Eleven Easy Questions for the Conspiracy Community

[David G. Healy]

As you can see, I've been involved with this site quite a bit longer than you have, pal. I joined this site a LONG time ago, LONG before you did. Perhaps the rules were different when I joined. Your question implies you are a victim of a conspiracy--what a surprise.

Meanwhile, you still conveniently refuse to answer even one of my questions. And, YES there is a very distinct conspiracy community. VERY distinct. And you sound like a poster child of that group. You ASK questions but refuse to take the bait and ANSWER some simple questions.

Incidentally, I'll pick a fight any time I please. I don't NEED permission from you, mom.

I'm still waiting for answers, pal.

sitdown Lower_y (another a Mel Ayton acolyte, [Mel Ayton - Europe's best known Lone Nutter]) ..... you xxxxx all JFK forums, including the USNET boards -- we've been hip to your baiting game for years now..... Since Bugliosi's book tanked the Nutter's are attempting a full frontal assault on JFK researchers of the CT persuasion .... It appears the preservers of Nov 22nd 1963 Dealey Plaza History are claiming it as their own...

Also, when the Lone Nutter's drag Dave Reitzes (another of the CTer's who turned Lone Nut, AFTER he saw the light) out of retirement, you know they're getting desperate.... There was a whole lot riding on the success of Bugliosi's book... Even David Von Pein is flapping around like a fish out of water...

And Folsom, get a bio and photo up --- who do you think you are, Dick Cheney?

[T. Folsom]

As for your questions, they should and will be answered by those responsible for answering such questions - law enforcement investigators and forensic pathogists.

Bill Kelly

Incidentally, I'll pick a fight any time I please. I don't NEED permission from you, mom.

I'm still waiting for answers, pal.

No Sir, you will not "pick a fight anytime you please" You will, however, adhear to Forum rules as regards expected behaviour or your time here will be very short. Now please post a bio, and a recent photo as an avitar and cut out the pointless name calling.

Steve, Forum Moderator.

Well Stevie,

Why was an earlier poster not reprimanded when he referred to ME as a Cracker Jack? Huh? And a later poster called me an idiot. I assume you will stand with your hands in your pockets, Steve. Your rules seems a little different for the avowed conspiracy nuts and those of us convinced of Oswald's guilt huh? Well, what else is new.

I HAVE posted a personal profile (I did this years ago, I mistakenly thought that WAS by Biography. I haven't been successful in locating the place I need to post my biography. NO WHERE was I told to post a bio and photo prior to posting questions. They never mentioned this years ago when I joined this site. Now everyone seems more concerned about those items than they do about the content of the topic being discussed. But I will gladly comply. Point me in the right direction and I will add my biography.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Folsom;

As the "resident" Lone Assassin supporter who in addition to possibly having seniority, most probably has the most posts associated with the actual assassination as well as criticism of those who chase body snatchers and multiple assassins:

I do not recognize your attempt to usurp that seniority, nor do I appreciate your entry into the realm of criticism of those who continue to look elsewhere (other than the sixth floor of the TSDB) for the answers to their questions.

By right of seniority (if merely due to number of postings), I feel that I must protect my territorial rights to make rude; crude; and often socially unacceptable remarks in regards to most of these asinine theories.

Therefore, please recognize that although I fully recognize your rights (& the logic) to demonstrate that there was only a single/lone assassin, and to a great probability that assassin was LHO, please do not intrude upon my "Seniority" rights to make fun of those who continue to look for body snatchers and mythical beings behind each and every bush; on top of every building; and hiding within the curb inlet manholes of Dealy Plaza.

I am an old man and thus get few remaining enjoyments in life and must fully protect those few remaining "thrills".

Sincerely,

Tom

P.S. The WC is an intentional lie/misrepresentation of the facts & truth, and Posner as well as Bugliosi are merely a continuation of ignorance of this provable fact as well as a continuation of the obfuscation.

[Charles Drago]

An Open Letter to All Who Would Respond to T. Folsom:

As I have done on numerous occasions, I present yet again a basic, guiding premise for our work:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the product of a criminal conspiracy is congnitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Rational, collegial exchanges with such individuals are impossible and counter-productive. If we are dealing with someone who is impaired, then we must act with sensitivity and patience even as we refrain from debate on the issue. If we are being taunted by an agent provocateur, then we must respond with contempt and ridicule. The latter course is best realized with more than a touch of dark humor.

