JFK Assassination Forum

A bullet that nicks a window frame "logically" suggests the gunman was trying to miss and the attempt was staged? There would be 100 ways to miss, but the gunman zeroed in on the edge of a window frame? This is Conspiracy Logic 101, a/k/a Alice In Wonderland logic, a/k/a Anti-Logic.

I waded through Gerg Doudna's Walker scenario just as I waded through his Tippit scenario. It is a clever but completely preposterous effort by someone almost pathethically desperate to make a mark in JFKA research. I believe it might have been Kevin Balch who characterized his Tippit effort as an "off-Broadway production" - i.e., an entire cast of not very talented actors with a not very believable script.

FL-

My condolences.

I had a reporter friend from the 1980-90s (we worked at the same small business newspaper, way back when) tell me about the Mossad-JFKA connection, and then talk about Epstein as a dark link to Israel to global cabals and so on. I changed the topic before 9/11 could could up.

When people like Tucker Carlson tirelessly beat the Israel Derangement Syndrome drum....

One million, may even two million are dead in Ukraine. The IRGC slaughters 40,000 in a few days. Haiti, pop. 8 million is a gang-ruled anarchy. One billion women live under Muslim law. I could go on.

But Israel and the US are the only bad guys. Yale astronomy course descriptions being up the "genocidal" Israelis.

"Gays4Hamas" and so on.

The Education Forum hosted a lot of this sort of excrement.

[/font]
Quote from: Kevin Balch on Yesterday at 04:19:07 AM
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?

Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.

[/font]

This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.

Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame actually logically suggests that the gunman was not trying to hit Walker and that this was a staged shooting attempt, the scenario that Greg Doudna has developed with massive, ground-breaking research.

Even our supposed "Marine sharpshooter" would not have fired with the window frame anywhere near his point of aim, whether he was using the iron sights or the scope. He would have simply moved a foot or two to his right or left so that he had a clear shot at Walker, a shot in which the window frame was far from his point of aim.

The gunman was no more than 127 feet from Walker when he fired. That's barely 40 yards. That was a very, very easy shot, even with the iron sights, especially since Walker was sitting at his desk, and since the gunman had plenty of time to take aim.

Add to this the fact that Walker himself insisted that CE 573 was not the bullet that was recovered from his wall. He said he was certain of this. Mind you, Walker was a general and a combat veteran. He knew bullets.

I encourage interested readers to read Greg Doudna's ground-breaking research on the Walker shooting. You can find it here: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1815.

This is a clownish, discrediting, and revealing dodge.

No one denies that the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran upward from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one denies that the autopsy report says nothing about a fragment trail near the top of the head, 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP. No one denies that the autopsy doctors said the entry wound was near the middle of the occipital bone but that the cowlick entry site is in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda. And no one denies that the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no fragment trail from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one. As in no one.

So how do you explain these facts? Answer: You duck them with another frivolous dodge.

I'd be more interested in how you explain the discrepancy. You're the one trying to make the case for a conspiracy. You need to provide that evidence for that.

As any honest observer can see, I am actually not "playing forensic pathologist" at all. I am simply pointing out what numerous experts on both sides have discussed on this key issue. If you would ever bother to read the transcripts of Finck, Boswell, and Humes's exchanges with the FPP during their HSCA testimony, you would see that the absence of a fragment trail and wound pattern from the EOP to the right eye was a major, intense point of disagreement and controversy, a dispute that became so severe that at one point Finck actually questioned how the skull x-rays had been authenticated.

You have identified a disagreement between the autopsy team and the FPP. Now tell us what you think it means and why.

I notice you said nothing about Dr. Chesser's comments on the problems that the high fragment trail and the autopsy report's entry site location pose for the lone-gunman theory. FYI, Dr. Chesser is a board-certified neurologist who has not only examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives but has also examined JFK's pre-mortem x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

Goody. Now explain what this anomaly proves. That's a step I never see the CTs take. They think it suffices just to identify an anomaly as if that proves anything. If you want to prove something, you need to resolve the conflict. Simply identifying it doesn't prove squat.

The fly in the ointment are the witnesses who heard 3 shots the first being at Z-223 when JFK slumped down. So either Connally did not hear an early shot,
 or Oswald fired off three shots between Z223-Z313