Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
Common Sense In The JFK Case...

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


05-04-2017, 07:15 PM #1
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Common Sense In The JFK Case...
Anytime someone uses the phrase "common sense" when it comes to the JFK case, you can be ABSOLUTELY SURE that someone is trying to evade the actual evidence.

It's often said, for example, that it's merely "common sense" that a bullet striking JFK, and not ending up in the limo, must have struck Connally.

This is a lie, and based on a number of implied assertions that will never be spelled out.

The first assumption that will never be explained is that the bullet *TRANSITED* JFK's body.

There never has been any medical evidence for such a transit, and during the autopsy, none was found.

One cannot simply draw a line between wounds - because the first thing a believer has to do is move the wound. (as was HISTORICALLY done by the Warren Commission)

Nor will someone asserting the SBT as "common sense" ever publicly admit that this is based on speculations made after the autopsy was over.

And evidence shows that this speculation of transit wasn't made that first weekend, as is often pre-supposed... Rankin makes it clear in January that the autopsy report *HE* was reading was ascribing the throat wound to a fragment from the head shot...

This shows that there was a bit of evidence shuffling going on in the government... or that Rankin couldn't read.

So anytime the phrase "common sense" occurs in this case... start examining the underlying hidden assumptions being made.

Because someone is CERTAINLY lying...

05-06-2017, 12:47 PM #2
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

RE: Common Sense In The JFK Case...
(05-04-2017, 07:15 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Anytime someone uses the phrase "common sense" when it comes to the JFK case, you can be ABSOLUTELY SURE that someone is trying to evade the actual evidence.

It's often said, for example, that it's merely "common sense" that a bullet striking JFK, and not ending up in the limo, must have struck Connally.

This is a lie, and based on a number of implied assertions that will never be spelled out.

The first assumption that will never be explained is that the bullet *TRANSITED* JFK's body.

There never has been any medical evidence for such a transit, and during the autopsy, none was found.

One cannot simply draw a line between wounds - because the first thing a believer has to do is move the wound. (as was HISTORICALLY done by the Warren Commission)

Nor will someone asserting the SBT as "common sense" ever publicly admit that this is based on speculations made after the autopsy was over.

And evidence shows that this speculation of transit wasn't made that first weekend, as is often pre-supposed... Rankin makes it clear in January that the autopsy report *HE* was reading was ascribing the throat wound to a fragment from the head shot...

This shows that there was a bit of evidence shuffling going on in the government... or that Rankin couldn't read.

So anytime the phrase "common sense" occurs in this case... start examining the underlying hidden assumptions being made.

Because someone is CERTAINLY lying...

The SBT is based on evidence and logic Ben. It is without any  doubt the most "common sense" explanation for the non fatal wounds of JFK and JBC. Period.

I have not posted here in a long time - I am sure I have not missed much. 

There is a relatively new book by Robert (Bob) Wagner in which he argues against the SBT though he believes in the lone assassin scenario. I have not started the book yet so I cannot say what his theory is - obviously that akin to Jim Moore and Mark Furhman....

The Assassination of JFK: Perspectives Half A Century Later 

I have become much more swayed by the two shot only theory recently, however it is impossible to know if that is the historical truth.

I came across a theory recently in which Jackie Kennedy shot JFK with a small pocket sized pistol. There seems no end to the nutcases that this case can attract.

I don't agree with your assertion about the limo - it is possible the bullet exited the limosine without striking anyone and was picked up by a child or dog - it is possible.

However bruising to the pleura and vertebrae "tissues" indicates the missile transited - so there is evidence you say does not exist.

The wound was not tracked because of course it was not know that the trach covered a bullet wound - if that been known the wound would have been probed. As you know 9 + hours after death, the body starts rigour and it is not uncommon for a bullet path to be smaller than the bullet itself.

One cannot prove the SBT - but it certainly works and explains the Connally ovoid wound and the lesser wounding than that reasonably expected from a direct strike.

You would have a very tough job defending a non transit in a debate or court of law.

Of course Connally is visibly reacting by Z236 just 14 frames or around 3/4 second after he was hit.....at Z222 probably.

