Can't find diagram of shots to jfk from conspiracy point of view?

[Drew Phipps]

a. I don't believe that disproving the audio analysis of the HSCA is the same as proving the Lone Nut theory. Just because a talking head says something on TV, doesn't make it so.

b. Meyers gives McClain 1/2 sec to travel 175 feet. Don Thomas (whose work published in Mary Ferrell you have liberally borrowed from) puts the time at 4 seconds, which requires HB McClain to accelerate to 30 mph for no apparent reason other than to position his microphone appropriately. Even giving your time frame its most liberal construction, giving McClain 7 seconds to cover the ground suggests a speed of 18 mph. The motorcade was making an average speed of 9-10 mph, sometimes slower as they rounded the completely-against-Secret-Service-policy sharp left turn at Elm. Now, both 30 and 18 mph are well within the capability of the motorcycle, but the question remains: Why on earth would Officer McClain abandon his post and move ahead of his assigned position prior to any shots being fired?

c. McClain, after listening to the recording, denied that it came from his position.

d. There are other noises on the audio inconsistent with the time frame of the assassination.

e. A statistical correlation doesn't prove a causation event (i.e. the relationship between gunshots and "sound impulse" on the audio tape.

From wiki:
"The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:

1. A occurs in correlation with B.
   
2. Therefore, A causes B.
   

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors. Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B, even when no evidence supports it. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:

1. A may be the cause of B.
   
2. B may be the cause of A.
   
3. some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
   
4. there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
   
5. the "relationship" is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.
   

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained."

(bold emphasis added)