I understand the notion that evidence must be vetted before it should be regarded for consideration, however an impasse is immediately reached in a discussion on JFK assassination if the only evidence deemed admissible is that which has undergone processing through government agencies.
That is not the only admissibale evidence. However, it is a large part of the evidence, and you are seemingly quite willing to ignore it. Why?
A discussion on conspiracy is not possible if evidences of a conspiracy are inadmissible as evidence.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with what constitutes evidence. That a bunch of people say they heard shots from a grassy knoll in an acoustically complex environment such as Dealy Plaza is not immediately evidence that the shots actually came from there. Have you really never been misled by echoes in locating the origin of a sound? Nor is a bunch of people saying they heard shots from the Book Depository, but coupled with a bunch of people
also saying they saw a sniper in the window, that strengthens the reports of sounds origniating from there.
By its very nature, a discussion on conspiracy must take the form where official evidence is challenged for its sustainability when examined within the field of known facts.
It is being and has been. The problem is you are not familiar with the known facts required, which is why you still seem to think that a bullet in the head will throw the head back violently. You also don't seem to know what facts actually are. You present facts that you then append all sorts of inferences onto.
So, we still await your response to the explanation for the 'back and to the left' being caused by the
exiting bullet. Do you actually plan to adfdress any of the responses or are you just going to keep piling on the inferences?
A debate becomes impossible when one person steadfastly refuses to respond to the answers to his questions.
