Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited GNO for iPhone 8 Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held GNO Shop Now ToyHW17_gno
Customer Discussions > History forum

Doorway Man in the famous Altgens photo WAS Oswald

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 18, 2012, 3:12:03 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 1, 2012, 12:24:50 PM PST]

Posted on May 16, 2012, 10:53:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 10:54:15 AM PDT
Hi, as pointed out by Jean Davison here:

Oswald himself denied being on the steps in a quickie interview in the hallway of the police station. He put himself in the building at the time of the shots. So either Oswald was lying, or Cinque's analysis of the Altgens photo is incorrect.

--- quoting Jean D ---
Would Somebody Please Tell Ralph Cinque .... that Oswald debunked his theory in 1963?

"Oswald's Hallway Interview 1": Ten seconds in.
Reporter: Did you shoot the President?
Oswald: I work in that building.
Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes, sir.
(I wonder how Oswald knew the shots came from "that building"?)
--- end quote ---

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 11:05:26 AM PDT

Oswald said he was in the building at the time of the shooting.
Was he lying? If not, then since it's either him or Lovelady in the picture, it must be Lovelady.


In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 11:16:37 AM PDT
You think you can ride that all the way to Xanadu, do you? You think it's like money in the bank? You think you are the first one to point that out?

What Oswald said in a context like that is not conclusive. The phrasing came from the reporter, not from Oswald. It was the reporter who said, "Were you in the building at the time?" And at the moment, and surely it was a very nervous moment, Oswald gave an affirmative answer.

Look, what if the reporter had asked, "Were you outside with the others in front at the time?" instead of asking him if he was in the building? Can you claim to know how Oswald would have responded?

Posted on May 16, 2012, 11:19:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 11:24:53 AM PDT
And by the way, it's definitely Oswald in the doorway. He's wearing Oswald's clothes. They're fitting him just like they fit Oswald. They're hanging on him just they hung on Oswald. His slender build is that of Oswald. Lee Oswald was the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 11:51:00 AM PDT
Dr.Ralph Cinque,

Your article co-written by others on Veterans Today(VT) concerning the man in the doorway is well worth reading and provides one with an element that one can take their time to digest,compare and contrast.Attempting to discuss a,"conspiracy theory",is like pulling tusks from an awake elephant.The cognitive dissonance syndrome is so ingrained that the messenger is assassinated leaving the message more in the dark as the,"man in the doorway".I find it equally sad that VT is addressed as a "nut job paradise" without examining the core principles.A more eclectic group of participants cannot be found anywhere.VT has no philosophy other than to provide a venue where thoughtful journalism is allowed to be published.Unlike most media sources there is no central bias and all sources are considered equal.

The editorial staff has stated that their goal is to assist readers in thinking like an Intel agent.One has to be able to read between the lines not always for what is said but what is left out.I wholeheartedly agree with the VT stance that Israel is not a true democracy and abuses the Arab/Palestinian population to further their own goals.

More often than not the comments are as revealing or entertaining as the content of the editorial/article.The links provided throughout expand on the subjects at hand both positively and negatively.It does take an open mind sometimes to read some of the content but I can guarantee that eventually it will tie in with other information.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 12:14:29 PM PDT
It was good of you to post that, Lawrence. Ralph has a more recent article on which came out just the other day. Here is the link:

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 12:38:37 PM PDT
In reply to your post on May 16, 2012 12:14:29 PM PDT
Linda K. Hadley says:

Thank you for the link.I guess the world is not nor will it ever be mature enough to realize that governments and institutions are not necessarily pure not altruistic in the scope of operations.Control of the masses has always been the goal of governments and religions not to mention the amassing of wealth and power.Any person who believes that these institutions are for the betterment of their plight they are indeed naive and easily mislead.That alone is a field of study the results of which are updated almost daily.To learn the extent to which these endeavors will spread the tentacles of deceit,greed and power is to understand how to survive.

Few understand this and fewer yet are attempting to reign in this abomination to human kind.We all have the resources to defeat these entities but are fearful of exposing our suspicions and beliefs.The power of one is mighty when joined together with others.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 5:04:30 PM PDT
You admit Oswald gave an affirmative answer. Yes, he did. Thank you for that.

