Yes, I meant JFK first, as I posted elsewhere. However, pointing to Connelly’s wounds is not a circular argument. It is physical evidence supporting the fact that one bullet struck high men. An oblong wound could not have happened if it was not tumbling. Any bullet that hit a hard object first would have been more deformed than the “less than pristine” bullet found on the gurney.
>> However, pointing to Connelly’s wounds is not a circular argument. It is physical evidence supporting the fact that one bullet struck high men. An oblong wound could not have happened if it was not tumbling. Any bullet that hit a hard object first would have been more deformed than the “less than pristine” bullet found on the gurney.
You are assuming the men were hit by one bullet, then saying the bullet proves the men were hit by one bullet.
Don't feel alone though. This happens on any controversial subject. It's a function of confirmation bias, which happens on both polarized sides, sadly.
Instead of assuming the conclusion and then ignoring things that don't "prove" the conclusion, what you're supposed to do is look at all the evidence and then try hypotheses that fit all of the observations.
