Replies

You've got to be kidding; "-- flying drill --"? Good grief.

You know what rifling is? How it works?

The factual evidence I've seen to date does not support the Reports 'Oswald as lone gunman theory' beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Oswald were on trial in a court of law, that would be the relevant standard. It is unlikely at this late date that any conclusion will ever convince a casual reader "beyond a reasonable doubt." Ever.

But the strongest, most likely case, by a preponderance of the evidence, points toward Lee Harvey Oswald firing three shots from one rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas school book depository. That's the Occam's razor conclusion. It's where the facts point.

Really, tpaine: Kennedy's bunched-up suit coat, the difference in seated height between the two men, the downhill slope of Elm Street away from the TSBD, and the 'flying drill' ballistic characteristics of 6.5 Carcano military ball ammo are the sum of what mechanics were involved in the third shot causing the wounds and bullet path that you believe to be evidence of conspiracy.

You've got to be kidding; "-- flying drill --"? Good grief

ReignOfError wrote:

You know what rifling is? How it works?

I was a rifleman in the US Army for three years, and then in '63 held a FFL gunsmiths license.

The factual evidence I've seen to date does not support the Reports 'Oswald as lone gunman theory' beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yep. - That was my point.

But the strongest, most likely case, by a preponderance of the evidence, points toward Lee Harvey Oswald firing three shots from one rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas school book depository.

You are simply parroting the Warren Report, which has many errors of fact, some even admitted to by those who wrote it.

That's the Occam's razor conclusion. It's where the facts point.

It's where ~you~ want the 'facts' to point. Why you want to support a flawed report is beyond all logical comprehension.