his son hasn't made shit on it. nobody would publish his book so he was actually spending more money to print it on demand at kinkos for people who wanted it. He probably made some on radio shows.
It's not what he "made" its what he tried to "make". Because he hasn't made any money on it doesn't mean he didn't originally intend to. His credibility is probably in serious question.
BTW I know first hand the Kinkos thing.
Ozmo, no offense but you know the guys that latch onto every conspiracy theory like it's absolutely true. You're kind of the opposite but same, you latch on to the first convenient debunking and stand solid. Like the Chinese moon walk. You were 95% sure and then the luke came along and provided a debunking lol and you dropped that to 5% on The Luke's testimony lol... You've read 1/3 of a book on debunking JFK CTrs and watched JFK. Yet your solid. I've probably watched a hundred hours of material, and dozens of books through the years, done my own research, and it took me a while to feel pretty sure there was a conspiracy beyond just Oswald. You also seem to be locked down on not considering anything unless the evidence is 5000% proof positive no question remotely possible and it must be of the highest quality available. You really have to lighten up a bit and be open to considering a body of evidence rather than seeing each individual portion isn't the ultimate in smoking guns.
That's how discovery works. You initially think it's one thing then you discover later you were incorrect. You posted that China clip about the time it happened. I was 95% sure, based on my limited knowledge. Luke presented a more knowledgeable counter. Now, 7 months after the space walk, the main stream scientific community or a group or even a respected person has not come forward to say: Hey those are bubbles! The lighting is in water and those are stadium lights!
The difference between me and others on this board who do not believe in CT's is that i will debate and discuss it. Because i am interested in the truth. Because of that i am open to change my mind. I didn't believe in the 9/11 CT at first. For a while i did when 240 first started to talk about it. I researched it pretty heavy and changed my mind seeing it for what it was: 19 hijackers. Not holograms and such.
This Rolling Stone story. It's a story that doesn't give much tangible stuff. I would think if E. Howard Hunt really wanted to come clean he'd had made a statement himself for the press. Even then, St. John (former tweak) doesn't give much more than a story. Had Hunt or son supplied a taped conversation, a bonafide official document or brought to light undeniable evidence that contradicted the official story you'd see me changing my tune. However, most CT's seem to hinge on weak evidence and are heavy on rhetoric to prove their points such as what 240 supplies plenty of.
Another thing, in pursuit of the truth, if an event happens and the "evidence" and "facts" point to a conclusion then its up the the accusers to prove its wrong. Until then i must stay with the evidence and facts and obvious conclusions until new evidence and facts suggest otherwise. Why? Because i want the real truth.
I became this way from talking CT's on here on this forum.
I wasn't like this before.