But the first question was not "Were you in the building at the time?" The first question was "Did you shoot the President?"

It was Oswald who first mentioned the building in his answer: "I work in that building."

So, when asked if he shot the President, he brought up the building. He didn't deny shooting the President immediately, he just mentioned the building.

The reporter then asked the followup question: "Were you in the building at the time?"

And Oswald again mentioned the building, elaborating and putting himself in it: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes, sir."

He had two opportunities to put himself outside: Did you shoot the President? No, I was outside on the steps of the building where I worked.
Where you in the building at the time? No, I was outside the building when the shots were fired.

He didn't do that. Because he was nervous?

Now, either Oswald mis-spoke, or he was inside the building. You believe he mis-spoke, apparently, asking me to divine what he would have said if he was asked a different question. I have no idea. So tell us, since you apparently know.

I do know he admitted being in the building, and even elaborated on that... saying he worked in the building and therefore was offering a presumably innocent reason for being in the building at the time of the shooting.

Note as well that numerous co-workers of Oswald and Lovelady all stated that they saw Lovelady on the steps in the minutes before the shooting. Lovelady himself identified himself as the figure in the doorway. All these people were lying *AND* Oswald mis-spoke? How big was this conspiracy anyway?

And the man who was shown in the Martin film, is that Lovelady we're seeing on the steps within minutes of the shooting? So Lovelady was demonstrably there? That's strong - hard - evidence that Lovelady was on the steps during the shooting as well. But where are the photos of Oswald on the steps? None exist (and don't name the Altgens photo - that would be circular reasoning, assuming what you need to prove).

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 5:07:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 5:09:30 PM PDT
Sorry - merely stating it as a fact is quite insufficient to prove your point. I don't see Oswald's shirt, I see Lovelady's plaid shirt. Remember that the image in question is a blowup from a quite small section of a 35-mm negative. The shirt definitely has plaid stripes in it, it is not a uniform rust color like Oswald's. You don't see the plaid in the blow-ups?

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 5:16:58 PM PDT
Mike Burns says:
It's been a while since I've swum in these waters, but it's a hot day, so why not?

Smallchief, I think there WAS a conspiracy---but not to kill Kennedy. Just one to cover up the REAL manner and cause of his death. It was an accidental shot from an AR-15, carried by Secret Service agent George Hickey in the follow-up car. Read Mortal Error, by Bonar Menninger.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 6:00:15 PM PDT
Ralph has a collage showing that Doorman's shirt does not in any way match Lovelady's other than to say that both are varied. And most telling: the upper right side of Doorman's shirt has no contrast; it looks like Oswald's. You see, they forgot to add the phony pattern there. If you provide an email, I can send you the comparison photos.

Here's the bottom line: it's Oswald's outer shirt, Oswald's vee-necked t-shirt, and Oswald's slender build. They moved Lovelady's face over, and they added plaid to the shirt, which was very easy to do, and wahlah! they loveladified him.
Be sure to read Ralph's latest article on Lew Rockwell. More photo fakery is revealed.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 6:47:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 6:56:34 PM PDT
Okay, now I'm really confused by your 'logic'.

Let me get this straight:

It's Lovelady's face on the man in the doorway.
It's got plaid in the shirt, matching Lovelady's shirt, not Oswald's.
Oswald admitted to being in the Depository at the time of the shooting.
Co-workers of both men said they saw Lovelady on the steps before the shooting.
Those same people did not see Oswald on the steps.
Lovelady identified himself as the man in the doorway when shown the photo.
The Martin film shows Lovelady on the steps in the minutes after the assassination.
No films show Oswald on the steps.

And your conclusion - in spite of all that evidence - is that it's Oswald and the image is altered?

When and why and how did 'They' do this? And especially in the first few hours before the photo was published? Please bear in mind the Altgens photo in question was published on the evening of the assassination in the evening papers on 11/22/63. How did 'They' even know there was a photo by Altgens that needed altering?

