J
What did I tell you? You are totally predictable. Do you know what the words invalid mean? Let's not play games. The theory about acoustic evidence suggesting a second gunman is false. Move on. Say it is a false theory. Say it.
You absolutely do not want to state what you believe happened that day, do you? You can't defend it. You nuts are all identical. I printed proof that your theory is false and you return here to ask if most of your false theory is correct, yes or no? What is wrong with you? It was a motorcycle cops mic you were depending on to try to muddy the waters and suggest a crackling noise was a gunshot. All of that is invalidated and false. Even the motorcycle cop said so. It didn't fit what happened. The timing to the shooting was wrong. Just read the evidence and see for yourself. If you are seeking the truth, and you discover the truth is different than you once thought, that's ok, you can learn something here and move on. But you refuse to accept the truth and prefer to embrace the conspiracy lie.
Again, what do you think happened?
You absolutely do not want to state what you believe happened that day, do you? You can't defend it. You nuts are all identical. I printed proof that your theory is false and you return here to ask if most of your false theory is correct, yes or no? What is wrong with you? It was a motorcycle cops mic you were depending on to try to muddy the waters and suggest a crackling noise was a gunshot. All of that is invalidated and false. Even the motorcycle cop said so. It didn't fit what happened. The timing to the shooting was wrong. Just read the evidence and see for yourself. If you are seeking the truth, and you discover the truth is different than you once thought, that's ok, you can learn something here and move on. But you refuse to accept the truth and prefer to embrace the conspiracy lie.
Again, what do you think happened?
That's the point I was making.