How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[Tim Nickerson]

You just can't actually prove it, right?

Nice to see you Tim. It's been some time.

Hi Martin, thank you for the kind words.

The SBT is based on the evidence. I could present it to you but I know that you would never accept it as proof that the SBT should really be known as the Single Bullet Fact. When the SBT comes up in discussions on the assassination here and elsewhere it is usually brought up by CTs who refer to it as the Magic Bullet Theory. We're told by them that the wound in Kennedy's back, or back of the neck, does not line up with the wound in the throat from a shot fired from the Southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD; the entry wound being too low. We're told that Connally was not seated low enough for the bullet to hit him where it did. We're told that Connally wasn't far enough inboard of Kennedy for the bullet to have hit him where it did. We're told that the bullet could not have created all of the wounds that the SBT proposes it did and end up in the condition it did. My take is that you guys are wrong on all accounts. A strong case against the SBT does not exist.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hi Martin, thank you for the kind words.

The SBT is based on the evidence. I could present it to you but I know that you would never accept it as proof that the SBT should really be known as the Single Bullet Fact. When the SBT comes up in discussions on the assassination here and elsewhere it is usually brought up by CTs who refer to it as the Magic Bullet Theory. We're told by them that the wound in Kennedy's back, or back of the neck, does not line up with the wound in the throat from a shot fired from the Southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD; the entry wound being too low. We're told that Connally was not seated low enough for the bullet to hit him where it did. We're told that Connally wasn't far enough inboard of Kennedy for the bullet to have hit him where it did. We're told that the bullet could not have created all of the wounds that the SBT proposes it did and end up in the condition it did. My take is that you guys are wrong on all accounts. A strong case against the SBT does not exist.

The SBT is based on the evidence. I could present it to you but I know that you would never accept it as proof that the SBT should really be known as the Single Bullet Fact.

A lot of things can be called evidence, without it actually proving anything.

We're told by them that the wound in Kennedy's back, or back of the neck, does not line up with the wound in the throat from a shot fired from the Southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD

That may be, but aren't you basically saying that it does line up, without providing conclusive evidence for it?

We're told that the bullet could not have created all of the wounds that the SBT proposes it did and end up in the condition it did.

Do you have any evidence that the bullet could have created all the wounds? And what poof do you have to show that CE399 is that actual bullet?

My take is that you guys are wrong on all accounts.

You are entitled to your opinion

A strong case against the SBT does not exist.

There doesn't have to be one. It's the SBT that needs to be proven and as far as I can tell that hasn't been done - beyond presenting it as a theory and calling it a "fact" - since 1963

[Tim Nickerson]

The SBT is based on the evidence. I could present it to you but I know that you would never accept it as proof that the SBT should really be known as the Single Bullet Fact.

A lot of things can be called evidence, without it actually proving anything.

We're told by them that the wound in Kennedy's back, or back of the neck, does not line up with the wound in the throat from a shot fired from the Southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD

That may be, but aren't you basically saying that it does line up, without providing conclusive evidence for it?

We're told that the bullet could not have created all of the wounds that the SBT proposes it did and end up in the condition it did.

Do you have any evidence that the bullet could have created all the wounds? And what poof do you have to show that CE399 is that actual bullet?

My take is that you guys are wrong on all accounts.

You are entitled to your opinion

A strong case against the SBT does not exist.

There doesn't have to be one. It's the SBT that needs to be proven and as far as I can tell that hasn't been done - beyond presenting it as a theory and calling it a "fact" - since 1963

What happened to the bullet that exited Kennedy's throat? Where did it go after exiting the throat?

[John Corbett]

As I point out in my article "Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?", since Oswald was seen by Eddie Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:20, but Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor at 12:15 or 12:20.

And on and on we could go.

None of this, even if true, negates the finding that Oswald was in the sniper's nest firing the shots at 12:30. The times given by Williams and Arnold are nothing more than guesses. The fact they said 12:15 or 12:20 means they are unsure of the times. Do you think people make a habit of time stamping every little event in their lives. If you passed a co-worker in a hallway, would you make note of the time it happened? Of course you wouldn't. If somebody asked you later what time you saw that person, anything you said would be a guess.

For the sake of argument, let's say Williams did leave the 6th floor at 12:20 and Arnold did see Oswald on a lower floor at 12:20. That still leaves Oswald 10 minutes to get to the 6th floor get ready to shoot JFK. I tend to doubt either of the time estimates are accurate but neither precludes Oswald from being the shooter on the 6th floor at 12:30 which the body of evidence firmly establishes.

[Martin Weidmann]

What happened to the bullet that exited Kennedy's throat? Where did it go after exiting the throat?

I have no idea. I'm not even sure that a bullet exited Kennedy's throat.
Parkland's doctors thought the throat wound was an entry wound.

[Tim Nickerson]

I have no idea. I'm not even sure that a bullet exited Kennedy's throat.
Parkland's doctors thought the throat wound was an entry wound.

Name the Parkland doctors who thought it was an entrance wound.

The autopsy concluded that it was an exit wound. The SBT reasonably explains what happened to that bullet after it exited the throat. So, if you are unable to come up with an alternative reasonable explanation as to what happened to the bullet that exited the throat then you are essentially conceding to the SBT.

[Martin Weidmann]

Name the Parkland doctors who thought it was an entrance wound.

The autopsy concluded that it was an exit wound. The SBT reasonably explains what happened to that bullet after it exited the throat. So, if you are unable to come up with an alternative reasonable explanation as to what happened to the bullet that exited the throat then you are essentially conceding to the SBT.

Why is it that just about every LN constantly wants others to prove his opinion wrong, instead of proving their opinion is the right one?

Actually, IIRC, at the autopsy they initially considered the throat wound to be caused by a tracheotomy. They didn't consider it an exit wound until after receiving information from Parkland after the autopsy has been completed.

How can I be able to come up with any kind of explanation about a bullet the exited the throat when I am not even convinced that a bullet actually exited the throat?