Well I’m actually trying to work it out that it is plausible the Oswald was the shooter but so far as you have read, my solution seems highly improbable without resorting to excuses such as Dougherty was confused and this apparently so cognitively disabled that he would have missed seeing or at least hearing Oswald. Or that when Garner said she followed Adams and Stiles “ almost immediately “ and was “ right behind them” that description of the time is 65 seconds post shots.

Trying to sync up Adams', Stiles', and Garner's trip down the stair with when Oswald was on the stairs is an exercise in folly. Nobody was running a stopwatch on the day of the assassination, so everyone is guessing about when they were on the stairs. They could have been on the stairs before or more likely s little after Oswald. Since they were all going in the same direction, there is no reason to believe they would have crossed paths.

You were non-specific about what Dougherty's observations regarding Oswald you were referring to. If you are referring to the fact he didn't notice Oswald brought a package into the TSBD, this doesn't mean he was confused or cognitively disabled. It means he was human. People just don't take note of mundane details that wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time. Our brains do not have DVDs imbedded in them. We only remember fractions of the things we see, and when asked about details later on, our brains try to fill in the blanks, usually somewhat inaccurately.

Objective readers will recognize your comment as both factually wrong and indicative of a juvenile mentality.

It is hard to overstate the level of abject ignorance this comment reveals. This ignorance is inexcusable because it shows you have not read one word of the reports and testimony that the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists provided to the HSCA. It is almost hard to know where to start to respond to such discrediting blundering. 

I've read them. I just didn't believe them.

Let's start with the fact that, as the HSCA's acoustical experts explained, you cannot "hear" the muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt with the naked ear because of the effect of the DPD radio system's Automatic Gain Control (AGC). To analyze any recording made from a radio system with AGC, you must first run the recording through an oscilloscope to produce an oscillogram, i.e., a visual printout of the waveforms of the soundwaves on the recording. Dr. Mark Weiss:

. . . we used a device, an electric device called an oscilloscope, for observing the wave shapes of the sounds that we got when we played back tape recordings, and also a device that enabled us to plot these patterns on paper so that we could examine them in very fine detail. (5 H 558)

The printout (the oscillogram) provides a visual representation of the soundwaves' amplitude, frequency, wavelength, and time/velocity. In an acoustical analysis of a shooting, you can then compare these waveforms with the waveforms of the recording of test shots fired in an onsite reenactment, such as was done in the BBN analysis of the recording of the Kent State shooting to determine the location of the rifles that fired the shots.

The HSCA's acoustical scientists determined that the dictablet contains gunfire N-waves by documenting the virtually identical resemblance between the N-waves of the shots fired in the Dealey Plaza test firing and the impulse patterns on the dictablet, and they also showed that the dictabelt's N-waves occur only when the microphone was in position to record them (5 H 571; 5 H 581; 5 HSCA 609-610; 5 HSCA 676-677: HSCA Report, pp. 74-75). The HSCA report on the presence of an N-wave in the grassy knoll shot (the 144.9 impulse pattern):

In addition, Barger emphasized, the first part of the sequence of impulses identified as a shot from the grassy knoll was marked by an N-wave, a characteristic impulse caused by a supersonic bullet.  The N-wave, also referred to as a supersonic shock wave, travels faster than the noise of the muzzle blast of a gun and therefore arrives at a listening device such as a microphone ahead of the noise of a muzzle blast. The presence of the N-wave was, therefore, a significant additional indication that the third impulse on the police dispatch tape represented gunfire, and, in particular, a supersonic bullet. The weapon may well have been a rifle, since most pistols except for some such as a .44 magnum--fire subsonic bullets.

I know this is not true. Many common handgun loads such as 9mm, .38 Special, 40 S&W produce muzzle velocities greater than the speed of sound. It depends primarily on the loads and the barrel length. A longer barrel produces higher muzzle velocities.

The N-wave was further substantiation for a finding that the third impulse represented a shot fired in the direction of the President. Had the gun been discharged when aimed straight up or down, or away from the motorcade, no N-wave would have appeared. Of the impulse patterns on the dispatch tape that indicated shots from the book depository, those that would be expected to contain an N-wave, given the location of the vehicle's microphone, did so, further corroborating the conclusion that these impulses did represent supersonic bullets. (HSCA Report, pp. 74-75)[/font]

Dr. Weiss on the documentation of supersonic waveforms, i.e., N-waves, on the dictabelt:

Mr. CORNWELL. In addition to the characteristics of the form which you have just described as indicating that the weapon fired a supersonic bullet, was there anything else about the waveforms that you discovered in your analysis?

