Parnell Vs Armstrong Bill Brown et al, Can applied tech resolve Who Shot Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Correct.

That is exactly what he would do.  You're spot on, Richard (like always).

Stop exposing your paranoia

[W. Tracy Parnell]

What happened to Oswald's teeth? There are cells in the pulp. Also calcified plaque, tartar, contains DNA. It has been recovered in Neanderthal remains.

Reburied after the exhumation as far as I know.

[Gerry Down]

Reburied after the exhumation as far as I know.

Oswalds teeth and Jack Rubys mothers teeth would make a nice collection. The 6th floor museum would probably do a video on it.

[Richard Smith]

Try it and see what happens. If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it.

Accept what? 

[Martin Weidmann]

Accept what?

What part of "If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it." do you not understand?

[John Iacoletti]

I would too, if it was done by a disinterested party in a double-blind fashion.  Same with DNA on the rifle or the shells, etc.  Right now all we have are similar fibers and a partial palmprint on an index card.

[Richard Smith]

What part of "If there is a match I'll be the first to accept it." do you not understand?

You are so dishonest and biased it could mean anything.  There is already overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt in the murder of Tippit.  And yet you do not "accept it" but suggest that evidence is the product of fakery and mistaken identity in a wildly improbable series of events that all just happen to point to Oswald's guilt.  Why would DNA evidence be any different?  So why not just state what you you mean by "accept it" in this context?  Why the reluctance if it is so apparent?