JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Dr. E. Forrest Chapman
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 16, 2026, 05:21:01 PM ---This whole thread has been suspect from the get go. The true purpose has been culminating in your recent posts of the pictures of shells and your explanation for your actions and posts. No one needed one more picture with your ridiculous lines on them. It could not be more obvious how deceitful this has become.
The difference between you making a claim and expressing an opinion is you having been told how stupid it was to think the shells would have the exact same dent in the exact same place on so many shells and the unfired cartridge as a result of the rear bridge or any location for that matter. The rear bridge could never have caused the dent in CE 543, and you have not shown where it was even remotely a possibility. A picture of the dent in CE 543 needs to show the dimple in the middle of the dent or would that cast this whole bizarre nonsense in a bad light. Where is the top-down picture of the shell you were claiming was CE 543. That is OK, it doesn’t matter; it is only a few pages back in the thread. By your own statements regarding the dent, it is either flared or not a picture of CE 543.
--- End quote ---
Here’s another photo of the top view as requested. I made it into an animated GIF to show conclusively that there simply is no flare on the mouth of CE 543. The blinking yellow circle is intended to show that the rim of the mouth is still round with the exception of the dented in section.
The side view posted previously with the parallel yellow lines shows that the neck of CE 543 still has parallel sides. This is meant to show that there simply is no flare on the neck of CE 543.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:35:37 PM ---You make the assumption I am an atheist. If atheism could answer all my questions, I would probably be an atheist. It can't so I'm not. I am agnostic. Mankind has been pondering this question for as long as humans have had the ability to ponder. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a provable answer. The late Dr. Carl Sagain, who was also an agnostic, said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". That pretty much sums up my position on religion.
--- End quote ---
No, I don't assume you're an atheist. I say that your method of arguing your LN position is consistently the same as the internet atheists' method of arguing theirs.
As applied to religion, Carl Sagan's statement is unworthy of a serious thinker. Sagan in fact said some remarkably shallow things. I would love to "know" too, but we cannot know the ontological truth of something like the existence or nonexistence of a deity because the answer, whether yes or no, must be found outside the human frame of reference. The domain of science does not extend beyond the natural order. All we can do is inform ourselves as diligently and thoroughly as possible and arrive at some level of conviction. That conviction, be it theistic or atheistic, cannot possibly be free of all doubt and cannot possibly rise to the level of knowledge. Agnosticism is fine if one has diligently and thoroughly investigated the issue and concluded it is impossible to reach any level of conviction one way or the other - but only if one has diligently and thoroughly investigated the issue. Otherwise, a claim of agnosticism is just a cop-out: "The existence or nonexistence of a deity cannot be known with certainty, and therefore I don't concern myself with the issue and call myself an agnostic." Sagan distinguished his "I want to know" from "blind faith" - but only mindless theism or atheism is a matter of blind faith, so Sagan was guilty of setting up a false dichotomy. Famed New Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins makes precisely the same mistake, having so little understanding of the religious position that he equates all religious belief to mindless blind faith. One can certainly say "I don't think the answer can be known, so I don't bother with the question" - but this is not a true agnostic position and, if certain religions are true, could have unpleasant eternal consequences; indeed, it could have unpleasant eternal consequences even if some species of atheism are true. Hence, I believe the quest for convictions is one of the central purposes of my life.
--- Quote ---As it applies to the JFKA, I KNOW that Oswald was the assassin. I BELIEVE he was acting on his own behalf but because I can't prove a negative, I can't logically say he had no accomplices. Only that I believe that to be highly unlikely. Ditto for the two shot scenario. There is ample, highly compelling evidence of three shots, both forensic and earwitness accounts. The WC recognized the theoretical possibility that Oswald could have started with an empty shell in the chamber and only fired two shots, but I find that to be highly unlikely.
--- End quote ---
No, you have a high level of conviction that Oswald was the assassin. Your claim of knowledge is also frequently encountered on religion forums, where folks claim "knowledge" when in fact what they are expressing is a high level of conviction. Typically, it is believers who do this, as though their God might be offended if they acknowledged even a kernel of honest (and unavoidable) doubt. Many CTers have a high level of conviction in the opposite direction. Since you are watering down your assessment of the two-shot scenario to "highly unlikely," on what basis is Jack Nessan a troll for defending that position? The fact is - and it's quite striking - that much of the JFKA debate is conducted at a quasi-religious level, not a search-for-historical-truth level.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 17, 2026, 01:57:04 AM ---
No, you have a high level of conviction that Oswald was the assassin.
--- End quote ---
Gee, it couldn't be because all the evidence points to that conclusion.
I agree with what Vincent Bugliosi said. People who don't think Oswald was the assassin are either ignorant of the evidence of his guilt or they are just silly.
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on June 16, 2026, 05:51:51 PM ---
Here’s another photo of the top view as requested. I made it into an animated GIF to show conclusively that there simply is no flare on the mouth of CE 543. The blinking yellow circle is intended to show that the rim of the mouth is still round with the exception of the dented in section.
The side view posted previously with the parallel yellow lines shows that the neck of CE 543 still has parallel sides. This is meant to show that there simply is no flare on the neck of CE 543.
--- End quote ---
Your picture does not depict what you think it does. You need to study the various pictures a little closer. What is depicted is exactly what I have been telling you. The indentation in the center of the bigger dent is farther into the shell casing, you know flared, and that is what is shown in the plan view of the shell casing and the other CE 543 photos.
The sides are slightly bulged out as would be expected and observed in the photos. Your lines are just an extension of your opinion and cannot possibly be considered accurate by you or anyone else.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 17, 2026, 02:30:39 PM ---Your picture does not depict what you think it does. You need to study the various pictures a little closer. What is depicted is exactly what I have been telling you. The indentation in the center of the bigger dent is farther into the shell casing, you know flared, and that is what is shown in the plan view of the shell casing and the other CE 543 photos.
The sides are slightly bulged out as would be expected and observed in the photos. Your lines are just an extension of your opinion and cannot possibly be considered accurate by you or anyone else.
--- End quote ---
The indentation in the center of the bigger dent is farther into the shell casing, you know flared, and that is what is shown in the plan view of the shell casing and the other CE 543 photos.
That is not the definition of a flare. Here is the difference according to Google AI:
A dent is an inward depression caused by an impact, whereas a flare is an outward protrusion or widening.
The sides are slightly bulged out as would be expected and observed in the photos.
If the sides were slightly bulged out, that would be flared. However, I do not see any evidence of any bulging. If bulging were present, we would see the top view being oval shaped. But my demonstration with the yellow circle shows that it is not oval-shaped and is circular. Also the parallel yellow lines in the side view shows that it is not bulged (or flared out); if the neck of the shell was bulged out, then the parallel lines would not line up with the edges of the neck.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version