Creative Speculation

What an appropriately lawyer-esque position to take - "if the SBT isn't correct, however, then it should be possible to disprove it" - as it inverts common legal and scientific principles by insisting that the hypothesis must be proven incorrect, rather than the hypothesis should be proven. This is, of course, the gist of the Warren Commission's findings, though they never did say it outright. The Warren Commission never claimed the SBT was settled; instead it disingenuously claimed that the SBT was not germane to its conclusions - although it was actually central to its conclusions. Warren Commission member Richard Russell saw the SBT for the steaming pile of nonsense it was and insisted that his dissension be in the record. Chief Justice Warren promised that it would be, but it wasn't. The Warren Commission left the defines of the SBT to media assets, supported over time by a small but vocal coterie of lone-nut propagandists.

As a hypothesis, the SBT runs aground with issues like: JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets (as seen in Zapruder films supported by eyewitness accounts); the wound in Kennedy's back is too low; the trajectory doesn't work; Kennedy's wound was never tracked; the damage to Kennedy is not consistent with a passing high-velocity bullet; a bullet or large fragment was retrieved in Connally's hospital room long after CE399 found; FBI receives CE399 before it was actually handed over; ballistics tests show bullet would have been visibly deformed after striking Connally's wrist; Parkland doctors say throat wound was of entry.

The above is just off the top of my head. Any hypothesis which starts from a position as challenged and unlikely (if not impossible) as the SBT, is an extreme fringe concept. And yet, it was presented as the central vital event to support the lone assassin finding. This is why the WC is consistently rejected by a large plurality of the people, and has been for decades.

Why persons like "wm Seger" feel it necessary, almost 50 years after the fact, to not only argue an extreme fringe concept, but to do so arrogantly and aggressively, all the while inverting basic legal and scientific concepts by insisting that the flawed hypothesis must be proven wrong or that the burden of proof requires a competing hypothesis - why they insist on doing this one can only guess. The term "crackpot" might come to mind, but I wouldn't want to drag this forum down into the mud because "wm sever" has already staked that territory out for himself.