A straight line

[Alice Thorton]

Right

He had fate and Lady Luck with him

What do you mean by "fate and lady luck" I'm confused.

[Bill Chapman]

Tippit... poor dumb cop, huh. Smith, Wesson, and Lee. And I guess boys just carried guns around because that's what boys did, or something...  yeah, that must be it.

[Tim Nickerson]

The angle of the shots literally doesn't match. There had to of been another shooter!

The angle? Alice, there was more than one angle for the shots. Simply stating that the angles don't match wont suffice. You're going to have to explain using numbers.

[Bill Chapman]

I'm confused.

Yes, you are...

[Alice Thorton]

Yes, you are...

Well, what did you mean by what you said?

[Jack Trojan]

The angle? Alice, there was more than one angle for the shots. Simply stating that the angles don't match wont suffice. You're going to have to explain using numbers.

Do you really want the MB numbers or are you just brushing off Alice's argument because she's not an expert? If it's the former, then do a simple re-enactment experiment for yourself then post your results. CTs can't demonstrate how a straight line trajectory was impossible. That's trying to prove a negative. The onus is on you LNers to show that it was possible.

I have posted several times before how laymen can demonstrate with expert precision how the SBT was feasible via a re-enactment experiment using 2 lasers pointed at each other.



Orient yourself between the 2 lasers so that the low laser strikes your throat and the high laser strikes your back as per the (dubious) autopsy photos of JFK. We can discuss whether the photos make sense once you establish whether there was a straight line path for the MB thru JFK coming from the TSBD. But the big question is whether JFK's body orientation matched the -17 deg pitch and -7 deg yaw angles, and whether there was a straight line path thru JFK from his back to throat that missed his spine at T1.

The fact that not a single LNer has reported the results of this exp says the following:

1) They did the exp and wish they hadn't and pretend they didn't
2) They don't give a rat's ass about the truth so why do the exp?
3) They're too committed to the LNer cause to admit they're wrong whether or not they did the exp
4) Too cheap or lazy to do the exp

Otherwise, any LNers that did the exp with results that support their claims would shirley have posted them instead of the myriad of CGI graphics that tell us squat.

[Tim Nickerson]

Do you really want the MB numbers or are you just brushing off Alice's argument because she's not an expert?

Alice hasn't really made an argument here. She made a claim and failed to provide any support for it.

If it's the former, then do a simple re-enactment experiment for yourself then post your results. CTs can't demonstrate how a straight line trajectory was impossible. That's trying to prove a negative. The onus is on you LNers to show that it was possible.

I have posted several times before how laymen can demonstrate with expert precision how the SBT was feasible via a re-enactment experiment using 2 lasers pointed at each other.



Orient yourself between the 2 lasers so that the low laser strikes your throat and the high laser strikes your back as per the (dubious) autopsy photos of JFK. We can discuss whether the photos make sense once you establish whether there was a straight line path for the MB thru JFK coming from the TSBD. But the big question is whether JFK's body orientation matched the -17 deg pitch and -7 deg yaw angles, and whether there was a straight line path thru JFK from his back to throat that missed his spine at T1.

The fact that not a single LNer has reported the results of this exp says the following:

1) They did the exp and wish they hadn't and pretend they didn't
2) They don't give a rat's ass about the truth so why do the exp?
3) They're too committed to the LNer cause to admit they're wrong whether or not they did the exp
4) Too cheap or lazy to do the exp

Otherwise, any LNers that did the exp with results that support their claims would shirley have posted them instead of the myriad of CGI graphics that tell us squat.

It's already been demonstrated how a straight line trajectory was possible. I don't accept your opinion as being authoritative on the matter. You've claimed numerous times that this "simple two laser experiment"  would settle the matter once and for all. and yet you've failed to provide us the results of your own study. Why is that?

The fact that you have failed to report the results of this experient says the following:

1) You did the experiment and wish you hadn't and pretend you didn't
2) You don't give a rat's ass about the truth so why do the experiment?
3)You're too committed to the CT cause to admit you're wrong whether or not you did the experiment.
4) You're too cheap or lazy to do the experiment.