When Was JBC Hit?

[John Corbett]

It is NOT a fact that Oswald killed JFK.
It is a theory.
It is your opinion.
But it is NOT a fact.
You clearly don't know what the word FACT means.
You clearly don't understand what a THEORY is.

It is the benchmark of the trully deluded Nutter to believe his opinion is a fact.

I guess you think it is just a theory the earth is round.
I guess you think the existence of gravity is just a theory.

There are some things for which there is so much evidence that they are no longer theories. Oswald killing JFK is one of those things. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but it isn't going tto change that fact.

[Lance Payette]

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

The needle of history will never be moved by a mass of "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" sort of stuff in which MTG and many CTers specialize. That is simply "Oswald defense counsel" mental masturbation. It goes nowhere, except in the dark halls of Conspiracy World.

Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum is on the right track with his claim that it is "impossible" for the LN theory to account for the alignment of the back and throat wounds and the holes in the jacket and shirt. The problems are that (1) the alignment, while highly problematical, has too many "ifs" to really qualify as flat-out impossible, and (2) Cliff's explanation (CIA-issued ice bullets) doesn't strike most people as convincing. But he's basically on the right track.

The critical FACT for which the LN narrative cannot account would almost surely have to relate to the physical evidence of Dealey Plaza. It's conceivable a startling document or two would do it, but documents have so many possible problems that it would be unlikely. (I happen to be reading a scholarly study of the Salamander Letter that rocked the Mormon Church in the 1980s but turned out to be a clever forgery.) It's possible that the technology available today could show that the bullet trajectories posited by the LN narrative are simply impossible and that at least one bullet had to have come from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, as John Orr is attempting to do - that would do it, although the defenders of the LN paradigm would kick and scream to the bitter end precisely as Thomas Kuhn described. Again, however, such work would have to show that the trajectories posited by the LN narrative are IMPOSSIBLE, not simply problematical.

Until then, the LN narrative will stand as the only explanation that qualifies as a legitimate theory.

[John Corbett]

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

The needle of history will never be moved by a mass of "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" sort of stuff in which MTG and many CTers specialize. That is simply "Oswald defense counsel" mental masturbation. It goes nowhere, except in the dark halls of Conspiracy World.

Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum is on the right track with his claim that it is "impossible" for the LN theory to account for the alignment of the back and throat wounds and the holes in the jacket and shirt. The problems are that (1) the alignment, while highly problematical, has too many "ifs" to really qualify as flat-out impossible, and (2) Cliff's explanation (CIA-issued ice bullets) doesn't strike most people as convincing. But he's basically on the right track.

The critical FACT for which the LN narrative cannot account would almost surely have to relate to the physical evidence of Dealey Plaza. It's conceivable a startling document or two would do it, but documents have so many possible problems that it would be unlikely. (I happen to be reading a scholarly study of the Salamander Letter that rocked the Mormon Church in the 1980s but turned out to be a clever forgery.) It's possible that the technology available today could show that the bullet trajectories posited by the LN narrative are simply impossible and that at least one bullet had to have come from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, as John Orr is attempting to do - that would do it, although the defenders of the LN paradigm would kick and scream to the bitter end precisely as Thomas Kuhn described. Again, however, such work would have to show that the trajectories posited by the LN narrative are IMPOSSIBLE, not simply problematical.

Until then, the LN narrative will stand as the only explanation that qualifies as a legitimate theory.

I dispute the initial premise. Even if someone were to come up with a fact that the LN narrative could not account for, it wouldn't move the needle. Just because no one knows the explanation for something, doesn't mean such an explanation does not exist. We've been down this road before. The CTs come up with something that at the time, no one had thought of the answer to, and the CTs say, "AHA, we've got you now.". Then somebody figures it out. For example when I first joined the online fray in the early 1990s, no one seemed to have an explanation for how CE399 could have caused 7 wounds and come out looking somewhat pristine. I'd bet that some people had figured it out but the answer wasn't widely known. I remember David Belin appeared on Geraldo Rivera's daytime talk show which was a Phil Donahue type audience participation program. Geraldo asked him to explain how CE399 could emerge the way it did and Belin replied, "I cannot". It wasn't long after the Gerald Posner's book Case Closed came out which had the answer. The bullet had tumbled. I doubt Posner was the first to propose the tumbling bullet explanation, but his book was the first explanation that got widely circulated. Later the Haag ballistics team demonstrated that a Carcano bullet will tumble upon exiting from soft tissue.

So if someone were to come up with another fact for which there is no apparent explanation, that is not going to invalidate the LN narrative. To do that, somebody is going to have to prove the LN narrative doesn't work. Nobody has done that for 62 years. I don't see that happening any time in the future.

[Michael Capasse]

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

The needle of history will never be moved by a mass of "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" sort of stuff in which MTG and many CTers specialize. That is simply "Oswald defense counsel" mental masturbation. It goes nowhere, except in the dark halls of Conspiracy World.

Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum is on the right track with his claim that it is "impossible" for the LN theory to account for the alignment of the back and throat wounds and the holes in the jacket and shirt. The problems are that (1) the alignment, while highly problematical, has too many "ifs" to really qualify as flat-out impossible, and (2) Cliff's explanation (CIA-issued ice bullets) doesn't strike most people as convincing. But he's basically on the right track.

The critical FACT for which the LN narrative cannot account would almost surely have to relate to the physical evidence of Dealey Plaza. It's conceivable a startling document or two would do it, but documents have so many possible problems that it would be unlikely. (I happen to be reading a scholarly study of the Salamander Letter that rocked the Mormon Church in the 1980s but turned out to be a clever forgery.) It's possible that the technology available today could show that the bullet trajectories posited by the LN narrative are simply impossible and that at least one bullet had to have come from the Dal-Tex or County Records building, as John Orr is attempting to do - that would do it, although the defenders of the LN paradigm would kick and scream to the bitter end precisely as Thomas Kuhn described. Again, however, such work would have to show that the trajectories posited by the LN narrative are IMPOSSIBLE, not simply problematical.

Until then, the LN narrative will stand as the only explanation that qualifies as a legitimate theory.

I am enjoying your open discussion and consideration. Which brings me to this;

Continuing our little epistemological exercise:

To move the needle of history would require (1) a central FACT for which the LN narrative simply cannot account, and (2) an explanation that convincingly accounts for that fact.

One thing that has always bothered me about this case is the conflict/questions concerning the hole at the back of the President's head.
I find it ridiculous to even consider the notion that the top neurological team at Parkland only assumed there was a hole at the right rear.
Utter nonsense. Yet, pictures from Bethesda show the opposite. As we all know a large hole would be indicative of an exit wound from the front.

There are something like 40+ witnesses of dif backgrounds as well as drawings from a Parkland doctor. https://jfk.boards.net/post/7707/thread
An excellent website that explains a lot; https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm
Paul O'Connor at the London Trial was an eye opener for me. or Tom Robinson the mortician that worked on the body; https://jfk.boards.net/post/7736

All with the utterly lame Gov excuse that the Parkland doctors missed it. and the only explanation I can give is Gov coverup of conflicting evidence in this case.

[Lance Payette]

Yes, I linked the "5 Investigations" piece here just a couple of days ago as a CT-oriented but reasonably balanced and not-easy-to-dismiss discussion.

[John Corbett]

I am enjoying your open discussion and consideration. Which brings me to this;

One thing that has always bothered me about this case is the conflict/questions concerning the hole at the back of the President's head.
I find it ridiculous to even consider the notion that the top neurological team at Parkland only assumed there was a hole at the right rear.
Utter nonsense. Yet, pictures from Bethesda show the opposite. As we all know a large hole would be indicative of an exit wound from the front.

There was a large hole along he entire upper right side of JFK's head. So yes that large hole extended into the rear portion of JFK's head but it was not limited to the back of his head. The Z-film shows us a large flap of skull hanging down the right side of JFK's head. Bill Newman said he thought his ear had been blown off. I was just covered up by that flap.

Despite what amateur sleuths would have us believe, the large blowout does not tell us where the shot came from. Determining the location of an entrance wound in the head is dirt simple for qualified forensic medical examiners. For starters, fracture lines radiate out from the point of entry. Those radiating lines extend from the entry point in the back of the head. There is also beveling that takes place when a missile passes through the wall of the skull. The beveling in the back of the head was inward, further evidence of a rear entry. Had the missile passed through the wall at the back of JFK's skull in a rearward direction, the beveling would be outward.

Don't you think it's time to put away these silly myths based on what amateurs have concluded the evidence indicates.

[Michael Capasse]

There was a large hole along he entire upper right side of JFK's head. So yes that large hole extended into the rear portion of JFK's head but it was not limited to the back of his head. The Z-film shows us a large flap of skull hanging down the right side of JFK's head. Bill Newman said he thought his ear had been blown off. I was just covered up by that flap.

Despite what amateur sleuths would have us believe, the large blowout does not tell us where the shot came from. Determining the location of an entrance wound in the head is dirt simple for qualified forensic medical examiners. For starters, fracture lines radiate out from the point of entry. Those radiating lines extend from the entry point in the back of the head. There is also beveling that takes place when a missile passes through the wall of the skull. The beveling in the back of the head was inward, further evidence of a rear entry. Had the missile passed through the wall at the back of JFK's skull in a rearward direction, the beveling would be outward.

Don't you think it's time to put away these silly myths based on what amateurs have concluded the evidence indicates.

lame