A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Andrew Mason]

"Convinced" isn't the same as "proven".  But you'll forgive me if I don't recognize you as a spokesperson for "most people".

One cannot divorce the concept of "proven" from the process of convincing human beings. 

In science, theories are never "proven".  In law, proving cases is all about convincing people.

[John Iacoletti]

One cannot divorce the concept of "proven" from the process of convincing human beings. 

In science, theories are never "proven".  In law, proving cases is all about convincing people.

Then why did you claim that "the missile path through the fascia and muscles" was "proven"?

Fair enough, though.  I'm not at all convinced that there was one path through the body from the alleged "neck wound" to the alleged throat wound.

[Andrew Mason]

Then why did you claim that "the missile path through the fascia and muscles" was "proven"?

The evidence persuaded the three autopsy physicians.  And it persuaded the WC, the HSCA, and many CTers, including Cyril Wecht (who rejects the SBT but - at least in his HSCA dissent - does not take issue with the path of the bullet through JFK's neck).   It is only a relatively small group who cannot, for some reason, accept that a bullet was fired from the SN into JFK's upper back and exited his throat.  In fact, there is no evidence that indicates otherwise. There is only doubt in the minds of some who do not accept the evidence that exists and postulate the existence of some other evidence that no one has yet found.

Fair enough, though.  I'm not at all convinced that there was one path through the body from the alleged "neck wound" to the alleged throat wound.

That's fine. The evidence that has persuaded many others does not persuade you.  But that does not mean that bodies responsible for making determinations of fact in this case were wrong to conclude, reasonably and on evidence, that a bullet passed through JFK entering his upper back and exiting his throat.

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence persuaded the three autopsy physicians.  And it persuaded the WC, the HSCA, and many CTers, including Cyril Wecht (who rejects the SBT but - at least in his HSCA dissent - does not take issue with the path of the bullet through JFK's neck).   It is only a relatively small group who cannot, for some reason, accept that a bullet was fired from the SN into JFK's upper back and exited his throat.  In fact, there is no evidence that indicates otherwise. There is only doubt in the minds of some who do not accept the evidence that exists and postulate the existence of some other evidence that no one has yet found.

Of course there is evidence that indicates otherwise.  It all depends on exactly where the back wound was located.  As you know, there seems to be some dispute about that.  And of course, even if there was the bullet path through the body that you are assuming, that tells you nothing about what building the bullet originated from.

That's fine. The evidence that has persuaded many others does not persuade you.  But that does not mean that bodies responsible for making determinations of fact in this case were wrong to conclude, reasonably and on evidence, that a bullet passed through JFK entering his upper back and exiting his throat.

I just take issue with your use of the word "proven" to mean persuaded.

[Andrew Mason]

Of course there is evidence that indicates otherwise.  It all depends on exactly where the back wound was located.  As you know, there seems to be some dispute about that.  And of course, even if there was the bullet path through the body that you are assuming, that tells you nothing about what building the bullet originated from.

Well, it tells you the origin was behind, above and to the right.  There is evidence of only one location that was behind, above and to the right where a gun was fired.

I just take issue with your use of the word "proven" to mean persuaded.

In legal proceedings, "proof" refers to evidence that persuades the trier of fact that of a set of facts is correct i.e. "proven".  What do you mean by "proof" or "proven"?

[John Iacoletti]

Well, it tells you the origin was behind, above and to the right.  There is evidence of only one location that was behind, above and to the right where a gun was fired.

Depending on where the back wound was actually located.

By the way, what's the evidence that a gun was fired from that particular location?

In legal proceedings, "proof" refers to evidence that persuades the trier of fact that of a set of facts is correct i.e. "proven".  What do you mean by "proof" or "proven"?

I don't think "proof" makes any sense in legal proceedings -- it's a mathematical construct..  Anything that requires speculation, assumptions, or conjecture is not "proof".

[Andrew Mason]

Depending on where the back wound was actually located.   

Well, in order to conclude that it was not in the location shown on the autopsy photos one would have to conclude that the wound location observations and autopsy photos were faked by all three doctors.  Is that a reasonable conclusion?  Based on what?  The location of the hole in the shirt?

By the way, what's the evidence that a gun was fired from that particular location?

For starters, Norman, Williams and Jarman.  Also Jackson and Mrs. Cabell and Amos Euins. Then there are the pigeons seen flying from the TSBD roof at the time of the shots.  Do you think they were all part of the conspiracy too?

I don't think "proof" makes any sense in legal proceedings -- it's a mathematical construct..  Anything that requires speculation, assumptions, or conjecture is not "proof".

In any fact-finding process (courts, commissions of inquiry or other fact-finding bodies such as NTSB accident investigations) "proof" is another term for evidence upon which people base conclusions of fact.  There is nothing absolute about proof.

The only absolute proof is found in mathematics. But proof in mathematics simply shows that an assumption or set of assumptions are logically equivalent to some other statement or set of statements. The assumptions do not have to be true in "reality".