IT WAS OSWALD, this time it is massively clear,” we are told. No kidding. No use denying, by this time…
Sorry, it was someone else, or some others, it was, very occamistically-shown, not a weakly-hostile, derangedly-dreaming sensibility that did a job of work. Watch now, watch how:
Oswald did not shine as part of a firing-line trying out for a job. Oswald was a lousy shot, even a KGB defector would (and did) tell you that.
And this sensibility is parked, for the kill, six stories (and storeys) up and has a 6.5 Carcano carbine (not a rifle) with a deserved reputation of blowing up in your face… a bolt-action which emphatically is a dim idea for an assassination. Then there is the telescopic sight which is not/was not sighted-in; either that or someone tampered with irrelevant evidence. Pretty much the only sole truth spoken was said by Oswald, namely, that he was a patsy. As the poet says, I thirst for accusation.
True dat. The type of bullet recovered is shaped like a cylinder, professional type as well as the two wounds on the president. One at the base of the neck and the other basically removing his right frontal lobe does not seem to indicate that it was done with any type of emotion. And then the assassin was liquidated. That is how things are done. Is it not? Is it possible to accuse ourselves? After the last person that was around at the time is gone, I don’t believe it will any longer be necessary to continue repeating this myth to ourselves that we don’t know exactly what happened on that day. We will have more current and important truths that will require constant buttressing by those who dispense what we should know.