If you care to get scientific, then explain how Newton's First Law went into effect which allowed gravity to put it's full destructive force upon the weapon?
Newton's first law has exactly what to do with the evidence of the rifle being found with a defective scope?
Newton's first law of motion - An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
The rifle was found at rest. With a defective scope. You brought up the issue of the defective scope. You tell us how it's pertinent to the assassination, without assuming what you need to prove.
Already did. You snipped it.
The bullets only prove that they were fired from the rifle, there is nothing in the bullets that provides a time frame.
Au contraire. Here's the explanation again:
The evidence those six pieces of evidence came from that rifle is the evidence the rifle was recently fired.
First off, It's not bullets, plural. It's one nearly whole bullet, two large bullet fragments, and three spent shells.
One bullet was found in Parkland and two large bullet fragments were found *in the limo* the evening of the assassination. Clearly, those two bullet fragments and that one bullet got there only one way, via the assassination. It's the only time the limo was in the vicinity of the rifle, which was recovered from the Depository building the shooter was seen in by numerous witnesses. The limo went by the Depository at 12:30 on 11/22/63. Three shots were heard by a majority of the witnesses, and two victims in the limo were struck by gunfire. The bullet then fell out of John Connally's pants leg in the hospital and was recovered from his stretcher, the two fragments were remnants of the shot that hit JFK in the head. All three pieces of evidence were ballistically traceable to the weapon recovered in the Depository. To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
In addition, three shells were recovered at the sniper's nest window in the Depository (the southeast corner window on the sixth floor). All three of those shells were traceable to the same weapon as the bullet and the two fragments. To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
So don't be too quick to disregard that evidence that those six pieces of evidence were fired from the rifle. It's ALSO the evidence that establishes the rifle was used that day -- i.e., recently fired.
Just because you snip something doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
So the time frame is 12:30 on 11/22/63. That's the intersection of the rifle, the three shells, the two large fragments, and the one nearly whole bullet. And the two victims of gunfire in the limo. Unless you care to introduce other evidence. Note I said *evidence*, not conjecture or speculation or innuendo.
This is classic Hank, when you are painted into a corner you start attributing thoughts that were never expressed and you then wish for me to respond. I will treat your question as rhetoric.
I'm not painted into a corner. I've backed up my claims by referencing the evidence I'm using to reach that conclusion. It's an entirely reasonable conclusion, supported by the evidence.
You brought up the defective scope. I've asked how it's pertinent to Oswald's capability to use the weapon to commit the assassination. You haven't told us.
I've asked what you're suggesting about the damage to the scope - as you're questioning if it was damaged between the time of the assassination and afterward when it was examined by the FBI - then you're suggesting it was damaged before the assassination. Aren't you? You haven't told us.
As you're questioning also whether Oswald committed the assassination, I asked if you're suggesting that the rifle was planted with a defective scope to frame Oswald. You haven't told us.
You haven't told us what exactly you're suggesting. We're all dying to know.
So, revisiting the damaged scope, why'd you bring it up, and what exactly are you suggesting?
We're still waiting for your reasonable conclusions, supported by the evidence.
Hank
