David Josephs Wrote:

Gordon Gray Wrote:I am happy to concede to any theory once it has been tested thusly: trust
nothing until it had been so severely
challenged, it could not be discredited I I don't believe anyone has held their evidence up to this standard.

Fair enough...

How does your... "No hole in the windshield" theory stand up to this test?

Are there photos showing no hole, only an impact?
Any documented tests done on the windshield?
They did macrophotography on CE399... no such luck with that windshield, huh?

Frazier did a complete exam of the limo late night, early 11/23 morning. there were only so many fragments found within the limo...

IF the crack was a result of a fragment from INSIDE (Bone or bullet?) which of the fragments does the FBI attribute to the cracked windshield?
(I don't see where BONE fragments are discussed... or identified within the LIMO schematics of fragments.... were there NO BONE FRAGMENTS found in the limo?

Any fragments have glass imbedded?


CE841 is supposedly the scrapings from the INSIDE of the windshield that contained lead. (looks alot like a closed version of ce840) So I guess we need to find where they actually determined this was lead and how.
(I am suspicious since we have a variety of "containers for evidence" with nothing inside them - like the Kleins microfilm.)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0433b.htm

and as we read either Cunningham or Killion... neither mentions the windshield. CC makes a drawing of CE351 and adds some interesting comments

Plus, one would think if a single small fragment was able to create this on the windshield - does it not seem strange that no one else in the limo forward of JFK was struck by any of these fragments - enough to cause a windshield to crack or chrome to dent... do you not find it strange that there is no notation of BONE in the limo other than what is found on the plane trip back?

And Kinney goes so far in 1978 as to say that C3 "looked like it hit the {chrome}" but nothing related to the windshield....

SA Kinney gave him his seat and returned to the resar compartment. At this point he discovered in the Presidential limousine (1) a skull fragment under the jump seat where Connally had been seated, and (2) a bullet fragment in the front seat between the driver's and passenger's seat. He remarked that the bullet fragment "looked like it had hit the windshield frame above the windshield."

How do you plan on putting your theories and conclusions to the same test and set of standards Anthony has for his hole theory?

David Josephs Wrote:

David Josephs Wrote:

Gordon Gray Wrote:I am happy to concede to any theory once it has been tested thusly: trust
nothing until it had been so severely
challenged, it could not be discredited I I don't believe anyone has held their evidence up to this standard.

Fair enough...

How does your... "No hole in the windshield" theory stand up to this test?

Are there photos showing no hole, only an impact?
Any documented tests done on the windshield?
They did macrophotography on CE399... no such luck with that windshield, huh?

Frazier did a complete exam of the limo late night, early 11/23 morning. there were only so many fragments found within the limo...

IF the crack was a result of a fragment from INSIDE (Bone or bullet?) which of the fragments does the FBI attribute to the cracked windshield?
(I don't see where BONE fragments are discussed... or identified within the LIMO schematics of fragments.... were there NO BONE FRAGMENTS found in the limo?

Any fragments have glass imbedded?


CE841 is supposedly the scrapings from the INSIDE of the windshield that contained lead. (looks alot like a closed version of ce840) So I guess we need to find where they actually determined this was lead and how.
(I am suspicious since we have a variety of "containers for evidence" with nothing inside them - like the Kleins microfilm.)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0433b.htm

and as we read either Cunningham or Killion... neither mentions the windshield. CC makes a drawing of CE351 and adds some interesting comments

Plus, one would think if a single small fragment was able to create this on the windshield - does it not seem strange that no one else in the limo forward of JFK was struck by any of these fragments - enough to cause a windshield to crack or chrome to dent... do you not find it strange that there is no notation of BONE in the limo other than what is found on the plane trip back?

And Kinney goes so far in 1978 as to say that C3 "looked like it hit the {chrome}" but nothing related to the windshield....

SA Kinney gave him his seat and returned to the resar compartment. At this point he discovered in the Presidential limousine (1) a skull fragment under the jump seat where Connally had been seated, and (2) a bullet fragment in the front seat between the driver's and passenger's seat. He remarked that the bullet fragment "looked like it had hit the windshield frame above the windshield."

How do you plan on putting your theories and conclusions to the same test and set of standards Anthony has for his hole theory?

Been over a month now GG...

Any plans for holding yourself to the same standards you expect of others... and presenting YOUR results as we have... ??

Just sayin'

:coffee:

David Josephs Wrote:

David Josephs Wrote:

Gordon Gray Wrote:I am happy to concede to any theory once it has been tested thusly: trust
nothing until it had been so severely
challenged, it could not be discredited I I don't believe anyone has held their evidence up to this standard.

Fair enough...

How does your... "No hole in the windshield" theory stand up to this test?

Are there photos showing no hole, only an impact?
Any documented tests done on the windshield?
They did macrophotography on CE399... no such luck with that windshield, huh?

Frazier did a complete exam of the limo late night, early 11/23 morning. there were only so many fragments found within the limo...

