From: sirslick@fast.net   
      
   On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 1:39:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:18:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett    
   >  wrote:    
   >    
   > >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:54:32?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > >> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:31:41?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > >>> I suppose it never entered that pinhead of yours that there are other   
   ways of determining a bullet path other than a probe.    
   > >> Source ?    
   > >    
   > >How about the autopsy report which I have already posted for you twice   
   which explains how the pathologists were able to    
   > >find the bullet track without using a probe.   
   > No, speculation is not a legitmate medical means of proving anything.    
      
     Applying reason to information is how thinking people are able to figure   
   things out.   
      
   > Never has been, never will be.   
   > >You might want to check Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony which explains   
   why using a probe can create a false channel in    
   > >soft tissue.   
   > How did he know this?    
      
     He was an expert in the relevant field.   
       
   > Could it be that using a probe is a standard medical practice?   
      
     Get back to us on that.   
      
   > >The probe could only go in a fraction of an inch. Are we supposed to   
   believe that indicates the bullet only went in a fraction    
   > >of an inch or does it make more sense to believe the bullet traveled much   
   deeper than the probe could go?   
   > Speculation is not science... nor evidence.   
      
     Conspiracy folks try to make thinking out of bounds, that is how they get to   
   the places they do (nowhere).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)