While it is impossible -- for me, at least -- to determine with any degree of certainty where Mr. or Ms. Folsom falls in regard to the categories detailed above, I am of the opinion that he/she is an enemy agent.

If such is the case, we should keep in mind Mr. Bugliosi's pathetic effort to establish a counterbalance to my aforementioned premise: something along the lines of his oft-repeated "no one in his right mind can now argue that LHO didn't do it alone". Mr. or Ms. Folsom appears to be taking the insulting, dismissive tone established by Mr. Bugliosi and attempting to reinforce the "level playing field" fantasy for his basic position on the issue at hand.

Do not waste your time on this accessory after the fact.

But I could be wrong. Mr. or Ms. Folsom could be suffering from dain bramage ... er, brain damage. But to make such an assessment requires too great a leap of faith; one cannot suffer harm to an organ that is not present.

Charles Drago

[David G. Healy]

Mr. Folsom;

As the "resident" Lone Assassin supporter who in addition to possibly having seniority, most probably has the most posts associated with the actual assassination as well as criticism of those who chase body snatchers and multiple assassins:

I do not recognize your attempt to usurp that seniority, nor do I appreciate your entry into the realm of criticism of those who continue to look elsewhere (other than the sixth floor of the TSDB) for the answers to their questions.

By right of seniority (if merely due to number of postings), I feel that I must protect my territorial rights to make rude; crude; and often socially unacceptable remarks in regards to most of these asinine theories.

Therefore, please recognize that although I fully recognize your rights (& the logic) to demonstrate that there was only a single/lone assassin, and to a great probability that assassin was LHO, please do not intrude upon my "Seniority" rights to make fun of those who continue to look for body snatchers and mythical beings behind each and every bush; on top of every building; and hiding within the curb inlet manholes of Dealy Plaza.

I am an old man and thus get few remaining enjoyments in life and must fully protect those few remaining "thrills".

Sincerely,

Tom

P.S. The WC is an intentional lie/misrepresentation of the facts & truth, and Posner as well as Bugliosi are merely a continuation of ignorance of this provable fact as well as a continuation of the obfuscation.

well, you given this old man not only good reliable JFK assassination data but, a few laughs along the way... I like that!

Sure there isn't a touch of the wee IRISH in ya, Thomas?

DHealy

[Lee Forman]

Why should anyone play your game Clint?

Do everyone a favor. Get on the blower - call Bernie deTorres [or a number of other contacts that could readily be provided]. Ask some questions. Take a few risks. Contribute something meaningful.

- lee

[T. Folsom]

An Open Letter to All Who Would Respond to T. Folsom:

As I have done on numerous occasions, I present yet again a basic, guiding premise for our work:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the product of a criminal conspiracy is congnitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Rational, collegial exchanges with such individuals are impossible and counter-productive. If we are dealing with someone who is impaired, then we must act with sensitivity and patience even as we refrain from debate on the issue. If we are being taunted by an agent provocateur, then we must respond with contempt and ridicule. The latter course is best realized with more than a touch of dark humor.

While it is impossible -- for me, at least -- to determine with any degree of certainty where Mr. or Ms. Folsom falls in regard to the categories detailed above, I am of the opinion that he/she is an enemy agent.

If such is the case, we should keep in mind Mr. Bugliosi's pathetic effort to establish a counterbalance to my aforementioned premise: something along the lines of his oft-repeated "no one in his right mind can now argue that LHO didn't do it alone". Mr. or Ms. Folsom appears to be taking the insulting, dismissive tone established by Mr. Bugliosi and attempting to reinforce the "level playing field" fantasy for his basic position on the issue at hand.

Do not waste your time on this accessory after the fact.

But I could be wrong. Mr. or Ms. Folsom could be suffering from dain bramage ... er, brain damage. But to make such an assessment requires too great a leap of faith; one cannot suffer harm to an organ that is not present.

Charles Drago

I am an "enemy agent" or I am "brain damaged"?

It is endlessly hilarious to observe the number of tactics conspiracy nuts will employ to avoiding answering basic questions for which they have no facts to support their theories.

