Having read it, he does cite something for almost every claim. Although almost every source also contradicts his conclusions on some basic, logical, statistical, mathematical, or humane level, if you bother to fact check them. So it’s quite hard to quantify what it means to say it has good citations.
RFK's reliance on terrain theory, disproved continually since some five hundred years ago, does much to assist in citations - it is common to cite bad science as evidence where we need to improve public comprehension.
You've been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly. If you keep this up, we will ban you. We already asked you to stop this: https://hackernews.hn/item?id=46534572.
There are, unfortunately, many examples of your doing this:
I don't approve of the downvoting and flagging, if there's anywhere on the internet that conspiracy ideas can be constructively pushed back on it should be here.
That being said you're not making very detailed defences of RFK's book and ideas. Can you be more specific on some ideas or claims from his book that you believe in and how they're supported?
If you mean lots of people cite it, well, that's the grift. It's lies sold to people desperate for validation of their conspiracy theories.
If you mean that it's a book based on good citations, well, hah, very untrue.