Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why would Gov. Connally Lie?
142 views
Skip to first unread message
Research
Aug 8, 2012, 10:41:04 AM8/8/12
to
If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
then returned to the front and then he was hit.
Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
Connally claimed?
said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
then returned to the front and then he was hit.
Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
Connally claimed?
Anthony Marsh
Aug 8, 2012, 12:26:32 PM8/8/12
to
hit. He rejected the SBT.
Some LNers claim he was hit at Z-226. Not all. Some claim Z-224. The
defining moment is when he was facing nearly straight forward as he said,
at about Z-230.
WC defenders have to lie because even they are smart enough to see that
JFK was already hit when he emerges from behind the sign. So they need to
move the Connally hit back as far as possible to have any SBT. They all
disagree about exactly which frame it was.
Sandy McCroskey
Aug 8, 2012, 12:29:02 PM8/8/12
to
Research wrote:
> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>
Whoever said Connally "lied"? Why would he "lie," indeed? Why would anyone
> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>
think he "lied" just because his subsequent memory of his impressions
during a very traumatic experience (have you ever undergone anything
similar?) differs somewhat from what the hard physical facts indicate
actually occurred? This happens all the time.
/sm
bigdog
Aug 8, 2012, 5:19:51 PM8/8/12
to
he estimated he was hit somewhere in the Z231-234 range because that is
when he saw himself begin twisting back to his right. I don't know of an
LNs who believe he was hit at Z226. That is the frame he first reacts when
he flips his arm into the air. He was actually hit a few frames earlier.
His jacket bulge at Z224 but the bullet has already gone through him so it
struck an instant before that frame was exposed. Connally's guess was only
about a half second off so it is still pretty good. Had he noticed the
jacket bulge and/or his arm flip, he might have made an even better guess.
markusp
Aug 8, 2012, 5:20:59 PM8/8/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:41:04 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:
> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
Connally and his wife, Nellie, never waivered from their testimony. They
> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
both were 100% certain that the bullet that struck JFK initially was not
the same bullet that caused Connally's transiting chest wound.
> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> Connally claimed?
happening before he disappears behind the Stemmons sign, and then after he
re-emerges. Before the sign, Connally indeed has heard something, and
turns partially around to his right. That is the movement that he and
Nellie both reference. While behind the sign and out of our view, Connally
is returning to facing the front, and almost gets there, when clearly he
is struck by a bullet. We know this because his lapel on his right side is
disrupted. This is precisely at Z224.
It appears to me that at Z230, it is JFK, and not Connally, that is receiving
a missile to his back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI&list=FL1eQXUDI5E_xRo-1SMrH42Q&index=1&feature=plpp_video
If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
precisely Z230.
Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
Aug 8, 2012, 5:48:54 PM8/8/12
to
carefully examined the Zapruder frames and saw himself hit at about
frame 230?
Sandy McCroskey
Aug 8, 2012, 6:45:04 PM8/8/12
to
As I said.
Why do you assume, or merely gratuitously allege, that I think he lied?
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 8, 2012, 6:47:24 PM8/8/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Aug 8, 2012, 6:48:56 PM8/8/12
to
On 8/8/2012 5:19 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 10:41:04 AM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>>
>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>>
>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>>
>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>>
>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>>
>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>>
>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>>
>> Connally claimed?
>
> Connally didn't lie. He said what he believed. From looking at the Z-film
> he estimated he was hit somewhere in the Z231-234 range because that is
Where did Connally say anything about twisting to his right? Quote please.
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 10:41:04 AM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>>
>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>>
>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>>
>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>>
>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>>
>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>>
>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>>
>> Connally claimed?
>
> Connally didn't lie. He said what he believed. From looking at the Z-film
> he estimated he was hit somewhere in the Z231-234 range because that is
He said he thought he was hit when he was facing nearly perfectly straight
forward, which was at about Z-230.
> when he saw himself begin twisting back to his right. I don't know of an
> LNs who believe he was hit at Z226. That is the frame he first reacts when
> he flips his arm into the air. He was actually hit a few frames earlier.
> His jacket bulge at Z224 but the bullet has already gone through him so it
> struck an instant before that frame was exposed. Connally's guess was only
> about a half second off so it is still pretty good. Had he noticed the
> jacket bulge and/or his arm flip, he might have made an even better guess.
>
bigdog
Aug 8, 2012, 9:01:47 PM8/8/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 5:20:59 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:41:04 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:
>
> > If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>
> > said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>
> > then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>
>
>
> Connally and his wife, Nellie, never waivered from their testimony. They
>
> both were 100% certain that the bullet that struck JFK initially was not
>
> the same bullet that caused Connally's transiting chest wound.
>
Only because they believed that JFK was hit by the first shot and they both knew JBC was hit by the second shot. There was no doubt in JBC's mind about that. In later years, he was asked if he could believe the SBT if it was the second shot that hit both men. He acknowledged that was possible. It was not only possible, it would be a certainty. If he was hit by the second shot, which he insisted he was until his dying day, and JFK was also hit by the second shot, the SBT is the only possibility.
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:41:04 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:
>
> > If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>
> > said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>
> > then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>
>
>
> Connally and his wife, Nellie, never waivered from their testimony. They
>
> both were 100% certain that the bullet that struck JFK initially was not
>
> the same bullet that caused Connally's transiting chest wound.
>
>
>
> > Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>
> > hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>
> > turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>
> > that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>
> > head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>
> > Connally claimed?
>
>
>
> A suggestion for you is to think of Connally and his movements as
>
> happening before he disappears behind the Stemmons sign, and then after he
>
> re-emerges. Before the sign, Connally indeed has heard something, and
>
> turns partially around to his right. That is the movement that he and
>
> Nellie both reference. While behind the sign and out of our view, Connally
>
> is returning to facing the front, and almost gets there, when clearly he
>
> is struck by a bullet. We know this because his lapel on his right side is
>
> disrupted. This is precisely at Z224.
>
>
>
> It appears to me that at Z230, it is JFK, and not Connally, that is receiving
>
> a missile to his back:
>
He must have been anticipating this when he suddenly raised his arms at Z226.
>
> > Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>
> > hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>
> > turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>
> > that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>
> > head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>
> > Connally claimed?
>
>
>
> A suggestion for you is to think of Connally and his movements as
>
> happening before he disappears behind the Stemmons sign, and then after he
>
> re-emerges. Before the sign, Connally indeed has heard something, and
>
> turns partially around to his right. That is the movement that he and
>
> Nellie both reference. While behind the sign and out of our view, Connally
>
> is returning to facing the front, and almost gets there, when clearly he
>
> is struck by a bullet. We know this because his lapel on his right side is
>
> disrupted. This is precisely at Z224.
>
>
>
> It appears to me that at Z230, it is JFK, and not Connally, that is receiving
>
> a missile to his back:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI&list=FL1eQXUDI5E_xRo-1SMrH42Q&index=1&feature=plpp_video
>
>
>
> If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
>
> shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
>
> Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
>
> precisely Z230.
>
If you were correct, you should be able to tell us why JFK had two entrance wounds in his neck and back, no exits, and no bullets in his body. To the best of recollection, you have never answered this dilemma.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI&list=FL1eQXUDI5E_xRo-1SMrH42Q&index=1&feature=plpp_video
>
>
>
> If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
>
> shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
>
> Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
>
> precisely Z230.
>
>
>
> Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
>
> additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>
Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
>
> Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
>
> additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>
timstter
Aug 10, 2012, 8:10:49 PM8/10/12
to
Find the video Confirmation Of The Single Bullet Theory online.
Study the laser tests done in Dealey Plaza by Ronald Singer et al.
See what Dale Myers said to Peter Jennings.
See what Cecil Kirk testified in On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald.
You simply have NO idea what you are talking about, pal.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Anthony Marsh
Aug 10, 2012, 8:36:30 PM8/10/12
to
On 8/10/2012 8:10 PM, timstter wrote:
> On Aug 9, 12:41 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>
>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>> Connally claimed?
>
> You really need to go and do some basic research, Research.
>
> Find the video Confirmation Of The Single Bullet Theory online.
>
> Study the laser tests done in Dealey Plaza by Ronald Singer et al.
>
Junk science,
> On Aug 9, 12:41 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>
>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>> Connally claimed?
>
> You really need to go and do some basic research, Research.
>
> Find the video Confirmation Of The Single Bullet Theory online.
>
> Study the laser tests done in Dealey Plaza by Ronald Singer et al.
>
> See what Dale Myers said to Peter Jennings.
>
> See what Cecil Kirk testified in On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> You simply have NO idea what you are talking about, pal.
>
stone.
Bud
Aug 11, 2012, 5:14:44 PM8/11/12
to
On Aug 8, 12:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:41 AM, Research wrote:
>
> > If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> > said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> > then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>
> > Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
> > hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
> > turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
> > that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
> > head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> > Connally claimed?
>
> Connally did not lie. He said he was hit at about Z-230 AFTER Kennedy was
> hit. He rejected the SBT.
>
> Some LNers claim he was hit at Z-226. Not all. Some claim Z-224. The
> defining moment is when he was facing nearly straight forward as he said,
> at about Z-230.
A few split-seconds apart, big deal.
> On 8/8/2012 10:41 AM, Research wrote:
>
> > If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> > said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> > then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>
> > Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
> > hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
> > turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
> > that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
> > head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> > Connally claimed?
>
> Connally did not lie. He said he was hit at about Z-230 AFTER Kennedy was
> hit. He rejected the SBT.
>
> Some LNers claim he was hit at Z-226. Not all. Some claim Z-224. The
> defining moment is when he was facing nearly straight forward as he said,
> at about Z-230.
> WC defenders have to lie because even they are smart enough to see that
> JFK was already hit when he emerges from behind the sign.
have to admit the Warren Commission got it right.
> So they need to
> move the Connally hit back as far as possible to have any SBT. They all
> disagree about exactly which frame it was.
Research
Aug 11, 2012, 5:15:18 PM8/11/12
to
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5025a826$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 8/10/2012 8:10 PM, timstter wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 12:41 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie?
>>> He
>>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>>
>>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he
>>> was
>>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later
>>> as
>>> Connally claimed?
>>
>> You really need to go and do some basic research, Research.
>>
>> Find the video Confirmation Of The Single Bullet Theory online.
>>
>> Study the laser tests done in Dealey Plaza by Ronald Singer et al.
>>
>
> Junk science,
>
>> See what Dale Myers said to Peter Jennings.
>>
>
> You mean when he lied?
>
>> See what Cecil Kirk testified in On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>
>> You simply have NO idea what you are talking about, pal.
>>
>
> Stop looking in the mirror and talking to yourself. You might turn to
> stone.
>
Tim What are you babbling bout? I only quoted what you LNers been spouting
>> On Aug 9, 12:41 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie?
>>> He
>>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>>
>>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he
>>> was
>>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later
>>> as
>>> Connally claimed?
>>
>> You really need to go and do some basic research, Research.
>>
>> Find the video Confirmation Of The Single Bullet Theory online.
>>
>> Study the laser tests done in Dealey Plaza by Ronald Singer et al.
>>
>
> Junk science,
>
>> See what Dale Myers said to Peter Jennings.
>>
>
> You mean when he lied?
>
>> See what Cecil Kirk testified in On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>
>> You simply have NO idea what you are talking about, pal.
>>
>
> Stop looking in the mirror and talking to yourself. You might turn to
> stone.
>
out for fifty years. In general terms of course. But you LNers can't stand
it when your own theories are used by anyone that isn't you. I said some
claim Connally was hit at Z226. That's you ain't it? That IS the SBT ain't
it? But what you disagree with the fact the nutters say Connally turns to
look into the rear as he said he did. But if you look at Zapruder.
Connally didn't turn around, he merely turned his head. Perhaps he saw
something in the corner of his eye that attracted his attention. Not
reacting to a rifle sound as you nutters claim. But just looking at the
crowd. Or maybe a shooter in the front. Maybe he say he was hit at Z230-34
at a later date. But his original statements to the press and a few others
he said he was not hit until he turned all the way around, looked at
Kennedy, saw nothing out of the ordinary, and turned back to his left and
then was shot. (Paraphrasing of course)
The SBT is a pretty summation. But not quite accurate. But it was the best
J. Edgar could come up with in a week. Even though the rest of his
conclusions were all lies. So why would we be expected to believe the SB
lie?
Anthony Marsh
Aug 11, 2012, 8:05:46 PM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/2012 5:14 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Aug 8, 12:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/8/2012 10:41 AM, Research wrote:
>>
>>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>
>>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>>> Connally claimed?
>>
>> Connally did not lie. He said he was hit at about Z-230 AFTER Kennedy was
>> hit. He rejected the SBT.
>>
>> Some LNers claim he was hit at Z-226. Not all. Some claim Z-224. The
>> defining moment is when he was facing nearly straight forward as he said,
>> at about Z-230.
>
> A few split-seconds apart, big deal.
>
A very big deal to the WC defenders.
> On Aug 8, 12:26 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/8/2012 10:41 AM, Research wrote:
>>
>>> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
>>> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
>>> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
>>
>>> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
>>> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
>>> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
>>> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
>>> head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>>> Connally claimed?
>>
>> Connally did not lie. He said he was hit at about Z-230 AFTER Kennedy was
>> hit. He rejected the SBT.
>>
>> Some LNers claim he was hit at Z-226. Not all. Some claim Z-224. The
>> defining moment is when he was facing nearly straight forward as he said,
>> at about Z-230.
>
> A few split-seconds apart, big deal.
>
>> WC defenders have to lie because even they are smart enough to see that
>> JFK was already hit when he emerges from behind the sign.
>
> Conspiracy mongers have to lie because if they told the truth they`d
> have to admit the Warren Commission got it right.
>
>> So they need to
>> move the Connally hit back as far as possible to have any SBT. They all
>> disagree about exactly which frame it was.
>
> The same frame Kennedy was hit, of course.
>
have the truth exclusively, better than any other WC defender?
jfk...@gmail.com
Aug 12, 2012, 7:05:18 PM8/12/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:41:04 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:
on him to convince him that he must be 'mistaken'. There was no SB
scenario in play that day. JBC's statements, as an eyewitness, give
support to that fact.
Read my article on 'the SBT'for a better understanding of how the wool was
pulled over our eyes:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372&hl=pretty+pig%27s+saturday+night
Pamela Brown
ss100x.com
in-broad-daylight.com
bigdog
Aug 13, 2012, 12:05:57 PM8/13/12
to
testimony neither supports nor refutes the SBT. Since he insisted that he
was hit by the second bullet, it stands to reason that if JFK was hit by
the first bullet, his testimony is incompatible with the SBT. However, if
he is correct that he was hit by the second bullet and JFK was also hit by
the second bullet, the SBT is the only possible answer.
As for your article, the WC did not start with the premise that all the
shot came from behind and that Oswald had fired them. That is what was
indicated by ALL the physical evidence. The medical evidence indicated all
the shots that struck JFK and JBC were fired from behind them, a finding
later confirmed by the HSCA FPP. They had three spent shells recovered
from the location a shooter was seen firing a rifle and that corresponded
to the number of shots most witnesses remembered. They had a rifle that
was found hidden on that same floor and that rifle matched not only the
shells that were found but also the two recovered bullets. A paper trail
and photographs clearly established Oswald as the owner of that rifle and
the rifle had his palm print and fibers matching the shirt he was wearing
when arrested. In addition, his finger and palm prints were on the boxes
at the shooting location and on the bag found nearby. The bag had fibers
in it which matched the blanket his wife said he had the rifle wrapped in.
There was no physical evidence of any kind that any shots had been fired
from any other location and no eyewitnesses who saw a gunman in any other
location. So they weren't exactly leaping to conclusions in deciding the
shots came from the TSBD.
The recreations were not intended to establish the precise trajectory of
the bullet since they lacked the data needed to determine that. They only
established the plausibility of what the physical evidence had told them.
Decades later armed with film evidence the WC had missed, the lapel bulge
and Connally's Z226 arm flip, and with computer technology not available
to the WC, Failure Analysis and Dale Myers both established with higher
degrees of precision what the WC had determined. The SBT works. It is the
only theory presented so far that does.
lone gunman
Aug 13, 2012, 4:40:44 PM8/13/12
to gwmcc...@earthlink.net
Anthony Marsh
Aug 13, 2012, 4:41:13 PM8/13/12
to
And you throw Lattimer under the bus because he said frame 224?
John King
Aug 19, 2012, 10:01:51 PM8/19/12
to
In article <5022...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
try to see JFK. Failing to turn far enough to see him, his head has
just barely turned to the front again in the frames leading to Z226.
Your use of the word "lie" in this context is therefore novel.
> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
> head.
Where on earth are you getting this from? Connally did not say that he
turned all the way around. Instead he plainly said that he turned only
so far, and failed to catch a glimpse of JFK even in the corner of his
eye.
> What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> Connally claimed?
As you are erroneous in saying that Connally claimed it was "much
later," this is not a question worth answering.
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
Yes, that's c.Z226. Before that he has turned his head to the right to
> If Gov. Connally was hit at Z226 like the LNers claim. Why did he lie? He
> said he was not struck until he had turned around to look at Kennedy and
> then returned to the front and then he was hit.
try to see JFK. Failing to turn far enough to see him, his head has
just barely turned to the front again in the frames leading to Z226.
Your use of the word "lie" in this context is therefore novel.
> Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
> hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
> turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
> that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
> head.
turned all the way around. Instead he plainly said that he turned only
so far, and failed to catch a glimpse of JFK even in the corner of his
eye.
> What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> Connally claimed?
later," this is not a question worth answering.
John King
Aug 19, 2012, 10:03:03 PM8/19/12
to
In article <5026...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
claimed, even in the past one year, much less fifty? I cannot recall one
who ever said that Connally claimed he was hit "much later" than around
Z226, and I've read thousands of their articles. True, both Connallys
picked frames from the Z230s as to when he was hit, but that is merely
because they were shown stills only, and weren't shown frames in the
Z220s, and what they obviously meant was simply that *by* the Z230s he had
already been struck by the bullet; they did not necessarily mean that he
was not struck *until* Z230 or later. Also, nearly all of his statements
about when he was hit correspond almost perfectly to what is seen in the
film, with his head turning to the right and then back to the front by
Z226 (really a few frames earlier, not later). In addition, the sudden
jerking motions of both JFK and Connally begin in exactly the same frame,
and Connally has rapidly slumped in the Z230s; he's quite obviously
already been hit by then.
> In general terms of course. But you LNers can't stand
> it when your own theories are used by anyone that isn't you. I said some
> claim Connally was hit at Z226. That's you ain't it? That IS the SBT ain't
> it? But what you disagree with the fact the nutters say Connally turns to
> look into the rear as he said he did.
You seem to be very misinformed about what Connally actually said.
Neither the "nutters," as you call them, or Connally, said what you claim
they said. Here's what Connally *really* said:
"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.
I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I
instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to
look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that
far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you,
looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone
had hit me in the back."
Show me where Connally said he turned to look into the rear. I don't see
it. He said he turned to the right because he heard a rifle shot from
that direction. He added that he did not see JFK in that turn. He then
said he turned his head back to the front, and just as he was facing a
little to the left of center he felt himself being struck in the back.
That's exactly what position his head is in by frame 226.
Who are these imaginary "nutters" you're talking about who say he turned
all the way to the rear? I've been reading this newsgroup for almost a
decade and I cannot at this moment recall even a single one of them saying
that.
> But if you look at Zapruder.
> Connally didn't turn around, he merely turned his head.
YES, EXACTLY what the NUTTERS say he did also, since they are merely
repeating Connally's own testimony, which also says the same thing, as I
have proven beyond all possible doubt above. How on earth can you have
gotten the idea that the nutters say something different from that?
Please name these nutters who say that the film shows something different
from what Connally says he did, so I can criticize them also. At the
moment, however, I cannot figure out who you're talking about, since I've
never seen any nutters, not one, claim what you say they claim.
> Perhaps he saw
> something in the corner of his eye that attracted his attention.
Above I quoted him saying why he turned his head. The nutters say
exactly the same thing. The film shows exactly the same thing.
> Not
> reacting to a rifle sound as you nutters claim.
You have no possible way of knowing that he was not reacting to a rifle
sound.
> But just looking at the
> crowd. Or maybe a shooter in the front. Maybe he say he was hit at Z230-34
> at a later date. But his original statements to the press and a few others
> he said he was not hit until he turned all the way around, looked at
> Kennedy, saw nothing out of the ordinary, and turned back to his left and
> then was shot. (Paraphrasing of course)
I would not use the word "paraphrasing" for your summation of his original
statements to the press. He did NOT say he turned all the way around and
saw nothing out of the ordinary. You are very badly mangling what the man
actually said. His complete televised interview while he was still in
Parkland Hospital, either his very earliest known statement to the media
or one of the earliest, is somewhat different from all of his later
statements in a few details, and it's been posted on Youtube for years.
Here are the differences, and you'll find when you watch the video that my
"paraphrasing" is several orders of magnitude more accurate than yours:
1. Only in the hospital interview, and never in any subsequent statement,
he said that he turned to his left, rather than to his right. This may
simply be a common and temporary "left/right" confusion. He always said
right in all later statements.
2. In the hospital interview he didn't specifically say that he turned
far enough around to actually see JFK, but he did say something that he
never said later, that JFK had already been hit, which would certainly be
out of the ordinary, contrary to your claim. But in the interview he did
not explain how he knew this.
Nevertheless, in the hospital interview he was indeed already saying (as
he continuously said to the end of his life) that he was not hit until
after he had turned back to the front. But I know of no statement that he
ever made in his life in which he specifically said he turned "all the way
around" or anything of even remotely similar meaning. Please quote him
verbatim saying that and give your source or please finally admit that you
do not actually know for certain whether or not Connally ever said he
turned all the way around. Thanks.
> The SBT is a pretty summation. But not quite accurate. But it was the best
> J. Edgar could come up with in a week. Even though the rest of his
> conclusions were all lies. So why would we be expected to believe the SB
> lie?
Ugh. You are all over the place, so that it is difficult to know which of
your misconceptions to address first. To start with, the theory of a
single bullet did not originate with Hoover. Hoover initially thought
that Connally was hit with a separate bullet from the two which struck
Kennedy, i.e. that all three shots struck someone in the limo and that
none of them missed the limo entirely. Secondly, that Hoover lied about
many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tim What are you babbling bout? I only quoted what you LNers been spouting
> out for fifty years.
Excuse me, which LNers, exactly, have claimed what you say they've
> Tim What are you babbling bout? I only quoted what you LNers been spouting
> out for fifty years.
claimed, even in the past one year, much less fifty? I cannot recall one
who ever said that Connally claimed he was hit "much later" than around
Z226, and I've read thousands of their articles. True, both Connallys
picked frames from the Z230s as to when he was hit, but that is merely
because they were shown stills only, and weren't shown frames in the
Z220s, and what they obviously meant was simply that *by* the Z230s he had
already been struck by the bullet; they did not necessarily mean that he
was not struck *until* Z230 or later. Also, nearly all of his statements
about when he was hit correspond almost perfectly to what is seen in the
film, with his head turning to the right and then back to the front by
Z226 (really a few frames earlier, not later). In addition, the sudden
jerking motions of both JFK and Connally begin in exactly the same frame,
and Connally has rapidly slumped in the Z230s; he's quite obviously
already been hit by then.
> In general terms of course. But you LNers can't stand
> it when your own theories are used by anyone that isn't you. I said some
> claim Connally was hit at Z226. That's you ain't it? That IS the SBT ain't
> it? But what you disagree with the fact the nutters say Connally turns to
> look into the rear as he said he did.
Neither the "nutters," as you call them, or Connally, said what you claim
they said. Here's what Connally *really* said:
"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.
I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I
instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to
look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that
far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you,
looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone
had hit me in the back."
Show me where Connally said he turned to look into the rear. I don't see
it. He said he turned to the right because he heard a rifle shot from
that direction. He added that he did not see JFK in that turn. He then
said he turned his head back to the front, and just as he was facing a
little to the left of center he felt himself being struck in the back.
That's exactly what position his head is in by frame 226.
Who are these imaginary "nutters" you're talking about who say he turned
all the way to the rear? I've been reading this newsgroup for almost a
decade and I cannot at this moment recall even a single one of them saying
that.
> But if you look at Zapruder.
> Connally didn't turn around, he merely turned his head.
repeating Connally's own testimony, which also says the same thing, as I
have proven beyond all possible doubt above. How on earth can you have
gotten the idea that the nutters say something different from that?
Please name these nutters who say that the film shows something different
from what Connally says he did, so I can criticize them also. At the
moment, however, I cannot figure out who you're talking about, since I've
never seen any nutters, not one, claim what you say they claim.
> Perhaps he saw
> something in the corner of his eye that attracted his attention.
exactly the same thing. The film shows exactly the same thing.
> Not
> reacting to a rifle sound as you nutters claim.
sound.
> But just looking at the
> crowd. Or maybe a shooter in the front. Maybe he say he was hit at Z230-34
> at a later date. But his original statements to the press and a few others
> he said he was not hit until he turned all the way around, looked at
> Kennedy, saw nothing out of the ordinary, and turned back to his left and
> then was shot. (Paraphrasing of course)
statements to the press. He did NOT say he turned all the way around and
saw nothing out of the ordinary. You are very badly mangling what the man
actually said. His complete televised interview while he was still in
Parkland Hospital, either his very earliest known statement to the media
or one of the earliest, is somewhat different from all of his later
statements in a few details, and it's been posted on Youtube for years.
Here are the differences, and you'll find when you watch the video that my
"paraphrasing" is several orders of magnitude more accurate than yours:
1. Only in the hospital interview, and never in any subsequent statement,
he said that he turned to his left, rather than to his right. This may
simply be a common and temporary "left/right" confusion. He always said
right in all later statements.
2. In the hospital interview he didn't specifically say that he turned
far enough around to actually see JFK, but he did say something that he
never said later, that JFK had already been hit, which would certainly be
out of the ordinary, contrary to your claim. But in the interview he did
not explain how he knew this.
Nevertheless, in the hospital interview he was indeed already saying (as
he continuously said to the end of his life) that he was not hit until
after he had turned back to the front. But I know of no statement that he
ever made in his life in which he specifically said he turned "all the way
around" or anything of even remotely similar meaning. Please quote him
verbatim saying that and give your source or please finally admit that you
do not actually know for certain whether or not Connally ever said he
turned all the way around. Thanks.
> The SBT is a pretty summation. But not quite accurate. But it was the best
> J. Edgar could come up with in a week. Even though the rest of his
> conclusions were all lies. So why would we be expected to believe the SB
> lie?
your misconceptions to address first. To start with, the theory of a
single bullet did not originate with Hoover. Hoover initially thought
that Connally was hit with a separate bullet from the two which struck
Kennedy, i.e. that all three shots struck someone in the limo and that
none of them missed the limo entirely. Secondly, that Hoover lied about
many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
John King
Aug 19, 2012, 10:03:39 PM8/19/12
to
In article <e5f87964-345d-4def...@googlegroups.com>,
upward into what will end in the famous splayed-elbow position? That
motion clearly begins in Z224.
> If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
> shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
> Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
> precisely Z230.
>
> Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
> additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets? There's no
credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To make your
scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the front of his body
and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back and
also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of his
throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that entered
his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere. Unless you're
proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear shot entered
and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot entered? Surely
not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are astronomically low.
Also there's the problem of him emerging from the sign. The first frame
after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
Z230 shot.
Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
late. And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
As if he was coughing into his fist.
markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:41:04 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:
>
> > Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
> > hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
> > turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
> > that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
> > head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> > Connally claimed?
>
> A suggestion for you is to think of Connally and his movements as
> happening before he disappears behind the Stemmons sign, and then after he
> re-emerges. Before the sign, Connally indeed has heard something, and
> turns partially around to his right. That is the movement that he and
> Nellie both reference. While behind the sign and out of our view, Connally
> is returning to facing the front, and almost gets there, when clearly he
> is struck by a bullet. We know this because his lapel on his right side is
> disrupted. This is precisely at Z224.
>
> It appears to me that at Z230, it is JFK, and not Connally, that is receiving
> a missile to his back:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI&list=FL1eQXUDI5E_xRo-1SMrH42Q&index
> =1&feature=plpp_video
If that is true, then why have Kennedy's arms already begun their motion
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:41:04 AM UTC-5, Research wrote:
>
> > Connally merely turned his head and the LNers claimed that was when he was
> > hit at Z226. But Connally made the claim he was not hit later, after he
> > turned to the rear and returned to the front. The Zapruder shows exactly
> > that. But the LNers claim he turned around when all he did was turn his
> > head. What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> > Connally claimed?
>
> A suggestion for you is to think of Connally and his movements as
> happening before he disappears behind the Stemmons sign, and then after he
> re-emerges. Before the sign, Connally indeed has heard something, and
> turns partially around to his right. That is the movement that he and
> Nellie both reference. While behind the sign and out of our view, Connally
> is returning to facing the front, and almost gets there, when clearly he
> is struck by a bullet. We know this because his lapel on his right side is
> disrupted. This is precisely at Z224.
>
> It appears to me that at Z230, it is JFK, and not Connally, that is receiving
> a missile to his back:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-hrPPy6fgI&list=FL1eQXUDI5E_xRo-1SMrH42Q&index
> =1&feature=plpp_video
upward into what will end in the famous splayed-elbow position? That
motion clearly begins in Z224.
> If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
> shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
> Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
> precisely Z230.
>
> Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
> additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets? There's no
credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To make your
scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the front of his body
and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back and
also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of his
throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that entered
his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere. Unless you're
proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear shot entered
and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot entered? Surely
not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are astronomically low.
Also there's the problem of him emerging from the sign. The first frame
after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
Z230 shot.
Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
late. And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
As if he was coughing into his fist.
markusp
Aug 20, 2012, 11:14:32 PM8/20/12
to
On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:03:39 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
> > If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
> > shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
> > Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
> > precisely Z230.
>
> > Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
> > additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>
> There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
>
> considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
>
> into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
The first missile to strike JFK, IMO, was fired from a vantage point
> > If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
> > shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
> > Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
> > precisely Z230.
>
> > Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
> > additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>
> There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
>
> considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
>
> into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
somewhere in front of the limo. It has been speculated that perhaps an ice
bullet was used with a paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave
the entry wound on JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for
that missile. This missile was fired around Z210, as I believe we see a
slight indication of duress prior to JFK's disappearance behind the
Stemmons sign. The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
Perry. Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
table, and missed that wound. Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
the frontal neck wound.
> There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the front of his
> body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
inch or less. Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site. This
reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital. Of course
if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more than
just Oswals firing.
> and also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of
> his throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that entered
> his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
> front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere.
human body always exits. Sometimes they stay in the body, and not all
projectiles have to be made of metal.
> Unless you're proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear
> shot entered and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot
> entered?
> Surely not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are astronomically > low. Also there's the problem of him emerging from the sign. The first frame
> after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
> his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
> upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
> upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
> react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
> Z230 shot.
at Z224, then he's reacting simultaneously with Connally, and that can't
possibly be true. We know this because Connally's lapel is disrupted at
precisely Z224. The neurons that transmit pain and duress to the brain,
and the brain's processing of that inforamtion takes time -- not very much
time, but an eternity when we're seeing simultaneous reactions by both JFK
and JBC at Z224.
> Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
> do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
> trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
> logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
> late.
reflex takes over, why does it cease at Z234? If his trachea is filling
with blood, and that is triggering his cough/gag reflex, we should expect
to see him continue to convulse, but he's essentially motionless from Z234
to Z312. In short, we should see him continue to attempt to clear his
airway. He did not.
> And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
> throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
> against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
> and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
grabbing for his throat or going for his mouth is secondary.
> As if he was coughing into his fist.
the choke/gag reflex, why does it stop? It's involuntary, so it's not as
if he took the time to decide to no longer choke. Your observation of
coughing up a bullet has been put forth prior to this posting, and I
adamantly do not believe that's what I see. Thanks!
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
Aug 21, 2012, 11:20:39 PM8/21/12
to
> reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital. Of course
> if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more than
> just Oswals firing.
>
>> and also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of
>> his throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that entered
>> his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
>> front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere.
>
> I believe you may be clinging to the idea that every bullet that enters a
> human body always exits. Sometimes they stay in the body, and not all
> projectiles have to be made of metal.
>
>> Unless you're proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear
>> shot entered and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot
>> entered?
>
> No.
>
>> Surely not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are astronomically > low. Also there's the problem of him emerging from the sign. The first frame
>> after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
>> his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
>> upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
>> upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
>> react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
>> Z230 shot.
>
> If what you're saying is accurate, if JFK's arms begin their upward motion
> at Z224, then he's reacting simultaneously with Connally, and that can't
at least 4 frames earlier than Z-224.
> possibly be true. We know this because Connally's lapel is disrupted at
> precisely Z224. The neurons that transmit pain and duress to the brain,
> and the brain's processing of that inforamtion takes time -- not very much
> time, but an eternity when we're seeing simultaneous reactions by both JFK
> and JBC at Z224.
>
>> Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
>> do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
>> trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
>> logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
>> late.
>
> Let's pretend you're correct. JFK is coughing up a bullet. If the gag
> reflex takes over, why does it cease at Z234? If his trachea is filling
> with blood, and that is triggering his cough/gag reflex, we should expect
> to see him continue to convulse, but he's essentially motionless from Z234
> to Z312. In short, we should see him continue to attempt to clear his
> airway. He did not.
>
>> And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
>> throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
>> against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
>> and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
>
> The important aspect of JFK's arm motion indicates duress, so whether he's
> grabbing for his throat or going for his mouth is secondary.
>
>> As if he was coughing into his fist.
>
> Could you please explain why if his sympathetic nervous was triggered by
bullet grazing the C7 nerve triggered the reflex reaction of the arms
flying up.
John King
Aug 21, 2012, 11:27:54 PM8/21/12
to
In article <afa96a20-8514-4eed...@googlegroups.com>,
now for documentation of how common it was, or wasn't, by 1963, to use
such a method. At the moment I am finding something much more recent,
something from the program "Mythbusters" on Discovery. They seemed to
have tested at least one so-called ice bullet and this appears to have
been their finding:
**********
An assassin can fire an ice bullet to kill someone without leaving a
trace.
BUSTED
The bullet was simply too brittle to be used.
(This myth was revisited in episode 14 and it was busted again.)
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode1
**********
This seems plausible to me. The force required from a firearm to shoot
the ice bullet at enough velocity to be effective in causing injury might
well fragment the piece of ice and make it useless. Ice is far more
brittle than metal. Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
And now, going through many more pages of matches on Google on the phrase
"ice bullet" I am not finding even one credible claim that such a thing
actually works, and in fact the majority of matches are more references to
the same Mythbusters episode, references to a movie called "Ice Bullet,"
and pieces of ice shaped like bullets that are used in cocktails. If such
a method of shooting people was already been used nearly fifty years ago,
even on a very limited and secretive basis, one would think that there
would be many references to it on the Internet by now, and documented
cases of people being shot with ice bullets. Wikipedia does not even have
an article on ice bullets, and they have articles on practically every
other type of event, technology, etc. that has ever occurred on this
planet. Unless you can produce at least one documented example of a
person being shot with an ice bullet from credible sources in which the
projectile penetrated the skin of the victim at least as far as what we
know of JFK's throat wound, this seems like wild 007 stuff that hardly
needs to be taken seriously.
> -- then the missile would leave
> the entry wound on JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for
> that missile.
I find it curious that you propose this without already having provided a
well-documented example of it having worked with at least one real victim.
This is an extremely tenuous claim you are proposing.
> This missile was fired around Z210, as I believe we see a
> slight indication of duress prior to JFK's disappearance behind the
> Stemmons sign.
I do not see any such thing at that point, and if it is slight, then it
is much to subtle for anyone to be even remotely certain that anything
has yet happened to him at that point.
> The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
> ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
> Perry.
And you ought to know perfectly well why that is. Dr. Perry did not know
about the wound in JFK's back, so naturally he would think the throat
wound was an entry. His information was incomplete, so it is unfair to
trust his initial opinion completely. You do not know what he would have
said had he seen the back wound also.
> Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
> table, and missed that wound.
And you ought to know why that is also: the bullet wound was obscured by
Perry's tracheotomy, so naturally they thought it was a tracheotomy, not
a bullet wound.
> Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
> the frontal neck wound.
You have made a poor case for that.
> > There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To
> > make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the front
> > of his
> > body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
>
> There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back.
Obviously I already knew that. ;-)
> It penetrated about an
> inch or less.
You don't know that.
> Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
> missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
Yes, initially speculated, because, like Perry, he had incomplete
information. He did not know until the following day that the tracheotomy
had been performed across the bullet wound in the throat. Again, you have
no way of knowing what he would have initially said if he had known that
the other one was a bullet wound too.
> This
> reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital.
Not really, because then you have to explain what happened to the bullet
in Connally's thigh, because that one did indeed not go all the way
through and it was already gone by the time he was in the operating room,
so it had to have fallen out somewhere.
> Of course
> if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more than
> just Oswals firing.
"If" is the operative word. But the evidence isn't too strong for that,
and you are failing to add any strength to it.
> > and also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of
> > his throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that
> > entered
> > his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
> > front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere.
>
> I believe you may be clinging to the idea that every bullet that enters a
> human body always exits. Sometimes they stay in the body, and not all
> projectiles have to be made of metal.
I realize that not every bullet exits, but in most cases a non-exit is
caused by something slowing the bullet down sufficiently so that it no
longer has enough velocity. The possibilities for that would be things
such as being fired from a great distance, so that the bullet has already
slowed down enough during its flight through the air that it does not
traverse all the through the body, or the bullet striking bone inside the
body. For example, that's why the bullet in Connally's thigh did not exit
his thigh: it had already passed through his torso, struck one of his
ribs, which slowed it down, though it still exited his torso, then smashed
through the bones of his wrist, which slowed it down more, so that it only
had enough velocity by that time to penetrate a little way into his thigh,
but not smash through the femur or exit the underside of his thigh. I
realize you don't believe in the single bullet passing through both men,
but if you add the passage through the President's body first, that's more
loss of velocity, and still quite plausibly explains the non-exit from
Connally's thigh.
But your scenario is much more difficult to sustain. What on earth would
have slowed down the bullet that entered JFK's back so much that it only
went a little way in and then stopped? The bullet did not strike anything
before striking his back, and it traversed only soft flesh and hit no
bone. Without hitting bone it would have almost certainly exited. Where
is that exit?
And actually you're not addressing the fact that later it was discovered
that the bullet actually did nick one of his vertebrae. But that would
hardly be enough to slow the bullet down sufficiently for a non-exit.
Obviously the most likely exit for that bullet was the front of the
throat.
> > Unless you're proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear
> > shot entered and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot
> > entered?
>
> No.
I should hope not. ;-)
> > Surely not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are
> > astronomically > low. Also there's the problem of him emerging from the
> > sign. The first frame
> > after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
> > his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
> > upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
> > upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
> > react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
> > Z230 shot.
>
> If what you're saying is accurate, if JFK's arms begin their upward motion
> at Z224, then he's reacting simultaneously with Connally, and that can't
> possibly be true. We know this because Connally's lapel is disrupted at
> precisely Z224. The neurons that transmit pain and duress to the brain,
> and the brain's processing of that inforamtion takes time -- not very much
> time, but an eternity when we're seeing simultaneous reactions by both JFK
> and JBC at Z224.
Yes, I am sorry, I was typing that from memory, and had not studied that
in a while. I was two frames off. It is not Z224 but Z226. I think I'm
remembering correctly now that Z224 is the first frame in which JFK's
right hand can be seen again as he's emerging from behind the sign, and in
Z225 the hand has moved down a little bit. It is starting in Z226 that
the hand begins moving upward in what will end up being a continuous
motion ending with the clenched fists and the splayed elbows. But what I
was remembering correctly from the beginning was that, whatever the frame
number, both men suddenly begin to jerk in exactly the same frame. And
yes, with Connally it is indeed two frames after the lapel flip, and JFK's
motion starts in exactly the same frame. So this is indeed superb
confirmation of both men being struck simultaneously. I was merely two
frames too early.
> > Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
> > do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
> > trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
> > logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
> > late.
>
> Let's pretend you're correct. JFK is coughing up a bullet.
Coughing up a bullet??? Where on earth did I say that??? I said
coughing up *blood*.
> If the gag
> reflex takes over, why does it cease at Z234? If his trachea is filling
> with blood, and that is triggering his cough/gag reflex, we should expect
> to see him continue to convulse, but he's essentially motionless from Z234
> to Z312. In short, we should see him continue to attempt to clear his
> airway. He did not.
Not necessarily. The bullet barely nicked his trachea. It might have
caused only a small amount of blood to clog his airway and one cough might
well have gotten that out. There would have still been bleeding into the
trachea after that, and he might have coughed again a few seconds later,
but suddenly all his brain functions ceased when struck in the head. You
have no possible way of knowing that he wasn't just about to cough a
second time at that point, as less than five seconds elapsed between his
emergence from behind the sign and his brain exploding.
> > And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
> > throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
> > against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
> > and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
>
> The important aspect of JFK's arm motion indicates duress, so whether he's
> grabbing for his throat or going for his mouth is secondary.
No, it is not secondary in this case, because you are proposing his
forward jerk as another bullet strike, and the fact that his hands go to
his mouth rather than his throat provide the plausible alternate
explanation of a cough, since it is common for people to put a hand or
fist to their mouths when coughing, and in this case it would be in
addition to duress, the pain of the bullet going through him.
> > As if he was coughing into his fist.
>
> Could you please explain why if his sympathetic nervous was triggered by
> the choke/gag reflex, why does it stop?
See above.
> It's involuntary, so it's not as
> if he took the time to decide to no longer choke.
By the time he made that sudden forward jerk which you think is a bullet
strike and I think is more likely a cough, he had only about four
seconds to live, so that's not much time for a second cough.
> Your observation of
> coughing up a bullet
For the second time, coughing up blood, not coughing up a bullet.
> has been put forth prior to this posting, and I
> adamantly do not believe that's what I see.
On what basis do you adamantly not believe it? Because even with your
scenario of the bullet entering his throat rather than exiting it, there's
still going to be blood getting into his trachea either way, whether it
was an exit or an entrance. It is well-documented that his trachea was
indeed nicked, so even with your frontal entry it's still the same
situation. Blood gets into his trachea and he's *not* going to cough at
least once before he's killed a few seconds later? How do you explain
that? And here again, his fists going to his mouth rather than his hands
to his throat is quite relevant. I have much more cause to adamantly
disbelieve your scenario than you do for mine.
markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:03:39 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
> > > If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
> > > shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
> > > Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
> > > precisely Z230.
> >
> > > Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
> > > additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
> >
> > There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
> >
> > considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
> >
> > into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
>
> The first missile to strike JFK, IMO, was fired from a vantage point
> somewhere in front of the limo. It has been speculated that perhaps an ice
> bullet was used with a paralyzing agent
"Speculated" is right, and that's pretty wild speculation. I am looking
> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:03:39 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
> > > If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
> > > shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
> > > Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
> > > precisely Z230.
> >
> > > Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
> > > additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
> >
> > There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
> >
> > considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
> >
> > into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
>
> The first missile to strike JFK, IMO, was fired from a vantage point
> somewhere in front of the limo. It has been speculated that perhaps an ice
> bullet was used with a paralyzing agent
now for documentation of how common it was, or wasn't, by 1963, to use
such a method. At the moment I am finding something much more recent,
something from the program "Mythbusters" on Discovery. They seemed to
have tested at least one so-called ice bullet and this appears to have
been their finding:
**********
An assassin can fire an ice bullet to kill someone without leaving a
trace.
BUSTED
The bullet was simply too brittle to be used.
(This myth was revisited in episode 14 and it was busted again.)
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode1
**********
This seems plausible to me. The force required from a firearm to shoot
the ice bullet at enough velocity to be effective in causing injury might
well fragment the piece of ice and make it useless. Ice is far more
brittle than metal. Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
And now, going through many more pages of matches on Google on the phrase
"ice bullet" I am not finding even one credible claim that such a thing
actually works, and in fact the majority of matches are more references to
the same Mythbusters episode, references to a movie called "Ice Bullet,"
and pieces of ice shaped like bullets that are used in cocktails. If such
a method of shooting people was already been used nearly fifty years ago,
even on a very limited and secretive basis, one would think that there
would be many references to it on the Internet by now, and documented
cases of people being shot with ice bullets. Wikipedia does not even have
an article on ice bullets, and they have articles on practically every
other type of event, technology, etc. that has ever occurred on this
planet. Unless you can produce at least one documented example of a
person being shot with an ice bullet from credible sources in which the
projectile penetrated the skin of the victim at least as far as what we
know of JFK's throat wound, this seems like wild 007 stuff that hardly
needs to be taken seriously.
> -- then the missile would leave
> the entry wound on JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for
> that missile.
well-documented example of it having worked with at least one real victim.
This is an extremely tenuous claim you are proposing.
> This missile was fired around Z210, as I believe we see a
> slight indication of duress prior to JFK's disappearance behind the
> Stemmons sign.
is much to subtle for anyone to be even remotely certain that anything
has yet happened to him at that point.
> The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
> ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
> Perry.
about the wound in JFK's back, so naturally he would think the throat
wound was an entry. His information was incomplete, so it is unfair to
trust his initial opinion completely. You do not know what he would have
said had he seen the back wound also.
> Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
> table, and missed that wound.
Perry's tracheotomy, so naturally they thought it was a tracheotomy, not
a bullet wound.
> Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
> the frontal neck wound.
> > There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To
> > make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the front
> > of his
> > body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
>
> There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back.
> It penetrated about an
> inch or less.
> Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
> missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
information. He did not know until the following day that the tracheotomy
had been performed across the bullet wound in the throat. Again, you have
no way of knowing what he would have initially said if he had known that
the other one was a bullet wound too.
> This
> reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital.
in Connally's thigh, because that one did indeed not go all the way
through and it was already gone by the time he was in the operating room,
so it had to have fallen out somewhere.
> Of course
> if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more than
> just Oswals firing.
and you are failing to add any strength to it.
> > and also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of
> > his throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that
> > entered
> > his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
> > front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere.
>
> I believe you may be clinging to the idea that every bullet that enters a
> human body always exits. Sometimes they stay in the body, and not all
> projectiles have to be made of metal.
caused by something slowing the bullet down sufficiently so that it no
longer has enough velocity. The possibilities for that would be things
such as being fired from a great distance, so that the bullet has already
slowed down enough during its flight through the air that it does not
traverse all the through the body, or the bullet striking bone inside the
body. For example, that's why the bullet in Connally's thigh did not exit
his thigh: it had already passed through his torso, struck one of his
ribs, which slowed it down, though it still exited his torso, then smashed
through the bones of his wrist, which slowed it down more, so that it only
had enough velocity by that time to penetrate a little way into his thigh,
but not smash through the femur or exit the underside of his thigh. I
realize you don't believe in the single bullet passing through both men,
but if you add the passage through the President's body first, that's more
loss of velocity, and still quite plausibly explains the non-exit from
Connally's thigh.
But your scenario is much more difficult to sustain. What on earth would
have slowed down the bullet that entered JFK's back so much that it only
went a little way in and then stopped? The bullet did not strike anything
before striking his back, and it traversed only soft flesh and hit no
bone. Without hitting bone it would have almost certainly exited. Where
is that exit?
And actually you're not addressing the fact that later it was discovered
that the bullet actually did nick one of his vertebrae. But that would
hardly be enough to slow the bullet down sufficiently for a non-exit.
Obviously the most likely exit for that bullet was the front of the
throat.
> > Unless you're proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear
> > shot entered and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot
> > entered?
>
> No.
> > Surely not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are
> > astronomically > low. Also there's the problem of him emerging from the
> > sign. The first frame
> > after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
> > his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
> > upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
> > upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
> > react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
> > Z230 shot.
>
> If what you're saying is accurate, if JFK's arms begin their upward motion
> at Z224, then he's reacting simultaneously with Connally, and that can't
> possibly be true. We know this because Connally's lapel is disrupted at
> precisely Z224. The neurons that transmit pain and duress to the brain,
> and the brain's processing of that inforamtion takes time -- not very much
> time, but an eternity when we're seeing simultaneous reactions by both JFK
> and JBC at Z224.
in a while. I was two frames off. It is not Z224 but Z226. I think I'm
remembering correctly now that Z224 is the first frame in which JFK's
right hand can be seen again as he's emerging from behind the sign, and in
Z225 the hand has moved down a little bit. It is starting in Z226 that
the hand begins moving upward in what will end up being a continuous
motion ending with the clenched fists and the splayed elbows. But what I
was remembering correctly from the beginning was that, whatever the frame
number, both men suddenly begin to jerk in exactly the same frame. And
yes, with Connally it is indeed two frames after the lapel flip, and JFK's
motion starts in exactly the same frame. So this is indeed superb
confirmation of both men being struck simultaneously. I was merely two
frames too early.
> > Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
> > do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
> > trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
> > logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
> > late.
>
> Let's pretend you're correct. JFK is coughing up a bullet.
coughing up *blood*.
> If the gag
> reflex takes over, why does it cease at Z234? If his trachea is filling
> with blood, and that is triggering his cough/gag reflex, we should expect
> to see him continue to convulse, but he's essentially motionless from Z234
> to Z312. In short, we should see him continue to attempt to clear his
> airway. He did not.
caused only a small amount of blood to clog his airway and one cough might
well have gotten that out. There would have still been bleeding into the
trachea after that, and he might have coughed again a few seconds later,
but suddenly all his brain functions ceased when struck in the head. You
have no possible way of knowing that he wasn't just about to cough a
second time at that point, as less than five seconds elapsed between his
emergence from behind the sign and his brain exploding.
> > And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
> > throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
> > against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
> > and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
>
> The important aspect of JFK's arm motion indicates duress, so whether he's
> grabbing for his throat or going for his mouth is secondary.
forward jerk as another bullet strike, and the fact that his hands go to
his mouth rather than his throat provide the plausible alternate
explanation of a cough, since it is common for people to put a hand or
fist to their mouths when coughing, and in this case it would be in
addition to duress, the pain of the bullet going through him.
> > As if he was coughing into his fist.
>
> Could you please explain why if his sympathetic nervous was triggered by
> the choke/gag reflex, why does it stop?
> It's involuntary, so it's not as
> if he took the time to decide to no longer choke.
strike and I think is more likely a cough, he had only about four
seconds to live, so that's not much time for a second cough.
> Your observation of
> coughing up a bullet
> has been put forth prior to this posting, and I
> adamantly do not believe that's what I see.
scenario of the bullet entering his throat rather than exiting it, there's
still going to be blood getting into his trachea either way, whether it
was an exit or an entrance. It is well-documented that his trachea was
indeed nicked, so even with your frontal entry it's still the same
situation. Blood gets into his trachea and he's *not* going to cough at
least once before he's killed a few seconds later? How do you explain
that? And here again, his fists going to his mouth rather than his hands
to his throat is quite relevant. I have much more cause to adamantly
disbelieve your scenario than you do for mine.
Research
Aug 22, 2012, 11:27:10 AM8/22/12
to
"John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-51CA08...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
said. And you got it wrong. Connally said he turned to look over his right
shoulder because that was where the sounds came from. But at Z226 Connally
only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder does
show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder but
this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226. But that means there is another
shot not covered by the SBT. Take a page out of the Posner book and make
wild claims that there was a forth shot.
John King
Aug 22, 2012, 10:58:41 PM8/22/12
to
In article <5034...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Exactly, but he *also* said that he failed to see JFK when he turned.
But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY around.
You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
say that, ever.
> But at Z226 Connally
> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder does
> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
to ALL THE WAY AROUND. You need very badly to watch it again, much more
closely than you ever have before in your entire life, at multiple
speeds. Here, I'll help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBCfxIqP-s
Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
even remotely close to all the way around to the rear. As he emerges from
the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
the way around to the rear. Partway to the right. He then begins to turn
his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226.
> but
> this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226.
No it is not.
> But that means there is another
> shot not covered by the SBT.
No it does not.
> Take a page out of the Posner book and make
> wild claims that there was a forth shot.
I haven't read Posner in years, so I will do no such thing.
But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY around.
You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
say that, ever.
> But at Z226 Connally
> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder does
> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
to ALL THE WAY AROUND. You need very badly to watch it again, much more
closely than you ever have before in your entire life, at multiple
speeds. Here, I'll help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBCfxIqP-s
Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
even remotely close to all the way around to the rear. As he emerges from
the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
the way around to the rear. Partway to the right. He then begins to turn
his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226.
> but
> this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226.
> But that means there is another
> shot not covered by the SBT.
> Take a page out of the Posner book and make
> wild claims that there was a forth shot.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 22, 2012, 11:02:27 PM8/22/12
to
their report was going to say until Specter realize there was not enough
time for one shooter to fire both shots.
markusp
Aug 23, 2012, 4:08:27 PM8/23/12
to
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
> Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
> ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
I make no claim to ice bullets. I merely stated that the claim has been made. Yet you drone endlessly that it's mine. It is not.
> Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
> ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
> I find it curious that you propose this without already having provided a
> well-documented example of it having worked with at least one real victim.
> This is an extremely tenuous claim you are proposing.
> > This missile was fired around Z210, as I believe we see a
> > slight indication of duress prior to JFK's disappearance behind the
> > Stemmons sign.
>
>
>
> I do not see any such thing at that point, and if it is slight, then it
> is much to subtle for anyone to be even remotely certain that anything
> has yet happened to him at that point.
> > The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
> > ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
> > Perry.
> And you ought to know perfectly well why that is. Dr. Perry did not know
> about the wound in JFK's back, so naturally he would think the throat
> wound was an entry. His information was incomplete, so it is unfair to
> trust his initial opinion completely. You do not know what he would have
> said had he seen the back wound also.
> > Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
> > table, and missed that wound.
>
> And you ought to know why that is also: the bullet wound was obscured by
> Perry's tracheotomy, so naturally they thought it was a tracheotomy, not
> a bullet wound.
>
> You have made a poor case for that.
My ideas reconcile with existing evidence better than the SBT does.
> You have made a poor case for that.
> > There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back.
>
> Obviously I already knew that. ;-)
> > It penetrated about an
> > inch or less.
>
> You don't know that.
> > Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
> > missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
>
> Yes, initially speculated, because, like Perry, he had incomplete
> information. He did not know until the following day that the tracheotomy
> had been performed across the bullet wound in the throat.
> Again, you have
> no way of knowing what he would have initially said if he had known that
> the other one was a bullet wound too.
> > This
> > reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital.
> Not really, because then you have to explain what happened to the bullet
> in Connally's thigh,
> because that one did indeed not go all the way
> through and it was already gone by the time he was in the operating room,
> so it had to have fallen out somewhere.
> > Of course
> > if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more than
>
> "If" is the operative word. But the evidence isn't too strong for that,
> and you are failing to add any strength to it.
I'm curious to hear your explanation about the Tague wound.
> "If" is the operative word. But the evidence isn't too strong for that,
> and you are failing to add any strength to it.
~Mark
bigdog
Aug 23, 2012, 9:17:08 PM8/23/12
to
On Monday, August 20, 2012 11:14:32 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:03:39 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>
> > > If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
>
> > > shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
>
> > > Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
>
> > > precisely Z230.
>
> >
>
> > > Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
>
> > > additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>
> >
>
> > There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
>
> >
>
> > considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
>
> >
>
> > into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
>
>
>
> The first missile to strike JFK, IMO, was fired from a vantage point
>
> somewhere in front of the limo. It has been speculated that perhaps an ice
>
> bullet was used with a paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave
>
> the entry wound on JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for
>
> that missile.
Ice bullet??? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you propose something so outlandish. This is pure Hollywood stuff. Three Days of the Condor to be precise. Just how did these shooters manage to keep their ice bullet from melting away before JFK arrived? Did these guys carry a portable freezer to DP. And why would anyone go to such lengths when a good old fashioned lead bullet would do the job nicely? Absurd doesn't even begin to describe this cockamamie proposal.
> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:03:39 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>
> > > If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
>
> > > shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
>
> > > Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
>
> > > precisely Z230.
>
> >
>
> > > Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
>
> > > additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>
> >
>
> > There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
>
> >
>
> > considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
>
> >
>
> > into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
>
>
>
> The first missile to strike JFK, IMO, was fired from a vantage point
>
> somewhere in front of the limo. It has been speculated that perhaps an ice
>
> bullet was used with a paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave
>
> the entry wound on JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for
>
> that missile.
> This missile was fired around Z210, as I believe we see a
>
> slight indication of duress prior to JFK's disappearance behind the
>
> Stemmons sign.
? The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
>
> ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
>
> Perry. Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
>
> table, and missed that wound. Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
>
> the frontal neck wound.
>
Perry was an ER doctor who was trained to patch up shooting victims, not determine the cause of their wounds. That requires a different area of expertise.
> ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
>
> Perry. Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
>
> table, and missed that wound. Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
>
> the frontal neck wound.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the front of his
>
> > body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
>
>
>
> There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back. It penetrated about an
>
> inch or less.
So in addition to an ice bullet in the front, you are proposing that the rear shooter used such an under powered bullet that it would only pentetrate a couple inches into soft tissue and then magically fall out. That's the stuff. An ice bullet from the front and a weak bullet from the back. That makes a lot more sense then somebody just shot JFK in the back with a standard rifle bullet that was more than capable of passing completely through a human torso. (Two actually).
>
>
>
> > There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the front of his
>
> > body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
>
>
>
> There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back. It penetrated about an
>
> inch or less.
> Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
>
> missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site. This
>
> reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital. Of course
>
> if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more than
>
> just Oswals firing.
>
>
>
> > and also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of
>
> > his throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that entered
>
> > his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
>
> > front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere.
>
>
>
> I believe you may be clinging to the idea that every bullet that enters a
>
> human body always exits. Sometimes they stay in the body, and not all
>
> projectiles have to be made of metal.
>
I believe you are clinging to some far fetched ideas because you don't want to accept the obvious ones.
>
> > and also an exit for your supposed separate shot that entered the front of
>
> > his throat. There would also have to be an exit for the bullet that entered
>
> > his back that would be in a different location from the "entry" in the
>
> > front his throat, perhaps an exit in his chest somewhere.
>
>
>
> I believe you may be clinging to the idea that every bullet that enters a
>
> human body always exits. Sometimes they stay in the body, and not all
>
> projectiles have to be made of metal.
>
>
>
> > Unless you're proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear
>
> > shot entered and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot
>
> > entered?
>
>
>
> No.
>
Why not. That makes more sense then an ice bullet.
>
> > Unless you're proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear
>
> > shot entered and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot
>
> > entered?
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> > Surely not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are astronomically > low. Also there's the problem of him emerging from the sign. The first frame
>
> > after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
>
> > his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
>
> > upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
>
> > upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
>
> > react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
>
> > Z230 shot.
>
>
>
> If what you're saying is accurate, if JFK's arms begin their upward motion
>
> at Z224, then he's reacting simultaneously with Connally, and that can't
>
> possibly be true. We know this because Connally's lapel is disrupted at
>
> precisely Z224. The neurons that transmit pain and duress to the brain,
>
> and the brain's processing of that inforamtion takes time -- not very much
>
> time, but an eternity when we're seeing simultaneous reactions by both JFK
>
> and JBC at Z224.
>
The bullet is alread through the lapel by the time Z224 was exposed. That means the bullet passed through before Z224. JFK's upward arm movement does not begin until Z226, the exact same frame Connally's upward arm movement is seen. JFK's right hand was still moving downward between Z224 and Z225.
>
> > Surely not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are astronomically > low. Also there's the problem of him emerging from the sign. The first frame
>
> > after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
>
> > his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
>
> > upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
>
> > upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
>
> > react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
>
> > Z230 shot.
>
>
>
> If what you're saying is accurate, if JFK's arms begin their upward motion
>
> at Z224, then he's reacting simultaneously with Connally, and that can't
>
> possibly be true. We know this because Connally's lapel is disrupted at
>
> precisely Z224. The neurons that transmit pain and duress to the brain,
>
> and the brain's processing of that inforamtion takes time -- not very much
>
> time, but an eternity when we're seeing simultaneous reactions by both JFK
>
> and JBC at Z224.
>
>
>
> > Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
>
> > do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
>
> > trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
>
> > logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
>
> > late.
>
>
>
> Let's pretend you're correct. JFK is coughing up a bullet. If the gag
>
> reflex takes over, why does it cease at Z234? If his trachea is filling
>
> with blood, and that is triggering his cough/gag reflex, we should expect
>
> to see him continue to convulse, but he's essentially motionless from Z234
>
> to Z312. In short, we should see him continue to attempt to clear his
>
> airway. He did not.
>
>
>
> > And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
>
> > throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
>
> > against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
>
> > and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
>
>
>
> The important aspect of JFK's arm motion indicates duress, so whether he's
>
> grabbing for his throat or going for his mouth is secondary.
>
>
>
> > As if he was coughing into his fist.
>
>
>
> Could you please explain why if his sympathetic nervous was triggered by
>
> the choke/gag reflex, why does it stop? It's involuntary, so it's not as
>
> if he took the time to decide to no longer choke. Your observation of
>
> coughing up a bullet has been put forth prior to this posting, and I
>
> adamantly do not believe that's what I see. Thanks!
>
You can't possible know what JFK was feeling immediately after he was first shot. That is pure guesswork.
>
> > Did it ever occur to you that the sudden forward motion you're seeing him
>
> > do starting at Z230 was because he coughed at that point, because his
>
> > trachea was starting to fill with blood? That would be a perfectly
>
> > logical explanation, alternative to him being struck in the back that
>
> > late.
>
>
>
> Let's pretend you're correct. JFK is coughing up a bullet. If the gag
>
> reflex takes over, why does it cease at Z234? If his trachea is filling
>
> with blood, and that is triggering his cough/gag reflex, we should expect
>
> to see him continue to convulse, but he's essentially motionless from Z234
>
> to Z312. In short, we should see him continue to attempt to clear his
>
> airway. He did not.
>
>
>
> > And have you ever noticed that it's a myth that he grabs his
>
> > throat? He doesn't, not at any time. He instead puts both his fists
>
> > against his mouth. This is quite obvious in the video you've cited above,
>
> > and far more obvious in a slower viewing of the complete film.
>
>
>
> The important aspect of JFK's arm motion indicates duress, so whether he's
>
> grabbing for his throat or going for his mouth is secondary.
>
>
>
> > As if he was coughing into his fist.
>
>
>
> Could you please explain why if his sympathetic nervous was triggered by
>
> the choke/gag reflex, why does it stop? It's involuntary, so it's not as
>
> if he took the time to decide to no longer choke. Your observation of
>
> coughing up a bullet has been put forth prior to this posting, and I
>
> adamantly do not believe that's what I see. Thanks!
>
bigdog
Aug 23, 2012, 10:08:53 PM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:08:27 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>
> > Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
>
> > ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
>
>
>
> I make no claim to ice bullets. I merely stated that the claim has been made. Yet you drone endlessly that it's mine. It is not.
>
If you aren't going to embrace the ice bullet theory, you have no
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>
> > Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
>
> > ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
>
>
>
> I make no claim to ice bullets. I merely stated that the claim has been made. Yet you drone endlessly that it's mine. It is not.
>
explaination for two entrances and no exits. If you don't buy it, why
would you bring it up?
>
>
>
>
> > I find it curious that you propose this without already having provided a
>
> > well-documented example of it having worked with at least one real victim.
>
> > This is an extremely tenuous claim you are proposing.
>
>
>
> If you enjoy tenuous claims, try reading the WCR and the 26 volumes. It takes a long time.
>
>
>
> > > This missile was fired around Z210, as I believe we see a
>
> > > slight indication of duress prior to JFK's disappearance behind the
>
> > > Stemmons sign.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I do not see any such thing at that point, and if it is slight, then it
>
> > is much to subtle for anyone to be even remotely certain that anything
>
> > has yet happened to him at that point.
>
>
>
> That is correct. Individual interpretations at that point only.
>
>
>
> > > The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
>
> > > ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
>
> > > Perry.
>
>
>
> > And you ought to know perfectly well why that is. Dr. Perry did not know
>
> > about the wound in JFK's back, so naturally he would think the throat
>
> > wound was an entry. His information was incomplete, so it is unfair to
>
> > trust his initial opinion completely. You do not know what he would have
>
> > said had he seen the back wound also.
>
>
>
> Frankly, it's a waste of your time to attempt to discredit my observations with what you believe someone woulda, coulda, shoulda. Perry and the ER doctors did their jobs properly in an attempt to treat the immediate, life-threatening wound to JFK's head.
>
>
>
> > > Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
>
> > > table, and missed that wound.
>
> >
>
> > And you ought to know why that is also: the bullet wound was obscured by
>
> > Perry's tracheotomy, so naturally they thought it was a tracheotomy, not
>
> > a bullet wound.
>
>
>
> Okay, let's confirm --- the prosectors had a body in front of them. They
discover a bullet wound to the back, a wound of entrance. It appears to
them it has penetrated only a short distance. There is no obvious sign of
exit. They look at body X-rays and see no missiles. It requires no medical
degree to think that these doctors should have called the other physicians
at PH for more information while the body lays on table at the autopsy.
They allow the body to be removed, then call Perry the next day, and then
guess about a connection between two wounds --- one of which they did not
examine whatsoever.
The autopsy gathered enough information to convince the entire HSCA FPP
>
> > > Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
>
> > > table, and missed that wound.
>
> >
>
> > And you ought to know why that is also: the bullet wound was obscured by
>
> > Perry's tracheotomy, so naturally they thought it was a tracheotomy, not
>
> > a bullet wound.
>
>
>
> Okay, let's confirm --- the prosectors had a body in front of them. They
discover a bullet wound to the back, a wound of entrance. It appears to
them it has penetrated only a short distance. There is no obvious sign of
exit. They look at body X-rays and see no missiles. It requires no medical
degree to think that these doctors should have called the other physicians
at PH for more information while the body lays on table at the autopsy.
They allow the body to be removed, then call Perry the next day, and then
guess about a connection between two wounds --- one of which they did not
examine whatsoever.
that a bullet transited JFK's torso from back to front. It was obvious and
elementary for trained medical examiners.
> >
>
> > You have made a poor case for that.
>
>
>
> My ideas reconcile with existing evidence better than the SBT does.
>
dreamed up a cockamamie scenario because you won't except the obvious
answers.
>
>
> > > There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back.
>
> >
>
> > Obviously I already knew that. ;-)
>
>
>
> > > It penetrated about an
>
> > > inch or less.
>
> >
>
> > You don't know that.
>
>
>
> Humes knew that, and he said so.
>
>
>
> > > Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
>
> > > missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, initially speculated, because, like Perry, he had incomplete
>
> > information. He did not know until the following day that the tracheotomy
>
> > had been performed across the bullet wound in the throat.
>
>
>
> Perry had all of the information that was required of him to perform his job, which was trying to save a life.
>
And that was what he was trained to do. He was not trained to distinguish between entrance wounds and exit wounds. There is a reason they use specialists to perform autopsies and don't just ask ER doctors what they think.
>
> > > Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
>
> > > missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, initially speculated, because, like Perry, he had incomplete
>
> > information. He did not know until the following day that the tracheotomy
>
> > had been performed across the bullet wound in the throat.
>
>
>
> Perry had all of the information that was required of him to perform his job, which was trying to save a life.
>
>
>
> > Again, you have
>
> > no way of knowing what he would have initially said if he had known that
>
> > the other one was a bullet wound too.
>
>
>
> Perry's lack of information was both understandable and excusable. Humes failure to contact PH doctors that treated JFK is inexcusable. There can be no innocent explanation nor excuse for that.
>
Humes did contact Perry.
>
> > Again, you have
>
> > no way of knowing what he would have initially said if he had known that
>
> > the other one was a bullet wound too.
>
>
>
> Perry's lack of information was both understandable and excusable. Humes failure to contact PH doctors that treated JFK is inexcusable. There can be no innocent explanation nor excuse for that.
>
>
>
> > > This
>
> > > reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital.
>
>
>
> > Not really, because then you have to explain what happened to the bullet
>
> > in Connally's thigh,
>
>
>
> Was it a bullet or a fragment of a bullet in Connally's thigh? Did a fragment remain?
>
>
>
> > because that one did indeed not go all the way
>
> > through and it was already gone by the time he was in the operating room,
>
> > so it had to have fallen out somewhere.
>
>
>
> Here we enter into the netherworld of CE399. You are supporting a premise that a missile can back out of not only a thigh wound, but align itself perfectly with the hole in Connally's pants leg caused by that missile, and end up on the stretcher without any ER staff noticing it.
Connally's pants were cut off.
>
> > > This
>
> > > reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital.
>
>
>
> > Not really, because then you have to explain what happened to the bullet
>
> > in Connally's thigh,
>
>
>
> Was it a bullet or a fragment of a bullet in Connally's thigh? Did a fragment remain?
>
>
>
> > because that one did indeed not go all the way
>
> > through and it was already gone by the time he was in the operating room,
>
> > so it had to have fallen out somewhere.
>
>
>
> Here we enter into the netherworld of CE399. You are supporting a premise that a missile can back out of not only a thigh wound, but align itself perfectly with the hole in Connally's pants leg caused by that missile, and end up on the stretcher without any ER staff noticing it.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 23, 2012, 10:16:40 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/2012 9:17 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2012 11:14:32 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:03:39 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>>
>>>> If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
>>
>>>> shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
>>
>>>> Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
>>
>>>> precisely Z230.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
>>
>>>> additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>
>>> There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
>>
>>>
>>
>>> considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
>>
>>>
>>
>>> into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
>>
>>
>>
>> The first missile to strike JFK, IMO, was fired from a vantage point
>>
>> somewhere in front of the limo. It has been speculated that perhaps an ice
>>
>> bullet was used with a paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave
>>
>> the entry wound on JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for
>>
>> that missile.
>
> Ice bullet??? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you propose something so outlandish. This is pure Hollywood stuff. Three Days of the Condor to be precise. Just how did these shooters manage to keep their ice bullet from melting away before JFK arrived? Did these guys carry a portable freezer to DP. And why would anyone go to such lengths when a good old fashioned lead bullet would do the job nicely? Absurd doesn't even begin to describe this cockamamie proposal.
>
We didn't make up the ice bullet. Your hero Commander Humes did. So why
> On Monday, August 20, 2012 11:14:32 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:03:39 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>>
>>>> If I am correct in my theory, we have a missed shot circa Z160. A second
>>
>>>> shot enters JFK's neck from the front circa Z210. A third shot enters
>>
>>>> Connally's back at precisely Z224. A fourth shot enters JFK's back at
>>
>>>> precisely Z230.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Based on the premise that shots happened at Z224 and Z230, we have an
>>
>>>> additional shooter firing from a rear vantage point. Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>
>>> There are all sorts of problems with that that you seem not to have
>>
>>>
>>
>>> considered. You're posting separate shots to the front of his throat and
>>
>>>
>>
>>> into his back. Where are the exits for both of those bullets?
>>
>>
>>
>> The first missile to strike JFK, IMO, was fired from a vantage point
>>
>> somewhere in front of the limo. It has been speculated that perhaps an ice
>>
>> bullet was used with a paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave
>>
>> the entry wound on JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for
>>
>> that missile.
>
> Ice bullet??? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you propose something so outlandish. This is pure Hollywood stuff. Three Days of the Condor to be precise. Just how did these shooters manage to keep their ice bullet from melting away before JFK arrived? Did these guys carry a portable freezer to DP. And why would anyone go to such lengths when a good old fashioned lead bullet would do the job nicely? Absurd doesn't even begin to describe this cockamamie proposal.
>
do you take Humes seriously? Little bit of a double standard there.
>> This missile was fired around Z210, as I believe we see a
>>
>> slight indication of duress prior to JFK's disappearance behind the
>>
>> Stemmons sign.
>
> I suppose if you can dream up an ice bullet, imagining you see "duress" isn't such a stretch.
>
>>
>>
>>> Unless you're proposing that the frontal shot exited exactly where the rear
>>
>>> shot entered and the rear shot exited exactly where the frontal shot
>>
>>> entered?
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
> Why not. That makes more sense then an ice bullet.
>>
>>
>>> Surely not; the chances of such an astounding coincidence are astronomically > low. Also there's the problem of him emerging from the sign. The first frame
>>
>>> after the sign in which one of his hands can be seen again is Z223, and
>>
>>> his hand is clearly in a downward motion there. It does not begin to move
>>
>>> upward again until Z224, and that's the very beginning of the continuous
>>
>>> upward motion of both arms, as I said above. He's clearly starting to
>>
>>> react a bit too long after your Z210 shot and a bit too long before your
>>
>>> Z230 shot.
>>
>>
>>
>> If what you're saying is accurate, if JFK's arms begin their upward motion
>>
>> at Z224, then he's reacting simultaneously with Connally, and that can't
>>
>> possibly be true. We know this because Connally's lapel is disrupted at
>>
>> precisely Z224. The neurons that transmit pain and duress to the brain,
>>
>> and the brain's processing of that inforamtion takes time -- not very much
>>
>> time, but an eternity when we're seeing simultaneous reactions by both JFK
>>
>> and JBC at Z224.
>>
> The bullet is alread through the lapel by the time Z224 was exposed. That means the bullet passed through before Z224. JFK's upward arm movement does not begin until Z226, the exact same frame Connally's upward arm movement is seen. JFK's right hand was still moving downward between Z224 and Z225.
John King
Aug 24, 2012, 1:35:43 PM8/24/12
to
In article <fe72063e-1ef6-4a73...@googlegroups.com>,
claim *originated* with you. I did not. And the *wording* of the
sentence in which you used the phrase could indeed be reasonably
interpreted by most English-speakers worldwide as a suggestion that you
believe the use of an ice bullet to have been possible:
"It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave the entry wound on
(and that you *believed* it to be a possibility) to explain the lack of
exit in response to my previous query to you as to why there was no exit
for a frontal throat shot if the back wound was the entry for a
different bullet, and quite obviously I was quite on target to challenge
that *possibility*.
So now that the ice bullet claim has been dealt with, why did that
bullet not exit especially since it struck no bone and thus could not
possibly have been slowed down nearly enough not to exit? *It* *has*
*been* *speculated* (note carefully I didn't say by you) that a lower
caliber weapon was used, thus lower velocity for the bullet. But then
we end up with the same problem as before. If the bullet didn't exit,
where is it? There's not the most meager shred of evidence imaginable
that any type of missile remained lodged anywhere remotely near that
part of his body. Or did it fall out? Then we'd have to have *three*
stretcher bullets, one for the back wound, one for the throat wound, and
one for Connally's thigh. The problems with a non-exit for a frontal
shot to the throat are even more serious than a non-exit for the bullet
entering the back.
> > I find it curious that you propose this without already having provided a
> > well-documented example of it having worked with at least one real victim.
> > This is an extremely tenuous claim you are proposing.
>
> If you enjoy tenuous claims, try reading the WCR and the 26 volumes. It takes
> a long time.
Please quote me verbatim as ever saying in the entire decade that I have
posted to this newsgroup that I believe 100% of the claims in those
volumes, or in the Report. I do not, as I have made absurdly plain in
hundreds of my articles in which I have extensively criticized quite a
few of those claims. And how does that excuse you from one of the most
tenuous claims ever made about the assassination, the ice bullet? That
one's at least as bad as the most tenuous claims in the 26 volumes. If
it's wrong for the WC to make tenuous claims, it's wrong for anyone to
do so, including you. And again, even though the claim did not
originate with you, you obviously believed it as a possibility, or else
you would have written something like this:
"It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave the entry wound on
JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for that missile; this
theory, however, I do not subscribe to."
> > > The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
> > > ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
> > > Perry.
>
> > And you ought to know perfectly well why that is. Dr. Perry did not know
> > about the wound in JFK's back, so naturally he would think the throat
> > wound was an entry. His information was incomplete, so it is unfair to
> > trust his initial opinion completely. You do not know what he would have
> > said had he seen the back wound also.
>
> Frankly, it's a waste of your time to attempt to discredit my observations
> with what you believe someone woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Please quote me verbatim as saying what *I* believe Perry would have
said had he known about the back wound. I did not make any mention of
that. I merely pointed out that *you* have no possible way of knowing
what he would have said had he known about the other wound. Rather
obviously that also means that *I* have no possible way of knowing what
he would have said either. Do you finally understand?
And once again you were quite *obviously* using Perry's observation as
*support* for a frontal entry to the throat. It is *not* support for
that, because his information at the time was too incomplete. Surely
you knew this before you posted it?
> > > Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
> > > table, and missed that wound.
> >
> > And you ought to know why that is also: the bullet wound was obscured by
> > Perry's tracheotomy, so naturally they thought it was a tracheotomy, not
> > a bullet wound.
>
> Okay, let's confirm --- the prosectors had a body in front of them. They
> discover a bullet wound to the back, a wound of entrance. It appears to them
> it has penetrated only a short distance. There is no obvious sign of exit.
> They look at body X-rays and see no missiles. It requires no medical degree
> to think that these doctors should have called the other physicians at PH for
> more information while the body lays on table at the autopsy.
And you ought to know perfectly well why this is also. At the autopsy,
they did not know that the tracheotomy had been performed across a
bullet wound but they *had* already been informed that a bullet had been
found at Parkland. But they also did *not* know that there was *also* a
bullet wound in Connally's thigh with no exit. So at the autopsy they
had no reason to connect the Parkland bullet with Connally. But they
had a bullet wound in Kennedy's body right in front of them that seemed
to have no exit, and there was no bullet still present, so naturally
they assumed that the bullet found at Parkland was the bullet that they
weren't seeing in Kennedy's body. All of this wasn't finally cleared up
until long after the autopsy was over.
Once again, incomplete information lead to the incorrect initial
conclusions. *We* (you and I and every person on this planet) have no
possible way of knowing how different the initial autopsy conclusions
would have been had all this evidence been available from the beginning.
Once again, you are using initial conclusions to support separate
frontal and rear shots, *without* acknowledging exactly *why* those
conclusions were initially made.
> They allow the
> body to be removed, then call Perry the next day, and then guess about a
> connection between two wounds --- one of which they did not examine
> whatsoever.
Exactly. So why did you use that as any type of support whatsoever for
separate frontal and year shots when you knew that already?
> > You have made a poor case for that.
>
> My ideas reconcile with existing evidence better than the SBT does.
They do? In which statements in this thread have you demonstrated that?
Certainly not in any of the statements that I have responded to.
> > > It penetrated about an
> > > inch or less.
> >
> > You don't know that.
>
> Humes knew that, and he said so.
Sigh...and you know *why* he said that. Because he had incomplete
evidence at the *time* he said that. And he did *not* *continue* to say
that once he *did* have the complete evidence.
> > > Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
> > > missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
> >
> > Yes, initially speculated, because, like Perry, he had incomplete
> > information. He did not know until the following day that the tracheotomy
> > had been performed across the bullet wound in the throat.
>
> Perry had all of the information that was required of him to perform his job,
> which was trying to save a life.
Perry's life-saving efforts are a separate issue from his initial
conclusion that the throat wound was an entry.
> > Again, you have
> > no way of knowing what he would have initially said if he had known that
> > the other one was a bullet wound too.
>
> Perry's lack of information was both understandable and excusable.
Exactly. So since you knew that already, why did you even use his
initial conclusion as support for a frontal shot in the first place?
You knew before you posted it that that initial conclusion was flawed
and you knew why it was flawed before you used it to support the frontal
shot. Talk about tenuous evidence. You're at least as bad as the WC,
if not worse.
> Humes
> failure to contact PH doctors that treated JFK is inexcusable. There can be
> no innocent explanation nor excuse for that.
I certainly agree that the autopsy was seriously flawed, although this
was not its most serious flaw. However, I have given a fairly plausible
non-sinister explanation above for this particular flaw. Of course, all
of these blunders might have been averted had the autopsy been done in
Dallas, as it should have by law. Did you know there's also a perfectly
logical non-sinister explanation for the illegal removal of JFK's body
from Texas? I talked about that extensively yesterday in another
article in another thread. And when was that explanation first given,
in tremendous detail? May 18, 1964. Yet to this day I cannot recall
even one conspiracy author mentioning that in any book. These authors
pretend that the explanation never existed and was never made by anyone.
> > > This
> > > reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital.
>
> > Not really, because then you have to explain what happened to the bullet
> > in Connally's thigh,
>
> Was it a bullet or a fragment of a bullet in Connally's thigh? Did a fragment
> remain?
A very small fragment remained, much to small to account for the wound
by itself.
> > because that one did indeed not go all the way
> > through and it was already gone by the time he was in the operating room,
> > so it had to have fallen out somewhere.
>
> Here we enter into the netherworld of CE399. You are supporting a premise
> that a missile can back out of not only a thigh wound,
Did you yourself not suggest that very thing for the bullet in Kennedy's
back? Did you not suggest that CE 399 fell out (or backed out, if you
prefer) from Kennedy? Why yes you did:
"There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back. It penetrated about an
inch or less. Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held
Quite obviously you believe it more likely than not that CE 399 came out
of Kennedy's back. Strange that that's so plausible to you, but then
you suddenly do a 180� about face about the idea of a bullet falling out
of a thigh.
If it's believable that a bullet entered a person's back, only
penetrated a short distance, and later fell out on that person's
stretcher at the hospital, then it's equally believable that a bullet
that enters a person's thigh, and only penetrated a short why, might
also fall out on that person's stretcher. Which part of the body the
bullet enters is irrelevant.
Strange that you don't think it at all a "netherworld" when such a
bullet works its way out of Kennedy's back, but it's a "netherworld"
when a bullet works its way out of Connally's thigh.
And you call the WC's claims tenuous. That is certainly the one
culinary implement accusing the other of being the same hue.
> but align itself
> perfectly with the hole in Connally's pants leg caused by that missile,
Which simply depends on the trajectory of the bullet.
> and
> end up on the stretcher without any ER staff noticing it. They could have
> examined the pants leg, as well as Connally's cuff, but alas, it was much
> more important to have the blood-stained clothing laundered.
Do you have any idea who made that decision and why? I do not. This is
what Arlen Specter said years later on the matter:
**********
�We had a terrible time finding where his clothes were,� Specter
recalls. You know what happened to his clothes? His clothes were taken
off in the hospital, were put in a bag, were given to the Secret
Service, were taken back and were left in somebody�s closet in
Washington. Finally somebody started to look for them on Connally�s
staff and they were brought back to Austin. It was decided his clothes
would look good in the Texas Museum and they dry-cleaned them. We were
astonished.�
**********
Note carefully that I am not claiming Specter's explanation to be true
or false. I have no idea. But his explanation seems to be that it was
not anyone in the federal government, but instead was possibly someone
such as a curator in some museum in Texas, and quite some time after the
assassination, who made the actual decision to have the clothes
laundered. But unless his explanation is *proven* to be false, then
there is at least a *possibility* that it *might* be true, correct?
> Connally must
> have held some connection to that particular set of clothing to want to wear
> them again.
Now wait a minute, here you do indeed seem to be suggesting (and
although unlike the ice bullet, a claim I first saw years ago and so was
perfectly aware did not originate with you long before you told me) that
Connally himself made the decision to have the clothes laundered. Can
you produce the most meager shred of evidence imaginable to support
that? You are literally the first person I've ever *seen* make such a
suggestion, even just as a possibility, but once again I have no idea if
you *are* the first to suggest it. And that's just plain silliness to
say that he might have "want[ed] to wear them again" since he never did
wear them again. They seem to have ended up in a museum in Texas, not
back in his closet.
> > > Of course
> > > if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more
> > > than
> > > just Oswald firing.
> >
> > "If" is the operative word. But the evidence isn't too strong for that,
> > and you are failing to add any strength to it.
>
> I'm curious to hear your explanation about the Tague wound.
One shot missed the limo entirely. You have helped brilliantly to
support that by your extremely *tenuous* claims of separate frontal and
rear shots. In fact, you support it far better than the WC ever did.
Thank you. ;-)
markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
> > Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
> > ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
>
> I make no claim to ice bullets. I merely stated that the claim has been made.
> Yet you drone endlessly that it's mine. It is not.
Please quote me verbatim as specifically stating that I believed the
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
> > Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
> > ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
>
> I make no claim to ice bullets. I merely stated that the claim has been made.
> Yet you drone endlessly that it's mine. It is not.
claim *originated* with you. I did not. And the *wording* of the
sentence in which you used the phrase could indeed be reasonably
interpreted by most English-speakers worldwide as a suggestion that you
believe the use of an ice bullet to have been possible:
"It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for that missile."
Quite obviously you were suggesting an ice bullet as a *possibility*
(and that you *believed* it to be a possibility) to explain the lack of
exit in response to my previous query to you as to why there was no exit
for a frontal throat shot if the back wound was the entry for a
different bullet, and quite obviously I was quite on target to challenge
that *possibility*.
So now that the ice bullet claim has been dealt with, why did that
bullet not exit especially since it struck no bone and thus could not
possibly have been slowed down nearly enough not to exit? *It* *has*
*been* *speculated* (note carefully I didn't say by you) that a lower
caliber weapon was used, thus lower velocity for the bullet. But then
we end up with the same problem as before. If the bullet didn't exit,
where is it? There's not the most meager shred of evidence imaginable
that any type of missile remained lodged anywhere remotely near that
part of his body. Or did it fall out? Then we'd have to have *three*
stretcher bullets, one for the back wound, one for the throat wound, and
one for Connally's thigh. The problems with a non-exit for a frontal
shot to the throat are even more serious than a non-exit for the bullet
entering the back.
> > I find it curious that you propose this without already having provided a
> > well-documented example of it having worked with at least one real victim.
> > This is an extremely tenuous claim you are proposing.
>
> If you enjoy tenuous claims, try reading the WCR and the 26 volumes. It takes
> a long time.
posted to this newsgroup that I believe 100% of the claims in those
volumes, or in the Report. I do not, as I have made absurdly plain in
hundreds of my articles in which I have extensively criticized quite a
few of those claims. And how does that excuse you from one of the most
tenuous claims ever made about the assassination, the ice bullet? That
one's at least as bad as the most tenuous claims in the 26 volumes. If
it's wrong for the WC to make tenuous claims, it's wrong for anyone to
do so, including you. And again, even though the claim did not
originate with you, you obviously believed it as a possibility, or else
you would have written something like this:
"It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for that missile; this
theory, however, I do not subscribe to."
> > > The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
> > > ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
> > > Perry.
>
> > And you ought to know perfectly well why that is. Dr. Perry did not know
> > about the wound in JFK's back, so naturally he would think the throat
> > wound was an entry. His information was incomplete, so it is unfair to
> > trust his initial opinion completely. You do not know what he would have
> > said had he seen the back wound also.
>
> Frankly, it's a waste of your time to attempt to discredit my observations
> with what you believe someone woulda, coulda, shoulda.
said had he known about the back wound. I did not make any mention of
that. I merely pointed out that *you* have no possible way of knowing
what he would have said had he known about the other wound. Rather
obviously that also means that *I* have no possible way of knowing what
he would have said either. Do you finally understand?
And once again you were quite *obviously* using Perry's observation as
*support* for a frontal entry to the throat. It is *not* support for
that, because his information at the time was too incomplete. Surely
you knew this before you posted it?
> > > Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
> > > table, and missed that wound.
> >
> > And you ought to know why that is also: the bullet wound was obscured by
> > Perry's tracheotomy, so naturally they thought it was a tracheotomy, not
> > a bullet wound.
>
> Okay, let's confirm --- the prosectors had a body in front of them. They
> discover a bullet wound to the back, a wound of entrance. It appears to them
> it has penetrated only a short distance. There is no obvious sign of exit.
> They look at body X-rays and see no missiles. It requires no medical degree
> to think that these doctors should have called the other physicians at PH for
> more information while the body lays on table at the autopsy.
they did not know that the tracheotomy had been performed across a
bullet wound but they *had* already been informed that a bullet had been
found at Parkland. But they also did *not* know that there was *also* a
bullet wound in Connally's thigh with no exit. So at the autopsy they
had no reason to connect the Parkland bullet with Connally. But they
had a bullet wound in Kennedy's body right in front of them that seemed
to have no exit, and there was no bullet still present, so naturally
they assumed that the bullet found at Parkland was the bullet that they
weren't seeing in Kennedy's body. All of this wasn't finally cleared up
until long after the autopsy was over.
Once again, incomplete information lead to the incorrect initial
conclusions. *We* (you and I and every person on this planet) have no
possible way of knowing how different the initial autopsy conclusions
would have been had all this evidence been available from the beginning.
Once again, you are using initial conclusions to support separate
frontal and rear shots, *without* acknowledging exactly *why* those
conclusions were initially made.
> They allow the
> body to be removed, then call Perry the next day, and then guess about a
> connection between two wounds --- one of which they did not examine
> whatsoever.
separate frontal and year shots when you knew that already?
> > You have made a poor case for that.
>
> My ideas reconcile with existing evidence better than the SBT does.
Certainly not in any of the statements that I have responded to.
> > > It penetrated about an
> > > inch or less.
> >
> > You don't know that.
>
> Humes knew that, and he said so.
evidence at the *time* he said that. And he did *not* *continue* to say
that once he *did* have the complete evidence.
> > > Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held a
> > > missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
> >
> > Yes, initially speculated, because, like Perry, he had incomplete
> > information. He did not know until the following day that the tracheotomy
> > had been performed across the bullet wound in the throat.
>
> Perry had all of the information that was required of him to perform his job,
> which was trying to save a life.
conclusion that the throat wound was an entry.
> > Again, you have
> > no way of knowing what he would have initially said if he had known that
> > the other one was a bullet wound too.
>
> Perry's lack of information was both understandable and excusable.
initial conclusion as support for a frontal shot in the first place?
You knew before you posted it that that initial conclusion was flawed
and you knew why it was flawed before you used it to support the frontal
shot. Talk about tenuous evidence. You're at least as bad as the WC,
if not worse.
> Humes
> failure to contact PH doctors that treated JFK is inexcusable. There can be
> no innocent explanation nor excuse for that.
was not its most serious flaw. However, I have given a fairly plausible
non-sinister explanation above for this particular flaw. Of course, all
of these blunders might have been averted had the autopsy been done in
Dallas, as it should have by law. Did you know there's also a perfectly
logical non-sinister explanation for the illegal removal of JFK's body
from Texas? I talked about that extensively yesterday in another
article in another thread. And when was that explanation first given,
in tremendous detail? May 18, 1964. Yet to this day I cannot recall
even one conspiracy author mentioning that in any book. These authors
pretend that the explanation never existed and was never made by anyone.
> > > This
> > > reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital.
>
> > Not really, because then you have to explain what happened to the bullet
> > in Connally's thigh,
>
> Was it a bullet or a fragment of a bullet in Connally's thigh? Did a fragment
> remain?
by itself.
> > because that one did indeed not go all the way
> > through and it was already gone by the time he was in the operating room,
> > so it had to have fallen out somewhere.
>
> Here we enter into the netherworld of CE399. You are supporting a premise
> that a missile can back out of not only a thigh wound,
back? Did you not suggest that CE 399 fell out (or backed out, if you
prefer) from Kennedy? Why yes you did:
"There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back. It penetrated about an
inch or less. Humes intially speculated that this wound could have held
a missile that lodged, and worked its way back out of the entry site.
This reconciles nicely with CE399's appearance at Parkland Hospital. Of
course if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have
more than just Oswals [sic] firing."
Quite obviously you believe it more likely than not that CE 399 came out
of Kennedy's back. Strange that that's so plausible to you, but then
you suddenly do a 180� about face about the idea of a bullet falling out
of a thigh.
If it's believable that a bullet entered a person's back, only
penetrated a short distance, and later fell out on that person's
stretcher at the hospital, then it's equally believable that a bullet
that enters a person's thigh, and only penetrated a short why, might
also fall out on that person's stretcher. Which part of the body the
bullet enters is irrelevant.
Strange that you don't think it at all a "netherworld" when such a
bullet works its way out of Kennedy's back, but it's a "netherworld"
when a bullet works its way out of Connally's thigh.
And you call the WC's claims tenuous. That is certainly the one
culinary implement accusing the other of being the same hue.
> but align itself
> perfectly with the hole in Connally's pants leg caused by that missile,
> and
> end up on the stretcher without any ER staff noticing it. They could have
> examined the pants leg, as well as Connally's cuff, but alas, it was much
> more important to have the blood-stained clothing laundered.
what Arlen Specter said years later on the matter:
**********
�We had a terrible time finding where his clothes were,� Specter
recalls. You know what happened to his clothes? His clothes were taken
off in the hospital, were put in a bag, were given to the Secret
Service, were taken back and were left in somebody�s closet in
Washington. Finally somebody started to look for them on Connally�s
staff and they were brought back to Austin. It was decided his clothes
would look good in the Texas Museum and they dry-cleaned them. We were
astonished.�
**********
Note carefully that I am not claiming Specter's explanation to be true
or false. I have no idea. But his explanation seems to be that it was
not anyone in the federal government, but instead was possibly someone
such as a curator in some museum in Texas, and quite some time after the
assassination, who made the actual decision to have the clothes
laundered. But unless his explanation is *proven* to be false, then
there is at least a *possibility* that it *might* be true, correct?
> Connally must
> have held some connection to that particular set of clothing to want to wear
> them again.
although unlike the ice bullet, a claim I first saw years ago and so was
perfectly aware did not originate with you long before you told me) that
Connally himself made the decision to have the clothes laundered. Can
you produce the most meager shred of evidence imaginable to support
that? You are literally the first person I've ever *seen* make such a
suggestion, even just as a possibility, but once again I have no idea if
you *are* the first to suggest it. And that's just plain silliness to
say that he might have "want[ed] to wear them again" since he never did
wear them again. They seem to have ended up in a museum in Texas, not
back in his closet.
> > > Of course
> > > if CE399 caused that back wound, and then fell back out, we have more
> > > than
> > > just Oswald firing.
> >
> > "If" is the operative word. But the evidence isn't too strong for that,
> > and you are failing to add any strength to it.
>
> I'm curious to hear your explanation about the Tague wound.
support that by your extremely *tenuous* claims of separate frontal and
rear shots. In fact, you support it far better than the WC ever did.
Thank you. ;-)
John King
Aug 24, 2012, 1:36:35 PM8/24/12
to
In article <1e61e60d-8021-436f...@googlegroups.com>,
Lol, I didn't even think of that when I too was saying in my other
article that I found this claim to be quite implausible: how would they
keep the ice frozen long enough to use it, especially since no assassin
would have any possible way of knowing *exactly* *what* *time* the
motorcade would be passing?
Good one JC. ;-)
> ? The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
> >
> > ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
> >
> > Perry. Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
> >
> > table, and missed that wound. Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
> >
> > the frontal neck wound.
> >
> Perry was an ER doctor who was trained to patch up shooting victims, not
> determine the cause of their wounds. That requires a different area of
> expertise.
Exactly. To use him, of all people, to support a frontal shot to the
throat is irresponsible. And as I said in one of my other articles, to
be added to this is that he needed twice as much evidence as he had to
have an ice bullet's chance in hell of arriving at the correct
conclusion. When you know about a bullet wound in one part of a
person's body, but don't know that there's another bullet wound on the
opposite side of the body, you only have fifty percent of the evidence.
> > > There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To
> > > make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the
> > > front of his
> >
> > > body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
> >
> >
> >
> > There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back. It penetrated about an
> >
> > inch or less.
>
> So in addition to an ice bullet in the front, you are proposing that the rear
> shooter used such an under powered bullet that it would only pentetrate a
> couple inches into soft tissue and then magically fall out. That's the stuff.
> An ice bullet from the front and a weak bullet from the back. That makes a
> lot more sense then somebody just shot JFK in the back with a standard rifle
> bullet that was more than capable of passing completely through a human
> torso. (Two actually).
And are there documented cases of two people being injured by one
bullet? Many. I remember years ago doing a Google search on that and
in less than ten seconds finding several such cases, and these were all
*proven* cases of this happening, not merely alleged.
article that I found this claim to be quite implausible: how would they
keep the ice frozen long enough to use it, especially since no assassin
would have any possible way of knowing *exactly* *what* *time* the
motorcade would be passing?
Good one JC. ;-)
> ? The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
> >
> > ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
> >
> > Perry. Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
> >
> > table, and missed that wound. Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
> >
> > the frontal neck wound.
> >
> Perry was an ER doctor who was trained to patch up shooting victims, not
> determine the cause of their wounds. That requires a different area of
> expertise.
throat is irresponsible. And as I said in one of my other articles, to
be added to this is that he needed twice as much evidence as he had to
have an ice bullet's chance in hell of arriving at the correct
conclusion. When you know about a bullet wound in one part of a
person's body, but don't know that there's another bullet wound on the
opposite side of the body, you only have fifty percent of the evidence.
> > > There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To
> > > make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the
> > > front of his
> >
> > > body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
> >
> >
> >
> > There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back. It penetrated about an
> >
> > inch or less.
>
> So in addition to an ice bullet in the front, you are proposing that the rear
> shooter used such an under powered bullet that it would only pentetrate a
> couple inches into soft tissue and then magically fall out. That's the stuff.
> An ice bullet from the front and a weak bullet from the back. That makes a
> lot more sense then somebody just shot JFK in the back with a standard rifle
> bullet that was more than capable of passing completely through a human
> torso. (Two actually).
bullet? Many. I remember years ago doing a Google search on that and
in less than ten seconds finding several such cases, and these were all
*proven* cases of this happening, not merely alleged.
Research
Aug 24, 2012, 11:09:27 PM8/24/12
to
I'm SOOO SOOORY. I LIED. I said I was done with is thread, but I guess I
just didn't think I had anything else to say. But these remarks are so
retar--- That I had to return one mo time. Call me a LNer if you want to.
news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Heere is the CORRECT DIRECTIONS. Scroll back to the top and re-read this
post. And ask yourself where in it did he say "TURNED ALL THE WAY AROUND."
He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
>
>> But at Z226 Connally
>> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder does
>> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
>
> Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
> turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
> to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
Stop arguing with yourself. You are tring to count oranges as lemons. That
is NOT what I said and that is NOT what Connally said either. Nobody said
he turned all the way around. You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
Connally turned all the way around. But you must have invented a claim to
dispell. A common LNer tactic. Then you used the same ploy I purposed was
a LNer lie.
Just cause Connally DID have a head movement, does NOT mean he turn his
head to the rear, as he said he did. What you and the rest of the nutters
claim is a head movement as turning around. When IN FACT it is not. Then
you falsely accuse me of being irgorant. (pun in case you did not get that
just now)
You refer to the head movement as body movement. Connally was more
descriptive than that. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder.
Indicating he turned his head and possibally his shoulder, to look.
>You need very badly to watch it again, much more
> closely than you ever have before in your entire life, at multiple
> speeds. Here, I'll help you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBCfxIqP-s
>
> Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
> before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> even remotely close to all the way around to the rear.
I don't have to look at your example, mam. I've seen the film as much as
you. Yes'em. I have seen the film.
>As he emerges from the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to
>the right.
Z222 shows Connally had turn his head to the right. It also shows Greer
looking in the mirror at the rear compartment. Z223 shows Connally had his
head turned but not any further than Z222. Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
the lapel flip. Z227 would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel
flip, cause the limosine image is completely blurred. But does show
Connally looking to his left, sitting up straight and apparently
uninjured. Z228 shows the same. Except Connally's shirt can't be seen
because the lapel flip is still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem
to show a reaction.
> Not all
> the way around to the rear. Partway to the right. He then begins to turn
> his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
Again No he doesn't. Z226 is the lapel flip and was incorrectly interputed
as the moment Connally was hit. Contrary to you next hyposis, Connally is
still sitting up straight at Z230. And holding his hat in his right hand,
which he would not be able to do had his wrist been shattered.
> Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226.
You must be reading in a chapter that wasn't written; yet. Connally
doesn't turn his head partway. To where? He only had a head movement. Not
a turning movement, as he said. He doen't have a turning movement until
much later in the film to are trying to quote. That was my point! Z233
shows Connally reacting to the shot. His right shoulder dropped and his
head turned further to his left and with a forward movement. Z234 shows
Connally's head was turning right and still moving forward. Z235
Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally begins
he TURN to look at Kennedy. Nearly a 1/2 second after the LNers claim
Connally had been shot.
Maybe you should take another page out of the Posner book. Cause Posner
sure got this one wrong.
just didn't think I had anything else to say. But these remarks are so
retar--- That I had to return one mo time. Call me a LNer if you want to.
news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
post. And ask yourself where in it did he say "TURNED ALL THE WAY AROUND."
He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
>
>> But at Z226 Connally
>> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder does
>> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
>
> Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
> turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
> to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
is NOT what I said and that is NOT what Connally said either. Nobody said
he turned all the way around. You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
Connally turned all the way around. But you must have invented a claim to
dispell. A common LNer tactic. Then you used the same ploy I purposed was
a LNer lie.
Just cause Connally DID have a head movement, does NOT mean he turn his
head to the rear, as he said he did. What you and the rest of the nutters
claim is a head movement as turning around. When IN FACT it is not. Then
you falsely accuse me of being irgorant. (pun in case you did not get that
just now)
You refer to the head movement as body movement. Connally was more
descriptive than that. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder.
Indicating he turned his head and possibally his shoulder, to look.
>You need very badly to watch it again, much more
> closely than you ever have before in your entire life, at multiple
> speeds. Here, I'll help you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBCfxIqP-s
>
> Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
> before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> even remotely close to all the way around to the rear.
you. Yes'em. I have seen the film.
>As he emerges from the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to
>the right.
looking in the mirror at the rear compartment. Z223 shows Connally had his
head turned but not any further than Z222. Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
the lapel flip. Z227 would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel
flip, cause the limosine image is completely blurred. But does show
Connally looking to his left, sitting up straight and apparently
uninjured. Z228 shows the same. Except Connally's shirt can't be seen
because the lapel flip is still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem
to show a reaction.
> Not all
> the way around to the rear. Partway to the right. He then begins to turn
> his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
as the moment Connally was hit. Contrary to you next hyposis, Connally is
still sitting up straight at Z230. And holding his hat in his right hand,
which he would not be able to do had his wrist been shattered.
> Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226.
doesn't turn his head partway. To where? He only had a head movement. Not
a turning movement, as he said. He doen't have a turning movement until
much later in the film to are trying to quote. That was my point! Z233
shows Connally reacting to the shot. His right shoulder dropped and his
head turned further to his left and with a forward movement. Z234 shows
Connally's head was turning right and still moving forward. Z235
Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally begins
he TURN to look at Kennedy. Nearly a 1/2 second after the LNers claim
Connally had been shot.
Maybe you should take another page out of the Posner book. Cause Posner
sure got this one wrong.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 24, 2012, 11:11:08 PM8/24/12
to
Mythbusters show where they actually produced and shot ice bullets to
test the theory. How did they do that when you said it is physically
impossible? Was there a refrigerator plugged in up on the grassy knoll?
> Good one JC. ;-)
>
>> ? The nature of that wound was one of entry, and that's the
>>>
>>> ONLY medical opinion we have officially, and it was issued by Dr. Malcom
>>>
>>> Perry. Recall that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were all around the autopsy
>>>
>>> table, and missed that wound. Anyway, no exit for the bullet that caused
>>>
>>> the frontal neck wound.
>>>
>> Perry was an ER doctor who was trained to patch up shooting victims, not
>> determine the cause of their wounds. That requires a different area of
>> expertise.
>
> Exactly. To use him, of all people, to support a frontal shot to the
> throat is irresponsible. And as I said in one of my other articles, to
throat, bounced off a vertebra and exited the top of the head.
> be added to this is that he needed twice as much evidence as he had to
> have an ice bullet's chance in hell of arriving at the correct
> conclusion. When you know about a bullet wound in one part of a
> person's body, but don't know that there's another bullet wound on the
> opposite side of the body, you only have fifty percent of the evidence.
>
>>>> There's no credible evidence that either bullet lodged in his body. To
>>>> make > your scenario work you'd have to have four wounds, two in the
>>>> front of his
>>>
>>>> body and two in the back. There would have to be an entrance in his back
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There indeed was a wound of entry on JFK's back. It penetrated about an
>>>
>>> inch or less.
>>
>> So in addition to an ice bullet in the front, you are proposing that the rear
>> shooter used such an under powered bullet that it would only pentetrate a
>> couple inches into soft tissue and then magically fall out. That's the stuff.
>> An ice bullet from the front and a weak bullet from the back. That makes a
>> lot more sense then somebody just shot JFK in the back with a standard rifle
>> bullet that was more than capable of passing completely through a human
>> torso. (Two actually).
>
> And are there documented cases of two people being injured by one
> bullet? Many. I remember years ago doing a Google search on that and
> in less than ten seconds finding several such cases, and these were all
> *proven* cases of this happening, not merely alleged.
>
bullet? We have Entwhistle case up here where the husband shot his wife
who was holding the baby and wounded both with one bullet.
One of my friends was on the grand jury and had to view the photos.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 24, 2012, 11:11:34 PM8/24/12
to
On 8/24/2012 1:35 PM, John King wrote:
> In article <fe72063e-1ef6-4a73...@googlegroups.com>,
> markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>>> Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
>>> ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
>>
>> I make no claim to ice bullets. I merely stated that the claim has been made.
>> Yet you drone endlessly that it's mine. It is not.
>
> Please quote me verbatim as specifically stating that I believed the
> claim *originated* with you. I did not. And the *wording* of the
> sentence in which you used the phrase could indeed be reasonably
> interpreted by most English-speakers worldwide as a suggestion that you
> believe the use of an ice bullet to have been possible:
>
> "It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
> paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave the entry wound on
> JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for that missile."
>
That was not the original ice bullet theory. The original ice bullet
> In article <fe72063e-1ef6-4a73...@googlegroups.com>,
> markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:27:54 PM UTC-5, John King wrote:
>>> Do you have some sort of credible documentation that
>>> ice bullets can do anything even remotely like what you claim?
>>
>> I make no claim to ice bullets. I merely stated that the claim has been made.
>> Yet you drone endlessly that it's mine. It is not.
>
> Please quote me verbatim as specifically stating that I believed the
> claim *originated* with you. I did not. And the *wording* of the
> sentence in which you used the phrase could indeed be reasonably
> interpreted by most English-speakers worldwide as a suggestion that you
> believe the use of an ice bullet to have been possible:
>
> "It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
> paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave the entry wound on
> JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for that missile."
>
theory was proposed by Dr. Humes to explain the shallow back wound.
> Quite obviously you were suggesting an ice bullet as a *possibility*
> (and that you *believed* it to be a possibility) to explain the lack of
> exit in response to my previous query to you as to why there was no exit
> for a frontal throat shot if the back wound was the entry for a
> different bullet, and quite obviously I was quite on target to challenge
> that *possibility*.
>
wound from the back shot.
> So now that the ice bullet claim has been dealt with, why did that
> bullet not exit especially since it struck no bone and thus could not
a vertebra.
> possibly have been slowed down nearly enough not to exit? *It* *has*
> *been* *speculated* (note carefully I didn't say by you) that a lower
> caliber weapon was used, thus lower velocity for the bullet. But then
> we end up with the same problem as before. If the bullet didn't exit,
> where is it? There's not the most meager shred of evidence imaginable
CE 399. What are you, some kind of conspiracy monger?
> that any type of missile remained lodged anywhere remotely near that
> part of his body. Or did it fall out? Then we'd have to have *three*
> stretcher bullets, one for the back wound, one for the throat wound, and
> one for Connally's thigh. The problems with a non-exit for a frontal
> shot to the throat are even more serious than a non-exit for the bullet
> entering the back.
>
>>> I find it curious that you propose this without already having provided a
>>> well-documented example of it having worked with at least one real victim.
>>> This is an extremely tenuous claim you are proposing.
>>
>> If you enjoy tenuous claims, try reading the WCR and the 26 volumes. It takes
>> a long time.
>
> Please quote me verbatim as ever saying in the entire decade that I have
> posted to this newsgroup that I believe 100% of the claims in those
> volumes, or in the Report. I do not, as I have made absurdly plain in
> hundreds of my articles in which I have extensively criticized quite a
> few of those claims. And how does that excuse you from one of the most
> tenuous claims ever made about the assassination, the ice bullet? That
> one's at least as bad as the most tenuous claims in the 26 volumes. If
> it's wrong for the WC to make tenuous claims, it's wrong for anyone to
> do so, including you. And again, even though the claim did not
> originate with you, you obviously believed it as a possibility, or else
> you would have written something like this:
>
> "It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
> paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave the entry wound on
> JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for that missile; this
> theory, however, I do not subscribe to."
>
surgery to remove bullets?
us what it eventually hit.
Research
Aug 26, 2012, 5:18:26 PM8/26/12
to
Sorry there John, I wasn't avoiding your comment, I simply missed your
comment here.
news:caeruleo-FC3988...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
I don't know where you got this Connally interview. It's not exactly the
one I was quoting. I got mine from the history channels "Who shot JFK."
But it doesn't matter, cause your interview statement said it all. In your
interrpution, Connally said "the sound appeared to come from over my right
shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder."
He said the had turned (meaning he turned his body), not a just simple
head movement as you claimed Connally did at Z226. Kennedy was showing
signs of being hit by then. But Connally was not. So the single bullet
theory doesn't work. That is if you can see the truth. Z222 shows Connally
Yeah well try to keep up. Read slower. (ii)
To start with, the theory of a
> single bullet did not originate with Hoover. Hoover initially thought
> that Connally was hit with a separate bullet from the two which struck
> Kennedy, i.e. that all three shots struck someone in the limo and that
> none of them missed the limo entirely.
Yeah, that is what he told LBJ, that he first thought that in the recorded
phone conversation on the 29th. But then he also told LBJ that both were
shot by a single bullet. This is way before Spector entered the picture.
Spector just tried to steal the credit for the theory, as most politicans
do. But it was Hoover who spread the lie.
Secondly, that Hoover lied about
> many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
> true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
>
> And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
> proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
> not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
>
When some one bluntly claims Connally was shot at Z226, then they have
made a false assumption. Which by Webster is a lie. And Hoover was the
first to spread it. Falsely.
comment here.
news:caeruleo-FC3988...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
one I was quoting. I got mine from the history channels "Who shot JFK."
But it doesn't matter, cause your interview statement said it all. In your
interrpution, Connally said "the sound appeared to come from over my right
shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder."
He said the had turned (meaning he turned his body), not a just simple
head movement as you claimed Connally did at Z226. Kennedy was showing
signs of being hit by then. But Connally was not. So the single bullet
theory doesn't work. That is if you can see the truth. Z222 shows Connally
had turn his head to the right. It also shows Greer looking in the mirror
at the rear compartment. Z223 shows Connally had his head turned but not
any further than Z222. Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is the lapel flip. Z227
would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel flip, cause the
limosine image is completely blurred. But does show Connally looking to
his left, sitting up straight and apparently uninjured. Z228 shows the
same. Except Connally's shirt can't be seen because the lapel flip is
still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem to show a reaction.
at the rear compartment. Z223 shows Connally had his head turned but not
any further than Z222. Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is the lapel flip. Z227
would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel flip, cause the
limosine image is completely blurred. But does show Connally looking to
his left, sitting up straight and apparently uninjured. Z228 shows the
same. Except Connally's shirt can't be seen because the lapel flip is
still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem to show a reaction.
To start with, the theory of a
> single bullet did not originate with Hoover. Hoover initially thought
> that Connally was hit with a separate bullet from the two which struck
> Kennedy, i.e. that all three shots struck someone in the limo and that
> none of them missed the limo entirely.
phone conversation on the 29th. But then he also told LBJ that both were
shot by a single bullet. This is way before Spector entered the picture.
Spector just tried to steal the credit for the theory, as most politicans
do. But it was Hoover who spread the lie.
Secondly, that Hoover lied about
> many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
> true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
>
> And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
> proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
> not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
>
made a false assumption. Which by Webster is a lie. And Hoover was the
first to spread it. Falsely.
Research
Aug 26, 2012, 5:19:01 PM8/26/12
to
news:5037c25c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Well this is almost the most purposstuious I have ever read. <;-) LOL. How
would a gunman keep the bullets from melting? Laughable, but of course. I
thought the LNers had covered that when Hoover invented the SBT. In
Kenney's back out his throat. Another in the BOH and out the front. That's
just as laughable too. 1:-)
would a gunman keep the bullets from melting? Laughable, but of course. I
thought the LNers had covered that when Hoover invented the SBT. In
Kenney's back out his throat. Another in the BOH and out the front. That's
just as laughable too. 1:-)
bigdog
Aug 26, 2012, 11:59:39 PM8/26/12
to
Ridge in which Vicky Weaver was killed by a sniper's bullet which also hit
Kevin Harris in the chest. The bullet also passed through a door.
bigdog
Aug 27, 2012, 12:04:39 AM8/27/12
to
>
>
> Secondly, that Hoover lied about
>
> > many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
>
> > true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
>
> >
>
> > And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
>
> > proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
>
> > not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
>
> >
>
>
>
> When some one bluntly claims Connally was shot at Z226, then they have
>
> made a false assumption. Which by Webster is a lie. And Hoover was the
>
> first to spread it. Falsely.
What is your source for stating that Hoover claimed JBC was shot at Z226?
>
> Secondly, that Hoover lied about
>
> > many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
>
> > true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
>
> >
>
> > And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
>
> > proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
>
> > not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
>
> >
>
>
>
> When some one bluntly claims Connally was shot at Z226, then they have
>
> made a false assumption. Which by Webster is a lie. And Hoover was the
>
> first to spread it. Falsely.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 27, 2012, 4:23:39 PM8/27/12
to
freezing?
> thought the LNers had covered that when Hoover invented the SBT. In
damn stinkin SBT. Hoover said three shots, three hits.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 27, 2012, 4:24:54 PM8/27/12
to
several interviews and was misquoted often. I wrote an article about
which includes the audio of his earliest statement.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
> But it doesn't matter, cause your interview statement said it all. In your
> interrpution, Connally said "the sound appeared to come from over my right
> shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder."
>
authors misuse or misquote eyewitness testimony. It is bad enough that
eyewitness testimony is already acknowledged to be the most unreliable
form of evidence. But it is made worse when sloppy researchers misquote
eyewitness testimony to support insupportable conclusions. But it is even
worse when a researcher simply makes up an eyewitness statement from his
imagination in order to support his pre-conceived conclusion. On page 214
Jack White lists his observations of the Zapruder film which he thinks
prove that the film is a fake. In Observation 5, Jack White states that,
"Connally said he turned to his left to look at the President, then turned
to his right. The film does not show this." Jack White does not provide
any footnotes for his chapter, so the reader can not find out where this
statement came from. After repeated questioning Jack finally admitted that
he had based that on an article by Milicent Cranor. He did not bother to
fact check it himself.
> He said the had turned (meaning he turned his body), not a just simple
> head movement as you claimed Connally did at Z226. Kennedy was showing
> signs of being hit by then. But Connally was not. So the single bullet
> theory doesn't work. That is if you can see the truth. Z222 shows Connally
a WC defender took the time to think it through it might be possible to
come up with some type of SBT which would work.
> had turn his head to the right. It also shows Greer looking in the mirror
> at the rear compartment. Z223 shows Connally had his head turned but not
> any further than Z222. Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is the lapel flip. Z227
at Z-224.
> would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel flip, cause the
where Connally is hidden behind the sign.
> limosine image is completely blurred. But does show Connally looking to
> his left, sitting up straight and apparently uninjured. Z228 shows the
chose for the shot jiggle frames?
three shots, three hits.
> To start with, the theory of a
>> single bullet did not originate with Hoover. Hoover initially thought
>> that Connally was hit with a separate bullet from the two which struck
>> Kennedy, i.e. that all three shots struck someone in the limo and that
>> none of them missed the limo entirely.
>
> Yeah, that is what he told LBJ, that he first thought that in the recorded
> phone conversation on the 29th. But then he also told LBJ that both were
> shot by a single bullet. This is way before Spector entered the picture.
revise history.
> Spector just tried to steal the credit for the theory, as most politicans
> do. But it was Hoover who spread the lie.
>
> Secondly, that Hoover lied about
>> many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
>> true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
>>
>> And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
>> proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
>> not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
>>
>
> When some one bluntly claims Connally was shot at Z226, then they have
> made a false assumption. Which by Webster is a lie. And Hoover was the
> first to spread it. Falsely.
>
Single Bullet Theory when he never accepted it?
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Aug 27, 2012, 4:32:13 PM8/27/12
to
John King
Aug 28, 2012, 5:14:56 PM8/28/12
to
In article <5037...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"retar---."
> That I had to return one mo time. Call me a LNer if you want to.
I shall refrain, since in my experience an approximately equal
percentage of CTs and LNs misrepresent the evidence. ;-)
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
You most certainly said it, however, in direct reply to me on August 22:
"Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking over
his shoulder but this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226."
But whether he did or did not turn "all the way around" much later than
Z226, that's not where he himself was talking about, and he never
mentioned that later turn.
> He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
> look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
> YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
Excuse me, quote me *verbatim*, meaning in the *exact* words I wrote in
any article I've posted during the past twelve months, saying that *that*
turn isn't shown in the Zapruder film. You will be unable to locate any
article within that time-frame in which I said anything even remotely like
that. I have instead, quite recently, and in direct reply to you, said
clearly that *that* turn *is* plainly visible in the film. That's the
exact turn of his head to the right that I've been talking about that
occurs before he disappears behind the sign, and his head is still turned
to the right just as he is starting to emerge from behind the sign. Just
a few frames later he turns his head straight forward and suddenly begins
to jerk violently in exactly the same frame, Z226, that JFK jerks
violently. And is this the first reply to you in which I said that the
film *does* show his head turning to the right *before* the sign? Sure
isn't. On that same day, August 22, I said to you:
"Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
even remotely close to all the way around to the rear. ?As he emerges from
the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
the way around to the rear. ?Partway to the right. ?He then begins to turn
to the right? I never said anything even remotely close to that.
> >> But at Z226 Connally
> >> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder does
> >> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
> >
> > Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
> > turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
> > to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>
> Stop arguing with yourself.
I'm not, I'm arguing with you. ;-) You're the one who is arguing with
something I never said, which is called a strawman.
> You are tring to count oranges as lemons.
Nonsense.
> That
> is NOT what I said and that is NOT what Connally said either.
What, exactly, isn't what Connally said? I have already *agreed* that he
said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I have
been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
*turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
> Nobody said
> he turned all the way around.
on August 22. I didn't make them up. And here's the Google Groups URL
proving beyond all possible doubt that you did indeed post that article
and did indeed post those exact words:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9664c6ba2fa526c8
?dmode=source
> You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
> Connally turned all the way around.
exact words.
> But you must have invented a claim to
> dispell.
Not, since I obviously didn't invent those words of yours.
> A common LNer tactic.
What nonsense. You CTs are just as guilty of that just as often. And all
I have to do is come back with this: "Common CT tactic for the CT to later
claim he/she didn't say what he/she clearly *did* say in a previous
article.
> Then you used the same ploy I purposed was
> a LNer lie.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about there.
> Just cause Connally DID have a head movement, does NOT mean he turn his
> head to the rear, as he said he did.
He didn't exactly say he turned his head to the *rear*. This is what he
said:
**********
I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
**********
Yes, yes, yes, he did say that he turned to look "back over" his right
shoulder. But you still seem to be suggesting, whether you say it exactly
this way or not, that he meant "all the way" to the rear, and he clearly
did not mean that, because of what *else* he said about not seeing the
President at all. Had he been claiming to look all the way backwards, he
would have obviously seen JFK. Thus I continue to stand by my position
that from about Z165 to about Z226 the film does indeed show him doing
what he said he did, including the final turn of his head back toward the
front which concludes at Z226.
> What you and the rest of the nutters
> claim is a head movement as turning around.
Now it is you, once again, who is doing exactly the same thing as you
falsely accuse me of doing. Quote me VERBATIM in my EXACT words from any
previous article of mine saying that he is "turning around" anywhere from
Z165 to Z226. I haven't been saying that. You seem to be thinking that
I'm saying that he turned his whole *body* around, not just his head. I
never said anything even close to that.
Sure, he didn't specifically say that he only turned his head. I already
knew that years ago. But he *did* specifically say that he didn't turn
*far* *enough* to *see* JFK.
And that is ***PRECISELY*** what the film shows from Z165 to Z224. You
will be unable to quote me verbatim saying otherwise.
> When IN FACT it is not.
When in fact *what* is not? The turn that Connally described that is
exactly what is seen in the film?
> Then
> you falsely accuse me of being irgorant. (pun in case you did not get that
> just now)
You seem to have a rather novel definition of falsehood. ;-)
> You refer to the head movement as body movement. Connally was more
> descriptive than that. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder.
> Indicating he turned his head and possibally his shoulder, to look.
And he ALSO said that he did NOT TURN FAR ENOUGH TO SEE JFK, NOT EVEN
OUT OF THE CORNER OF HIS EYE:
"I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye..." His exact
words.
"So I looked, failing to see him..." His exact words.
And where is the ONLY place in the ENTIRE film where he turns to his
right, but not far enough to see JFK? Z165 to Z224.
Now yes, I have also seen, many, many, many times, the *later* turn that
you're talking about, in which by Z270 he appears to be looking directly
back at JFK. But as I said above, he never mentioned *that* turn, because
he never mentioned *any* turn in which he *saw* JFK, and *that* turn is
NOT followed by him turning BACK TO THE FRONT. The *later* turn of his he
did not even seem to remember, obviously because he had already been hit
by then, and even more obviously because that turn comes after his violent
jerking which begins at Z226.
> >You need very badly to watch it again, much more
> > closely than you ever have before in your entire life, at multiple
> > speeds. Here, I'll help you:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBCfxIqP-s
> >
> > Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
> > before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> > even remotely close to all the way around to the rear.
>
> I don't have to look at your example, mam. I've seen the film as much as
> you.
How could you possibly know that? You have no possible way of knowing how
many times I've seen the film, any more than I have any possible way of
knowing how many times you've seen it. And of course I never claimed that
you've seen it fewer times than me, I merely said you need to look at it
more carefully.
> Yes'em. I have seen the film.
Then you will have already known long before now that the film clearly
shows him turning to the right, but not far enough to see JFK, just as he
said, from Z165 to Z224. You will also have known that in the next two
frames he turns to look almost straight ahead, just as he said. And
before he could turn his head more than a tiny bit to the left (he said he
was going to try to look the other way, over his left shoulder) he felt
himself being struck in the back. The film shows him violently jerking at
exactly that point, when his head has just barely turned to him facing
almost straight forward.
> >As he emerges from the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to
> >the right.
>
> Z222 shows Connally had turn his head to the right.
Correct. I've never said anything even slightly different, not even
slightly.
> It also shows Greer
> looking in the mirror at the rear compartment. Z223 shows Connally had his
> head turned but not any further than Z222.
Correct.
> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
> the lapel flip.
Actually Z224 is the lapel flip, and that's exactly where his head begins
turning forward, just as he said. By Z226 his head is facing almost
straight forward, just as he said. And Z226 is also the frame in which he
begins jerking violently. He himself said he felt himself to be struck
just as his head was facing front and slightly left.
> Z227 would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel
> flip, cause the limosine image is completely blurred. But does show
> Connally looking to his left, sitting up straight and apparently
> uninjured. Z228 shows the same.
Z228 shows him to be apparently uninjured??? And you claim you've watched
this film as many times as I have??? Are you claiming that you "don't
see" him violently jerking starting two frames earlier? You "don't see,"
for example, the sudden, and very fast, flip of his wrist with the hat
he's holding in that hand plainly flipping as well? You "don't see" him
violently scrunching down as if he's in terrible pain? Come now: all
these motions plainly begin in Z226 and continue for quite a few frames
after.
> Except Connally's shirt can't be seen
> because the lapel flip is still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem
> to show a reaction.
A sudden violent jerk starting at Z226 seems to be a rather obvious
reaction to me.
> > Not all
> > the way around to the rear. Partway to the right. He then begins to turn
> > his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> > slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
>
> Again No he doesn't.
He doesn't do what? Jerk violently beginning in Z226? Yes he does. It
is blindingly obvious.
> Z226 is the lapel flip
Z224 is the lapel flip.
> and was incorrectly interputed
> as the moment Connally was hit.
What is your evidence that this is incorrectly interpreted as when he
was hit? What on earth do you think caused the lapel flip if it wasn't
a bullet exiting his chest? The wind?
> Contrary to you next hyposis, Connally is
> still sitting up straight at Z230.
That is not contrary to anything I've been saying. He's still sitting
straight, in a sense, yes, but he has already jerked violently, and he's
already beginning to scrunch down and turn all the way around to his
right, a turn which is not completed until c.Z270.
> And holding his hat in his right hand,
> which he would not be able to do had his wrist been shattered.
That is not necessarily true. I used to think that too, back in
2002-2003, that he couldn't have still held the hat with a shattered
wrist. But he's still seen holding the hat as late as Z280 (I'm looking
at the film again now in the midst of typing these words to confirm it).
Unless you think he was not hit until after Z280 (and notice carefully
that I am not claiming that you have yet said that) it seems that he did
indeed somehow hold onto the hat after his wrist was shattered, because
Z280 is when he's beginning to fall back against his wife, and he's
obviously wounded by then.
> > Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226.
>
> You must be reading in a chapter that wasn't written; yet.
No, I'm looking at the Zapruder film, and it shows exactly what I've
been saying it shows. I'm looking at it again right now, and it still
shows what I'm saying it shows.
> Connally
> doesn't turn his head partway.
Lol! Then how would you describe what his head does from Z165 to Z224?
I describe it as him turning "partway" around to his right, meaning not
far enough around to the right to see JFK. Perhaps your interpretation
of the English word "partway" is different from mine?
> To where? He only had a head movement. Not
> a turning movement, as he said.
He said he turned to the right to try to see over his right shoulder,
but that he also didn't turn around far enough to see JFK, not even in
the corner of his eye. How does that conflict with what is seen in the
film from Z165 to Z224? The film clearly shows him turning to the right
but not far enough to see JFK.
> He doen't have a turning movement until
> much later in the film to are trying to quote.
That depends on what you define as a "turning movement." I think you're
still misunderstanding what he said. You still seem to be thinking that
he meant turning "all the way around," whether you use those words or
not. He did not say anything close to that. He said he didn't turn far
enough to see JFK. The much later turn you're talking about, which
concludes at Z270, was obviously not the turn he was talking about,
because there he does appear to be looking directly back at JFK. But as
I said above that is not *followed* by him turning toward the front, so
he was obviously talking about the *earlier* turn of his *head* *only*
(even if he didn't specifically say he turned his head only, and he also
didn't say that it *wasn't* his head only). And there's also the
violent jerk which does indeed begin at Z226, which is exactly where he
*does* turn his head back to the front. After Z270, he *never* turns
his head to the front, all the way until he disappears from view. He
was obviously talking about the earlier turn, not the later one you're
talking about.
> That was my point! Z233
> shows Connally reacting to the shot.
So does Z226, Z227, Z228, etc.
> His right shoulder dropped and his
> head turned further to his left and with a forward movement.
All of which starts with the violent jerk in Z226 and continues
uninterrupted into the later movements you're describing.
> Z234 shows
> Connally's head was turning right and still moving forward.
Yes, and that is clearly NOT the turn he was talking about, since that
turn ends with him appearing to look directly back at JFK, and is NOT
followed by him turning back toward the front. The later turn you're
talking about he obviously didn't even remember, or else he never
mentioned it. If I'm wrong, quote him verbatim (remember what
"verbatim" means) saying that he turned to his right and *didn't* turn
back toward the front when he was hit. I quoted him *verbatim* above
saying that he *did* turn back to the front when he was hit.
> Z235
> Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally begins
> he TURN to look at Kennedy.
Yes, that's the LATER turn that he NEVER MENTIONED. If I'm wrong, quote
him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
"I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I turned
to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
> Nearly a 1/2 second after the LNers claim
> Connally had been shot.
Naturally, because it is blindingly obvious that he was hit *before* his
*second* turn to the right.
> Maybe you should take another page out of the Posner book. Cause Posner
> sure got this one wrong.
I'm not getting this from Posner, I'm getting this from the Zapruder
film and Connally's testimony.
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm SOOO SOOORY. I LIED. I said I was done with is thread, but I guess I
> just didn't think I had anything else to say. But these remarks are so
> retar---
Yet you have so far failed to demonstrate exactly *how* they are
> I'm SOOO SOOORY. I LIED. I said I was done with is thread, but I guess I
> just didn't think I had anything else to say. But these remarks are so
> retar---
"retar---."
> That I had to return one mo time. Call me a LNer if you want to.
percentage of CTs and LNs misrepresent the evidence. ;-)
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> >> >> What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> >> >> Connally claimed?
> >> >
> >> > As you are erroneous in saying that Connally claimed it was "much
> >> > later," this is not a question worth answering.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm missed this one. I did go back and check to see exactly what
> >> he
> >> said. And you got it wrong. Connally said he turned to look over his
> >> right
> >> shoulder because that was where the sounds came from.
> >
> > Exactly, but he *also* said that he failed to see JFK when he turned.
> > But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY around.
> > You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
> > say that, ever.
>
> Heere is the CORRECT DIRECTIONS. Scroll back to the top and re-read this
> post. And ask yourself where in it did he say "TURNED ALL THE WAY AROUND."
I never said you said "all the way around" in that particular article.
> >> >> Connally claimed?
> >> >
> >> > As you are erroneous in saying that Connally claimed it was "much
> >> > later," this is not a question worth answering.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm missed this one. I did go back and check to see exactly what
> >> he
> >> said. And you got it wrong. Connally said he turned to look over his
> >> right
> >> shoulder because that was where the sounds came from.
> >
> > Exactly, but he *also* said that he failed to see JFK when he turned.
> > But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY around.
> > You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
> > say that, ever.
>
> Heere is the CORRECT DIRECTIONS. Scroll back to the top and re-read this
> post. And ask yourself where in it did he say "TURNED ALL THE WAY AROUND."
You most certainly said it, however, in direct reply to me on August 22:
"Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking over
But whether he did or did not turn "all the way around" much later than
Z226, that's not where he himself was talking about, and he never
mentioned that later turn.
> He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
> look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
> YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
any article I've posted during the past twelve months, saying that *that*
turn isn't shown in the Zapruder film. You will be unable to locate any
article within that time-frame in which I said anything even remotely like
that. I have instead, quite recently, and in direct reply to you, said
clearly that *that* turn *is* plainly visible in the film. That's the
exact turn of his head to the right that I've been talking about that
occurs before he disappears behind the sign, and his head is still turned
to the right just as he is starting to emerge from behind the sign. Just
a few frames later he turns his head straight forward and suddenly begins
to jerk violently in exactly the same frame, Z226, that JFK jerks
violently. And is this the first reply to you in which I said that the
film *does* show his head turning to the right *before* the sign? Sure
isn't. On that same day, August 22, I said to you:
"Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
the way around to the rear. ?Partway to the right. ?He then begins to turn
his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226."
When on earth did I claim that the film does NOT show him turning his head
to the right? I never said anything even remotely close to that.
> >> But at Z226 Connally
> >> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder does
> >> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
> >
> > Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
> > turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
> > to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>
> Stop arguing with yourself.
something I never said, which is called a strawman.
> You are tring to count oranges as lemons.
> That
> is NOT what I said and that is NOT what Connally said either.
said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I have
been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
*turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
> Nobody said
> he turned all the way around.
"Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking over
his shoulder but this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226." Your exact words
on August 22. I didn't make them up. And here's the Google Groups URL
proving beyond all possible doubt that you did indeed post that article
and did indeed post those exact words:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9664c6ba2fa526c8
?dmode=source
> You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
> Connally turned all the way around.
""Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking
over his shoulder but this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226." Your
exact words.
> But you must have invented a claim to
> dispell.
> A common LNer tactic.
What nonsense. You CTs are just as guilty of that just as often. And all
I have to do is come back with this: "Common CT tactic for the CT to later
claim he/she didn't say what he/she clearly *did* say in a previous
article.
> Then you used the same ploy I purposed was
> a LNer lie.
> Just cause Connally DID have a head movement, does NOT mean he turn his
> head to the rear, as he said he did.
said:
**********
I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
Yes, yes, yes, he did say that he turned to look "back over" his right
shoulder. But you still seem to be suggesting, whether you say it exactly
this way or not, that he meant "all the way" to the rear, and he clearly
did not mean that, because of what *else* he said about not seeing the
President at all. Had he been claiming to look all the way backwards, he
would have obviously seen JFK. Thus I continue to stand by my position
that from about Z165 to about Z226 the film does indeed show him doing
what he said he did, including the final turn of his head back toward the
front which concludes at Z226.
> What you and the rest of the nutters
> claim is a head movement as turning around.
falsely accuse me of doing. Quote me VERBATIM in my EXACT words from any
previous article of mine saying that he is "turning around" anywhere from
Z165 to Z226. I haven't been saying that. You seem to be thinking that
I'm saying that he turned his whole *body* around, not just his head. I
never said anything even close to that.
Sure, he didn't specifically say that he only turned his head. I already
knew that years ago. But he *did* specifically say that he didn't turn
*far* *enough* to *see* JFK.
And that is ***PRECISELY*** what the film shows from Z165 to Z224. You
will be unable to quote me verbatim saying otherwise.
> When IN FACT it is not.
exactly what is seen in the film?
> Then
> you falsely accuse me of being irgorant. (pun in case you did not get that
> just now)
> You refer to the head movement as body movement. Connally was more
> descriptive than that. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder.
> Indicating he turned his head and possibally his shoulder, to look.
OUT OF THE CORNER OF HIS EYE:
"I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye..." His exact
words.
"So I looked, failing to see him..." His exact words.
And where is the ONLY place in the ENTIRE film where he turns to his
right, but not far enough to see JFK? Z165 to Z224.
Now yes, I have also seen, many, many, many times, the *later* turn that
you're talking about, in which by Z270 he appears to be looking directly
back at JFK. But as I said above, he never mentioned *that* turn, because
he never mentioned *any* turn in which he *saw* JFK, and *that* turn is
NOT followed by him turning BACK TO THE FRONT. The *later* turn of his he
did not even seem to remember, obviously because he had already been hit
by then, and even more obviously because that turn comes after his violent
jerking which begins at Z226.
> >You need very badly to watch it again, much more
> > closely than you ever have before in your entire life, at multiple
> > speeds. Here, I'll help you:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBCfxIqP-s
> >
> > Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
> > before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> > even remotely close to all the way around to the rear.
>
> I don't have to look at your example, mam. I've seen the film as much as
> you.
many times I've seen the film, any more than I have any possible way of
knowing how many times you've seen it. And of course I never claimed that
you've seen it fewer times than me, I merely said you need to look at it
more carefully.
> Yes'em. I have seen the film.
shows him turning to the right, but not far enough to see JFK, just as he
said, from Z165 to Z224. You will also have known that in the next two
frames he turns to look almost straight ahead, just as he said. And
before he could turn his head more than a tiny bit to the left (he said he
was going to try to look the other way, over his left shoulder) he felt
himself being struck in the back. The film shows him violently jerking at
exactly that point, when his head has just barely turned to him facing
almost straight forward.
> >As he emerges from the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to
> >the right.
>
> Z222 shows Connally had turn his head to the right.
slightly.
> It also shows Greer
> looking in the mirror at the rear compartment. Z223 shows Connally had his
> head turned but not any further than Z222.
> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
> the lapel flip.
turning forward, just as he said. By Z226 his head is facing almost
straight forward, just as he said. And Z226 is also the frame in which he
begins jerking violently. He himself said he felt himself to be struck
just as his head was facing front and slightly left.