Mr. WEISS. Yes; there are perhaps two things that are relevant to confirming that what we are dealing with here is not noise but is in fact a sound recording of a bullet, of a gunshot by equipment such as was used by the Dallas police motorcycle men. . . .

You can in, as part of the prediction, you can determine what the general pattern of the shape will be at the microphone as you receive it. Now, for example, if at the microphone, as you receive it, you expect that -- well, let me go back to the blackboard here, if I may.

Now if the muzzle blast came in looking something like this [pointing to the oscillogram], it goes up, it goes down, and then it sort of settles back, then from some of these surfaces you can quite accurately predict that it will do exactly the same sort of thing; let us say that the echo shape will be simply a mirror image replica of the muzzle blast.

Now if this is noise, then there is nothing which says that it has to start out going positive. It could equally, let us say, going upwards [on the oscillogram], the sound could equally, with equal probability, start outgoing this way and comeback this way [on the oscillogram]. But in every one of these instances where we identified an echo as coming back from a flat reflecting surface, it has precisely the correct replication quality when compared to the pattern of the muzzle blast. As I say, for noise, you have no right to expect that sort of thing will happen. It is like saying I have a coin which is going to flip once, and the first time it comes up heads, and thereafter every time it is going to come up heads. It doesn't happen that way. (5 HSCA 581)

Professor Ernest Aschkenasy explaining to Congressman Edgar why the "squiggly lines" on the oscillogram are not the result of random noise:

Mr. ASCHKENASY. I can point out here also these first impulses before the muzzle blast, those are the shock waves, and if you look carefully -- I am sure you cannot look that carefully at that distance -- but if you look at these graphs, because these microphones are located at different positions on the street, the relationship between the shock wave and the muzzle blast changes, and it changes in a predictable manner because the manner in which you expect them to change is related to where the observer, or the microphone, is picking up both the shockwaves and the muzzle blast.

Now, you measure here about on the average of about 14 milliseconds, 14 thousandths of a second delay between the shock wave and the muzzle blast. . . .

If you expand the experiment tape [the recording of the test-firing shots] and take an even better look at it, you find there is a little shock wave echo right in between the shockwave and the muzzle blast, and if you expand the police tape properly, you find similar patterns. (5 HSCA 610)

Even for you, this is a new height of silliness and self-discreditation. If the NRC/NAS panel members didn't think those were muzzle blasts, why didn't they say so?

As desperate as the panel members were to reject the HSCA's acoustical findings, if they had had any evidence that the dictabelt's waveforms contained no N-waves, they certainly would have said so, because the HSCA's acoustical scientists justifiably identified the dictabelt's N-waves as powerful evidence that the tape was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.

Then why didn't they say so? Then why didn't they say, "We see no muzzle blasts in the dictabelt's waveforms, so we don't know what the HSCA's acoustical scientists were looking at when they claimed they confirmed the presence of N-waves on the dictabelt"?

As I said, I heard no muzzle blasts one the recording. I don't doubt there are some egghead scientists who have interpreted the impulses on the recording to have been caused by muzzle blasts. I also know there are other egghead scientists who dispute those interpretations. I wouldn't pretend to have the scientific understanding to determine which group of eggheads came to the right answer. When I read the techno-babble, all I do is roll my eyes and so "no (bleep)?" What I can do is compare the conflicting findings of these experts with the body of evidence as a whole to determine which is the most compelling opinion. If there was a shooter on the GK, why did nobody see him (her?) before, during, or after the shooting. Why is there no physical evidence of a shot having been fired from the GK. Neither of the victims were hit by a frontal shot. No bullets or shells were recovered except for those positively matched to Oswald's rifle. Simply put, there is no other compelling evidence of a shot from the GK. In addition, by piecing together the photographic evidence, Myers proved that the motorcycle believed to have recorded the shooting through a stuck open microphone was not in the location the acoustics teams said he needed to be for their findings to be valid. All of this is why I believe the acoustics team simply misinterpreted the data.

I did a search for conflicting opinions regarding what the acoustic evidence shows:

"Scientists Who Disputed the BBN Findings on the Grassy Knoll Shot
The Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) team, led by James E. Barger, analyzed the Dallas Police Department’s Dictabelt recording of Channel 1 during the Kennedy assassination. They found four impulse patterns that resembled gunshots, with a 50% probability that one came from the grassy knoll
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
+1
. This uncertainty led the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to hire Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy to refine the analysis. Weiss and Aschkenasy concluded there was a 95% probability that the shot originated from the grassy knoll
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
+1
.

