Anyone who reads the OP and Capasse's and my replies in this thread will laugh at this statement.
If only you could hear what people think.
Is the photo of the hole a "factoid"? What in the world would have created that hole in such a way as to make Officer Foster feel certain it was a bullet strike?
There was no hole. It was crack caused by a bullet fragment which struck the windshield from the inside. Why are you willing to believe Foster but not the Secret Service agents who closely examined the windshield in the White House garage that night?
Is Officer Foster's WC testimony a "factoid"? (Note: Foster told the WC that he saw a bullet hit the grass, and that he assumed the bullet had ricocheted out of the hole.)
Much of what Foster said is his assumptions. You combined his assumptions with your lies to create a factoid. Foster did not say he saw a bullet hit the grass. This is what he told the WC:
Mr. FOSTER - I moved to -down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of he shots hit.
Mr. BALL - Find anything?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location.
Mr. BALL - Hit the turf?
All he saw was a hole in the grass and he just assumed it was caused by a bullet just as he assumed it had ricocheted out of the hole.
Is Dudman's account of being told by a police inspector that bullet had been found in the grass a "factoid"?
I don't know what Dudman was told. I know there was no bullet found in the grass. According to Foster's account, the bullet had ricocheted out. That doesn't square with the bullet being found in the grass.
Is the fact that Lt. Day told the Dallas Times-Herald that a bullet was recovered from the hole in the grass and that Day even estimated the distance between the hole and the sixth-floor window a "factoid"?
In an event such as this, what people hear and what actually happened are not necessarily one and the same. A lot of misinformation gets reported. What we know is that Foster, by his own admission, said he didn't find a bullet. The other people you have cited didn't find a bullet either. They reported what they had heard. IOW, hearsay.
If you are going to insist that a bullet was found in the grass or anywhere else, tell us who said they found it.
I just have to laugh at this howler:
You "don't need a rational explanation"?! LOL! Yeah, who needs rational explanations, right?!
I hope everyone notices that MTG has quoted a phrase out of context to hide the point that was actually being made. He did this because MTG is a liar and the biggest liars are the ones who tell half truths, as MTG has done here.
No, of course you're not the one claiming it is a bullet hole. No kidding. Officer Foster, Deputy Sheriff Walthers, Richard Dudman, Lt. J. C. Day, and reporters at two Dallas-Fort Worth newspapers said the hole was made by a bullet. Foster, Walthers, Day, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter saw the hole. Foster saw the hole made and recognized it as a bullet strike, and never wavered from that position.
They saw a hole in the turf. There is no evidence the hole was caused by a bullet. That is pure assumption.
Since you say they were all wrong, it is up to you to explain why they were wrong and what made the hole in the grass if it wasn't a bullet.
Another of your feeble attempts at shifting the burden of proof. You are the one claiming the hole they saw was caused by a bullet. Since none of these people actually saw a bullet, that is going to be quite difficult. Of course we can count on doing what you always do. Assume what you can't prove.
I don't dispute that these people saw a hole in the turf. I dispute that there is credible evidence the hole was caused by a bullet strike. You have provided no evidence it was.
You are still ducking and dodging about what made the dug-out hole if it was not made by a bullet and about why Foster was certain that a bullet made the hole.
Again, I don't have to prove what caused the hole in the turf because I don't pretend to know what caused it. You have resorted to the standard CT practice of assuming every unexplained event is evidence of a conspiracy. Since it is unknown what caused the hole in the turf, you take that as an invitation to assume it was a bullet strike. Completely illogical.
This thread is a perfect example of your abject refusal to deal honestly and credibly with facts that refute your theory of the shooting. No matter how clear and compelling the evidence is, no matter how well corroborated the evidence is, you won't budge but instead will offer lame, vacuous evasions and falsehoods.
You are the last person on this forum who has the moral authority to talk about honesty, given your long history of deceit. You have presented no facts which refute the lone gunman position. You have strung together assumptions and mixed in your own lies to create your factoids. You have been doing this sort of thing for the 35 years I have been reading your crap.
You have presented zero witnesses to a bullet being found in the turf or anywhere else along Elm St. You have taken a hole in the turf and simply assumed it was made by a bullet. Are we supposed to believe that every hole in the turf is evidence of a bullet strike. If that is the case, I could go down to my local park and I'll bet I could find 100 bullet holes in no time.
