Yeah, my "bats__t crazy" theory, as you have called it, is that the evidence means something. You seem to think that it is wrong to accept the evidence for what it says.
It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.
I am not the first person to think that the shots may actually have been 1........2....3 with the last two in rapid succession. It seems the FBI thought this for several months after the assassination just based on the evidence, as this Warren Commission model demonstrates:
The three strings show the shot paths. It is derived from the evidence and indicates where the president's car was located when each of the shots occurred. I reached the same conclusion long ago just following the evidence and only discovered this model recently (it appears to have been posted in October 2013).
So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.
You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.
The model does not represent the Warren Commission's final word on the shot sequence, other than options they might have considered.
Of course, the model was made for the WC before the "experts" and the Connallys themselves started thinking they could see things in the zfilm and before the FBI's "reconstruction" in May 1964.
Sure. the model was made early in 1964. But you don't know when and why those strings were added. Aren't you the one dismissing evidence when you promote the model's "accuracy" over the on-site surveying and the "Queen Mary" frame-by-frame recreation of the Zapruder film?
It never panned out for you because you refuse to accept the evidence that the last two shots were closer together,
See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. (
Link ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this
Link for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.
or that the first shot struck JFK in the neck, or that Hickey saw what he said he saw,
Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".
or that Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot as he said he did, etc.
Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be
pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.
You think that all the dozens of witnesses who said that the last two shots were in rapid succession were wrong. I don't.
And you think an equal number who didn't describe the shot-spanning that way are wrong. Witness perception to an unexpected event and memory reconstruction aren't the most reliable to go.
I used to correspond to Robert Cutler, an architect and JFK researcher who lived in Massachusetts. One time I challenged him on his Umbrella Man Theory that a jet-propelled flechette was fired at Kennedy from the umbrella seen in the Zapruder film. He defended that theory on a visceral level.