{paginate}
1 of 1
{/paginate}
Lee Harvey Oswald was the only killer of John F. Kennedy!
Posted: 02 August 2006 08:00 PM   [ Ignore ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2006-08-02

I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only Killer of John F. Kennedy.
There is no proof, or really, anything close to proof that would prove that there were other killer(s).
Oswald did fire from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and that is a fact.
He left that building on his own.
He got a ride on his own.
When he was caught, he was alone.
He was the only member of his Fair Play For Cuba Committee.
He had very few friends, and was mad at the world.
Oswald liked Communism, as he felt that it gave people like him an equal place with all others.
Of course, he wanted more than that, but Cuba, Russia, and other matters of his interest would at least give him a better chance in life.
He grew bitter because Russia did not work out, and America scoffed at him because of his beliefs.
He liked Castro, but that went awry too.
He lived in a dream world, but his fantasy blew up, and he wound up killing President Kennedy.
It is funny (I do not mean funny, ha ha) that all the pictures of a second shooter behind the Grassy Knoll are all fuzzy, and kind of look like someone may be there, or they could be leaves, branches, trees, and other things.
The imagination of people can really run wild.
YET….some people still try to link these pictures to something, or someone.
It is kind of like those pictures of Elvis being alive, but you could only see “Elvis” from his back, or side.
I kind of think that if the photographer were to take his picture from the front, then we would know that it was not Elvis.
My point of the “Elvis” pictures is, that there is nothing really there that will say….YES, THIS IS PROOF!!
The FBI, CIA, Castro, Russia, and others, were just not in on the assassination.
You would have to involve way too many people, and someone would have talked by now.
Thank you.
I am,
George Vreeland Hill.

PS: Even though the following may contradict much of what I just wrote, I will include this because it did happen to me, and is true. 
In the mid to late 1990’s, I did get a massive e-mail (ten to fifteen pages long) from someone who claimed he knew the facts of the JFK assassination.
He wrote that he was dying, and wanted someone to have the information.
For whatever reason, he thought I was the one who would know what to do with it.
My name, even then, was big on the Internet, and he must have saw me on-line enough to trust me.
When I received that e-mail, I could not believe what I was seeing, and this e-mail named names, places, and more.
I went through it quick, skipping along through the first few hundred lines, and because I went through it so fast, I never picked up any names or places, and to this day, I do not remember any information in the e-mail. 
It made me uneasy then to see this, and I did not want to know any of it, or have it in my possession.
I deleted it.
If this e-mail happened today, I would have it on T.V.
Funny how attitudes can change.

Image Attachments
jfk.jpg
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2006 11:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Very interesting.

One thing I wonder about regarding the assasination:  much of the investigations findings (The Warren Commission) were tucked away, and ordeed not to be opened for 75 years.  This is a known fact, I remember it clearly.

Why?  What info would be worth tucking away, if it was only to confirm the report?

PS:  Welcome to the site!  It is a great place.

Dan, not a conspiracy buff or loon, but surely skeptical of the ‘lone gunman’ theory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 12:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Dan Jr. - 04 August 2006 03:16 AM

One thing I wonder about regarding the assasination:  much of the investigations findings (The Warren Commission) were tucked away, and ordeed not to be opened for 75 years.  This is a known fact, I remember it clearly.

Why?  What info would be worth tucking away, if it was only to confirm the report?

Often when they do something like that, it’s to protect their sources.  They may have had transcripts of certain people telling them things, and if it became known that those people said such things, they could get into trouble.  After 75 years, though, those people will most likely be dead, and so they can’t come to any harm.

Or other times they do it because when you read a report on an investigation, you can often get an idea of what techniques and channels they made use of to investigate.  They may have wanted to keep some of that secret, so that they could still use those techniques in future investigations.  Otherwise, people might find out about them and take steps to avoid leaving evidence that could be found in that manner.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2006 10:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

That makes sense. 


Dan the now-defused

Profile
 
 
   
{paginate}
1 of 1
{/paginate}