15-11-2014, 05:52 PM
The broken facial bones, in and of themselves, don't tell us anything useful about the nature of the bullet. In order to conclude that the bullet disintegrated inside the skull, you have to ASSUME that the bullet didn't exit the skull. Given the wide debate about the exact location of the large hole in the "right rear" portion of JFK's skull, is this really a safe assumption to make?
I'm NOT trying to hijack your thread, or start a debate on the location of the head wounds. I am asking you to rely on less controversial assumptions (like the well-documented existence of small particles in the skull), which should be sufficient to support your argument.
I'm NOT trying to hijack your thread, or start a debate on the location of the head wounds. I am asking you to rely on less controversial assumptions (like the well-documented existence of small particles in the skull), which should be sufficient to support your argument.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."