I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Rob Caprio]

Ok, we are making progress. First, admit that there was only a lone assassin. Then, we can move on to discuss Oswald.

We are not making progress as you fail to understand what I wrote. I did NOT claim/say that there was only one shooter, but rather said even IF the HSCA tests did what *you* claim (show that there was only one person involved) it doesn't prove that it was LHO.

Furthermore, one shooter does NOT preclude a conspiracy from taking place.

[Fred Litwin]

We are not making progress as you fail to understand what I wrote. I did NOT claim/say that there was only one shooter, but rather said even IF the HSCA tests did what *you* claim (show that there was only one person involved) it doesn't prove that it was LHO.

Furthermore, one shooter does NOT prohibit a conspiracy from taking place.

I understand perfectly what you wrote. But, let's admit there was one gunman, and that that was proved by the HSCA, and then we can tackle Lee
Harvey Oswald and his guilt as the lone assassin.

[John Iacoletti]

I understand perfectly what you wrote. But, let's admit there was one gunman, and that that was proved by the HSCA,

Again, HOW?

[Steve Howsley]

I understand perfectly what you wrote. But, let's admit there was one gunman, and that that was proved by the HSCA, and then we can tackle Lee
Harvey Oswald and his guilt as the lone assassin.

Fred, You won't even get most of these jokers to agree that Oswald was in any way knowingly involved in the assassination. Some of them might eventually agree that Oswald played an innocent role such as agreeing to bring his gun to work that day but they still won't place him with it in his hands at 12.30.

Too much has been invested by some in their own sense of self esteem to concede anything that points to Oswald as a conspirator let alone the actual trigger puller. You only have read the ridiculous stuff thrown around to undermine the simple sequence of events involving Brewer and the Texas Theater. Much of that was a series of wilful distractions to desperately avoid the truth that Oswald pulled a weapon when challenged.

The notion of beyond reasonable doubt is not the measure around here. Here it has to be 100% iron-plated or it's trashed as worthless. It's like they deny the existence of the moon and claim that it's just a large illuminated ball dragged across the sky each night at a height of 30 miles. When you explain that NASA has sent many missions to the moon a devout CT says NASA can't be trusted. When you point out the tides as evidence they claim that the earth is flat and that daily tilts of the earth resting on the back of a tortoise results in a rush of water from one side to the other.
 

[John Iacoletti]

Fred, You won't even get most of these jokers to agree that Oswald was in any way knowingly involved in the assassination. Some of them might eventually agree that Oswald played an innocent role such as agreeing to bring his gun to work that day but they still won't place him with it in his hands at 12.30.

All it takes is evidence.  Real evidence, not "the HSCA proved it", or "he left his wedding ring behind".

Too much has been invested by some in their own sense of self esteem to concede anything that points to Oswald as a conspirator let alone the actual trigger puller. You only have read the ridiculous stuff thrown around to undermine the simple sequence of events involving Brewer and the Texas Theater. Much of that was a series of wilful distractions to desperately avoid the truth that Oswald pulled a weapon when challenged.

Typical LN BS.  There is ZERO evidence that Oswald "pulled a weapon".  And yet, you refer to that as "truth".

The notion of beyond reasonable doubt is not the measure around here.

For me, it's reasonable doubt.  And it's everywhere you look in this case.

Here it has to be 100% iron-plated or it's trashed as worthless. It's like they deny the existence of the moon and claim that it's just a large illuminated ball dragged across the sky each night at a height of 30 miles. When you explain that NASA has sent many missions to the moon a devout CT says NASA can't be trusted. When you point out the tides as evidence they claim that the earth is flat and that daily tilts of the earth resting on the back of a tortoise results in a rush of water from one side to the other.

Strawman and false equivalence.

[Rob Caprio]

I understand perfectly what you wrote. But, let's admit there was one gunman, and that that was proved by the HSCA, and then we can tackle Lee
Harvey Oswald and his guilt as the lone assassin.

Why would I admit something that was not supported let alone proven? The HSCA, like the WC, did NOT prove anything. So your way of getting to LHO is just to ignore all the evidence and act like the HSCA proved something when they didn't?

Yeah, that is not going to work.

[Fred Litwin]

Why would I admit something that was not supported let alone proven? The HSCA, like the WC, did NOT prove anything. So your way of getting to LHO is just to ignore all the evidence and act like the HSCA proved something when they didn't?

Yeah, that is not going to work.

Of course, for you it is not going to work. There is nothing that would work with you. For instance, the best forensic pathology experts in the world all agreed that
Kennedy was shot from behind. That means nothing to you. The best experts authenticated the autopsy x-rays and photogrpahs. That probably means nothing to you. We now
have excellent trajectory diagrams that show Kennedy and Connally were aligned for a shot from the TSBD. That probably means nothing to you. It is not I who is impervious to
the evidence. It is you.

[Jerry Freeman]

It looks like if there is nothing new in this book.. why should anyone buy it?
 Or has that been asked already?