However, the U.S. Justice Department, instead of further investigation, commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to review the evidence. The NRC panel (often referred to as the NAS Committee on Ballistic Acoustics) disputed the HSCA’s conclusions, claiming there was no scientific proof of a grassy knoll shot and that the acoustical evidence did not establish a high probability of a second gunman
jfk.hood.edu
jfk.hood.edu
+1
.

The NRC’s findings were criticized by independent researchers such as W. Anthony Marsh, who argued the panel was biased, misapplied methods, and failed to conduct the necessary tests to refute the HSCA’s work
Archive
Archive
. Marsh’s 1983 Rebuttal to Ramsey detailed errors in the NAS report and reaffirmed the accuracy of the HSCA’s acoustic analysis.

In summary:

BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) – found 50% probability of grassy knoll shot.

Weiss & Aschkenasy – found 95% probability of grassy knoll shot.

NRC/NAS Committee on Ballistic Acoustics – disputed the findings, claimed no proof of grassy knoll shot.

W. Anthony Marsh – independent critic of the NRC/NAS panel, argued their conclusions were invalid due to bias and methodological flaws [/quote]"

I had to laugh when I saw one of the counter-dissenters was none other than Tony Marsh. That is almost as bad as having Michael T. Griffith providing evidence to support the cause of conspiracy.

Again, even for you, this is a new height of silliness and self-discreditation.

Linsker et al. didn't lay a finger on the N-wave evidence because they had no answer for it.

In your humble opinion.

Umm, you realize that six of the 12 NRC/NAS panel members were physicists, right? You realize that four of them were engineers, not even electrical engineers but just regular engineers, right? You realize that one of them was a statistician, and that another one of them was a computer scientist, right? Right? In short, six physicists, four regular engineers, one statistician, and one computer scientist, and not one of them had ever worked or published in the field of acoustical science.

What they disputed was the scientific method used by BBN, something scientists in all fields should know something about.

So by your own standard, not one of the NRC/NAS panel members was qualified "as an expert in acoustics." You just royally shot your already-flimsy case in the foot.

Not really

And you realize the Linsker, who spearheaded the 2005 reply to Dr. Thomas's 2001 article, is an MD who got a degree in physics and who was mainly known for his work with IBM's Watson project and his work on neural networks and medical informatics, and whose published articles deal with such topics as "Memory and Learning in Biological Brains and Computers," "Far‐ultraviolet laser ablation of atherosclerotic lesions," "Ultraviolet-laser ablation of skin," and "Controlled photoetching of animal tissue by far-ultraviolet (193-nm) laser radiation," right?

No (bleep)!

Could this be why Linsker's group conducted such a badly flawed PCC test?

Repeating these lame arguments won't improve them. People who have read our previous exchanges in this forum will see that I have refuted every single one of these arguments, but you just keep repeating them and saying nothing about the contrary facts I've cited against them.

You should check a thesaurus. They are free online. You'd find out that disputed doesn't mean the same as refuted.  Mostly what you did is dispute and assume that you have refuted.

"Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza" Documents that more than three shots were fired and that some of the shots could not have come from the alleged lone gunman.

Doug Horne replies to John Tunheim, James Carville and Al Hunt A good summary of some of the evidence of a grassy knoll gunman.

"Was There a Grassy Knoll Shooter? Part 1
"Was There a Grassy Knoll Shooter? Part 2
An excellent two-part video presentation on some of the evidence of a grassy knoll gunman.

In other words, you're choosing to ignore the fact (1) that the 11 experts who determined the dictabelt contains gunfire were all acoustical scientists, and (2) that not one of the experts you're choosing to believe was an acoustical scientist. In short, in judging the acoustical evidence, you're taking the word of scientists who were not acoustical experts over the word of scientists who were acoustical experts.

So all of your whining about quoting experts who are speaking outside of their field goes out the window, hey?

Again, the 11 acoustical scientists who worked on the HSCA's acoustical evidence were BBN scientists James E. Barger, Scott P. Robinson, Edward C. Schmidt, Jared J. Wolf, Joseph F. Colaruotolo, Daniel N. Kalikow, Nancy M. McMahon, Theodore L. Rhyne, and Leo A. Sledjeski, and Queens College scientists Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy. (Note to readers: In a previous reply, I included Ali Ghozati as one of the Queens College acoustical scientists, but I'm omitting him here because I've been unable to confirm that he was in fact an acoustical scientist. In that same reply, I accidentally omitted BBN acoustical scientist Joseph F. Colaruotolo, so I'm now including him.)

Finally, I think it is worth repeating that the NRC/NAS panel admitted (1) that they admitted they found a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and (2) that they admitted they found a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was in fact gunfire from the grassy knoll. In your first reply in this thread, you cited an article by (of all people) Dale Myers that relies heavily on the NRC/NAS panel's report, yet neither you nor Myers nor any of the other amateur Internet hacks who attack the acoustical evidence has yet to address these two key admissions by the NRC/NAS panel.

