Oswald's High School

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Why do I have to "endorse" any of them to consider that they may be accurate? Why do you endorse a theory that has NO supporting evidence behind it?

We're in the same boat then. I think that LHO acted alone (which you say has no supporting evidence) and that is the best current theory. It may or may not be correct but I have seen no specific alternate explanation. You think the 2 Oswald theories may be correct even though all they do is point out discrepancies in the record. BTW, the 1981 exhumation debunked the Eddowes theory and I believe all the other theories are similar and therefore debunked as well.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I can't since a LNer here had me banned. The odd thing is that LNer's name appeared no where on the forum.

OK, sorry to hear that.

[Matt Grantham]

EF is the best place to find the fantasy world of Hardly Lee.  It's so hilarious that the fantasists there invented an even crazier and funnier story about how missing teeth proves that there were two Oswalds. If you can believe it - and sadly it does appear even people on this forum believe in this nonsense - the crazy story actually gets to a dramatic conclusion that skulls were switched in Oswald's coffin years later but *before* the 1980's exhumation took place. HAHAHA! As if the Bad Guys knew exactly when to switch the skulls for the dramatic reveal.

And it's the usual cast of characters over there saying "Wow, good job!" and "OMG, amazing evidence!" - Larsen, Josephs, Hargrove et al.

Seriously, is it any wonder why folks dismiss the conspiracy community with the wave of a hand and an eye roll?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/?tab=comments#comment-369326

 Michael interesting that you seem to be indicating that  those who investigate a  given subject is equivalent to those individuals having formed a final conclusion of some sort that you feel is worthy of ridicule  How would you know what people believe in without asking them? Better yet you could actually ask what degree of certainty or attachment to some final conclusion of said topic these individuals actually express especially when said conclusion seems to open the gates for your ridicule.

[Michael Walton]

We know your opinion by now. If you are a true CTer you should be spending the majority of your time showing that the official theory has NO supporting evidence.

This subject doesn't make or break the idea of a conspiracy being involved in the assassination of JFK.

What many people who consider themselves researchers of this case fail to understand is that there was no huge convergence of cloned assassins and body alteration and faked films. If you took the time to read my other posts elsewhere, I am a CTer. But all of the puffed up and silly "theories" regarding how it took place go beyond the realm of plausibility.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim Marrs said that the casket LHO was buried showed signs of it having been opened prior to the exhuming in 1981. Is this correct?

No. It showed signs of damage caused by water from a cracked vault. I looked into the exhumation years ago and despite the claims of some theorists there was nothing untoward going on. Here is my page on that:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/xindex.htm

[Steve Howsley]

I can't since a LNer here had me banned. The odd thing is that LNer's name appeared no where on the forum.

Are you saying that you can't read post at the EF because you've been barred?

I read posts there every second day or so and I've not signed up as a member. Why can't you read there as a guest?

[Matt Grantham]

I am a CTer.

 We have seen this from you several times Maybe fill us in on what part of a conspiracy theory you are aligned with?