Post by Gil JesusPost by Hank SienzantI thought you claimed Conspiracy Theorists don't speculate. There is nothing except speculation above.
I guess Kennedy was supposed to be shot a multitude of places in Dallas.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ride-into-tragedy-a-car-full-of-secret-servicemen-follows-news-photo/515492394?adppopup=true
Your theory has no evidence in support, it’s merely speculation. And the fact that there are such markings elsewhere in Dallas establishes those markings are not specific to the assassination site.
Why would shooters need such markings in any case? Couldn't they look at a map or walk the area and simply agree to start shooting when the President’s limo turned from Houston into Elm?
And while we're asking simple questions, explain why a conspiracy who plan to shoot JFK from multiple directions and then think it was a good idea to attempt to frame one person, shooting from one location, as the assassin.
Or call me names, delete my points, and change the subject. You do you.
As usual, your reading comprehension is less than admirable. Ben posted a post originally posted by Walt Cakebread and his response to it. It was Cakebread who speculated that the painted curbs were marking for the assassins, Ben just noted that it was an interesting thought worth discussion.
First, thank you for admitting Cakebread’s post is speculation. Ben claims critics deal with the evidence, and don't do speculation. You admit above Ben is wrong about that.
Second, what part of Ben’s remark isn't speculation? He speculates the lines were freshly painted, he speculates they would provide a “common marker for all assassins”, and he speculates there were multiple assassins.
Post by Gil JesusAlthough the painted curbs may not have been painted SPECIFICALLY to mark where the assassination was to take place, there's no reason why they couldn't have been used as landmarks.
Why was there any *need* for landmarks? Just “shoot the President on Elm” is all the instruction the assassins you speculate existed would need, isn't it? How stupid exactly do you speculate these supposed assassins were?
Post by Gil JesusYellow painted curbs usually indicate no parking zones.
Yes, like in the photo I provided. Or on a highway entrance ramp, which is all that portion of Elm Street essentially is.
Post by Gil JesusAs far as your silly question goes, it was originally publicly stated that the President had been killed, "as part of an International Communist Conspiracy", not a lone gunman.
No, that’s untrue. Nobody knew who killed the President initially, and there wasn't any mention of an international communist conspiracy. It was only after Oswald was arrested for the murder of Tippit and it was learned that (a) Oswald worked in the TSBD and (b) he had defected to Russia that speculation arose that this was part of a larger Soviet conspiracy. In fact, LBJ was being advised to get AF1 in the air, because it would be safer than on the ground.
Post by Gil JesusIt wasn't until LBJ's people and then LBJ himself, called Dallas to tell them to stop saying that and to end the investigation, that the narrative changed to a lone gunman.
You’ll never be able to document that LBJ or anyone advised the Dallas police to “end the investigation”. You just made that up.
Post by Gil JesusYou fail to understand that whoever controls the evidence can present any case they want to, real or not.
So all cases are fake? Don't the investigators control the evidence in *every* case, including this one?
You haven't shown how this one is any different, you are just speculating they framed Oswald.
Post by Gil JesusAnd you also fail to understand that Dallas DA Henry Wade had no problem presenting such fake cases, fake cases that were given to him by police.
You haven't shown that either. You've speculated that's the case based on the number of cases overturned by better (DNA) evidence that wasn't available when the cases were tried, but youv3 presented no evidence Wade’s overturned case rate is exceptional.
Post by Gil JesusThe proof of that is that Wade presented 19 fake cases that were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
No, you speculate these were fake cases. But years later, better evidence became available and justice was served. DNA was not available when those men were convicted, was it?