IF the crack was a result of a fragment from INSIDE (Bone or bullet?) which of the fragments does the FBI attribute to the cracked windshield?
(I don't see where BONE fragments are discussed... or identified within the LIMO schematics of fragments.... were there NO BONE FRAGMENTS found in the limo?

Any fragments have glass imbedded?


CE841 is supposedly the scrapings from the INSIDE of the windshield that contained lead. (looks alot like a closed version of ce840) So I guess we need to find where they actually determined this was lead and how.
(I am suspicious since we have a variety of "containers for evidence" with nothing inside them - like the Kleins microfilm.)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0433b.htm

and as we read either Cunningham or Killion... neither mentions the windshield. CC makes a drawing of CE351 and adds some interesting comments

Plus, one would think if a single small fragment was able to create this on the windshield - does it not seem strange that no one else in the limo forward of JFK was struck by any of these fragments - enough to cause a windshield to crack or chrome to dent... do you not find it strange that there is no notation of BONE in the limo other than what is found on the plane trip back?

And Kinney goes so far in 1978 as to say that C3 "looked like it hit the {chrome}" but nothing related to the windshield....

SA Kinney gave him his seat and returned to the resar compartment. At this point he discovered in the Presidential limousine (1) a skull fragment under the jump seat where Connally had been seated, and (2) a bullet fragment in the front seat between the driver's and passenger's seat. He remarked that the bullet fragment "looked like it had hit the windshield frame above the windshield."

How do you plan on putting your theories and conclusions to the same test and set of standards Anthony has for his hole theory?

Been over a month now GG...

Any plans for holding yourself to the same standards you expect of others... and presenting YOUR results as we have... ??

Just sayin'

:coffee:

Gordon Gray Wrote:Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

Quote:The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters

David Josephs Wrote:

Gordon Gray Wrote:Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

Amusing? ok.... I'm wondering... which assassiantion are YOU researching?
Your blanket statements betray your understanding of the situation. There are usually some truths within the lies... ours is to find out which is which...
and these are not MY CONCLUSIONS but the result of years of research by numerous people...

The experience of the Ford plant glass man (name escapes me) rings authentic and is very damaging to the "no hole" conclusion of the WCR.
As was the testimonies of the other people - at Parkland - who saw this hole.

but Conclusive Evidence?

Quote:The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters

Could you point to the "conclusive evidence" of multiple shooters please... I know it... You know it... we all KNOW it...

but that conclusion comes from the manner in which the crime was investigated and the evidence presented...

I've only seen circumstantial evidence backed by witness statements that there were multiple shooters...
If you look at the evidence it is not even conclusive there was a SINGLE shooter from behind, let alone more than one...

That's the problem GG... the Evidence IS the conspiracy... so again... what authenticated EVIDENCE is CONCLUSIVE of multiple shooters?

Gordon Gray Wrote:

David Josephs Wrote:

Gordon Gray Wrote:Amusing. The opposite of anything the FBI/SS/Govt. in general say is true, except when what they say supports my conclusions. The evidence suggests there could have been a hole, it could have resulted from a bullet, and it could have come from the front, there is nothing conclusive. The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters. That's what I mean by conclusive. I dismiss a bullet from the front through the windshield striking the president in the throat. I accept as possible one coming from that direction striking him in the temple, but there is not much evidence to confirm that. There would have been more witnesses of a shooter on the S. Overpass than just one, IMO.

Amusing? ok.... I'm wondering... which assassiantion are YOU researching?
Your blanket statements betray your understanding of the situation. There are usually some truths within the lies... ours is to find out which is which...
and these are not MY CONCLUSIONS but the result of years of research by numerous people...

The experience of the Ford plant glass man (name escapes me) rings authentic and is very damaging to the "no hole" conclusion of the WCR.
As was the testimonies of the other people - at Parkland - who saw this hole.

but Conclusive Evidence?

Quote:The evidence is conclusive that there were multiple shooters

Could you point to the "conclusive evidence" of multiple shooters please... I know it... You know it... we all KNOW it...

but that conclusion comes from the manner in which the crime was investigated and the evidence presented...

I've only seen circumstantial evidence backed by witness statements that there were multiple shooters...
If you look at the evidence it is not even conclusive there was a SINGLE shooter from behind, let alone more than one...

That's the problem GG... the Evidence IS the conspiracy... so again... what authenticated EVIDENCE is CONCLUSIVE of multiple shooters?

I don't think you understand the difference between circumstantial and conclusive. It is quite possible to have enough circumstantial evidence to reach a conclusion. But the fact that Connally's wounds had to have been caused by a FMJ bullet, and Kennedy's head wound is not consistent with a FMJ bullet, is indicative of two different types of ammunition. Add to that the location of bullet hole in the shirt, and the Tague wounding, and you have enough evidence to dismiss the SBT, and therefore have to have at least two shooters.