and that's where we differ. I'm sorry Lindy but interviews do not equal scientific evidence. Your statement "Looking at "evidence" you probably would never see." says it all. If you have solid evidence then why aren't we seeing it? Why must it always have this mystery about it, be hidden away in some secret government archive that's not accessible by anyone other than the person telling the tale?

A noted brain surgeon that came up with some radical new theory but had no evidence other than his career and experience and interviews with other people has no more credibility than a bus driver on the subject. If he begins to show you images, notes on experimental data, graphs of tests with control subjects, etc. then you have a point.

But damnit girl, some astronaut telling you he saw something strange while in space has zero value from the definition of scientific evidence. It's a nice and possibly compelling story until he presents the control panel from the UFO he observed or shows us his new flying car he built with the technology he gained from the downed craft in Roswell.

What you are confusing is the concept of evidence as applied to a court of law and evidence as required by the scientific process. Science has no concept of "reasonable doubt". Testimony of eyewitnesses is perfectly legal and unfortunately gets innocent people thrown behind bars and even killed when human eyes and memory fail and people see what they want to see.

The majority of the people that post on here come more from that science background than the law environment and you better have a thick skin if all you can present is circumstantial evidence on this subject no matter how much volume you can create.

It's why nobody still knows who killed Kennedy and who didn't. I have theories on it but solid evidence is tough to come by. Everything that points to Oswald is circumstantial although Vincent Bugliosi is convinced from a law point of view that there's enough volume of that form of evidence to prove he's the lone gunman. However, I've seen an equal amount of circumstantial evidence that shows he couldn't have acted alone including a recent video showing Secret Service agents acting in utter amazement as they're being called off their normal positions just before the limousine swung into Dealey Plaza. That video floored me. Why it took so many years for us to see it blows me away. Still Lindy, from a scientific standard none of any of that matters. You'd almost have to do a real test killing one man and wounding another with the exact wounds by a lone shooter from that window to prove Oswald did it alone and there'd still be doubt.

And give me a break, telling me that there's no guarantee of profit when one begins research and starts writing a book. Do you ever watch American Idol and see the huge number of no-talent hacks that are willing to prostitute and embarrass themselves in front of millions for the 5 minutes of fame? Humans crave attention even if the odds that attention will not pan out are a million to one.

You do not bring up the topic to engage. You bring it up to convince so please stop that line. I don't know anyone on here that doesn't see through it. If I'm wrong someone please come to her defense.

We still agree on so much Lindy but you lose me on all this stuff.

Art