There is always one way to stir up the antpile among the conspiracy nuts-----ASK QUESTIONS. That was true when I started researching the assassinatio in the early 70s and is hasn't changed one bit in the new century.

[Jack White]

Why should anyone play your game Clint?

Do everyone a favor. Get on the blower - call Bernie deTorres [or a number of other contacts that could readily be provided]. Ask some questions. Take a few risks. Contribute something meaningful.

- lee

Are you suggesting that this may be the almost forgotten lone nutter

Clint Bradford, a banishee from long ago? Hmmmmmmmm.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Folsom, I've recently encountered questions like yours elsewhere. While discussing Bugliosi's book, I mentioned a few of his mistakes, and referred someone to patspeer.com, where I've written extensively on the evidence. Well, this individual came back and said my webpage was a joke...not because I was mistaken mind you, but because I FAILED TO SAY WHO DID IT.

This was bizarre. Conspiracy theorists are most frequently criticized for making wild claims unrelated to the evidence, but here when I try to discuss the evidence I'm criticized for not offering up any wild claims.

While it's accepted doctrine among the LN faithful that conspiracy theorists are weak because they need to make sense of Kennedy's death, blah blah blah, questions and attitudes like yours indicate that the reverse is true--that LNs are weak because they NEED TO KNOW and would rather "know" something that might be false than question something that might be true. You see this same kind of thinking in people when they say "America-right or wrong," etc. Some here read this mentality as "I'd rather be a drone than a free-thinking individual, cause free-thinking individuals have doubts." Well, what's so bad about doubt? Why are LNs so scared of doubt?

I submit to you the following question--a question no LNT has been courageous enough or committed enough to answer. It's a three parter. The bullet hitting Kennedy in the back and supposedly exiting the middle of his throat...did this pass above or below his first rib? If it passed below the first rib, why didn't the nose of the bullet strike his spine and pierce his lung? If it passed above the first rib, since it entered around the T1 level and exited around the T1 level, why did the bullet magically swerve around the rib and the spine and continue on a horizontal course through the body, only to resume a downwards course upon exit?

[Lee Forman]

Why should anyone play your game Clint?

Do everyone a favor. Get on the blower - call Bernie deTorres [or a number of other contacts that could readily be provided]. Ask some questions. Take a few risks. Contribute something meaningful.

- lee

Are you suggesting that this may be the almost forgotten lone nutter

Clint Bradford, a banishee from long ago? Hmmmmmmmm.

Jack

Not suggesting anything Jack.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...post&p=5737

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Folsom;

As the "resident" Lone Assassin supporter who in addition to possibly having seniority, most probably has the most posts associated with the actual assassination as well as criticism of those who chase body snatchers and multiple assassins:

I do not recognize your attempt to usurp that seniority, nor do I appreciate your entry into the realm of criticism of those who continue to look elsewhere (other than the sixth floor of the TSDB) for the answers to their questions.

By right of seniority (if merely due to number of postings), I feel that I must protect my territorial rights to make rude; crude; and often socially unacceptable remarks in regards to most of these asinine theories.

Therefore, please recognize that although I fully recognize your rights (& the logic) to demonstrate that there was only a single/lone assassin, and to a great probability that assassin was LHO, please do not intrude upon my "Seniority" rights to make fun of those who continue to look for body snatchers and mythical beings behind each and every bush; on top of every building; and hiding within the curb inlet manholes of Dealy Plaza.

I am an old man and thus get few remaining enjoyments in life and must fully protect those few remaining "thrills".

Sincerely,

Tom

P.S. The WC is an intentional lie/misrepresentation of the facts & truth, and Posner as well as Bugliosi are merely a continuation of ignorance of this provable fact as well as a continuation of the obfuscation.

well, you given this old man not only good reliable JFK assassination data but, a few laughs along the way... I like that!

Sure there isn't a touch of the wee IRISH in ya, Thomas?

DHealy

Well! Many would no doubt claim loudly that I have been "touched" by something!

Just no clear definition as to exactly what it was and what effect it may have had.

