TOM Di EVA SAID:
Please observe the rigid thinking of the WCR supporters. I've been reading many of their messages. But haven't responded to their baited theories and answers.
WHAT IF I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS THE ONLY SHOOTER BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY EITHER?
Watch their reaction to that statement. Their fixed thinking can't let them "think outside of the box" which is the WCR 26 volumes of toilet paper.
BUD SAID:
I'm an LN, and put that possibility to the CT on several occasions. They don't like that concept very much, because Oz [Lee Harvey Oswald] was a lefty, and they like a right wing conspiracy, and two unconnected shooters throws their fixed thinking outside the box.
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
Two unconnected shooters with the same goal, firing from the same area, at exactly the same time???? Can you calculate the odds??
BUD SAID:
It isn't a matter of odds. We know why Oz chose to shoot from where he did. Another person who decided Kennedy should die might not have access to a building like Oz did, thus necessitating an open yet secluded area to shoot from. How many of those do you suppose were along the motorcade route?
So, it wouldn't be that far fetched for 2 shooters to choose the same area, if one worked along the route, and one didn't have any options along the route except the knoll. Many a kook has remarked at what a perfect shooting opportunity the knoll presents.
WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:
The hatred for Oswald is so deeply ingrained in you that aren't willing to open your mind to the idea that he was simply a gullible patsy,
BUD SAID:
It is possibly one of the stupidest, most unsupportable ideas ever uttered by morons (and it was up against some stiff competition from the "we never landed on the moon" kooks).
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
My 2 cents on this.....
I agree that the theory of "2 LN Shooters" firing in tandem in DP [Dealey Plaza] on 11/22 is a pretty far-fetched idea....but I will add this:
I think that the idea of 2 LN shooters (unconnected to each other) is probably MORE likely to have occurred (had there actually been some proof of multiple shooters in DP, which, of course, there isn't) than the Oliver Stone "3-Shooter, 1-Patsy" plot that was thrown up on the big screen in 1991.
Virtually NOTHING beats Stone's and Garrison's multi-gunmen, solo-patsy scenario for sheer absurdity and DELIBERATE PRE-PLANNED STUPIDITY on the part of the assassination plotters who, per Stone/Garrison, actually DID pre-plan such a crackpot plot.
And, incredibly too, is the fact that Stone certainly wasn't the first CTer to endorse that EXACT type of 3-shooter, 1-patsy theory....Mark Lane (and others) endorsed just such a plot in the 1973 movie "Executive Action" as well (which I hadn't remembered at all until rewatching that film recently and seeing the Oliver Stone plot unfold on the screen once more, 18 years before Stone regurgitated the nonsense for his own movie).
Maybe I'm misreading or mislabeling Bud's intentions and his thoughts, but I've always assumed that the times when Bud has suggested that a "2 LN Shooters" plot made some degree of sense, he was actually playing a bit of a game with the CT-Kooks....i.e., he was throwing up in the CTers' faces a lone-nut plot that was equally as ludicrous as the widely-accepted-as-FACT "Multi-Gun/One-Patsy" plot which is believed by many CT-Kooks of the world....with Bud thereby, in effect, demonstrating the "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IF I BELIEVE IN IT ENOUGH" school of thought.
If I misinterpreted you, Bud, I apologize. But I always felt there was a little sly "game-playing" going on from your POV whenever the topic of the highly unlikely shooting scenario of "Two LN Shooters" has arisen here.
BUD SAID:
No, you were right, David. The kooks hate the idea, so that lends a certain validity to the concept. The whole idea of their game is to point an arrow in the direction of their choosing, but they actually can't take the very first step, identify the shooter(s).
Without an identity, they have no way to determine motivation. They always press for Oz's motivations to be stated, when there is ample evidence of his political fanaticism. They can't make that connection with Oz, yet claim to know the motivations of an anonymous shooter they know nothing about.
It's a similar approach I take in the "Kennedy committed assisted suicide" theory I've broached. If there was a conspiracy, who is more in position to put into motion the necessary plan and cover-up than the most powerful person on the planet?
Kennedy was in constant pain, had banged some of the most desirable women, was looking at a probable loss in the upcoming election, he could even have been the victim of blackmail for his infidelities, so why not go out with a bang while on top?
Could Oz have been put along the motorcade route because they knew from his profile that he would take a shot if the circumstances were right?
The Kennedy/suicide theory would also explain the Kennedy interference with the autopsy. This theory answers more questions than any I've seen proposed by the kooks, yet they won't touch it, as it doesn't take them where they want so desperately to go.
Another theory the kooks dislike for the same reason is the idea that Oz was working on behalf of the Cubans. There is a lot of support for this, much more than the idea that Oz was an intellegence agent, but the kooks don't like this concept either, for the same reason. It doesn't allow them to blame the people they prefer to blame.
November 2007
