English wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:44 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> English wrote:
>>> On Dec 4, 1:12 am, "Guest" <llco...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "English" <timothy.hug...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>
news:d03c8fcb-2516-4059-8a6a-dc5e64462f8b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Dec 2, 6:38 am, "Guest" <llco...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> I think Oswald was to shoot Kennedy and started to, but then he
heard
>>>>>> other shots and saw the murder, THEN he knew that something was up
and
>>>>>> that could be why he left his job and went home and got a gun.
Those
>>>>>> shots - two almost simultaneously could not be done be one man.
>>>>> Can you please explain what lead you to this belief?
>>>>> I'm not saying that you are wrong; my personal belief is that the
evidence
>>>>> is inconclusive so your theory is as valid as anyone else's as far
as I am
>>>>> concerned, but I would be interested to know why you have come to
this
>>>>> conclusion. I am really interested in why people have strong
beliefs.
>>>>> (I also suspect that is one of the reasons that Dr McAdams has for
running
>>>>> this forum but I have no evidence to sup****t this - how's that for a
>>>>> conspiracy theory, Dr McAdams?.)
>>>> Well, my theory comes from the two shots on top of each other. That
alone
>>>> let's you know that there were two shooter. Oswald may have shot or
tried
>>>> to shot and maybe that was the shot that missed, then the
professional
>>>> killer finished the job from there. Oswald knew then that he did not
fire
>>>> the fatal shots so he knew that he had to break the hell out of
there.
>>>> Some say that Oswald was innocent, but I think that he was involved
but
>>>> thought that he was a big player and an im****tant man. Maybe when
the
>>>> government tells us everything about this very mysterious L.H.
Oswald,
>>>> then we can better understand how he got caught up in this killing
world.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Thanks. Your theory doesn't sound unreasonable.
>>> I agree that Oswald is a mysterious character.
>>> I also think that several organisations, in a effort to cover
>>> themselves, have tampered with and destroyed evidence, so we will
>>> probably never know.
>>> One amazing thing that I cannot get over is that this was regarded as
>>> a murder investigation, a matter for the DPD. Why did the CIA not
>>> step in and say it may be an act of war from the outset? The DPD was
>> Because that would mean WWIII and the deaths of 40 million Americans.
>>
>>
>>
>>> used to handling non-organised crimes and there modus operandi was not
>>> suitable here. This caused to a lot of errors.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeuhd and yourself make very good points; it still rankles in my mind
> that this was treated as a routine murder investigation. Weird!
>
> Out of interest, Mr Marsh, may I put upon you a bit more and ask where
> can I find details on this stranger in the TSBD, please?
>
Google it.
|
