I HAVE 2 VERY BIG PROBLEMS WITH YOUR REPLY:
1- what you said:
"...it appears that for every opinion such as Dolce's,
the appears to be an opposite opinion such as from
this more recent scientific study,..."
2: what you cited: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041025131255.htm
both are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
for the sake of the discussion,
and for mutual respect,...
If you want me to respect you,
(which I do)
Please, all I'm asking for you
to do, is to just take a moment or
two,....and think BEFORE you reply,
I want to be PERFECTLY CLEAR ON THIS,
When I cite something supporting my argument,
you are going to:
HOWEVER, if you are going to DISAGREE,
and also "DISMISS" or "INVALIDATE"
what I presented,...you should be prepared
to refer me to something that will do it.
with that being said,...
and in reply to your comment:
everyone does have an opinion, but, there is only one opinion,
that was in the UNIQUE position that he held,...
so, there are many people who can share their opinions,
including better ballistic experts, but NONE, have the
weight that his does.
simply, because HE WAS THERE, on record,...
we are OBLIGATED to ask "him" what happened
not the other way around,...and what he says
carries with it some pretty serious implications
to say the least,...
or in other words, what his testimony implies
is that there is some BULLSHIT goin on here,
the FACT that the Warren Commission excluded
this report from the findings, and then CLASSIFIED IT!
SUPPORTS what he is saying, TO A VERY HIGH DEGREE,
I believe it can be argued that this is,
prima facie evidence, of a cover-up,... easily
what can be argued, not so easily, is wether,
there was criminal intent behind it.
anyways, I appreciate your time, and opinion, thanks.