Wow. Found it.
Maybe this is what Radix believes. ROTFLMAO
He said he didn't know guns. Maybe he knows about umbrellas????
Posted on 06/01/2007 5:36:49 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
A storied former prosecutor scrutinizes one of the most debated crimes in American history The murder of President John F. Kennedy has provoked by far more suspicion, argument, obsession, and especially book-publishing than any similar event in American history. Now famed lawyer and true-crime writer Vincent Bugliosi has produced what he hopes will be the book to exceed all others. "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" may do that, in weight (5.3 pounds) as well as content, but it's clear that if his editor hadn't insisted he turn over the manuscript after 21 years of labor, the almost-superhuman effort might have wrecked his health.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I realized that the had to be none other than Bigfoot! This might sound a tad far fetched to some, but think about it for a minute (no longer than a minute otherwise logic might take hold) Bigfoot hangs out in grassy knolls and is always blurry when photographed!
OK, maybe it might sound a little far fetched, but there might be a million dollar screenplay in this somewhere.
I got first dibbs on the copyright!
I agree. The JFK affair was the best example of a corrupt federal government.
Otherwise, YOU can go away.
To answer your question, I served honorably in the USMC.
There are a lot better examples of a corrupt federal government that have been proven. Phantom conspiracies are just examples corrupt mindsets.
At this point, years and conspiracy theories later, wouldn’t the more important question to ask FIRST be, “Why did Jack Ruby kill Oswald?” Working from the last act back to the first might give more answers at this time. Was Ruby just acting out of anger and grief? Was he trying to be the hero who offed the baddest guy around? Answer Ruby’s actions and the answer to the rest of the story becomes clear.
Let me think. Why did Ruby kill Oswald?
Could it be to shut him up?
Possibly.
...but we can’t think that...because that would make this a theory of conspiracy nuts...so it MUST be that Ruby was grief stricken and acted out of some kind of retribution for Mrs. Kennedy’s sake....right?...right??....
I sincerely mean that.
I have not seen the Zapruder film in a number of years, really, ten at least, but probably way more.
The umbrella was down, and then it was up, just immediately before the shots were fired from behind the “grassy knoll”.
What do you want from me?
Are you demanding that I submit to you a concise report of just what happened on that day in 1963?
I was not even 10 years old back then.
I just read a lot, and I have access to the same things that you likely do.
It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that our President was murdered as a result of a conspiracy.
Conspiracy = “breathe together.”
If you want to play “Mickey the Dunce’ for all of your life...well then more power to you.
Please, do not ask me to get it for you if you really have any interest in these matters.
JFK was killed as a product of a conspiracy, and the denial of that obvious fact makes anyone who subscribes to that denial, an absolute idiot in my opinion.
Go and do your own homework, and defend your conclusions if they are so contrary to the obvious.
Of course a Dallas strip club operator, with mafia ties, had a secret longing for an east coast blueblooded aristocrat and the presidents wife. In another life Jack Ruby could have actually been someone and ..........
Nope, I think I was right the first time, Ruby shot Oswald to shut him up.
Especially since shooting downward as Oswald is rumored to have done, the target keeps moving in your field of view. Almost impossible to get a single clean shot, much less three.
From the layout of the plaza, the seating of those in the limo, and the direction of travel of the car, there are only a few spots where a shooter would have a clear, unobstructed view of the target, and because of relative motion, it would remain in your sights pretty much fixed for 3-5 seconds...
Short of somebody standing 50 feet in front of the limo and off to the right, about the single best place there is to get a good shot is from the grassy knoll.
Unless of course, he was just really pissed off that day..lol
“Especially since shooting downward as Oswald is rumored to have done, the target keeps moving in your field of view. Almost impossible to get a single clean shot, much less three.”
Shooting from above and behind a target that is moving directly away from you is one of the easiest shots. A car travelling in a straight line would require only a slight raising of the gun barrel. (Close your eyes and imagine it.) Holding the gun steady while working the bolt would speed resighting the target. 3 shots would be a snap.
“Short of somebody standing 50 feet in front of the limo and off to the right, about the single best place there is to get a good shot is from the grassy knoll.”
The car would be moving from left to right as it passed the “grassy knoll” requiring the shooter to lead the target and complicating resighting after working the bolt. This would be a far harder shot.
What do you want from me?"
What I want is the answer to the question I had for you two replies ago.
It wasn't a rhetorical question. I really wanted an answer to what role you think 'The Umbrella Man' played in the JFK assassination.
You seem to think that he was a signal man for the numerous assassins at Dealey Plaza, right? Well, are you or are you not aware that the man was identified and volunteered to give testimony in front of the HSCA and that his identity was confirmed by his family and the people nearest to him in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting?
Now honestly, please, step back and ask yourself this:
Do you know what testimony 'The Umbrella Man' gave and what his identity is, or are you simply insisting that he had a role in the assassination based upon your foggy recollection from when you read some conspiracy books when you were 14 that proves to your adult mind without any doubt that there was a conspiracy and that anyone who doesn't see it 'is an absolute idiot'?
I mean, really: If you maintain that the so-called 'Umbrella Man' played a role in the conspiratorial murder of JFK yet you don't even know the first thing about who he was, who's really the 'absolute idiot' here?
Radix, why do you keep telling people not to post who disagree with you?
I think shooter’s and KG9 Kid’s comments are reasonable, as they attempt to back up their opinion with logic, and their comments seem pretty well informed to me.
Yes I think we are thinking the same thing, but very soon, there will be someone here to slap us down with his great big agenda, and tell us we are stupid.
Notice he’s the only one facing the camera.
Like no one on earth ever blinked when a flashbulb goes off.
Yep, sure, riiiight.
Hey, I don’t mind being proved stupid. But they’re going to have to start by proving WHY Ruby killed Oswald, NOT why Oswald acted alone. So far...no...answers..
Wow. Found it.
Maybe this is what Radix believes. ROTFLMAO
He said he didn't know guns. Maybe he knows about umbrellas????
Heck, it makes more sense than Klingon Cloaking Devices on the Knoll.
And some of these Freepers posted before Saturday Night when they’re supposed to be sober. I guess “supposed” is the operative word here.
Check this link. It’s footnoted so you can check further if you wish.
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
I believe that Ruby told the truth- he just wanted revenge and to save Mrs. Kennedy from having to face her husband’s killer at trial. What else could Ruby have possibly gained from killing Oswald? Money? Prove it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.