Author Topic: JFK (Read 19811 times)

Meyer · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2007, 07:53:06 AM »

but still in most of the photos shown the FBI presents wrong gun topublic. Oswalds gun Manliherr-Carcano or something like that, and FBI photos show us Kar98 and lee-enfield.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2007, 12:43:45 PM »

i saw the Italian rifle photos

besidex, you shouldnt be getting your facts from a conspiracy movie

Kratas · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2007, 01:29:31 PM »

hm cus movies are always madee so they can make money not present the truth

Meyer · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2007, 02:19:51 PM »

Quote from: Scarecrow63 on August 21, 2007, 12:43:45 PM

i saw the Italian rifle photos

besidex, you shouldnt be getting your facts from a conspiracy movie

I haven't watched any conspiracy movies.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 21, 2007, 02:22:51 PM »

Weren't you just refering Zapruders film?

Meyer · « **Reply #25 on:** August 21, 2007, 02:28:59 PM »

I don't see that as a conspiracy film. It shoves the truth. that JFKwas shot from thefront.

sarcronis · « **Reply #26 on:** August 21, 2007, 02:36:58 PM »

Zapruders film was a conspiracy film, and it has hardly any truth. Except JFK got shot and he was the president.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2007, 02:37:40 PM »

All it shows is Kennedy gettin shot and then him telling you what happened because 'he knows'

Meyer · « **Reply #28 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:19:53 AM »

I knowwhat I saw. And I saw that kennedy was shot from front.

sarcronis · « **Reply #29 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:23:24 AM »

The entry wound was from the back. Prior to 9/11, the JFK assassination was the most talked about conspiracy ever. The film was to make money. To do that it appealed to people looking for a historical film and people looking for a conspiracy film.

Meyer · « **Reply #30 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:24:55 AM »

how can yousay wherethe entry wound was when one quarter of his head was blown off. the where he was shot.

sarcronis · « **Reply #31 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:27:28 AM »

I am pretty sure this is going to degenerate into spamming. But forensic evidence points to only one shooter. And it is likely for him to have gotten 3 shots off. Oswald was a former marine corp sniper.

Meyer · « **Reply #32 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:28:26 AM »

let's hope it is notgoing to spamming. but wasn't oswald only mediocre shooter?

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:29:00 AM »

Mediocre for a marine corp sniper is plenty for the distance he was at

Meyer · « **Reply #34 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:31:41 AM »

could be but remeber that his vision was blockedby a tree. onlyway for oswaldto have been able to kill JFK is that you believe in singlebullet theory. And if you believe it you are stupid. I hope that those words don't insult someone

sarcronis · « **Reply #35 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:32:42 AM »

There were 3 shots.

Meyer · « **Reply #36 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:36:30 AM »

three bullets couldn't have done all those wounds. only way to explain them is the singlebullet theory. and that is bullshit.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #37 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:37:30 AM »

That last post was so self-contradictory i dont know what to say

Meyer · « **Reply #38 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:38:03 AM »

how is it self contradictrory? there where more than three bullets. and that is stated by several witnesses.

Scarecrow63 · « **Reply #39 on:** August 22, 2007, 10:08:25 AM »

You said it couldnt be done one way, only another way and then you said that way was bullshit too