funerals took place and nothing else can be established with any certainty.

Here's an example from a few hours ago of your pathetic effort to get to the truth

Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.

You really are the king of kooks.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You have nothing as you have admitted. I refer you to the volumes of the two major commissions. If you think you are on equal terms then you are a bigger fool that I suspected. You can't even piece together a sketch of what happened over that November weekend. Your complete argument is that a man was shot then another man was shot, then two funerals took place and nothing else can be established with any certainty.

Here's an example from a few hours ago of your pathetic effort to get to the truth

Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.

You really are the king of kooks.

Well, in his defense (sort of) there has been the theory suggested (most notably by James Reston, Jr.) that Oswald was aiming at Connally because he, as Secretary of the Navy, had turned down Oswald's request to change his discharge status.

Of course, just because someone offered it and someone was willing to publish it doesn't mean it's implausible plausible. Impossible? I guess not.

But I think it's absurd to think that if the sniper was shooting at JFK that he would try to hit him in the back and not kill him.

[John Iacoletti]

You have nothing as you have admitted.

Says the guy who has never posted a single piece of evidence to support his conclusion, but thinks that the fact he has a conclusion is a virtue in and of itself.

I refer you to the volumes of the two major commissions.

Cop out.  What is it in the volumes that convinces you that your conclusion is true?

If you think you are on equal terms then you are a bigger fool that I suspected.

And then you throw in an insult as if that somehow demonstrates that you are correct.

You can't even piece together a sketch of what happened over that November weekend.

As if that somehow demonstrates that you are correct.

Here's an example from a few hours ago of your pathetic effort to get to the truth

Nobody knows for a fact who or what the shooter(s) were aiming at.

So you think you're a mindreader now.  This keeps getting better and better.

You really are the king of kooks.

...and another insult.  Admit it -- you don't know anything about this case, do you?

[John Iacoletti]

Well, in his defense (sort of) there has been the theory suggested (most notably by James Reston, Jr.) that Oswald was aiming at Connally because he, as Secretary of the Navy, had turned down Oswald's request to change his discharge status.

Right -- assuming that Oswald was aiming anything at anybody, which of course is pure speculation.

[Steve Howsley]

Right -- assuming that Oswald was aiming anything at anybody, which of course is pure speculation.

Of course Oswald was aiming at something. He was trying to shoot out the tail lights and being a terrible shot he screwed up big time. It was only a prank gone wrong.