"Not inaccurate"? That's a double negative.

Umm, no, that's not a double negative.

Sheesh. . . . 

English 101.

LOL.  Is it my "opinion" that 82 million people voted for Biden in 2020?  Is it my "opinion" that this was ten million more votes than for any other candidate in US history?  Is it my "opinion" that the voting laws were changed in almost every state just before the 2020 election?  Is it my "opinion' that Biden benefitted substantially from these changes?  For example, the margin of victory in many close states (e.g. Georgia, AZ) was determined by the significant margins in mail-in voting.  How about you give us your "opinion" to explain what happened in 2020?  What "documented proof" do you have that voters rejected Trump in 2020 but then these same Trump haters decided not to vote against him in 2024?

There is nothing more I can say. I am not doubting the 82 million number - you are.

In 2020 Biden won all his expected states. He was expected to lose in GA, AZ, PA, WI, MI
He won those. Therefore any systemic fraud from any ballot harvesting would have to occur in those states  - right?
Because 80m or 60m doesn't matter - the POTUS is elected thru electoral college. 270 votes.

Take GA - Biden won by about 12,000 votes. That's it. Suddenly the 82 million doesn't matter.
It has been investigated 6x and recounted 3x . The only fraud there, was the Trump Fake Elector Scheme.

The 2020 Fake Electors Scheme: How What Started in Wisconsin Spread Nationally
https://www.lawforward.org/holding-election-deniers-accountable/fake-elector-plot-started-in-wisconsin/

How about you give us your "opinion" to explain what happened in 2020?  What "documented proof" do you have that voters rejected Trump in 2020 but then these same Trump haters decided not to vote against him in 2024?

It was 2 different candidates against Trump. They accepted one (2020) and rejected the other (2024)
  what is there to explain?

Lee Bowers has been mentioned herein, so worth noting----

Lee Bowers herein tells Mark Lane that the latter two shots were very closely spaced, as in "knock-knock" on his table top.

at 5:35

Bowers demonstrates on his table the cadence, with two rapid knocks for the final two shots. This is indisputably Bowers' testimony.

AI: The typical time between two distinct knocks in a standard double knock is about 0.2 to 0.4 seconds (a quick, rhythmic beat).

Bowers' testimony is nearly identical to that Dallas Sheriff Seymour Weitzman, who also remembered the second two shots as nearly simultaneous. As did many other ear-witnesses.

This "bang.....bang-bang" cadence lines with Gov. JBC being shot ~Z295 and JFK at Z-312.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

That happens ~Z-295 or even a few frames later. Hard to tell---but certainly not near near Z-220 or so.

Very hard to square the reports of Bowers, Weitzman and JBC, none of whom seemed to have any axes to grind, all of whom seemed credible, with a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot-per-bolt-action on 11.22. 

IMHO, LHO was involved in the JFKA, and is the best suspect as the TSBD6 sniper.

But no way LHO fired two shots in less than one second, armed with the M-C short rifle. 

I have reasonable doubts, even compelling reservations, about the LNT.

Also, it is important to keep in mind that Bowers was one of a number of witnesses who said two of the shots came in very rapid succession, with virtually no interval between them, and, crucially, these witnesses were located all over the plaza, so the argument that they were all merely hearing the echo of a shot will not work.

It is quite possible that the bang-bang witnesses heard two different sets of two bang-bang shots, given their descriptions of when they heard the shots. 

The HSCA's acoustical evidence confirms the accounts of two shots fired in rapid succession. Two of the shots on the DPD dictabelt come only 0.71 seconds apart (impulse patterns 144.9 and 145.61), and two others come only 1.05 seconds apart (impulse patterns 139.27 and 140.32).

You reject my credible, logical responses but that doesn't mean they haven't been given to you......multiple times.
Did she tell them what she saw before or after the shooting? I think we both know the answer to that. I don't know what she saw or what she thought she saw but it's easy to embellish a story to make it seem relevant to the assassination. Her story would have had far more credibility and significance had she told law enforcement about it BEFORE the assassination. That's what I meant when I said she didn't tell law enforcement. She didn't tell them before the shooting when it could have made a difference.
If credibility were a requirement for commenting on the JFK assassination, you would have been banned from every JFK assassination forum decades ago.
Your excuses made no sense.
As long as we are demanding explanations, explain why your conspirators would drive around for several minutes in a small parking lot and then leave. You are the one claiming these cars had some connection to the shooting so the burden is on you to establish that. I have no burden to prove that they were not connected. Once more you have assumed something you cannot prove.
For starters, Lee Bowers' observation that there was no gunman behind the stockade fence at the time he heard the shots.

Despite numerous people rushing to the area immediately after the shooting, no one saw a man with a rifle in the area behind the stockade fence.

There were no wounds to either JFK or JBC that were caused by a frontal shot.

So if someone fired a shot from the GK, he did so without being seen during or immediately after the shooting.
 
The vast majority of earwitnesses, regardless of where they believed the shots came from, said they heard 3 shots which matches the number of spent shell found in the sniper's nest.

