Why classify information?

[Martin Weidmann]

No---He most definitely could see what he said he could see which he said he could see the back door.

Barnett also traversed the back of the building and looked south along the West side of the building.

----------------------------------

You can try to twist this thing as much as you like, but you will never get around the fact that Barnett said in his testimony that he didn't pay attention to the back door.

No---12:36 is not 12:37

Still trying to use your own times in your own personalized timeline.

--------------------

I asked you where I said that 12:36 is 12:37? Why are you having so much difficulty answering even a simple question?

No it does not matter. The amount of training required to pick up a piece of lead and hand it to an FBI Agent must be incredible. 

Remember this is 1963 not 2022. The science of criminology was rudimentary at best with blood tests, fingerprints, and ballistic matches. Once again watch the old cop shows if there is a question about how it all worked.

The old cop shows? Do you really believe that cop shows have anything in common with reality? You can't be serious... 

It's BS in any case because if criminology was rudimentary, why did you make such a big deal about ballistics earlier? And why did some DPD officers mark some pieces of evidence, if not to preserve the chain of custody? Were they just having a bit of fun scratching their initials on evidence? And why did the FBI check the rifle for fingerprints if they didn't have the ability to match them?

Do you ever think before you write?

The crime scene was the blood and gore of JFK's wounds. The FBI also picked up lead fragments. They definitely were present in the car and also in his brain and also in the windshield. Were you maybe thinking the rest of the bullet fragments were vaporized by aliens? Are all things possible in conspiracy land?

The crime scene was the entire limo. The FBI only picked up three small fragments which they found under the jumpseat and which were no good for testing (CE 840).

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0433b.htm

The two larger ones, which Frazier lined up in his mind, were allegedly taken from the car by the Secret Service, who had no business going through the car before a forensic investigation.

The Chain of custody is intact. The bullet and fragments were matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, to the exclusion of all other firearms. Howard Bennan saw the rifle being fired during the assassination.

---------------------

More BS.

The bullet and fragments were matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, to the exclusion of all other firearms.

A meaningless comment unless you can prove when the rifle was fired. There is more evidence that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is not the bullet that Tomlinson found at Parkland hospital than there is that it was!

Howard Bennan saw the rifle being fired during the assassination.


Don't those old cop shows learn you to choose your words more carefully? Brennan saw a rifle being fired. He never identified the MC that was found in the TSBD.

All through his testimony. That is what Frazier means when he matches them. Are you still thinking JFK was killed earlier and the Dallas Motorcade was an elaborate ruse to hide that fact. A believer in the Zapruder Film was a fake?

What do you mean with "are you still thinking JFK was killed earlier..... ". I have never thought that. What I do think is that there is no conclusive evidence that he was killed with the MC rifle they found in the 6th floor.

[Jack Nessan]

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

This would mean Buell Frazier, twice making an identical statement in his description of the bag carried by LHO into the TSBD, means it could easily have contained the rifle used to kill JFK.

Actually, this is incidental information. Based on the time stamps provided by Harkness and Sawyer, Adams and Styles in their statements already proved they never left the 4th floor before 12:35. The fact they weren't seen by Barnett exiting the rear of the TSBD in the three minutes he was in position there only serves to reinforce that fact.

---------------------------
No difficulty at all, no need to make up your own timelines with your own times. "After 12:36" means anytime after 12:36:00. That is not the same as 12:37 Which is what Det. Sawyer stated.

-----------------------------

Putting their initials on the fragments would make their training way more difficult.

You still don't seem to understand matching the fragments to the rifle. It is only a suggestion to watch the old cop shows to help you understand what took place. Don't watch them if you don't want to.

-------------------------------------

The trajectory Analysis lines up with the 6th floor as does the witnesses stating where the shots were fired from. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with that conclusion. With the existing evidence then you must believe a different shooter, also armed with a different carcano, assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of th TSBD. It is known he did not escape by way of the fire escape or down the stairs or the elevator. Nor was any unknown person seen in the TSBD before the assassination.

