Is this along the lines of "second shooter" silliness or more "Oswald was the only shooter, but he was still part of a plot"?

... if you have interest to explore the debunking of the lone gunman conspiracy.

So it must be "second shooter" silliness. Thanks, but I'll pass. Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole shooter that day.

... which is the biggest BS answer going.

Figured you'd pass. No skin off my nose. Have a please day.

You're so threatened by me, which is sad. But that's no excuse for insulting me.

I've looked at the evidence. I'm happy to look at more. But LHO was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza. That's what the evidence says. You want to show me how he was part of a conspiracy beyond that? Fine. But more BS about four shots or "back and to the left" is just wasting everyone's time. It certainly doesn't require nine or ten threads for the same film.

You just want them to be.

Why do you have to make yourself out to be something more than you are here? You're just a poster to DU, just like me. Nothing more.

Get over your over-sensitivity.

Is that too much to ask?

50 reasons, yet reputable history books still say Oswald shot JFK? But one of the problems that seems to face conspiracy theorists is that if any of them actually uncovered anything significant, it would be buried under a mountain of bullshit. When you want to convince someone that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, where do you start?

Did you just want ONE?

Well, I'll give you 50. Keep the change.

... and I think you know damn well that's all it would take.

and I know this.... damn well.

Have a pleasant day.

That introduction starts off with a witness who says the shot came from "the hill" just as the limo was passing her. It was reports like that, of course, that started the whole "grassy knoll" thing.

Back in the 60s, the JFK conspiracy hucksters had me convinced that those reports were a "good reason" for believing there was a second shooter on the knoll. But when I went to Army basic training, one afternoon we went to some bleachers set down in a pit to learn how to identify where shots that were fired overhead were coming from. Now, why do you suppose that would require special training? Turns out, it's not nearly as simple as you might think because of a complication: Bullets from high-powered military and hunting rifles fly faster than sound, which means that the first thing you hear is their "sonic boom." It actually sounds like a whip cracking, because it's really the same phenomenon. But here's the thing which was the point of the class: Because it's a shock wave from the bullet as it passes you, that crack always sounds like it's coming from a direction perpendicular to the actual path of the bullet. What we were taught was to listen for the "thump" sound that followed the crack (hence the name "crack/thump method&quot , which is the actual sound coming from the muzzle.

If you apply that knowledge to this woman's testimony, it tells a rather different story than the one conspiracy hucksters would like to sell: The shooter was most likely 90 degrees away from where the woman thought he was. "Good reason," not so much, but trying to explain why to conspiracy zealots never seems to be very productive. Just like trying to explain why the Zapruder film irrefutably shows JFK getting hit from behind.

And on and on it goes, through EVERY "good reason" offered by the conspiracy hucksters, to the best of my knowledge -- there's ALWAYS some reason why it just isn't the "smoking gun" they claim it is, and far too often, it's far short of the known facts.

But I was giving you an opportunity to improve my knowledge, by giving me some reason that will stand up to scrutiny. Since it seems you can't even give me a good reason to watch more than the first minute of that video, thanks for nothing.

... says Bill... So, I've done something good!

I guess that makes me a "huckster", too?

Thanks for kicking the thread, Bill.

Wouldn't it be easier to put them all here in order?

Next week there will be another one, thus another thread would be added. I watched the original 9 in one viewing and wanted to share. I could comment on each video, just like you could. I appreciate posts on each one.

Thus, feel free to watch each one, then comment. Tell your friends.

Do not do this. That is spamming the board. You can edit the threads you've already posted to add the links. You can discuss the videos all you like. But posting 50 different threads with 50 different parts of the same video will be intentionally spamming this group and I will sadly make you the first person to be blocked from this group.

I am not shutting down the discussion. I'm allowing the discussion. I'm shutting down the spamming and disruption. Be sure to get that part right when you complain.

I'm not complaining. I'm also not posting anything more than the videos as they are released.

Also, it's not the same video. If you went to the source (Black Op Radio) you would see the announcement of "50 reasons..." Len Osanic doesn't make them all at the same time.

So, when there is another one released (weekly, I'm guess), are you telling me that I can go back and edit what I posted in the thread after a weeks time? I don't think so.

What are you telling me? Is this some kind of threat?

Being obtuse is not playing in your favor here, MrMickeysMom.

ETA: You can use the posts you've made to add future parts of this series and actually discuss the subject, or you can keep on spamming the board and being disruptive and get blocked from the group. Those are your choices. The one that you make will demonstrate what you are here to do.