> Z227 would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel
> flip, cause the limosine image is completely blurred. But does show
> Connally looking to his left, sitting up straight and apparently
> uninjured. Z228 shows the same.
this film as many times as I have??? Are you claiming that you "don't
see" him violently jerking starting two frames earlier? You "don't see,"
for example, the sudden, and very fast, flip of his wrist with the hat
he's holding in that hand plainly flipping as well? You "don't see" him
violently scrunching down as if he's in terrible pain? Come now: all
these motions plainly begin in Z226 and continue for quite a few frames
after.
> Except Connally's shirt can't be seen
> because the lapel flip is still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem
> to show a reaction.
reaction to me.
> > Not all
> > the way around to the rear. Partway to the right. He then begins to turn
> > his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> > slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
>
> Again No he doesn't.
is blindingly obvious.
> Z226 is the lapel flip
> and was incorrectly interputed
> as the moment Connally was hit.
was hit? What on earth do you think caused the lapel flip if it wasn't
a bullet exiting his chest? The wind?
> Contrary to you next hyposis, Connally is
> still sitting up straight at Z230.
straight, in a sense, yes, but he has already jerked violently, and he's
already beginning to scrunch down and turn all the way around to his
right, a turn which is not completed until c.Z270.
> And holding his hat in his right hand,
> which he would not be able to do had his wrist been shattered.
2002-2003, that he couldn't have still held the hat with a shattered
wrist. But he's still seen holding the hat as late as Z280 (I'm looking
at the film again now in the midst of typing these words to confirm it).
Unless you think he was not hit until after Z280 (and notice carefully
that I am not claiming that you have yet said that) it seems that he did
indeed somehow hold onto the hat after his wrist was shattered, because
Z280 is when he's beginning to fall back against his wife, and he's
obviously wounded by then.
> > Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226.
>
> You must be reading in a chapter that wasn't written; yet.
been saying it shows. I'm looking at it again right now, and it still
shows what I'm saying it shows.
> Connally
> doesn't turn his head partway.
I describe it as him turning "partway" around to his right, meaning not
far enough around to the right to see JFK. Perhaps your interpretation
of the English word "partway" is different from mine?
> To where? He only had a head movement. Not
> a turning movement, as he said.
but that he also didn't turn around far enough to see JFK, not even in
the corner of his eye. How does that conflict with what is seen in the
film from Z165 to Z224? The film clearly shows him turning to the right
but not far enough to see JFK.
> He doen't have a turning movement until
> much later in the film to are trying to quote.
still misunderstanding what he said. You still seem to be thinking that
he meant turning "all the way around," whether you use those words or
not. He did not say anything close to that. He said he didn't turn far
enough to see JFK. The much later turn you're talking about, which
concludes at Z270, was obviously not the turn he was talking about,
because there he does appear to be looking directly back at JFK. But as
I said above that is not *followed* by him turning toward the front, so
he was obviously talking about the *earlier* turn of his *head* *only*
(even if he didn't specifically say he turned his head only, and he also
didn't say that it *wasn't* his head only). And there's also the
violent jerk which does indeed begin at Z226, which is exactly where he
*does* turn his head back to the front. After Z270, he *never* turns
his head to the front, all the way until he disappears from view. He
was obviously talking about the earlier turn, not the later one you're
talking about.
> That was my point! Z233
> shows Connally reacting to the shot.
> His right shoulder dropped and his
> head turned further to his left and with a forward movement.
uninterrupted into the later movements you're describing.
> Z234 shows
> Connally's head was turning right and still moving forward.
turn ends with him appearing to look directly back at JFK, and is NOT
followed by him turning back toward the front. The later turn you're
talking about he obviously didn't even remember, or else he never
mentioned it. If I'm wrong, quote him verbatim (remember what
"verbatim" means) saying that he turned to his right and *didn't* turn
back toward the front when he was hit. I quoted him *verbatim* above
saying that he *did* turn back to the front when he was hit.
> Z235
> Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally begins
> he TURN to look at Kennedy.
him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
"I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I turned
to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
> Nearly a 1/2 second after the LNers claim
> Connally had been shot.
*second* turn to the right.
> Maybe you should take another page out of the Posner book. Cause Posner
> sure got this one wrong.
film and Connally's testimony.
John King
Aug 28, 2012, 6:55:43 PM8/28/12
to
In article <503a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-FC3988...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > In article <5026...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In general terms of course. But you LNers can't stand
> >> it when your own theories are used by anyone that isn't you. I said some
> >> claim Connally was hit at Z226. That's you ain't it? That IS the SBT
> >> ain't
> >> it? But what you disagree with the fact the nutters say Connally turns to
> >> look into the rear as he said he did.
> >
> > You seem to be very misinformed about what Connally actually said.
> > Neither the "nutters," as you call them, or Connally, said what you claim
> > they said. Here's what Connally *really* said:
>
> I don't know where you got this Connally interview.
Oh good gawd. It's from his Warren Commission testimony:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
> It's not exactly the
> one I was quoting. I got mine from the history channels "Who shot JFK."
Omg, no wonder. I learned the hard way in 2000 to never trust any claim
about what a witness said in any book, documentary, movie, etc. Whether
they take the point of view of a conspiracy or of LHO doing it alone,
they always very selectively quote these witnesses. I have long ago
lost count of how many times, when I've read the witness's *complete*
statements from start to finish how, if the author or filmmaker had just
quoted the very next sentence or the very next few sentences it would
have destroyed the entire argument the author/filmmaker seemed to be
making. My advice to you is to not trust this even when you see a
documentary of the witness speaking on camera, because you can't tell
what *else* the person said before and after the excerpt of the
interview that was used in the documentary.
> But it doesn't matter, cause your interview statement said it all. In your
> interrpution, Connally said "the sound appeared to come from over my right
> shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder."
And now you're doing exactly the same thing. You're not quoting the
*next* thing he said in the SAME SENTENCE:
"...and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did
not catch the President in the corner of my eye..." even though I
***DID*** quote that below in the article of mine to which you were here
replying. Why did you leave out the REST of the sentence? I didn't.
And I quoted a lot more than just that one complete sentence.
> He said the had turned (meaning he turned his body),
Full stop. ***WHERE*** did he say he turned his ***BODY***? He did NOT
say that. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder but did NOT
TURN FAR ENOUGH TO SEE JFK. Sure, I see how you *could* interpret what
he said that way, but only if you ignore what he said RIGHT AFTER THAT
IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
> not a just simple
> head movement as you claimed Connally did at Z226.
Show me where he specifically said that he turned any other part of his
body than his head. I don't see it, in that sentence or any other that
I quoted below. You did know, long before today, that most people can
look over their shoulder by turning only their head, correct? Why do
you think he meant that he turned his whole body, when he did not
specifically say that? And why do you keep ignoring what *else* he
said, that he did not turn far enough to see JFK at all?
> Kennedy was showing
> signs of being hit by then. But Connally was not.
Oh, so that violent jerk by Connally that begins in Z226 isn't a sign of
being hit? What is it a sign of then? Did Nellie goose him?
> So the single bullet
> theory doesn't work.
According to you, only because you keep ignoring what Connally said
regarding how *far* he turned to his right, and keep ignoring the
violent jerk he makes beginning at Z226.
> That is if you can see the truth.
I can see what Connally actually said, *everything* he said, instead of
only part of it like you. I can also see that what he said,
*everything* he said, not just part of what he said, matches what is
seen in the film quite well.
> Z222 shows Connally
> had turn his head to the right. It also shows Greer looking in the mirror
> at the rear compartment.
What on earth Greer has to do with this I can't imagine.
> Z223 shows Connally had his head turned but not
> any further than Z222.
Yes, exactly what he said. He said he did not turn far enough around to
see JFK. Do you finally understand?
> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is the lapel flip.
Z224 is the lapel flip, and the majority of assassination researchers,
CTs and LNs alike, have been agreeing with that for years. Don't
believe me? Let's see if I'm correct:
**********
For many years some have viewed the flipping up of Connally's lapel at
Z224 as meaning that a bullet had struck it as it passed througn the
Governor. Wind gust were appearent by looking at the Muchmore and
Zapruder films as Hill, Moorman and Oliver's coats flipped around in the
wind. Just the other day a researcher named 'Moriarty' had pointed out
something I had never noticed before. Moriarty saw that Connally's lapel
was flipping around as he came out from behind the road sign. What was
seen at Z224 (known as "the lapel flip") was the lapel flipping back
upwards again. I offer some slow motion clips of the lapel falling down
and going back up as Connally emerges from behind the road sign.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2228
**********
This person clearly believes the lapel flip was not caused by a bullet,
so this person is almost certainly a CT. But this CT *also* says it was
at Z224. Here's another one:
**********
Failure Analysis Associates laid this argument to rest in 1992, when it
was observed for the first time that the Governor's jacket lapel is
thrust violently outward at frame 224 ‹ the obvious result of a bullet
strike just prior to the exposure of that frame.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm
**********
This person is clearly an LN, but he still agrees with the CT above that
the lapel flip is seen at Z224. Here's another one:
**********
JFK is reacting before Z-223, before the lapel flip which appears to
occur at Z-224.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5066.30;wap2
**********
This person is obviously a CT, because of the claim that JFK is already
reacting at Z223, but this CT *still* agrees with the CT and LN above
that the lapel flip occurred at Z224.
Still don't believe me? I'll issue a challenge then. For every person
you quote saying that the lapel flip is at Z226, I will quote at least
*three* people, including CTs, who say it is at Z224. You appear to be
in the minority, even among your own fellow CTs, in claiming that it is
at Z226.
> Z227
> would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel flip, cause the
> limosine image is completely blurred.
The lapel flip is already over by Z227, as even the majority of your own
fellow CTs agree.
> But does show Connally looking to
> his left, sitting up straight and apparently uninjured.
So he jerks violently starting in Z226, but you say he is apparently
uninjured in the next frame, in which the same violent jerk is still
continuing?
> Z228 shows the
> same.
Yes, it shows him continuing to jerk violently, with the sudden flip of
his hat and so forth.
> Except Connally's shirt can't be seen because the lapel flip is
> still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem to show a reaction.
Jerking violently isn't showing a reaction?
> > "We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.
> > I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I
> > instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
> > over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
> > and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
> > catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
Yep, there's where I quoted him specifically saying that he did not turn
far enough to see JFK. Why did you ignore that part?
> > once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
> > I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
> > assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to
And there's where I quoted him saying for the SECOND time that he didn't
turn far enough to see JFK. "Failing to see him" means that he didn't
see JFK. Because he didn't turn FAR ENOUGH to see JFK. Why did you
ignore this part too?
> > look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that
> > far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you,
> > looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone
> > had hit me in the back."
And there's where I quoted him saying that just as he turned back toward
the front, and only got to "a little bit to the left of center," when he
felt himself to be struck. Why did you ignore this part too? We can
all see that I quoted it, and you even, in your present article, quoted
me quoting it. Sheesh.
And what do we see in the film? Exactly what he described. We see him
turning to the right (he never, ever, ever said that he turned his
"body" to the right), but not far enough to see JFK. From Z224 to Z226
we then see him turning toward the front. We then at Z226 see him
suddenly begin to jerk violently. He said he was hit just as he had
barely gotten his head slightly left of center. We see him jerk
violently at exactly the point his head does exactly what he said.
> >> The SBT is a pretty summation. But not quite accurate. But it was the
> >> best
> >> J. Edgar could come up with in a week. Even though the rest of his
> >> conclusions were all lies. So why would we be expected to believe the SB
> >> lie?
> >
> > Ugh. You are all over the place, so that it is difficult to know which of
> > your misconceptions to address first.
>
> Yeah well try to keep up. Read slower. (ii)
Once again you give me advice that applies to you far better than it
does to me. You addressed only this part of the sentence he said,
"I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
shoulder,"
but made no mention at all of the REST of the sentence,
"and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did
not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested,
because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle
shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that
this is an assassination attempt."
even though I quoted the *entire* sentence to you.
Then you compounded that by also ignoring his NEXT sentence, which he
AGAIN said he did not turn far enough to see JFK, even though I quoted
it to you too:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
It is quite obviously you who very badly needs to read those sentences
very slowly, and very carefully, all the way from the first word to the
last word of each. And you definitely have no excuse now. Not only is
this at least the third time I have quoted those sentences to you,
complete, but near the beginning of this article I gave you a link to
the complete, unabridged testimony that I'm quoting all this from, which
I first read at least eleven years ago. At that time I read every word,
every phrase, and every sentence, from start to finish. Could you
please do the same *before* you post any further replies to me about
what Connally did and didn't say about this matter? Thanks.
Oh, and if that's not enough, he said the same things to the HSCA more
than a decade later:
**********
I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to
see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my
eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination
because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see
the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of,
at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat
to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn.
About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm
**********
Read all that very slowly, very carefully. Once again he said he turned
to the right, but not far enough to see JFK. "I didn't see the
President out of the corner of my eye..." See those exact words above?
And see where he says that he had JUST BARELY turned to face more or
less straight ahead again, intending to turn around to his left, but
that he "never made the full turn"? See those exact words above too?
See him saying that he had just gotten to facing "more or less straight
ahead," he was hit.
There is only one place in the entire Zapruder film where he turns
right, but not far enough to see JFK, and then turns to face straight
ahead: Z165 to Z226. The much later turn, in which he DOES turn far
enough to see JFK, but does not AFTER THAT face forward, is obviously a
DIFFERENT place in the film than what he was talking about to both the
WC and HSCA. And now you have no excuse to not read his complete HSCA
testimony as well, because I just gave the link to that above too.
> To start with, the theory of a
> > single bullet did not originate with Hoover. Hoover initially thought
> > that Connally was hit with a separate bullet from the two which struck
> > Kennedy, i.e. that all three shots struck someone in the limo and that
> > none of them missed the limo entirely.
>
> Yeah, that is what he told LBJ, that he first thought that in the recorded
> phone conversation on the 29th. But then he also told LBJ that both were
> shot by a single bullet.
I have heard that very recording several times over the years, including
again last week. In the midst of typing this very article I am
listening to it again here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZWERQevzms
At 8 minutes and 36 seconds I very clearly hear Hoover saying this:
"The third shot ‹ which hit the President ‹ he was hit by the first and
the third ‹ the second shot hit the Governor."
Hoover was quite clearly saying that JFK and Connally were hit by
separate bullets. Not only is it you, instead of me, who needs to read
more carefully, you need to listen more carefully as well.
> This is way before Spector entered the picture.
> Spector just tried to steal the credit for the theory, as most politicans
> do. But it was Hoover who spread the lie.
Not according to Hoover's 11-29-63 telephone conversation, which you
mistakenly claimed was when he said both men were hit by a single
bullet. And since the single bullet has yet to be proven conclusively
to be a lie, there is, even today, no "lie" to spread in the first
place. You merely saying that the single bullet is a lie doesn't
automatically make it one. And even if you were to counter with the
claim that the single bullet has never been conclusively proven to be
TRUE, since it ALSO hasn't been conclusively proven to be FALSE, it
cannot yet be a "lie," even if it is also not yet the "truth."
And sorry, but there's a tremendously larger body of evidence indicating
that it is true than that indicating that it is false.
> Secondly, that Hoover lied about
> > many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
> > true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
> >
> > And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
> > proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
> > not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
>
> When some one bluntly claims Connally was shot at Z226, then they have
> made a false assumption.
Who is saying that he was shot at Z226? Certainly not me. I said he
starts to REACT at Z226 because that's where he starts his violent
jerking. Given the lapel flip at Z224 (the frame in which even most of
your fellow CTs agree it occurred) I'd say that's more likely the exact
frame in which the bullet passed through him. But that's only two
frames earlier, which is a minuscule amount of time, and whether we say
Z224 or Z226 for when he was hit, that is not necessarily a false
assumption. You seem to be confused regarding the difference between
objective fact and subjective opinion. It is merely your ***OPINION***
that Connally was hit later than Z226. It has never, ever, ever been
conclusively ***PROVEN*** that he was hit later, even if you were to
***ALSO*** argue that it has never, ever, ever been conclusively
***PROVEN*** that he was NOT hit later. And yes, yes, yes, many of your
fellow CTs share this ***OPINION*** that he was hit later. But it is
irrelevant how many or how few people share the same ***OPINION***, it
is still nothing more than an ***OPINION*** if the matter has never been
conclusively proven either way.
> Which by Webster is a lie.
No. In the most common English usage, a "lie" is when you KNOW or
BELIEVE what you're about to say is false BEFORE you say it, you
CONTINUE to believe it's false AS you're saying it, and you STILL
believe it's false AFTER you say it. Making an honest mistake is an
entirely different thing. Being wrong without realizing you're wrong is
an entirely different thing. Most English-speakers worldwide do not
call that a "lie."
A "lie" is an *intentional* falsehood. An *unintentional* falsehood is
an honest mistake.
For example, I do not believe for a moment that you were intentionally
"lying" when you made the obviously false statement that in that
telephone conversation, Hoover said that both JFK and Connally were
struck by the same bullet. I believe instead that at the time you typed
that, you honestly believed that what you were saying was true. You
made an honest mistake. You were not intentionally "lying."
Correct?
The same goes for me. I do indeed HONESTLY BELIEVE that both men were
wounded by the same bullet. Therefore I am not "lying" when I say that.
I would only be "lying" if I said something that I did NOT believe to be
true at the time I said it.
And just in case you end up misunderstanding me again, I did NOT say
that YOU called me a liar. I am merely pointing out what a "lie" is.
> And Hoover was the
> first to spread it.
***WHEN*** was he the first to spread it?? Certainly not on 11-29-63
when you *mistakenly* claimed he did. Since I'm assuming that you
honestly believed what you said, I'm also assuming that you made an
honest mistake, that you honestly believed what you were saying, even
though what you were saying was not true, therefore you did not lie.
> Falsely.
Actually, in my honest ***OPINION*** the FALSE statement he made was
that all three shots hit someone in the limo. But although I know he
lied on many, many, many occasions, on this particular occasion I think
he honestly believed that what he was saying was the truth. And I
believe that the sole reason for that was that he did not yet have
anything close to the complete evidence at his disposal. On 11-29-63
had he yet been informed that James Tague had been hit? I don't know
either way. On 11-29-63 had he yet seen the entire Zapruder film, and
even if he had, how many times did he watch it and how carefully did he
watch it? I have no idea there either, do you?
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry there John, I wasn't avoiding your comment, I simply missed your
> comment here.
No problem. I've missed replies to my articles sometimes too.
> Sorry there John, I wasn't avoiding your comment, I simply missed your
> comment here.
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-FC3988...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > In article <5026...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In general terms of course. But you LNers can't stand
> >> it when your own theories are used by anyone that isn't you. I said some
> >> claim Connally was hit at Z226. That's you ain't it? That IS the SBT
> >> ain't
> >> it? But what you disagree with the fact the nutters say Connally turns to
> >> look into the rear as he said he did.
> >
> > You seem to be very misinformed about what Connally actually said.
> > Neither the "nutters," as you call them, or Connally, said what you claim
> > they said. Here's what Connally *really* said:
>
> I don't know where you got this Connally interview.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
> It's not exactly the
> one I was quoting. I got mine from the history channels "Who shot JFK."
about what a witness said in any book, documentary, movie, etc. Whether
they take the point of view of a conspiracy or of LHO doing it alone,
they always very selectively quote these witnesses. I have long ago
lost count of how many times, when I've read the witness's *complete*
statements from start to finish how, if the author or filmmaker had just
quoted the very next sentence or the very next few sentences it would
have destroyed the entire argument the author/filmmaker seemed to be
making. My advice to you is to not trust this even when you see a
documentary of the witness speaking on camera, because you can't tell
what *else* the person said before and after the excerpt of the
interview that was used in the documentary.
> But it doesn't matter, cause your interview statement said it all. In your
> interrpution, Connally said "the sound appeared to come from over my right
> shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder."
*next* thing he said in the SAME SENTENCE:
"...and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did
not catch the President in the corner of my eye..." even though I
***DID*** quote that below in the article of mine to which you were here
replying. Why did you leave out the REST of the sentence? I didn't.
And I quoted a lot more than just that one complete sentence.
> He said the had turned (meaning he turned his body),
say that. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder but did NOT
TURN FAR ENOUGH TO SEE JFK. Sure, I see how you *could* interpret what
he said that way, but only if you ignore what he said RIGHT AFTER THAT
IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
> not a just simple
> head movement as you claimed Connally did at Z226.
body than his head. I don't see it, in that sentence or any other that
I quoted below. You did know, long before today, that most people can
look over their shoulder by turning only their head, correct? Why do
you think he meant that he turned his whole body, when he did not
specifically say that? And why do you keep ignoring what *else* he
said, that he did not turn far enough to see JFK at all?
> Kennedy was showing
> signs of being hit by then. But Connally was not.
being hit? What is it a sign of then? Did Nellie goose him?
> So the single bullet
> theory doesn't work.
regarding how *far* he turned to his right, and keep ignoring the
violent jerk he makes beginning at Z226.
> That is if you can see the truth.
only part of it like you. I can also see that what he said,
*everything* he said, not just part of what he said, matches what is
seen in the film quite well.
> Z222 shows Connally
> had turn his head to the right. It also shows Greer looking in the mirror
> at the rear compartment.
> Z223 shows Connally had his head turned but not
> any further than Z222.
see JFK. Do you finally understand?
> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is the lapel flip.
CTs and LNs alike, have been agreeing with that for years. Don't
believe me? Let's see if I'm correct:
**********
For many years some have viewed the flipping up of Connally's lapel at
Z224 as meaning that a bullet had struck it as it passed througn the
Governor. Wind gust were appearent by looking at the Muchmore and
Zapruder films as Hill, Moorman and Oliver's coats flipped around in the
wind. Just the other day a researcher named 'Moriarty' had pointed out
something I had never noticed before. Moriarty saw that Connally's lapel
was flipping around as he came out from behind the road sign. What was
seen at Z224 (known as "the lapel flip") was the lapel flipping back
upwards again. I offer some slow motion clips of the lapel falling down
and going back up as Connally emerges from behind the road sign.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2228
**********
This person clearly believes the lapel flip was not caused by a bullet,
so this person is almost certainly a CT. But this CT *also* says it was
at Z224. Here's another one:
**********
Failure Analysis Associates laid this argument to rest in 1992, when it
was observed for the first time that the Governor's jacket lapel is
thrust violently outward at frame 224 ‹ the obvious result of a bullet
strike just prior to the exposure of that frame.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm
**********
This person is clearly an LN, but he still agrees with the CT above that
the lapel flip is seen at Z224. Here's another one:
**********
JFK is reacting before Z-223, before the lapel flip which appears to
occur at Z-224.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5066.30;wap2
**********
This person is obviously a CT, because of the claim that JFK is already
reacting at Z223, but this CT *still* agrees with the CT and LN above
that the lapel flip occurred at Z224.
Still don't believe me? I'll issue a challenge then. For every person
you quote saying that the lapel flip is at Z226, I will quote at least
*three* people, including CTs, who say it is at Z224. You appear to be
in the minority, even among your own fellow CTs, in claiming that it is
at Z226.
> Z227
> would have been a better frame to chose for the lapel flip, cause the
> limosine image is completely blurred.
fellow CTs agree.
> But does show Connally looking to
> his left, sitting up straight and apparently uninjured.
uninjured in the next frame, in which the same violent jerk is still
continuing?
> Z228 shows the
> same.
Yes, it shows him continuing to jerk violently, with the sudden flip of
his hat and so forth.
> Except Connally's shirt can't be seen because the lapel flip is
> still visible, even though Connally doesn't seem to show a reaction.
> > "We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.
> > I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I
> > instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
> > over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
> > and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
> > catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
far enough to see JFK. Why did you ignore that part?
> > once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
> > I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
> > assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to
turn far enough to see JFK. "Failing to see him" means that he didn't
see JFK. Because he didn't turn FAR ENOUGH to see JFK. Why did you
ignore this part too?
> > look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that
> > far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you,
> > looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone
> > had hit me in the back."
the front, and only got to "a little bit to the left of center," when he
felt himself to be struck. Why did you ignore this part too? We can
all see that I quoted it, and you even, in your present article, quoted
me quoting it. Sheesh.
And what do we see in the film? Exactly what he described. We see him
turning to the right (he never, ever, ever said that he turned his
"body" to the right), but not far enough to see JFK. From Z224 to Z226
we then see him turning toward the front. We then at Z226 see him
suddenly begin to jerk violently. He said he was hit just as he had
barely gotten his head slightly left of center. We see him jerk
violently at exactly the point his head does exactly what he said.
> >> The SBT is a pretty summation. But not quite accurate. But it was the
> >> best
> >> J. Edgar could come up with in a week. Even though the rest of his
> >> conclusions were all lies. So why would we be expected to believe the SB
> >> lie?
> >
> > Ugh. You are all over the place, so that it is difficult to know which of
> > your misconceptions to address first.
>
> Yeah well try to keep up. Read slower. (ii)
does to me. You addressed only this part of the sentence he said,
"I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
shoulder,"
"and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did
not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested,
because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle
shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that
this is an assassination attempt."
Then you compounded that by also ignoring his NEXT sentence, which he
AGAIN said he did not turn far enough to see JFK, even though I quoted
it to you too:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
very slowly, and very carefully, all the way from the first word to the
last word of each. And you definitely have no excuse now. Not only is
this at least the third time I have quoted those sentences to you,
complete, but near the beginning of this article I gave you a link to
the complete, unabridged testimony that I'm quoting all this from, which
I first read at least eleven years ago. At that time I read every word,
every phrase, and every sentence, from start to finish. Could you
please do the same *before* you post any further replies to me about
what Connally did and didn't say about this matter? Thanks.
Oh, and if that's not enough, he said the same things to the HSCA more
than a decade later:
**********
I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to
see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my
eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination
because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see
the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of,
at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat
to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn.
About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm
**********
Read all that very slowly, very carefully. Once again he said he turned
to the right, but not far enough to see JFK. "I didn't see the
President out of the corner of my eye..." See those exact words above?
And see where he says that he had JUST BARELY turned to face more or
less straight ahead again, intending to turn around to his left, but
that he "never made the full turn"? See those exact words above too?
See him saying that he had just gotten to facing "more or less straight
ahead," he was hit.
There is only one place in the entire Zapruder film where he turns
right, but not far enough to see JFK, and then turns to face straight
ahead: Z165 to Z226. The much later turn, in which he DOES turn far
enough to see JFK, but does not AFTER THAT face forward, is obviously a
DIFFERENT place in the film than what he was talking about to both the
WC and HSCA. And now you have no excuse to not read his complete HSCA
testimony as well, because I just gave the link to that above too.
> To start with, the theory of a
> > single bullet did not originate with Hoover. Hoover initially thought
> > that Connally was hit with a separate bullet from the two which struck
> > Kennedy, i.e. that all three shots struck someone in the limo and that
> > none of them missed the limo entirely.
>
> Yeah, that is what he told LBJ, that he first thought that in the recorded
> phone conversation on the 29th. But then he also told LBJ that both were
> shot by a single bullet.
again last week. In the midst of typing this very article I am
listening to it again here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZWERQevzms
At 8 minutes and 36 seconds I very clearly hear Hoover saying this:
"The third shot ‹ which hit the President ‹ he was hit by the first and
the third ‹ the second shot hit the Governor."
Hoover was quite clearly saying that JFK and Connally were hit by
separate bullets. Not only is it you, instead of me, who needs to read
more carefully, you need to listen more carefully as well.
> This is way before Spector entered the picture.
> Spector just tried to steal the credit for the theory, as most politicans
> do. But it was Hoover who spread the lie.
mistakenly claimed was when he said both men were hit by a single
bullet. And since the single bullet has yet to be proven conclusively
to be a lie, there is, even today, no "lie" to spread in the first
place. You merely saying that the single bullet is a lie doesn't
automatically make it one. And even if you were to counter with the
claim that the single bullet has never been conclusively proven to be
TRUE, since it ALSO hasn't been conclusively proven to be FALSE, it
cannot yet be a "lie," even if it is also not yet the "truth."
And sorry, but there's a tremendously larger body of evidence indicating
that it is true than that indicating that it is false.
> Secondly, that Hoover lied about
> > many things is irrelevant to the single bullet. The single bullet is
> > true, or it is false, independently of anything Hoover said.
> >
> > And finally, though you might argue that the single bullet has never been
> > proven to be true, when, exactly was it proven to be false? Since it has
> > not yet been established to be a lie, there is no "lie" to disbelieve.
>
> When some one bluntly claims Connally was shot at Z226, then they have
> made a false assumption.
starts to REACT at Z226 because that's where he starts his violent
jerking. Given the lapel flip at Z224 (the frame in which even most of
your fellow CTs agree it occurred) I'd say that's more likely the exact
frame in which the bullet passed through him. But that's only two
frames earlier, which is a minuscule amount of time, and whether we say
Z224 or Z226 for when he was hit, that is not necessarily a false
assumption. You seem to be confused regarding the difference between
objective fact and subjective opinion. It is merely your ***OPINION***
that Connally was hit later than Z226. It has never, ever, ever been
conclusively ***PROVEN*** that he was hit later, even if you were to
***ALSO*** argue that it has never, ever, ever been conclusively
***PROVEN*** that he was NOT hit later. And yes, yes, yes, many of your
fellow CTs share this ***OPINION*** that he was hit later. But it is
irrelevant how many or how few people share the same ***OPINION***, it
is still nothing more than an ***OPINION*** if the matter has never been
conclusively proven either way.
> Which by Webster is a lie.
BELIEVE what you're about to say is false BEFORE you say it, you
CONTINUE to believe it's false AS you're saying it, and you STILL
believe it's false AFTER you say it. Making an honest mistake is an
entirely different thing. Being wrong without realizing you're wrong is
an entirely different thing. Most English-speakers worldwide do not
call that a "lie."
A "lie" is an *intentional* falsehood. An *unintentional* falsehood is
an honest mistake.
For example, I do not believe for a moment that you were intentionally
"lying" when you made the obviously false statement that in that
telephone conversation, Hoover said that both JFK and Connally were
struck by the same bullet. I believe instead that at the time you typed
that, you honestly believed that what you were saying was true. You
made an honest mistake. You were not intentionally "lying."
Correct?
The same goes for me. I do indeed HONESTLY BELIEVE that both men were
wounded by the same bullet. Therefore I am not "lying" when I say that.
I would only be "lying" if I said something that I did NOT believe to be
true at the time I said it.
And just in case you end up misunderstanding me again, I did NOT say
that YOU called me a liar. I am merely pointing out what a "lie" is.
> And Hoover was the
> first to spread it.
when you *mistakenly* claimed he did. Since I'm assuming that you
honestly believed what you said, I'm also assuming that you made an
honest mistake, that you honestly believed what you were saying, even
though what you were saying was not true, therefore you did not lie.
> Falsely.
Actually, in my honest ***OPINION*** the FALSE statement he made was
that all three shots hit someone in the limo. But although I know he
lied on many, many, many occasions, on this particular occasion I think
he honestly believed that what he was saying was the truth. And I
believe that the sole reason for that was that he did not yet have
anything close to the complete evidence at his disposal. On 11-29-63
had he yet been informed that James Tague had been hit? I don't know
either way. On 11-29-63 had he yet seen the entire Zapruder film, and
even if he had, how many times did he watch it and how carefully did he
watch it? I have no idea there either, do you?
John King
Aug 29, 2012, 12:13:09 AM8/29/12
to
In article <385a4a8c-ef8a-4f36...@googlegroups.com>,
I've been wondering that too. It cannot possibly be any of the c.10
versions of it I've seen on Youtube, nor can it be any of the versions
on the MPI dvd that I've had for about a decade, nor can it be the
version that is shown in the movie "JFK." All of those (notice I didn't
say "almost all") not only show the lapel flip occurring at Z224 (even
in the versions without frame #s it still obviously occurs in the same
frame) but all, not almost all, of these versions of the film clearly
show the two men jerking violently starting at exactly the same instant.
Research must be watching a very obscure version of the film that even
the majority of CTs worldwide would dismiss as not being genuine were
they too to see it.
> The "lapel flip" occurs at
> Z224, not Z226 as you claim.
See there, Research? Here is yet another person besides me saying the
lapel flip is at Z224, and in my previous reply to you today I quoted
two of your fellow CTs, but only one LN, as agreeing that it is at Z224.
Even the majority of your own fellow CTs disagree with you about which
frame this was. Oh yes, they might agree with you about that not being
when Connally was hit. But about exactly which frame the lapel flip
occurred, whether or not it was caused by a bullet, most of them say
Z224.
You are in the minority, even among your own fellow CTs. If I were you,
this might "concern" me. ;-)
> This is a significant error on your part given
> that Z226 is the frame that both JFK and JBC react to the shot that struck
> them a few frames earlier. Z226 is the frame we see both men suddenly and in
> unison jerk their arms upward. This simultaneous reaction is the clincher for
> the SBT.
See, Research, how I'm also not the only one who says they both jerk
starting in the same frame? Now true, this is an LN saying this, and
with this I do know that the majority of your fellow CTs might disagree
with bigdog and I on this particular matter. Nevertheless, it does at
least prove that I'm not the only one who plainly sees both men jerk
violently starting in exactly the same frame.
> It wasn't a lie and it doesn't matter who first thought of the SBT.
Something has to first be proven to be false to be a lie, and then it
has to be proven that the person uttering the statement knew the
statement at the time of uttering it to be a lie. Even in the context
of CTs claiming the SBT has not been proven to be true, since it also
hasn't been proven to be false, it cannot yet be correctly called a
"lie." And as I already told you, Research, in my previous reply, there
is indeed a much larger body of evidence to indicate that the SBT is
true than that which indicates that it isn't true. The so-called
"evidence" that the SBT is "false" is quite flimsy in comparison. Among
the most common PROVABLY FALSE claims I've seen being made by many CTs
include the following:
1. CE 399 (the bullet alleged to have wounded both men) is "pristine"
in all photos ever taken of it. Provably false beyond all possible
doubt. Here is one of those very photos:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/bhdocs/ce399_3.jpg
That was taken looking at the base of the bullet. Doesn't look exactly
"pristine" to me. Even the (obviously CT) person who wrote the caption
"slightly crumpled" is still quite obviously admitting that the bullet
isn't "pristine," as in it never struck anything. Oh dear, and what
about this photo of the same bullet?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/bhdocs/ce399_2.jpg
Looks like it's a lot more than just "slightly" crumpled to me. In my
opinion I'd use the words "severely flattened," and I'm superbly
confident that most English speakers worldwide would agree with me, most
especially if they weren't told and/or did not know that this bullet had
anything, even allegedly, to do with the JFK assassination, so that they
would not be biased. I am also superbly confident that if I stopped at
least 10 people at random on the street (any street in any city in any
English-speaking country) and showed them this photo but did not mention
the assassination in any context, that unless these people said to me
that they already know that this bullet has something to do with the
assassination, more than half of them (which is called a "majority")
would be of the opinion that it is severely damaged, or they would use
English words meaning more or less the same thing. Since I live in east
Texas, surrounded by many, many, many people who go hunting on a routine
basis, and have undoubtably recovered bullets from many different
animals, I would be especially fascinated to learn what they would say
upon viewing this photo, most especially if they had no idea that it was
connected in any way, even allegedly, with the JFK assassination.
Research, I have already made one Youtube video conclusively demolishing
the obviously false claim that the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, one of
the three "backyard" photos of Oswald and the rifle, is NOT necessarily
evidence of fakery. Not one CT, not one, has even *tried* to show me,
in a video or article or using any other method, that what I show in my
video is false. Do you think I should post my second video about the
JFK assassination, in which I stop people at random on the street, show
them this photo, but don't tell them which bullet this is? Any bets on
what the *majority* of these people will say about the bullet in the
photo?
I know perfectly well what the majority of them will say, because I have
what is called "at least average common sense."
Your mileage may very.
Oh, and Research? Do you think for a moment I'm not just as willing
(actually I'm *more* willing) to post another Youtube video challenging
a common assumption of LNs which I also think is incredibly misguided,
that there "just wasn't" a hole in the back of JFK's head as described
by c.40 witnesses, with a far smaller number specifically stating
otherwise? Using nothing but what is called "average common sense," I
am superbly confident that in such a video, if I stop people at random
on the street (or ooo! I know the perfect place! Stopping people at
random right here in Huntsville, Tx, on the SHSU campus, whether they
are students or not) that when I place my finger where I think that hole
was, more than half of them (which is called a "majority") will use
either the English word "back" or the English word "rear" somewhere in
their description. And JC? Bigdog? Remember how last year I kept
showing you and showing you and showing you my links to where on JFK's
head I think that hole was, and because you are posting/reading through
Google, which apparently did not archive my articles (which is not even
slightly my fault) you obviously remained (and probably still remain to
this day) unclear about exactly what I was talking about? Remember how
I also kept showing you and showing you and showing you the links to
where the majority of researchers say which part of his skull the Harper
Fragment came from, and I kept telling you and telling you and telling
you that you were putting it in the wrong place, a *different* place
than what I was talking about?
So much for the provable myth that I, of all people, am merely a "shill"
for the WC, or some other such nonsense.
2. The two men were not in the correct alignment for the SBT to occur.
Provably false, beyond all possible doubt. The movie "JFK," for
example, FALSELY CLAIMS that "the Warren Commission would have us
believe" (unless I'm mistaken, those are the exact words which the
script puts into Kevin Costner's mouth) that the bullet would have had
to have made stops in midair, and turns in midair. First of all, the
Warren Commission NEVER CLAIMED ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE THAT, even
if they DID MAKE SEVERAL *OTHER* ABSURD CLAIMS in the section of the WCR
titled "The Shot That Missed." Secondly, the two men were not, as
erroneously shown in "JFK," and erroneously believed by the majority
(that means more than half) of conspiracy believers worldwide (including
those who *don't* read or speak English, rather obviously because most
of them have not read even one full page out of even one of the WC
volumes, even in translation) aligned with Connally being directly in
front of JFK and at the same level. Instead, it has been proven beyond
all possible doubt that Connally was seated several inches LOWER than
JFK, and several inches to the LEFT of JFK.
3. Connally reacts later than JFK. Provably false beyond all possible
doubt. Unless one is legally blind, it is childishly easy to see that
both men jerk violently at the same instant, even if one doesn't know
the frame numbers. It is my opinion that at least a few CTs are
DELIBERATELY LYING when they say they "don't see this." As for the rest
of them, it is my opinion that they are merely mindlessly repeating the
no more than three books about the assassination that they've read,
and/or no more than three documentaries/films they've watched about the
assassination. In fact, it is also my opinion, that I have expressed
many times in this and the uncivilized newsgroup nextdoor, that at least
99% of all people worldwide, no matter what language(s) they read/speak,
who have expressed any opinion about the JFK assassination, no matter
what opinion that is (even the opinion of "Oswald did it alone") have
never once in their lives, not even once, read even one, one, witness
testimony to the WC all the way through from start to finish, from first
word, phrase, sentence, to last, even though every single page of all of
that has been absurdly simple to find on the Internet since at least the
late 1990s.
> It
> doesn't matter whether the SBT was the initial belief by anyone.
Sure doesn't. The truth can still be the truth, no matter how early or
how late the first person realizes it. And this does *indeed* prove
that my comments about your glaring error, Research, about Columbus and
Isabella, were superbly relevant about the JFK assassination, and
remember that ***YOU***, not me, ***FIRST*** mentioned Columbus and
Isabella here. But it's obviously true that the earth was already
spherical before the first human even thought of the possibility.
Rather obviously this planet did not abruptly change its shape at the
instant the first human realized that even maybe, perhaps, possibly, the
planet is not flat. It is also irrelevant *when* the first human
realized this. The planet would obviously already be whatever shape it
is, whether people ever knew it or not. Something can be *true*, even
*before* the first person agrees that it is true for the first time ever.
Without one person agreeing that it is true, the SBT can still be true.
Without one person agreeing that it is true, the earth can still be
spherical.
Human agreement has never articulated fact, in and of itself. How many
more examples can be named? Thousands. Microorganisms rather obviously
were already here, long, long, long before the first human realized that
they were here. That's just one more.
Just because you yourself, Research, along with some, but not all, of
your fellow CTs, don't believe the SBT doesn't automatically prove that
it isn't true. The earth was obviously spherical long, long, long
before it was *proven* to be spherical. Microorganisms *obviously*
existed long, long, long before they were *proven* to exist. This
planet was *obviously* *already* orbiting the sun long, long, long
before humans existed, and even longer before it was "proven." All of
this would *still* be true, even if NOT ONE HUMAN TODAY BELIEVED IT to
be true.
Actual truth, totally beyond opinion, can *easily* be true, even if not
one intelligent being of any species *believes* it to be true.
There is indeed such a thing as absolute truth, totally beyond opinion,
totally beyond knowledge. An absolute truth is simply whatever it is.
What any living organism "believes" or "doesn't believe" doesn't change
that in the slightest.
> All that
> matters is that the WC arrived at the right answer and the SBT is the only
> possible right answer. Your inability to offer any other plausible scenario
> is testament to that.
And now here we DO come into majority human opinion. Not what JC
(bigdog) in his opinion alone would consider to plausible. Not what you
in your opinion alone would consider to "plausible," Research. Not what
I in my opinion alone would consider to be "plausible." But instead,
what most people worldwide, no matter what their race, nationality,
linguistic group, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. would
consider to be plausible.
I've also said this many, many, many times before here. Many humans
exhibit average common sense in many situations *except* when the
discussion is about the JFK assassination.
Most people don't hesitate in the slightest (even most black people) to
proclaim OJ to be guilty of those murders, even though he was
technically acquitted. "Suddenly," when it comes to the JFK
assassination only (and no other murder in all of recorded history)
exactly the same people more often than not proclaim Oswald to be
"innocent," rather obviously because 99% of all humans worldwide have
never read even one WC testimony all the way through from start to
finish, even in translation.
And even though most humans worldwide have noticed many, many, many
times in their lives, that it is a common, everyday, mundane occurrence
for a person to initially think a sound is coming from a different
direction than where it actually came from, "suddenly," and *only* when
they're talking about the JFK assassination and literally no other
subject, even if the subject is not murder by firearm, these same people
"conveniently forget" that they themselves have noticed this phenomenon
many, many, many times in their lives, and fail to notice that no matter
what direction the witnesses named for the source of the sounds of the
gunfire in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63, more than 90% of those witnesses
said ALL the shots sounded as if they came from a single direction. Oh
no, they did NOT agree with each other, not even close, on WHICH SINGLE
DIRECTION that was. But they did indeed agree with each other, more
than 90% of them, that whatever direction the shots came from, they all
came from one direction.
Wanna dispute me in the slightest on that, Research? I'll give you a
run for your money. For about a decade I've had my ducks all in a row
on this issue, perhaps the single issue regarding the assassination
about which I am most solid. For every witness you can quote verbatim
who said only some, or only one shot came from the grassy knoll, I will
quote verbatim AT LEAST THREE witnesses who SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THEY
THOUGHT ***ALL*** THE SHOTS came from the grassy knoll, or else named no
other direction for ***ALL*** the gunfire they heard. With childish
simplicity, I can do exactly the same thing for any witness you quote
who names any direction for the shots, no matter what direction they
name.
I've been wondering that too. It cannot possibly be any of the c.10
versions of it I've seen on Youtube, nor can it be any of the versions
on the MPI dvd that I've had for about a decade, nor can it be the
version that is shown in the movie "JFK." All of those (notice I didn't
say "almost all") not only show the lapel flip occurring at Z224 (even
in the versions without frame #s it still obviously occurs in the same
frame) but all, not almost all, of these versions of the film clearly
show the two men jerking violently starting at exactly the same instant.
Research must be watching a very obscure version of the film that even
the majority of CTs worldwide would dismiss as not being genuine were
they too to see it.
> The "lapel flip" occurs at
> Z224, not Z226 as you claim.
lapel flip is at Z224, and in my previous reply to you today I quoted
two of your fellow CTs, but only one LN, as agreeing that it is at Z224.
Even the majority of your own fellow CTs disagree with you about which
frame this was. Oh yes, they might agree with you about that not being
when Connally was hit. But about exactly which frame the lapel flip
occurred, whether or not it was caused by a bullet, most of them say
Z224.
You are in the minority, even among your own fellow CTs. If I were you,
this might "concern" me. ;-)
> This is a significant error on your part given
> that Z226 is the frame that both JFK and JBC react to the shot that struck
> them a few frames earlier. Z226 is the frame we see both men suddenly and in
> unison jerk their arms upward. This simultaneous reaction is the clincher for
> the SBT.
starting in the same frame? Now true, this is an LN saying this, and
with this I do know that the majority of your fellow CTs might disagree
with bigdog and I on this particular matter. Nevertheless, it does at
least prove that I'm not the only one who plainly sees both men jerk
violently starting in exactly the same frame.
> It wasn't a lie and it doesn't matter who first thought of the SBT.
has to be proven that the person uttering the statement knew the
statement at the time of uttering it to be a lie. Even in the context
of CTs claiming the SBT has not been proven to be true, since it also
hasn't been proven to be false, it cannot yet be correctly called a
"lie." And as I already told you, Research, in my previous reply, there
is indeed a much larger body of evidence to indicate that the SBT is
true than that which indicates that it isn't true. The so-called
"evidence" that the SBT is "false" is quite flimsy in comparison. Among
the most common PROVABLY FALSE claims I've seen being made by many CTs
include the following:
1. CE 399 (the bullet alleged to have wounded both men) is "pristine"
in all photos ever taken of it. Provably false beyond all possible
doubt. Here is one of those very photos:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/bhdocs/ce399_3.jpg
That was taken looking at the base of the bullet. Doesn't look exactly
"pristine" to me. Even the (obviously CT) person who wrote the caption
"slightly crumpled" is still quite obviously admitting that the bullet
isn't "pristine," as in it never struck anything. Oh dear, and what
about this photo of the same bullet?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/bhdocs/ce399_2.jpg
Looks like it's a lot more than just "slightly" crumpled to me. In my
opinion I'd use the words "severely flattened," and I'm superbly
confident that most English speakers worldwide would agree with me, most
especially if they weren't told and/or did not know that this bullet had
anything, even allegedly, to do with the JFK assassination, so that they
would not be biased. I am also superbly confident that if I stopped at
least 10 people at random on the street (any street in any city in any
English-speaking country) and showed them this photo but did not mention
the assassination in any context, that unless these people said to me
that they already know that this bullet has something to do with the
assassination, more than half of them (which is called a "majority")
would be of the opinion that it is severely damaged, or they would use
English words meaning more or less the same thing. Since I live in east
Texas, surrounded by many, many, many people who go hunting on a routine
basis, and have undoubtably recovered bullets from many different
animals, I would be especially fascinated to learn what they would say
upon viewing this photo, most especially if they had no idea that it was
connected in any way, even allegedly, with the JFK assassination.
Research, I have already made one Youtube video conclusively demolishing
the obviously false claim that the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, one of
the three "backyard" photos of Oswald and the rifle, is NOT necessarily
evidence of fakery. Not one CT, not one, has even *tried* to show me,
in a video or article or using any other method, that what I show in my
video is false. Do you think I should post my second video about the
JFK assassination, in which I stop people at random on the street, show
them this photo, but don't tell them which bullet this is? Any bets on
what the *majority* of these people will say about the bullet in the
photo?
I know perfectly well what the majority of them will say, because I have
what is called "at least average common sense."
Your mileage may very.
Oh, and Research? Do you think for a moment I'm not just as willing
(actually I'm *more* willing) to post another Youtube video challenging
a common assumption of LNs which I also think is incredibly misguided,
that there "just wasn't" a hole in the back of JFK's head as described
by c.40 witnesses, with a far smaller number specifically stating
otherwise? Using nothing but what is called "average common sense," I
am superbly confident that in such a video, if I stop people at random
on the street (or ooo! I know the perfect place! Stopping people at
random right here in Huntsville, Tx, on the SHSU campus, whether they
are students or not) that when I place my finger where I think that hole
was, more than half of them (which is called a "majority") will use
either the English word "back" or the English word "rear" somewhere in
their description. And JC? Bigdog? Remember how last year I kept
showing you and showing you and showing you my links to where on JFK's
head I think that hole was, and because you are posting/reading through
Google, which apparently did not archive my articles (which is not even
slightly my fault) you obviously remained (and probably still remain to
this day) unclear about exactly what I was talking about? Remember how
I also kept showing you and showing you and showing you the links to
where the majority of researchers say which part of his skull the Harper
Fragment came from, and I kept telling you and telling you and telling
you that you were putting it in the wrong place, a *different* place
than what I was talking about?
So much for the provable myth that I, of all people, am merely a "shill"
for the WC, or some other such nonsense.
2. The two men were not in the correct alignment for the SBT to occur.
Provably false, beyond all possible doubt. The movie "JFK," for
example, FALSELY CLAIMS that "the Warren Commission would have us
believe" (unless I'm mistaken, those are the exact words which the
script puts into Kevin Costner's mouth) that the bullet would have had
to have made stops in midair, and turns in midair. First of all, the
Warren Commission NEVER CLAIMED ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE THAT, even
if they DID MAKE SEVERAL *OTHER* ABSURD CLAIMS in the section of the WCR
titled "The Shot That Missed." Secondly, the two men were not, as
erroneously shown in "JFK," and erroneously believed by the majority
(that means more than half) of conspiracy believers worldwide (including
those who *don't* read or speak English, rather obviously because most
of them have not read even one full page out of even one of the WC
volumes, even in translation) aligned with Connally being directly in
front of JFK and at the same level. Instead, it has been proven beyond
all possible doubt that Connally was seated several inches LOWER than
JFK, and several inches to the LEFT of JFK.
3. Connally reacts later than JFK. Provably false beyond all possible
doubt. Unless one is legally blind, it is childishly easy to see that
both men jerk violently at the same instant, even if one doesn't know
the frame numbers. It is my opinion that at least a few CTs are
DELIBERATELY LYING when they say they "don't see this." As for the rest
of them, it is my opinion that they are merely mindlessly repeating the
no more than three books about the assassination that they've read,
and/or no more than three documentaries/films they've watched about the
assassination. In fact, it is also my opinion, that I have expressed
many times in this and the uncivilized newsgroup nextdoor, that at least
99% of all people worldwide, no matter what language(s) they read/speak,
who have expressed any opinion about the JFK assassination, no matter
what opinion that is (even the opinion of "Oswald did it alone") have
never once in their lives, not even once, read even one, one, witness
testimony to the WC all the way through from start to finish, from first
word, phrase, sentence, to last, even though every single page of all of
that has been absurdly simple to find on the Internet since at least the
late 1990s.
> It
> doesn't matter whether the SBT was the initial belief by anyone.
how late the first person realizes it. And this does *indeed* prove
that my comments about your glaring error, Research, about Columbus and
Isabella, were superbly relevant about the JFK assassination, and
remember that ***YOU***, not me, ***FIRST*** mentioned Columbus and
Isabella here. But it's obviously true that the earth was already
spherical before the first human even thought of the possibility.
Rather obviously this planet did not abruptly change its shape at the
instant the first human realized that even maybe, perhaps, possibly, the
planet is not flat. It is also irrelevant *when* the first human
realized this. The planet would obviously already be whatever shape it
is, whether people ever knew it or not. Something can be *true*, even
*before* the first person agrees that it is true for the first time ever.
Without one person agreeing that it is true, the SBT can still be true.
Without one person agreeing that it is true, the earth can still be
spherical.
Human agreement has never articulated fact, in and of itself. How many
more examples can be named? Thousands. Microorganisms rather obviously
were already here, long, long, long before the first human realized that
they were here. That's just one more.
Just because you yourself, Research, along with some, but not all, of
your fellow CTs, don't believe the SBT doesn't automatically prove that
it isn't true. The earth was obviously spherical long, long, long
before it was *proven* to be spherical. Microorganisms *obviously*
existed long, long, long before they were *proven* to exist. This
planet was *obviously* *already* orbiting the sun long, long, long
before humans existed, and even longer before it was "proven." All of
this would *still* be true, even if NOT ONE HUMAN TODAY BELIEVED IT to
be true.
Actual truth, totally beyond opinion, can *easily* be true, even if not
one intelligent being of any species *believes* it to be true.
There is indeed such a thing as absolute truth, totally beyond opinion,
totally beyond knowledge. An absolute truth is simply whatever it is.
What any living organism "believes" or "doesn't believe" doesn't change
that in the slightest.
> All that
> matters is that the WC arrived at the right answer and the SBT is the only
> possible right answer. Your inability to offer any other plausible scenario
> is testament to that.
(bigdog) in his opinion alone would consider to plausible. Not what you
in your opinion alone would consider to "plausible," Research. Not what
I in my opinion alone would consider to be "plausible." But instead,
what most people worldwide, no matter what their race, nationality,
linguistic group, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. would
consider to be plausible.
I've also said this many, many, many times before here. Many humans
exhibit average common sense in many situations *except* when the
discussion is about the JFK assassination.
Most people don't hesitate in the slightest (even most black people) to
proclaim OJ to be guilty of those murders, even though he was
technically acquitted. "Suddenly," when it comes to the JFK
assassination only (and no other murder in all of recorded history)
exactly the same people more often than not proclaim Oswald to be
"innocent," rather obviously because 99% of all humans worldwide have
never read even one WC testimony all the way through from start to
finish, even in translation.
And even though most humans worldwide have noticed many, many, many
times in their lives, that it is a common, everyday, mundane occurrence
for a person to initially think a sound is coming from a different
direction than where it actually came from, "suddenly," and *only* when
they're talking about the JFK assassination and literally no other
subject, even if the subject is not murder by firearm, these same people
"conveniently forget" that they themselves have noticed this phenomenon
many, many, many times in their lives, and fail to notice that no matter
what direction the witnesses named for the source of the sounds of the
gunfire in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63, more than 90% of those witnesses
said ALL the shots sounded as if they came from a single direction. Oh
no, they did NOT agree with each other, not even close, on WHICH SINGLE
DIRECTION that was. But they did indeed agree with each other, more
than 90% of them, that whatever direction the shots came from, they all
came from one direction.
Wanna dispute me in the slightest on that, Research? I'll give you a
run for your money. For about a decade I've had my ducks all in a row
on this issue, perhaps the single issue regarding the assassination
about which I am most solid. For every witness you can quote verbatim
who said only some, or only one shot came from the grassy knoll, I will
quote verbatim AT LEAST THREE witnesses who SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THEY
THOUGHT ***ALL*** THE SHOTS came from the grassy knoll, or else named no
other direction for ***ALL*** the gunfire they heard. With childish
simplicity, I can do exactly the same thing for any witness you quote
who names any direction for the shots, no matter what direction they
name.
John King
Aug 29, 2012, 12:18:29 AM8/29/12
to
In article <8f8f8481-6b89-4157...@googlegroups.com>,
Ah, and until this very moment I did not recall that one. Years
(plural) ago I produced solid documentation of *other* instances of one
bullet injuring two people. Not one CT, not one, even *tried* to
dispute even *one* of those cases.
They didn't even *try*, not even to say "you're wrong" without any
further comment. Not even one CT, not one, even *erroneously* claimed
me to be wrong about even one of those cases. Someone, anyone, look on
the Google Groups archives if you don't believe me. You will be
helplessly unable to find even one reply made directly to me, Caeruleo
(the only alias I've ever gone by anywhere on the Internet when
discussing this assassination, and even now we can all still see
"caeruleo" right after John King on the From line of all my articles).
No such reply to me was ever posted, by anyone, CT, LN, or uncommitted,
directly to me. And remember, to *prove* that the reply was posted
directly to me, you have to produce the Google URL which shows the
*full* *header* of the article, including the References line. Unless
that line is visible, it cannot be proven that the reply was made
directly to one of my articles.
And unless my article to which the person was "replying" shows in its
full header an originating IP from txucom.net or cox.net or
suddenlink.net in Huntsville, Tx., the article was a forgery, and not
posted by me or with my approval.
(plural) ago I produced solid documentation of *other* instances of one
bullet injuring two people. Not one CT, not one, even *tried* to
dispute even *one* of those cases.
They didn't even *try*, not even to say "you're wrong" without any
further comment. Not even one CT, not one, even *erroneously* claimed
me to be wrong about even one of those cases. Someone, anyone, look on
the Google Groups archives if you don't believe me. You will be
helplessly unable to find even one reply made directly to me, Caeruleo
(the only alias I've ever gone by anywhere on the Internet when
discussing this assassination, and even now we can all still see
"caeruleo" right after John King on the From line of all my articles).
No such reply to me was ever posted, by anyone, CT, LN, or uncommitted,
directly to me. And remember, to *prove* that the reply was posted
directly to me, you have to produce the Google URL which shows the
*full* *header* of the article, including the References line. Unless
that line is visible, it cannot be proven that the reply was made
directly to one of my articles.
And unless my article to which the person was "replying" shows in its
full header an originating IP from txucom.net or cox.net or
suddenlink.net in Huntsville, Tx., the article was a forgery, and not
posted by me or with my approval.
John King
Aug 29, 2012, 12:21:09 AM8/29/12
to
> > Yes. We know you are crazy, but not even YOU can believe the WC.
I'm guessing that that sentence immediately above, was posted by Anthony
Marsh, a person whose articles I have never knowingly read since 2005.
He himself has no *legitimate* excuse to "not know why" I haven't
knowingly read any of his articles for seven years. I have little doubt
that even today he will probably put out the spin that this is because I
"can't refute" what he says about the assassination itself. Here's the
real truth: way back then I told him that I was putting him on killfile
for 30 days because over and over and over he claimed that I had said
things I had never said and then ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to admit that he had
made any mistake when I QUOTED MYSELF VERBATIM from those very previous
articles of mine, proving beyond all possible doubt that I didn't say
what he claimed I said. After those 30 days, when I resumed reading his
articles, he just continued and continued and continued to do the same
thing. So I put him on killfile for 60 days, AND TOLD HIM EXACTLY WHY I
WAS DOING IT BEFORE I DID IT. After those two months, when I resumed
reading his articles, he still continued and continued and continued to
claim I had said things I never said, and ***STILL*** ABSOLUTELY REFUSED
to acknowledge his errors, even ***AFTER*** I quoted myself
***VERBATIM*** from my previous articles, along with the Google Groups
URLs proving beyond all possible doubt that it really was the truth that
I had not said what he claimed I said. So I put him on killfile for 90
days and told him EXACTLY WHY ***BEFORE*** I PUT HIM ON KILLFILE. After
those three months, when I resumed reading his articles and replying to
them, he continued and continued and continued to claim I said things I
never said and in addition ABSOLUTELY ***REFUSED*** to admit his errors
even ***AFTER*** I had quoted myself verbatim from my earlier articles,
proving beyond all possible doubt that I had not said what he claimed I
said. No reasonable person would dream of claiming that I didn't give
him plenty of chances. Finally, at long last, I put him on *PERMANENT*
killfile, a killfile which I will never alter as long as I live, no
matter *how* long I live.
Does someone, anyone, dispute me in the slightest? Just do a Google
Groups search on these three keywords:
anthony caeruleo marsh plonk (in any order) (or "killfile" instead of
"plonk," with all three other search terms remaining intact).
Everybody and their dog's mother can plainly see me explaining to him,
on each occasion, precisely *why* I plonked him ("plonk" = putting a
poster in one's killfile). In addition, it is blindingly obvious from
hundreds of my *other* articles that I have never once in my life, not
once, ignored anyone's articles merely because I disagreed with anything
they said about the assassination, no matter what they said. I have
demonstrated precisely the opposite hundreds of times, if not thousands,
here since 2002. I absolutely refuse to read the articles of only FIVE
posters here for ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REASONS.
That said, I dearly love the fact that Anthony, for the past seven
years, has to helplessly wait, and wait, and wait for another poster to
quote his texts for me to able to see them, and even then, whenever I
see "Anthony Marsh" anywhere in the attributions, 99% of the time I
don't read even one word, but merely skip to the newest text of the
person who is replying. Even when I read on Google, where I can't
killfile, if anything says "Anthony Marsh," 99% of the time I skip it
without reading any further.
That said, I also am incredibly amused (I am presently experiencing no
other emotion than mirth) that he of all people would accuse me of all
people of this:
"We know you are crazy"
Yeah, a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of posters here believe that of me, of
all people. But the last part of the sentence is the best:
"but not even YOU can believe the WC"
I've posted here since October, 2002, honestly believes that I, of all
people, supports anything remotely close to 100% of the conclusions of
the WC. Isn't that correct, moderators?
In fact, when was it that I *first* began disputing certain claims of
the WC? Oh that's right, the same month I first began posting here,
October, 2002. Does someone, anyone, dispute that in the slightest?
With childish simplicity I'll produce, right out of the Google archives,
exactly those same articles I posted here in 2002, unless the Google
archives have one of their frequent glitches, and omit *all* articles
posted here by anyone in October, 2002. I do not have any control over
what glitches Google does and does not have.
> >> "It has been speculated that perhaps an ice bullet was used with a
> >> paralyzing agent -- then the missile would leave the entry wound on
> >> JFK's neck, but would melt away, and thus no exit for that missile; this
> >> theory, however, I do not subscribe to."
>
> Well this is almost the most purposstuious I have ever read. <;-)
am now posting, I have made no comment whatsoever on your numerous
misspellings, because I usually don't do that, as I know perfectly well
that many people, including me, have misspelled words in English on
numerous occasions. I did not, for example, before today say anything
about your misspelling of the name of the Spanish queen to whom Columbus
made his case, and I have always before now known what you meant, or
appeared to mean, whether it was spelled correctly or not. But sorry, I
have to comment this time. What on earth does "purposstuious" mean??
This is just a wild guess, but did you mean "preposterous"? I'm
wondering: do you not have Spell Check or anything similar on your
computer? Whenever I type a word here that is misspelled, my computer
*instantly* underlines it in red, which partially explains why I post so
few misspellings here (the other reason is that it really is true that
my father, Merton King, was an English professor at SHSU from 1967 to
c.1994; look it up if you don't believe me: you'll find my first,
middle, and last name in direct connection with his obituary in 2008).
Try spell check, Research, it usually works.
But if you did mean "preposterous," which I'm not at all sure you did, I
totally agree. I said to that same poster, how would the shooter(s)
keep the ice frozen long enough to shoot the ice bullets when they had
NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT TIME THE MOTORCADE WOULD PASS.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 29, 2012, 4:54:39 PM8/29/12
to
On 8/29/2012 12:13 AM, John King wrote:
> In article <385a4a8c-ef8a-4f36...@googlegroups.com>,
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What version of the Z-film are you looking at?
>
> I've been wondering that too. It cannot possibly be any of the c.10
> versions of it I've seen on Youtube, nor can it be any of the versions
> on the MPI dvd that I've had for about a decade, nor can it be the
> version that is shown in the movie "JFK." All of those (notice I didn't
> say "almost all") not only show the lapel flip occurring at Z224 (even
> in the versions without frame #s it still obviously occurs in the same
> frame) but all, not almost all, of these versions of the film clearly
> show the two men jerking violently starting at exactly the same instant.
>
Preposterous. You are imagining things.
> In article <385a4a8c-ef8a-4f36...@googlegroups.com>,
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What version of the Z-film are you looking at?
>
> I've been wondering that too. It cannot possibly be any of the c.10
> versions of it I've seen on Youtube, nor can it be any of the versions
> on the MPI dvd that I've had for about a decade, nor can it be the
> version that is shown in the movie "JFK." All of those (notice I didn't
> say "almost all") not only show the lapel flip occurring at Z224 (even
> in the versions without frame #s it still obviously occurs in the same
> frame) but all, not almost all, of these versions of the film clearly
> show the two men jerking violently starting at exactly the same instant.
>
You can't even see JFK clearly at Z-224.
to lie.
> of CTs claiming the SBT has not been proven to be true, since it also
> hasn't been proven to be false, it cannot yet be correctly called a
> "lie." And as I already told you, Research, in my previous reply, there
> is indeed a much larger body of evidence to indicate that the SBT is
> true than that which indicates that it isn't true. The so-called
> "evidence" that the SBT is "false" is quite flimsy in comparison. Among
> the most common PROVABLY FALSE claims I've seen being made by many CTs
> include the following:
>
> 1. CE 399 (the bullet alleged to have wounded both men) is "pristine"
> in all photos ever taken of it. Provably false beyond all possible
> doubt. Here is one of those very photos:
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/bhdocs/ce399_3.jpg
>
> That was taken looking at the base of the bullet. Doesn't look exactly
> "pristine" to me. Even the (obviously CT) person who wrote the caption
> "slightly crumpled" is still quite obviously admitting that the bullet
> isn't "pristine," as in it never struck anything. Oh dear, and what
> about this photo of the same bullet?
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/bhdocs/ce399_2.jpg
>
> Looks like it's a lot more than just "slightly" crumpled to me. In my
> opinion I'd use the words "severely flattened," and I'm superbly
> confident that most English speakers worldwide would agree with me, most
> especially if they weren't told and/or did not know that this bullet had
> anything, even allegedly, to do with the JFK assassination, so that they
> would not be biased. I am also superbly confident that if I stopped at
> least 10 people at random on the street (any street in any city in any
> English-speaking country) and showed them this photo but did not mention
> the assassination in any context, that unless these people said to me
> that they already know that this bullet has something to do with the
> assassination, more than half of them (which is called a "majority")
> would be of the opinion that it is severely damaged, or they would use
> English words meaning more or less the same thing. Since I live in east
> Texas, surrounded by many, many, many people who go hunting on a routine
> basis, and have undoubtably recovered bullets from many different
> animals, I would be especially fascinated to learn what they would say
> upon viewing this photo, most especially if they had no idea that it was
> connected in any way, even allegedly, with the JFK assassination.
>
100 people at random and told them all the damage you think it did, all
of them would laugh at you.
> Research, I have already made one Youtube video conclusively demolishing
> the obviously false claim that the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, one of
> the three "backyard" photos of Oswald and the rifle, is NOT necessarily
> evidence of fakery. Not one CT, not one, has even *tried* to show me,
> in a video or article or using any other method, that what I show in my
> video is false. Do you think I should post my second video about the
> JFK assassination, in which I stop people at random on the street, show
> them this photo, but don't tell them which bullet this is? Any bets on
> what the *majority* of these people will say about the bullet in the
> photo?
>
> I know perfectly well what the majority of them will say, because I have
> what is called "at least average common sense."
>
> Your mileage may very.
>
> Oh, and Research? Do you think for a moment I'm not just as willing
> (actually I'm *more* willing) to post another Youtube video challenging
> a common assumption of LNs which I also think is incredibly misguided,
> that there "just wasn't" a hole in the back of JFK's head as described
> by c.40 witnesses, with a far smaller number specifically stating
> otherwise? Using nothing but what is called "average common sense," I
> am superbly confident that in such a video, if I stop people at random
> on the street (or ooo! I know the perfect place! Stopping people at
> random right here in Huntsville, Tx, on the SHSU campus, whether they
> are students or not) that when I place my finger where I think that hole
> was, more than half of them (which is called a "majority") will use
> either the English word "back" or the English word "rear" somewhere in
> their description. And JC? Bigdog? Remember how last year I kept
> showing you and showing you and showing you my links to where on JFK's
> head I think that hole was, and because you are posting/reading through
> Google, which apparently did not archive my articles (which is not even
> slightly my fault) you obviously remained (and probably still remain to
> this day) unclear about exactly what I was talking about? Remember how
that they won't keep disappearing? Maybe it's a conspiracy to silence you!
> I also kept showing you and showing you and showing you the links to
> where the majority of researchers say which part of his skull the Harper
> Fragment came from, and I kept telling you and telling you and telling
> you that you were putting it in the wrong place, a *different* place
> than what I was talking about?
>
> So much for the provable myth that I, of all people, am merely a "shill"
> for the WC, or some other such nonsense.
>
> 2. The two men were not in the correct alignment for the SBT to occur.
