The Fundamental Problem

[Jack Trojan]

It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn?t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it?s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ?I/they know what I/they see/saw?).           

Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.

The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ?talking heads? (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers). 

The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don?t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed?which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it?s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).

There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn?t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it?s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally. 

TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables

You've either got the wrong forum or you have a very skewed way of looking at it. In a nutshell, CTs hold the WC's feet to the fire while LNers merely deny everything that hints at conspiracy. CTs are AOK with Oswald taking token shots at JFK, but he was not a lone nut, simple as that.

LNers are actually Conspiracy Deniers, Coincidence Theorists and WC shills. Painting LHO as a LN is a WC conspiracy. To what degree LHO was involved is still up for debate but the LN hypothesis is effectively dead. Only the Chapmans remain to troll the forum.

[Royell Storing]

14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

     Try as you might, you are Not going to get away from the corroborated Location of the JFK BACK WOUND.

[Jack Trojan]

14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

How about you do some math for a change. For starters, what vertebrae does the back wound correspond to?

[Tim Nickerson]

      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

[Bill Chapman]

     Try as you might, you are Not going to get away from the corroborated Location of the JFK BACK WOUND.

Corroborated by whom? You lot? LOL

14x14cm 'balls on' the junction where the neck meets the back

[Dillon Rankine]

      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

None of that is specific enough to make inferences regarding its relation to a particular vertebra. The measurements are the most important?T1 is the most consistent (see Pat Speer?s replication using a man of JFK?s measurements). 

[Bill Chapman]

How about you do some math for a change. For starters, what vertebrae does the back wound correspond to?

14x14cm