Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP

[William Seger]

99. Stairway to delusion

> To engage in lectures over "speculative guesswork" and then present the single bullet theory as a "credible explanation" is a remarkable feat of cognitive dissonance, if nothing else. And it is nothing else.

Hmm, sounds like we're getting near the end of any productive discussion. The SBT does explain the actual evidence, and you have yet to offer a shred of actual evidence that refutes it or to offer a better explanation. But if you're satisfied with just farting in my general direction and leaving it at that, suit yourself.

> Only died-in-the-wool Warren Commission supporters could offer a comparison diagram featuring a man lying on his back head slightly raised, set against a man placed on his side held by doctors - and expect the geometric lines to match anything but BS. Not to mention the head is larger in one photograph than the other.

Look at the angle of the ear in the photo on the right: The head is tilted back, so we're seeing more of the top of the head than the back. The size of the ear as seen from that angle and the width of the head on the right relative to the depth seen in the left photo (which I've cropped) were the two things I used to size the photos. It's a careful approximation, but I don't claim any great photometric accuracy for it, nor is any such accuracy required to make the general point clear: the SBT trajectory is quite possible. I'm really not much interested in your off-the-cuff perception that it isn't correct, much less hand-waving claims about a lower wound, which are clearly contradicted by the photo on the right. Do a version that you think is more accurate, and we'll compare them, okay?

Whenever possible, I like to check things out for myself. I did this diagram to investigate whether Specter's demonstration to the WC and Dale Myers's computer model were really possible, or if conspiracists were correct that the back wound was too low for that to be the trajectory. And what do you know; once again, I determined for myself that it's the conspiracists who are bullshitting. I don't expect anything from you except the same denial that you've shown over the forward head-snap, and yet there it is.

> Except, Sherlock, it has been established the TSBD staircase was creaky and noisy and they would have HEARD him.

Would they, now? What if those 3-inch hills Adams was wearing made too much noise for them to hear anyone else as she ran across the wooden floor of the storeroom and down those creaky wooden stairs? And would they necessarily remember it if they did hear anyone? That's been "established," too, huh? Even if there was some distraction, like, oh, being upset about having just seen the President of the United States murdered in front of their eyes? If it's going to be central to your "proof" that Oswald is innocent, I'm afraid you're going to have to ask you to "establish" that infallible perception and memory, please, rather than just assume it for the benefit of your "proof." Then, there are several more details that will need to be established before it will qualify as a "proof," such as the infallibility of Garner's perception and memory. What if Garner simply didn't see Oswald going down right after Adams because, say, maybe she was watching what was going on outside? Do you seriously not realize how many holes there are in this "proof" you're offering -- basing conclusions on what people didn't see or didn't remember?

> By the way, Miss Garner seeing the Truly and Baker "right after" is your inference.

But it would have to be "right after" if you're going to claim that your timeline is accurate. Baker said that when he reached the second floor, he saw Oswald though the lunchroom door, walking quickly away from it, which would agree with the notion that if Oswald had been on the sixth floor doing the shooting, then he reached the lunchroom just ahead of Baker. Your hand-waving assertions about WC evil motives and cheating aside, it's pretty clear there was time for that. If Adams and Styles are supposed to have been on the stairs at the same time that Oswald was going down, then they should have also seen Baker and Truly. Otherwise, if they ran across the 4th floor and down the stairs quickly enough to be all the way down and out before Baker even started up, then Oswald could have gone down right after them, but Garner simply missed it. There are all sorts of other possibilities such as Adams going down well after Baker and Truly went up, but the men Garner saw going up were not Baker and Truly. If you're going to insist that we should ignore all the evidence that clearly says Oswald was the shooter, I'd say you've got a lot of "establishing" to do on this story, and frankly, I don't see how you're going to be able to do that. But please do at least give it a try if you're going to keep calling it "proof."

> I will let the remainder of your post - which consists of logical contortions and twisted reasoning necessitated by stubborn denial - stand without comment as a monument to your own foolishness.

Gosh, thanks; I don't think I could take much more "ass kicking."