[angryoldfatman]

>> I am assuming nothing.

Sure you are. You assume that one bullet caused 7 wounds on two men. You cannot even imagine anything else.

You are limiting yourself.


>> I am looking at evidence and deducing the scenario, just as a conspiracy theorist looks at photos of the grassy knoll and deduces multiple shooters from the preception of the pattern of dsrk shapes.

Please notice I haven't said anything about grassy knolls, head wounds, or anything else you wish to drag into the conversation to allow demonizing of anyone guilty of wrongthink. Does the latter sound like a familiar tactic? It's how liberals argue. Do yourself a favor and don't use their rhetorical tricks.


>> The onus is on you to explain how one gets an oblong entry wound without the bullet first fitting some other object.

One can easily get an oblong bullet wound. Here, let me help you:

Google search for oblong bullet wound

See? My work is done, no more onus.

I'm going to go further than you asked me to, though, because your self-limitation doesn't allow wrongthink. I'm going to introduce some wrongthink into the discussion.

Is it possible for a bullet to cause an oblong wound and shatter 4 inches of rib bone? Sure.

Is it possible for a bullet to go through one man's trachea and enter another man's back? Sure.

Is it possible for one bullet to do these two things, then break a wrist, and then look like CE399? Not a chance.

Here's a bullet from a Discovery Channel re-enactment (pro-Oswald) of the single bullet hit, displayed above CE399.



Full video in two parts:
Part 1
Part 2

How could CE399 cause these wounds then? Simple answer: it didn't.



From the looks of it, it was fired into cotton wadding beforehand and was "found" later, supposedly on Connally's stretcher.

In other words, that particular bullet caused no wounds on either man. Please notice I am not speculating on how Kennedy and Connally got the wounds they had, I am merely pointing out what is easily observable and logical in regards to CE399.


>>Furthermore you have offered no evidence that the single bullet scenario did not happen.

Claimant provides evidence. You claim it happened, you give evidence. Onus on you. Once again, a demand to prove a negative is a tactic seen from leftists. That doesn't mean you're a leftist, that means that you've fallen into using their well-worn rhetorical tactics used to shut their opposition up.


>> In fact, it is you who suffer from confirmation bias. In your mind no bullet with the deformation such as that of Warren exhibit 399 could possibly have passed through both men, even though tests using sophisticated recreations have produced remarkable similar results.

No I'm not and no they haven't. I have shown one of the best tests above, and the bullet shown didn't break any other bones besides the ones in the torso reconstructions, like a wrist bone for example. It was significantly more deformed than CE399.


>> Don’t feel bad though, even well meaning people fall for that, not just conspiracy nuts.

Name-calling, the trump card of liberal debate tactics. It's the third time you've used such tactics.

It's shocking and at times literally incredible, but sometimes, there really is a conspiracy.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Sure you are. You assume that one bullet caused 7 wounds on two men. You cannot even imagine anything else.

You are limiting yourself.”

Not really. I’m open to other possibilities. As stated before, I was once convinced there was a conspiracy, after reading David Lifton’s book “Best Evidence.” Only after much further reading and observation did I change my mind.

“Please notice I haven't said anything about grassy knolls, head wounds, or anything else you wish to drag into the conversation to allow demonizing of anyone guilty of wrongthink. Does the latter sound like a familiar tactic? It's how liberals argue. Do yourself a favor and don't use their rhetorical tricks.”

Please note that I never wrote that you “said anything about grassy knolls, head wounds, or anything else.” I was referring to conspiracy nuts who must provide and alternative if Oswald was not the shooter.

“One can easily get an oblong bullet wound. Here, let me help you:”

From your links:

“The exit wound may be punctate or oblong,”

http://www.uthr.org/SpecialReports/Military_rifle_bullet_wound_patterns.htm

Not an entrance wound.

“apparently made by two bullets.” https://books.google.com/books?id=9gdEF9erEWUC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=oblong+bullet+wound&source=bl&ots=ZOvF6EB54-&sig=_K8DLZHmF8kQ5CLLZ_9kOcOUqig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAmoVChMI1orG6M7lyAIVFOtjCh143Ash#v=onepage&q=oblong%20bullet%20wound&f=false

Not a single wound.

“ Exit wounds can have a variety of appearances, including round, oval, slitlike, stellate or crescent.”

http://www.emsworld.com/article/10319706/gunshot-wounds

Not entrance wounds. I won’t take anymore time or space on Free Republic to prove the point.

“See? My work is done, no more onus.”

Maybe not.

“Is it possible for a bullet to cause an oblong wound and shatter 4 inches of rib bone? Sure.

Is it possible for a bullet to go through one man's trachea and enter another man's back? Sure.

Is it possible for one bullet to do these two things, then break a wrist, and then look like CE399? Not a chance.”

Is this not exactly what you have accused me of? That you cannot accept a possibility, and therefore fit all evidence to that pre-drawn conclusion?

Here's a bullet from a Discovery Channel re-enactment (pro-Oswald) of the single bullet hit, displayed above CE399.



Full video in two parts: Part 1 Part 2

How could CE399 cause these wounds then? Simple answer: it didn't.

From the looks of it, it was fired into cotton wadding beforehand and was "found" later, supposedly on Connally's stretcher.

In other words, that particular bullet caused no wounds on either man. Please notice I am not speculating on how Kennedy and Connally got the wounds they had, I am merely pointing out what is easily observable and logical in regards to CE399.”

How do you explain physicist Vincent P. Guinn, who used neutron activation analysis and concluded that the data supported the single-bullet theory in that all the bullet lead in the car and wounds originated from no more than two bullets?

How do you explain that no bullet was found in his body if the shot hit JFK’s neck but did not pass through and hit Connally?

How do you explain that no other bullets were found in the car, or anywhere else.

How do you explain how Connally was magically hit from the rear along a path emanating from the School Book Depository with a bullet that did not pass through JFK first?

How do you explain that all entry wounds were from shots fired from behind the car?

“Claimant provides evidence. You claim it happened, you give evidence. Onus on you. Once again, a demand to prove a negative is a tactic seen from leftists. That doesn't mean you're a leftist, that means that you've fallen into using their well-worn rhetorical tactics used to shut their opposition up.”

Not at all. In fact, even IF one bullet did not hot both men, it is not proof that a conspiracy to kill the President occurred.

“No I'm not and no they haven't. I have shown one of the best tests above, and the bullet shown didn't break any other bones besides the ones in the torso reconstructions, like a wrist bone for example. It was significantly more deformed than CE399.”

Maybe you should look here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt

“It has been proven that a single bullet could make all the wounds and break all the bone and emerge as relatively unscathed as CE399.” "Name-calling, the trump card of liberal debate tactics. It's the third time you've used such tactics."

I wasn’t calling YOU a name. I went out of my way to repeat your original condescending phraseology, while still giving you the benefit of the doubt as to your motivation.

“It's shocking and at times literally incredible, but sometimes, there really is a conspiracy.”

Why go there? Lincoln was skilled as a result of a conspiracy. Kennedy wasn’t.