Gerry, this is unlike you.

But, if we must talk about which side relies on horrible logic. . . .

-- Shall we talk about your side's egregiously illogical attempt to explain the location of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat with the demonstrably false bunched-clothing theory, which requires the assumption that the shirt and coat bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with each other, never mind that the photo taken closest to the time of the shot shows that JFK's coat was lying nearly flat, and never mind that the one motorcade photo that you guys cite (Croft 3) does not show a bunch that was large enough and in the right location to cause a bullet that hit at C3/C4 (per the WC) or T1 (per the HSCA FPP) to create two holes that were over 5 inches below the collar?

-- Shall we talk about your theory that, yes, all the motorcade photos in evidence show JFK's tie knot centered in the middle of the collar band, but that just before the bullet hit, the tie knot shifted just enough to allow the bullet to nick the tie knot's left edge, not to mention the fact that both evidence photos of the knot show the nick was not on the left edge but was inward from it?

-- Shall we talk about your theory that JFK's throat wound was small (5-7 mm), neat, and punched inward because the collar band created a "shoring" effect, tightening the skin to enable the wound to have an entry-like appearance, even though, according to your side, the wound was below the collar band, and even though forensic science tells us that shored wounds will not look like that?

-- Shall we talk about your theory that numerous medical professionals and federal agents mistook a wound above JFK's right ear for a wound that was several inches farther back and lower and that included about half of the right side of the occipital bone, from which cerebellar tissue could be seen oozing? Mind you, these witnesses include the two nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze and the three morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, in addition to a federal agent who described the wound as "right-rear" after seeing it up close for several minutes and then seeing it again when he was taken to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing JFK's wounds.

We're supposed to believe that not one of those people could tell the difference between a gaping wound above the right ear and a wound in the right occipital-parietal area. This is an especially vacuous theory if the autopsy photos of the back of the head are accurate, since they show the rear of the head to be entirely intact.

-- Shall we talk about your side's embarrassing response to the historic optical-density measurements done by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chessar, Dr. DeSalles, and Dr. Aguilar, which prove, among other things, that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain (2/3 of the right cerebrum) than the autopsy brain photos show (per Baden, "less than 1-2 ounces")? 

Allow me to add that years earlier, Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the leading radiologists in his day, found that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing, and that Dr. Humes himself told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, and that their disclosures are supported by the accounts of a number of witnesses, including the one mortician who commented on the amount of missing brain, who reported that a large part of JFK's brain was missing.

Really, you guys are in no position to be accusing others of faulty logic.

I honestly don't remember seeing the video you mention.

I'm not interested in playing Groundhog day with you.

Easy to avoid, just post something new and accurate and not the same old BS.

This is the second time in just as many days that you walk away from a conversation after your claims fail to persuade.

Repeating pure hogwash does not improve it. Again, let's see you produce just one example from any FBI or other investigative document where the term "missile" was used to refer to two small bullet fragments that constituted less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. Let's see it. We both know you can't produce such an example because it doesn't exist, because no one would be dumb enough or careless enough to willingly describe two small bullet fragments as a "missile." 

Wow, I guess you saw no need to mention any of the problems and indications of fraud that I pointed out in Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA and ARRB statements. I guess you saw no need to mention that I documented that Sibert and O'Neill repeatedly distinguished between "missile/bullet" and "fragments" in their 11/26/63 report and in their HSCA and ARRB interviews. I guess you saw no need to mention that Boyers, the Navy corpsman who supposedly typed the "missile" receipt, said there were three or four fragments, not two, and that Sibert likewise indicated there were more than two fragments in the evidence bottle. You ignored all these points and falsely cited me as if I had contradicted Michael Capasse's arguments.