It's quite well known that bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something, and measurements have some amount of uncertainty built in, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your straight line shtick. Other than the rest of us shouldn't take you seriously.
Lame John I. excuses:1) Everyone lied or planted evidence if it implicates Oswald (repeat in every instance but then deny this is what you are doing).2) Suggest that every explanation that addresses an insane CTer claim is a "strawman" argument (demonstrating either a traumatic childhood experience with The Wizard of Oz or a way to avoid acknowledging the lunacy of these claims without having to address the substance)3) Suggest all evidence is the product of an "opinion, "assumption," or "speculation." Fingerprints, hand writing, document, pictures - any inference drawn from this evidence is merely an opinion. This limitation does not, however, apparently apply to any nutty counter-alternative to Oswald's guilt no matter how improbable or baseless. If it is possible, then it can be entertained or implied so long as it lends itself to doubt about Oswald's guilt.
It's quite well known that bullets often do not travel in a straight line once they've hit something,
Way to chime in on a 2-year-old post, Brown!
Then how do you know where the bullet(s) that wounded Connally originated from?