Post by Anthony Marsh Post by email@example.com Post by Anthony Marsh
No coordination. The grassy knoll shooter was not supposed to fire unless
JFK was going to get out alive. Something went wrong. Oswald's rifle
jammed and there was a pause of about 5 seconds so the grassy knoll
shooter had to take the insurance shot. Just like Princip had to do.
You lose so much credibility when you make categorical and detailed
statements like the one you make above regarding the assassination plot.
WTF are you babbling about? I back up everything I say. The acoustical
evidence shows a pause of about 5 seconds after the first 2 shots. If you
think the first shot missed. then Connally was hit at frame 224 then JFK
was hit at frame 312.6 that's gap of about 89 frames. Divide that by the
film speed of 18.3 frames per second gives us 4.86338879 seconds. That is
ABOUT 5 seconds.
I proved my point and you are full of shit.
You just can never admit that anything I say is true. Sad.
Let's say I stipulate to the validity of your acoustical analysis and that
there WAS a shot from the grassy knoll [and that's being tremendously
generous on my part - but this is just for argument's sake] - how is it
you can make a categorical statement about the grassy knoll shooter's
"mission" and under what criteria he would shoot or not shoot? That
strikes me as rather detailed information that there is no way you could
What if I said the following: "I believe there was a grassy knoll gunman
and his job was to take a fatal head shot. In fact, I believe he was the
primary shooter. There were other shooters but they were only there to
make sure that the president was, in fact, KILLED and not simply wounded.
All of the shooters were assigned the task of killing the president."
Would you argue with my above statement? Would you have evidence that I'm
wrong? Yet, my statement contradicts YOUR statement about the grassy knoll
Not only are you wrong about the existence of a grassy knoll gunman - but
you're even MORE wrong when you take it to the next level and start
talking about the grassy knoll gunman's "mission". That's where you lose
your credibility. Your first assertion is tenuous as best. Your second
assertion is completely unsupportable.
It's tantamount to saying that aliens have visited our planet (a
questionable assertion) *AND* the aliens' mission is to investigate human
behavior in anticipation of a future takeover of our planet. (a completely
unknowable "fact" based on an already tenuous premise)