Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

As I have stated several times, the video and ballistics science is more reliable than all the human speculation based on photos of a blown up head, tainted by knowledge that a rear shooter was responsible.

---

The video, audio, photographic and ballistic evidence all demonstrate that three shots were fired, two struck Kennedy and all three came from a single location in the general direction of the upper southeast corner of the school book depository. The ONLY "evidence" that refutes this is SOME subjective eyewitness testimony, which in light of the overall body of objective evidence can be dismissed. And even the eyewitness evidence on the aggregate supports the objective data, as over 80% of recorded eyewitness testimony supports three shots coming from behind the motorcade which is actually remarkable if you know anything about eyewitness testimony from spontaneous high stress events.

The fact that many people don't understand the physics of fast moving projectiles and what happens when they hit people moving in certain directions at certain relative rates of speed is not evidence of any conspiracy.

---

Yawn...ho hum...

Quote:

---

The shots that killed Kennedy came from a single gun in a single location, and the general direction/location of them is known. That is a fact based on irrefutable scientific evidence and any other claim regarding the shots themselves is impossible in the physical universe in which we reside.

---

You cannot prove this claim beyond reasonable doubt. It is NOT fact! How do explain the huge 5" wound in the lower right rear of JFK's head, as described by Dr. McClelland and others who witnessed his wounds at Parkland that day. Or, are you just conveniently ignoring this compelling evidence, as did the WC, and other deniers on this thread?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The shots that killed Kennedy came from a single gun in a single location, and the general direction/location of them is known. That is a fact based on irrefutable scientific evidence and any other claim regarding the shots themselves is impossible in the physical universe in which we reside. From a pure "is it possible" standpoint, it's as absurd as claiming the earth is flat. Both claims are scientifically impossible.

---

You had similar conviction about other "science" related to virology. Its absurd to claim a right frontal headshot is "scientificaly impossible" in the same way earth being flat is.

Let's post our ballistics evidence. I'll go first...then you can do what everyone else does and mention "conclusive" wound testimony from "experts". That official narrative is that JFK had a small entry wound to back of scalp, that blew is brains out of a big scalp flap, but still leaving that bullet hole the size of a pea....and that the exit wound was smaller on right front of head, with possible surgical scalping making it bigger. All sounds pretty odd to me when you actually consider those details.






No one wants to recognize the impact that Oswalds location had on the final determination of the wound entry/exit. Its should have been totally irrelevant. But it wasn't. Especially in 60s when wholesome God fearing patriots were outraged by Oswald, and wouldn't dare consider anything that might absolve him of full responsibility.

Quote:

---

You had similar conviction about other "science" related to virology

---

This is a lie

Quote:

---

Its absurd to claim a right frontal headshot is "scientificaly impossible" in the same way earth being flat is.

---

The people who think the earth is flat don't see the absurdity in their claims either

Quote:

---

That official narrative is that JFK had a small entry wound to back of scalp, that blew is brains out of a big scalp flap, but still leaving that bullet hole the size of a pea....and that the exit wound was smaller on right front of head, with possible surgical scalping making it bigger. All sounds pretty odd to me when you actually consider those details.

---

What the **** are you babbling on about? This a wildly inaccurate statement regarding the official account.

And for the record, the immediate assessments of physicians during a trauma resuscitation do not constitute "ballistic evidence". they don't even constitute a sound medical assessment if trumped by the autopsy report of someone trained in making those assessments.

I didn't comment on "absurdity", not sure why you threw out that red hering. It was about your claim of equal "scientific improbabilty", that simply isn't true.

I see you didn't post any ballistic evidence, but glad you agree human analysis and testimony isn't actually ballistic evidence like in the video I posted.

You have no ballistic evidence. You have consensus with regards to official testimony and memos.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

What the **** are you babbling on about? This a wildly inaccurate statement regarding the official account.

---

It's from the video GuitarSoup posted on prior page. He has it all cued up where doctors explain what I described. You must not be very familiar with this topic.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3524194/replies/69998892

I'm loving 2nd term trump!

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

The shots that killed Kennedy came from a single gun in a single location, and the general direction/location of them is known. That is a fact based on irrefutable scientific evidence and any other claim regarding the shots themselves is impossible in the physical universe in which we reside.

---

You cannot prove this claim beyond reasonable doubt. It is NOT fact! How do explain the huge 5" wound in the lower right rear of JFK's head, as described by Dr. McClelland and others who witnessed his wounds at Parkland that day. Or, are you just conveniently ignoring this compelling evidence, as did the WC, and other deniers on this thread?

---

We have multiple photographs of the actual wound itself, multiple bone fragments with the characteristic bowing deformity, xrays of his head with bullet fragments visible along the tract of the bullet and no less than 7 eyewitness medical accounts that correspond to the location in those photographs. There are even computer generated ballistic models showing the deflection vectors of the bone fragments. Anything that contradicts that mountain of evidence isnt really worth talking about.

This is what you posted:

Quote:

---

JFK had a small entry wound to back of scalp, that blew is brains out of a big scalp flap, but still leaving that bullet hole the size of a pea....and that the exit wound was smaller on right front of head

---

This claim at face value reads entry and exit wounds completely and totally distinct from the large parietal scalp defect. That is completely inaccurate. Kennedy had a small entry wound at the posterior base of the large scalp wound with the blowout wound itself immediately superior to and continuous with the entry wound. The exit wound was a small segment of a circular opening about 50% of the circumference of the bullet itself immediately inferior to the anterior apex of the large wound.

He had entry and exit wounds at the inferior base of his 5+ inch scalp wound both posterior and anterior. There is nothing strange or unusual about that.

Human created computer generated models, and diagrams hypothesizing the bullet trajectory aren't ballistic science. It's as reliable as the computer models that prove man is causing climate to change.

The photos interpretations are not conclusive, just like the intial human assessments about the bullet entry from front aren't conclusive either. For some reason, people like to choose which are conclusive "science" and which aren't. They are all opinions. That's why there was so much effort to attack and discredit those with opinions that differ from the official story.

Quote:

---

The exit wound was a small segment of a circular opening about 50% of the circumferenceof the bullet itself

---

And this assessment is certainly a first, lol

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

BoerneGator said:
You cannot prove this claim beyond reasonable doubt. It is NOT fact! How do explain the huge 5" wound in the lower right rear of JFK's head, as described by Dr. McClelland and others who witnessed his wounds at Parkland that day. Or, are you just conveniently ignoring this compelling evidence, as did the WC, and other deniers on this thread?

---

We have multiple photographs of the actual wound itself, multiple bone fragments with the characteristic bowing deformity, xrays of his head with bullet fragments visible along the tract of the bullet and no less than 7 eyewitness medical accounts that correspond to the location in those photographs.

---

The depictions you posted are fabrications, and are nothing like the wound to JFK's head. Where are the photos you refer to? Why do you willfully ignore Dr. McClelland's compelling "testimony"? Why can't you even address it? Call him a liar, or confused.

Dr. Cyril Wecht, renowned forensic pathologist ranting about the "botched" and corrupted WC and subsequent aftermath


More of Dr. Cyril Wecht condemning the handling of the JFK assassination.


How can you, a medical doctor, ignore and completely dismiss this skepticism?

Listen to Bernice King, MLK Jr.’s daughter.

Who agrees? https://t.co/8JzL9sGLus

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) July 22, 2025