A straight line

[John Iacoletti]

Actually, there really isn't any evidence on which an unreasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK? And I don?t see how there could be.

?Infer? all you like, Joe, but don?t go calling it ?reason?.

[John Iacoletti]

What do you mean by "fate and lady luck" I'm confused.

In Bill?s mind, Oswald did it because Oswald did it.

[John Iacoletti]

Alice hasn't really made an argument here. She made a claim and failed to provide any support for it.

You mean the way you guys constantly do?

At least Alice admits it when she doesn?t have proof.

[Tim Nickerson]

BS

No, it's because you don't understand the physics, evidence, facts, proof and logic to form conclusions.

Unlike you, I do understand the physics, evidence, facts, proof and logic to form conclusions.  You are a blowhard.

 

If I posted a few photos of my exp you would dismiss them for whatever reason. Rightly so, because I can't prove that the SBT was impossible. FYI, you can actually prove a negative but it is beyond the scope of this case.

So get off your cheap, lazy ass and do my laser exp!

That just illustrates how full of spombleprofglidnoctobuns that you truly are. You could prove that the SBT was impossible if it was in fact impossible. It's a numbers game. Either the numbers work or they don't.

Put up or shut up. Get off your cheap, lazy ass and do your own damn laser experiment yourself.

[Bill Chapman]

In Bill?s mind, Oswald did it because Oswald did it.

Alice, Oswald is innocent in CT opinion because he said he was.

Oswald probably did it, Alice...

[Jack Trojan]

Unlike you, I do understand the physics, evidence, facts, proof and logic to form conclusions.  You are a blowhard.

I know you are but what am I? Clearly what you aren't is a physicist.

That just illustrates how full of spombleprofglidnoctobuns that you truly are. You could prove that the SBT was impossible if it was in fact impossible. It's a numbers game. Either the numbers work or they don't.

Put up or shut up. Get off your cheap, lazy ass and do your own damn laser experiment yourself.

You keep telling me I'm full of spombleprofglidnoctobuns but you're not much on the showing me part. What you still don't get is that you can't prove a negative. What could I post that would prove anything to you? The onus is on you to show it was possible, otherwise, no one can show that it wasn't possible. That's logic. So get off your lazy ass, do the exp and shove your results down my festering gob, else STFU.

[Jack Trojan]

Alice, Oswald is innocent in CT opinion because he said he was.

Oswald probably did it, Alice...

But he probably didn't do it alone.

[Andrew Mason]

That just illustrates how full of spombleprofglidnoctobuns that you truly are. You could prove that the SBT was impossible if it was in fact impossible. It's a numbers game. Either the numbers work or they don't.

It is a matter of evidence.  There is evidence that shows the SBT was impossible. It is just that you don't accept that evidence.

If the witnesses who said that JFK was hit by the first shot (20+) were correct then the second shot SBT is impossible.

If the 40+ witnesses who said that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3 were correct, then the second shot SBT is impossible.

If JBC was sitting in the middle of his seat as he appears to be and if the bullet through JFK did not deflect, then the SBT was impossible at z221-223.

If JFK is already reacting at z223, as the WC concluded and as it appears to many reasonable people, then the SBT at z221-223 is not reasonably possible.

So, on the evidence I accept, the second shot SBT was not reasonably possible.  But since you don't accept that evidence for what it says, you disagree. 

On the evidence, the SBT did not occur. On the evidence, Oswald fired all three shots and there was no missed shots. One has to discredit the evidence to conclude otherwise.