With virtually no reports of two shots right on top of each other from different loctions, one must reasonably conclude one shot caused the non fatal wounds.

It is a shame so much focus is given to the SBT by conspiracy buffs and even more so to the Grassy Knoll gunman nonsense / red herring. It is Oswald's activities in New Orleans and Mexico City that hold any key to any hint of conspiracy and it is those areas that should be the focus. 

I wonder what would have happened if Marina had reconciled with Lee on that Thursday night and Oswald had decided to call in and take the day off......how would the plotters have dealt with that....?
This post was last modified: 05-06-2017, 01:44 PM by Patrick C.

05-06-2017, 03:42 PM #3
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Common Sense In The JFK Case...
(05-04-2017, 08:46 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  
(05-04-2017, 07:15 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Anytime someone uses the phrase "common sense" when it comes to the JFK case, you can be ABSOLUTELY SURE that someone is trying to evade the actual evidence.

It's often said, for example, that it's merely "common sense" that a bullet striking JFK, and not ending up in the limo, must have struck Connally.

This is a lie, and based on a number of implied assertions that will never be spelled out.

The first assumption that will never be explained is that the bullet *TRANSITED* JFK's body.

There never has been any medical evidence for such a transit, and during the autopsy, none was found.

One cannot simply draw a line between wounds - because the first thing a believer has to do is move the wound. (as was HISTORICALLY done by the Warren Commission)

Nor will someone asserting the SBT as "common sense" ever publicly admit that this is based on speculations made after the autopsy was over.

And evidence shows that this speculation of transit wasn't made that first weekend, as is often pre-supposed... Rankin makes it clear in January that the autopsy report *HE* was reading was ascribing the throat wound to a fragment from the head shot...

This shows that there was a bit of evidence shuffling going on in the government... or that Rankin couldn't read.

So anytime the phrase "common sense" occurs in this case... start examining the underlying hidden assumptions being made.

Because someone is CERTAINLY lying...

Every forensic expert who examined the details of this case validated the official conclusion of the WC - ALL of them - independently - they obviously concluded that the bullet did indeed transit JKF's body - but Ben Homes knows better....priceless.

Of course they did, Patrick... of course they did.

Would you care to make a wager?

I'll pick the "forensic experts" - and I'll wager that they'll come to the conclusion, based on the evidence in this case, that multiple shooters fired at JFK.

Oh wait, that's already been done, it's called the HSCA...


Interestingly, Patrick fails to address the actual topic - which is the near constant drumbeat of "common sense" when the issue isn't common sense at all ... the issue is the hidden assumptions and outright lies being told.

As in my example above - notice that Patrick is implicitly relying on "common sense" - yet still can't even explain why the prosectors were unable to find any transit through the body when the body was right in front of them.

Nor will Patrick explain why Dr. Humes used a completely non-standard method to describe where the back wound was located. There's a natural map on everyone's back - it consists of the spine. ANY point on the back can be very accurately placed by simply referring to three things:
 
  1.  The vertical level ... which vertebrae.
  2. The left side or the right side.
  3. The distance from the midpoint of the spine.

Patrick can't explain why this ordinary standard wasn't used... but I don't blame him, neither could the prosectors.

"Common Sense" - as used by Warren Commission supporters, is simply code for "I'm about to lie to you..."

05-07-2017, 06:32 PM #4
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

RE: Common Sense In The JFK Case...
Nice try Ben, but I am afraid there was only one shooter in the JFK assassination and his name was Oswald. His first bullet went through JFK and then Connally. If it was not for Jack Ruby this would be a long dead subject.

I do agree with you on one thing...Humes messed up the measurement....

05-07-2017, 06:49 PM #5
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Common Sense In The JFK Case...
(05-07-2017, 06:32 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Nice try Ben, but I am afraid there was only one shooter in the JFK assassination and his name was Oswald. His first bullet went through JFK and then Connally. If it was not for Jack Ruby this would be a long dead subject.

I do agree with you on one thing...Humes messed up the measurement....

Interestingly, Patrick refused to actually address what I posted.

Begging the question is a common tactic among believers, and really simply doesn't work ...







Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)