+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? (/Thread-Where-s-The-Evidence-For-The-SBT)
Pages:
1
2
Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Ben Holmes - 10-04-2016
An ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for non-conspiracy is that the SBT is true. The SBT requires that a bullet went completely through JFK's body, ie; 'transit'.
The evidence suggests the opposite.
1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)
As Wendy's used to say with their "Where's the beef?" advertising campaign... I'd like to quiz: "Where's the EVIDENCE?"
And demonstrating that they have none - watch for the dead silence following this post...
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Patrick C - 10-04-2016
(10-04-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: An ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for non-conspiracy is that the SBT is true. The SBT requires that a bullet went completely through JFK's body, ie; 'transit'.
The evidence suggests the opposite.
1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)
As Wendy's used to say with their "Where's the beef?" advertising campaign... I'd like to quiz: "Where's the EVIDENCE?"
And demonstrating that they have none - watch for the dead silence following this post...
You mean the SBF....Single Bullet Fact......
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Ben Holmes - 10-04-2016
(10-04-2016, 02:55 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(10-04-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: An ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for non-conspiracy is that the SBT is true. The SBT requires that a bullet went completely through JFK's body, ie; 'transit'.
The evidence suggests the opposite.
1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)
As Wendy's used to say with their "Where's the beef?" advertising campaign... I'd like to quiz: "Where's the EVIDENCE?"
And demonstrating that they have none - watch for the dead silence following this post...
You mean the SBF....Single Bullet Fact......
Yep... no evidence.
Why the cowardice, Patrick? Can't you make a reasoned explanation that refutes what I said?
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Ray Mitcham - 10-19-2016
(10-04-2016, 03:14 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(10-04-2016, 02:55 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(10-04-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: An ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for non-conspiracy is that the SBT is true. The SBT requires that a bullet went completely through JFK's body, ie; 'transit'.
The evidence suggests the opposite.
1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)
As Wendy's used to say with their "Where's the beef?" advertising campaign... I'd like to quiz: "Where's the EVIDENCE?"
And demonstrating that they have none - watch for the dead silence following this post...
You mean the SBF....Single Bullet Fact......
Yep... no evidence.
Why the cowardice, Patrick? Can't you make a reasoned explanation that refutes what I said?
I agree with Patrick. It's the SBF ----Single Bullet Fib.
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Ben Holmes - 10-19-2016
(10-19-2016, 01:08 PM)Ray Mitcham Wrote:(10-04-2016, 03:14 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(10-04-2016, 02:55 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(10-04-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: An ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT for non-conspiracy is that the SBT is true. The SBT requires that a bullet went completely through JFK's body, ie; 'transit'.
The evidence suggests the opposite.
1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)
As Wendy's used to say with their "Where's the beef?" advertising campaign... I'd like to quiz: "Where's the EVIDENCE?"
And demonstrating that they have none - watch for the dead silence following this post...
You mean the SBF....Single Bullet Fact......
Yep... no evidence.
Why the cowardice, Patrick? Can't you make a reasoned explanation that refutes what I said?
I agree with Patrick. It's the SBF ----Single Bullet Fib.
Patrick has refused to offer the evidence for his theory, as I did above. Critics have no problems offering the actual evidence - BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY.
I daresay that believers dream of the time a decade or two ago, when they could ride roughshod over critics due to the fact that so much evidence was still concealed by the government.
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Patrick C - 10-23-2016
Most if not all of the above 9 points have been rebutted.
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Ben Holmes - 10-24-2016
(10-23-2016, 03:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Most if not all of the above 9 points have been rebutted.
You're LYING again, Patrick!
And surely, you must know by now that each time you make unsupported, and unsupportable statements, I'm merely going to call you on it.
If they HAVE been rebutted, simply 'cut & paste' the rebuttal.
But you won't...
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Patrick C - 10-29-2016
Ben Holmes Wrote:If they HAVE been rebutted, simply 'cut & paste' the rebuttal.
Read any decent pro lone gunman book....eg
David Belin
Peter Knight
Mike Majerus
Mel Ayton
DVP's web site.
I am not going to go digging to satisfy your request - it won't make any difference anyway.
By the way Anthony Summers believes the bullet passed through both men.....a very sensible conclusion because the SBT is by far the most likely theory for the non fatal wounds of JFK (presumably) and JC.
We know that as no other rifle or ammo was found, that it is almost a certainty that the MC was the weapon that fired that shot and that the odds of a short shot are remote (about 1 in 2000), so then the bullet struck JFK at approx 2100 ft per second and as it did not strike bone it would almost to a certainty, exit. Why would it not....?
The bullet then either has to strike the car or Connally - who is seated slightly below and inward of JFK. As no whole bulllet was found in the car, almost to a certainty, the bullet must have struck Connally.
The Single Bullet Fact........it is really quite simple.
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Ben Holmes - 10-29-2016
(10-29-2016, 11:30 AM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:If they HAVE been rebutted, simply 'cut & paste' the rebuttal.
Read any decent pro lone gunman book....eg
David Belin
Peter Knight
Mike Majerus
Mel Ayton
DVP's web site.
I am not going to go digging to satisfy your request - it won't make any difference anyway.
By the way Anthony Summers believes the bullet passed through both men.....a very sensible conclusion because the SBT is by far the most likely theory for the non fatal wounds of JFK (presumably) and JC.
We know that as no other rifle or ammo was found, that it is almost a certainty that the MC was the weapon that fired that shot and that the odds of a short shot are remote (about 1 in 2000), so then the bullet struck JFK at approx 2100 ft per second and as it did not strike bone it would almost to a certainty, exit. Why would it not....?
The bullet then either has to strike the car or Connally - who is seated slightly below and inward of JFK. As no whole bulllet was found in the car, almost to a certainty, the bullet must have struck Connally.
The Single Bullet Fact........it is really quite simple.
It's truly amusing that critics can post the evidence, and believers absolutely refuse to do so.
Nor will you defend ANY of those sources should I quote and refute them. (as I'm doing right now with Bugliosi's rather silly 53 reasons)
Tell us Patrick, why the cowardice?
Why are you afraid to post something tangible that I can actually respond to?
RE: Where's The Evidence For The SBT? - Patrick C - 10-30-2016
Study the case for the SBT on DVP's web site - counter the points and I will respond - civily.
The SBT is a focus for me - though I must be honest and say even though your style is very different to mine and I acknowledge your knowledge of the case, I am really just not that interested in Dallas 22 11 63 these days.
Hence it is more stimulating for me to jibe than it is to discuss the case.
You know full well that nothing anyone says to you will change your mind - that your mind is set - unless new info comes out.
I feel the same way on the lone gunman stance.