RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Jack Nessan]

Typical Jack Nessan. He doesn’t like what somebody says, so he says demeaning things about them and hopes that somehow impeaches their remarks.

It is what it is. All you can do is examine what occurred. Maybe you have a different assessment of him.

Toadstool= Your right, SA Drain must be a very clever individual to ridicule and cast doubt on the DPD and FBI oversight based on discussing a subject which he is neither trained in nor has actual experience. Especially when it is regarding a subject his boss, Hoover, wrote a letter in support of authenticating the palmprint.

Juice Box Boy= During the biggest investigation of a murder in our country’s history, that took place in the city to which SA Drain was assigned. His superiors put SA Drain on a plane and had him accompany evidence traveling halfway across the country and he then sat there for two days twiddling his thumbs. That was what they thought was the best way he could help. Appears to be out of sight and out of mind.

It appears maybe the blame for LHO having assassinated JFK did not end with SA Hosty but maybe radiated to other Agents.

[Jack Nessan]

There are a number of serious logic issues associated with this whole thought train. Including the barrel anomalies, tape, powder, ink to mention a few. Maybe it would be best to just let you work them out.

As with nearly all your posts, you don't really make any sense.
It seems clear that you understand what you mean but not so clear to everyone else.

In that light I would like to hear, in full glorious detail, all these "serious logic issues" you mention.
I'd like to hear about each one in the order you've outlined:

Barrel anomalies
Tape
Powder
Ink

And, as you say that you've only mentioned a few of the serious logic issues, let's have about three more on top so you've covered this area thoroughly.


Or are you just talking sh%t as usual.
Let's hear about these serious logic issues Jack.

======================================
This is all so new. It is hard to take it all in.

This is your theory: it requires your explanation. If you miss something I will be glad to help and aid your thinking. There must be more to this theory than bippety boppety boop and there is a faked palmprint lift. Did SA Drain not explain it in better detail? Did he not take into account any of the items I listed? Maybe they do not even matter. All things are possible when it comes to faking things.
Modify message

[Martin Weidmann]

There are a number of serious logic issues associated with this whole thought train. Including the barrel anomalies, tape, powder, ink to mention a few. Maybe it would be best to just let you work them out.

As with nearly all your posts, you don't really make any sense.
It seems clear that you understand what you mean but not so clear to everyone else.

In that light I would like to hear, in full glorious detail, all these "serious logic issues" you mention.
I'd like to hear about each one in the order you've outlined:

Barrel anomalies
Tape
Powder
Ink

And, as you say that you've only mentioned a few of the serious logic issues, let's have about three more on top so you've covered this area thoroughly.


Or are you just talking sh%t as usual.
Let's hear about these serious logic issues Jack.

Or are you just talking sh%t as usual.
Let's hear about these serious logic issues Jack.

And the reply is this gobbledygook;

This is all so new. It is hard to take it all in.

This is your theory: it requires your explanation. If you miss something I will be glad to help and aid your thinking. There must be more to this theory than bippety boppety boop and there is a faked palmprint lift. Did SA Drain not explain it in better detail? Did he not take into account any of the items I listed? Maybe they do not even matter. All things are possible when it comes to faking things.

So, the actual answer clearly is that Jack Nessan has no "serious logic issues".

What a waste of space.....

[Dan O'meara]

This is all so new. It is hard to take it all in.

This is your theory: it requires your explanation. If you miss something I will be glad to help and aid your thinking. There must be more to this theory than bippety boppety boop and there is a faked palmprint lift. Did SA Drain not explain it in better detail? Did he not take into account any of the items I listed? Maybe they do not even matter. All things are possible when it comes to faking things.
Modify message

 
I think you should definitely "modify message".

[Jack Nessan]

I think you should definitely "modify message".

How is this modification. Come up with a theory that upon scrutiny does not crumble like a cookie. Then you won’t have to work so hard trying to evade explaining it. It is so telling that all responses that are given are to distance yourself from the theory. 

There were only two shots actually fired Dan, not three. Try working from that point to better understand the assassination. Then the rest of this nonsense shrinks to insignificance.

[Martin Weidmann]

How is this modification. Come up with a theory that upon scrutiny does not crumble like a cookie. Then you won’t have to work so hard trying to evade explaining it. It is so telling that all responses that are given are to distance yourself from the theory. 

There were only two shots actually fired Dan, not three. Try working from that point to better understand the assassination. Then the rest of this nonsense shrinks to insignificance.

I'm sure you're trying to make some sort of point here.......