>>"The 6.5mm virtually-round object is another bit of evidence that has *no* explanation
>>outside of a coverup..."
Even when said object CANNOT BE DEFINITIVELY IDENTIFIED AT ALL?? (Which
it cannot and has not been.)
You must be crackers with such reasoning.
It sounds like the same CT "reasoning" re. Badge Man's "existence" ...
i.e., Badge Man has no logical explanation outside of a conspiracy (per
CTers).
When, in fact, BM has many other logical and just-as-acceptable anti-CT
explanations -- such as shadows, photographic grain from Miss Moorman's
el-cheapo Polaroid camera/film stock, sunlight, glare, or all of the
above (which are, in fact, explanations that seem much more logical to
me than a killer showing himself above the fence line to be
photographed in broad daylight).
And -- Even if "Badge Dude" IS a human figure...that STILL doesn't make
"him" a killer. Even if it was a person behind the fence, the CTers are
still a long way from placing a verifiable gun in his hands....and an
even longer way away from having a gunshot from this guy striking JFK
in the head (which we know never happened based on the verifiable
evidence in this case).
Plus -- Re. the 6.5mm-shaped "object" on the X-ray ---- Can any CTer
tell us, logically, WHY the plotters/photo-fakers were so reckless as
to let that little item slip through their dastardly conspiratorial
fingers? That is, why is that 6.5mm item (that you say leads to
"conspiracy" and is potentially PLOT-BLOWING in nature) even ON that
X-ray AFTER the "faked" X-rays were "faked" by the "fakers"? Why is it
even there for all the world to see and say "Hey, lookie what we've got
here"?
Didn't the person faking/phonying-up that particular X-ray get the
"We're Framing Only Lee Oswald Tomorrow" memo from Patsy HQ on
Thursday, November 21st? He must not have, huh?
>>"Eyewitness accounts are *most* valuable in a case like this, where there's an
>>excellent probability that physical evidence was tampered with."
I, too, think that eyewitness and earwitness testimony is valuable.
But, as probably everybody else agrees as well, to a much more limited
point and (naturally) limited reliability factor than that of other
types of physical evidence in a murder case (such as guns, bullets,
shells, prints, etc.).
I was accused by someone here recently of trying to have my cake and
eat it too (not the exact quote, but the point is the same) re. the
witness testimony.
That is, in one thread here I was talking about the "unreliability" of
witness testimony in a general sense...while in another thread re. the
incredibly-high % of "Shots Came From Just One Direction" earwitnesses,
I was placing quite a bit MORE faith in such "unreliable" testimony.
However -- In the "One-Directional" vs. "Two Or More Directions Of
Gunfire" instance, I brought that point up due to the sheer, vast,
overwhelming percentile of witnesses who heard shots from just ONE
single direction or general location (which, via Mr. McAdams' study, is
a remarkably-high 99 out of 104 polled witnesses who heard shots from
just ONE locality, be it either a front or rear location).
Now, is it possible for the 99 to be wrong and for the measly 5 to be
correct via that survey/poll? Yes, of course it's possible. But is it
LIKELY that 99 out of 104 persons (who, btw, were stationed in various
places within Dealey Plaza...not JUST near the TSBD or JUST near the
Grassy Knoll) messed up and got it wrong?
Well...I'm dubious as to whether 99 of 104 people were ALL the victim
of the very same odd "sound trick" in Dealey that day....an audio trick
which had shots REALLY coming from at least THREE different directions
(based on an anti-SBT stance, which every CTer takes, which HAS to mean
at least three different assassins; can't be any fewer via an anti-SBT
posture), but these 99 people were ALL fooled into thinking that these
THREE assassins' gunshots sounded as though they all came from just a
SINGLE direction within the Plaza. That one's hard for me to buy.*
* = Anticipating the CTer backlash utilizing a similar "They Can't ALL
Be Wrong, Can They?" argument....regarding the BOH wound witnesses.
.... With the difference there being: There's so much OTHER STUFF in
the official, verifiably-authentic record that PROVES that the BOH
witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect (things like the autopsy report, the
autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, the autopsy doctors' testimony, and
the Z-Film).
What similar HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE do CTers have to support the
admittedly-decent-sized batch of "Frontal Gunshot" earwitnesses? (For
instance -- evidence like: a body showing a frontal wound, or maybe a
bullet or two that didn't come from rifle C2766, or a gun someplace
that wasn't Oswald's. Is there any of this stuff favoring a Knoll
shooter? Answer: No.)
|
