[Ben Holmes]

(08-19-2016, 10:30 AM)Guest Wrote:  

(08-18-2016, 01:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

Quote:"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck, assuming that the President had been struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have been held by the assassin." (WCR 106)

The WC was not a perfect investigation - it could never have been.

The topic here is not the "perfection" of the Warren Commission - but the outright lies perpetrated by them, KNOWINGLY perpetrated by them.

These were lawyers, they certainly knew what they were doing. And it's this intentional lying that you refuse to refute... (if, indeed, it were possible to refute)

(08-19-2016, 10:30 AM)Guest Wrote:  However there should be no issue with the SBF - the bullet beyond almost any doubt would transit. It would then either hit the car or Connally.

Speculation cannot replace the facts. You're presuming a number of "facts" - then drawing a conclusion based on those "facts". Eliminate even one of them, and your entire speculation falls down.

While you've refused to list your implied "facts" - I'll be happy to:

1. The bullet was a full-metal jacket bullet.
2. It was traveling approximately 2,000 fps.
3. It struck JFK higher than the Death Certificate & clothing showed that it did.
4. It completely transited JFK's body, despite NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR TRANSIT.

Now, as long as ALL of these "facts" are correct, you'd be right in your assessment of what happened to such a bullet. But you cannot provide evidence showing that ANY of these "facts" are correct.

(08-19-2016, 10:30 AM)Guest Wrote:  Whether or not it was CE399 is another question. It could have been swapped out at a later date as Martin Hay believes. But it is madness to suggest that it was planted on 22 Nov at Parkland. Utter bonkers.

This constant harping on a scenario that no critic argues simply goes to show that you well understand the weakness of your case. The fact that there's evidence for the bullet being swapped out, and the fact that you cannot refute that evidence - is good reason for you to keep harping on a strawman.

Tell us Patrick (and despite your failure to log in, you clearly are Patrick C) - why do you keep arguing a strawman?

THE BULLET WAS NOT PLANTED - THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR A PLANTED BULLET!

Deal with it, and move on.

(08-19-2016, 10:30 AM)Guest Wrote:  I always accepted the SBT - it makes absolutely the most sense and I remain to this day perplexed that it is not accepted - ie that ONE bullet cause the non fatal wounds to both men.

The only reason one could be "perplexed" is because they are ignorant of the actual evidence in this case. Tell us Patrick, are you ignorant of the evidence in this case?

I quite doubt it... so you must surely be trying to make some strange point by claiming to be "perplexed".

For example, you're quite well aware of the fact that a number of witnesses (to include Jackie and the Connally's) absolutely dispute the SBT scenario...

What's "perplexing" about that?

(08-19-2016, 10:30 AM)Guest Wrote:  That it was another bullet to CE399 is a reasonable alternative theory if indeed there was a cover up to conceal a conspiracy from the American people.

Do I think that happened - no I do not, but it remains a possibility. There is however very little to suggest the presence of a second rear positioned gunman.

The FACT that a conspiracy to coverup the facts in this case are so blatantly obvious, that it's a wonder that you'd publicly state that you don't see it. You've consistently REFUSED to refute the evidence of this coverup.

One clear example, would be the HSCA's classification of the medical evidence ... there's ABSOLUTELY NO 'NATIONAL SECURITY' IMPLICATIONS IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE DOCTORS IN THIS CASE. And despite the fact that it's your responsibility to explain this classification of medical evidence (that the HSCA flat lied about) - yet you refuse to do so.

Perhaps that is why you're not logging in... you'd prefer to post as a "Guest" than as "Patrick C".