[Patrick C]

(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....?