A straight line

[Alice Thorton]

Alice, no it doesn?t.

I know, I agree with you, John. None of us in this forum were there that day. None of us have the "proof" that we all want. Everyone has a right to their opinions, but we don't have to fight and argue about it. I was just simply saying that from everything that I have found, I have concluded that I believe it was Johnson and his associates and that the other gunman was Malcolm Wallace. I believe he was hired by Edward Clark and Johnson. And that Edward Clark got a very million from the Oil Millionaires for achieving the assassination.

[Alice Thorton]

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

Oswald probably did it, Alice...

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

[Alice Thorton]

But he probably didn't do it alone.

I agree, there was someone else too that day... well I should say at least in my opinion.

[John Iacoletti]

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

Nobody has actually ever said that Oswald is innocent because he said he was.

[Andrew Mason]

Nobody has actually ever said that Oswald is innocent because he said he was.

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.

[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.