I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak (new book)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Straw man alert. They are filled with so-called evidence, but that is not the same as supporting evidence. You know this and that is why you avoid citing any of it.

Well, at least you admit there are book and they have information in them. A step in the right direction. Now what do you want me to cite?

[Rob Caprio]

Well, at least you admit there are book and they have information in them. A step in the right direction. Now what do you want me to cite?

I never said that there wasnt anything in them. I said there is no supporting evidence in them. I want you to cite supporting evidence for the WC's claims.

I wanted the author of this thread to cite the evidence that caused him to alter his outlook on the case.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I never said that there wasnt anything in them. I said there is no supporting evidence in them. I want you to cite supporting evidence for the WC's claims.

I wanted the author of this thread to cite the evidence that caused him to alter his outlook on the case.

OK, I'll leave that for Fred, but I think he would say it wasn't any one specific thing, rather many things that when added together caused his change of thought.

[Fred Litwin]

I never said that there wasnt anything in them. I said there is no supporting evidence in them. I want you to cite supporting evidence for the WC's claims.

I wanted the author of this thread to cite the evidence that caused him to alter his outlook on the case.

All you have to do is to read the HSCA supporting volumes of evidence. As Paul Hoch noted in one of his newsletters (I am paraphrasing here) - the HSCA did a lot of scientific
tests, and any one of them could have refuted the Warren Commission, and they didn't. Read the reports of the various panels on the HSCA - forensic, ballistics, photographic, etc. and
the evidence all supports Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman.

[Rob Caprio]

OK, I'll leave that for Fred, but I think he would say it wasn't any one specific thing, rather many things that when added together caused his change of thought.

And yet, he can't cite any of it. You can't either despite writing a glowing review for his book. Don't you think you should have given us some exhibit numbers in your review so we could check it out for ourselves?

Would a CT author be allowed to come on this board and promote a book while avoiding discussing the details of their book? I doubt it.

[Rob Caprio]

All you have to do is to read the HSCA supporting volumes of evidence. As Paul Hoch noted in one of his newsletters (I am paraphrasing here) - the HSCA did a lot of scientific
tests, and any one of them could have refuted the Warren Commission, and they didn't. Read the reports of the various panels on the HSCA - forensic, ballistics, photographic, etc. and
the evidence all supports Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman.

Why are you assuming that I haven't read them? I have and that is why I know that there is no evidence that points to LHO as a shooter. Perhaps I missed something so that is why I am asking you to cite the evidence that you found so compelling.

[Fred Litwin]

Why are you assuming that I haven't read them? I have and that is why I know that there is no evidence that points to LHO as a shooter. Perhaps I missed something so that is why I am asking you to cite the evidence that you found so compelling.

It's the exact same evidence the HSCA found so compelling.

[Martin Weidmann]

Himself. He was a cool customer as the Dallas Police and FBI observed.

Isn't it amazing how Oswald can be anything to anybody, depending on whatever is required to make a theory work?