> Provably false, beyond all possible doubt. The movie "JFK," for
> example, FALSELY CLAIMS that "the Warren Commission would have us
> believe" (unless I'm mistaken, those are the exact words which the
> script puts into Kevin Costner's mouth) that the bullet would have had
> to have made stops in midair, and turns in midair. First of all, the
> Warren Commission NEVER CLAIMED ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE THAT, even
> if they DID MAKE SEVERAL *OTHER* ABSURD CLAIMS in the section of the WCR
> titled "The Shot That Missed." Secondly, the two men were not, as
> erroneously shown in "JFK," and erroneously believed by the majority
> (that means more than half) of conspiracy believers worldwide (including
> those who *don't* read or speak English, rather obviously because most
> of them have not read even one full page out of even one of the WC
> volumes, even in translation) aligned with Connally being directly in
> front of JFK and at the same level. Instead, it has been proven beyond
> all possible doubt that Connally was seated several inches LOWER than
> JFK, and several inches to the LEFT of JFK.
>
vague and evasive.
> 3. Connally reacts later than JFK. Provably false beyond all possible
> doubt. Unless one is legally blind, it is childishly easy to see that
> both men jerk violently at the same instant, even if one doesn't know
emerges before Kennedy. When Kennedy does emerge he had already been
hit. Connally said he was not hit until about Z-230.
> the frame numbers. It is my opinion that at least a few CTs are
> DELIBERATELY LYING when they say they "don't see this." As for the rest
> of them, it is my opinion that they are merely mindlessly repeating the
> no more than three books about the assassination that they've read,
> and/or no more than three documentaries/films they've watched about the
> assassination. In fact, it is also my opinion, that I have expressed
> many times in this and the uncivilized newsgroup nextdoor, that at least
> 99% of all people worldwide, no matter what language(s) they read/speak,
> who have expressed any opinion about the JFK assassination, no matter
> what opinion that is (even the opinion of "Oswald did it alone") have
> never once in their lives, not even once, read even one, one, witness
> testimony to the WC all the way through from start to finish, from first
> word, phrase, sentence, to last, even though every single page of all of
> that has been absurdly simple to find on the Internet since at least the
> late 1990s.
>
>> It
>> doesn't matter whether the SBT was the initial belief by anyone.
>
> Sure doesn't. The truth can still be the truth, no matter how early or
> how late the first person realizes it. And this does *indeed* prove
> that my comments about your glaring error, Research, about Columbus and
> Isabella, were superbly relevant about the JFK assassination, and
> remember that ***YOU***, not me, ***FIRST*** mentioned Columbus and
> Isabella here. But it's obviously true that the earth was already
> spherical before the first human even thought of the possibility.
> Rather obviously this planet did not abruptly change its shape at the
> instant the first human realized that even maybe, perhaps, possibly, the
> planet is not flat. It is also irrelevant *when* the first human
> realized this. The planet would obviously already be whatever shape it
> is, whether people ever knew it or not. Something can be *true*, even
> *before* the first person agrees that it is true for the first time ever.
>
> Without one person agreeing that it is true, the SBT can still be true.
keep putting it off.
> Without one person agreeing that it is true, the earth can still be
> spherical.
>
> Human agreement has never articulated fact, in and of itself. How many
> more examples can be named? Thousands. Microorganisms rather obviously
> were already here, long, long, long before the first human realized that
> they were here. That's just one more.
>
> Just because you yourself, Research, along with some, but not all, of
> your fellow CTs, don't believe the SBT doesn't automatically prove that
> it isn't true. The earth was obviously spherical long, long, long
> before it was *proven* to be spherical. Microorganisms *obviously*
> existed long, long, long before they were *proven* to exist. This
> planet was *obviously* *already* orbiting the sun long, long, long
> before humans existed, and even longer before it was "proven." All of
> this would *still* be true, even if NOT ONE HUMAN TODAY BELIEVED IT to
> be true.
>
> Actual truth, totally beyond opinion, can *easily* be true, even if not
> one intelligent being of any species *believes* it to be true.
>
> There is indeed such a thing as absolute truth, totally beyond opinion,
> totally beyond knowledge. An absolute truth is simply whatever it is.
> What any living organism "believes" or "doesn't believe" doesn't change
> that in the slightest.
>
>> All that
>> matters is that the WC arrived at the right answer and the SBT is the only
>> possible right answer. Your inability to offer any other plausible scenario
>> is testament to that.
>
> And now here we DO come into majority human opinion. Not what JC
> (bigdog) in his opinion alone would consider to plausible. Not what you
> in your opinion alone would consider to "plausible," Research. Not what
> I in my opinion alone would consider to be "plausible." But instead,
> what most people worldwide, no matter what their race, nationality,
> linguistic group, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. would
> consider to be plausible.
>
> I've also said this many, many, many times before here. Many humans
> exhibit average common sense in many situations *except* when the
> discussion is about the JFK assassination.
>
> Most people don't hesitate in the slightest (even most black people) to
> proclaim OJ to be guilty of those murders, even though he was
> technically acquitted. "Suddenly," when it comes to the JFK
> assassination only (and no other murder in all of recorded history)
> exactly the same people more often than not proclaim Oswald to be
> "innocent," rather obviously because 99% of all humans worldwide have
> never read even one WC testimony all the way through from start to
> finish, even in translation.
>
murder.
There is a slight difference between someone committing a crime and
being guilty of the crime.
You may also not be aware that some conspiracy believers think that
Oswald was guilty AND it was a conspiracy. The two are not mutually
exclusive.
And why do 100% of the WC defenders proclaim Oswald to be guilty when
100% of them have never read the WC Report?
> And even though most humans worldwide have noticed many, many, many
> times in their lives, that it is a common, everyday, mundane occurrence
> for a person to initially think a sound is coming from a different
> direction than where it actually came from, "suddenly," and *only* when
> they're talking about the JFK assassination and literally no other
> subject, even if the subject is not murder by firearm, these same people
> "conveniently forget" that they themselves have noticed this phenomenon
> many, many, many times in their lives, and fail to notice that no matter
> what direction the witnesses named for the source of the sounds of the
> gunfire in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63, more than 90% of those witnesses
> said ALL the shots sounded as if they came from a single direction. Oh
> no, they did NOT agree with each other, not even close, on WHICH SINGLE
> DIRECTION that was. But they did indeed agree with each other, more
> than 90% of them, that whatever direction the shots came from, they all
> came from one direction.
>
scientific examinations?
> Wanna dispute me in the slightest on that, Research? I'll give you a
> run for your money. For about a decade I've had my ducks all in a row
> on this issue, perhaps the single issue regarding the assassination
> about which I am most solid. For every witness you can quote verbatim
> who said only some, or only one shot came from the grassy knoll, I will
> quote verbatim AT LEAST THREE witnesses who SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THEY
> THOUGHT ***ALL*** THE SHOTS came from the grassy knoll, or else named no
> other direction for ***ALL*** the gunfire they heard. With childish
> simplicity, I can do exactly the same thing for any witness you quote
> who names any direction for the shots, no matter what direction they
> name.
>
>> What is your source for stating that Hoover claimed JBC was shot at Z226?
>
They keep changing the frame number so many times it is hard to keep up.
Research
Aug 30, 2012, 2:44:14 PM8/30/12
to
news:caeruleo-88AE8E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
But most posters here simply try to overlook his shortcomings, though he
doesn't. McAdams allows him to rant because he posted to his site. Not
because his opinions mean anything, He snips at other posters because he
has nothing else to say. Just let him show his ineptness.
>> Well this is almost the most purposstuious I have ever read. <;-)
"preposterous"
of microsoft software is a device to make Bill Gates money, not that they
care if it works properly. Sometimes a mispelled word just doesn't come
up. I left the misspelling "purposstuious" as a PUN. I know it is above
some of the eggheads ability to comprehend a yoke. Actually, I thought
Marsh would have pounced in it long before now. Since he sets himself up
as some sort of expert on every issue on the planet.
Whenever I type a word here that is misspelled, my computer
> *instantly* underlines it in red, which partially explains why I post so
> few misspellings here (the other reason is that it really is true that
> my father, Merton King, was an English professor at SHSU from 1967 to
> c.1994; look it up if you don't believe me: you'll find my first,
> middle, and last name in direct connection with his obituary in 2008).
Sorry to hear about your loss. But since you started posting "again" You
sure do a lot of crying. Maybe you should start a blog for that. Some of
the posters forget this is a messageboard to discuess the Kennedy
Assassination. And not their bitches and grips.
A fact it may be. But it is insufficient to the issue. Which is "Why would
Gov. Connally lie?" which is the topic. (Excuse my grammer, not all of us
are experts on everything on the planet.) As an American I (as you) have
the constitutional right to write OR say just about anything, (within
reason) Sorry if my ignorance offends you.
> Try spell check, Research, it usually works.
>
> But if you did mean "preposterous," which I'm not at all sure you did, I
> totally agree. I said to that same poster, how would the shooter(s)
> keep the ice frozen long enough to shoot the ice bullets when they had
> NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT TIME THE MOTORCADE WOULD PASS.
LOL. How would a gunman keep the bullets from melting? Laughable, but of
course. I thought the LNers had covered that when Hoover invented the SBT.
In Kenney's back out his throat. Another in the BOH and out the front.
That's just as laughable too. 1:-)
Well it least we can agree on something. That's a small step forward for
posters and a giant leap for mankind.
> In article <503a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > Yes. We know you are crazy, but not even YOU can believe the WC.
>
>>
Notice I did snipped your comments about Marsh. That's y'all's argument.
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > Yes. We know you are crazy, but not even YOU can believe the WC.
>
>>
But most posters here simply try to overlook his shortcomings, though he
doesn't. McAdams allows him to rant because he posted to his site. Not
because his opinions mean anything, He snips at other posters because he
has nothing else to say. Just let him show his ineptness.
>> Well this is almost the most purposstuious I have ever read. <;-)
>
> Ok, Research, notice carefully that prior to this present article that I
> am now posting, I have made no comment whatsoever on your numerous
> misspellings, because I usually don't do that, as I know perfectly well
> that many people, including me, have misspelled words in English on
> numerous occasions. I did not, for example, before today say anything
> about your misspelling of the name of the Spanish queen to whom Columbus
> made his case, and I have always before now known what you meant, or
> appeared to mean, whether it was spelled correctly or not. But sorry, I
> have to comment this time. What on earth does "purposstuious" mean??
> This is just a wild guess, but did you mean "preposterous"? I'm
> wondering: do you not have Spell Check or anything similar on your
> computer?
Yes I do. But as you can tell. It doesn't always work. Outlook, like most
> Ok, Research, notice carefully that prior to this present article that I
> am now posting, I have made no comment whatsoever on your numerous
> misspellings, because I usually don't do that, as I know perfectly well
> that many people, including me, have misspelled words in English on
> numerous occasions. I did not, for example, before today say anything
> about your misspelling of the name of the Spanish queen to whom Columbus
> made his case, and I have always before now known what you meant, or
> appeared to mean, whether it was spelled correctly or not. But sorry, I
> have to comment this time. What on earth does "purposstuious" mean??
> This is just a wild guess, but did you mean "preposterous"? I'm
> wondering: do you not have Spell Check or anything similar on your
> computer?
of microsoft software is a device to make Bill Gates money, not that they
care if it works properly. Sometimes a mispelled word just doesn't come
up. I left the misspelling "purposstuious" as a PUN. I know it is above
some of the eggheads ability to comprehend a yoke. Actually, I thought
Marsh would have pounced in it long before now. Since he sets himself up
as some sort of expert on every issue on the planet.
Whenever I type a word here that is misspelled, my computer
> *instantly* underlines it in red, which partially explains why I post so
> few misspellings here (the other reason is that it really is true that
> my father, Merton King, was an English professor at SHSU from 1967 to
> c.1994; look it up if you don't believe me: you'll find my first,
> middle, and last name in direct connection with his obituary in 2008).
sure do a lot of crying. Maybe you should start a blog for that. Some of
the posters forget this is a messageboard to discuess the Kennedy
Assassination. And not their bitches and grips.
A fact it may be. But it is insufficient to the issue. Which is "Why would
Gov. Connally lie?" which is the topic. (Excuse my grammer, not all of us
are experts on everything on the planet.) As an American I (as you) have
the constitutional right to write OR say just about anything, (within
reason) Sorry if my ignorance offends you.
> Try spell check, Research, it usually works.
>
> But if you did mean "preposterous," which I'm not at all sure you did, I
> totally agree. I said to that same poster, how would the shooter(s)
> keep the ice frozen long enough to shoot the ice bullets when they had
> NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT TIME THE MOTORCADE WOULD PASS.
LOL. How would a gunman keep the bullets from melting? Laughable, but of
course. I thought the LNers had covered that when Hoover invented the SBT.
In Kenney's back out his throat. Another in the BOH and out the front.
That's just as laughable too. 1:-)
posters and a giant leap for mankind.
John King
Aug 31, 2012, 3:50:50 PM8/31/12
to
In article <503f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
am unable to find it. I just listened to the 11-29-63 Hoover/LBJ
telephone conversation again on Youtube, and Hoover very clearly says the
first and third shots hit JFK and the second shot hit Connally, so I still
do not understand where you are getting this Hoover inventing the SBT
from.
> In Kenney's back out his throat. Another in the BOH and out the front.
> That's just as laughable too. 1:-)
Why, exactly, is that laughable? You have not demonstrated any such thing
in any of your articles that I have replied to. And I still see no reply
from you to the one I posted to you on Tuesday:
Message-ID: <caeruleo-A936A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
There I extensively challenged your claims about the SBT.
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-88AE8E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-88AE8E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > But if you did mean "preposterous," which I'm not at all sure you did, I
> > totally agree. I said to that same poster, how would the shooter(s)
> > keep the ice frozen long enough to shoot the ice bullets when they had
> > NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT TIME THE MOTORCADE WOULD PASS.
>
> LOL. How would a gunman keep the bullets from melting? Laughable, but of
> course. I thought the LNers had covered that when Hoover invented the SBT.
Ok, now I thought I had covered that in another article somewhere, but I
> > totally agree. I said to that same poster, how would the shooter(s)
> > keep the ice frozen long enough to shoot the ice bullets when they had
> > NO POSSIBLE WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT TIME THE MOTORCADE WOULD PASS.
>
> LOL. How would a gunman keep the bullets from melting? Laughable, but of
> course. I thought the LNers had covered that when Hoover invented the SBT.
am unable to find it. I just listened to the 11-29-63 Hoover/LBJ
telephone conversation again on Youtube, and Hoover very clearly says the
first and third shots hit JFK and the second shot hit Connally, so I still
do not understand where you are getting this Hoover inventing the SBT
from.
> In Kenney's back out his throat. Another in the BOH and out the front.
> That's just as laughable too. 1:-)
in any of your articles that I have replied to. And I still see no reply
from you to the one I posted to you on Tuesday:
Message-ID: <caeruleo-A936A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
There I extensively challenged your claims about the SBT.
Research
Sep 1, 2012, 2:48:27 PM9/1/12
to
If you don't already have one you can get a frame-by-frame. Copy of
Zapruder. Very good and clear; digitized. Just goggle Costella/Zapruder.
Follow the link.
news:caeruleo-A936A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
conclusions you have. But that Connally does say he turned to look over
his right shoulder and Zapruder does show him doing just that. But not
before Z226. Look at Z240. Connaly is turning to look at Kennedy. At Z255
Connally is looking over his right shoulder and continues to turn. At Z275
Connally is looking directly at Kennedy. Wheither he saw anything is your
own quess. He remains staring at Kennedy until Z290, when begins to turn
toward the front. How much later is this act than Z226? Much, Much, much
later.
>> >
>> > Exactly, but he *also* said that he failed to see JFK when he turned.
>> > But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY
>> > around.
>> > You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
>> > say that, ever.
No he doesn't say all the way around. I said he turned all the way around.
Which he does. But no, he did not say he turned all the way around. You
just keep claiming I said he said. (sort of thing) AGAIN he said he turned
movements have been interrupted in the past.
>
>> He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
>> look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
>> YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
>
>
over his right shoulder as you implyed. Yes he turns his head to the
right. THAT IS ALL! Just like I did say. Z207 is the last frame you can
see Connally before he disappears behind the sign and he has begun to look
to his right. But he never turned to look over his shoulder. AS HE SAID.
At Z221 Connally can only partically be seen. But it is clear he is still
had his head turned to his right. Yes he does turn his head. But he
doesn't turn to look over his shoulder no matter how much you protest he
does.
>
> When on earth did I claim that the film does NOT show him turning his head
> to the right? I never said anything even remotely close to that.
What do you mean? Are trying to anticipate an argument. Or are you down
rightsaying something?
picking an argument. About nothing.
>>
>> Stop arguing with yourself.
>
> I'm not, I'm arguing with you. ;-) You're the one who is arguing with
> something I never said, which is called a strawman.
>
>> You are tring to count oranges as lemons.
>
> Nonsense.
>
turning to look over his right shoulder at Z165 or to Z224. That is a
figment of your imagination.
>> You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
>> Connally turned all the way around.
Well just look at any of the frames Z240 to Z290. That is 50 frames showing
Connally turning all the way around and looking at Kennedy.
But in the Costella exhibit, the documentary Z224 is labeled as Z225. But
this calls it 24 some call it 26 so it is hard to know which on they are
referring to So I'll stick with the Costella examples. Kennedy emergers At
Z225. He IS UNINJURED. Z226 Shows Kennedy's right arm jerked up in
reaction to being shot. His left arm is in an upward movement also. And
this Z226 shows Connally sitting up looking straight ahead and the lapel
appears as flipped. The ink is a little smeared over Connally's throat and
chin/:>)
> Z228 shows him to be apparently uninjured??? And you claim you've watched
> this film as many times as I have??? Are you claiming that you "don't
> see" him violently jerking starting two frames earlier? You "don't see,"
> for example, the sudden, and very fast, flip of his wrist with the hat
> he's holding in that hand plainly flipping as well? You "don't see" him
> violently scrunching down as if he's in terrible pain? Come now: all
> these motions plainly begin in Z226 and continue for quite a few frames
> after.
>
>> Except Connally's shirt can't be seen
>> because the lapel flip is still visible, even though Connally doesn't
>> seem
>> to show a reaction.
>
> A sudden violent jerk starting at Z226 seems to be a rather obvious
> reaction to me.
>
>
>> That was my point! Z233
>> shows Connally reacting to the shot.
>
> So does Z226, Z227, Z228, etc.
>
>> His right shoulder dropped and his
>> head turned further to his left and with a forward movement.
This is not a reaction to being hit. This is a reaction of a turning
Zapruder. Very good and clear; digitized. Just goggle Costella/Zapruder.
Follow the link.
news:caeruleo-A936A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> >> >> What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>> >> >> Connally claimed?
>> >> >
>> >> > As you are erroneous in saying that Connally claimed it was "much
>> >> > later," this is not a question worth answering.
That's how is going to be huh? You only want to discuess what preconceived
>> news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> >> >> What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
>> >> >> Connally claimed?
>> >> >
>> >> > As you are erroneous in saying that Connally claimed it was "much
>> >> > later," this is not a question worth answering.
conclusions you have. But that Connally does say he turned to look over
his right shoulder and Zapruder does show him doing just that. But not
before Z226. Look at Z240. Connaly is turning to look at Kennedy. At Z255
Connally is looking over his right shoulder and continues to turn. At Z275
Connally is looking directly at Kennedy. Wheither he saw anything is your
own quess. He remains staring at Kennedy until Z290, when begins to turn
toward the front. How much later is this act than Z226? Much, Much, much
later.
>> >
>> > Exactly, but he *also* said that he failed to see JFK when he turned.
>> > But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY
>> > around.
>> > You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
>> > say that, ever.
Which he does. But no, he did not say he turned all the way around. You
just keep claiming I said he said. (sort of thing) AGAIN he said he turned
to look over his right shoulder.
>
>
> I never said you said "all the way around" in that particular article.
> You most certainly said it, however, in direct reply to me on August 22:
>
> "Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking over
> his shoulder but this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226."
>
> But whether he did or did not turn "all the way around" much later than
> Z226, that's not where he himself was talking about, and he never
> mentioned that later turn.
This is the turn he made. He does not turn before Z240. No matter how his
> You most certainly said it, however, in direct reply to me on August 22:
>
> "Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking over
> his shoulder but this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226."
>
> But whether he did or did not turn "all the way around" much later than
> Z226, that's not where he himself was talking about, and he never
> mentioned that later turn.
movements have been interrupted in the past.
>
>> He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
>> look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
>> YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
>
>
> "Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
> before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> even remotely close to all the way around to the rear. ?As he emerges from
> the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
> the way around to the rear. ?Partway to the right. ?He then begins to turn
> his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
> Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226."
I went back and looked at Zapruder jet again. He does NOT turn to look
> before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> even remotely close to all the way around to the rear. ?As he emerges from
> the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
> the way around to the rear. ?Partway to the right. ?He then begins to turn
> his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
> Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226."
over his right shoulder as you implyed. Yes he turns his head to the
right. THAT IS ALL! Just like I did say. Z207 is the last frame you can
see Connally before he disappears behind the sign and he has begun to look
to his right. But he never turned to look over his shoulder. AS HE SAID.
At Z221 Connally can only partically be seen. But it is clear he is still
had his head turned to his right. Yes he does turn his head. But he
doesn't turn to look over his shoulder no matter how much you protest he
does.
>
> When on earth did I claim that the film does NOT show him turning his head
> to the right? I never said anything even remotely close to that.
rightsaying something?
>
>> >> But at Z226 Connally
>> >> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder
>> >> does
>> >> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
>> >
>> > Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
>> > turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
>> > to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
Yes THIS is what I said. I'm NOT CLAIMING Connally said that. You are
>> >> But at Z226 Connally
>> >> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder
>> >> does
>> >> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
>> >
>> > Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
>> > turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
>> > to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
picking an argument. About nothing.
>>
>> Stop arguing with yourself.
>
> I'm not, I'm arguing with you. ;-) You're the one who is arguing with
> something I never said, which is called a strawman.
>
>> You are tring to count oranges as lemons.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> What, exactly, isn't what Connally said? I have already *agreed* that he
> said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I have
> been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
> *turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
> His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
But the film I see does NOT show Connally looking over his shoulder. Or
> said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I have
> been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
> *turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
> His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
turning to look over his right shoulder at Z165 or to Z224. That is a
figment of your imagination.
>> You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
>> Connally turned all the way around.
Connally turning all the way around and looking at Kennedy.
> Correct.
>
>> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
>> the lapel flip.
>
> Actually Z224 is the lapel flip, and that's exactly where his head begins
> turning forward, just as he said. By Z226 his head is facing almost
> straight forward, just as he said. And Z226 is also the frame in which he
> begins jerking violently. He himself said he felt himself to be struck
> just as his head was facing front and slightly left.
I say Z224 taken from the documentaries cause they claimed it was Z224.
>
>> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
>> the lapel flip.
>
> Actually Z224 is the lapel flip, and that's exactly where his head begins
> turning forward, just as he said. By Z226 his head is facing almost
> straight forward, just as he said. And Z226 is also the frame in which he
> begins jerking violently. He himself said he felt himself to be struck
> just as his head was facing front and slightly left.
But in the Costella exhibit, the documentary Z224 is labeled as Z225. But
this calls it 24 some call it 26 so it is hard to know which on they are
referring to So I'll stick with the Costella examples. Kennedy emergers At
Z225. He IS UNINJURED. Z226 Shows Kennedy's right arm jerked up in
reaction to being shot. His left arm is in an upward movement also. And
this Z226 shows Connally sitting up looking straight ahead and the lapel
appears as flipped. The ink is a little smeared over Connally's throat and
chin/:>)
> Z228 shows him to be apparently uninjured??? And you claim you've watched
> this film as many times as I have??? Are you claiming that you "don't
> see" him violently jerking starting two frames earlier? You "don't see,"
> for example, the sudden, and very fast, flip of his wrist with the hat
> he's holding in that hand plainly flipping as well? You "don't see" him
> violently scrunching down as if he's in terrible pain? Come now: all
> these motions plainly begin in Z226 and continue for quite a few frames
> after.
>
>> Except Connally's shirt can't be seen
>> because the lapel flip is still visible, even though Connally doesn't
>> seem
>> to show a reaction.
>
> A sudden violent jerk starting at Z226 seems to be a rather obvious
> reaction to me.
>
> That is not contrary to anything I've been saying. He's still sitting
> straight, in a sense, yes, but he has already jerked violently, and he's
> already beginning to scrunch down and turn all the way around to his
> right, a turn which is not completed until c.Z270.
>
>> And holding his hat in his right hand,
>> which he would not be able to do had his wrist been shattered.
>
> That is not necessarily true. I used to think that too, back in
> 2002-2003, that he couldn't have still held the hat with a shattered
> wrist. But he's still seen holding the hat as late as Z280 (I'm looking
> at the film again now in the midst of typing these words to confirm it).
> Unless you think he was not hit until after Z280 (and notice carefully
> that I am not claiming that you have yet said that) it seems that he did
> indeed somehow hold onto the hat after his wrist was shattered, because
> Z280 is when he's beginning to fall back against his wife, and he's
> obviously wounded by then.
>
> straight, in a sense, yes, but he has already jerked violently, and he's
> already beginning to scrunch down and turn all the way around to his
> right, a turn which is not completed until c.Z270.
>
>> And holding his hat in his right hand,
>> which he would not be able to do had his wrist been shattered.
>
> That is not necessarily true. I used to think that too, back in
> 2002-2003, that he couldn't have still held the hat with a shattered
> wrist. But he's still seen holding the hat as late as Z280 (I'm looking
> at the film again now in the midst of typing these words to confirm it).
> Unless you think he was not hit until after Z280 (and notice carefully
> that I am not claiming that you have yet said that) it seems that he did
> indeed somehow hold onto the hat after his wrist was shattered, because
> Z280 is when he's beginning to fall back against his wife, and he's
> obviously wounded by then.
>
>> He doen't have a turning movement until
>> much later in the film to are trying to quote.
>
> That depends on what you define as a "turning movement." I think you're
> still misunderstanding what he said. You still seem to be thinking that
> he meant turning "all the way around," whether you use those words or
> not. He did not say anything close to that. He said he didn't turn far
> enough to see JFK. The much later turn you're talking about, which
> concludes at Z270, was obviously not the turn he was talking about,
> because there he does appear to be looking directly back at JFK. But as
> I said above that is not *followed* by him turning toward the front, so
> he was obviously talking about the *earlier* turn of his *head* *only*
> (even if he didn't specifically say he turned his head only, and he also
> didn't say that it *wasn't* his head only). And there's also the
> violent jerk which does indeed begin at Z226, which is exactly where he
> *does* turn his head back to the front. After Z270, he *never* turns
> his head to the front, all the way until he disappears from view. He
> was obviously talking about the earlier turn, not the later one you're
> talking about.
Potatoe-potatoe
>> much later in the film to are trying to quote.
>
> That depends on what you define as a "turning movement." I think you're
> still misunderstanding what he said. You still seem to be thinking that
> he meant turning "all the way around," whether you use those words or
> not. He did not say anything close to that. He said he didn't turn far
> enough to see JFK. The much later turn you're talking about, which
> concludes at Z270, was obviously not the turn he was talking about,
> because there he does appear to be looking directly back at JFK. But as
> I said above that is not *followed* by him turning toward the front, so
> he was obviously talking about the *earlier* turn of his *head* *only*
> (even if he didn't specifically say he turned his head only, and he also
> didn't say that it *wasn't* his head only). And there's also the
> violent jerk which does indeed begin at Z226, which is exactly where he
> *does* turn his head back to the front. After Z270, he *never* turns
> his head to the front, all the way until he disappears from view. He
> was obviously talking about the earlier turn, not the later one you're
> talking about.
>
>> That was my point! Z233
>> shows Connally reacting to the shot.
>
> So does Z226, Z227, Z228, etc.
>
>> His right shoulder dropped and his
>> head turned further to his left and with a forward movement.
movement.
>
> All of which starts with the violent jerk in Z226 and continues
> uninterrupted into the later movements you're describing.
>
>> Z234 shows Connally's head was turning right and still moving forward.
>
> Yes, and that is clearly NOT the turn he was talking about, since that
> turn ends with him appearing to look directly back at JFK, and is NOT
> followed by him turning back toward the front. The later turn you're
> talking about he obviously didn't even remember, or else he never
> mentioned it. If I'm wrong, quote him verbatim (remember what
> "verbatim" means) saying that he turned to his right and *didn't* turn
> back toward the front when he was hit. I quoted him *verbatim* above
> saying that he *did* turn back to the front when he was hit.
>
>> Z235 Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally
>> begins HIS TURN to look at Kennedy.
>
> All of which starts with the violent jerk in Z226 and continues
> uninterrupted into the later movements you're describing.
>
>> Z234 shows Connally's head was turning right and still moving forward.
>
> Yes, and that is clearly NOT the turn he was talking about, since that
> turn ends with him appearing to look directly back at JFK, and is NOT
> followed by him turning back toward the front. The later turn you're
> talking about he obviously didn't even remember, or else he never
> mentioned it. If I'm wrong, quote him verbatim (remember what
> "verbatim" means) saying that he turned to his right and *didn't* turn
> back toward the front when he was hit. I quoted him *verbatim* above
> saying that he *did* turn back to the front when he was hit.
>
>> Z235 Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally
>
> Yes, that's the LATER turn that he NEVER MENTIONED. If I'm wrong, quote
> him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
>
> "I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
> right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I turned
> to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
>
> Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
> to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
> turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
>
And he only turned once TOO.
> Yes, that's the LATER turn that he NEVER MENTIONED. If I'm wrong, quote
> him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
>
> "I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
> right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I turned
> to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
>
> Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
> to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
> turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
>
John Reagor King
Sep 2, 2012, 9:20:19 PM9/2/12
to
In article <5042...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
simply decided that you've found in the video the turn to look over his
shoulder that Connally was talking about, while failing to address what
*else* he said about that turn to look over his shoulder.
> But that Connally does say he turned to look over
> his right shoulder and Zapruder does show him doing just that.
I know that. But why do you keep leaving out, and leaving out, and
leaving out what *else* he said about turning to look over his shoulder,
and what he *then* said about turning back to face the front and feeling
himself being struck at that instant? You have no excuse not to address
this by now, because in the very article of mine to which you were
responding here I quoted the full, unedited text of what Connally said
about turning to look over his shoulder, not turning far enough to see
JFK, then turning back to face the front and just as he had barely
reached the point of facing almost straight ahead, felt himself to be
struck in the back by the bullet. The turn you keep talking about is a
*later* turn which is *not* the one he was describing, because there he
turns so far around that he appears to be looking directly at JFK, and
that it *not* followed by him turning to face toward the front. He
never again faces toward the front for the remainder of the time he is
in view in the film.
> But not
> before Z226.
Oh, you're telling me you "don't see" him turning his head to the right
starting at about Z165? That you "don't see" that his head remains
turned to the right all the way to when he starts to emerge again from
behind the sign? That you "don't see" that the whole time he hasn't
turned far enough to the right to see JFK? That you "don't see" him
suddenly snap his head back to where he's facing the front right around
Z225-226?
> Look at Z240. Connaly is turning to look at Kennedy. At Z255
> Connally is looking over his right shoulder and continues to turn. At Z275
> Connally is looking directly at Kennedy. Wheither he saw anything is your
> own quess. He remains staring at Kennedy until Z290, when begins to turn
> toward the front. How much later is this act than Z226? Much, Much, much
> later.
Sigh...and you say I'm the one who only wants to discuss preconceived
notions. That is certainly the pot calling the kettle back. Why do you
keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that in the turn he was
talking about, Connally specifically said that he did not turn far
enough to see JFK, not even out of the corner of his eye. Yet above you
freely admit "Connally is looking directly at Kennedy." And then why do
you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring what he said next? He said
he turned toward the front. He doesn't come anywhere near turning back
toward the front in the place you're talking about. This later turn is
quite obviously not the turn Connally was talking about.
> >> >
> >> > Exactly, but he *also* said that he failed to see JFK when he turned.
> >> > But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY
> >> > around.
> >> > You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
> >> > say that, ever.
>
> No he doesn't say all the way around.
Exactly.
> I said he turned all the way around.
Which is not what he himself says he did. You are obviously talking
about a later turn than the one he was talking about. And why do you
keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he himself said he
*then* turned to the front? Where do you see him turning back toward
the front of the limousine after the turn you're talking about? He
never again turns his head, or any other part of his body, even remotely
toward the front for the remainder of the film. What he instead does is
fall back against his wife. And I haven't quoted that part to you, but
that is also something he described.
Again, it is quite obvious you are talking about his second turn. He
was talking about his first turn, the one where he did not turn far
enough around to see JFK, and then turned back toward the front. Your
later turn comes nowhere close to fitting his complete description. You
keep trying to make your later turn fit the first part of the first
sentence of his description only, and you're ignoring and ignoring and
ignoring what he said in the rest of that sentence, and in the several
sentences that follow it.
> Which he does. But no, he did not say he turned all the way around. You
> just keep claiming I said he said. (sort of thing) AGAIN he said he turned
> to look over his right shoulder.
And you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring what he said in the rest
of that sentence, and in the sentences that immediately follow it, that
he did not turn far enough to see JFK, and THEN he turned almost
DIRECTLY TOWARD THE FRONT.
Jeez, Research, I'm sorry, but how many more times will I have to tell
you this over and over and over before you finally agree that he really
did say a lot more than just saying he turned to look over his right
shoulder?
> > I never said you said "all the way around" in that particular article.
> > You most certainly said it, however, in direct reply to me on August 22:
> >
> > "Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking over
> > his shoulder but this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226."
> >
> > But whether he did or did not turn "all the way around" much later than
> > Z226, that's not where he himself was talking about, and he never
> > mentioned that later turn.
>
> This is the turn he made. He does not turn before Z240.
So again, you are saying you "don't see" him turning his head to the
right at c.165 and then suddenly snapping his head back to the front
after the sign, but before the later turn you are talking about?
Astonishing.
It is difficult for me to believe that anyone with even average eyesight
"doesn't see" all that.
> No matter how his
> movements have been interrupted in the past.
