From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:   
   > 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).   
      
   Once again, Bud tells it like it is and does so concisely.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)