JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[Regnad Kcin]

And, of course, one can only marvel at the strained attempts to explain away the compelling evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City. We now know that the HSCA Mexico City investigator, Ed Lopez, concluded Oswald was being impersonated, and we know, thanks to LBJ's phone recording system, that J. Edgar Hoover advised LBJ that Oswald was being impersonated because they had the recording of Oswald's call but the voice was not Oswald's. This is covered in some detail in former Army Intelligence officer John Newman's book Oswald and the CIA.

With respect, please don't scurry to some other matter before some resolution on that which you've raised and to which others have responded. Or are you conceding?

 

[JayUtah]

I will never understand why these guys think a Gish Gallop would work on the Internet. Live debate? Sure, blather away and overcome your opponent with the quantity, if not the quality, of your argument. But in this setting, we can see where the discussion has been and where it still needs focus.

It's all about perspective. From the other guy's point of view: "Yeah, I raised a whole bunch of issues and those dunderheads at JREF couldn't answer a single one of them. All they did was complain that I was being so thorough."

The motto of conspiracism is that every man's a hero in his own eyes.

 

[supposenot]

I see the Mac Wallace fingerprint has now become "hard" evidence for supposenot (and "new"? I don't think so.

Yes, "hard" forensic objective evidence. I don't think I've claimed that it is new, though, since it so obviously isn't.

What I have claimed is new, because it is, is my demolition of the supposed debunking of the Wallace fingerprint.

So I would suggest that you've got confused. No shame in that, happens to the best of us.

This forum does have a search function, supposenot- you don't have to read the whole thread, but using that to see what's been already discussed would seem to be a minimum you could do).

Without knowing what search terms to use, however, the search function isn't much assistance. I still maintain that my request for a summary or a link was not unreasonable.

The fact that Darby's source for comparison wasn't a good one, and that he had nothing else to work with, is an excuse for the shaky nature of the ID; but it doesn't really make it less so, does it?

Again (although not solely from you) the print is characterised as 'shaky'. On what grounds precisely?

And "the debunker used the same source" is just tu quoque; the issue is whether Darby's ID can be established on this basis.

It would indeed be a simple case of tu quoque if that were my sole objection, but it is not. If the debunker claims that the photocopy is not adequate for an identification to be sustained, but perfectly adequate to provide a negative match, then he is self-evidently not being consistent. I noted this as an irony, and I put it no stronger than that. It tends to undermine his argument, but it doesn't of itself dismiss it.

"An art more than a science"- that says a lot.

Care to expand on that rather gnomic reflection?

I'll also note the admission that the print now held out as "hard" forensic evidence is "not...verified." It "might" be validated- how does that translate to "hard"?

Well, although I wasn't aware of it yesterday, the print has indeed been verified by a second expert in a blind test. In any event, I address the "non-verification" issue below.

What the debunker can prove from an admittedly-flawed source is not the issue- it's what Darby can.

Indeed, and despite the limitations of his material he was able to arrive at 14 point match (the threshold for court admissibility) and subsequently a 36 point match.

Aside from (again) putting the burden of proof where it doesn't belong (on the debunker)...since we're appealing to the FBI, what do they say?

You lost are awfully keen on apportioning the burden of proof, as though there were only one such indivisible notional entity.

Both experts have to shoulder the burden of proof for their respective positions. It's a question of which one can support that burden best.

Darby has a 26-point match on his side. The debunker has nothing at all. I address this below.

No match

That does not negate the original identification, it merely fails to corroborate it.

And that's taking their statement at face value, without even considering the fact that the FBI could be suggested as a not wholly impartial adjudicator in reassessing its own evidence.

It would be nice, therefore, if the FBI were to publish their analysis, or pass the test itself over to a non-interested third party.

But that would insinuate corruption, and I have no concrete evidence of that, so it remains nothing more than a slight possibility.

Far more likely is the possibility of misinterpretation. Without straying too far from the point in hand, the FBI has certainly been massively mistaken about fingerprint evidence in one high-profile case in recent years that we know of.

The reasons for a possible false negative are several and complex. I am happy to discuss this issue further, if you wish.

I'm not sure I get why supposenot is hanging his hat on this one peg anyway. He himself admits that he accepts LHO as having fired at least some of the shots, presumably because of the overwhelming consilience of other evidence, independent of just his fingerprints at the scene, that says so. So I have to ask- is there any other evidence, independent of just this one shaky fingerprint ID, that puts Wallace even in the building, much less firing (or directing) shots?

Again, you have not justified your characterisation of the evidence as shaky, far less dismissed it from the table altogether. It's still there.

Any witnesses who say they saw him there around the time of the shooting, for example?

Nope. And if there were, it would be all too easy to cast doubt upon their testimonies.

Without that, all you've got is, at best, one anomalous loose end in the WC conclusion that proves nothing about it, as compared to the Wallace theory, which is, other than one problematical fingerprint ID, all loose ends on its own and an unnecessary add-on to the WC.

There is no actual law of nature that requires a conspiracy to be simple or self-evident, so characterising it as "unnecessary" is a species of metaphor at best.

I repeat, the Wallace fingerprint is hard evidence and has so far withstood debunking.

I also note that you have completely ignored my final point about best practice in fingerprint evidence. That point is the "killer app" that destroy's the debunker's supposed "argument" beyond any hope of repair, even if you ignore the preceding three objections, and exposes him as (to be quite frank) a nincompoop who doesn't know what he is doing.

Why did you completely ignore that point? Please explain.

If you can.

 

[JayUtah]

I repeat, the Wallace fingerprint is hard evidence and has so far withstood debunking.

Ex cathedra.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Another thing that's curious about this issue is that in this case it is the no-conspiracy folks who are in the decided minority and who are going up against massive evidence that contradicts their position. But, like other bands of true believers, they think they're the ones with all the facts in their corner because they only listen to scholars who support their belief.

I'm guessing that every one of them views Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History as a sterling work of scholarship, even though JFK scholars have destroyed the book.

 

[supposenot]

And I say that as somebody who likes the Ramsey book that uses the exact same two "witnesses" that are being used here. It's an entertaining yarn that summarises a lot of JFK Buff-ery from the last three decades or so. It holds a lot of stuff to scrutiny: The idea of two Oswalds, the New Orleans stories, the Body Swapping, and best explains the two different sets of JFK Autopsy photos. But it states as facts accepted by the author stuff that just doesn't stand up. It accepts there were nine or twelve shots (but never explains why this is so) and accepts the Backyard photos were fake (but never explains why). It tries to make a theory that fits with actual evidence- but not the totality of evidence. It handwaves too much.

I'm going to address this point of yours in isolation from the rest of that post, since you are obviously implying that I have cribbed my argument from Ramsay's book. I've read it, and considered it objectively. Bits of it I can accept, and bits of it I cannot.

I reject, for example, the claims of Madeleine Brown, who (as shown by Dave Perry's essay "Texas in the Imagination") is completely unreliable (to be charitable to her shade).

I also reject the Tippet/JFK "swapped bodies" theory, which is too grotesque and far-fetched for me to countenance (I will admit that this is simply prejudice on my part, and I have no rational argument against it other than that the bloke who thought it up (Robert Morningstar) appears to be a lunatic of some description).

I don't remember what Ramsay said about Oswald, although I think he absolved him as wholly innocent. In any case, I am prepared to accept that Oswald was most probably guilty, but not the sole guilty party.

So, yes, that leaves me with two "confessions" (each of which is problematic in its own way) in common with Ramsay. So ... what, exactly?

Ramsay's book of course was published prior to the E Howard Hunt confession, which also fingers LBJ as the conspiracy's instigator and motivator. I accept the Hunt confession as part of my argument, although (unlike the Factor and Estes confessions) Hunt's confession post-dates the Wallace print ID. If that is indeed a problem at all, which I am not certain about.

Unfortunately we see the same issues in this regurgitated explanation of somebody else's theory and it smacks too much of "the last book I read was obviously the right explanation", which is pretty rife in JFK conspiracies, JTR, explanations of Nessie, etc.

I hope I have allayed your suspicions of plagiarism in the above.

I would also like to remind you that (in my very first post on this thread, indeed in this forum) I set out an entirely new argument concerning the validity of the fingerprint evidence. This I can assure you, is wholly novel to the best of my knowledge (so much so that JayUtah accused me of cribbing it from an unnamed source).

I brought it to this forum because I (perhaps naively) thought that a crowd of self-nominated critical thinkers might be able to bring some new perspective to bear on the quality of my analysis.

Instead, the nonspiracists (a useful personal shorthand referring to the JFK case alone, not intended to be contemptuous) seem keen to talk about the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, Marilyn Monroe, etc, etc, absolutely anything at all other than addressing the established fact that their "lone fingerprint debunker" has been blown off his wobbly little legs and into ten thousand sticky little bits by his own backfiring ignorance of best-practice procedural in his supposed field of personal expertise.

Perhaps Tom you might be willing to address this entirely new argument, if witness-recycling bores you so?

I must confess, I am not holding my breath.

 

[JayUtah]

Another thing that's curious...

"Majority" issues already discussed. Whatever your disdainful opinion of your critics, you still fail to follow up on every single point you raise and which receives subsequent attention. Your personal dereliction is not affected in any way by the demographics of the debate.

I'm guessing that every one of them...

Straw man.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And, of course, one can only marvel at the strained attempts to explain away the compelling evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City...

And by the way, where in the recent thread discussion did this occur?

 

[mikegriffith1]

With respect, please don't scurry to some other matter before some resolution on that which you've raised and to which others have responded. Or are you conceding?

When I saw nothing but timeworn, erroneous replies regarding the Tague wounding and the failure of anyone to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat, I thought I'd raise a different issue.

It's readily apparent that you guys simply have not bothered to read both sides of the issue. You act as though only kooks believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, when in fact there are thousands--literally thousands--of scholars who posit a conspiracy, and they include scholars who are forensic experts, historians, acoustics experts, physicists, radiologists, firearms experts, etc., etc.

The replies I've seen on the Tague wounding don't even deal with the evidence presented in my article on the subject. They repeat a theory that even Gerald Posner says is implausible or they rely on Posner's even more fantastic branch-collision theory.

The responses on Oswald poor marksmanship are equally timeworn and problematic. Even Wesley Liebeler, a WC staffer, admitted in an internal memo that the Commission's own rifle tests were problematic and that Oswald was not a good marksman. When world-famous snipers like Carlos Hathcock say Oswald could not have done the shooting, that should give lone-gunman theorists pause. For example, I seriously doubt Oswald knew anything about the need to adjust your vertical aim when firing from an elevation. For that matter, there's no evidence that Oswald ever, ever, ever practiced firing from an elevation.

And on and on and on we could go.

 

[JayUtah]

I've read it, and considered it objectively. Bits of it I can accept, and bits of it I cannot.

<snip>

So, yes, that leaves me with two "confessions" (each of which is problematic in its own way) in common with Ramsay. So ... what, exactly?

The "so what" is that contrary to your earlier insinuations, you have not researched this topic originally but have relied upon the vicissitudes of another author to inform your reasoning. That you accept his reasoning selectively is a factor, but this does not solve the problem of the foundation for your evidence.

Ramsay's book of course was published prior to the E Howard Hunt confession, which also fingers LBJ as the conspiracy's instigator and motivator.

Discussed at considerable length in this thread and its predecessor.

I hope I have allayed your suspicions of plagiarism in the above.

Abstract plagiarism is not the core issue. The core issue is whether your argument is hearsay. Hiding your sources is one way hearsay is dressed up as original research.

This I can assure you, is wholly novel to the best of my knowledge (so much so that JayUtah accused me of cribbing it from an unnamed source).

No, I accused you of not naming your source. The source was apparent but unnamed in your argument. You have now named it, which means we can put aside most of the issues of the supposed originality of your research and move on.

I brought it to this forum because I (perhaps naively) thought that a crowd of self-nominated critical thinkers might be able to bring some new perspective to bear on the quality of my analysis.

You were given new perspective, but you chose to dismiss it in favor of vigorously demanding that we align with your canned rebuttal. You have written out a play that we must all perform in which you will emerge victorious at the end. For the past little while you've been upset because the actors didn't perform as you wrote and directed them. That's not evaluation or argument; that's just rhetorical coup-counting. It provides the illusion that one's argument has withstood meaningful criticism.

 

[I Ratant]

ISTR some adamant denier of the LHOLN shooting actually taking up a rifle... and duplicating it!
The number of bewievers who wouldn't do that is legion.
.
That Carcano has a trajectory and the iron sights are designed so that the bullet hit the target between the belt and the chest up to 300 meters, when the point of aim is the belt.
It's standard infantry practice.
The scope on Oswald's rifle was found to be unuseable, due to the cross-hairs being loose inside the tube.
I purchased the identical scope and had it fitted to my Carcano.
After 3 shots, the cross-hairs also became useless. The scope was designed for .22 cal rifles, with their pretty much non-existent recoil. A real rifle's recoil was too much for the delicately mounted cross-hairs.

 

[JayUtah]

When I saw nothing but timeworn...

Handwaving dismissal.

It's readily apparent that you guys simply have not bothered...

Typical JFK conspiracy chest-thumping.

The replies...

You present dated arguments and expect new rebuttals. When the extant rebuttals receive only a handwaving dismissal, you don't get new ones.

The responses on Oswald poor marksmanship are equally timeworn and problematic...

No, your site simply repeats old claims and pretends there's no other story.

And on and on and on we could go.

Which is indeed the very subject of the thread. But as long as your plan is simply to show up every three months like clockwork, shill the links to your site, dismiss every critical response as "tiresome" and uninformed, frantically change the subject, and then retreat into the bushes for another long absence, you cannot expect to make progress.

 

[kookbreaker]

"Oswald's poor marksmanship"

So the Marines hand out the "Sharpshooter" ranking to anyone who points the proper end of the barrel downrange?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Another thing that's curious about this issue is that in this case it is the no-conspiracy folks who are in the decided minority and who are going up against massive evidence that contradicts their position. But, like other bands of true believers, they think they're the ones with all the facts in their corner because they only listen to scholars who support their belief.

Please, you're embarrassing yourself.

I'm guessing that every one of them views Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History as a sterling work of scholarship, even though JFK scholars have destroyed the book.

If you say so.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Getting back to the Tague wounding for a second, it's interesting to note that five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement in the vicinity of the oak tree on Elm Street and near the right rear of the limousine just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD. The witnesses said this bullet kicked up concrete toward the car. Now, this was well over 200 feet from Tague's curb.

Surprisingly, Posner--I guess because the witnesses here are so credible--concedes that a bullet struck the curb at that location. Yes, he does. Ah, but then he tries to weave that curb strike into his tree-branch-collision theory! We're supposed to believe that the missile that hit the curb in the area of the oak tree was from (or was) the bullet that he says struck a branch of the oak tree. Now, leaving aside the ridiculous notion that even a rookie gunman would have fired at such an ludicrous, impractical, risky time, there's also the problem of this projectile traveling over 200 feet after deflecting off the curb near the tree and still arriving with enough energy to strike the curb and send concrete streaking toward Tague or to strike Tague's face directly and cut it.

Boy, I'd love to see someone try to duplicate that truly farfetched, magical theory in a simulation.

But the only other lone-gunman-friendly alternative is the absurd idea that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's injury.

On the other hand, a narrow miss from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building could have easily struck the pavement near Tague and sent concrete streaking toward him. And not only did some witnesses believe that they heard shots from the direction of those buildings, but Mafia man Eugene Brading was caught coming out of the Dal-Tex Building soon after the shots were fired (yes, I know--just a staggering coincidence, right?).

 

[JTF]

Open And Shut

Back in the late 80's/early 90's, I was obsessed with this case and proceeded to contact several authors on both sides of the fence. I was struck by the lack of critical put forth in letters by pro-conspiracy authors like Jim Marrs. Jimmy's responses to my inquires were fraught with speculation, innuendo, distortions, and b.s.

Jim Moore, on the other hand, produced thoughtful and thorough responses to all of my questions. Twenty plus years later, and not much has changed. The pro-conspiracy posters on this thread rely on the same nonsense that Marrs, Lipton, and Groden labeled as "fact." Vincent Bugliosi, on the other hand, produced a book containing 1,600 pages of text and 900 pages of endnotes that leans heavily on the documented record.

The recent pro-conspiracy groupies on this thread are simply throwing out a "new" red herring without addressing the facts that have been ignored by other more prominent pro-conspiracy advocates. Oswald owned the rifle that was used to murder Kennedy. His palm print and fibers from his shirt were found on the weapon. Oswald owned the handgun used to murder Officer Tippet. Multiple witnesses picked Oswald out of a line-up after Oswald murdered Tippet.

