Roscoff is it true you sent Ivor the Engine off the rails
50 Years on - Who really killed JFK Page 3
Quote: sootyj @ 21st November 2013, 8:24 PM GMTRoscoff is it true you sent Ivor the Engine off the rails
It was suicide and you can't prove otherwise 
I have your confession
unfortunately its in Welsh
Quote: sootyj @ 21st November 2013, 8:29 PM GMTI have your confession
unfortunately its in Welsh
Any more spurious accusations about my part in such a heinous crime and you know what happens next!
Meibion Glyndwr did for Welsh tourism what JFK did for convertibles.
Quote: sootyj @ 21st November 2013, 8:18 PM GMTOk so lets say I need a patsy to take the role of an assassin.
I've got a slow moving uncovered car, driving for some period of time down a street with far too many buildings to meaningfully check.
All I need is someone to point a gun at the car and pull the trigger.
Job done, he doesn't need a fancy gun or even to be a good shot.
So why when its that easy, do I have a bizarre set up with a patsy who isnt even there or fired the gun.
It actually makes the job alot harder, than say getting an Cuban exile or a heroin hooked hitman.
Thats where it fails Occams razor, its even more complex than having someone shoot at him.
I suspect LBJ a major suspect would have cajoled JFK into driving in a well advertised, insecure route, knowing that someone would take the opportunity.
I mean security for world leaders was bizarre, famously Winston Churchill had just one fella looking out for him.
Whilst Hitler had a literal army.
Thatcher was almost killed twice.
If it was that simple you wouldn't have had 50 years of conspiracy theories. And there are layers and layers of intrigue to this. There are so many things which simply do not make sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
BTW I cannot corroborate this so I'm saying it's fact - just something that is curious that deserves to be explored further.
Check out any conspiracy and it grows by its self.
From moon landings finding infinite variations of the film analysis, even if it implies Americas film sciences were infinitely more sophisticated than its rocketry.
Yeh I saw that, might I reccomend reading or watching some stuff on the history of the secret service.
Basically pre JFK assassination they had 3 jobs, protect the nuclear launch codes, stick him on arforce1 if the Ruskies launched and jump on anyone who actually pulled a shooter.
The idea that 2 guys on the back of the car would have blocked an assassins line of sight, is not only daft there's also no evidencethat's how they were thinking.
Check out how Regan was very nearly killed and how ridiculous the secret service reaction was. They just werent that competent.
Even GWB was almost killed when someone threw a grenade at him in Serbia.
Have you checked out the HSCA report? Here is an extract on the "faked" photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald
So they added some evidence, to bolster the case
Meks me 'ed ake.
Quote: DeathbyMonkey @ 21st November 2013, 8:48 PM GMTIf it was that simple you wouldn't have had 50 years of conspiracy theories. And there are layers and layers of intrigue to this. There are so many things which simply do not make sense:
But that's the very purpose of a successful 'conspiracy', to make a very simple act seem complicated and impossible to unravel. Of course they set up a complex web by putting decoys in the way, it's very likely that LHO was one and his killer another. It was all part of the act to confuse the whole issue and it worked.
But a slick young glamorous liberal Demoocrat parading in right wing Texas??? Who advised him on that one? He obviously had enemies much closer to him.
Very well put kipper
These conspiracies work on taking a few anomalies and then blowing them up
Why did building 7 collapse, was the flag fluttering on the moon
Maybe there was a conspiracy and maybe lho got lucky.
Quote: sootyj @ 21st November 2013, 9:04 PM GMTSo they added some evidence, to bolster the case
Doesn't falsifying evidence ring alarms for you? It's incriminating the other way.
And everything they did is suggestive of a cover up, the refusal to allow LHO to seek legal counsel, the three suspect lineups that go against good practice (LHO wasn't dressed like the other suspects), the deliberate loss of pathological evidence and falsifying of x-rays. The warren commission only including testimony to eye witnesses that matched the case against LHO.
The fact that none of the witnesses who testified hearing gunfire from the grassy knoll and seeing someone in that direction (including one witness who actually saw someone with a rifle), becomes intensely suspicious. And we're not talking about one or two witnesses who's testimony wasn't included, we're talking about thirty people - all who contradicted the official outcome.
Hell one witness who stood on the grassy knoll heard the gunshots come from right behind his head.
Even if LHO was actually the lone gunman, the case built against him is so full of holes and contradictions as to be (to a good degree) unbelievable.
Even Congress's own investigations into the Warren Commission heavily criticised it. The CIA came under the most criticism for withholding key evidence in the first investigation.
It was Walter Kronkite
Shot the president..
Drive back to CBS news to break the story first..
Bloody paparazzi will do anything for a good scoop
Even if there was no conspiracy there's still room for a coverup.
Multiple government agencies failed to keep him safe, some might have shot him by accident and if they started accusing the USSR. They had a shit load of nukes.
As for contradictory evidence, every conspiracy investigator has had to sift through tonnes of contradictory statements. Maybe they were prejudiced, but perhaps they just were in the disregard pile.
I think there's evidence of a possible conspiracy.
I suspect it's more to do with blind eyes turned by a corrupt and inefficent FBI and the KGB getting vengance for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Look it's misnomers I dislike, people take the outcomes of the Warren Commission at face value despite the fact it was, by conclusion of the House Select Committee 15 years later, that the Warren Commission was highly flawed. It just seems illogical to me to believe the conclusions of a report that has been discredited through official channels. To me that's not me being a conspiracy nut, that's me taking the word of experts who know better that I do.