• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kennedy[W:480]

Well, Kennedy already got part of his head blown off by the first shot. So if the driver pumped him full of a few rounds, it didn't matter. I'm sure they just let it slide because he was already fatally shot. The driver probably had some gripe with him, and took the opportunity to release a little anger. It happens more than you would think. I guess.

First shot hit the neck area the second took the back of his head off. He did not clinically die until he was in the hospital.
 
If real evidence and truth were presented in the thread it wouldn't be ignored.

If fake evidence and lies that Oswald could have shot jfk from the front were presented I would mock it enternally.:lamo
 
Oswald fired the shots.

Evidence has been presented.

"Fake evidence" is the nonsense you provide.

Oswald fired no shots.

Evidence has been presented for nearly five years.

"Fake evidence" is the nonsense you provide.
 
First shot hit the neck area the second took the back of his head off. He did not clinically die until he was in the hospital.

Well, the point is that he was already fatally wounded when the driver took his shots. I'm willing to bet that Jackie probably pulled a little Saturday Night Special out of her purse and ventilated him a bit too, God knows she had a reason.
 
How about the shot through the throat area?

Do you know the frame range jfk was struck in the throat?

Do you know the frame range Connally gave for him being shot in the back ?


PS: F.A.L. is wrong about me.
 
The video shows it, so there's no way they could have missed it. We know they didn't say anything, so the only question is why didn't they say anything? There are only 2 possible reasons - either they were in on it or they were scared shtless. So yeah, it's a fair assumption.

No, your conclusion that there are only 2 possible reasons is flawed from the outset.
 
There are only 2 possible reasons - either they were in on it or they were scared shtless.

I'll take door number 3. It just simply didn't happen.
 
Did the paraffin test show Oswald shot a rifle? Yes or no

“Following Oswald’s apprehension on November 22, 1963, Dr. W.F. Mason of Dallas concluded, after tests, that paraffin casts made of Oswald’s hands contained traces of nitrate consistent with the residue on the hands of a person who had recently handled or fired a firearm."
chapter4d:castsofcontention - www2
 
Back
Top Bottom