Creative Speculation

"Dude, that is my diagram"

I've seen that diagram before, if not the exact version on which you claim to have laboured, then ones similar in design and intent. It is sort of the NAA of diagrams, as, like the NAA, its basic underlying premise is a false assumption. The assumption, in the case of the diagram, is that the two photos align in some way. They do not. The figure in left photo is larger than in the right photo. The figure in the right photo should be enlarged and tilted about 30 degrees (according to researcher Pat Speer) to properly align, with another adjustment to compensate for the slight rightward turn of the head as can be seen in the photo. Lacking that, which your diagram indeed does lack, the coloured lines are effectively meaningless because there is no correspondence.

And yet you somehow arrive at conclusions based on a diagram which can't have anything to add to any conversation because its basic assumptions are incorrect.

"There was no reason Oswald couldn't have made it to the lunchroom before Baker."

But he would have been seen or heard on the staircase by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles. And he wasn't.

"We can't just assume that Adams' and/or Garner's perceptions and/or memories are infallible just so you can claim them as "proof" exonerating Oswald -- not in view of the mountain of evidence against him, and especially not when you have absolutely no alternate suspect…"

So, if I get your drift, corroborated consistent interlocking eyewitness testimony which exonerates a suspect should always be overlooked unless an alternate suspect is produced. That is a fascinating legal concept.

"the WC had to resolve a lot of conflicting witness testimony …"

But there is no conflicting eyewitness testimony in the Victoria Adams situation.
Adams, Styles, and Garner all told the same thing - that Adams and Styles headed to the staircase approximately 30 seconds after the shooting. Officer Baker and Roy
Truly both told of an encounter with Oswald on the second floor about 75 seconds after the shooting. No one testified seeing Oswald headed down to the second floor from the sixth floor shortly after the shooting. In fact, no one testified to seeing Oswald on the sixth floor after 12 noon at all. So where's the conflict?

Oh wait -

"the WC had to resolve a lot of conflicting witness testimony and they did it in exactly the same way we ask juries to do it every day: Compare all the testimony to the physical and documentary evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and derive the story that is best supported by the evidence and makes the most sense."

Oh I see, the intent is to "derive the story" that "makes the most sense". I thought it was to find the truth…

"As imperfect as that method is for finding "the truth," it has a solid track record of beating the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place…"

Really? Have you ever heard of the Ramparts Division of the LAPD? The Latin American death squads? The "War On Drugs"?

"The (Lattimer) tests proved that conspiracists were simply wrong in claiming that the SBT was impossible…"

Lattimer could provide no detail of his experimental method past vague descriptions, so the ability to compare it in any way to the so-called "magic bullet" is impossible and his "tests" are proved as essentially meaningless as your earlier diagram.

"Wm Seger", the credibility issue has been your problem all through this thread.