In this alternate assassination scenario, what happened to the assassin and where did he go? The shell casings discovered by the window were matched to the rifle to the exclusion of all others. The same as the bullet and fragments.

[Martin Weidmann]

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.

This would mean Buell Frazier, twice making an identical statement in his description of the bag carried by LHO into the TSBD, means it could easily have contained the rifle used to kill JFK.

Only in your imagination is this a rational comparison. You can speculate all you want, but Frazier ("it fitted between the cup of his hand and his armpit") and Randle ("he held the bag at the top and carried it next to his leg without it reaching the ground") gave multiple descriptions which indicate that the package couldn't have been long enough to conceal the 34" wooden stock of the rifle.

You're grasping at straws.

Actually, this is incidental information. Based on the time stamps provided by Harkness and Sawyer, Adams and Styles in their statements already proved they never left the 4th floor before 12:35. The fact they weren't seen by Barnett exiting the rear of the TSBD in the three minutes he was in position there only serves to reinforce that fact.

As I said earlier, you can keep repeating the same old BS as much as you like, it doesn't become true or believable. Styles was photographed at the front of the TSBD and entered the building through the front entrance before it was sealed off. By your own account the front entrance was sealed off at 12:37, right? So, how do you figure both women managed to be at the front of the building at around 12:36 when they, as you foolishly claim, were still on the 4th floor at 12:35?

---------------------------
No difficulty at all, no need to make up your own timelines with your own times. "After 12:36" means anytime after 12:36:00. That is not the same as 12:37 Which is what Det. Sawyer stated.

-----------------------------

Pathetic. "After 12:36" includes 12:37. Is this really the level at which you want to argue?

Putting their initials on the fragments would make their training way more difficult.

Hilarious. Care to explain this beauty?

You still don't seem to understand matching the fragments to the rifle. It is only a suggestion to watch the old cop shows to help you understand what took place. Don't watch them if you don't want to.

-------------------------------------

Oh I perfectly understand matching the fragments to the rifle. In this case, this is what Frazier said about the fragments.

Mr. FRAZIER - The marks on the left are the same marks as those on the right. In the examination this is easily determined by rotating the two bullets. As you rotate them, you can see these characteristic patterns line up.
Then you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind, even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.

The trajectory Analysis lines up with the 6th floor as does the witnesses stating where the shots were fired from. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with that conclusion.

The trajectory Analysis lines up with the 6th floor

And where did you get this information? I've been to Dealey Plaza and if you look up from roughly the spot where the limo was towards the TSBD it becomes pretty obvious that the shots could just as easily have come from the Dal-Tex building.

The trajectory analysis pressumes a particular position of the limo and the President at the time the shots were fired. However, there is massive disagreement when the shots were fired exactly, which makes a credible analysis nearly impossible.

But as we are talking about trajectory analysis and you seem to love cop shows so much, have a look at these scenes from the movie "the International";

Who knows, you might even learn something.

With the existing evidence then you must believe a different shooter, also armed with a different carcano, assassinated JFK from the 6th floor of th TSBD.

And why must I believe that? Strawman?

It is known he did not escape by way of the fire escape or down the stairs or the elevator. Nor was any unknown person seen in the TSBD before the assassination.

In this alternate assassination scenario, what happened to the assassin and where did he go? The shell casings discovered by the window were matched to the rifle to the exclusion of all others. The same as the bullet and fragments.

Why are you asking me to speculate? One thing I'm pretty sure about by now is that nobody came down the stairs from the 6th floor within 90 seconds of the shots, because the women on the 4th floor, especially Dorothy Garner, would have seen him.

Even if the shell casings, the bullet and the fragments all matched the MC rifle found at the TSBD, it is meaningless when you can't show that particular rifle was fired that day or that Oswald fired it.

[Jack Nessan]

That is what Barnett stated. He ran 20 feet past the back of the building and could see the back of the building. Definitely not what you are portraying. Adams and Styles or anyone else, never emerged from the back of the building in the three minutes Barnett was observing it, that is why he never noticed anything.

