Weidmann will never tell you what he believes. That would require him to take a stand that he would have to defend. He's here just to troll without ever contributing anything to the discourse. He get's his jollies by being a nuisance.
e

Weidmann will never tell you what he believes.

And you nevertheless know what I believe?   

That would require him to take a stand that he would have to defend.

Why would I take a stand and defend it, when I haven't got one?

He's here just to troll without ever contributing anything to the discourse.

No. I'm just asking questions clowns like you can't or don't want to answer

Perhaps you should try to (honestly) answer a simple question and maybe we can have a real conversation after that!

MW--

I largely agree with the sentiments you express herein.

The fact I cannot specify who perped and exactly how the JFKA unfolded, does not mean the LNT is plausible.

For me, the LNT is implausible, as it was to the HSCA-1979. The question is, why do people consider the LNT plausible, given the HSCA findings?

Rapid cadence shots in 11/22, gunsmoke in the GK, a man with fake Secret Service credentials in the GK, a wound pattern on JBC suggesting he was shot separately from JFK...all point away from the LNT.

My guess is a very small small JFKAC, possibly linked to Alpha 66, or G2 DGI. Two people and LHO.

Puerto Rican nationalist conspired to murder Truman. "On November 1, 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalists, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, attempted to assassinate President Harry S. Truman at Blair House in Washington, D.C."

Very small plot.

Cuban nationalism was running high in 1963.

No, it most certainly was not in the "low neck." The autopsy photo alone refutes this myth.

Even Google AI knows that T1 is not in the neck:

The "T" stands for Thoracic: This means T1 is the first vertebra of the thoracic spine (the upper and middle back section).

"This wound is located approximately at the point where the bullet would be expected to exit, given the nature of the entrance wound in the upper right back and the damage to the transverse process of the lower cervical and first thoracic vertebras, which are situated on a line between the entrance and exit points."- HSCA Volume VII, page 175

That may be why they said this:

"the entrance perforation is medial to the scapula and superior to the ribs." - HSCA Volume VII, page 87

T1 being the uppermost vertebra for the ribs.

And there's this from the HSCA photographic analysis panel:

168. "the evidence indicates that the bullet passed near, but did not strike, the right lateral processes of the seventh cervical and first thoracic vertebrae (nor any other bony matter) (59)"- HSCA Volume VI, page 56

(59) sources paragraphs 272-289 of the FPP report.

Even partially acknowledging the autopsy photo of the back wound and mislocating the wound at C7 does not work, because C7 would have been only very slightly above the throat wound, if not level with it, whereas the downward angle from the sixth-floor window to JFK would have been between 20 and 21.5 degrees. Humes knew this, and this is why he purposely falsified the back wound's location in CE 385, and this is why the WC assumed the back wound was in the neck and that it was visibly above the throat wound.

When factoring in the 3 degree slope of the street, the angle through Kennedy was about 17.25 degrees.

This X-Ray below was not of someone with a hunchback physique like that of Kennedy's.



And using this HSCA drawing, we can see that T1 is above the throat wound as well.

Of course, you continue to cling to the absurd bunched-clothing theory to explain away the fact that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were 5 inches below the collar, even though Croft 3 and Willis 5 plainly refute the theory, not to mention the severely far-fetched notion that the shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat.

BTW, do you still stand by your bizarre claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP skull x-ray are the same object, even though both are plainly visible on the x-ray and look nothing like each other?

My claim is not bizarre. It is a factual claim that you have thus far been unable to address in a cogent and honest manner.   You will no doubt continue to avoid addressing the bullet fragment that is imbedded in the frontal skull bone.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5194.msg186604.html#msg186604

Since you know the evidence so well and like to tell all of the lone assassin believers where they're wrong (but surprisingly not the conspiracists), why not tell us who you believe shot JFK? What does the evidence tell you?

You've been posting for roughly a decade. Nearly ten thousand posts over that time. How about just one post telling us who shot JFK? After all, this is the "JFK Assassination Forum" not the "Oswald Didn't Shoot JFK Forum." Don't be shy.

Since you know the evidence so well and like to tell all of the lone assassin believers where they're wrong

Why do you need to make a strawman argument? I never claimed to know the evidence "so well", nor have I ever told a LN that they are wrong. At best, I have been asking questions that LNs can't or don't want to answer. So, why are you so paranoid?

why not tell us who you believe shot JFK?

I can't because I don't know. Just like you, I wasn't there and just like you I can only work with the known evidence, without actually knowing if it is indeed all of the evidence or if it is authentic. Unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions based on assumptions and speculation.

What does the evidence tell you?

That the whole case is a mess. You get one piece of evidence and something else contradicts it. It is my impression that the basic idea is to keep everybody guessing and that seems to have worked since day one.

You've been posting for roughly a decade. Nearly ten thousand posts over that time. How about just one post telling us who shot JFK?

And solve the case for you?     Nah, just keep guessing. 

Btw why are you so desperate to know what I think?

It seems to me that you have noticed from my "nearly ten thousand posts" that I don't make claims I can't conclusively back up with hard evidence, and you just can't handle that!

After all, this is the "JFK Assassination Forum" not the "Oswald Didn't Shoot JFK Forum."

True, it's also not the "we claim Oswald shot JFK, but we can't provide conclusive evidence for it Forum".

Since you responded to my post, I have to ask; Why don't you have a problem with evidence being misrepresented, ignored and dismissed?