Nevertheless, perhaps the WC/Posner/Bugliosi supporters would like to make a run at answering the following questions:

1. Exactly what was the "Adjusted Position" of the WC re-enactment all about?

2. Exactly why was it that after all of their completely "staged" efforts, the WC still felt the necessity to alter survey data on the Survey Plat as made by Mr. West?

3. Exactly why did Arlen Specter feel the need to utilize a slight/sleight-of-hand manipulation in order to admit the altered survey data into evidence?

4. Exactly why is it that the "Vehicle Speed Analysis" whether based on either the WC altered survey data, or even the un-altered data, clearly demonstrate that something is "missing" here.

5. What were the names of those individuals from the WC re-enactment who remained behind and were observed by Mr. Robert West as being engaged in cutting and removal of the tree limbs from the Live Oak tree located directly in front of the TSDB/directly under the sixth floor window?

6. Why did JBC tell one story at Parkland Hospital about having turned and seen the President "slumped", and the Z-film clearly demonstrates this, yet he told the WC an entirely different account?

7. Exactly why was it that the WC had such great difficulty in placement of the location of impact for the first shot fired when in fact neither Time/Life; the US Secret Service; nor the FBI had any difficulties in location of this point?

8. Exactly why was it that the WC had such great difficulty in determination of the location of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and thereafter declared that the Z313 impact was most probably the final shot, when in fact multiple witnesses informed otherwise and the WC had in their possession copies of survey plats for the SS as well as the FBI, which clearly demonstrated the impact point of the last shot as being down directly in front of James Altgens.

Just perhaps even those who are still engaged in chasing things which never existed, can now observe the correct "road signs", and thus will bring much of this to it's ultimate ending.

[Evan Burton]

T. Folsom,

John instituted the policy shortly after you joined the Forum:

Rules of the JFK Forum

(i) All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature (see below for instructions how to do this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1471

(ii) All members should use a photograph of themselves as an avatar (see below for instructions how to do this). If you still find you have problems with this please email me and I will help you with this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1861

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

Please adhere to them, or contact John or Andy if you require a waiver.

Lastly, I back Steve's comments about behaviour 100% - and I do not have a position on JFK, so it is not a matter of playing favourites.

Evan

Moderator

[T. Folsom]

An Open Letter to All Who Would Respond to T. Folsom:

As I have done on numerous occasions, I present yet again a basic, guiding premise for our work:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the product of a criminal conspiracy is congnitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Rational, collegial exchanges with such individuals are impossible and counter-productive. If we are dealing with someone who is impaired, then we must act with sensitivity and patience even as we refrain from debate on the issue. If we are being taunted by an agent provocateur, then we must respond with contempt and ridicule. The latter course is best realized with more than a touch of dark humor.

While it is impossible -- for me, at least -- to determine with any degree of certainty where Mr. or Ms. Folsom falls in regard to the categories detailed above, I am of the opinion that he/she is an enemy agent.

If such is the case, we should keep in mind Mr. Bugliosi's pathetic effort to establish a counterbalance to my aforementioned premise: something along the lines of his oft-repeated "no one in his right mind can now argue that LHO didn't do it alone". Mr. or Ms. Folsom appears to be taking the insulting, dismissive tone established by Mr. Bugliosi and attempting to reinforce the "level playing field" fantasy for his basic position on the issue at hand.

Do not waste your time on this accessory after the fact.

But I could be wrong. Mr. or Ms. Folsom could be suffering from dain bramage ... er, brain damage. But to make such an assessment requires too great a leap of faith; one cannot suffer harm to an organ that is not present.

Charles Drago

Alright Chuck,

Let me get this straight.

YOU claim that I am suffering from brain damage because I believe Oswald acted alone in assassinating. Let's look at this. On my side of the table I have:

1. The identity of a gunman

2. The identified gunman's fingerprint and palm prints at the site of the crime and on the murder weapon

3. Ownership of the rifle proven to be the murder weapon

4. Bullets traced to that and ONLY that rifle

5. Photographs of my suspect holding the murder weapon(s) with HIS OWN writing on the back of two of the photographs

6. The testimony of the accused gunman's wife that SHE took those photographs with her camera which was matched to those photographs to the exclusion of all other cameras on the planet

7. Several eyewitnesses placing my identified gunman in the sniper's nest at the time of the assassination

8. A suspect who does NOT have a verifiable alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the assassination.

9. A suspect that fled the scene of the murder within 2 minutes of his crime

10. A suspect who in panicked flight from the law walked/jogged/ran to catch a bus that WOULD have stopped right across the street from his place oe employemt

11. A suspect that asked his cab driver to drop him off four blocks from his boarding house in a frantic attempt to cover his tracks

12. A suspect that picked up his revolver in the event he was apprehended following his crime

13. A suspect who murdered Officer J.D. Tippit in full view of several eyewitnesses when stopped and asked questions by said officer.

14. A suspect who attempted to murder yet another officer (Nick McDonald) when asked to stand up--declaring "Well it's all over now!"---NOT "Why are you here officer?"

15. Bullets recovered at the scene of the crime and the treatment lf the victims.

16. One bullet that matched my suspect's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons on the planet

17. Fragments whose metalic composition did NOT point to ANY other weapon or any other manufacturer other than the Western Cartridge Company, which MY suspect owned and used.

18. My suspect was witnessed carrying a mysterious package into work that day which he maintained contained "curtain rods" however when he fled the building no package was with him, nor were any curtain rods found in the TSBD, however Oswald rifle WAS found there with his prints on the barrel and NO ONE else's prints on it, plus a paper package whose creases matched the dimensions of Oswald's disassembled rifle

19. Three spent cartridges found at the very window eyewitnesses testified they saw Oswald shooting from

Now on your side of the table YOU have:

1. No identified gunman

2. No location which matches the trajectory of the bullet wounds in both victims

3. No bullet(s)

4. No bullet fragments

5. No spent cartridges

6. No reliable, verifiable eyewitness that can place your imaginary gunman anywhere

7. No rifle yet located even up to today's date (forty-four years after the fact)

8. No fingerprints

9. No escape from the crime detected by any of the hundreds and hundreds of individuals surrounding Dealey Plaza

10. No gunman appearing in any of the photographs or movies taken at the time of the assassination

10. Nothing, nothing, nothing

And YOU claim that it is ME that is suffering brain damage?

You will excuse mi if my laufter pravnets mi frum beng abel too right corectly.

The tragic comedy of your ridiculous position is evident to every coherent reader.

Thanks for the softball pitch.

[Greg Parker]

"The tragic comedy"

Yes, indeed. Greek theater. It was the entire cold war theme and the basic premise of what I am working on at present.

It never was the lunatics who took over... it was the Clever Slaves...

1. No identified gunman. Not "our" job to id any gunmen. You don't have one either, unless you're relying on Brennen's ID.

2. No location which matches the trajectory of the bullet wounds in both victims. For experts to testify on in a legal setting.

3. No bullet(s) Your point? Where did LHO get his ammo, btw?

4. No bullet fragments your point?

5. No spent cartridges Your point?

6. No reliable, verifiable eyewitness that can place your imaginary gunman anywhere Quite a bit of circumstantial evidence for a court to ponder

7. No rifle yet located even up to today's date (forty-four years after the fact) What was in the bag holding it as it was carried ot of the building? Curtain rods?

8. No fingerprints Some said to have been of "no value" can now be identified with modern technology. The FBI has been asked to do it, but have so far, stonewalled.

9. No escape from the crime detected by any of the hundreds and hundreds of individuals surrounding Dealey Plaza Not true. Someone was seen running from the building into a waiting Rambler - by multiple witnesses

10. No gunman appearing in any of the photographs or movies taken at the time of the assassination. Including LHO.

10. Nothing, nothing, nothing Yes. Concisely sums up the official case.

[T. Folsom]

"The tragic comedy"

Yes, indeed. Greek theater. It was the entire cold war theme and the basic premise of what I am working on at present.

It never was the lunatics who took over... it was the Clever Slaves...

1. No identified gunman. Not "our" job to id any gunmen. You don't have one either, unless you're relying on Brennen's ID.

2. No location which matches the trajectory of the bullet wounds in both victims. For experts to testify on in a legal setting.

3. No bullet(s) Your point? Where did LHO get his ammo, btw?

4. No bullet fragments your point?

5. No spent cartridges Your point?

6. No reliable, verifiable eyewitness that can place your imaginary gunman anywhere Quite a bit of circumstantial evidence for a court to ponder

7. No rifle yet located even up to today's date (forty-four years after the fact) What was in the bag holding it as it was carried ot of the building? Curtain rods?

