THE HOLE IN THE WINDSHIELD: www.JFKThe FrontShot.blogspot.com

[David Josephs]

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?

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.

This is your presentation of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE GG?

#1) Connally's injury was most certainly NOT caused by a FMJ bullet since a bullet of that type would not have any surface area that would leave LEAD CORE fragments unless it completely fragmented which is the very opposite of the purpose of a FMJ to begin with....

#2) The holes in the shirt FRONT? - I assume you are talking about - has already been shown to be the result of a scapel and not a bullet... there was no lead or Copper found in that hole... Furthermore GG, the ENTRY hole was ABOVE the shirt and tie... look it up please... it's Allen Dulles' question that confirms it....

#3) "Not consistent with" equates to CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE in your world ?

#4) The Tague wounding was produced by lead... no Coppor was found there... please prove that Tague was not hit with a fragment from one of several shots that either hit or missed their targets....

#5) Yes GG, there is enough circumstantial evidence supported by testimony to dismiss the SBT... (among 50 other reasons it was wrong) is that CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of multiple shooters?
Not in any world that goes by the rule of law:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...l+Evidence
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. That which cannot be contradicted by any other evidence,; for example, a record, unless impeached for fraud, is conclusive evidence between the parties. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3061-62.

Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferredsimply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.


Please do not tell us that what you offer as "CONCLUSIVE" cannot be contradicted... CONCLUSIVE would have been the dissection of the neck/upper back/throat and determining the PATH of a bullet ENTERING the throat...
The reason Galloway/Burkley would NOT allow that area to be dissected.... The throat was not opened at all....

Gordon... thanks for the discussion. I can't agree with your definition of CONCLUSIVE when as I said, the Evidence itself IS the Conspiracy. Don't get me wrong - the CONCLUSION is the same - but if you're looking for CONCLSUIVE EVIDENCE in any aspect of this case - I'm afraid you will be terribly disappointed.


Read what was written about JC's wounds... please post any mention of COPPER in any of them... you know, to support the CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE and your FACTS about Connally being hit with a FMJ bullet.

Thanks
DJ