I have to chuckle at Corbett's claim that I've been given two "two plausible reasons for these cars to show up in the parking lot," yet he said nothing -- not one word -- about my demolition of those two implausible reasons. As usual, he simply ignored counter-arguments and contrary facts and repeated his talking point.
As for Corbett's complaint that some of my replies are "massive," some of them are indeed long because, as the famous saying goes, "it takes one minute to tell a lie, and an hour to refute it."
I think a more appropriate saying would be, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with

"
For example, the only way to show the vacuous and misleading nature of Mitch Todd's portrayal of Bowers' account is to quote Bowers' statements at length, and the only way to refute Mitch Todd's sweeping erroneous claims about the acoustical evidence is to provide detailed, documented information that disproves those claims.
You don't quote Bowers. You give second and third hand hearsay accounts of what Bower's supposedly said and you expect us to give that more weight than what Bowers said for himself on the record and under oath.
Why is it that the things witnesses have supposedly said off the record always seem to conflict with what they have said on the record. Could it be they never actually said the things other people have attributed to them?
The fact that Mitch Todd would pretend to have a solid grasp of the acoustical evidence and then, in the same reply, repeat the embarrassingly bogus argument that some amateurs on the Internet have made against the dictabelt's N-waves, an argument that even the NRC/NAS panel knew better than to float, and an argument that the Queens College acoustical scientists completely destroyed, shows he is not to be taken seriously on the subject.
Here is where MTG pretends to be an expert in all technical fields related to the investigation of the JFKA. It goes back to the saying, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance,.........".
Oh, really? Well now, either you haven't actually read Thompson's book, or you somehow think I haven't, or you were hoping no one would bother to check your claim. Thompson specifically says that the reports of two of Bowers' coworkers should be taken seriously and that they "suggest that Bowers saw more than he revealed when questioned by Joe Ball and Mark Lane" (Last Second in Dallas, 2021, p. 128).
Let's read more of what Thompson says on the subject in his book, shall we? Here you go:
Also not to be taken seriously are reports from people who knew Bowers that he claimed to have seen one of the men he described put a rifle in the trunk of a car. These reports surfaced in the 1990s when various TV producers were in search of a story. The same cannot be said of the reports of two individuals who, like Bowers, worked for the Union Terminal Railroad.
Both suggest that Bowers saw more than he revealed when questioned by Joe Ball and Mark Lane.
MTG thinks Tink Thompson is an empirical source. Too funny.
The first is Olan DeGaugh. As yardmaster, he was several levels above Bowers in the railroad company hierarchy. In an oral history interview in 2002, he described Bowers as “a good person, a good worker, a good man. . . . . He was. . . . one of my best friends.” When asked if he had talked to Bowers about the Kennedy assassination, he replied, “Several times. I don’t know how many times. Not a real long conversation.” When asked if Bowers ever varied his story about what happened that day, DeGaugh said, “I don’t think he ever changed it.”
And what did Bowers tell DeGaugh about the assassination?
DeGaugh said, “Well, the day Kennedy was assassinated, he [Bowers] was looking out the window and there was a car parked next to the board fence out here barely where the street ends and he saw someone holding the trunk of a car put something in it and drive off. And it had been assumed that it had been Oswald. It may have been Oswald.” DeGaugh said the car “was a coupe of some kind . . . an old car.”
More second hand hearsay accounts that conflict with Bowers' sworn testimony. Real compelling stuff.
Time for me to check out again. I could easily spend another two hours refuting the rest of MTG's

, but this is just a hobby to me, not my job so I budget the amount of time I spend on it.