Jorn: It's one thing to say the evidence that Oswald shot JFK is not convincing or persuasive. It's another to promote these bizarre conspiracy theories that the evidence was all planted and faked and staged. And then all covered up for half a century. And all of these subsequent investigations by the government and the media are coverups. That's simply ridiculous.
And it's another thing to say that there's no persuasive evidence that Oswald shot Tippit. My goodness, if someone doesn't believe the evidence that he shot Tippit then it's useless to discuss the JFK assassination.
You are raising questions that I think completely destroy the conspiracy claim that Oswald was framed, that he was totally innocent. To put it briefly: Oswald didn't leave the TSBD shortly after the shooting because he just wanted to take the day off. He was in flight. That's why he shot Tippit and fled into the theater with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.
Ah yes... kinda just like it's one thing to ignore evidence of rifles that don't match and impossible timelines of a man who can shoot a president at 12:30, walk calmly to a soda machine, buy a coke, talk to a cop, walk 7 blocks to catch a bus, get on that bus, get caught up in traffic, get a transfer, get off that bus, walk 3 or 4 blocks to find a taxi, offer it to an old lady, take the taxi 2.4 miles through traffic and stop lights, get dropped off 3 or 4 blocks from his house, walk home, hang out for 5 minutes, grab a gun, wait for another bus stop, say screw it and walk over a mile just in time to murder a cop at 1:15, then ditch his jacket, but not his gun, empty the shells from the revolver so cops can have even more great evidence, then sneak into a movie, buy popcorn, and wait to be arrested.
And let's not forget ignoring the 2 wallet stories, right? Cause that makes perfect sense. Oh and don't forget ignoring the shot that we all see come from the front right, which just happens to be exactly where 2 men with rifles can be seen in photos and videos, all in favor for the story of a spombleprofglidnoctobunsty shot marksmen who killed a president with a rifle that the army testers deemed trash. In fact, basically stated there was no way that piece of crap rifle could have killed anyone, other than by accident.
So if you're trying to compare which story is more plausible, only a simple minded oaf would think the official story is plausible. People who are too lazy to have to think much rather swallow whatever nonsense the habitual lying government spews. And the swallowers never seem to want to address all the evidence that we can see, like 2 different rifles. Why would there be 2 different rifles? If you don't know there was 2 different rifles then you obviously haven't done much research. On the off chance you might be too lazy, let me help you...
https://photos.app.goo.gl/x3s37GcDTL67cGjg8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/Pn5DW5g7vZgq2sEz6So here's a swallowers chance to explain to CT'rs why there's 2 rifles. And speak slowly so the CT'rs can take notes. If you can't explain that, then guess what... there's probably a good reason for that. There should only be one. But there isn't. There's 2. Maybe Oswald was talented enough to use 2 rifles at the same time? Who knows. But to ignore stuff like that is the definition of crazy. Not knowing that government is full of spombleprofglidnoctobunsty corrupt liars is naive. Accepting any explanation from a government that has a program called the "Freedom of Information Act" that redacts any and everything worth a damn is just gullible.
