Is this possible?

[Walt Cakebread]

What makes no sense is how can you have multiple conclusions when it can only happen 1 way?

Oswald took his rifle to work and murdered the President, it's as simple as that!

JohnM

OK little guy.....We understand that you're content with the tale....no run along and find another of your favorite fairy tales to read.....

[John Mytton]

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."

Dallas Police Chief, Jesse Curry, in 1969

On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

Btw your quote came from a newspaper while Curry was busy hawking his book(which incidentally doesn't contain your quote), and at the time conspiracy books were selling and were all the rage, so if indeed he did make that quote it's not difficult to make a connection. Money before honour.

What you may also want to know is that in Curry's book he also believes that Tippit was shot by Oswald and why the heck would Oswald feel the need to kill Tippit?





JohnM

[John Mytton]

OK little guy.....We understand that you're content with the tale....no run along and find another of your favorite fairy tales to read.....

OK little guy.....

I'm not little in either stature or intelligence.

We understand that you're content with the tale...

The mountain of evidence only points to ONE conclusion.

no run along and find another of your favorite fairy tales to read.....

For me now, what I find interesting is watching you people, it's very fascinating.

JohnM

[Walt Cakebread]

He is a walking encyclopedia on the JFK case.

 Fred

Perhaps.......But some of the information he possesses is not true.......

[Paul May]

Do you not understand the meaning of a “?”. The thread: “Is this possible”? A question. You’re a bit of a 🤡.

[Paul May]

Yet, when one begins with an incorrect premise, conspiracy and spends 30 years attempting to prove it, yet failures, what does that tell us?

[Paul May]

Preponderance of evidence in totality along with consciousness of guilt. Damn strong circumstantial case that has stood the test of time for 58 years. There is no conspiracy argument that can say that.

[Tim Nickerson]

I agree.

I disagree with his support of Jim Garrison but outside of that, it's undeniable that Jim Di knows his stuff.

He may know his stuff but his stuff does not match up very well with reality. I've run up against him a number of times in the past few months and I've come to realize that he's not very bright and his knowledge of the JFK assassination does not go very deep. He can carry on about the case but so much of what he says and writes is just not true. He now has me blocked.