Andrew Loyal

I personally am 98.3% positive that the person who pulled the trigger of the weapon that killed Kennedy was USAF marksman Jack Lawrence. Oswald was not good enough of a shot to have hit Kennedy, and as all intelegent people know, he did not have the proper angle for the shot. Every time I have read anything related to the assassination, I find another peice of information that totally turns around my ideas and makes me look for more ends to connect. The one thing, however, that I have been able to match up is David Ferrie's remarks on there being three or more shooters and Jack Lawrence being placed by circumstantial evidence at the prime location for taking the shot that ended Kennedy's life. I beleive that there were four shooters in total, but have only found three gunmen that can be placed with a motive and connections to be there on that day to try to assassinate the president. Carlos Marcello, Jack Lawrence, and Lee Oswald were the three shooters that I beleive were involved, aware of the others or not. It is very possible that the CIA or another branch of the government was able to pull enough strings to get everything set up from the changing of the driver's route to the placement of the gunners without any of them knowing about who else was involved or even that they themselves were involved (in the case of the changing of the car route). Oswald was probably provoked and/or tricked into trying to assassinate Conelly so he could be the fall for the rest of the shooters. Marcello openly admitted that he was told to assassinate the president, but I doubt that he was the one who fired the bullet that killed Kennedy. This is all that I will write for now because I am a bit rusty on the subject seeing as I haven't read any of my books or essays on the subject in about a year, but I can answer just about any question if I am given time to research.

Well, I guess I'll be a loner out here on this forum for now. I am only 17, and therefore don't know a whole lot about non-capitalist government types, but I am definately conservative. I have been raised in Tennessee, but I still shouldn't be steriotyped as an ultra-concervative redneck (there isn't even a gun in our house). I conseder myself a conservative independant. Normally, I am for state's rights. Most of my teachers are libral, which has definately influenced me enough that I am not as consevative as the rest of my family. I, for the most part, would like to learn more than teach as far as this forum goes, but I will give a little rant on religion in politics. I am Southern Babtist. I pray to God, and I certainly beleive in Hell. For anyone else who shares my beliefs, they would understand that the most important thing in life is what happens when it is over. As a matter of fact, just about everyone understands that no matter what religion you are, the most meaningfull events take place after death. For me, I beleive that we all will be judged and those who's names are in the Lamb's Book of Life will be accepted into Heaven. For those who are not, they will spend eternity separated from God. There is nothing more important to me than sharing the Word of God with people, because I love and respect them and do not want to see them suffer. With the way modern politics are headed, I will not be able to do that any more. It is very painful for me to stand around and whatch while lost people go on living their lives without knowing what will happen when their lives come to an end. I am never offended when someone of a different religion witnesses to me, so I certainly don't understand the fuss about Christians witnessing to people. We aren't asking for money or trying to recruit people to send on mission trips to China, we simply care enough about others that we want to tell them about Jesus. That is not a crime. That is religion. Asking a Christian not to witness is like asking a Jew not to wear a yamichah (<-- spelling?), or asking a band not to play music in public. Liberals will talk about "separation of Church and State." It doesn't exist. The first Amendment states that Congress will not create a national religion. If I am Prodestant, I can be Prodestant. If I was Catholic, I could be Catholic. If I was French, then I could move to Canada of Louisiana (preferably Canada). If I believed in Ancient Egyptian mythology, then I could walk around wearing an Anubis head or a Ma'at mask with an osterich plume in the back of my crown. And I could do it all withought ridicule from the government. Ridicule from the public, however, would not be garunteed, especially if I dressed up as Satan wearing a kippa with the Star of David on it and started singing Irish drinking songs to the tune of obscure Bobby McFerrin songs while burning the Canadian flag. I'd probably get shot; but my point is, I wouldn't get shot by a cop . And to clerify my views on Canada, I would never burn a Canadian flag unless someone with a gun told me to. Canadians are cool, no pun intended. I guess all I really had to say was that we have a gift in America: freedom of religion. Many people want it to become freedom from religion. America is not an atheistic country and was never intended to be. I also beleive that God has not yet abandoned America, yet that may in fact be simple wishfull thinking. Our current presidens will certainly help redirect our country morally. I hope my veiws have been helpfull in some way or another, I know I have certainly learned a lot from reading all these posts. God bless.

I am a high school student, I live in Nashville Tennessee. I am currently employed at a movie theater, so I consider myself a professional popcorn shoveler. Also, I am a co-stage manager at my school. I don't really know what else to say about myself other that I am a writer, so I guess that's all I'll say.