I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Larry Trotter]

What is the timing problem of the Truly encounter?

I am not sure about what is meant by the referenced "the Truly encounter".
In any event, my reference was to the SFLRE,that has reliable evidence of occurring at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after the assassination shooting. And, that would indicate that a LGA would have left the window, hid his rifle, descended from the 6th floor, and was inside the 2nd floor lunchroom at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after firing 3 shots at the Motorcade Limousine, and, as per testimony, was not out of breath when encountered. So, as stated, for me a timing problem exists.

[Rob Caprio]

The evidence that changed his mind was provided by the HSCA as my review indicates. It consisted of the authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays, the forensic pathology panel, the photographic panel, the study of ?earwitnesses?, the handwriting and fingerprint analysis, the Mannlicher-Carcano firing tests and the firearms panel. It is too voluminous to cite here and you are presumably familiar with it anyway.

But you can't cite anything in particular. I wonder why? If it is so convincing that the author stopped being a "freak" over it I would think he would (or you on his behalf since you seem to be his spokesperson) have no problem citing it, but alas, he does.

[Nicholas Turner]

I am not sure about what is meant by the referenced "the Truly encounter".
In any event, my reference was to the SFLRE,that has reliable evidence of occurring at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after the assassination shooting. And, that would indicate that a LGA would have left the window, hid his rifle, descended from the 6th floor, and was inside the 2nd floor lunchroom at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after firing 3 shots at the Motorcade Limousine, and, as per testimony, was not out of breath when encountered. So, as stated, for me a timing problem exists.

Why is that a problem? I've seen a reconstruction where it was shown to be easily possible. On what do you base your concerns?

[Nicholas Turner]

Don't worry Nicholas, Rob just enjoys saying there is no supporting evidence. He thinks if he repeats that often enough, it will become a fact. As you know, the reality is that we have the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits from the WC, the HSCA report and volumes, several books such as Reclaiming History and websites such as John McAdams' and David Von Pein. All of these lay out the case for LHO as a lone assassin.

Now, if Rob wants to disagree with all of this that is fine. If he wants to say there are certain things in the original material that actually argue against the LN theory, that is fine (and quite true). However, to say there is NO supporting evidence is just nonsense and hyperbole on his part. And before he starts, no I don't want to waste my time debating someone like him who is working from such a silly position-I have better things to do.

Thanks. Sounds about right to me.

[Rob Caprio]

Thanks. Sounds about right to me.

Of course it sounds right to you as it allows you to avoid citing evidence. No surprise there.

[Tom Scully]

So when I asked if you could put it more simply for me the answer was no. Oh well.

My posts are well documented, well supported, reliable reference material....an actual forum resource.

Your posts are supported by the WC Report, Posner, Max Holland, et al. I am no more enlightened than I am
before reading your posts.

I've made an extremely well documented argument that Garrison did not actually support the work of Joan
Mellen or even of the editor of Garrison's own auto-biography, Zachary Sklar, the co-author of the screenplay
of JFK, the movie.


So, the legitimate question of an earnest, reasonably curious individual is, what did Garrison actually support
and who was he really doing the bidding of?



Was Garrison's actual purpose to make the prospects of renewed
federal JFK Assassination investigation look ridiculous? The demands for renewed federal investigation of 1966-67
were neutralized until the Senate Church Committee, more than seven years later.

Kerry Thornley, under oath, in his own words.:
Page 68 of 96 :
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Thornley.pdf


Kerry Thornley claimed Clint Bolton changed his life, in the spring of 1963.:
Page 16 of 51:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Thornley%20Kerry%201976%20Affidavit/Item%2003.pdf

[Nicholas Turner]

So, the legitimate question of an earnest, reasonably curious individual is, what did Garrison actually support and who was he really doing the bidding of?

Okay. So you have put your point - or raised your question - simply and clearly in the end. My question is what does this have to do with my post, since you initially posted this a a reply to me? Can you explain please?

[Larry Trotter]

I am not sure about what is meant by the referenced "the Truly encounter".
In any event, my reference was to the SFLRE,that has reliable evidence of occurring at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after the assassination shooting. And, that would indicate that a LGA would have left the window, hid his rifle, descended from the 6th floor, and was inside the 2nd floor lunchroom at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after firing 3 shots at the Motorcade Limousine, and, as per testimony, was not out of breath when encountered. So, as stated, for me a timing problem exists.

Why is that a problem? I've seen a reconstruction where it was shown to be easily possible. On what do you base your concerns?

A reconstruction? Involving whom? Did LHO participate? And based on what? An eyewitness? When did LHO arrive in the lunchroom? When was his last visit to the Men's Room?
Easily possible does not equate to proof positive, and I stand by my conclusion about said timing.