Will we ever know what really happened?

[Walt Cakebread]

Also...people will believe what they want to believe.
I just think there was and still is definitely a cover-up and there never was a genuine investigation.

"I just think there was and still is definitely a cover-up and there never was a genuine investigation."

I believe you're right....The sham investigation was nothing more than a gathering of the evidence so that evidence could be destroyed or discredited.....

[Rob Caprio]

We won't know every last detail. Some things are unknowable.

What we can say, based on the evidence, is that Saint Patsy murdered two people on 11/22/63 beyond any reasonable doubt.

There are those that will never be convinced that the accumulated evidence is genuine. In essence their position is; the evidence isn't real, therefore the case is unsolvable. It's safe to say they'll never know what happened.

Which is why the debate will go on forever.

You NEVER use the evidence. When someone uses it you call for its removal. There isn't one piece of evidence that shows LHO shot anyone.

The evidence is genuine and it shows that a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK.

The debate will go on forever because people like you deny what the evidence actually shows.

[Rob Caprio]

I understand there are psychological studies which give some insight to this.

No, there aren't.

[Nicholas Turner]

No, there aren't.

Do you mean there are no psychological studies or none that give insight?

[Dillon Rankine]

You NEVER use the evidence. When someone uses it you call for its removal. There isn't one piece of evidence that shows LHO shot anyone.

The evidence is genuine and it shows that a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK.

The debate will go on forever because people like you deny what the evidence actually shows.

Your excuse for evidence is:

-the opinion of 4 PH doctors (the minority) who thought JFK?s throat wound was an entrance
-misunderstanding of what ?occipital-parietal? means
-whatever some crackpot riftsnin their poorly worded CT tome
-thinking that the back of wound would?ve magically stopped and fell out all because one doctor put his finger in it (not a valid method)
-an unrealistic expectancy of perfection in the evidence (in your world, people never make mistakes)
-an uneducated and simplistic view of other complicated scientific issues
-blatant ignorance of all the things you don?t like (PH staff ?recalling? an impossible left temporal wound)
 

Need I go on? Point is, you?ve got nothing. You have not demonstrated the necessity of two gunmen to have caused all damage incurred during the shooting. 

[Rob Caprio]

Do you mean there are no psychological studies or none that give insight?

None that give insight as LHO was normal.

[Rob Caprio]

Your excuse for evidence is:

-the opinion of 4 PH doctors (the minority) who thought JFK?s throat wound was an entrance
-misunderstanding of what ?occipital-parietal? means
-whatever some crackpot riftsnin their poorly worded CT tome
-thinking that the back of wound would?ve magically stopped and fell out all because one doctor put his finger in it (not a valid method)
-an unrealistic expectancy of perfection in the evidence (in your world, people never make mistakes)
-an uneducated and simplistic view of other complicated scientific issues
-blatant ignorance of all the things you don?t like (PH staff ?recalling? an impossible left temporal wound)
 

Need I go on? Point is, you?ve got nothing. You have not demonstrated the necessity of two gunmen to have caused all damage incurred during the shooting.

So you are Howard Gee? Sadly for you the majority of people read the evidence the way I do. I knew that you were a LNer. I was right again.