Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP [View all]
William Seger
(11,149 posts)> This analysis was used by the Commission and other bodies, and by authors such as Vincent Bugliosi, to assert absolute proof of Oswald's guilt as, according to the analysis, all the bullets, including the fragments, could be matched to just one gunman.
And if you completely ignore the NAA (which I generally have since Spiegelman's paper), what do you have? I'm pretty sure you don't mean we should exonerate Oswald because of the new study, since that would be ridiculous, so I have to assume you are trying to imply that it's evidence of a second shooter, which was the actual topic. Uh, no, it isn't.
> No, what the studies said was that neutron activation analysis was junk science, and so couldn't really be consulted on any issues whatsoever.
That's a hyperbolic qualitative characterization of what is essentially a quantitative statistical argument, and what the Randich/Grant study and the Spiegelman et al. study actually claimed to have found was that the confidence level of the conclusion drawn by Guinn for the HSCA study did not reach the customary (but actually arbitrary) level typically accepted for statistical inferencing, and therefore the evidence was not conclusive of only two bullets. But what you seem to be trying to infer from that is basically that if the confidence level is only 80% rather than, say, 95% -- or even if the confidence level is only 53% -- then we have evidence of a second shooter, which is nonsense.
And that's where we are unless further analysis is performed: Guinn's conclusion of only two bullets should not be accepted as "fact," but that is not the same thing as saying that Guinn's conclusion of only two bullets has been proved wrong.
But if you are now quite satisfied with your goalpost-moving, strawman-attacking adventure, I wonder if I can bring your attention back to my actual argument, which is that there is no credible evidence for a second shooter.
> really? and this "explanation" based on a "theory" is also somehow not "speculation", do I get that right?
That's hard to say without knowing what definitions you are using, but my initial impression is no, you probably do not have that quite right. For example, there is no "'explanation' based on a 'theory'" -- the explanation is a theory -- but yes, it's supported by facts and logic, not speculation.
> For that matter, what exactly are your "facts"?
A fair enough request, so here's one version that looks reasonable to me as a starting point:
1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.
3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)
4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.
6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.
7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.
8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.
9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.
I don't see "tumbling bullet" on that list, nor is it necessary, but this is simply disingenuous:
> Is it the "tumbling bullet" which is apparently "substantiated by the elongated wounds in Connally's back"? Or is the "fact", in fact, the fact that you don't seem to know that the "elongated wound" in Connally's back was created by the Parklands doctors in the area surrounding a smaller wound of entrance and that the HSCA's star pathologist misread their notes.
No, I'm not talking about the "3 cm" claim, but rather the 8 x 15 cm "elliptical" wound described by Dr. Shaw. It isn't necessarily the case that the bullet hit squarely sideways, which would create a wound as long as the bullet, 3 cm. If it only rotated about a 30- to 45-degree angle before it hit Connally, then a wound elongated to about 1.5 cm would be expected. If it wasn't tumbling, on the other hand, then the wound should have resembled the wound in JFK's back, a much smaller and rounder 6 x 4 mm. So, yes, I would put "tumbling bullet" on the list and challenge you to do a better job of refuting it.
> And you don't seem to know that Lattimer's experiments have little credibility.
Little credibility among conspiracists? Oh yes, I knew that, but then we're talking about people who judge credibility solely on the story one tells. So? So, when you said, "No recreation of the shooting has ever been able to even come close to producing the lack of damage seen on CE399," what you really meant was, "...except for Lattimer's but that doesn't count because I grant him little credibility?" Okay, I'll keep that in mind as I continue to wade through your claims.
> And this "possibility", a ballistics issue answered weakly by a urologist and a veterinarian, is what you are offering as "fact".
Nope, I certainly didn't offer any "possibility" as a "fact" -- another strawman falls to your mighty rhetorical sword. All the "possibility" means is that conspiracists trying to base any claims solely on the supposed impossibility of the SBT are doomed to failure. Sorry, that just won't do the trick.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations