I doubt their ability to hit anything in that state.
If anybody is interested in some actually intelligent discussion on the Kennedy case, I recommend these guys.
I doubt their ability to hit anything in that state.
If anybody is interested in some actually intelligent discussion on the Kennedy case, I recommend these guys.
That is classic- so on brand for a CTist to present one of their crack-pot notions and then demand the evidence that "excludes" it before they've shown any evidence to support it. What is about you guys that makes you so resistant to the concept of "burden of proof"? Do you just not understand the idea, or is it that you do understand but find it necessary to ignore so you can pretend your scenarios have some weight equal to the ones you oppose?Classic
Where did you get the certainty that the shell casings had not been tampered with? What evidence excludes this?
Also, where on Earth did you get the idea that the James Tague curb mark was "there before the assassination"?
Weird, it's almost as if you didn't read the link:The curbstone is officially the spot where a fragment of lead from a bullet landed and nicked a tiny fragment of cement up and wounded James Tague's face. I am not of the misconception that a whole 6.5 round could've struck the curb, because that would have blown out a bigger chunk of cement. I don't know why the Warren Commission allowed the public to hold the misconception that the curb mark was caused by a whole bullet strike. A fragment from the headshot is within the realm of physical possibility.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html
Footnotes for chapter 3: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-18.html#chapter3
Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee Rankin: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11778#relPageId=3&