Bear in mind the issue of the image of the doorway man possibly being Oswald didn't arise until months later. So how and why did they feel a need to alter it within a few hours of the assassination? And why did 'They' move around heads and add plaid? Why did 'They' not just black out that part of the image, removing "Oswald" (or Lovelady) from the image entirely? Especially since the part of the negative that needed alteration was not much larger than the period that ends this sentence.


Posted on May 16, 2012, 6:55:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 6:55:43 PM PDT
Are you dense? I said they faked the plaid pattern and transferred the face of Lovelady. So, you can't keep using that as a talking point. Oswald told Detective Fritz that he was "out in front with Bill Shelley" during the shooting. Fritz wrote it down. And the Martin film did NOT show Lovelady. It showed a Lovelady imposter. Here: read all about it. Ralph Cinque and a gang of doctors say that wasn't Lovelady.

And by the way, it wasn't from the Martin film either. That's another myth. That 6 second clip was professionally-produced fake footage.

It's over, pal. Oswald was in the doorway.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 6:57:09 PM PDT
Here's a link to the Martin film. See for yourself that it does not contain that crucial clip with Lovelady. It's just another lie, and there are so many.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 7:17:10 PM PDT
Saying it's faked isn't the same as proving it's fake. So I guess I'm dense if I don't just accept your assertions as proven.
It's a talking point until you establish 'They' transferred the face of Lovelady and altered the shirt. And supply some good reasons to do so.
And now you add more 'fakery' claims, all without a shred of any evidence to substantiate it.

The Martin film is a fake, shows a Lovelady imposter (Why bother? Wouldn't the real films show Lovelady on the steps where you admit he was? You do say they took Lovelady's face and moved it over Oswald's, so Lovelady must be in the original photo, right?)
Can you produce that original photo, btw? No? So all this is merely conjecture on your part?

Oswald told Fritz he was out front with Bill Shelley? Did Shelley confirm that? No? Do people accused of murder never lie in custody to give themselves an alibi? How do you know Oswald wasn't lying?

Remember that I have Oswald's admission to newsman that he was inside the building at the time of the shooting (previously provided).
Remember that numerous employees of the TSBD all put Lovelady, not Oswald, on the steps.
Remember that the Martin film shows Lovelady on the steps. Not Oswald.
Remember that Lovelady identified himself as the man in the image in the photo.

On the flip side, we have assertions that the photo is altered (no evidence provided, just apparent anomalies); the Martin film is faked (no evidence provided); Oswald mis-spoke when he said he was in the TSBD at the time of the shooting; Lovelady must've lied when he identified himself in the photo; all the other co-workers lied when they said they saw Lovelady, not Oswald on the steps, and yet you admit Lovelady WAS on the steps, it's Lovelady's face in the photo and the shirt is plaid.

But you never explain how 'They' knew the photo had to be altered. How they knew the Altgens photo needed to be altered, how they intercepted it before it went out that day, and how they altered it. Or why they didn't just black out the doorway man entirely, instead of going to the trouble of switching heads and adding some plaid to the shirt (Btw, it wasn't photoshopped. This was supposedly done decades before photoshop existed). So explain the how and why, and provide some evidence, not just opinion, that the photo was altered.

What brilliant conspirators 'They' were.


In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 7:34:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 8:20:19 PM PDT
Sorry if I mislabelled it. But that doesn't mean the film is a forgery.

Please provide the evidence 'They' professionally produced this footage, instead of it being just what it appears to be.

I think I understand your argument now.

Your argument is that you agree all the evidence points to Oswald being guilty, but all the evidence is faked by "them".

Image of Oswald in the doorway - faked to make it look like Lovelady's face and shirt!
Film showing Lovelady on TSBD steps - faked!
Oswald admitting on film he was inside building - Oswald mis-spoke!
Statements by co-workers saying it was Lovelady they saw on the steps - presumably they lied?
Statement by Lovelady saying it's himself - presumably he lied?
Statement by the accused that he had an alibi - presumably he was telling the truth, even though it's not confirmed by Bill Shelley?

Do I have that right?

