I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Fred Litwin]

The Lopez Report shows that LHO (the man gunned down in Dallas) was not in Mexico City. Gaeton Fonzi's work shows that their was a conspiracy.  Richard Sprague's book ("The Taking Of America...1, 2, 3") shows that it was a conspiracy. Henry Gonzalez, who served on the HSCA for a time thought that it was a conspiracy. Ditto Richard Schweiker.

One of the men closest to LHO, George de Mohrenschildt, thought a conspiracy was involved. Robert Blakey always felt that the mob was involved, thus, he thought that it was a conspiracy.

I don't read books that do not reflect what the evidence actually shows.

Lots of people believe there was a conspiracy. Lots of people believe in flying saucers. That doesn't make it true. The Lopez Report shows no such thing. Fonzi's book is full of allegations but no proof of anything; Richard Sprague was a complete crackpot, etc. and etc. De Mohrenschildt even suspected that Oswald had taken a shot at Walker, and of course, Oswald gave him one of the backyard photos. He later became quite mentally disturbed - just read Willem Oltmans book to see just how disturbed he was.

Hey, read what you want. But, if you find evidence of conspiracy, just post it.

[Rob Caprio]

Lots of people believe there was a conspiracy. Lots of people believe in flying saucers. That doesn't make it true. The Lopez Report shows no such thing. Fonzi's book is full of allegations but no proof of anything; Richard Sprague was a complete crackpot, etc. and etc. De Mohrenschildt even suspected that Oswald had taken a shot at Walker, and of course, Oswald gave him one of the backyard photos. He later became quite mentally disturbed - just read Willem Oltmans book to see just how disturbed he was.

Hey, read what you want. But, if you find evidence of conspiracy, just post it.

So you basically have NO supporting evidence for your conversion and belief. It is ironic that LNers endorse a theory with NO supporting evidence, but do not tolerate this from any other source.

Your opinion on other researchers is just that -- your opinion. The Lopez Report was locked away for years for a reason. The WCR and HSCAR are full of allegations, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Why?

LNers, new or old, are always shifting the burden. You are the one that started this thread proclaiming your conversion from CT to LN, but then you have refused to cite one piece of evidence for this conversion. So be it, but don't shift the burden to me.

[Steve Howsley]

... in my book.

Fred, I've just now purchased the kindle version from Amazon Australia. I first download the free sample, read that straight away then couldn't resist and immediately bought your book.

Once I've finished Jim Marrs' 'Crossfire' (pretty entertaining so far) I'll start on your book.

I too as a kid leaned toward CTs but once exposed to quality literature and access to the complete WC and HSC documents I changed. Thank goodness for the internet. 

[John Iacoletti]

Proof that Oswald killed Kennedy. Just read the volumes of evidence that the HSCA published. It's all pretty incriminating!

I have, and it isn't.  Care to try again?

[Fred Litwin]

I have, and it isn't.  Care to try again?

Not really. If that didn't convince you, I doubt there is ANYTHING I can say that will. And, I can
live with that.

[John Iacoletti]

Not really. If that didn't convince you, I doubt there is ANYTHING I can say that will. And, I can
live with that.

What is so convincing about "read the HSCA"?  There must be some reason you thought that their evidence pointed to Oswald as the murderer.  Or is it just a giant appeal to authority?  That's what they concluded, so it must be true?  Is your book just 272 pages of "the HSCA thought so"?

All one has to do is read the hearings and exhibits of the WC and the HSCA to realize that the conclusions are actually not supported by the underlying evidence.  They are just a bait and switch.

[Fred Litwin]

What is so convincing about "read the HSCA"?  There must be some reason you thought that their evidence pointed to Oswald as the murderer.  Or is it just a giant appeal to authority?  That's what they concluded, so it must be true?  Is your book just 272 pages of "the HSCA thought so"?

All one has to do is read the hearings and exhibits of the WC and the HSCA to realize that the conclusions are actually not supported by the underlying evidence.  They are just a bait and switch.

Read my book and you will see. I find it hard to just tell you a few things and debate them. There's a reason why I wrote an entire book. Look, just as one example, as Paul Hoch has written - the HSCA "took a stab at the tests the critics wanted - not completely, and not perfectly, but we expected that any one of the tests would demolish the WC reconstruction - neutron activation analysis, trajectory analysis. And they didn't."

That's an important sentence. And, yes, I know all about what has been said about neutron activation analysis. But, he's right. It's amazing at how all the tests support a lone gunman.

But, read my book. I challenge you (even though I know you won't).

[John Iacoletti]

That's an important sentence. And, yes, I know all about what has been said about neutron activation analysis. But, he's right. It's amazing at how all the tests support a lone gunman.

What's amazing is how you leap from neutron activation analysis and trajectory analysis to "Oswald did it".

But, read my book. I challenge you (even though I know you won't).

I realize you're just here to sell books, but I'm not going to waste $16.99 (or even $9.99) without knowing how you made that leap.  Sorry, there are plenty of books that go beyond "the HSCA said it, I believe it, and that settles it".