No--- Frazier stated he did not pay attention. This is incredibly hypocritical to provide your opinion as to the difference between Buel Frazier and Barnett.

Though you are exactly right about Linnie May Randel, she described a longer bag- -three feet long. The fingerprints discovered on the bag match her description of how the bag was being carrried. This is a good point about the difference between her description and Buell's.
-------------------

The HSCA and FBI Ballistic Experts all arrived at the same conclusion. Matched to the rifle.
---------------------------

 Mr Canning,  Staff Engineer for the Space Projects Division of NASA Ames Research Center, explained trajectory analysis durring the HSCA Investigation. Feel free to dissect his testimony and point out its flaws. Make sure you don't use facts and not your own opinion or speculation.

Basically a 5 to 13 foot radius centering on the 6th floor window.
----------------------------

What weapon shot JFK if not a carcano and how did he escape? Or is this the reason for the Dal Tex story. I was unaware anybody even believed that anymore. Where from the Dal Tex could a shot have been fired? Are you the architect of theory about a shot that went through the open windows of the 6th floor of the TSBD?

-------------------

I did learn something. You have zero understanding of ballistic or trajectory analysis. The Columbo wannabe detective easily determined there was two shooters. Trajectory analysis would have determined the guy killed in the room was not the guy who shot him. Which is what the detective immediately figured out. The bullet that killed the man would not have been matched to the rifle in the dead guys room. The shells would not have been matched to the rifle of the dead shooter. They forgot to account for the shell in the chamber and planted the extra shells in the middle of the room instead of by the window

-------------------

You speculate and offer your opinion constantly with either tortured or invented information as the basis.  Don't be shy now. Garner is proof a memory recorded 6 months after the fact is suspect at best. Her statement is in direct conflict with the the statements of Adams and Styles. That is why the WC basically ignored it. To their credit they recorded it anyway despite the fact it is so easily proven to be false.

[Martin Weidmann]

That is what Barnett stated. He ran 20 feet past the back of the building and could see the back of the building. Definitely not what you are portraying. Adams and Styles or anyone else, never emerged from the back of the building in the three minutes Barnett was observing it, that is why he never noticed anything.

Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion. I am not going to argue this point anymore. It's like talking to a machine.

No--- Frazier stated he did not pay attention. This is incredibly hypocritical to provide your opinion as to the difference between Buel Frazier and Barnett.

Though you are exactly right about Linnie May Randel, she described a longer bag- -three feet long. The fingerprints discovered on the bag match her description of how the bag was being carrried. This is a good point about the difference between her description and Buell's.
-------------------

Where did Randle describe a longer bag? You are making up stories to fit the narrative you like.

The HSCA and FBI Ballistic Experts all arrived at the same conclusion. Matched to the rifle.
---------------------------

Sure, they did. And where did they say when the rifle was fired? That's the question you keep on evading.

Mr Canning,  Staff Engineer for the Space Projects Division of NASA Ames Research Center, explained trajectory analysis durring the HSCA Investigation. Feel free to dissect his testimony and point out its flaws. Make sure you don't use facts and not your own opinion or speculation.

Basically a 5 to 13 foot radius centering on the 6th floor window.
----------------------------

Mr. GOLDSMITH. And what basic information is necessary to determine a trajectory?
Mr. CANNING. We must first identify where the two points are in space so that we can then construct that line.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What specific information, in addition to this map, did you need to determine the trajectory of these bullets?
Mr. CANNING. We needed first and foremost an accurate identification of the inshoot and outshoot wounds and their exact locations.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Did you need any information about the location of the limousine?
Mr. CANNING. We needed to know the location of the limousine, and we needed to know the location of the people in the limousine, and, in two cases we needed to know the actual angular orientation of the people in the limousine.

Which means the entire analysis was based on guesses. Unless of course you can show me conclusive evidence about the exact location of the car, the people in it and their angular orientation.

What weapon shot JFK if not a carcano and how did he escape? Or is this the reason for the Dal Tex story. I was unaware anybody even believed that anymore. Where from the Dal Tex could a shot have been fired? Are you the architect of theory about a shot that went through the open windows of the 6th floor of the TSBD?

