Misha wrote:Hi NinjaPuppy, I watched the NatGeo "The Lost Bullet" episode. Where does one begin taking this apart? This program by Max Holland explains why we should not trust him one iota. Holland's thesis is tantamount to an elephant hanging from a daisy. A pure strawman argument that ignores the evidence. Frankly, to go through the litany of suppositions by Holland isn't worth the time. No shot at you, NinjaPuppy.
No shot taken.
It happened to be on TV last week so I decided to watch it considering the conversation on this forum. As I had said, I found the video interesting at around 33 mins. into it, at least concerning the one theory about the "lost bullet" or "magic bullet". In order to "begin taking this apart", I'd like to begin with facts in which we agree. I find it easier for me to process information by eliminating the things that can be proven or accepted and go from there. You have to realize that I am woefully behind on this subject so taking things in small bites will give me a better perspective.
Regardless of who is responsible or behind this video, (let's remove that for the moment) we know that numerous people heard what sounded like 3 shots and that there were 3 shell casings found at the Book Depository and two bullets were physically recovered at the scene. This video gives us a theory about what may explain where a third bullet from the same gun may have gone. Does it eliminate the possibility of a second shooter? That is the question.
IMO, it doesn't give us proof beyond a shadow of a doubt but nonetheless the theory that the first bullet may have hit the traffic light is a good one. Do I personally trust the memories of the witnesses? Not a whole heck of a lot but their recollections seem to fit with the theory well enough.
Can we agree that the theory is logical, even if there is not absolute proof (the missing/replaced traffic light that can't be inspected) to eliminate this theory?