It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did John Hinckley Jr. really shoot Reagan?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
The fact that Catcher in the Rye was found in his hotel room is highly suspect to me. If you read this page (www.lennon-chapman.com...) you'll understand the super-charged meaning the book had. Come on, the guy is pinned as legit because he wants to be both Travis Bickle AND Holden Caulfield--the two most epic, counter-culture/underground, impractically ideal and ultimately delusional characters in American art at the time--and probably still--and surrounding Hinckley is a cloud of confusion as to what really happened? It looks to me like somebody played two cards that they knew would carry enough weight. Come on, the book was just sitting in his hotel room waiting to be found? Mark David Chapman--now that guy was crazy. He was too stupid to even understand what Catcher in the Rye even means. Holden Caulfield isn't even a real character in the book. His fictional brother, a playboy writer, is the true fictional author. The point of the book being that Holden can only exist within the realm of ideas, and his idea of being a "catcher in the rye" (children play tag in a rye field while he stands on the edge of a cliff catching them if they are about to fall off) is a delusion within a delusion. But, back to Hinckley, the one thing that makes me skeptical is that right before he was about to get permission for extended periods of leave from the hospital a book on Jodie Foster was found in his room. He could just be a copycat, since that is a tendency humankind seems to have. And for a great exploration of those ideas I recommend Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (they use the ideas of Salinger and copycats simultaneously / there's also a Taxi Driver bit in the second season). But, while the conspiracy is in the spirit of planting books and ideas--why not seal the deal with another? The main problem that I have with the whole thing though, is how do you get to the point where you are able to sacrifice a human life to the cause and he goes about the whole thing silently? What did Hinckley owe to these people? The real weight of the conspiracy lies not in what happened in the skirmish with Reagan, but in the circumstances that convinced Hinckley to shut his mouth for 27 years in a highly secure hospital. Did they just pick somebody who was crazy? Even if he was crazy, they would have had to push him in his final direction in some guise other than the government because he would still have memories, and in the hospital psychologists would try to wade through those memories to understand him and help him understand himself. I mean come on, look at street gangsters. They will be die hard homies with their friends through all kinds of #, developing their celebrated warped sense of comradery, and then when one of them goes to jail they narc for time off. Are you telling me that after 27 years, Hinckley has never once snapped and tried to get out by telling the truth? And what, are so many people in on it that even the hospital workers silence him? This is such a big scandal that I think somebody in the hospital would go to the papers. I may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that if the evidence goes in the direction we are pointing, then Hinckley's prolonged situation in the hospital should not be dismissed. The conspirators could have been lucky enough to find the right man for the job, and that's why they went through with it in the first place. I'm sure if it was a conspiracy, they would not have gone through with it if this was not the case. And from that standpoint, the situation with Hinckley is like candy for the imagination.




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
when hinkley started firing,a secret service agent leaped on top of Reagan and shoved him into the back seat and covered him. When I read the accounts the next day Reagan was quoted as saying to the agent "I think you broke my rib" which could have puntured his lung, I don't believe that with a bullet in that region he could have walked from the limo into the hospital. This is just my opinion!



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
your'e an idiot. shut the # up



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Killtown
 


you're right, and i'm still trying to figure this out:
www.youtube.com...

if you watch that footage, and go exactly to 2:16 into the video, you try to freeze frame it but still cant get a clear image. you hear a man asking for a handkerchief, and at this exact point 2 minutes 16 seconds into the video, you see the camera man handing somebody the handkerchief, yet you also have a "police officer" in an orange vest extending his hand out with something in it, and dropping that right next to the man who got shot in the head. possible planted shell casing?? seems practicle, but i still dont know if hinkley used a semi auto or a revolver. semi autos eject the shell casings, so it would be perfect for the "forensic evidence" they want you to believe they had. a real assassin would have used a revolver, so he could attempt to escape with no left evidence



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Great thread OP f knows why you got banned . ..

This case is crazy , shoot Regan to impress Jodie Foster hmmmmm.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join