Posted on 10/25/2015 12:04:55 PM PDT by NRx
I do not follow a CIA misinformation office like Gerald Posner.
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. Don’t feel bad though, even well meaning people fall for that, not just conspiracy nuts.
I suppose you prefer the KGB disinformation of Mark Lane?
You are a fool to believe BS information. Have you been stupid all your life?
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.
>> 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.
Here is my “belief system” in videos I made over 6 years ago:
Angry Old Fat Man talks about various conspiracy theories and what he thinks about them. WARNING: Some serious content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dctfYkbfwo
Angry Old Fat Man takes a (half) serious look at the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Part 1 of 2
Part 1 deals with comparisons of JFK conspiracy believers to 9/11 Truthers and the Single Bullet Theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7JhwEn7i7Q
Part 2 of 2
Part 2 is an analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald’s third shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsANdePEC78
If you have read it all then you can explain where the bullet hole in the windshield came from
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.