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

[arguille]

117. reply to #115

Researcher Pat Speer has written at some length on the single bullet theory, including a critique of a very similar diagram to that presented by "Wm Seger". It can be found at http://www.patspeer.com/chapter11%3Athesingle-bullettheory if anyone cares. The diagram as originally presented by "Seger" is meaningless for the reasons previously stated.

"perhaps, they were making too much noise themselves running down the stairs to hear anyone else, or perhaps it just didn't register because of the situation so they don't recall it, or perhaps the timing you would like to use is not all that accurate..."

The actual layout of the TSBD staircase rules out the first, the second is just goofy, and the third is not based on what I "would like to use" but is what the actual participants themselves said. Warren Commission staff lawyer David Belin wrote a memo stating that "we should pin down the time sequence of her running down the stairs", but this never happened. Instead, the Warren Commission refused to do any time tests, even as they did so in every other instance; the Warren Commission refused to depose Sandra Styles who was also on the stairs; and the Warren Commission sought and received a statement from Ms Adams' supervisor Miss Garner which confirmed in detail what Adams had been saying all along. This information was ignored and hidden from the public. The Warren Commission instead said Ms Adams was wrong, though the only evidence of this they could provide was apparently coached testimony from Lovelady (he answers a question before it was asked) which utterly contradicts information he provided earlier.

The depth of your denial on this issue is of a piece with your overall grasp of the evidence in this case.

"testimony that implies things not in agreement with other evidence, e.g. that it was Oswald on the sixth floor shooting"

But there is no evidence Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time, let alone shooting a gun. You keep demanding evidence and dismissing testimony based on an assertion that all "possibilities" have not been ruled out - except when it comes to the theory you prefer, whereby no evidence is required whatsoever. You can't have Oswald on the sixth floor at 12:30 and then in the lunch room on the second floor at 12:31 without having him come down the staircase during the interval. But two people were on the stairs at that same time and they didn't see or hear anything. You really want to impeach these witnesses - just as David Belin did - but you can't, just as David Belin couldn't. The line of reasoning you are now staking runs like this: "we know Victoria Adams was wrong because we know Oswald was firing his gun on the sixth floor". And to reach that position you must contradict yourself and apply a whole new set of parameters by which to consider evidence. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel.