No, actually, I am not. All I've done is state what is known on the record. There are three shots on the record, per photographs, witness testimony, wounds, and the marks of the bullet known to have missed. One missed. One hit the president in the back/neck. One hit him in the head. Notice I have avoided the claim that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back/neck also hit Connolly. I'll let others argue the point.
The single "magic" bullet theory is key to the controversy, not the direction of the head shot, which may never be proven.
The number and direction of all the shots is key to the whole issue of whether or not there was a conspiracy. How can you say the direction of the head shot "may never be proven" when the proof is right in front of you? I don't argue against a conspiracy, only against basing the argument for a conspiracy on a distortion of the known facts.
The timing of the previous shots, the wounds they made, when compared to the Z film, make it almost impossible for Osawald to have to have been the lone assassin.
Certainly, "a well-meant conspiracy theory will try to make the theory fit the facts, not the other way around." -- And this is exactly what the Commission did back in '64 with their single bullet bull.
--They made themselves into the whackos, and most of us never believed their lone gunman fantasy.
109 -tpaine-
_____________________________________
You are arguing for the Reports theory & against any conspiracy theory.
No, actually, I am not. All I've done is state what is known on the record.
Yes, you are, percisely because the flawed Reports "record" has aways been the issue.
There are three shots on the record, per photographs, witness testimony, wounds, and the marks of the bullet known to have missed. One missed. One hit the president in the back/neck. One hit him in the head.
Notice I have avoided the claim that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back/neck also hit Connolly. I'll let others argue the point.
That ~IS~ the point. The single "magic" bullet theory is key to the controversy, not the direction of the head shot, which may never be proven.
The number and direction of all the shots is key to the whole issue of whether or not there was a conspiracy. How can you say the direction of the head shot "may never be proven" when the proof is right in front of you?
You see 'proof', most don't.
I don't argue against a conspiracy, only against basing the argument for a conspiracy on a distortion of the known facts.
The distortions of many known facts are in the Report. You are arguing for the Reports distortions.