The GK shooter left no spent shells.

No bullets were recovered except for the two fire from Oswald's rifle.

No wounds to either JFK or JBC caused by a shot from the GK.

You made a big deal about Oswald missing the whole limo with his first shot. Apparently your GK shooter did the same.
The following website give a good summation of the arguments for an against the acoustic evidence showing a GK shooter. The following passage sums up the situation fairly succinctly:

"Sources do not provide a single, universally accepted resolution; expert opinion remains divided and many critiques focus on timing, statistical assumptions and recording artifacts rather than on the raw waveform matches alone."

Notice I did not resort to MTG's practice of clipping a few words out of context. I quoted an entire sentence and provided a link to the entire article for others to judge.

I've already proved to you in numerous exchanges in this forum that every one of these arguments is either false or misleading or irrelevant. And I notice you again made no effort to explain the facts that validate the HSCA's acoustical findings.

Let's try this: How about if you just answer one straightforward question? Here it is:

If the dictabelt did not record gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, how did N-waves get on the dictabelt -- not crude, superficial N-waves from random noise but gunfire N-waves with muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, and only when the microphone was in position to record them?

I'll even give you a big hint: The NRC/NAS panel did not even mention the N-wave evidence, much less try to explain it, even though they knew it was a major item of evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists justifiably cited as powerful support for their findings.

Ah, heck, I'll give you another big hint: The Linsker group (Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey) that responded to Dr. Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence did not lay a finger on the N-wave evidence either, even though four of them had served on the NRC/NAS panel and thus were well aware that this was a major item of evidence that the panel had ignored.

I'll even give you some study notes to help you answer the question.

Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT:

Moreover, an "N-wave," characteristic of supersonic gunfire, appeared in each dictabelt impulse for which the police microphone was in an appropriate position to detect it, including the recorded sound of the third shot [i.e., 144.9 impulse pattern/the grassy knoll shot]. (The Mafia Killed President Kennedy, 1988, pp. 27-28)

Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a physicist who has worked with NASA, with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and with the Naval Research Laboratory:

In Dealey Plaza, echoes from gunshot test patterns arrive in two discrete [different] clusters, differing in time by about 190 ms. Echoes originating from structures along Elm Street arrive within 85 ms, while echoes from structures farther back on Houston Street arrive in the last 95 ms of a typical 370-ms-duration test pattern. In addition, a “muzzle blast” is usually prominent at the beginning of a gunshot acoustical pattern, while an N-wave (a shock wave traveling faster than the speed of sound due to the rifle bullet exceeding the sound barrier) arrives prior to the muzzle blast. The waveform identified as the grassy knoll shot is shown in figure 13. The presence of an N-wave in this waveform was consistent with the acoustical signature of a supersonic rifle bullet. (Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, 2010 pp. 101-102)

I see your campaign to prove you have no credibility and should not even be posting in this forum continues. You're doing a great job.

I'm glad people like you don't find my writings credible, because if people like you ever found me credible, I would take it as a sign I was in cognitive decline.

So the fact that two witnesses independently said they saw the bullet hit the grass and create a visible mound is "much ado about nothing"? Well, I guess if you're trying to prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case, such mutually corroborating evidence must indeed be "much ado about nothing" -- at least in your mind.

I wouldn't believe anyone who said they saw a bullet hit the ground because bullets travel too fast to be seen by the naked eye. It had been raining in the DFW area that morning so the ground would have been wet, so there wouldn't have been "bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green". I also find it hard to believe the with the POTUS, whom the spectators had come out to see, coming down Elm St., that anyone would have been focused on a one little patch of ground where this bullet supposedly hit. This is the kind of critical thinking which people like you never seem willing to apply to the rumors they read about.

So the fact that two additional witnesses, Wayne and Edna Hartman, informed the FBI that they saw the ground mounded up and were told by policemen at the scene that a bullet had hit the ground there -- that's your idea of "much ado about nothing"? Well, again, if you're trying to show that your presence in this forum is a continual clown show, then it makes sense that you would dismiss this additional, FBI-recorded evidence as "much ado about nothing." I mean, what else are you going to do, since you're pathologically determined to deny any and all evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting?

There is no credible evidence that refutes my theory of the shooting, which in actuality is the fact of the shooting. The Hartman's did not see a bullet hit the ground nor did they see a bullet taken out of the ground at the spot. The believed what they were told. No one saw a bullet hit the ground and no one saw a bullet removed from the ground. There were people who HEARD that a bullet had hit the ground in that spot or that a bullet had been taken out of the ground, but no one seems to have actually seen a bullet. That makes these reports of a bullet striking the ground at that point nothing but rumors and rumors are not evidence. But you don't care. You prefer the rumors to the facts because the facts don't support your beliefs.

BTW, are you aware that Walthers' friend Al Maddox, at the time an agent for the Liquor Control Board, acknowledged that Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass (Thomas, Hear No Evil, p. 418)? Let me just guess: Maddox was "lying" or "mistaken," right?!

