I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Bill Chapman]

You are definately right.

Nevertheless, it's important to take even the nuttiest conspiracy-mongers to task

[Rob Caprio]

You haven't quoted more than four doctors who say the autopsy x-rays and photographs do NOT agree with what they saw. I have quoted four doctors who say that the autopsy x-rays and photos DO agree with what they saw. I am not "basically saying that wounds are not assesed until the person dies."  Those are your words. What I am saying is that the dallas doctors were frantically trying to save Kennedy's life. They did not turn his body over and they did not see his back wound. They were not measuring wounds. They were extremely busy with his IV drips and the tracheotomy, etc. And they didn't have much time and it was over. As for the head, yes, his head was a mess of bone, brain tissue, blood and hair. It was a mess. They did not do an examination.

There are issues with human memory, And that is why all the witnesses in Dallas say different things about what they witnessed. And that was shown earlier in this thread with the various pictures of where those witnesses place the head wound.

You refuse,for some reason, to read the authentication reports on the autopsy X-rays and photographs. It appears you are unfamiliar with the HSCA volumes of evidence. So, I will ask once again. Have you read the authentication reports that I cited earlier?

Unless the extant X-rays and photographs depict a massive wound in the right rear of JFK's head then they are NOT authentic based on way more than four doctors.

When are you going to show that the extant X-rays and photographs depict the wounds seen on November 22, 1963, by many witnesses?

When will you provide supporting evidence for what you claim they didn't do at PH? When will you explain how someone can put pressure on the wound without looking at the wound?

You keep claiming that I haven't read something when you have no way of knowing, but you seem to make a lot of claims about things you couldn't know about.

[Rob Caprio]

You are definately right.

Taking advice from that poster is another huge demerit against you. No one on the internet takes him seriously.

[Ray Mitcham]

You are definately [sic] right.

I hope your book doesn't have the same standard of spelling, Fred.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I hope your book doesn't have the same standard of spelling, Fred.

The book is extremely well written and I found no errors-spelling or otherwise.

[Rob Caprio]

The book is extremely well written and I found no errors-spelling or otherwise.

Except for the premise which has no supporting evidence of course.

[John Iacoletti]

Nevertheless, it's important to take even the nuttiest conspiracy-mongers to task

This is now the third time Bill has posted this nutty video and has completely ignored all previous replies.

Never fear, he will ignore it again and probably just tell the Jim Garrison pearly gates joke one more time.

Great job pasting that Youtube link Bill!  That's some impressive research.

As for the actual video.  That's 6 minutes of life that nobody will ever get back.  Here we see a guy named Steve Shives use the usual LN tactic of argument by appeal to ridicule, without ever actually addressing any reasons for believing the narrative.

His "5 Stupid things":

1. The endless list of potential suspects

This is the usual strawman that says that every CT believes every conjecture that has ever been brought forth.  As an amusing aside he talks here about preferring the "explanation that requires the fewest assumptions" as if the WC explanation isn't absolutely loaded with assumptions.

2.  The equally endless list of possible motives

As opposed to the WC's lack of any motive.

3. The lack of a coherent counter-narrative

As opposed to the WC's lack of a coherent narrative to begin with.

4. They attract people who aren't normally conspiracy theorists

I'm not sure why he considers this "stupid".  But this may have something to do with this case being nothing like conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax or Bigfoot, despite some LNers' best attempts to paint them with the same brush to avoid actually talking about the evidence.

5. They combine to form the perfect storm of conspiracy theories

Also not about anything stupid.  I think Steve lost his train of thought halfway though the video.  Here he shows a cute graphic with JFK's picture and the quote "Ask not what the evidence says happened.  Ask what sounds good to you".  Which in fact describes perfectly how the WC came to their conclusion.

Nice try, but a giant fail on multiple levels.

[Paul May]

Nobody on the Internet?  Really?  And yet it?s YOU was was thrown off the ED Forum for stealing the identity of another person.  It?s YOU who refuses to debate LIVE for anybody on the internet to watch.  It is YOU who runs and hides EVERY time. So, with all reading this posting, I again CHALLENGE you to debate this case live on line.  Yes or no coward?