-------------------

I do not know if the Carcano was used to kill JFK and neither do you. All you can do is assume it was.

I haven't heard the theory about a shot that went through the open windows of the 6th floor of the TSBD. Who came up with such an absurd notion?

I did learn something. You have zero understanding of ballistic or trajectory analysis. The Columbo wannabe detective easily determined there was two shooters. Trajectory analysis would have determined the guy killed in the room was not the guy who shot him. Which is what the detective immediately figured out. The bullet that killed the man would not have been matched to the rifle in the dead guys room. The shells would not have been matched to the rifle of the dead shooter. They forgot to account for the shell in the chamber and planted the extra shells in the middle of the room instead of by the window

-------------------

Well, apparently you did not learn the right thing, because in the movie the shots went through a pilar providing a perfect trajectory to see where the shots came from. The lesson you failed to learn is that in the JFK case there is no such fixed point from where to start an analysis from. All Canning could do was guess.

The bullet that killed the man would not have been matched to the rifle in the dead guys room. The shells would not have been matched to the rifle of the dead shooter. They forgot to account for the shell in the chamber and planted the extra shells in the middle of the room instead of by the window

Oh boy. It was a movie, fool. All it did was show you how something like that could work. Not only did you miss that point completely, but instead you start arguing about the details in the movie..... Really? 

You speculate and offer your opinion constantly with either tortured or invented information as the basis.  Don't be shy now. Garner is proof a memory recorded 6 months after the fact is suspect at best. Her statement is in direct conflict with the the statements of Adams and Styles. That is why the WC basically ignored it. To their credit they recorded it anyway despite the fact it is so easily proven to be false.

Sorry but I can't deal with so much stupidity. Garner said exactly the same thing as Adams. She confirmed to Martha Stroud that Adams and Styles left the 4th floor before Truly and Baker came up, but I get it; you desperately need the "Oswald on the stairs" to stay alive so you accuse a simple office worker, like Garner, of lying to the Office of a United States Attorney.

And, irony oh irony, you accuse me of speculation and offering my opinion with invented information as basis. You really are some piece of work and most certainly no longer interesting enough for me to waste anymore time on.

[Martin Weidmann]

Here's part of the Stroud letter:

    "Mr. Bellin [sic] was questioning Miss Adams whether or not she saw anyone
     as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams supervisor,
     stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs, she (Miss Garner)
     saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up."

No where does this letter state that Garner saw anyone go down the stairs or come up the stairs. It could be Garner merely assumed both that Adams went down the stairs and that Truly and the policeman then came up.

True, she doesn't say that but she told Barry Ernest that she heard them on the noisy stairs.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/another_witness.htm

Barry Ernest wrote;

The focus of my call to her, of course, was Victoria Adams, whether Mrs. Garner was indeed in a position to have seen Baker and Truly or anyone else on the back stairs, and who she had made the comment to that appeared in the Stroud document.

     "I was at the window with Elsie Dorman, Victoria Adams, and Sandra Styles," she said.

     Did Miss Adams and Miss Styles leave the window right away, I asked her.

     "The girls did," she responded.  "I remember them being there and the next thing I knew, they were gone."

    They had left "very quickly…within a matter of moments," she added.

     What did Mrs. Garner do after that?

     "There was this warehouse or storage area behind our office, out by the freight elevators and the rear stairway, and I went out there."

     Her move to that area clearly put her into a position where she could have observed activity on the back stairs as well as on the elevators.  But how fast had she arrived there?

     Mrs. Garner said she immediately went to this area, following "shortly after…right behind" Miss Adams and Miss Styles.   She

couldn't remember exactly why she went out there, other than to say, "probably to get something."  Mrs. Garner said she did not actually see "the girls" enter the stairway, though, arriving on the fourth-floor landing seconds after.  When I asked how she knew they had gone down, Mrs. Garner said, "I remember hearing them, after they started down.  I remember the stairs were very noisy."

     Were the freight elevators in operation during this time?

     "I don't recall that," she answered.  "They were very noisy too!"