The x-rays, autopsy reports, and multiple computer simulations all point to the President being struck from behind by two shots. Marina Oswald took three photographs of her husband with both murder weapons in plain view. This case is open and shut. Oswald was a serial liar, a coward, and a psychopath.

 

[BStrong]

...that in your absence quite a bit of discussion has occurred on the points you raised previously. And while your comments on the fingerprint issue are reasonably a propos, your negligence of other topics you've recently raised make it unlikely that any comment on your accusation of double standard will net a profitable discussion.

What about the marksmanship?

I can only take so much woo, whether it's Mac Wallace, LBJ hitman! or the army of shooters at every locale other than the TSBD, or as you noted above, conspiracies requiring armies of silent co-conspirators.

Marksmanship? that's the easiest part of the story and it's where LHO is nailed as the shooter.

I did recently watch Oliver Stone interviewed by Dan Rather, and Rather handled Stone's JFK ******** with class, but Stone is fully vested in his "JFK" movie fantasy that he'll never admit he's around the bend.

I suspect that he's not alone.

 

[I Ratant]

Getting back to the Tague wounding for a second, it's interesting to note that five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement in the vicinity of the oak tree on Elm Street and near the right rear of the limousine just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD. The witnesses said this bullet kicked up concrete toward the car. Now, this was well over 200 feet from Tague's curb.

....
Boy, I'd love to see someone try to duplicate that truly farfetched, magical theory in a simulation.

But the only other lone-gunman-friendly alternative is the absurd idea that a fragment from the head shot caused Tague's injury.

On the other hand, a narrow miss from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building could have easily struck the pavement near Tague and sent concrete streaking toward him. And not only did some witnesses believe that they heard shots from the direction of those buildings, but Mafia man Eugene Brading was caught coming out of the Dal-Tex Building soon after the shots were fired (yes, I know--just a staggering coincidence, right?).

.
Testimony citations for all these "witnesses" are lacking.. why is that?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm going to address this point of yours in isolation from the rest of that post, since you are obviously implying that I have cribbed my argument from Ramsay's book. I've read it, and considered it objectively. Bits of it I can accept, and bits of it I cannot.

Yeah. We know you read it...

I reject, for example, the claims of Madeleine Brown, who (as shown by Dave Perry's essay "Texas in the Imagination") is completely unreliable (to be charitable to her shade).

I also reject the Tippet/JFK "swapped bodies" theory, which is too grotesque and far-fetched for me to countenance (I will admit that this is simply prejudice on my part, and I have no rational argument against it other than that the bloke who thought it up (Robert Morningstar) appears to be a lunatic of some description).

So you accept the evidence the author accepts. You reject the evidence he rejects. We noticed.

I don't remember what Ramsay said about Oswald, although I think he absolved him as wholly innocent. In any case, I am prepared to accept that Oswald was most probably guilty, but not the sole guilty party.

And you reach the same conclusions...

So, yes, that leaves me with two "confessions" (each of which is problematic in its own way) in common with Ramsay. So ... what, exactly?

So your research is, as I predicted, in the form of "the last/only book I read said..."

Ramsay's book of course was published prior to the E Howard Hunt confession, which also fingers LBJ as the conspiracy's instigator and motivator. I accept the Hunt confession as part of my argument, although (unlike the Factor and Estes confessions) Hunt's confession post-dates the Wallace print ID. If that is indeed a problem at all, which I am not certain about.

So three confessions. All of which have problems in their own right.
0+0+0=0

I hope I have allayed your suspicions of plagiarism in the above.

Strawman. I did not accuse you of plagiarism. I just made an educated guess to the length and depth of your "research" which has now been confirmed. You accused others of not having discussed something with out reading what has been discussed, and now you admit your superior tone is based on... a book that has also been discussed before.

I would also like to remind you that (in my very first post on this thread, indeed in this forum) I set out an entirely new argument concerning the validity of the fingerprint evidence. This I can assure you, is wholly novel to the best of my knowledge (so much so that JayUtah accused me of cribbing it from an unnamed source).

I bolded the key part.
Had you read the discussion so far you might have been better placed to know how novel or not it is. Just sayin'.

I brought it to this forum because I (perhaps naively) thought that a crowd of self-nominated critical thinkers might be able to bring some new perspective to bear on the quality of my analysis.

Then why do you reject it?

