>> Not really. I’m open to other possibilities.
Like the possibility of multiple shooters? Planted evidence? Nope. That’s right out.
>> 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.
I was a government version advocate when I was fairly young. Then I saw the Zapruder film without anybody telling me what I was supposed to see. After that, I did a lot more digging, using adversarial sources as well as sympathetic ones, and my own logic.
>> I was referring to conspiracy nuts who must provide and alternative if Oswald was not the shooter.
Name-calling (”nuts”) and mentions of things unrelated to the SBT, plus blindness to your own actions of doing so. I don’t know why you think you’d ever convince anyone with these tactics.
>> From your links: [selective clicking]
Are you actually attempting to argue that entrance wounds cannot be oblong? Fine. Let’s adjust the search parameters:
I’m sure you can find one there somewhere, if you look at sites that aren’t related to the JFK assassination and therefore have skewed assumptions. That was the point I was making; if you want an objective analysis, the analysts shouldn’t have a vested interest in the results. The wounds were caused by bullets (or bullet, singular). We have innumerable examples of gunshot wounds to compare them to, and new ones happening every day. Lots of people completely uninterested in the JFK assassination can provide valuable data about bullets and their impact on the human body.
Why limit ourselves to a handful of analysts with vested interests?
>> 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?
I am using observational evidence (some of which you are ignoring) and used it to draw a conclusion.
I have posted a photo from the HCSA showing a line-up of bullets used in testing.
The bullets that resemble CE399 the closest are rounds fired into a stopping agent, in this case cotton wadding.
By the way, I didn’t know that the FBI used cotton wadding to decelerate bullets for later ballistic testing until I started this research.
Given the other bullets shown in the line-up AND the Discovery Channel bullet and their deformation, this evidence points very strongly to CE399 being a stopped bullet, never having struck any human tissue.
I did not presume that CE399 was a single bullet that caused 7 wounds on two men, nor did I presume the opposite. I looked at the evidence, came to a conclusion, then observed that my conclusion did not align with the official conclusion.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Any further conclusions stemming from this observation need to be tested before being labeled as anything other than speculation. So I could speculate all day long on what my conclusion means, but that’s all it would be - speculation and hypothesis.
>> 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?
Never heard of this guy. Looked him up, here’s his HSCA testimony:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscaguin.htm
It’s no wonder I’ve never heard of him. His analysis is thick and arcane. Even less accessible to laymen than CO2 causing global warming, from what I can tell.
Also, I have no idea if he has a vested interest.
>> 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?
Why do you assume that Connally was hit from the rear from the School Book Depository? I thought you were “open to other possibilities”? Apparently you aren’t.
>> How do you explain that all entry wounds were from shots fired from behind the car?
Were they? At least one Parkland doctor who worked on JFK, Perry, said the throat wound could have been an entry wound. The Zapruder film suggests a front shot to the head.
I thought you were “open to other possibilities”? Apparently you aren’t.
>> Maybe you should look here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt
A posting on an internet newsgroup as a source? You can do better than that.
If the original source is Dr. John K. Lattimer, he could be considered another vested interest. He was Hoover’s urologist; I assume Hoover could have found better doctors who specialized in gunshot wounds and bullet trajectories, but maybe that’s a bad assumption.
As for Lattimer’s tests, didn’t he fire the last two bullets in the photo lineup?
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
Enjoy your belief system.