     Mrs. Garner said she remained at that spot and was alone for a moment before "several came out back from the office to look out those windows there."

Truly and Baker were back on the fourth floor a minute or so before 12:37 because Baker spoke to Inspector Sawyer, and Sawyer estimates he was back on the first floor by 12:37.

     Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it
          couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left,
          got up and back down.
     Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you
          heard the call at 12:34?
     Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir.

     Mr. BAKER - As we descended, somewhere around--we were still talking
     and I was still looking over the building.
     Mr. BELIN - As the elevator was moving?
     Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; downward.
     Mr. BELIN - All right.
     Mr. BAKER - The next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on
          one of those floors there, he is a police inspector.

Stroud could have seen Truly with Baker in the stopped elevator and figured they had used the elevator to "come up" to the fourth floor and not the stairs previously. That might be why Stroud thought they missed meeting Adams on the stairs, because they were using the elevator.

Nice bit of speculation, for which, of course there is not a shred of evidence.

From a post in 2011 by Sean Murphy ( Link ):

    "Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author [Barry Ernest] had contacted her
     some years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard
     of myself). Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me:
     that she and Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
     as quickly as Victoria had claimed. I find it a little worrying that there is no mention
     of Sandra's counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here."

Probably a minute passed before they even left the window. Styles said they ran to the passenger elevator and waited awhile before heading for the stairs. So crossing the fourth floor about 12:33 would allow them to miss meeting Truly and Baker on the stairs; Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor about 12:34 (where Lovelady is supposedly encountered). Meanwhile Truly and Baker arrive by elevator on the fourth floor about 12:35. Thus Stroud could have seen Adams go by and two minutes later noticed Truly.

Styles has changed her story several times and apparently she did not tell Barry Ernest the same thing, as this is what Ernest says about that;

Mrs. Garner was providing two key pieces of evidence: one that corroborated Victoria Adams regarding how quickly she and Sandra Styles left the window and moved to the back staircase, and a second that corroborated the Stroud document by putting Mrs. Garner at a location on the fourth floor where she could have observed activity on the stairs immediately after the shooting.

     Like Sandra Styles, who also verified Miss Adams' timing of the descent in my personal interview with her, Dorothy Garner had been ignored by the Warren Commission.

With all this 'could have been' speculation going on, there is one major question that needs to be answered but never is.

Styles was photographed standing with a group of women near the front entrance of the TSBD, before she went back inside the building through the front door, which at that time was not yet sealed off. As the front entrance was being locked down at 12:37, how in the world could Styles have been there if she and Adams were still on the 4th floor at 12:35?

In her testimony, Adams told us that she and Styles ran down the stairs, left the building through the back door at the loading dock, running around the loading dock towards the railway yard. There a policeman stopped them and told them to return to the building, which they did by walking towards the front entrance. And all this is supposed to have happened in 2 minutes? Really?

One thing is a clear as the light of day. If Adams and Styles were on the stairs shortly after the shots, then the "Oswald came running down the stairs" theory is possibly flawed or outright wrong. An honest investigation would have wanted to find out what actually happened. Instead the WC simply decided to ignore Adams by not calling her (as the only one of the witnesses) to assist in the reconstruction and by trying to discredit her with one line in her testimony. And Rankin did one better and buried the Stroud letter. These actions by the WC alone tell me beyond doubt that the WC understood that Adams was telling the truth and the women did leave the 4th floor directly after the last shot.

[Jack Nessan]

There is no argument. Barnett said he ran past the building by 20 feet and stated he could see the whole back of the building. No one came out.
----------------

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches.

Frazier stated he did not pay attention.

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
--------------------------------

Canning is explaining the criteria for determining the trajectory analysis. Apparently, you cannot dispute his findings. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with his analysis. The man was an expert in his field. The only one guessing here is you.

Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
-----------------------------------------

The movie clips were basically irrelevant and showed your lack of understanding of the investigation by the FBI.
---------------------------------------------

No----Styles and Adams statements explain what they did do, who they met, and the times can be placed on these events by the statements of others. Garner is a 6 month later recollection of what she thought people were doing without any idea as to time. Garner has been working in the same office with Adams and Styles for 6 months and most likely heard the retelling of this event many times. One thing for certain is they never emerged from the back of the TSBD in the three minutes Barnett was watching.

The front steps being locked down did not prevent them from returning to the 4th floor. The DPD were controlling who went in and out.

I guess this is Good Bye Martin.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is no argument. Barnett said he ran past the building by 20 feet and stated he could see the whole back of the building. No one came out.
----------------

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date 11/23/63
RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches.

That's a quote from the Bookhout FD 302. An internal FBI document that Randle never saw, read or signed. To let that prevail over her sworn testimony is only exposing the level of your desperation. Keep on cherry picking.....

Btw, if Randle did say what Bookhout reports she said, she must have been lying under oath, right? So, are you calling her a liar?

Frazier stated he did not pay attention.

So what? So did Barnett, yet here you are claiming that, despite the fact that he himself said he was focused on the fire escape, he nevertheless would have seen the two women leaving the same back door that he wasn't paying attention to.

Pathetic!

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
--------------------------------

Fool, this is exactly why the package couldn't have been 34" long and contain the wooden stock of a rifle. Oswald's legs were not 34" long.

Canning is explaining the criteria for determining the trajectory analysis. Apparently, you cannot dispute his findings. Even Cyril Wecht agreed with his analysis. The man was an expert in his field. The only one guessing here is you.

Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.
The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply
because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found.
-----------------------------------------

This level of stupidity is truly amazing. Canning is saying exactly what I said. He guessed the position of the President's neck wound and the Governor's wound, based on the unproven assumption that one bullet caused both wounds. Canning actually tells us that it was "our interpretation of the data" and "within a reasonable error of one another". In other words, he is assuming and guessing!

The movie clips were basically irrelevant and showed your lack of understanding of the investigation by the FBI.
---------------------------------------------

Another one of your meaningless comments 

No----Styles and Adams statements explain what they did do, who they met, and the times can be placed on these events by the statements of others. Garner is a 6 month later recollection of what she thought people were doing without any idea as to time. Garner has been working in the same office with Adams and Styles for 6 months and most likely heard the retelling of this event many times. One thing for certain is they never emerged from the back of the TSBD in the three minutes Barnett was watching.

Just how silly can you get? Victoria Adams' WC testimony, where she details her movements, was also several months after the event. After the assassination she only gave two short statements to the FBI and one (allegedly) to Jim Lavelle.

You really need to stop making up your own reality and face the simple fact that so far you have still not been able to say when, according to you, the two women left the 4th floor. The reason why you can't or won't do that is a simple one; there is only one sequence of events that fits all the witness statements and known facts. When you change one part of the sequence, none of it will fit. You either understand this and that's why you don't answer my question or you don't know it because you lack the basic ability to process information.

The front steps being locked down did not prevent them from returning to the 4th floor. The DPD were controlling who went in and out.

Yes indeed. And Styles could walk inside without a problem, because the front door was not yet sealed, and Victoria Adams was stopped because by then the entrance was sealed. She was only let back in after it was established she worked in the building.

Miss ADAMS - It said second floor. So then I decided maybe I had better go back into the building, and going up the stairs---
Mr. BELIN - Now at this time when you went back into the building, were there any policemen standing in front of the building keeping people out?
Miss ADAMS - There was an officer on the stairs itself, and he was prohibiting people from entering the building, that is correct. But I told him I worked there.
Mr. BELIN - Did he let you come back in?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.

Still no explanation for how Styles could be photographed in front of the front entrance of the TSBD at around 12:36 when, according to you, she was still on the 4th floor a minute earlier? Now, why is that no surprise to me?

I guess this is Good Bye Martin.

Indeed... I know a lost cause when I see one. There is no point in arguing with somebody like you, who can never present a complete, well documented and thought through point that justifies the "conclusion" you are proposing.

You just keep on living in your fantasy world where you can make up stuff and misrepresent evidence as much as you like. Sweet dreams....