General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Has DU Turned The Corner On The JFK CT BS? Apparently So. [View all]stopbush
(24,396 posts)Your latest post is proof of this. Case in point:
Anybody who has actually read the WCR knows that the WC did not "base its entire case against Oswald as the lone gunman" on the single bullet fact. It was ONE piece of evidence that corroborated mountains of other evidence against Oswald. The single bullet fact explains the wounds to JFK and Oswald. The FBI's quick investigation had a slightly different explanation: it found that all three bullets fired by Oswald struck JFK and Connally. The FBI modified their assessment once new evidence came to light. Both investigations fingered Oswald as the lone gunman.
You can go on believing the single bullet theory is obsolete. It doesn't change the science behind it that proves it to be a fact.
The HSCA investigation fingered Oswald as the sole shooter to have hit JFK & Connally. The HSCA reaffirmed that Oswald's bullets killed JFK. The HSCA confirmed the single bullet fact.
I only cite John McAdams the same way you cite Mary Farrell, ie: as a source who has links to various gov documents. The difference with McAdams is that he doesn't charge people a fee to read his links, which Mary Farrell does.
And you're wrong to say that I don't think people like you have a right to be heard. You do. That said, I do believe that one needs to have some perspective on what you are saying when you're being heard. I find the JFK CTs to be on the level of arguing that Santa Claus exists, and I regard those "opinions" on that level.
The minute you can present objective, empirical evidence to support your CT claims - as opposed to the usual CT BS and endless rounds of cut-n-paste whack-a-mole - then I'm all ears. Until then, it's a bit like dealing with children who feel that an opinion has the same weight as a fact, simply because it's their opinion, and they voice it often and loudly.