Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP

[William Seger]

114. More baloney? No thanks

> I mean really - John Connally's head surgeon says the bullet was still in his leg and you say: "he made an assumption". The armed forces' top ballistics expert, their esteemed go-to guy, makes an expert opinion based on a series of careful exacting tests and you say: "he doesn't know what he's talking about". When does this become a version of the Monty Python Argument Sketch? Do you realize what you are saying?

Oh, yes, I realize exactly what I'm saying and what you are attempting to dodge: Yes, I'm saying Shaw could easily have been wrong that the bullet was still in Connally's leg, so I will not let you claim that as a "fact." Yes, I'm saying that even the "armed forces' top ballistics expert" could easily be wrong about how the bullet entered Connally's back (especially since other experts conclude it did hit at some pitched angle) so I will not let you claim that as a "fact."

I'm saying you are failing to prove the premises you want to use for your reasoning, and time after time, it's the same thing with you. This is like the argument that if Garner doesn't recall seeing Oswald, that means Oswald wasn't there. It's like the argument that if someone thinks they see JFK and Connally reacting at different times in the Z film, that means they were hit with different bullets. If you really don't understand why this kind of reasoning is unsound, I doubt I can help, but oh yes, I realize what I am saying.

> Do you not understand that you cannot prove anything without properly recreating the actual conditions of the phenomenon you are trying to quantify?

Allow me to repeat: &quot The purpose of the experiment) was not to prove the SBT, but rather to demonstrate that the SBT was possible -- which it did -- which directly contradicts the claim that the SBT didn't happen because it was impossible."

It isn't possible, even in theory, to "prove" the SBT or any other theory. In fact, the purpose of a properly designed scientific experiment should always be to disprove some hypothesis. In this case, it is possible for experiments to disprove the hypothesis that the so-called "pristine" condition of CE399 is impossible after breaking Connally's wrist. Lattimer's tests and others have demonstrated that is not only possible, but expected if a slowed-down bullet is tumbling.

Please address the point or concede it: If conspiracists want to continue claiming that CE399 is an "impossible" result of the SBT, so the SBT must be false, then THEY are the ones with a burden of proof: Prove either that Lattimer is wrong and bullets like CE399 cannot be produced under any conditions, or prove that the conditions under which a bullet like CE399 could be produced did not exist in this case.