... that CE399 is "an impossible proposition." If you're just going to repeat yourself, so will I. When given yet another opportunity to prove otherwise, once again all you have are the same hand-waving assertions and ass-backwards "logic" such as:
> The Single Bullet Theory can be shown to be inoperable in dozens of different ways. That alone serves as a "logical" reason.
In other words, the SBT has been disproved because it's been disproved.
> 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.
In other words, the experiments that DID "come close to reproducing the condition of the bullet after doing the damaged it is alleged to have done" must not have been "properly conducted."
> In the latest experiment, in all its "elegance", Lattimer once again makes the assertion that CE399 had "extruded lead" at its base...
It's not an "assertion" that CE399 has extruded lead from its base; it's a simple observation (a.k.a. a "fact"
, and it's easily explained by the further observation that the copper casing has been partially flattened. Perhaps you need to look up the word "extrude." After you've done that, if you still don't think lead will be extruded if the case is partially flattened, then I'd really like you to explain how extrusion could be avoided if the volume of the casing has been reduced by the flattening.
> ... 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.
Ignoring your confusion about what "extruded" means and the silliness of claiming it was the "result of scraping the bullet," what's been "established and accepted" is that the weight of CE399 BEFORE the samples were taken was about 2.2 grains less than the average for that ammo, and the known fragments almost certainly weigh less than that. Making ridiculously exaggerated guesses about what those tiny fragments weigh and declaring that the there must be more fragments, somewhere, don't change what's been "established and accepted."
> So much for the authority of your "expert".
> 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.
In other words, it didn't happen that way because it didn't happen that way.
> 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.
Bullshit. What I realized many posts ago was that you simply don't understand any of my arguments, but I'm pretty sure that I haven't stated them so poorly as to justify that gross distortion. Starting from the end, I have never argued that anything "proves the SBT," since that isn't possible except perhaps in the legal sense of "beyond reasonable doubt." What I have argued is that it is the best theory that's been offered to account for the credible evidence (as well as the lack of evidence for any other theory), and we don't need any theory to explain completely imaginary evidence such as additional bullet fragments and an upward path through JFK's neck. I have argued that if the SBT isn't correct, however, then it should be possible to disprove it, as JFK conspiracists have attempted for 45 years, and so far, all you've got is bullshit like the above attempts to blow smoke up people's asses.
That means that (A) you haven't disproved the SBT, and more importantly (B) you haven't offered a better theory. Instead, after blathering endlessly about the SBT being a "magic" bullet, conspiracists propose alternate explanations involving all sorts of disappearing bullets and impossible trajectories.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read