The sources I cite in my reply refute every single criticism presented in the article you cite, Dale Myers' article. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read the links I provided. If you had just read my article on the acoustical evidence, you'd know that Myers' article is woefully inadequate and misleading.

They disagree with Myers. They don't refute Myers. Myers got it right. Your sources got it wrong. Not surprising you gravitated toward them.

And for the benefit of other readers, be advised that Dale Myers' research has been proven to be erroneous, if not fraudulent. As just one example, to make his ridiculous SBT trajectory analysis work, Myers falsely assumes that Connally's back wound was 3.0 cm wide, when in fact it was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear head entry wound.

MTG has a very strange idea of what constitutes proof. Repeating the same myths over and over again is not proof.

For a good critique of some of the problems with Myers' bogus research, see the uber-cautious Pat Speer's demotion of Myers' SBT nonsense:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12canimania

Quote

Not at all surprising that one knucklehead would cite another knucklehead.

Quote

Here is just a little bit of what Speers says about Myer's SBT simulation:

. . . his deception regarding the single-bullet theory is simply inexcusable. He would have to know that when people see computer simulations they believe the proportions are consistent from angle to angle—otherwise it’s just a cartoon. By changing the body shape of Kennedy to accommodate the bullet trajectory through his body, and by shrinking Connally 20% or more to accommodate the bullet trajectory in the car, Myers moved on up to the high rent neighborhood of Thomas Canning: deliberate deceptionville.

A claim without proof.

Quote

For a critique of Myers' error-riddled hatchet job on the Tippit shooting, see my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?" 

If your critique is on par with all the other stuff I've read from you over the past 35 years, it's not worth the time it would take to read it.

Quote

It says much that you would rely on someone like Myers to get your information on the acoustical evidence. Have you even read the studies that the BBN and Queen's College acoustical scientists submitted to the HSCA on the acoustical evidence?

Myers obviously hasn't read them, because he doesn't say a word about any of the evidences they present, such as the windshield-distortion correlations, the timing-movement correlations, and the presence of N-waves and their echoes in the correct order and timing. Nor does Myers say a word about the NRC/NAS panel's admissions about the timing-movement correlations and their own finding of a high probability (77.7%) that the 144.9 impulse pattern is gunfire from the grassy knoll.

A lot of technobabble that proves nothing. There was no shooter on the GK. Anyone who believes that has been hoodwinked by junk science. The Dictabelt recording in question wasn't even made during the shooting. The acoustics "evidence" is all the CTs have going for them and they are going to cling to it no matter how much it has been debunked.

MTG raises a reasonable question.

In the WC-SBT-LNT-HSCA narrative, LHO's first shot missed not only JFK, but the entire limo, despite the fact LHO's  angle was down into the limo, and the limo was closer.

There is nothing reasonable about the observation that he missed the entire limo because he wasn't trying to shoot the limo. It makes as much sense as saying he missed the Queen Mary and LBJ's follow up car. He wasn't trying to shoot and of the cars. He was trying to shoot a guy in one of the cars. He missed that guy. There is no definitive proof as to what his shot actually struck. I think the most likely explanation the bullet hit the pavement to the right of the limo but that is just an educated guess. Others have postulated the shot hit a tree branch or the traffic arm. We will never have proof of what the shot struck and where it went after but my best guess is that shots struck the pavement and a fragment from that shot caused Tague's injury.

Then somehow that missed shot, despite a relatively steep angle, somehow fractured the FMJ and the lead core squirted out and struck the curb by the relatively distant Tague, with enough force to send concrete up into Tague's face to deliver visible cuts. 

Any scenario you want to propose for how Tague got injured is going to seem improbable, but Tague got struck so something improbable happened.

I have reasonable doubts about the above scenario.

Nobody cares.

Tague was unsure of when he was struck.

Which means it could have been the first or the third shot. We can rule out the second shot because that whole bullet ended up at Parkland.

The HSCA, the second official investigation, concluded there had been a gunsel on the GK.

That didn't happen and even if it had, there is no way Tague could have been injured by a shot from the GK unless that shooter was firing in Tague's direction. Do you want to argue for that proposition?

It may the the GK gunsel knew he had little chance of accurately shooting at JFK with a snubnose .38, and only acted as a diversion. He shot in front of the limo by a wide margin, and towards an area did not not observe bystanders (although he was hurried and did not see Tague). 

The diversion worked well, splitting up manpower, and allowing LHO and another perp to more easily leave the TSBD.

That is one of the dumbest things I've seen proposed regarding the JFKA. it's right up there with Greer shooting JFK and the storm drain shooter. You should find another hobby. This one requires one to think rationally.

TG-

How many times should we beat around the mulberry bush?

I have a different view on the JFKA than you do. I have cited my reasons, you have cited yours.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions. They will be as good as anyone else's.

this is why i never start threads.  I’m a good boy.

And in LNT land too.

How so?

Because Corbett and I disagree as to whether Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot occurred half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, or . . .  gasp . . . about a second after Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133?