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

[arguille]

158. reply to #156

"Wm Seger", your feats of argumentation are becoming legendary. While discussing ballistic science you manage to dig a ditch and stand in it, while here you are content to contort yourself into an ever elaborate pretzel.

"this "other fragment" appears to be a fragment of your imagination"

Numerous witnesses discuss a "bullet", or a fragment large enough to be described as a bullet, and associate it with Connally's thigh. These descriptions occur long after CE399 was supposedly already found.

"you have absolutely no sound evidence or logical reason that CE399 is "an impossible proposition."

The Single Bullet Theory can be shown to be inoperable in dozens of different ways. That alone serves as a "logical" reason. An evidentiary basis is provided by, but not limited to, the bullet itself - whereby no properly conducted experiments have ever come close to reproducing the condition of the bullet after doing the damaged it is alleged to have done.

To counter this rather obvious point, you have offered experiments conducted by J Edgar Hoover's urologist - experiments which cannot be reproduced and which were undertaken with the desired results already formulated. In the latest experiment, in all its "elegance", Lattimer once again makes the assertion that CE399 had "extruded lead" at its base, even as it has been established and accepted that this alleged extrusion was the result of scraping the bullet for samples at the FBI lab.So much for the authority of your "expert".

"the Lattimer experiments prove that that doesn't happen if the bullet has been slowed down first and strikes the bone sideways rather than hitting nose first at high speed."

Except in order to get the bullet slowed down enough, Lattimer requires it to exhibit behaviour which did not actually happen during the actual case. And that's why Lattimer's experiments are meaningless.

Although you don't seem to realize it, you arguments are now amounting to this formulation: if the actual evidence was different and more favourable to the SBT, then it could be said that the SBT is not impossible and therefore that proves the SBT.

And that is a long way from the arrogant and dismissive pose by which you first hijacked the thread.