If you need only to "watch the Z-film to determine this" as you claim, then why do you need to cite an animation of the crime by Dale Myers to bolster your assertion?
Your statements are blatantly self-impeaching, contradictory, and borderline psychotic.
Oh well, not here to argue. I was just answering the poll question, only animals kill the way Oswald did that day.
On the SBT I was just saying that Dale Meyers made a nice graphic to illustrate the probability of the SBT, he did a good job on it but its not needed to determine the SBT. As it's pretty obvious in the Z film what happened, how often do you get actual film footage of a crime taking place especially in 1963, yet many people argue against them getting shot when they did, it's pretty funny to me that people deny the SBT when they have a film of it happening.
I feel if you are not able to look at that film and tell that two men are being shot at the same time then you aren't much of a detective and I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing the case with people that can't at least see the obvious when its on film.. It's sort of a litmus test that I use to tell if someone is actually looking for the truth in the case or if they are just a conspiracy nut.
Hey Mark, you ignore my question. What kind of animal was Oswald? If he shot the President with a high powered rifle from the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest, what kind of animal was he?
If you look at other, similar situations where people were assassinated or attempted to be assassinated by snipers, you have case studies of murders that were well pllanned out in advance and were acomplished by well trained and executed assassins, like Bugsy Siegal and the Jackal's attempt on Charles DeGaulle. If you can give me ONE example of a lone crazy nut case sniping a major politician with a rifle from a distance, I'd like to hear about it.
Even the DC Sniper had an acomplice, and the Texas Tower killer both had military backgrounds, though they were clearly nuts and shot at anybody, not the President.
If Oswald killed the President of the USA as he is alledged to have done, he wasn't a deranged, lone nut case, but a well trained and excellent, succesful assassin.
You're attempt to portray him as a "pure animal with no conscience" misscasts him as the wrong animal. He did have a conscience and was not just acting on pure animal instincts, or when he "snapped," as Gary Mack puts it, he would have killed anyone, not just the president and a cop who got in his way, after the fact.
If he did what you say he did, he was a smooth, successful Cat, and not a disjointed nut case.
Unless you can demonstrate that such nut cases kill presidents as snipers.
Bill Kelly
I refer to his actions as that of an animal, shooting three people and killing two of them and then attempting to shoot more in the theatre I say animal, you say not , thats fine we don't have to agree on that, it doesn't matter what we call him. It has nothing to do with is innocence or guilt in the case.