I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[Nicholas Turner]

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

[Nicholas Turner]

Nothing is more outlandish than the SBT. I am not sure what evidence you are referring to since you have never cited it, but none of it supports the WC's claims.

The evidence doesn't support the WC's claims. My series shows this. Why does an UNSUPPORTED theory make the most sense to you? I really am curious.

We've been here before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

We've been her before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.

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.

[Rob Caprio]

We've been her before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.

I am not trying to convince you either, but a person who believes in something should have no problem citing or naming the evidence or things that make them believe that way. You seem to be unable to, thus, you are most likely going on faith. For whatever reason you choose to believe that LHO did it alone. That is fine, but you can't expect others to just go along with you.

So you are just here to question those that are brave enough to actually cite the evidence unlike yourself. Got it.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Nicholas, and you, should be worried as none of the evidence that you *mentioned* (and of course not cited) supports the claims of the WC. NONE. That is why the LNers have a phobia about citing it.

Heck, I couldn't even get the creator of this thread to cite one piece of evidence that caused his supposed conversion.

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.

And you, and the other LNers, prove my point every time you run from citing the evidence. Only people who realize that the evidence does NOT support the WC claims would display an aversion to citing it. For if it really did support their claims I am quite sure that you wouldn't stop citing it.

Thanks for proving my point.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Heck, I couldn't even get the creator of this thread to cite one piece of evidence that caused his supposed conversion.

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Yes, they all lay out a case.  But it's a case based on speculation and rhetoric.

[John Iacoletti]

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,

...which tell you nothing about who did the shooting.

the forensic pathology panel,

...which tells you nothing about who did the shooting.

the photographic panel,

...which tells you nothing about who did the shooting.

the study of ?earwitnesses?,

...which tells you nothing about who did the shooting.

the handwriting and fingerprint analysis,

...which tell you nothing about who did the shooting.

the Mannlicher-Carcano firing tests

...which tell you nothing about who did the shooting.

and the firearms panel.

...which tell you nothing about who did the shooting.