And it appears I've been giving your 'They' more time than they actually had to alter this photo.
The photo went out on the AP wire 33 minutes after the shooting according to Josiah Thompson (you know who he is, right?).
See post 188 in the cited thread below.


Posted on May 16, 2012, 8:09:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 8:20:20 PM PDT
Supply some good reasons? Are you dense? They were trying to frame Oswald! If he could be seen standing outside during the shooting, how were they going to frame him?
We believe that the man whose face was obfuscated was the real Lovelady, and his face was moved to Doorman. He is standing to Doorman's left, which is our right as you view the picture. Just look for that amorphous white blob. You can see it at the link below.

Frtiz wrote it down that Oswald said he was outside, and we have his handwritten notes. How far out of the loop are you? Get up to speed if you are going to debate this.

And you're wrong about what Oswald said. If you listen carefully, when he first said "I work in that building" he was responding to something, although it's hard to make out. So, he was reacting to someone else's taunt. And listen to the conviction in his voice when he says, No, Sir, I didn't kill anybody!" He said it 3x just on this tape. "I'm just a patsy!" Here's the link

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 8:54:55 PM PDT
I must be dense, because you keep saying 'they' did this and 'they' did that, but never provide any evidence that I can see.

Now you tell me the reason they altered the photo is to frame Oswald. Well, yeah... But I said supply the 'how and why' and you again offer no evidence the photo is altered, nor supply any evidence how they knew the photo needed to be altered, let alone how they did it before it went out on the AP wire 33 minutes after the assassination.

You merely keep asserting stuff. Apparently you expect everyone to believe it because you do. Well, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

And you repeat that Fritz wrote down that Oswald said he was outside, but never respond to the points I made, that
1. Accused people sometimes lie in custody to provide themselves an alibi, and Oswald could have been doing just that. How did you determine he wasn't?
2. Shelley never confirmed that Oswald was with him at the time of the shooting, so it appears Oswald was lying to Fritz.
3. Oswald also admitted to newsmen he was inside the building at the time of the shooting, so again, it appears he lied to Fritz to give himself an alibi (apparently he realized at some point that putting himself inside the building where the shots came from wasn't the best alibi he could give).

So telling me to get up to speed on this is meaningless, as I am up to speed, as you haven't yet responded to the points I actually made.

And telling me 'we believe ... ' is likewise meaningless, because I don't want to hear what you believe, but what evidence you can produce to convince me your beliefs are correct. Thus far, you haven't produced any. Just provided opinions.

And you again point to something the accused said as if it's evidence he's innocent. I do not determine whether people are innocent or guilty based on the conviction in their voice (and according to law, I should not). Apparently you do, however. I am under the impression I should determine their guilt or innocence based on the evidence.

Thus far, and you admit, the evidence indicates it's Lovelady on the steps.

You admit it's Lovelady's face.
You admit the shirt shows a plaid pattern like Lovelady's.
You admit Oswald did state he was inside the building at the time of the shooting when initially questioned (you haven't yet alleged this film is altered, at least. You do attempt to explain this away as Oswald mis-speaking, however, but offer no support for your interpretation).
You haven't contended the witnesses who affirmed it was Lovelady were all lying. How do you explain these witnesses?
You haven't contended that Lovelady was lying when he admitted he was the one in the photo. How do you explain Lovelady's statement?

You simply allege all the evidence indicating it's not Oswald in the photo is faked, and allege it really is Oswald in the photo. According to your opinion. And Cinque's.

But you don't supply any evidence that 'they' did alter the photo in the 33 minutes between the assassination and its going out on the AP wire, nor do you explain how 'they' did alter the photo in such a short time, nor explain how 'they' knew the photo even existed, and that it also showed something that 'they' needed to alter. And likewise you don't explain why 'they' choose to alter the photo the hard way (by swapping faces and adding a plaid pattern to a shirt), instead of the easy way (by just blackening out the man in the doorway entirely).

And then explain why and how 'they' did all this in just 33 minutes!

Sorry, 'they' are not omnipotent nor omnipresent, so you need to provide some evidence 'they' did this.

You haven't provided any yet.


Posted on May 16, 2012, 9:49:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 9:50:55 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 17, 2012, 12:10:49 AM PDT
Henry,please take the time to read the three part report on the man in the doorway,the links of which I provided above.The issues that have you in a state of denial are addressed there quite well.Your negativity is a prime example of the cognitive dissonance to which I referred in my above comment.Don't let it hold you back in your search for the truth if in fact that is your agenda.You can believe it when I say that the US government has agents that preach to their own pulpit in order to confuse or deny any assertions of such false flag incidents.I am not saying that you are one of those agents but your efforts are close to their methods of obfucating the issues.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:16:44 AM PDT

Wow. It appears you are one step from alleging I'm part of the coverup.


In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:57:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 8:55:59 AM PDT

I'm sure you won't be able to document the two states of the Altgens photo whatsoever. You know how I know? Because it's been nearly 49 years since the Altgens photo was first published, and no two versions have surfaced yet. And your new 'witness' that just came forward yesterday with a memory is saying it came off the wire twice on 11/23/63, but that is clearly untrue. As I pointed out, it was disseminated on the afternoon of 11/22/63. So if what your 'witness' is saying is even close to true, then it should be EASY to find two different versions that were published - one version on 11/22/63 and one on 11/23/63.

If two versions were published, you should have been able to document it years ago -- simply go back to any large library and search their microfilm archives for the evening papers of 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 and find two different versions. The fact that no two versions have ever surfaced means, quite simply, no two versions ever went out or ever existed.

Or are you going to allege there's a conspiracy hit squad that goes back and alters the microfilm in the public library records, ala "1984"? God, I hope not.

And now Shelley was 'a troubling character'. lol. He's supposedly Oswald's alibi (according to Oswald), he doesn't confirm Oswald's alibi, and that troubles you. What should trouble you is Oswald. He's the guy who left his rifle behind on the sixth floor. But he's the guy you keep trying to find ways to get off the hook.

But instead you question Shelley's and Lovelady's motivations. Two men who didn't leave a rifle behind on the sixth floor and didn't do anything wrong. They merely were co-workers of Oswald's and eyewitnesses to the assassination. For this, they get their character assassinated and labelled by conspiracy theorists as "troubling characters". Please.

Please document the Shelley arrest with an actual citation to an actual document. Can you do that? Thanks!

And then you quote somebody named Judyth Vary Baker. Judyth must be a photo analyst, as you quote her extensively about her conclusions about the photo but you looked citing her qualifications to make the determination she is making. Can you cite her qualifications to claim the photo is a forgery? I hope it's not that she claims to be Oswald's girlfriend. Or that she once worked as a photo retoucher back in the mid-1960s. That is not sufficient to make the determination she is making. She has an opinion about the photo. Sorry - I thought we established that opinions are not evidence. Remember that the area in question in the photo that was supposed retouched is quite small in the actual 35mm negative - smaller than the last 'e' in this sentence. But according to you, they altered the negative by swapping heads and adding in plaid on the shirt, instead of just making that area black - your claims make no sense.

Did they have a mobile photo-alteration studio parked in Dealey Plaza so 'They' could edit the Z-film, the Altgens photo, and ever other photo and film that conspiracy theorists allege is altered merely because they don't like what the images show (like Altgens in the doorway)?

What evidence do you have that the photo was tampered with, other than a couple of opinions from a couple of people with no background in photographic analysis?

Here - let me save you the trouble. The answer is none. Zip. Nada.

And you avoided answering any of the issues I raised about your version of events:
How did these conspirators know that the Altgens photo needed to be altered?
How were they able to alter it so fast?
Why didn't they just black out the doorway man instead of swapping faces and altering the shirt?
Why did Lovelady attest that it was he who was the man in the doorway?
Why did Shelley not back up Oswald's alibi?
Why did Lovelady's co-workers put him on the front steps and not Oswald?
Why did Oswald put himself in the building at the time of the shooting then offer a differ version of events to the police?

You keep avoiding the questions because you have no answers. But without answers, your claims about alterations are meaningless.


