My Expose of the JFK Assassination

[Tom Pickering]

Since the Heroes have stopped coming out the woodwork to lay their acid sarcasm on my thread, I will start to delve into the details of what I believe to be the truth that completely contradicts the explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The evidence I have to present is the Zapruder film itself.  Before I get started, I just want to say that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Abraham Zapruder for filming the JFK Assassination.  Had he not done so, there would be no reason to doubt the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.  It is only because Abraham Zapruder gave us an eye witness view of the assassination that we, some fifty odd years later, can see with our own eyes who killed JFK that completely contradicts the official story.  Specifially, Zapruder gives us an eye witness view inside of the Limousine so we can see the assassination take place as if it were happening just yesterday instead of way back in 1963.  It is amazing what a person can understand just from watching this scene as it plays out, as we will come to find out.  First, please find a stabalized version of the Zapruder film, one that does not jerk around making it hard to see what is happening.  You can find these on Youtube.  Find a slow motion version of the film also.  It helps to be able to view the scene in slow motion so you can clearly see what is happening inside the Limousine.  In my explanation, the entire assassination happens inside the Limousine, so its important to clearly see what is happening inside of it before, during and after the assassination.  The Zapruder film tells a story very different from that of Lee Harvey Oswald being the assassin, which I will cover in detail.  Stay tuned. 

[John Iacoletti]

Is this going to be another one of those "here's what I think I see in the Zapruder film" arguments?

[Tom Pickering]

I have a hero in my midst who cares not about the truth but about defending and keeping alive the legend that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.  Well, hero, whatever it turns out to be, it will be a milion times closer to the truth than any of the disinformation on this forum.  Why don't you let me speak my mind without butting in?  Let the rubes hear some truth for a change.  Would that be the end of the world?  I know you cannot wait to attack and ridicule and mock everything I say.  That is well understood.  I do not ask for your approval about anything I say.  Just let me speak my piece in my own thread without you excrementing all over it with your obvious sarcasm and contempt.  Can you do that, Hero? 

[Nicholas Turner]

I'm sure we've all seen the stabilised, slow motion Zapruder film (yes, even me). What is it we have missed in your view?

[Rob Caprio]

Since the Heroes have stopped coming out the woodwork to lay their acid sarcasm on my thread, I will start to delve into the details of what I believe to be the truth that completely contradicts the explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of JFK.  The evidence I have to present is the Zapruder film itself.  Before I get started, I just want to say that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Abraham Zapruder for filming the JFK Assassination.  Had he not done so, there would be no reason to doubt the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.  It is only because Abraham Zapruder gave us an eye witness view of the assassination that we, some fifty odd years later, can see with our own eyes who killed JFK that completely contradicts the official story.  Specifially, Zapruder gives us an eye witness view inside of the Limousine so we can see the assassination take place as if it were happening just yesterday instead of way back in 1963.  It is amazing what a person can understand just from watching this scene as it plays out, as we will come to find out.  First, please find a stabalized version of the Zapruder film, one that does not jerk around making it hard to see what is happening.  You can find these on Youtube.  Find a slow motion version of the film also.  It helps to be able to view the scene in slow motion so you can clearly see what is happening inside the Limousine.  In my explanation, the entire assassination happens inside the Limousine, so its important to clearly see what is happening inside of it before, during and after the assassination.  The Zapruder film tells a story very different from that of Lee Harvey Oswald being the assassin, which I will cover in detail.  Stay tuned.

I am not here to ridicule anyone's beliefs. I have supported others when they made claims that seemed outrageous (i.e. Patrick Jackson saying that JFK didn't die at all) so I am open to hearing alternate theories.

One thing that you should know is that this is not the original forum as the old version was hacked in the beginning of the year. On the old forum I had posted several series that showed unequivocally that the official story is totally false. One of the series had 464 posts and in a number of them I presented research that went outside the box (i.e. two posts looked at the issue of Jack Ruby using blanks on LHO, Marina Oswald having a double, LHO never spent time on Neeley Street, etc...) so I am not against this type of stuff.

I reposted over 300 of them on this new version before they were deleted because the LNers complained repeatedly about them spamming the board. Keep that in mind when you use the search feature. It doesn't represent all that has been discussed here over the years (the original forum began in 2009).

With all that being said, I am a person that believes in supporting evidence. I don't just hold the LNers to this standard, but I also hold myself and other CTers to this standard. I have had disagreements with other CTers because they offered a theory and then when questioned about it and asked to provide supporting evidence they began to get rude. If we CTers present a theory as the truth or a fact then we need to support it with evidence otherwise we are no better than the WC.

To claim something is the truth is bold, and there should be firm supporting evidence for it. Be prapared to cite your evidence. I would also recommend that you use the carriage return as these very long paragraphs tend to make people skip what you are saying. Don't be Richard Smith.

The first question that comes to mind is -- why would Jackie do this? I am not aware of her killing anyone so to put a gun to her husband's head and pull the trigger is a big deal. I have other questions, but I will wait to see your answer to this one.

[Rob Caprio]

I have a hero in my midst who cares not about the truth but about defending and keeping alive the legend that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.  Well, hero, whatever it turns out to be, it will be a milion times closer to the truth than any of the disinformation on this forum.  Why don't you let me speak my mind without butting in?  Let the rubes hear some truth for a change.  Would that be the end of the world?  I know you cannot wait to attack and ridicule and mock everything I say.  That is well understood.  I do not ask for your approval about anything I say.  Just let me speak my piece in my own thread without you excrementing all over it with your obvious sarcasm and contempt.  Can you do that, Hero?

You talk about others who use sarcasm and then you do the same thing. We have no control over the ranks of the board so why are you referencing them?

The truth is a vague term as different people can see a different truth. That is why supporting evidence is key.

[John Iacoletti]

I have a hero in my midst who cares not about the truth but about defending and keeping alive the legend that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.

   You're new around here, aren't you?

Just let me speak my piece in my own thread without you excrementing all over it with your obvious sarcasm and contempt.  Can you do that, Hero?

Who's stopping you?

[Bill Chapman]

Is this going to be another one of those "here's what I think I see in the Zapruder film" arguments?

What did you see in the Zapruder film, John?