24-02-2013, 12:34 AM
Cliff,
I contributed a few posts to the EF thread in question. You know I stand with you on this nonsense about unnecessarily accepting the higher T-1 location for the back wound, when the evidence clearly demonstrates it to be at T-3.
This is just more backtracking by critics, and falls into what I've called the "neo-con" category. Researchers have given up too much ground for no good reason. The mysterious deaths of witnesses are still mysterious. The Secret Service made the assassination possible. The cover up wasn't benign. The Umbrella Man was not Steven Witt. And, of course, the holes in JFK's clothing demonstrate where the bullet entered. I could go on- the list is endless.
All of this backtracking serves to weaken the overwhelming argument for conspiracy.
I contributed a few posts to the EF thread in question. You know I stand with you on this nonsense about unnecessarily accepting the higher T-1 location for the back wound, when the evidence clearly demonstrates it to be at T-3.
This is just more backtracking by critics, and falls into what I've called the "neo-con" category. Researchers have given up too much ground for no good reason. The mysterious deaths of witnesses are still mysterious. The Secret Service made the assassination possible. The cover up wasn't benign. The Umbrella Man was not Steven Witt. And, of course, the holes in JFK's clothing demonstrate where the bullet entered. I could go on- the list is endless.
All of this backtracking serves to weaken the overwhelming argument for conspiracy.