A straight line

[Steve Thompson]

Did you see where on the head that he has the bullet entering? It's way to the right, where no one else described seeing it.

He said "entered lower part of the head or upper part of the neck." If it struck the skull it would have fragmented,

That is what he was saying. I agree.

I have no doubt that Lipsey was an honest man with no agenda and that he told things as he remembered them. I just don't believe that his recollection was particularly accurate.

The single bullet entering JFK's lower neck  (i.e. "Lipsey's bullet 3") and exiting his throat is neither absurd nor illogical. It works.

When was it revised and who did the revising?

Tim, i will glady let you have the last word...

God bless.

[Bill Chapman]

Wrong. The evidence - you know the stuff that you avoid -- shows that he shot no one on 11/22/63.

This doesn't mean that he couldn't have been involved in some way though.

This is one of the biggest falsehoods that LNers tell as the vast majority of CTers do not proclaim LHO to be totally innocent. We truly don't know what his true role was in the events of November 22.

My view is that Oswald probably did it, and 5% that he might have had help, but only indirectly, as an off-the-cuff remark seemingly made in jest by George deM regarding the Walker attempt.

Disappointing events in those final days in Oswald's personal life, combined with Oswald realizing the motorcade would be swinging by his place of work, with Kennedy practically falling into his lap-- a 'sitting duck' as some visitors to tiny Dealey Plaza have remarked--might have, arguably, combined to spark Oswald into a kind of 'Hail Mary-take-a-shot-at-history-attempt' on Kennedy.

Too bad for you guys that people involved forgot their measuring tapes and electron microscopes at home.

[Alice Thorton]

JFK was doing, and had been doing, things to powerful centers of power and that is why the list of possible conspirators is so long.

LHO was most likely involved with U.S. intelligence. His role could have been to uncover any suspicious things he was assigned to investigate or he could have joined the conspiracy. There is no way to know for sure.

The one thing we do know for sure was that he did not shoot anyone on 11/22/63 because that is what the evidence shows.

How does the evidence show for sure that he didn't shoot anyone? Please provide a website that explains this.

[Alice Thorton]

Read the twenty-six volumes of evidence. Read my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series.

I would, but I just don't have time for that. Is there any way that you could link me to some website that has this information? Thanks in advance.

[Tim Nickerson]

I would, but I just don't have time for that. Is there any way that you could link me to some website that has this information? Thanks in advance.

Alice, have you read any books on the assassination? That might be the best way for you to get up to speed on the Assassination and the Tippit murder. Read two actually. One pushing conspiracy, the other not. I'd recommend Jim Marrs' "Crossfire" and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed".

[John Iacoletti]

Wrong. It's helpful in that it allows me to position Connally as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy if I need to.

And there you have it.  You start with the conclusion that they were wounded by a single bullet fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD and you move the bodies around until the wounds (or where you assume the wounds were) sort of line up.

Z193 was about 1.6 seconds before the shot. The positions of the two would have changed very little in that small amount of time.

Another claim made without any evidence.  You don't think a human body can move significantly in 2 seconds?

[John Iacoletti]

Agreed. But it would be helpful if you and others would give at least a reasonable amount of ground in situations where something that couldn't be concluded to a dead certainty, like not having quite enough blanket fibers, or too mangled a Walker bullet to make a definitive conclusion... yet also could not be completely dismissed.

If something can't be definitively concluded, then it's inconclusive.  Right?  Of what use is it to show that something was merely possible?