So says our "amateur Internet hack".

I posted this article before but will do so again.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/forensic-acoustic-studies-since-hsca-single-shooter-51b4c1

The final sentence pretty much sums up the veracity of the acoustics evidence:
"a minority of researchers continue to claim acoustic support for a grassy‑knoll shot but their conclusions remain disputed in peer and government reviews."

Graves is in omission by not chiming-in and confirming that we have proven the woman on the steps in Couch/Darnell is Gloria Calvery...

That identification has been discussed in detail on this thread and elsewhere.

You are entering a falsehood when you say Shelley stopped and talked to Clavery on the concrete divider...He did not do so...He spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps and then took off up the extension with Lovelady...

There is so much wrong with this it's hard to believe.
1] I have never said Shelley stopped and talked with Calvery on the concrete divider.
2] I have only repeated the information in his affidavit, given a couple of hours after the assassination. After the shots he ran across to the concrete divider and ran into Gloria who was coming the other way
3] He did not speak with Gloria at the base of the steps
4] After interacting with Gloria they did not go up the extension. They went across to the concrete divider, THEN up the extension..

So much wrong in so few words.
Every time you wander into actual evidence or testimony you end up looking like someone who doesn't have a clue what's going on. You should stick to just inventing fantasies and insisting they are facts. You're really goo at that.
Speaking of which...

If you watch the zoomed Gerda Dunckel slow motion clip Shelley pulls up and talks to Karen Hicks as she ran by...THAT is what got morphed in to talking to Calvery at the concrete divider...

Utter nonsense. Made up, fantastical nonsense. This really is your strong point

You are just repeating the same disproven falsehoods...

The pattern match in Lovelady's shirt was enough for any credible, serious researcher...

So you admit that you've based your conclusion on this single, faked image.
How credible are you? 

It does seem inconsistent that Oswald would shout to send up an elevator and then when one arrives, Oswald elects not to ride down on it with Givens.

"Inconsistent" doesn't really do it justice.
In reality Oswald was on the 5th floor when the elevator race was taking place. He called out to Givens to allow him onto the east elevator (Givens was on the east elevator - Williams, Lovelady and Arce on the west). Givens refused to stop, presumably because the race was under way, so Oswald called out to them to close the gate and send the elevator back up to him. Oswald was trying to get down to the first floor. If Givens would've stopped and let him on, he would have travelled down to the first floor there and then.
Even though the four men ignored Oswald, he still made his way down to the first floor because we have Eddie Piper's testimony placing him down there around 12 noon. Oswald wanted to get down to the first floor so he went down there.

The fabricated account put in Givens' mouth completely reverses this. Instead of refusing him to get on the elevator, Givens now invites Oswald to get on to travel down to the first floor. Instead of wanting to go down to the first floor, Oswald now refuses and wants to stay put. As an added extra, the Givens Fabrication puts Oswald near the southeast corner of the 6th floor, the scene of the shooting. In this invented scenario Oswald now had the time he needed to organise the Sniper's Perch and assemble his rifle.

In reality he never had this time. Bonnie Ray Williams was up on the 6th, probably before 12 noon. The workers broke for lunch around 11:50am. All Bonnie Ray had to do was wash up, collect his lunch, buy a bottle of Dr Pepper and return to the 6th floor. I doubt this took more than five minutes to do.
There is no time for Oswald to make his preparations if he was down on the first floor while Bonnie Ray was on the 6th.

Another 'lie by omission' committed by the WC Sham was Arnold Rowland's observation of a white, slender man carrying a scoped rifle at the southwest end of the 6th floor. This stunning piece of evidence was simply ignored by the WC, as if Rowland had made up this observation and, by some miracle, had guessed there was a white, slender male carrying a scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.

And the gullible Nutters just swallow down everything they are told to, ignoring the string of obvious lies and manipulations that prop up their spoon-fed beliefs.

Graves is in omission by not chiming-in and confirming that we have proven the woman on the steps in Couch/Darnell is Gloria Calvery...

You are entering a falsehood when you say Shelley stopped and talked to Clavery on the concrete divider...He did not do so...He spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps and then took off up the extension with Lovelady...

If you watch the zoomed Gerda Dunckel slow motion clip Shelley pulls up and talks to Karen Hicks as she ran by...THAT is what got morphed in to talking to Calvery at the concrete divider...

You are just repeating the same disproven falsehoods...

The pattern match in Lovelady's shirt was enough for any credible, serious researcher...