> What an appropriately lawyer-esque position to take - "if the SBT isn't correct, however, then it should be possible to disprove it" - as it inverts common legal and scientific principles by insisting that the hypothesis must be proven incorrect, rather than the hypothesis should be proven
Uh... no, that's exactly backwards, like most of your logic. In science, theories are never considered to be "proved," but they can be disproved. A properly constructed hypothesis must be falsifiable, and a properly designed scientific experiment must have the potential to falsify a prediction of the hypothesis, or it's a worthless experiment. If it does not falsify the hypothesis (and the results can be replicated), then the results are said to "support" the hypothesis in the inductive sense, not to "prove" it in the deductive sense, because that isn't logically possible. However, if replicated results do not match the predictions of the hypothesis, then it's considered to be disproved and can be discarded. It's revealing that a conspiracist doesn't understand this principle; it may be a defining characteristic.
Neither the SBT nor any competing theory can be "proved." However, they can be disproved by the evidence. For example, the hypothesis that the shot that hit JFK's back was at an upward trajectory is disproved by the autopsy photos we've already discussed.
On the other hand, the clear downward trajectory of the bullet path and the relative positions of JFK and Connally -- i.e. the trajectory points straight at Connally's back -- means that this evidence "supports" the SBT.
> JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets (as seen in Zapruder films supported by eyewitness accounts);
It's just a lie to claim that the hits can be "seen" in the Zapruder films, and guesses are not facts. Neither are individual perceptions during those chaotic seconds. Connally thought he was hit by a second shot, but that was based simply on an assumption that the first shot hit JFK. And actually, perhaps it did: This entire line of argument tries to imply that if there really were two separate shots, then there must have been a second shooter. But that invalid logic is based on the dubious assumption that what conspiracists' think they "see" in the Zapruder film -- hits about a second apart -- is correct. If instead the hits were really 3 or 4 seconds apart (as the "ear-witnesses" said!), then both shots could have both been fired by Oswald. As the WC report said, the SBT is not really necessary for their conclusions.
> the wound in Kennedy's back is too low;
No, it isn't, as seen in the photo above, which trumps the drawings and ambiguous verbal descriptions.
> the trajectory doesn't work;
Abject bullshit. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that the trajectory is completely consistent with a single bullet fired from where a shooter was observed firing at the limo.
> Kennedy's wound was never tracked;
Nonsense. There's an entry wound on the back, a nick on the C6 vertebra, and an exit wound on the throat. I'd call that a pretty clear track. What you're trying to say is that the back wound was only probed to a short distance, and the reason for that is stated in the autopsy report -- the muscle had tightened around the wound -- and since the X-rays showed no bullet, there was no need to probe the wound any deeper.
> the damage to Kennedy is not consistent with a passing high-velocity bullet;
That hardly makes enough sense to comment on except to say that it's another hand-waving assertion or abject nonsense, or both. I'd say a hole all the way through his body is pretty consistent with a passing high-velocity bullet.
> a bullet or large fragment was retrieved in Connally's hospital room long after CE399 found;
Sez you, but there is absolutely no evidence of it. On the other hand, the X-ray shows what was in his leg -- a tiny fragment -- and the doctor who attended to that wound made no mention of your imaginary bullet. Thus, the evidence we actually have supports the SBT, whereas there is no real evidence of another bullet.
> FBI receives CE399 before it was actually handed over;
does that mean? Before your imaginary bullet was "handed over?" Actually, this line of "reasoning" simply illustrates how implausible it is that CE399 was planted, when the alleged planter couldn't have possibly known that an "extra" bullet wasn't going to turn up in Connally's body and reveal the hoax. Actually, "implausible" is an understatement.
> ballistics tests show bullet would have been visibly deformed after striking Connally's wrist;
But you blithely declare that the tests the DO show similar deformation were "not properly conducted." Again, for the benefit of anyone who missed it: The Lattimer tests showed that if the bullet had been slowed down first and hit sideways, then it could break the wrist bone and come out looking like CE399. Your repeated hand-waving assertions that that's not what happened are completely baseless as well as being illogical: A slowed-down, tumbling bullet is exactly what would be expected. If the purpose of the experiment was to test the SBT -- e.g. what might happen to a bullet that had already passed through JFK's neck and Connally's torso -- then it's the experiments where a bone was directly hit with a bullet at full speed that was "not properly conducted." In view of the experimental evidence, the minimal damage to CE399, therefore, actually supports the SBT.
> Parkland doctors say throat wound was of entry.
And as they themselves said, they supposed that based strictly on the small size of the wound, which is easily explained by the fact that the bullet exited right at a buttoned shirt collar and tied necktie. Those doctors were apparently not even aware of the back wound, which is clearly an entry wound, and the "theory" that both are entry wounds caused by disappearing bullets is... um, highly implausible.
> The above is just off the top of my head.
Exactly the problem.
> Any hypothesis which starts from a position as challenged and unlikely (if not impossible) as the SBT, is an extreme fringe concept.
That's a bold statement from who has just demonstrated the factual distortions and logical contortions necessary to cast any doubt on it, and then you completely dodge the real issue, which is that you have utterly failed to offer a better theory that actually conforms to the evidence we actually have.
> Why persons like "wm Seger" feel it necessary, almost 50 years after the fact, to not only argue an extreme fringe concept, but to do so arrogantly and aggressively, all the while inverting basic legal and scientific concepts by insisting that the flawed hypothesis must be proven wrong or that the burden of proof requires a competing hypothesis - why they insist on doing this one can only guess.
You're just not paying attention: It's because after 50 years, the SBT is still the theory that best fits the evidence -- perfectly in accordance with "legal concepts" -- and I'm not swayed by hand-waving assertions, imaginary evidence, fuzzy thinking, or your upside-down notion of scientific concepts.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read