There was never any question that there were at least two shooters in the JFK assassination, and that Oswald was probably not one of them, at lest not one who actually hit him.
Johnson pretty much ordered the Warren Commission to find that Oswald was the only shooter and that there was no Mob or foreign (specifically Russian) involvement in spite of the fact that all evidence pointed to at least three shooters, one in front who actually killed JFK. We were in the middle of one of the hotter parts of the Cold War and he was greatly concerned about a nuclear war with the USSR, and while I can understand his position, I cannot and will never condone telling bald-faced lies to the public no matter what the circumstances. The investigation was so badly handled (and Hoover very likely involved in any conspiracy to assassinate the president anyway, so there's that to taint it as well) that we will never know. Certainly, no properly handled trial could ever convict Oswald, even if he did do it, as all the evidence was snatched up by the FBI without proper documentation. Not admissible. On top of the fact that there is a fairly good photograph on him watching the motorcade going past... As far as 9/11 goes, the ineptitude of the Bush administration is only second to the corruption of that crew, and I suspect they mostly have no morals at all. Wouldn't surprise me at all that they purposely overlooked information available in order to take advantage of it. Might not be ol' Shrub himself, but certainly I can see Rove or Cheny doing it. Peter On Jun 29, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Alex Chamberlain wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Gary Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> the story is kind of silly. either we conclude that our president >> and >> everyone around him, as well as the entire air defense system, is >> completely >> inept or retarded or we conclude that it was an inside job. which >> works >> best for you? > > This is the weakness in Occam's razor, isn't it? Other things being > equal, the simplest explanation is the best, but what's your > definition of "simplest"? For me it is easier to accept that the > president and much of the federal government are totally incompetent > than that shadow forces of some kind within the executive branch > planned and carried out that kind of deception on such a massive > scale. > > I'm not saying that sometimes conspiracy theorists aren't in fact > correct in their reasoning even though their explanation may at first > appear to be the one that is more complex and requires more > assumptions. Consider JFK's assassination. It is a simpler > explanation that there was a second shooter and therefore a cover-up > of some kind than that the laws of physics were temporarily suspended > so that the shots Oswald fired could behave in a way no bullet had > done before or has since. Like Sherlock Holmes said, when you > eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must > be the truth. > > Alex Chamberlain > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
