51
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What five anomalies have complicated the investigation over the years?
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Yesterday at 07:05:45 PM »A bullet tumbling backwards.



Have you ever watched a "TUMBLING Team"? Do you believe they are facing, "BACKWARD"?
I'll type slower this time to make it easier for you to follow. In order for the bullet to strike JBC's wrist while traveling backward, it would have to tumble into that orientation. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive. One depends on the other.
Now, I ask you again. Do you deny that a Carcano bullet will tumble (or yaw if you prefer that term) upon exiting soft tissue?
I haven’t seen the footage that shows one glove missing fromMichael Jackson
![]()
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.

Still using the all-the-evidence-has-been-suppressed excuse for why you guys can't make the case for your imagined conspiracies. You guys START was a conspiracy and then go looking for the evidence to support your premise. When you can't find any, you convince yourself all the good stuff has been hidden. Your entire premise is based on what-ifs. I count 3 in your latest post.
I remember back in the early 1990s when I was still a neophyte when it came to the internet and the JFK conspiracy debate. Shortly after Oliver Stone's movie came out, the ARRB was formed. The CTs were telling the LNs that the proof of conspiracy was just around the corner. When the bulk of the files were released, it turned out to be a big nothing burger. Ever since, the CTs have been whining that they are still holding on to the good stuff. As more and more of the files were gradually released and there was still no smoking gun, the CTs insisted that the few remaining sealed documents would have the proof they needed. When Trump finally released everything, it was still a big nothing burger. The CTs still insist evidence is being held from them. It's a matter of faith with them that there was a conspiracy and they would be able to prove that if only the government wasn't hiding the evidence. They never consider the possibility that their long-held beliefs could be wrong.
I'm not defending what this guy did, but his age should factor into whether you decide to basically end his life. Obviously, your being seated onna jury murder case is out of the question.
You really should find a niche on a religion forum, because so many of your statements are right out of the atheist playbook. Either atheism or religion can be "faith based" in the sense of an entirely mindless adoption of a position for reasons having little or nothing to do with the ontological truth of that position. It is the atheist playbook that religion is entirely faith-based - i.e., nothing but delusional or "magical" thinking. In fact, serious believers - such as myself - have evaluated a vast body of scientific, anecdotal and testimonial evidence, as well as philosophical and theological arguments, in arriving at convictions that can be described as religious. The "leap of faith" in the direction of religion is not markedly different from the "leap of faith" toward atheism because the ontological truth of either position cannot be known in this lifetime. The comparison between a believer and unbeliever is simply a matter of how much diligence the individual has exercised in reaching his or her convictions and the depth of those convictions. Once one has reached a set of religious convictions and is inside the religious framework, then the term "faith" is indeed used in a slightly different and uniquely religious sense that is something along the lines of "internal knowledge."
At this point, the three-shot scenario is not unlike a religious conviction. The ontological truth will never be known. What you call "an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" others who are equally informed do not find so overwhelming. I do not find it overwhelming. When no one can tell us when the first shot was even fired, and there is no physical evidence apart from a shell with an oddly shaped primer indentation and a dented lip, to refer to "overwhelming" evidence sounds very much like the claim of a religious zealot. You find the evidence sufficient to reach some level of conviction, while others find it sufficient to reach a different conviction or end up holding an "agnostic" position on the issue. That's just the reality - it's a matter of how one interprets the evidence.
Your persistence in calling Jack a troll is exactly what a religious zealot or militant atheist does. "Only I know God, and if you disagree with me and [my interpretation of] the Bible you're going to hell!" "If you persist in believing there is a deity, you're just a delusional magic thinker!" The number of shots fired by Oswald is an open issue as to which intelligent and diligent people can hold different views. There is no certainty and at this point can never be. Before reading Phantom Shot, I had never considered the possibility of only two shots. Having read it and looked into the issue more deeply myself, it is a theory that has a lot of merit. What further underscores that your position is akin to a religious one is that, ironically, the two-shot scenario doesn't challenge the LN narrative at all! It is only a threat to your "dogma." The Great Schism of 1054 AD that forever split the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church was largely over the filioque - i.e., whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from only the Father or both the Father and the Son. It sounds completely goofy to me, but this "three shot or two shot" debate is strikingly similar: did three shots (orthodoxy!) or only two (heresy!) proceed from Oswald's rifle in the religion we call the LN narrative?