OH!!! Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass. Did Walthers show him the bullet he found in the grass? What did Walthers do with the bullet he found in the grass? Are we supposed to believe what Walthers told Maddox? Why should we?

Day was interviewed by reporters from the Dallas Times-Herald and the interview summary was published on 11/24/63. Let's read it, and notice that another Dallas policeman also estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window to the hole in the grass:

Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards. He added that it could be more. Another Dallas policeman estimated the distance at 125 yards.

Where in the article do you see any indication whatsoever that Day had any doubt about the bullet in the grass? Where do you see even a hint that Day only estimated the distance because he was told there was a bullet hole in the grass? Why did another policeman tell the reporters that the distance may have been 125 yards?

Surely if Day and the other police officer had had any doubt that a bullet had hit the grass near the manhole cover, they would have said so. At the very least, they surely would have qualified their estimates of the distance from the sixth-floor window to the bullet hole by noting that the bullet strike had not yet been confirmed.

Oh, goody. We have an estimate of how far it was from the sniper's nest to the spot in the ground where no bullet was found. The fact that Day made an estimate of the distance to the sniper's nest is hardly compelling evidence that a bullet was found at that location? 

I'm still waiting for you explain why journalist Richard Dudman would have reported, in a published news story, that a "police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass." Explain how Dudman could have been "mistaken" about this. Give an example of the wording that the police inspector could have used that Dudman could have confused as a statement that a bullet had been found in the grass. 

Oh, goody. One more guy who was TOLD a bullet was found in the grass. If only there was someone who actually had the bullet that was found in the grass. That would be a story.

I'm still waiting for you explain what the man in the suit picked up and put in his pocket after he reached down to the hole in the grass. BTW, Hugh Betzner noticed this scene and described it as "police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet" (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/138955293/wayne-eldridge-hartman). Gee, what a coincidence, hey?

I don't have to explain it. You are the one claiming a bullet was found there. The burden is on you to provide evidence of that. I have no idea what some unidentified person might have put in his pocket. I do know that rumors of an unidentified person putting something in his pocket is not evidence of a bullet having been found.

For those who want to see the photographic evidence of the suited man doing this, here's a brief video that shows the sequence of the man's actions:

FBI Agent Picks Up Bullet

The video notes that a 12/3/63 FBI memo documents that FBI agent Robert Barrett, believed by some researchers to be the suited man in the photos, submitted a bullet to the FBI lab. This could not be CE 399, because  Barrett never handled CE 399 and is not listed in any CE 399 chain-of-custody document.

Oh, some people believe the unidentified man who put an unidentified object in his pocket might have been FBI agent Robert Barrett. You're really closing in on it, Columbo.

Here is a good segment on the evidence regarding the bullet that hit the grass by Vincent Palamara. It includes an interview with Edna Hartman where she describes seeing the bullet hole.

Bullet holes in limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 PART 1 OF 3 (3:53 to 7:08)

Did you happen to notice at the 1:58 mark the limo was surrounded by uniformed officers which means they weren't letting anyone near the limo. It's not surprising that someone looking at the crack in the windshield might assume they were looking at a bullet hole, but as the Secret Service determined on CLOSE EXAMINATION, the windshield was cracked from the inside and the outer surface of the windshield was intact. Also, earlier you had claimed a cop put a pencil through the hole in the windshield. According to the video, the cop SAID, "You could put a pencil through the hole". He did not say he had put a pencil through the hole. Just another example of you fudging facts to support your claim.

But, of course, you're never going to admit that a bullet hit the grass,

Not without evidence of that.

much less that it was recovered,

Not without evidence of that.

because you can't do so without repudiating the lone-gunman theory. This is why you can't offer a rational explanation for the Tague wounding. This is why you must duck and dodge and strain and blunder in trying to explain Dr. James Young's corroborated account of seeing a misshapen bullet at the autopsy. These are do-or-die issues for you. If just one of these credible and corroborated accounts is valid, your theory of the shooting collapses.

I find it strange that you think it implausible that one of Oswald's shot could have caused the Tague wounding but you have no problem believing one of your phantom shooters could have caused the same wounding. Where's your explanation for how that happened. For that matter, just how bad were your phantom shooters firing from all over Dealey Plaza. A few weeks ago you scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have missed the limo with one of his shots. Yet your shooters all seem to have gotten Maggie's Drawers for their efforts. The medical evidence indicates all the shots that hit JFK and JBC were fired from above an behind them. Your GK shooter completely whiffed with his shot. A few weeks ago, you suggested a shooter from the Dal-Tex building had fired over the windshield and that stray shot was the one that struck the curb near Tague. All one has to do is look at Altgens 6 and see how bad a miss that would have to be to completely miss the limo, even if the shooter was as low as the second floor. As for your frontal shot through the windshield, I don't recall you telling us where that shooter might have fired from. I'm sure that explanation would be quite amusing, which is probably why you haven't given us that yet.

In any case, it's quite puzzling how such a sophisticated and massive conspiracy, capable of completely controlling the investigation, couldn't find any competent shooters to get the job done. The only guy who hit what he was aiming at that day was Oswald.