A straight line

[Tim Nickerson]

It's only helpful if you can show the SBT works for 4.2 inches as well.

Wrong. It's helpful in that it allows me to position Connally as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy if I need to.
 

That's great, but do you think the single bullet happened between 183-187 or 189-193?

Z193 was about 1.6 seconds before the shot. The positions of the two would have changed very little in that small amount of time. 

[Steve Thompson]

I believe the bullet that passed through JFK and hit JBC in the back is the one shown just behind the reenactor's right ear by the hairline.
The shot to JFK's back, apparently, did not penetrate more than an inch or two.

Sometime after this reenactment by the SS, it was decided that the wound by the hairline should be forgotten, and that the back shot show now be connected to a throat exit - which as you can see from the below photo and considering the sixth floor snipers nest behind - is preposterous.  But, without dropping the hairline shot, you've got three hits on JFK...and that just doesn't work well with the lone nut scenario...



https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipOgAYwTqNlIRPDhDbLL_gZEIor5ooWadb8WxfV-

[Tim Nickerson]

I believe the bullet that passed through JFK and hit JBC in the back is the one shown just behind the reenactor's right ear by the hairline.
The shot to JFK's back, apparently, did not penetrate more than an inch or two.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1197&fullsize=1

Steve, that's contradictory. The bullet passed through JFK yet it only penetrated no more than an inch or two?

[Alice Thorton]

Wrong. The evidence - you know the stuff that you avoid -- shows that he shot no one on 11/22/63.

This doesn't mean that he couldn't have been involved in some way though.

This is one of the biggest falsehoods that LNers tell as the vast majority of CTers do not proclaim LHO to be totally innocent. We truly don't know what his true role was in the events of November 22.

I believe Oswald was just the decoy. They framed him to hide who really shot JFK. I think if he was just the decoy that his reward for doing it was being accepted with the Soviets? Look I may be totally wrong or have my words mixed up. Look all I know is that someone got some type of reward for this one way or another. Kennedy was trying to make many policies happen that many people didn't want. Like the Oil Millionaires and such.

[Steve Thompson]

Steve, that's contradictory. The bullet passed through JFK yet it only penetrated no more than an inch or two?

Nope.
The bullet that *passed through* JFK hit him behind the right ear at the hairline, continued on a downslope, and exited near his Adams Apple and went on to strike JBC.
The bullet that *did not* pass through JFK was a separate bullet, which hit him several inches below the collar line and to the right of his spine.

Both bullet strikes are illustrated by the SS in the photo I linked to in my post.

Does that make it clearer ?

Thanks,
Steve

[Bill Chapman]

It's only helpful if you can show the SBT works for 4.2 inches as well.

Agreed. But it would be helpful if you and others would give at least a reasonable amount of ground in situations where something that couldn't be concluded to a dead certainty, like not having quite enough blanket fibers, or too mangled a Walker bullet to make a definitive conclusion... yet also could not be completely dismissed.

[Tim Nickerson]

Nope.
The bullet that *passed through* JFK hit him behind the right ear at the hairline, continued on a downslope, and exited near his Adams Apple and went on to strike JBC.
The bullet that *did not* pass through JFK was a separate bullet, which hit him several inches below the collar line and to the right of his spine.

Both bullet strikes are illustrated by the SS in the photo I linked to in my post.

Does that make it clearer ?

Thanks,
Steve

Ok, I see it now. Thanks for the clarification. There are some problems with that scenario, which I'm sure you are aware of.

[Steve Thompson]

Ok, I see it now. Thanks for the clarification. There are some problems with that scenario, which I'm sure you are aware of.

I'm curious, what do you see as problems ?

Thanks,
Steve