Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[Rob Caprio]

You got it, the WC did. They've already said their peace, and you can take it up against them if you so desire.  But this isn't about a specific claim the WC made, it's about a specific claim that you made. You made that claim, and claimed you proved it, but refuse to back up your assertions.  I wouldn't have all that big of a deal with it, except you have such a habit of whining about everyone else not supporting their claims. Sauce for the goose, Rob

What a lame response. It has everything to do with the WC's claim that YOU support. Why can't you show that CE 573 is relevant as claimed?

This is a classic example of shifting the burden that LNers employ constantly to cover for the fact that they have NO supporting evidence for the WC's claims they support wholeheartedly.

[Rob Caprio]

I figure if that were really true, Rob would have already said that when he replied to Chapman.

So you can show that CE 573 is relevant in the EAW shooting?

[Rob Caprio]

Who said that "he turns were an excuse for why the motorcade didn't speed up?" I mean, other than you?

Where have you been? That has been the excuse for LNers for a long time. You are still having trouble showing that those two turns were necessary, aren't you?

[Walt Cakebread]

Where have you been? That has been the excuse for LNers for a long time. You are still having trouble showing that those two turns were necessary, aren't you?

Rob, Can't you see that Lee was involved in the Walker hoax?     How much evidence do you need to convince you that the Walker incident was nothing but a hoax....And Lee Oswald was involved...

[John Iacoletti]

Rob, Can't you see that Lee was involved in the Walker hoax?     How much evidence do you need to convince you that the Walker incident was nothing but a hoax....And Lee Oswald was involved...

How about any whatsoever?

[Mitch Todd]

Where have you been? That has been the excuse for LNers for a long time. You are still having trouble showing that those two turns were necessary, aren't you?

Where have we been? Well, we've been here all along! Waiting, (with baited breath, even!) for you to reveal how "the turns were an excuse for why the motorcade didn't speed up?"  How fast would have the limousine been going had it continued on Elm? Or do you really not know?

[Mitch Todd]

So you can show that CE 573 is relevant in the EAW shooting?

You're the guy who's been asserting that there's "NO chain of custody for it." That's a very specific claim. And the burden of proof for it is your burden.

[Mitch Todd]

What a lame response. It has everything to do with the WC's claim that YOU support. Why can't you show that CE 573 is relevant as claimed?

This is a classic example of shifting the burden that LNers employ constantly to cover for the fact that they have NO supporting evidence for the WC's claims they support wholeheartedly.

Did I ever say that CE 573 "was relevant"?