Hey folks. It's a pretty clear enough question isn't it? Evidence has gone missing in loads of conspiracies, so I will take the opportunity to prove
in my point of view, that missing evidence does illict a means to cover up the truth.
Lets start with some presidents, shall we?
Lincoln got his brains blown out by John Wilkes Booth on the 14th of April, 1845. That much is true, but the evidence that is missing is Booth's body
and 19 crucial pages in Booth's diary. The body is in the Hudsen river, thwaating any chance of looking at the body. The pages turned up in The
Secretary of War's possesions. Edwin Stanton was implicated in those pages, as well as many other prominant polticians of his day.
Lots of paper shredding there. From audio tapes, to documents that were "lost", lots of evidence have went missing during Nixon's reign. He
resigned in disgrace over the Watergate scandal.
The JFK conspiracy is has so much missing evidence, it's shocking. If only we could have a gander at JFK's brain, then we could see the trajectory
of the bullet, and it would all be figured out. But wait! His brain is missing! ARGHH, then perhaps the ballistic evidence will prove that the shots
were...Nope, missing as well. Well, how about Lee Harvey's military records? They are "lost" apparently.
RFK was also assassinated, by Sirhan Sirhan, who claimed that he couldn't remember anything. He drew Illumanti stuff in his notebooks, and whatever.
You may see a Manchurian Candidate, but I see a patsy for the second gunman. 8 shots were fired, and Sirhan Sirhan had a 6 shot revolver.
how you can fire 8 shots, when you only have a 6-shooter. Anyway, photographs that could've shown the second assassin, were taken by the LAPD for
"evidence", and when the photographer *name will come when I can remember* asked for his photos back, the RFK ones were missing!
This is only the beginning. Please put in some if you wish.
The apparatus must be unearthed.