The quality of your analysis has been discussed. You are basing it on the false assumption that the fingerprint is hard evidence and has been validated. I even repeated the flaws in this for your benefit. It is not hard evidence. It is certainly not the slam dunk it was presented as some decades ago.

It is another thing that the one book you seem to have read accepted with out question or discussion.

Instead, the nonspiracists (a useful personal shorthand referring to the JFK case alone, not intended to be contemptuous)

And yet it is... I know people who think the same when they use another n word. It can't take much grey matter to realise when something looks and smells like an insult. Even less civility to reconsider using the term instead of trying to excuse it.

seem keen to talk about the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, Marilyn Monroe, etc, etc, absolutely anything at all other than addressing the established fact that their "lone fingerprint debunker" has been blown off his wobbly little legs and into ten thousand sticky little bits by his own backfiring ignorance of best-practice procedural in his supposed field of personal expertise.

You have a strange concept of what it takes to establish something as a fact. First the claim that the fingerprint on Box A was hard evidence, now this.

I invite you to consider for a second why the uncivil remarks above, which are pretty close to an MA breach when coupled with the "nonspiricist" insult, are your opinion and not a fact.

You seem to be willing to discuss anything other than the flaws listed here, and elsewhere in the thread, with the "solid" evidence your theory is based on.

Step back from your research a second. It is based on a premise you haven't validated to the satisfaction of your critics. If you don't build a good foundation anything you place on top will crumble.

At the moment your posts all have the tone of somebody whining because we are not convinced by your deductions. If you wanted critique, accept it. People told you why they were not convinced. If on the other hand you want to convince people of your theory, do more research and be more convincing.

Don't tell people what you don't have to explain.
Don't tell people you "blew them of their legs" when nobody else is convinced by your argument.
Don't just ignore the fact that two thirds (now three quarters) of your evidence consists of "confessions" contradicted by physical evidence and each other.
Do offer a theory that you think best fits ALL the evidence.

Perhaps Tom you might be willing to address this entirely new argument, if witness-recycling bores you so?

I must confess, I am not holding my breath.

Why are you holding your breath at all?

It is not new and it HAS been discussed. The argument is built upon flawed evidence ergo the argument is flawed. End of critique. Nothing more to say. I am sorry you don't like that discussion, but you unless you come back when you have addressed those issues that is all anybody with any understanding of critical thinking will tell you.

The fingerprint is a dud. It is not a match. It was not a match according to Hoffmeister. It was not a match according to the FBI crime labs. It was on a poor surface. It was only considered a match by somebody using poor quality photocopies and outlaying opinions aside, there are several issues that can not be accounted for. At the very best it can be seen as evidence towards Wallace having been in the building some time after the shooting. It is not rock solid proof he was there for the shooting.

And if he was? So what? He wasn't holding the murder weapon. We have nothing to tie him to the crime. We have a hell of a lot of evidence for one and only one shooter of only three bullets.

Any speculation Wallace was... what... supervising?... is just that. There are equally criminal, but entirely more likely explanations for his presence after the shooting if we accept the prerequisite to your claims (ie, the extent of LBJs corruption). But that is IF the print were good solid evidence, which is about the same as saying IF the three Hobos were secret agents. Possible but incredible improbable given the evidence.

If you can't get past the idea that your theory fails at first principles as we wont accept with out better evidence the validation of the print, what is there left to discuss at all?

Please, this is beyond dull. I'm not rehashing the same statements again. If you have nothing more to add, don't insult others with "I wont hold my breath", folks here have bent over backwards to offer you exactly the critique you want. They have pointed out when you try to rephrase their words into something else entirely that is easier to joust. They have explained why your theory fails to convince. Accept the critique and put it to good use, or not. Just don't expect endless cycles of the merry go round. It wont make it more convincing, and it is not others fault if you don't convince.

 

[Tomtomkent]

.
Testimony citations for all these "witnesses" are lacking.. why is that?

More to the point, why are the alleged impacts of the bullets not supported by physical evidence.

There are several theories of where the missing bullet ended up. Few rely on witness testimony because impacts on the pavement, the traffic gantry, etc. leave traces. Where are those supporting these claims?

And exactly how highly are we expected to regard the theory, on the probability scale, based only on confused testimony contradicted by other confused testimony.

It is easy to pick only the witnesses who support your claim. As RP and others always did...