My contribution to the discussion about the future of this Forum

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Mike Rago said:

We need the photograph to show us both the orientation of JFK's body and his jacket at the time he was shot. Without the photograph all we have is a jacket with a hole in it.

No, you have a jacket with a hole 4 1/8th inches below the bottom of the collar, and a shirt with a hole 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

You can't get your shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

33 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

The theory is that you can hit a moving target with a bolt action rifle three times in less than six seconds.

So, they tested that out, and sure enough it can be done. So, the theory is valid.

But is it reliable? Can you consistently prove that theory over multiple tests?

Well, no, you can't.

The theory is valid, but not reliable.

A theory has to be both valid and reliable.

So, you're saying that if it can't be duplicated A LOT OF THE TIME, then we have to say that Oswald couldn't possibly have done the deed on 11/22, is that correct?

(Excuse me if I giggle a little bit here.)

Also --- Do you think your same "Valid But Unreliable" conclusion also applies to the SBT? I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece).

But until the SBT is duplicated perfectly a total of TEN times (or whatever number you decide on), then the theory is still to be considered "unreliable"? Is that it?

IMO, it sounds to me like you, Steve Thomas, are just looking for excuses to dismiss even a "valid" theory. So you're piling on more and more requirements to keep from having to accept a theory that destroys part of your "conspiracy" stance.

(There's a word for this type of thing, isn't there? It starts with a D, I think.)

Edited March 21, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Steve Thomas]

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece).

Makes me wonder why you put "bodies" in quotes.

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

[Cory Santos]

27 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So, you're saying that if it can't be duplicated A LOT OF THE TIME, then we have to say that Oswald couldn't possibly have done the deed on 11/22, is that correct?

(Excuse me if I giggle a little bit here.)

Also --- Do you think your same "Valid But Unreliable" conclusion also applies to the SBT? I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece).

But until the SBT is duplicated perfectly a total of TEN times (or whatever number you decide on), then the theory is still to be considered "unreliable"? Is that it?

IMO, it sounds to me like you, Steve Thomas, are just looking for excuses to dismiss even a "valid" theory. So you're piling on more and more requirements to keep from having to accept a theory that destroys part of your "conspiracy" stance.

(There's a word for this type of thing, isn't there? It starts with a D, I think.)

Well, legally speaking,

if you can reproduce something 100% of the time, great.  It is a fact. 

If you can produce it 1 out of 15 times, its possible.

But, if you can reproduce it 1 out of 15 it is possible, but not probable.  Courts like high probability with tests.

So when I cross examine an expert and they state most people injured in rear end car accidents heal within several months.  I always enjoy asking them to explain why my client cannot be in the percentage (no matter how small) that does not heal within several months.

With the assassination, factor in other variables such as moving target, wind, trees with leaves, crowds, women with distracting red dress on, guy twirling an umbrella- to protest lol, guy in street near car with hand in the air, a large pipe on the side of the low window which requires awkward stance, etc. etc. and, well, its not really probable.  The time to do the scientific tests is well over, the warren commission-like Warren's opinion- was faulty and failed to properly investigate.  Though, certainly, as a fact finding commission, it should have never been in existence in the first place.

If you want to discuss the problems with the good senator's single bullet theory, then one needs to look at one thing.  That is, did they investigate all ballistic avenues?  In other words, did they investigate the other options as to where and how the shots could have been fired.  If they were ignored, as they were in my opinion, then, truly, the theory is very weak.  If it was innocent, well it was negligent.  If it was intentional, well, we know what it should be called then.

[David Von Pein]

32 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Makes me wonder why you put "bodies" in quotes.

Because during the SBT test done in Australia for the Discovery Channel program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet", they didn't fire a bullet through two real human bodies (quite obviously). They used expensive surrogate torsos (dummies). Hence the reason I put quotation marks around the word "bodies".

(Were you just pulling my chain with that question, Steve?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited March 21, 2018 by David Von Pein