You sound like a teenager trying to lie and insult his way through an argument that he knows he's losing, and losing badly.

Here's a bit of basic logic for you: The fact that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could not have hit and transited JFK's neck at an upward angle unless JFK had been leaning far forward, coupled with the fact that we know he was not leaning far forward, proves that the shot could not have come from the sixth-floor window. Thus, the SBT is impossible from the outset, which means that your demand for a non-SBT trajectory through Connally is nothing but a silly evasion.

This is not to mention the fact, again, that WC skeptics have discussed non-SBT trajectories to and through Connally's torso, that Connally himself adamantly rejected any notion that he was hit before Z229, and that Dr. Shaw refuted your ridiculous 45-degree downward angle through Connally.

Objective people will notice that you are ducking and dodging the key facts discussed in my OP and in my replies.

The photos I posted of Arlen Specter demonstrating the single bullet trajectory shows a bullet path on a downward trajectory entering high on JFK's back, exiting at the level of the knot in his tie, and going on to strike JBC. Would you care to address those photos.

Over the years, I've posed this question to countless CTs on this and other forums and they seem to want to avoid it the way Dracula avoids sunlight. Perhaps if I ask it in its own thread, I might get a CT to respond.

The question is based on a very simple premise. JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z225 when he first reappears from behind the sign. We know this because we can see his right hand at Z224. It wasn't until frame Z226 that both of JFK's arms start upward in reaction to the bullet that passed through his throat. At that same frame, JBC's right hand which was holding his Stetson suddenly started moving upward. He made a rapid up and down movement of his right arm which lasted for 9 frames or roughly a half second. That was followed immediately by him doubling over and twisting to his right, which is the reaction he remembered making.

My question is simple. If you don't believe JBC's sudden up and down movement of his right arm is in reaction to it being struck by the same bullet that had just passed through JFK's throat, what do you think could have caused that sudden up an down motion of his right arm.

   There are two main reasons why Ruby did this...

   First was to accent the sheep-dipping of patsy Oswald in order to make him look like a true communist/Castro sympathizer...

   Second was to look Oswald in the eye and remind him to maintain character in his his role playing as a crazed communist...And that one of the plotters could get right next to him to remind him...

which plotter was it? there was more than one?  please post your evidence, as well as a video of the press conference, Albert.  You need to zoom debate this, like Scott Kaiser and Hemming’s kid on Rob Clark’s video show.  It was epic, i recommend it highly.
I wonder who you could find to debate, Albert?  how about me?  you could ask me all the questions you’d like about Crump and Mary Pinchot.

To anyone with a grain of intelligence this is really strong evidence that the first shot is after z207 and before z255.

On what basis do you determine that the evidence of Phil Willis (that his z202 photo was just after the first shot) and of Linda Willis (that JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot occurred) is wrong?

(and surely you meant before z225 rather than z255).

The many JFK conspiracists who say JFK was leaving Vietnam, pulling out after re-election (and that's why in part he was killed), repeatedly ignore the fact that the plan JFK supported was conditional, that the McNamara-Taylor report and proposal was a phased withdrawal contingent on the ability of the South to take on the war. That's not an opinion; it's in the documents. Doesn't matter how many times and ways one says this, they ignore it.

So what do they do when confronted by this? They simply make things up. About what NSAM 263 and what NSAM 273 said, about what the McNamara-Taylor report proposed and what JFK repeatedly said about the conflict. There's nothing in 273 that overturns 263. But they make things up and say it does. They never answer one obvious question: Why would JFK tell Hanoi that the US was unconditionally leaving in two years? That is, show his hand? In response, Hanoi would simply wait things out, wait for the US to leave and then resume its attacks. And force the US to return. Because JFK conspiracists are silly doesn't mean JFK was too.

Here is "Mr. X" in Oliver Stone's fantasy movie JFK: "Only four days after JFK was shot, Lyndon Johnson signed National Security Memo 273, which essentially reversed Kennedy's new withdrawal policy and gave the green light to the covert operations against North Vietnam that provoked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. In that document lay the Vietnam War."

That's not what 273 did. Once again, the conspiracy crowd is making things up or living in a fantasy world. Maybe both.

Here is NSAM 263: https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm

Here is NSAM 273: https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nsam-lbj/nsam-273.htm

There's nothing in 273 that undoes what 263 says.

As to Karnow: The man wasn't just a historian writing about events fifty years later. He was in Vietnam at the time of the Buddhist Crisis and Diem Coup and reporting on it. He knew what was happening, interviewed the people, reported on events, understood the history and culture. He saw firsthand the consequences of the government's crackdown on the Buddhists, how it was causing problems among the intellectuals, the students, and obviously the Buddhists. And that in turn was hurting the war cause, the defense of the South. How could it not? Moreover, it was causing problems for JFK as Congress and the public were souring on supporting the SV government.

Whether Diem *had* to crack down on the Buddhists to secure his political base, whether the uprising was caused by communist agents, is meaningless. The issue is the problems for the war that the crisis and Diem's response caused. None of that is debatable; they are facts.