8. No fingerprints Some said to have been of "no value" can now be identified with modern technology. The FBI has been asked to do it, but have so far, stonewalled.

9. No escape from the crime detected by any of the hundreds and hundreds of individuals surrounding Dealey Plaza Not true. Someone was seen running from the building into a waiting Rambler - by multiple witnesses

10. No gunman appearing in any of the photographs or movies taken at the time of the assassination. Including LHO.

10. Nothing, nothing, nothing Yes. Concisely sums up the official case.

I was hoping you would add something; sadly you didn't.

1. If you think that the identification of Oswald as the gunman ONLY rests on Brennan you clearly haven't read much on this case. What is wrong with Brennan's identification by the way? He identified Oswald after the line up and stated why he refused to finger him that night. And the man he said did it is the man who owned the weapon matched to the bullets that came fro the body of one of the victims and the rifle that had Oswald and ONLY Oswald's palm print on it, and Oswald was the ONLY one carrying a suspicious package into work that day and Oswald was the ONLY employee that fled the scene never to return to the TSBD ever again. Your "only Brennan" comment was pretty lame. Read more.

2. Already been done and the bullet wounds ONLY line up with the SE corner window of the TSBD. To claim otherwise is to simply deny the research that has already been done. Both the WC and the HSCA experts determined that ALL shots struck Kennedy from above and behind to the right rear and the ONLY place evidence was found from behind and to the right rear was where Robert Jackson and Howard Brennan saw a gunman firing from and where Oswald and ONLY Oswald's prints were found.

3. Where did LHO get his ammo is moot. If that ammo is proven to have been fired from a particular rifle, (which it was) and if that ammo was matched to fragments in the victim (which it was) and if there is ONLY evidence linking to the rifle (which there is) and if we can explain how Oswald took the weapon to work with him and didn't leave with it (which we can) than the red herring of WHERE he bought his ammunition is as moot as demanding to know where a drunk driver who was arrested at the scene bought his car. This point you tried to make leads nowhere.

4. Are you seriously questioning why it is significant that after 40 years the conspiracy camp has been unable to produce a single bullet fragment to support their alleged gunman? If that point confuses you, you clearly are in way over your head in this debate.

5. Same point as I made in number 4.

6. You are simply dodging your position's total lack of evidence to support any other gunman firing at Kennedy. Your comment perfectly supports my point. You have no witnesses.

7. What in the world are you talking about? Do you really think that Oswald (or anyone else) was seen carrying a bag out of the building? Please provide the name of this person--it is news to me. Again your ignorance in the facts of this case hamper your ability to debate my points.

8. You totally missed the point I am making. There are NO prints that your conspiracy lovers have ever produced. ALL prints gathered thus far point to one and only one person--LHO. There are no other prints taken from any other site that I am aware of that would lend credence to your invisible gunman. Once you find these prints we will see if the location they were found agrees with the trajectory of the bullet wounds. You better home they find them a few inches from LHO's because that is the only place the bullet trajectories will line up with. Good luck.

9. The notion of a hired gunman who was a part of a conspiracy running from the scene of the crime with his rifle in hand (because remember there was no other rifles found in the TSBD and only Oswald's prints were found on the rifle found--therefore they must have taken the rifle with them--which by the way was NEVER mentioned by the witnesses who saw the alleged gunman fleeing to the awaiting Rambler) is such a silly notiong that it doesn't merit serious consideration. You expect the world to believe that these high level gunmen, secreted themselves into the TSBD without being seen by anyone, carried out the assassination from the SE corner window of the TSBD, got down the stairs without being seen by Officer Baker or Roy Truly or ANY other TSBD employee and then just made a mad dash to a waiting Rambler in full view of police, spectators, and the rest of the motorcade? You've got to be kidding.

10. We don't need a film of Oswald there is mountain of evidence linking him to the crime. Sadly YOUR gunman has neither any photgraphic evidence NOR any other evidence to link him/her/it to the crime.

As I said in my original post. I have ALL of the evidence on my side of the table--all the conspiracy nuts have is suspicions and dreams of massive conspiracies.