It was impossible for the first shot to have hit both men. It is a certainty the second shot (CE399) hit both of them.

Does anyone besides Tom Graves and John Corbett believe that 75% witnesses hearing the 1…..2.3 pattern were simply wrong and that the 3 shot pattern was really more like 1…2…….3 and spread out over a longer time like 8-10 seconds?

Mary Woodward has been examined by Lance whom seems to think she’s a dingbat at the least. Since Lance has demonstrated intelligent thought in previous threads , there’s no reason to conclude that he also is a dingbat thus casting doubt on  his judgement of Woodward. ( I could be mistaken though  Others wish to cherry pick which parts of Woodwards statements support their preferred 3 shot theory  similar to how CTs and LNs use the potentially dingbat statements of  Markam and Bledsoe to support or refute Oswald shooting Tippit.

Perhaps at least there  has been agreement among we few old timers still hanging around at the JFK bar that there were 3 shots that were fired from that 6th floor TSBD SE window and no other shots  that came from the front of the limo. (Exception being Jake the Outer Limits CT with the policeman on the overpass theory) 

Royell maybe is the Lone Ranger CT still thinking there were 2 gunman and there were 2 other guys driving a car and parking it in the no parking zone right there near the TSBD and then jumping out because ( see Royell threads to explain it) 

I thought I had it figured out back in the day but there are too many old timers remembering things that I did not remember ( since the Mandela effect started in 2015 and Reverend Billy Graham had 3 funerals from 2005 to 2018)

   And Never forget that Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop doing crowd control across the train yard and then moving toward/down the Elm St Extension. I believe that He is a huge part of what is holding up the Sixth Floor releasing the last 1/2 of their Darnell Film 1st generation copy. It's now been close to 2 yrs that they have been sitting on this footage.

Yes, you are.

Wow, 'lil tommy, that was such a clever joke.
Aren't you a clever little boy.
Well done you.

Oh, dear, Dan is imbibing his 100-proof angry juice again.

YOU began the post to which I was responding by saying "Just for argument's sake though... Let's say you do have some intelligence and can manage this rudimentary thought experiment ..."

I was good-naturedly tweaking you, as opposed to haughtily pointing out that I have a measured IQ in the 99.7th percentile, scored above the 99th percentile of the Law School Admissions Test, graduated magna cum laude from both college and law school, and, well, whatnot.

There ain't nobody EVER, bub, who has thought they were dealing with a dummy when dealing with me. My posts on this forum speak for themselves. If you want to keep playing this goofy game, be my guest - you're just making yourself look silly, and surely you have sufficient intelligence to understand that. What you think you're accomplishing is beyond me. Do you perhaps actually hate yourself?

My posts on this forum speak for themselves.

That is exactly the point I was making.
Your silly pretence at being some kind of open-minded free thinker, willing to explore any avenue of research...it's embarrassing.
You're an out-and-out, fully fledged Nutter.
Like all Nutters you believe you have a superior intelligence and that anything you think is a fact - just because you think it!!
#delusional
  I love the way you were only "good naturedly" insinuating your superior intelligence but then can't function without stressing how intelligent you believe you are.
Aren't you smart enough to get that joke?

That sentence makes no sense. Diagram it and you'll see. Perhaps something like "There are many different ways to make a fool of you, but the sheer audacity of a hopeless cluck like you, of all people, bringing up 'credibility' presents me with an opportunity that simply cannot be resisted." Not great and kind of wordy, but at least it's grammatical.

The rest of your response, including my supposed "lies," has nothing to do with the points I raised about Vicki's credibility or lack thereof, or with the vastly more plausible thought experiment that Occam and I tend to favor.

I believe if you'll check with the local Safeway you'll find that angry juice is available in a 40-proof variety rather than the 100-proof stuff you seem to be imbibing. Just a suggestion.

What a shock.
Yet again, side-stepped the mass of evidence demonstrating how Occam's Razor would have carved up Lovelady's credibility.
Side-stepped your own desperate invention of testimony that never existed.
As I have already pointed out - "make an obvious point and you fall to pieces".

If my watch is correct it's almost time for you to run away 

Hmmm...this superior intelligence you often like to boast about...I've never seen it or anything even remotely like it.
In nearly every interaction we have I make an obvious point and you fall to pieces, often running away.
Sometimes even quitting the forum.
I see you've started with the 'aliens' thing already. I imagine you think this is really clever or something...

Oh, dear, Dan is imbibing his 100-proof angry juice again.

YOU began the post to which I was responding by saying "Just for argument's sake though... Let's say you do have some intelligence and can manage this rudimentary thought experiment ..."

I was good-naturedly tweaking you, as opposed to haughtily pointing out that I have a measured IQ in the 99.7th percentile, scored above the 99th percentile of the Law School Admissions Test, graduated magna cum laude from both college and law school, and, well, whatnot.

There ain't nobody EVER, bub, who has thought they were dealing with a dummy when dealing with me. My posts on this forum speak for themselves. If you want to keep playing this goofy game, be my guest - you're just making yourself look silly, and surely you have sufficient intelligence to understand that. What you think you're accomplishing is beyond me. Do you perhaps actually hate yourself?

Is Vicki's credibility hanging by a thread, or is that my imagination?

There's so many ways to make a fool of you but I can't let the audacity of you, of all people, bringing up 'credibility'.

That sentence makes no sense. Diagram it and you'll see. Perhaps something like "There are many different ways to make a fool of you, but the sheer audacity of a hopeless cluck like you, of all people, bringing up 'credibility' presents me with an opportunity that simply cannot be resisted." Not great and kind of wordy, but at least it's grammatical.

The rest of your response, including my supposed "lies," has nothing to do with the points I raised about Vicki's credibility or lack thereof, or with the vastly more plausible thought experiment that Occam and I tend to favor.

I believe if you'll check with the local Safeway you'll find that angry juice is available in a 40-proof variety rather than the 100-proof stuff you seem to be imbibing. Just a suggestion.