Creative Speculation

> "Wm Seger", I think it has been adequately demonstrated that if LHO had been taken to trial the case would have been thrown out within a few hours.

And I think that's a bunch of hooey, based on the WC investigation and the HSCA investigation that conspiracists brought about because they wanted a different conclusion. I believe Oswald would have easily been convicted. So there.

> This is after you have pronounced that deriving a "story" is more important than establishing the truth.

"Truth" is it the province of mathematicians, and what religious fanatics and conspiracists call "truth" is a piss-poor substitute. When trying to figure out what happened in Dealey Plaza, the rest of us don't have much choice but to do the best we can using evidence-based reasoning. Recognizing the potential problems with that, the confidence in the "story" so derived might range from "pretty damned sure" to "not sure but if I had to bet on it..." I'm pretty damned sure Oswald shot JFK, but I'm much less sure that there weren't others involved. However, lacking concrete evidence of that -- specifically, lacking credible evidence that can only be explained by a second shooter -- I'll continue to call that "speculation," since that's what the word means, regardless of how cock-sure you are that it's the "truth." Please don't inflict your fuzzy definitions on things I say.

> "Prove either that Lattimer is wrong and bullets like CE399 cannot be produced under any conditions, or prove that the conditions under which a bullet like CE399 could be produced did not exist in this case. "

The Lattimer test is meaningless because his concepts depend on a "tumbling bullet", and we know from Connally's expert surgeon and his precise measurements of the entry wound that the bullet was not acting in the required way. So, once again, what this means is that no matter what the Lattimer test showed or what you think it showed, it is nonetheless irrelevant because the facts of Connally's wound do not support the corresponding assumptions. Which is the proof - one point of many - that the conditions did not in fact exist. I think this is the third or fourth time this basic point has had to be made.

"Proof by assertion" and "assuming the consequent" are thoroughly inadequate responses to my request, but I don't expect you to stop to consider why that's the best you can do.

Besides, Connally's surgeon Dr Shaw stated several times - clearly and unambiguously - at a press conference at 3PM CST November 22, 1963 that a bullet remained in John Connally's leg, and this was an hour or more after CE399 was supposedly found on a stretcher.

Again, if no one had done anything to remove the bullet -- due to more urgent issues like the hole through his lung! -- why would he not assume it was still in there?