1+1+1=6

[Steve Howsley]

The primary reasons were allegedly finding three spent cartridges, media reports and the FBI said so. IOW's, they didn't base their claim on actual evidence. Nothing unusual there for them.

And still you won't put a number on the shots fired in DP. You haven't even said "I don't know". I've given up asking. Your silence on that question speaks volumes to me.

[Allan Fritzke]

What is meant by 'perfect accounting'? Do you mean three or four or some other number?

How many shots do you think were fired in DP on that day?

Would you include the one from the stretcher or was that just a plant?   I guess it does get confusing if you want to include the pristine bullet that rolled off the stretcher!  I mean that "magic" bullet entered and exited 7 times and pretty much looks like it was pried off the end of a shell and left lying there as evidence to add to the sniper's nest cartridges found at that scene. 
It looks like pretty convincing evidence if you want to steer your case in a particular direction and convicts someone in absentia.



   

[Ross Lidell]

And still you won't put a number on the shots fired in DP. You haven't even said "I don't know". I've given up asking. Your silence on that question speaks volumes to me.

Rob (and other CTs) wont say how many shots were fired at JFK and from where... which is the bare minimum required for them to be credible.

They will not provide an estimate of the number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963: because they know their statements will be scrutinized---and then because there would be no physical evidence---ridiculed.

[Matt Grantham]

Rob (and other CTs) wont say how many shots were fired at JFK and from where... which is the bare minimum required for them to be credible.

They will not provide an estimate of the number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963: because they know their statements will be scrutinized---and then because there would be no physical evidence---ridiculed.

 Again having an understanding of the evidence that forms the premises for any conclusions is the primary test for credibility At a minimum the premises lend themselves to hard facts whereas conclusion rely on inferential notions of one sort or another Drawing exact conclusions is a secondary consideration, and by definition, a more speculative and inferential activity

[Steve Howsley]

It doesn't matter what the exact number was. The important part, the part that you want to obscure, is that it was more than three.

Your lack of understanding of the evidence speaks volumes to me.

So basically you have said 'I don't know'. I suppose that's how you CTers can come up with so many crazy theories based on rubbery evidence. That approach leads nowhere but I guess it gives you the flexibility to argue any point you like using dodgy material contradicting yourself as you stumble along.

[Ross Lidell]

Again having a handle of evidence that form the the premises for any conclusions is the primary test for credibility Drawing exact conclusions is a secondary consideration and by definition a more speculative and inferential activity

Apart from a lack of punctuation: your statement makes no sense and is of no value in this debate.

[Matt Grantham]

Apart from a lack of punctuation: your statement makes no sense and is of no value in this debate.

 Do you have any background in philosophy and logic? You understand the idea that premises lead to conclusions don't you? Do you further understand the logical fallacy of begging the question? It basically says that the format of premises leading to a conclusion is a one way street Premises lead to conclusions and not the other way around

[Steve Howsley]

Would you include the one from the stretcher or was that just a plant?   I guess it does get confusing if you want to include the pristine bullet that rolled off the stretcher!  I mean that "magic" bullet entered and exited 7 times and pretty much looks like it was pried off the end of a shell and left lying there as evidence to add to the sniper's nest cartridges found at that scene. 
It looks like pretty convincing evidence if you want to steer your case in a particular direction and convicts someone in absentia.



 

It was not pristine. Check it for yourself if you want to be enlightened.