Posted on May 17, 2012, 10:10:44 AM PDT
Obviously, I meant 11/22/63. It was my typo, not his.

Bill Shelley was the guy who spent the whole morning on the 6th floor. But, he didn't have much to say about that. Did he see the sniper's nest set up?

Bill Shelley was the guy who was involved with Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol which was founded by David Byrd who happened to own the TSBD building. Also in the CAP at the same time was David Ferrie. But, Shelley didn't offer any information about that. Read The Spiders' Web by William Westin.

Bill Shelley is the one who tried to discredit Vickie Adams who said she came down the stairs after the 3rd shot, right when Oswald was supposed to be on them. Read The Girl on the Stairs by Barry Ernest.

Bill Shelly was deep in the CIA. In fact, he was in Army Intelligence even before there was a CIA.

Bill Shelley was head of the "Miscellaneous Department" at the TSBD. The Miscellaneous department? This is a company that received and shipped out school books. What did they need a miscellaneous department for? Miscellaeneous crock.

And Bill Shelley was briefly arrested after the assassination, and it is documented. I could name names. But, I won't. Look for it. Keep you busy for a while. Maybe keep you off the blogs. But that's it for you, right now. I'm busy. Things are happening!

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 10:39:37 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 10:49:35 AM PDT
You again failed to respond to the points I made.

Regardless if it's 11/22 or 11/23, if two versions went out, some newspapers should have one version and some papers another. The fact that you can't produce two different versions of the Altgens photo - after 49 years - shows that two different versions never existed. If you contend otherwise, you merely have to produce the two different versions. We'll wait. It's only been 49 years and nothing has emerged. What's another 49?

Why'd 'They' swap around the heads and plaid the shirt instead of simply blacking the guy out? How'd they do it so quickly? Why'd Oswald give two different accounts of where he was at the time of the shooting? Why did none of Oswald's co-workers see Oswald outside at the time of the shooting? Why'd Shelley fail to affirm his supposed alibi? (I have no doubt that if Oswald had said he spent the morning with Mother Theresa, you'd be impugning her motives right now. It's what conspiracy theorist do. For some reason, they think everyone in the world is guilty of the shooting or otherwise involved in the JFK assassination, except the one guy all the evidence points to).

Of course, all your claims about Bill Shelley are unsourced and undocumented. You say you could name names, but of course you don't. I didn't ask you to name names, I asked you to cite a document for the Shelley arrest claim you made previously (If he was arrested, there should be an arrest record). You did not. I would wager you cannot. That is also typical of conspiracy theorists. Make a lot of bold claims, but when pressed for evidence, suddenly get real busy elsewhere. And tell the one asking for the evidence to look for it themselves. SOP for CTs.

What the hell could be happening all of a sudden in a case as cold as this one? 49 years, and every record in the case has been read over countless times, and every photo scoured with a magnifying glass until the pictures are faded, and today, all of a sudden, witnesses are emerging from the woodwork, you're busy, and "Things are happening!"?


It's been 49 years and the only suspect with any evidence pointing to him is still only that punk loner who brought his rifle to work, Lee Oswald. It will remain that way for eternity. Because the only one who shot JFK was that punk loner who brought his rifle to work, Lee Oswald.

All the best,

Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the History forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
459 Mar 11, 2017
Should current national leaders apologise for historical wrongs? 29 2 days ago
Book (Serial Killers: Ho Chi Minh) shows what a mass-murderer the North VietNamese leader was 80 2 days ago
Hitler's luxury resort 4 2 days ago
Looking for a really good book on turn of the century America 26 3 days ago
New Vietnam War Series On PBS 0 5 days ago
Book (The Longest Romance) shows how mass-murderous Castro's Cuba really is! 24 7 days ago
July 14, 1881 billy the Kid Murdered 6 7 days ago
Franklin expedition 0 7 days ago
Book Recommendations on Ancient Rome/Julius Ceasar 39 12 days ago
General George Custer reincarnated as General George Patton 90 12 days ago
British History Buffs........ 1144 12 days ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  81
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 9, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers