I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[John Iacoletti]

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.

No we don't "have excellent trajectory diagrams that show Kennedy and Connally were aligned for a shot from the TSBD".  We have diagrams that were created with the assumption that they were hit by a single shot from the TSBD, and using cherry-picked wound locations the bodies were moved around in the car until it (sort of) fit.  Too bad Connally had to be moved over to the left so far that he was halfway off his seat.

But still, how do you get from any of this to Oswald?

[John Iacoletti]

Of course that is all you find here. You're on a forum of conspiracy freaks. I doubt you've read Bugliosi's book, or have read the HSCA volumes of evidence, or have read JFK Myths by Larry SPersonivan.

None of which demonstrate that Oswald killed JFK.

[Rob Caprio]

Get real, you aren't Oswald's defence lawyer! Hahahahahaha!

This Forum is named JFKASSASSINATIONFORUM for a reason, we are here to find out who killed JFK and all you want to do is play games.

JohnM

This was said by the head game-player here. LOL. No one has to provide an alternate theory. You have to provide supporting evidence for the WC's conclusion since you support it. Well?

[Rob Caprio]

Of course that is all you find here. You're on a forum of conspiracy freaks. I doubt you've read Bugliosi's book, or have read the HSCA volumes of evidence, or have read JFK Myths by Larry SPersonivan. But, I am sure you've read lots and lots of crazy conspiracy books.

I would posit that there are more LNers on here than CTers. They are easy to spot as they never cite any evidence for either their claims or those made by the WC.

Why are people who support a conspiracy, which has a lot of supporting evidence, "freaks", but those that support a theory with NO supporting evidence normal? Is it normal to support things that have have NO supporting evidence? I don't think so.

What is Bugliosi's book going to show us that the evidence doesn't? You have yet to cite one piece of evidence. Why?

[Fred Litwin]

I would posit that there are more LNers on here than CTers. They are easy to spot as they never cite any evidence for either their claims or those made by the WC.

Why are people who support a conspiracy, which has a lot of supporting evidence, "freaks", but those that support a theory with NO supporting evidence normal? Is it normal to support things that have have NO supporting evidence? I don't think so.

What is Bugliosi's book going to show us that the evidence doesn't? You have yet to cite one piece of evidence. Why?

I've cited a lot of evidence. You just don't like it. Take the forensic pathology panel of the HSCA. The best forensic pathologists of the United States agreed that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind. Or how about all the other forensic pathologists who have examined the autopsy x-rays and photographs. They also agree that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind.

[Rob Caprio]

I've cited a lot of evidence. You just don't like it. Take the forensic pathology panel of the HSCA. The best forensic pathologists of the United States agreed that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind. Or how about all the other forensic pathologists who have examined the autopsy x-rays and photographs. They also agree that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind.

As a reporter and author you should understand what constitutes a cite. You have made vague references to things, but you have NOT cited any evidence. All LNers are allergic to the actual evidence since it doesn't support their claims.

Your points are very weak since no one on the HSCA panel saw JFK's body. Furthermore, the autopsy X-rays and photographs have never been shown to be authentic and a true depiction of the wounds seen on JFK's body. Moreover, they are in direct conflict to the wounds actually observed by those that did see JFK's body after the assassination.

[John Iacoletti]

I've cited a lot of evidence. You just don't like it. Take the forensic pathology panel of the HSCA. The best forensic pathologists of the United States agreed that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind. Or how about all the other forensic pathologists who have examined the autopsy x-rays and photographs. They also agree that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind.

How does that tell you who the shooter was?

[Fred Litwin]

As a reporter and author you should understand what constitutes a cite. You have made vague references to things, but you have NOT cited any evidence. All LNers are allergic to the actual evidence since it doesn't support their claims.

Your points are very weak since no one on the HSCA panel saw JFK's body. Furthermore, the autopsy X-rays and photographs have never been shown to be authentic and a true depiction of the wounds seen on JFK's body. Moreover, they are in direct conflict to the wounds actually observed by those that did see JFK's body after the assassination.

The autopsy X-Rays and photographs were authenticated.

See:

HSCA Volume VI, page 232 - anthropological analysis
                          [age 239  - analysis of x-rays

Proves that the x-rays and photographs are those of JFK

Volume VII, page 43:  Report of Ellis Kerly, Phd, and Clyde Snow, Phd. anthopological consultants

Volume VII, page 63:  Report of Lowell Levine, DDS, on dential identification

Volume VII, page 69 - Report of Frank Scott, medical photographer on the authenticity of the color photographs.