A a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
They were really only two shots fired not three. The media reporting by UPI reporter Merriman Smith of three shots fired was wrong. AP reporter James Altgens who was within 20 feet of JFK's car reported there was only two shots fired. Jackie and 40 other eyewitnesses mere feet from JFK all stated there was there was two shots. The Warren Commission stated they only concluded there was three shots because of three shells in the Snipers nest but they also stated it was possible he carried an empty shell in the rifle into the Snipers nest. The CE 543 shell had 5 different marks on it that weren't on any other shell from the assassination, Three of these marks indicated that CE 543 had been "dry fired".
Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, but he was part of a greater conspiracy. Whomever he was working with used him to be the fall guy to take out JFK. There are many theories as to who he was working with, including high political officials. Lee Harvey Oswald was not sophisticated enough to have pulled it off by himself.
The evidence that pins Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot JFK is concrete. There have been documents and witnesses that lead us to see and believe Oswald did the bidding of JFK's death. If it wasn't Mr. Oswald who shot JFK, then why have there been no other man, or even woman, they suspect?
The Kennedy shooting is the most studied murder in America and no one has been able after decades to offer any persuasive evidence that shows someone other than Oswald shot the President in Dallas on that day. It's fun to imagine "what ifs" but justice demands something more reasonable to hang a conclusion on.
The full story is out there, and may well never be. There are reports in the coming years that will be made available to the public that could provide some insight, but probably not enough to change the largely accepted conclusion people have now. The answer to this is yes, more because there is nothing strongly indicating otherwise than anything else.
He did not shoot jfk he had lunch there minutes before he was accused and cought (correct if I'm wrong) shooting a police officer in Dallas time later but how would he get to that location have, both ammunition and guns at hand so easilly he was on sixth floor carrying a rifle which is heavy which would make him out of breath carrying up then running back down and there was no DNA of any other evidence on the gun (rifle) but later when he shot the hand gun it had DNA leading to him to get cought, why would he not go through the same process of getting rid of DNA with the handgun, if he did shoot Kennedy how would the bullet travel through kennedys neck and down his back into the drivers back /leading to the magic bullet theory/ there would have to be two shooters one from the patch of grass to get a clear shot to his neck and another at sidewalk (where umbrella man was sitting) (also another theory which I believe to be true, check google images for the umberella mans angle too the car he would have a clear shoot of his back, for the bullet to go through into drivers leg and furthermore he would need to have chemicals (bleach or other substance to clear gun of DNA and get rid of fingerprints which takes hours when he had approximately 30 seconds to leave before getting cought not even a minute so the government is trying to hide something, something possibly to do with the Cuban bomb crisis. I'm ending this theory with one last statement I'm thirteen, this is just a theory, this interested me because of gravity, wind speed and bullet drop effects because he would have to be a world class shooter, and cut me some slack I spent 30 minutes writing this, copy and paste to share message the truth is out there, there is not enough brave people to stand up though, thanks for listening and good luck finding the real story and evidence.
Supposedly a bitter loser seeking fame, yet he denied making the shot. Found in lunch room by police officer less than two minutes after shooting. Experts can't reproduce the feat of firing a bolt action rifle in 7 seconds and Oswald was no expert. Voice stress analysis indicates he told truth when claiming he was a patsy and also when denying killing anyone. There's more, but this is my best argument.
It was an impossible shot and no one could of made it from where he was at. The government also HATED J.F.K., and wanted him dead, so it would make since if the government officials to kill him. There was probably more the one government official on it to make sure they would kill him.
Look at the video when lee was told he was charged with the murder of jfk, his reaction tells you HE IS NOT GUILTY, if he shot jfk he would have been standing tall and telling the world why he done it. Come on world open your eyes and mind. Patsy
I am a lawyer and used to do some criminal defense work early in my career. One of the things I learned to do is to always be sure all of the details matched the prosecution's theory of the case. IF any details, even small ones, did not match, then, is there a theory by which all of the details do fall in line? If so, that is what happened.
There are a number of details here that do not fit the idea that Oswald even had the gun in his hand on that day, much less shot it.
(1) He did not take the best shot possible.
If you are trying to shot the President, and are using an ancient rifle that causes you to lose the target after every shot, you know that the first shot is your best and after that your chances go down. Therefore you want the target to be coming towards you not away from you so it gets larger and presents an easier shot each time. You also don't want to have to shoot through a tree or at a target which is moving laterally in addition to away from you due to a curve. Why then didn't Oswald take his shots as the motorcade was approaching on a straight street with no obstructions? Answer: There was a cross fire set up for the going away shot.
(2) If you could buy a gun at any hardware shop in Texas without showing ID or getting a background check, why would you order the gun by mail and why would you use an alias that you had used before so it could be traced to you? Also, why pose with the gun and save the picture? Answer: Because someone told you to do that.
(3) Once you had the gun, and were such a great shot that you could hit a target moving away from you through a tree and on a curve under tremendous pressure with only three attempts, two of them being successful and the other probably only missing due to being deflected, why would you go to the house of a retired army officer who was active in the Birch Society, plant yourself in front of his window at night where you could take literally as long as you needed to get the target, and MISS!? Answer: You missed on purpose because someone told you to do that.
(4) If you had just shot the President, and had planned that in advance, why would you stop in the cafeteria and get a coke and sit there and drink it, then go several blocks to catch a bus, then get off the bus when it became snarled in traffic right in front of a Greyhound Bus station, and then hail a cab? Then why would you wander your neighborhood aimlessly with a gun that you got by going back to your rooming house and end up shooting a cop?
Oswald did not kill Kennedy. For the people who are all so sure of his guilt, tell me there is absolutely nothing that makes you question this, even for a split second. To many things don't add up, absolute proof of guilt shouldn't have question marks attached to it. Coincidence has a way of changing minds, but when multiple coincidences are present that's when I call bullsh*t.
For me there are two incontrovertible facts that prove Oswald was not the main perpetrator of JFK's murder,
1. Until the day he died Connally insisted that he and JFK were shot with different bullets.
2. Ruby shot Oswald and that could only be made sense of in one way.
Oswald's behavior after the shooting proves that he was embroiled in the assassination in some way... As he said as a patsy.
I have been to the spot where Oswald supposedly fired the shot.. I don't believe it. Too small a target, too far away and moving. Not any person has been able to duplicate what is alleged.
The whole jack ruby story is smelly. The man that called on the police radio to alert the police that officer tippets was shot was a former bouncer for ruby. Non of the shell casings at the tippets shooting matched oswald's gun..
I was 23 years old when this extremely clever staged event took place. I've followed many dead end stories that have come down the pike. By day three I was sure something wasn't kosher. Jackie you were a bad actress. And Lee I know who you were by year 45. I would like to know how much you were paid. You played many parts and to this day you have them all baffled except me. Not just you but your cohorts. I would love to know what you and the equally mysterious JFK talked about when you both got together in Moscow later that year with Jack Ruby. Ah I'm only kidding with you readers! Ask me any questions and see if I can put you in the spell that you're already in. Make sure you have documented facts or I will ignore you.
It is impossible for the assassin of John F. Kennedy to be Lee Harvey Oswald, there is too much evidence for it NOT to be Lee Harvey Oswald. Firstly, it is impossible to fire 3 bullets in under 7 seconds especially with the gun he was using, many have tried to match this even experts however no one has succeeded and Oswald was only a marksman. I could go on with many more reasons to prove that he was innocent but I have a limited space to write in. To clarify, lee Harvey Oswald did NOT kill president John F. Kennedy!