A straight line

[Martin Weidmann]

I am not sure about that.   Many CTers say that Oswald was a "patsy" and, as far as I can tell, the only evidence that he was a patsy came from Oswald himself.

But a patsy doesn't have to be the same as innocent. He could well have been involved at some level and be framed to be the patsy. The most unlikely scenario would be that a completely innocent outsider would be used to be the patsy.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

That's a lot of Ifs.

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

Quite a few of your 20+ witnesses are missing one of the three shots from their accounts. They do not account for the real first shot.

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

Not necessarily. If there was more time between shots one and two than between two and three then that just means that the first shot was earlier than is generally believed.

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.

That one is easy. JBC was NOT sitting in the middle of his seat. The ITEK analysis has him as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

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.

I wasn't aware that the WC came to that conclusion. It's hard to see how they could have, since Kennedy can't be seen in Z223. Kennedy does not show a reaction until between Z225 and Z226.





On the evidence, the SBT did occur. There's really no way around it.

[John Iacoletti]

That one is easy. JBC was NOT sitting in the middle of his seat. The ITEK analysis has him as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

...and as little as 4.2 inches.  Not much help there.  Besides, Itek based this on their positions at Z183 and Z188.

I wasn't aware that the WC came to that conclusion. It's hard to see how they could have, since Kennedy can't be seen in Z223. Kennedy does not show a reaction until between Z225 and Z226.

Why were his arms already raised?

[Tim Nickerson]

...and as little as 4.2 inches.  Not much help there.

As usual ,you are wrong. "As much as 8.6 inches" is quite helpful.

 

Besides, Itek based this on their positions at Z183 and Z188.

They also utilized stereo pairs from 183-187, and 189-193.

[Bill Chapman]

Just because someone says they're innocent doesn't mean they're innocent.

Some of what I post is tongue-in-cheek, Alice. St.John the Virtuous once accused me of believing Oswald quilty only because no other shooter could be shown. So, I naturally countered with an equally nonesensical notion that CTers believe Oswald innocent because he said he was. Tit for tat.

[John Iacoletti]

As usual ,you are wrong. "As much as 8.6 inches" is quite helpful.

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

They also utilized stereo pairs from 183-187, and 189-193.

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

[John Iacoletti]

Some of what is tongue-in-cheek, Alice. John once accused me of believing Oswald quilty only because no other shooter could be shown.

That's because the only response you ever give in support of your opinion is "name your shooter".

[Alice Thorton]

I am not sure about that.   Many CTers say that Oswald was a "patsy" and, as far as I can tell, the only evidence that he was a patsy came from Oswald himself.

Yes, I have seen that as well. News has a direct quote from Oswald saying that himself.