CTers have argued that just on the basis of the condition of CE399, it could not have wounded both men. Have CTers been lying to us about this? If not, where is the true ballistic expert who argues so. So far you have named none.
I guess you could argue that it doesn’t matter if CTers have been lying to us about the condition of CE 399 precluding it from being the bullet that wounded both men. If it turned out there are other reasons we can discount the SBT. But I tend to conclude that if CTers have been lying to us that the condition of CE 399 precludes it from wounding both men, then they are lying to us about other issues as well.
CTers have argued that just on the basis of the condition of CE399, it could not have wounded both men. Have CTers been lying to us about this?I've never argued that, because that would be pointless as long as I can not be sure that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact fired by the MC rifle on 11/22/63. Others may have other opinions... Having an opinion is something else than lying.
Your question isn't even a fair one. Of course a bullet could wound two men, IMO, but that's not the question that needs to be asked if one is truly interested in the truth. You should be asking if a bullet could have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out nearly undamaged. I wouldn't want to rely on the opinion of a ballistics expert to make that determination.
But, for the sake of argument, let me ask you this; has any ballistics expert ever been able to reproduce the event and achieve the same result?
I guess you could argue that it doesn’t matter if CTers have been lying to us about the condition of CE 399 precluding it from being the bullet that wounded both men. If it turned out there are other reasons we can discount the SBT. As the SBT relies completely on CE399 being fired by the MC rifle on 11/22/63, you first need to establish the veracity and evidentiary value of the bullet now in evidence as CE399. If you can't the SBT is already discounted!
But I tend to conclude that if CTers have been lying to us that the condition of CE 399 precludes it from wounding both men, then they are lying to us about other issues as well.Which is exactly where you wanted to go with this thread. It is also the reason you prefer to assume that CE399 was indeed the bullet found by Tomlinson, rather than dealing with the evidentiary problems that go along with that bullet.
So, I conclude this entire thread is agenda driven and completely disingenuous.
