From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:37:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 1:53:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > > Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple   
   directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a   
   crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place > with a   
   good weapon, then frame    
   Oswald for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon.   
   > Most professional assassins have their own personal weapons of choice.    
   > Do you really believe that a killer would sacrifice losing that weapon just   
   to frame some warehouse schmuck ?    
      
   To kill a President if the reward was high enough? Certainly. Everything has a   
   price. Why couldn't this “professional assassin” simply purchase another   
   model of the same rifle he favors, and use that?   
      
      
   > No, they're going to frame the guy with another weapon. A piece of junk that   
   no one's going to miss.   
      
   Won't that lead to obvious questions like how could that guy shoot the   
   president with that “piece of junk” rifle? Wouldn't it make more sense to   
   shoot the president with a good rifle, and frame the patsy for owning a good   
   rifle instead of a piece of    
   junk rifle?   
      
   Do you even listen to yourself? You're suggesting the conspirators were   
   concerned about saving a few dollars so they framed Oswald by leaving behind a   
   “piece of junk” rifle instead of a good one, but instead of just shooting   
   the President using one    
   shooter using a good weapon, they instead shot him from multiple directions,   
   then *hired* a team of surgeons to alter the body, another team to alter the   
   films and photos as needed, another team to plant or swap evidence, etc…   
      
   Isn’t framing Oswald for owning a good gun, after having one shooter shoot   
   JFK from the TSBD using that gun, a lot cheaper than what you are suggesting   
   occurred — multiple shooters, body alteration, evidence planting and   
   swapping, film alteration,    
   intimidating witnesses, etc.?   
      
      
   > > These are the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no   
   sense. And that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.   
   > It makes no sense to you, of course.   
      
   Because you can't explain your thinking here, of course. Explain your thinking   
   about why they chose to do everything the hard way instead of the easy way —   
   and the more expensive way instead of the cheap way.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)