Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was Lee Harvey Oswald

[OrwellwasRight]

133. I don't think you understand my use of the term "legitimate researcher"

And I don't think I have to debunk the notion that just because you can google something on the internet = proof the idea is supported by legitimate researchers, including researchers who have spent many years on the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Question.

If I don't have to debunk it, that means I assume we all agree that we don't subscribe to the theory. And what theory do we not subscribe to? The theory that just because you can google something, that is proof that the idea is supported by legitimate researchers.

My whole point was in response to the other poster's proposition that most who don't believe that Oswald was a lone gunman also don't believe Oswald had any relation to the shooting at all. That has not been my experience in the books I have read, films I have seen, or lectures I have attended. So that was the sole meaning of my use of the term. I meant nothing additional, and if you inferred otherwise, you were mistaken.

It follows then, that I never said whether I thought David Lifton was a legitimate researcher or not. However, I found his book well researched and reasoned. When you write a book as thorough and with as many footnotes, send it to me. I'll read it and give you my opinion. Until then I find your opinion that his theory is farfetched unconvincing, though I have no problem with you holding it. It is none of my concern.

As I have already said numerous times, I don't expect the lone gunman subscribers to change their minds, and I am not trying to make them do so. Nor do I expect to change my mind, particularly not with such convincing arguments as "I've met David Lifton and find his theories far fetched."