Monday, May 8, 2017

May 7 (19 hours ago)
- show quoted text -
So what?

This doesn't substantiate your claim that Bookhout shot Oswald. 

Ralph Cinque:

OH. So, you're admitting that Leavelle lied. That's good. But now, let's consider that he told those lies to the Warren Commission and to the court in the criminal trial of Jack Ruby, which means that he committed perjury: twice. So what, you ask? So, the truth about what happened to Oswald must be different from what we have been told because that's the only reason why Leavelle would lie: to cover up the truth. So, his lying means that the official story of the Oswald shooting is a lie. And the official story is that Jack Ruby shot Oswald. Therefore, that must be a lie. And since Leavelle is a police officer, it means that he must be lying to protect someone in law enforcement. He wouldn't lie to protect the Mafia, would he? He must have lied to protect himself and others in law enforcement. So, that means someone in law enforcement shot Oswald. Now, by analysis of the facts, going by a process of elimination, testimonies, and image comparisons, I say it comes down to James Bookhout. But, if it was someone else in law enforcement, it wouldn't change the fundamental nature of what happened, would it? But, I guarantee you it was James Bookhout. I'd bet my life on it.   

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.