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

[William Seger]

93. Sliced thin and piled high, it's still baloney

> This from a man who earlier posted a claim that an explanation based on a theory is fact.

Nope, not once have I made any such claim. What i clearly said several times is that the SBT is the best explanation (a.k.a. "theory&quot of the credible facts. You seem to be confusing your own fuzzy definitions for those terms with what I've actually said, but a "fact" is a highly credible observation that something really occurred or is actually the case, while a "theory" is a logical framework for understanding the facts.

> Or are you arguing that Connally was also struck at frame 207 and his reaction at frame 224 - which actually wasn't a "reaction" but simply a lifting of his shirt's lapel - was a "delayed" reaction which was the result of a passing bullet moving his shirt lapel after delaying inside his body for 17/18ths of a second? Or what exactly are you saying? Can you support your argument with corresponding eyewitness testimony as appears in the video in question? Or support it with anything? Or are you just winging it?

Um, what i actually argued was that it isn't possible to conclusively determine when JFK and Connally were hit by looking at the Zapruder film, which simply invalidates any argument that begins with guesses -- specifically, the guess that the hits were one second apart. That is an example of asserting speculation as if it were a fact, if that helps you distinguish the difference.

And you seem to have forgotten that we were talking about the conclusions of the HSCA photo analysis panel, which did not use the lapel movement to place the Connally hit at frame 224 -- that was a much later observation (by Dale Myers, I believe). The panel was asked to make their best guess about when Connally first showed a visible reaction.

But here's where conspiracists' trolley really jump the tracks: As the WC report said, the SBT is not at all critical to their conclusions, yet conspiracists like to pretend that it's absolutely vital to the single-shooter theory. However, it isn't critical to that conclusion because it's possible that the first assumption made by most people (including Connally himself) -- that JFK and Connally were hit by two different bullets -- was correct, but both were fired by Oswald, one of them being the bullet that the WC decided had missed. Guesses about when Connally was hit based on the Zapruder film do not refute that possibility, no matter how much certainty you have about those guesses. What refutes that possibility is that if the bullet that went through JFK's neck hadn't hit Connally (which would have been extremely difficult given the actual geometry), then it should have hit somewhere inside the limo instead, but no such evidence was found.

> As to the second video, it absolutely makes the case just as was stated. There is witness testimony, corroborated by two separate accounts. These accounts are consistent over time, and backed up by specific markers. The Warren Commission decided instead to accept, if not help create, witness testimony which was inconsistent over time, and was inconsistent with concurrent accounts.What then is the scrutiny which you insist be withstood?

That's it then? What's shown in the video is the entirety of the "case"? Well, here's why that doesn't withstand scrutiny: If Adams was off by as little as 15 seconds in her estimate of when she and Styles headed downstairs, then there is no mystery about why she didn't see Oswald. And far from corroborating the claimed timing, Garner's statement appears to refute it: She remained on the 4th floor and says that right after she saw Adams and Styles go down, she saw Baker and Truly going up. That implies that Baker and Truly had already encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor! You (and the video) seem to have omitted the mental contortions necessary to interpret that as a corroboration of the claim that Adams should have seen Oswald, rather than corroboration of the notion that he had already gone down before Adams. But feel free to try again.

> After assuming an arrogant and dismissive attitude, your actual understanding and grasp of the evidence is repeatedly shown as incomplete at best. That is, you don't really know what you are talking about, but have presumed some sort of authority which you clearly do not possess.

LOL, my attitude is as irrelevant as yours. Once again, just like we saw with the forward head-snap and the SBT, you're trying to pretend that you've got valid and sound arguments, somewhere, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to understand them. If that were true, then I have a right to expect a better presentation of this secret knowledge than you seem to be capable of providing.