Creative Speculation

"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..."

But the notion that Kennedy was struck somewhere around frame Z207 (or more accurately "exhibits a reaction to a severe external stimulus&quot , is buttressed by the eyewitness accounts of persons in the motorcade and bystanders. Those observations have been aligned with all the photographic evidence - not just the Z film - to establish consistencies. For example, two of Kennedy's closest aides, plus a motorcycle officer riding next to them, all described essentially the same thing - JFK slumps and turns to his left - happening at essentially the same time - right as the sound of a shot rang out. Before the limousine disappears behind the sign, Kennedy has stopped waving and is turning to his left. These reactions can be compared to other photographs, which have been examined closely enough to establish a corresponding Zapruder frame. One photographer snapped his shutter immediately on hearing the shot, where we see Mrs Kennedy looking to her left. The weight of the eyewitness testimony - this is from many persons - is that Mrs Kennedy turned to her husband in reaction to his being hit by a shot. So there is a photo taken immediately as the shot rang out (and you can actually see the photographer in the Zapruder film taking the picture) where Mrs Kennedy is turned to her left and then very shortly afterward, as can be seen on the Zapruder film as the limousine appears from behind the sign, she is facing her husband. This is what you are dismissing as speculative guesswork.

"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."

But it is absolutely vital to the lone gunman theory and the Warren Commission knew it, no matter what they said.And from here, after lecturing about speculative guesswork, you propose an "assumption" that might be a "possibility" based on a shot which allegedly ripped through Kennedy's neck even though he was actually hit in the back. Once again, the idea that a bullet passed through Kennedy to strike Connally is the epitome of a speculative guess. There is absolutely no evidence to support this notion and in fact, the physical evidence says that this single bullet speculation cannot be true (CE399 would have been smashed striking Connally's wrist - it is not. Kennedy was hit in the back, as autopsy materials and holes in his clothing show. The Parkland doctors - who, unlike the Bethesda doctors were experienced in gunshot wounds, said the throat wound was one of entrance. etc). Most telling of all, the one thing that would have been incontrovertible about this wound - tracking the path of the bullet at the autopsy - was not done even though it was a procedural and even legal requirement, and it was not done on the orders of senior military officers who were controlling the autopsy.

" 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..."

Nonsense. Oswald, according to the official story, was necessarily moving quite quickly down creaky wooden stairs (the timing recreations, which needed to get Oswald to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker, proved very tricky for the Commission, and required shortcuts in things such as hiding the rifle). Neither Adams or Styles saw OR HEARD anyone, which means that no one was rushing down the stairs either ahead or behind them.

"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."

By your account then, Baker and Truly would have passed Adams and Styles on the staircase - but there is nothing to support this.
None of these persons ever remembered or described such an encounter. Are you suggesting that it is somehow a "mental contortion" to fail to consider an event which no witness has described as even ever happening? Would it be cruel to add that there is not a single witness who could place Oswald on the sixth floor after 12 noon (actually even earlier), and that the entire notion that he was up there, let alone was firing a gun, is entirely speculative guesswork? In fact, it is worse than speculative guesswork because there are witnesses who can establish that no one was dashing down the staircase in the aftermath of the shooting, and there is a witness placing Oswald on the main floor shortly before the shooting.

The Warren Commission's conclusions were a bluff. The evidence collected and published in the Report does not support their conclusions. The idea that there is "credible evidence" supporting the official story is a mirage. Somehow you have allowed yourself to not only be taken in by this bluff, but presume to haughtily pontificate and demean persons who have been carefully rolling back this curtain in the interests of historical truth.

"you're trying to pretend that you've got valid and sound arguments"

That Kennedy was struck by a bullet before Connally is supported by photographic evidence (film and stills) and by accounts from multiple eyewitnesses - all of which is mutually supporting. Instead of absorbing this information, you deflect it by offering speculation ("it's possible that the first assumption...was correct...guesses (note: mutually supported photographic and eyewitness accounts)... do not refute that possibility&quot . That Oswald was never on the sixth floor is proven by two witnesses who were on the exact staircase he was allegedly frantically scampering down and who neither saw or heard him. Like the Warren Commission, you are in denial over that fact.