S. M. Holland's "Smoke" on the Grassy Knoll

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Source?

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2853.msg158462.html#msg158462

[John Corbett]

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2853.msg158462.html#msg158462

How is a photo of a reenactment a source for your claim that there was a bullet hole the floor of the presidential limo? You are citing yourself as a source and everything you are presenting is argumentative, speculation, and circular logic.

[Royell Storing]

How is a photo of a reenactment a source for your claim that there was a bullet hole the floor of the presidential limo? You are citing yourself as a source and everything you are presenting is argumentative, speculation, and circular logic.

   Yeah, but that photo did capture the Traffic Signal Support Beam which your buddy Max Holland claimed Oswald struck while firing from a standing position. You consistently demand "Evidence" from everyone on this Forum, and then YOU support a "LOST Bullet". And that's only because you are stuck doing so due to the 3 hulls being found inside the sniper's nest. Be consistent here. If it's evidence YOU demand, then it's evidence YOU must deliver too. If YOU are gonna claim 3 shots, then YOU gotta find that alleged "Lost Bullet".

[John Corbett]

   Yeah, but that photo did capture the Traffic Signal Support Beam which your buddy Max Holland claimed Oswald struck while firing from a standing position. You consistently demand "Evidence" from everyone on this Forum, and then YOU support a "LOST Bullet". And that's only because you are stuck doing so due to the 3 hulls being found inside the sniper's nest. Be consistent here. If it's evidence YOU demand, then it's evidence YOU must deliver too. If YOU are gonna claim 3 shots, then YOU gotta find that alleged "Lost Bullet".

Why do you refer to Max Holland as my buddy. I have never endorsed his theories. His claim that Oswald's first shot struck the traffic arm is a possibility but hardly and established fact. It is completely unnecessary to determine what happened to that first shot because we have definitive proof of what the second and third shots did.

I understand why conspiracy hobbyists resist calls for evidence given that their theories are inevitably based on speculation and imagination. The three hulls are evidence. They are an indication of 3 shots but not proof positive by themselves. Taken in conjunction with everything else we know, it is a virtual certainty that 3 shots were fired. Those three hulls were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle found elsewhere on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The same can be said for the two recovered bullets. Proof positive the Carcano was the murder weapon.

[Royell Storing]

Why do you refer to Max Holland as my buddy. I have never endorsed his theories. His claim that Oswald's first shot struck the traffic arm is a possibility but hardly and established fact. It is completely unnecessary to determine what happened to that first shot because we have definitive proof of what the second and third shots did.

I understand why conspiracy hobbyists resist calls for evidence given that their theories are inevitably based on speculation and imagination. The three hulls are evidence. They are an indication of 3 shots but not proof positive by themselves. Taken in conjunction with everything else we know, it is a virtual certainty that 3 shots were fired. Those three hulls were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle found elsewhere on the 6th floor to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. The same can be said for the two recovered bullets. Proof positive the Carcano was the murder weapon.

     Here you go again. Demanding "evidence" from others and then doing a tap dance with Max by posing the "possibility" of a shot striking the traffic arm. What "evidence" is there of a shot striking that traffic arm? You look extremely weak with the double standard you are applying.

[John Corbett]

     Here you go again. Demanding "evidence" from others and then doing a tap dance with Max by posing the "possibility" of a shot striking the traffic arm. What "evidence" is there of a shot striking that traffic arm? You look extremely weak with the double standard you are applying.

I guess I should have typed slower so you could follow along. Recognizing something as a possibility requires no evidence. Evidence is needed when someone is stating something as a fact. I have no double standards. If I make a claim, I provide the evidence to support that claim. I don't rely on speculation or suppositions in making my claims. It's perfectly fine to speculate about possibilities as long as one doesn't present them as if they are established facts. Did Oswald's first shot strike the traffic arm. I have no way of knowing. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Unless someone has evidence that establishes that it did or evidence that establishes it could not have, it remains an open question. It's a question that likely will never have a definitive answe.

[Royell Storing]

I guess I should have typed slower so you could follow along. Recognizing something as a possibility requires no evidence. Evidence is needed when someone is stating something as a fact. I have no double standards. If I make a claim, I provide the evidence to support that claim. I don't rely on speculation or suppositions in making my claims. It's perfectly fine to speculate about possibilities as long as one doesn't present them as if they are established facts. Did Oswald's first shot strike the traffic arm. I have no way of knowing. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Unless someone has evidence that establishes that it did or evidence that establishes it could not have, it remains an open question. It's a question that likely will never have a definitive answe.

     So the man demanding Evidence from others, now admits to pushing a: (1)"possibly", (2) "maybe" and (3) "open question".  The knot you are tying yourself into is not easy to watch. 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

How is a photo of a reenactment a source for your claim that there was a bullet hole the floor of the presidential limo? You are citing yourself as a source and everything you are presenting is argumentative, speculation, and circular logic.

https://sites.google.com/view/oswaldsfirstshot/home







https://sites.google.com/view/oswaldsfirstshot/home
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPNYhsVvFb7NjNyOvPCyTnGtmP3XpWWM2GN9PYxT-RiaYBjC1sygstEOSKU718Jyg?key=bmtZbEUzbERLb3l4TW5aeFBrem5tS1dzZVVuNm9B