And still, you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the REST of what
he said.
> >> He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
> >> look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
> >> YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
> >
> > "Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
> > before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> > even remotely close to all the way around to the rear. ?As he emerges from
> > the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
> > the way around to the rear. ?Partway to the right. ?He then begins to turn
> > his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> > slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
> > Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226."
>
> I went back and looked at Zapruder jet again. He does NOT turn to look
> over his right shoulder as you implyed. Yes he turns his head to the
> right. THAT IS ALL! Just like I did say.
Finally you admit that part.
> Z207 is the last frame you can
> see Connally before he disappears behind the sign and he has begun to look
> to his right. But he never turned to look over his shoulder. AS HE SAID.
> At Z221 Connally can only partically be seen. But it is clear he is still
> had his head turned to his right. Yes he does turn his head. But he
> doesn't turn to look over his shoulder no matter how much you protest he
> does.
That is merely your interpretation. To you he doesn't seem to be
turning his head far enough to the right to be really looking over his
shoulder. But did it ever occur to you that he meant something a little
different from what you think he meant? And you are still ignoring and
ignoring and ignoring what he said he did NEXT.
> >> >> But at Z226 Connally
> >> >> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder
> >> >> does
> >> >> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
> >> >
> >> > Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
> >> > turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
> >> > to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>
> Yes THIS is what I said. I'm NOT CLAIMING Connally said that. You are
> picking an argument. About nothing.
Once again you accuse me of doing something that you are far more guilty
of than I. I'm not the one harping and harping and harping about only
the first part of his first sentence, and ignoring and ignoring and
ignoring what he then said in the rest of that sentence, and continued
to say in the very next sentences.
> >> You are tring to count oranges as lemons.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > What, exactly, isn't what Connally said? I have already *agreed* that he
> > said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I have
> > been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
> > *turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
> > His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
>
> But the film I see does NOT show Connally looking over his shoulder. Or
> turning to look over his right shoulder at Z165 or to Z224. That is a
> figment of your imagination.
How can it be a figment of my imagination when Connally himself clearly
and unequivocally said he did not turn far enough to see JFK, not even
out of the corner of his eye, and then said he turned back to face the
front? Why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the proven
fact that he said he didn't turn far enough to see JFK? And why do you
keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the proven fact that he said he
then turned to the front with the intention of looking over his *other*
shoulder, his left? And why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and
ignoring the proven fact that he said that he didn't come anywhere close
to looking over his left shoulder, because just as he got to facing
almost directly toward the front, or perhaps very slightly left of
center, that's the exact instant when he felt himself to be struck in
the back?
> >> You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
> >> Connally turned all the way around.
>
> Well just look at any of the frames Z240 to Z290. That is 50 frames showing
> Connally turning all the way around and looking at Kennedy.
Oh
my
gawd.
I'm sorry, but do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?
The man himself said he did not turn anywhere near that far around. The
man himself said that he then turned back toward the front with the
intention of looking over his other shoulder, his left. The man himself
said that just as he got to facing very slightly to the left of center,
he felt himself to be struck in the back.
You are talking about a LATER turn in which he turned MUCH FARTHER
AROUND THAN HE SAID HE DID.
You are talking about a LATER turn which is NOT AT ANY TIME FOLLOWED BY
HIM TURNING BACK TOWARD THE FRONT.
You are talking about a LATER turn which, INSTEAD of being followed by
him turning back toward the front, is followed by him FALLING BACK
AGAINST HIS WIFE.
Why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he did
NOT say he fell back against his wife right after turning to look over
his right shoulder? The man himself said he did not fall back against
his wife until AFTER he shouted ""Oh, no, no, no. My God, they are going
to kill us all." In the LATER turn you are talking about, you "don't
see" him opening and closing his mouth WHILE he is turning to look
directly at JFK? Where else do you see him appearing to shout something?
> >> Just cause Connally DID have a head movement, does NOT mean he turn his
> >> head to the rear, as he said he did.
> >
> > He didn't exactly say he turned his head to the *rear*. This is what he
> > said:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
> > over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
> > and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
> > catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
> > once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
> > I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
> > assassination attempt.
> >
> > So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
> > shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
> > about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
> > left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
> >
> > **********
And there it is, plain as day. The man's exact words. Plain as day he
said he didn't turn far enough to see JFK. Plain as day he said he then
turned with the intention of looking over his other shoulder, his left.
Plain as day he said he only got as far as facing a little bit to the
left of center. Plain as day he said that's when he felt himself to be
hit in the back.
For your entire article so far you have only been talking about the very
first part of what he said above, which is this:
"I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd,"
That's not even the end of the first sentence, Research. Why do you
never, ever, ever get past that comma? Why don't you ever, ever, ever
seem to read any further?
> >> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
> >> the lapel flip.
> >
> > Actually Z224 is the lapel flip, and that's exactly where his head begins
> > turning forward, just as he said. By Z226 his head is facing almost
> > straight forward, just as he said. And Z226 is also the frame in which he
> > begins jerking violently. He himself said he felt himself to be struck
> > just as his head was facing front and slightly left.
>
> I say Z224 taken from the documentaries cause they claimed it was Z224.
> But in the Costella exhibit, the documentary Z224 is labeled as Z225. But
> this calls it 24 some call it 26 so it is hard to know which on they are
> referring to So I'll stick with the Costella examples. Kennedy emergers At
> Z225. He IS UNINJURED. Z226 Shows Kennedy's right arm jerked up in
> reaction to being shot. His left arm is in an upward movement also. And
> this Z226 shows Connally sitting up looking straight ahead and the lapel
> appears as flipped.
Yes, LOOKING STRAIGHT AHEAD AT THE SAME TIME THE LAPEL APPEARS AS
FLIPPED? See? There you even admit it yourself.
And when did Connally himself say that he felt himself to be struck in
the back? WHEN HE WAS LOOKING ALMOST STRAIGHT AHEAD!!!
Sheesh, how many more times must you be told this before you finally, at
last, for the first time ever in any reply to me, admit that the man
REALLY DID SAY THAT WAS WHEN HE WAS HIT??? WHEN HE WAS FACING ALMOST
STRAIGHT AHEAD.
> >> Z235 Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally
> >> begins HIS TURN to look at Kennedy.
> >
> > Yes, that's the LATER turn that he NEVER MENTIONED. If I'm wrong, quote
> > him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
> >
> > "I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
> > right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I turned
> > to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
> >
> > Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
> > to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
> > turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
>
> And he only turned once TOO.
You've already admitted above that he turned his head to the right
before the sign. You've already admitted above that you then see him
face straight ahead. You've already admitted above that AFTER he turns
straight ahead he turns AGAIN to his right, this time much farther, all
the way around to look right at JFK.
But what you DON'T admit is that he said that it was precisely when he
was facing almost straight ahead that he said he felt himself to be
struck. We can all see above that you quoted all of that, in his own
words, from my previous article. But you appear to have not read any
farther than the first part of the first sentence he spoke. If you did
read farther, why have you not yet mentioned what he said next? You
have made no mention of it at all. Only I have, over, and over, and
over.
Let's try this again, Research. I'm going to quote this part again. If
you do not, in your very next reply to me, at least clearly admit that
he really did say this, I am going to assume that you are not making an
honest mistake, and unintentionally missing this, but that you are
PRETENDING ON PURPOSE that you "don't see" me quoting these words:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
Do you finally see it? Just in case you act as if you don't, I'm going
to quote it again a second time:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
NOW do you see that he said this? Just in case you again pretend you
don't, I'm now going to quote verbatim what he said on a different
occasion:
"About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
Do you finally see it this time, Research?
I see no point in discussing this with you any further, until you
clearly admit that he said, on more than one occasion (and on several
more occasions than I have quoted) that he was hit exactly when he
turned back toward the front.
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't already have one you can get a frame-by-frame. Copy of
> Zapruder. Very good and clear; digitized. Just goggle Costella/Zapruder.
> Follow the link.
>
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-A936A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >> >> >> What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> >> >> >> Connally claimed?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As you are erroneous in saying that Connally claimed it was "much
> >> >> > later," this is not a question worth answering.
>
> That's how is going to be huh? You only want to discuess what preconceived
> conclusions you have.
That seems to be much more true of you than of me. You seem to have
> If you don't already have one you can get a frame-by-frame. Copy of
> Zapruder. Very good and clear; digitized. Just goggle Costella/Zapruder.
> Follow the link.
>
> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-A936A8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> "John King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:caeruleo-B43299...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >> >> >> What is the defining moment? Was it at Z226 or was it much later as
> >> >> >> Connally claimed?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As you are erroneous in saying that Connally claimed it was "much
> >> >> > later," this is not a question worth answering.
>
> That's how is going to be huh? You only want to discuess what preconceived
> conclusions you have.
simply decided that you've found in the video the turn to look over his
shoulder that Connally was talking about, while failing to address what
*else* he said about that turn to look over his shoulder.
> But that Connally does say he turned to look over
> his right shoulder and Zapruder does show him doing just that.
leaving out what *else* he said about turning to look over his shoulder,
and what he *then* said about turning back to face the front and feeling
himself being struck at that instant? You have no excuse not to address
this by now, because in the very article of mine to which you were
responding here I quoted the full, unedited text of what Connally said
about turning to look over his shoulder, not turning far enough to see
JFK, then turning back to face the front and just as he had barely
reached the point of facing almost straight ahead, felt himself to be
struck in the back by the bullet. The turn you keep talking about is a
*later* turn which is *not* the one he was describing, because there he
turns so far around that he appears to be looking directly at JFK, and
that it *not* followed by him turning to face toward the front. He
never again faces toward the front for the remainder of the time he is
in view in the film.
> But not
> before Z226.
Oh, you're telling me you "don't see" him turning his head to the right
starting at about Z165? That you "don't see" that his head remains
turned to the right all the way to when he starts to emerge again from
behind the sign? That you "don't see" that the whole time he hasn't
turned far enough to the right to see JFK? That you "don't see" him
suddenly snap his head back to where he's facing the front right around
Z225-226?
> Look at Z240. Connaly is turning to look at Kennedy. At Z255
> Connally is looking over his right shoulder and continues to turn. At Z275
> Connally is looking directly at Kennedy. Wheither he saw anything is your
> own quess. He remains staring at Kennedy until Z290, when begins to turn
> toward the front. How much later is this act than Z226? Much, Much, much
> later.
notions. That is certainly the pot calling the kettle back. Why do you
keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that in the turn he was
talking about, Connally specifically said that he did not turn far
enough to see JFK, not even out of the corner of his eye. Yet above you
freely admit "Connally is looking directly at Kennedy." And then why do
you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring what he said next? He said
he turned toward the front. He doesn't come anywhere near turning back
toward the front in the place you're talking about. This later turn is
quite obviously not the turn Connally was talking about.
> >> >
> >> > Exactly, but he *also* said that he failed to see JFK when he turned.
> >> > But he did NOT say that he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND, only PARTWAY
> >> > around.
> >> > You said earlier that he said he turned ALL THE WAY AROUND. He did not
> >> > say that, ever.
>
> No he doesn't say all the way around.
> I said he turned all the way around.
about a later turn than the one he was talking about. And why do you
keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he himself said he
*then* turned to the front? Where do you see him turning back toward
the front of the limousine after the turn you're talking about? He
never again turns his head, or any other part of his body, even remotely
toward the front for the remainder of the film. What he instead does is
fall back against his wife. And I haven't quoted that part to you, but
that is also something he described.
Again, it is quite obvious you are talking about his second turn. He
was talking about his first turn, the one where he did not turn far
enough around to see JFK, and then turned back toward the front. Your
later turn comes nowhere close to fitting his complete description. You
keep trying to make your later turn fit the first part of the first
sentence of his description only, and you're ignoring and ignoring and
ignoring what he said in the rest of that sentence, and in the several
sentences that follow it.
> Which he does. But no, he did not say he turned all the way around. You
> just keep claiming I said he said. (sort of thing) AGAIN he said he turned
> to look over his right shoulder.
of that sentence, and in the sentences that immediately follow it, that
he did not turn far enough to see JFK, and THEN he turned almost
DIRECTLY TOWARD THE FRONT.
Jeez, Research, I'm sorry, but how many more times will I have to tell
you this over and over and over before you finally agree that he really
did say a lot more than just saying he turned to look over his right
shoulder?
> > I never said you said "all the way around" in that particular article.
> > You most certainly said it, however, in direct reply to me on August 22:
> >
> > "Zapruder does show Connally turning all the way around and looking over
> > his shoulder but this sequence is MUCH LATER than Z226."
> >
> > But whether he did or did not turn "all the way around" much later than
> > Z226, that's not where he himself was talking about, and he never
> > mentioned that later turn.
>
> This is the turn he made. He does not turn before Z240.
right at c.165 and then suddenly snapping his head back to the front
after the sign, but before the later turn you are talking about?
Astonishing.
It is difficult for me to believe that anyone with even average eyesight
"doesn't see" all that.
> No matter how his
> movements have been interrupted in the past.
he said.
> >> He NEVER said he turn "only PARTWAY around" either. He said he turned to
> >> look over his right shoulder, and saw nothing out the originary. But what
> >> YOU are claiming is no what Zapruder shows.
> >
> > "Plain as day, yet again, as I have seen hundreds of times in my life,
> > before the sign Connally turns his head to the right, but not anywhere
> > even remotely close to all the way around to the rear. ?As he emerges from
> > the sign his head is still facing partway, partway to the right. Not all
> > the way around to the rear. ?Partway to the right. ?He then begins to turn
> > his head forward, and just as his head is facing straight ahead and very
> > slightly to the *left* (just as he said) both men suddenly jerk violently.
> > Their motions begin in exactly the same frame, Z226."
>
> I went back and looked at Zapruder jet again. He does NOT turn to look
> over his right shoulder as you implyed. Yes he turns his head to the
> right. THAT IS ALL! Just like I did say.
> Z207 is the last frame you can
> see Connally before he disappears behind the sign and he has begun to look
> to his right. But he never turned to look over his shoulder. AS HE SAID.
> At Z221 Connally can only partically be seen. But it is clear he is still
> had his head turned to his right. Yes he does turn his head. But he
> doesn't turn to look over his shoulder no matter how much you protest he
> does.
turning his head far enough to the right to be really looking over his
shoulder. But did it ever occur to you that he meant something a little
different from what you think he meant? And you are still ignoring and
ignoring and ignoring what he said he did NEXT.
> >> >> But at Z226 Connally
> >> >> only turned his head when the LNers claim Connally was hit. Zapruder
> >> >> does
> >> >> show Connally turning all the way around and looking over his shoulder
> >> >
> >> > Before Z226??? No the film does NOT show that. The film shows him
> >> > turning his head PARTWAY to the right, not anywhere even remotely close
> >> > to ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>
> Yes THIS is what I said. I'm NOT CLAIMING Connally said that. You are
> picking an argument. About nothing.
of than I. I'm not the one harping and harping and harping about only
the first part of his first sentence, and ignoring and ignoring and
ignoring what he then said in the rest of that sentence, and continued
to say in the very next sentences.
> >> You are tring to count oranges as lemons.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > What, exactly, isn't what Connally said? I have already *agreed* that he
> > said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I have
> > been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
> > *turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
> > His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
>
> But the film I see does NOT show Connally looking over his shoulder. Or
> turning to look over his right shoulder at Z165 or to Z224. That is a
> figment of your imagination.
and unequivocally said he did not turn far enough to see JFK, not even
out of the corner of his eye, and then said he turned back to face the
front? Why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the proven
fact that he said he didn't turn far enough to see JFK? And why do you
keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the proven fact that he said he
then turned to the front with the intention of looking over his *other*
shoulder, his left? And why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and
ignoring the proven fact that he said that he didn't come anywhere close
to looking over his left shoulder, because just as he got to facing
almost directly toward the front, or perhaps very slightly left of
center, that's the exact instant when he felt himself to be struck in
the back?
> >> You falsely claimed I or somebody claimed
> >> Connally turned all the way around.
>
> Well just look at any of the frames Z240 to Z290. That is 50 frames showing
> Connally turning all the way around and looking at Kennedy.
my
gawd.
I'm sorry, but do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?
The man himself said he did not turn anywhere near that far around. The
man himself said that he then turned back toward the front with the
intention of looking over his other shoulder, his left. The man himself
said that just as he got to facing very slightly to the left of center,
he felt himself to be struck in the back.
You are talking about a LATER turn in which he turned MUCH FARTHER
AROUND THAN HE SAID HE DID.
You are talking about a LATER turn which is NOT AT ANY TIME FOLLOWED BY
HIM TURNING BACK TOWARD THE FRONT.
You are talking about a LATER turn which, INSTEAD of being followed by
him turning back toward the front, is followed by him FALLING BACK
AGAINST HIS WIFE.
Why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he did
NOT say he fell back against his wife right after turning to look over
his right shoulder? The man himself said he did not fall back against
his wife until AFTER he shouted ""Oh, no, no, no. My God, they are going
to kill us all." In the LATER turn you are talking about, you "don't
see" him opening and closing his mouth WHILE he is turning to look
directly at JFK? Where else do you see him appearing to shout something?
> >> Just cause Connally DID have a head movement, does NOT mean he turn his
> >> head to the rear, as he said he did.
> >
> > He didn't exactly say he turned his head to the *rear*. This is what he
> > said:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
> > over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
> > and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
> > catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
> > once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
> > I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
> > assassination attempt.
> >
> > So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
> > shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
> > about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
> > left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
> >
> > **********
said he didn't turn far enough to see JFK. Plain as day he said he then
turned with the intention of looking over his other shoulder, his left.
Plain as day he said he only got as far as facing a little bit to the
left of center. Plain as day he said that's when he felt himself to be
hit in the back.
For your entire article so far you have only been talking about the very
first part of what he said above, which is this:
"I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd,"
never, ever, ever get past that comma? Why don't you ever, ever, ever
seem to read any further?
> >> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
> >> the lapel flip.
> >
> > Actually Z224 is the lapel flip, and that's exactly where his head begins
> > turning forward, just as he said. By Z226 his head is facing almost
> > straight forward, just as he said. And Z226 is also the frame in which he
> > begins jerking violently. He himself said he felt himself to be struck
> > just as his head was facing front and slightly left.
>
> I say Z224 taken from the documentaries cause they claimed it was Z224.
> But in the Costella exhibit, the documentary Z224 is labeled as Z225. But
> this calls it 24 some call it 26 so it is hard to know which on they are
> referring to So I'll stick with the Costella examples. Kennedy emergers At
> Z225. He IS UNINJURED. Z226 Shows Kennedy's right arm jerked up in
> reaction to being shot. His left arm is in an upward movement also. And
> this Z226 shows Connally sitting up looking straight ahead and the lapel
> appears as flipped.
FLIPPED? See? There you even admit it yourself.
And when did Connally himself say that he felt himself to be struck in
the back? WHEN HE WAS LOOKING ALMOST STRAIGHT AHEAD!!!
Sheesh, how many more times must you be told this before you finally, at
last, for the first time ever in any reply to me, admit that the man
REALLY DID SAY THAT WAS WHEN HE WAS HIT??? WHEN HE WAS FACING ALMOST
STRAIGHT AHEAD.
> >> Z235 Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally
> >> begins HIS TURN to look at Kennedy.
> >
> > Yes, that's the LATER turn that he NEVER MENTIONED. If I'm wrong, quote
> > him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
> >
> > "I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
> > right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I turned
> > to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
> >
> > Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
> > to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
> > turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
>
> And he only turned once TOO.
before the sign. You've already admitted above that you then see him
face straight ahead. You've already admitted above that AFTER he turns
straight ahead he turns AGAIN to his right, this time much farther, all
the way around to look right at JFK.
But what you DON'T admit is that he said that it was precisely when he
was facing almost straight ahead that he said he felt himself to be
struck. We can all see above that you quoted all of that, in his own
words, from my previous article. But you appear to have not read any
farther than the first part of the first sentence he spoke. If you did
read farther, why have you not yet mentioned what he said next? You
have made no mention of it at all. Only I have, over, and over, and
over.
Let's try this again, Research. I'm going to quote this part again. If
you do not, in your very next reply to me, at least clearly admit that
he really did say this, I am going to assume that you are not making an
honest mistake, and unintentionally missing this, but that you are
PRETENDING ON PURPOSE that you "don't see" me quoting these words:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
to quote it again a second time:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
don't, I'm now going to quote verbatim what he said on a different
occasion:
"About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
I see no point in discussing this with you any further, until you
clearly admit that he said, on more than one occasion (and on several
more occasions than I have quoted) that he was hit exactly when he
turned back toward the front.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
Sep 2, 2012, 9:49:37 PM9/2/12
to
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:54:41 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/29/2012 12:13 AM, John King wrote:
>
> > In article <385a4a8c-ef8a-4f36...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> On 8/29/2012 12:13 AM, John King wrote:
>
> > In article <385a4a8c-ef8a-4f36...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> What version of the Z-film are you looking at?
>
> >
>
> > I've been wondering that too. It cannot possibly be any of the c.10
>
> > versions of it I've seen on Youtube, nor can it be any of the versions
>
> > on the MPI dvd that I've had for about a decade, nor can it be the
>
> > version that is shown in the movie "JFK." All of those (notice I didn't
>
> > say "almost all") not only show the lapel flip occurring at Z224 (even
>
> > in the versions without frame #s it still obviously occurs in the same
>
> > frame) but all, not almost all, of these versions of the film clearly
>
> > show the two men jerking violently starting at exactly the same instant.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Preposterous. You are imagining things.
>
> You can't even see JFK clearly at Z-224.
***JFK'S left arm can be seen at Z-224. JFK's arms sprang up at the same
>
> >
>
> >> What version of the Z-film are you looking at?
>
> >
>
> > I've been wondering that too. It cannot possibly be any of the c.10
>
> > versions of it I've seen on Youtube, nor can it be any of the versions
>
> > on the MPI dvd that I've had for about a decade, nor can it be the
>
> > version that is shown in the movie "JFK." All of those (notice I didn't
>
> > say "almost all") not only show the lapel flip occurring at Z224 (even
>
> > in the versions without frame #s it still obviously occurs in the same
>
> > frame) but all, not almost all, of these versions of the film clearly
>
> > show the two men jerking violently starting at exactly the same instant.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Preposterous. You are imagining things.
>
> You can't even see JFK clearly at Z-224.
time as JBC's right arm sprang up.
***Ron Judge
Research
Sep 3, 2012, 10:40:59 AM9/3/12
to
"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-D36BA6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Are we? I do concede Connally did turn his head to the right just like you
did say. But you are trying to say a head movement is the same as a
turning movement. And it is not. He doesn't even turn his shoulder, at
all. And as far as I can tell, Connally could have seen an old girlfriend
in the crowd or something. But he doesn't turn to look at her. Just a head
movement. The WC defenders been claiming this since 63. Just at this point
I'm not sold on the theory. nor am I selling my theory, not just yet. (!!)
didn't see Kennedy.
>> >> >
>
> Which is not what he himself says he did. You are obviously talking
> about a later turn than the one he was talking about. And why do you
> keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he himself said he
> *then* turned to the front? Where do you see him turning back toward
> the front of the limousine after the turn you're talking about? He
> never again turns his head, or any other part of his body, even remotely
> toward the front for the remainder of the film. What he instead does is
> fall back against his wife. And I haven't quoted that part to you, but
> that is also something he described.
>
> Again, it is quite obvious you are talking about his second turn. He
> was talking about his first turn, the one where he did not turn far
> enough around to see JFK, and then turned back toward the front. Your
> later turn comes nowhere close to fitting his complete description. You
> keep trying to make your later turn fit the first part of the first
> sentence of his description only, and you're ignoring and ignoring and
> ignoring what he said in the rest of that sentence, and in the several
> sentences that follow it.
Obviously he didn't say he turned again. But he didn't say he turned his
>
> Which is not what he himself says he did. You are obviously talking
> about a later turn than the one he was talking about. And why do you
> keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he himself said he
> *then* turned to the front? Where do you see him turning back toward
> the front of the limousine after the turn you're talking about? He
> never again turns his head, or any other part of his body, even remotely
> toward the front for the remainder of the film. What he instead does is
> fall back against his wife. And I haven't quoted that part to you, but
> that is also something he described.
>
> Again, it is quite obvious you are talking about his second turn. He
> was talking about his first turn, the one where he did not turn far
> enough around to see JFK, and then turned back toward the front. Your
> later turn comes nowhere close to fitting his complete description. You
> keep trying to make your later turn fit the first part of the first
> sentence of his description only, and you're ignoring and ignoring and
> ignoring what he said in the rest of that sentence, and in the several
> sentences that follow it.
head to the right either. Which is what you are talking about.
>
>> > What, exactly, isn't what Connally said? I have already *agreed* that
>> > he
>> > said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I
>> > have
>> > been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
>> > *turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
>> > His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
>>
>> But the film I see does NOT show Connally looking over his shoulder. Or
>> turning to look over his right shoulder at Z165 or to Z224. That is a
>> figment of your imagination.
>
>> > What, exactly, isn't what Connally said? I have already *agreed* that
>> > he
>> > said he turned to his right to try to see over his shoulder. And I
>> > have
>> > been telling you, and telling you, and telling you that *that* *very*
>> > *turn* is clearly visible in the Zapruder film from c.Z165 to c.Z224.
>> > His head is continuously turned right during all of those frames.
>>
>> But the film I see does NOT show Connally looking over his shoulder. Or
>> turning to look over his right shoulder at Z165 or to Z224. That is a
>> figment of your imagination.
>
>> Well just look at any of the frames Z240 to Z290. That is 50 frames
>> showing
>> Connally turning all the way around and looking at Kennedy.
>
> Oh
>
> my
>
> gawd.
>
> I'm sorry, but do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?
> The man himself said he did not turn anywhere near that far around. The
> man himself said that he then turned back toward the front with the
> intention of looking over his other shoulder, his left. The man himself
> said that just as he got to facing very slightly to the left of center,
> he felt himself to be struck in the back.
>
> You are talking about a LATER turn in which he turned MUCH FARTHER
> AROUND THAN HE SAID HE DID.
It is the only turn he made.
>> showing
>> Connally turning all the way around and looking at Kennedy.
>
> Oh
>
> my
>
> gawd.
>
> I'm sorry, but do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?
> The man himself said he did not turn anywhere near that far around. The
> man himself said that he then turned back toward the front with the
> intention of looking over his other shoulder, his left. The man himself
> said that just as he got to facing very slightly to the left of center,
> he felt himself to be struck in the back.
>
> You are talking about a LATER turn in which he turned MUCH FARTHER
> AROUND THAN HE SAID HE DID.
>
> You are talking about a LATER turn which is NOT AT ANY TIME FOLLOWED BY
> HIM TURNING BACK TOWARD THE FRONT.
>
> You are talking about a LATER turn which, INSTEAD of being followed by
> him turning back toward the front, is followed by him FALLING BACK
> AGAINST HIS WIFE.
Whatever doc? You're the expert. I'm not trying to convince you that he did
> You are talking about a LATER turn which is NOT AT ANY TIME FOLLOWED BY
> HIM TURNING BACK TOWARD THE FRONT.
>
> You are talking about a LATER turn which, INSTEAD of being followed by
> him turning back toward the front, is followed by him FALLING BACK
> AGAINST HIS WIFE.
turn, but he did.
>
> Why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he did
> NOT say he fell back against his wife right after turning to look over
> his right shoulder? The man himself said he did not fall back against
> his wife until AFTER he shouted ""Oh, no, no, no. My God, they are going
> to kill us all." In the LATER turn you are talking about, you "don't
> see" him opening and closing his mouth WHILE he is turning to look
> directly at JFK? Where else do you see him appearing to shout something?
>
I can't lip read either. But I don't see him moving his lips after 226?
> Why do you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring the fact that he did
> NOT say he fell back against his wife right after turning to look over
> his right shoulder? The man himself said he did not fall back against
> his wife until AFTER he shouted ""Oh, no, no, no. My God, they are going
> to kill us all." In the LATER turn you are talking about, you "don't
> see" him opening and closing his mouth WHILE he is turning to look
> directly at JFK? Where else do you see him appearing to shout something?
>
>
>> > **********
>> >
>> > I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
>> > from
>> > over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
>> > shoulder,
>> > and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did
>> > not
>> > catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested,
>> > because
>> > once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot,
>> > and
>> > I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is
>> > an
>> > assassination attempt.
Where did you get this qoute? Cause that is not the statement he said in
>> > **********
>> >
>> > I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
>> > from
>> > over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
>> > shoulder,
>> > and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did
>> > not
>> > catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested,
>> > because
>> > once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot,
>> > and
>> > I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is
>> > an
>> > assassination attempt.
the documentaries. I know he made a statement on a gurney while in the
recovery room. But I just can't find that one? I know I have it. I think
he did at least three televised statements. And they are not exactly
alike.
>> >
>> > So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
>> > left
>> > shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
>> > about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to
>> > the
>> > left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
>> >
>> > **********
>
> And there it is, plain as day. The man's exact words. Plain as day he
> said he didn't turn far enough to see JFK. Plain as day he said he then
> turned with the intention of looking over his other shoulder, his left.
> Plain as day he said he only got as far as facing a little bit to the
> left of center. Plain as day he said that's when he felt himself to be
> hit in the back.
>
> For your entire article so far you have only been talking about the very
> first part of what he said above, which is this:
>
> "I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come
> from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right
> shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd,"
>
> That's not even the end of the first sentence, Research. Why do you
> never, ever, ever get past that comma? Why don't you ever, ever, ever
> seem to read any further?
>
and went behind the sign and you claim he continued to turn and was
returning at 225 when he emerged from behind the sign only a split second
later.
>
>> >> Just somewhat clearer. Z226 is
>> >> the lapel flip.
>> >
>> > Actually Z224 is the lapel flip, and that's exactly where his head
>> > begins
>> > turning forward, just as he said. By Z226 his head is facing almost
>> > straight forward, just as he said. And Z226 is also the frame in which
>> > he
>> > begins jerking violently. He himself said he felt himself to be struck
>> > just as his head was facing front and slightly left.
>>
>> I say Z224 taken from the documentaries cause they claimed it was Z224.
>> But in the Costella exhibit, the documentary Z224 is labeled as Z225. But
>> this calls it 24 some call it 26 so it is hard to know which on they are
>> referring to So I'll stick with the Costella examples. Kennedy emergers
>> At
>> Z225. He IS UNINJURED. Z226 Shows Kennedy's right arm jerked up in
>> reaction to being shot. His left arm is in an upward movement also. And
>> this Z226 shows Connally sitting up looking straight ahead and the lapel
>> appears as flipped.
>
>
>> >> Z235 Connally's cheeks puffed out and is bolted forward. Z236 Connally
>> >> begins HIS TURN to look at Kennedy.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's the LATER turn that he NEVER MENTIONED. If I'm wrong,
>> > quote
>> > him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
>> >
>> > "I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
>> > right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I
>> > turned
>> > to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
>> >
>> > Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
>> > to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
>> > turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
He didn't describe the turn you are talking about because it is not a turn.
>> >> begins HIS TURN to look at Kennedy.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's the LATER turn that he NEVER MENTIONED. If I'm wrong,
>> > quote
>> > him verbatim as saying anything even remotely like this:
>> >
>> > "I turned to the right twice. The first time I turned to look over my
>> > right shoulder, but not far enough to see JFK. The second time I
>> > turned
>> > to my right, I was facing directly toward him."
>> >
>> > Show me where he described ***BOTH*** turns. He only mentioned turning
>> > to his right *once*, and he was very, very, very clear that in *that*
>> > turn he did NOT turn far enough to see JFK.
He only turned once.
>
> NOW do you see that he said this? Just in case you again pretend you
> don't, I'm now going to quote verbatim what he said on a different
> occasion:
>
> "About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
> ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
>
> Do you finally see it this time, Research?
>
> I see no point in discussing this with you any further, until you
> clearly admit that he said, on more than one occasion (and on several
> more occasions than I have quoted) that he was hit exactly when he
> turned back toward the front.
>
differently. I'm good with that. So let's discuss something else. Hey the
sun is coming out afterall. /;>)
Anthony Marsh
Sep 3, 2012, 10:56:47 PM9/3/12
to
at least 4 frames before that. Hence you have disproven the SBT. Thanks
for your help.
And you still can't explain how the bullet can get through his fist in
front of his throat without damaging it? Did he catch the bullet in mid
flight?
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
John Reagor King
Sep 4, 2012, 12:27:40 AM9/4/12
to
In article <5044...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
he was hit just as he had turned to face forward, or slightly left of
forward:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
yet again, from his WC testimony and then his HSCA testimony. Both
times he said he failed to see Kennedy:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
> Whatever doc? You're the expert. I'm not trying to convince you that he did
> turn, but he did.
Yes, and then he ***ALSO*** said that just when he faced back to the
***FRONT***, ***THAT*** was when he was hit:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
people say they can see it too. Look on the Internet if you don't
believe me. There are probably hundreds of matches showing people
saying they see it too.
> Where did you get this qoute?
That's from his WC testimony.
> Cause that is not the statement he said in
> the documentaries.
Nonsense, I've heard him say these same things in several documentaries,
including one I watched on Youtube yesterday. Here's his 6-22-64
interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjeOBoTDoo
He starts talking about the shooting somewhere around 1:30. And he says
exactly what I've been saying all along.
He said he heard a shot and turned to the right, but did not turn far
enough to see JFK.
He said just as he was starting to turn the other way to look over his
*left* shoulder, *that's* when he got hit.
He then said he said, "My God, they're gonna kill us all."
He said then his wife pulled him down.
Then he said he heard the third shot, and was splattered by material
from the President's head.
I've seen at least one other interview from later, in color, where he
says these same things.
> I know he made a statement on a gurney while in the
> recovery room. But I just can't find that one? I know I have it. I think
> he did at least three televised statements. And they are not exactly
> alike.
They are very similar. His story, in fact, was remarkably similar over
a period of several decades. In all versions I've read or seen, he said
he heard the first shot, turned to look but didn't see JFK, was hit just
as he was turning the other way, said My God they're going to kill us
all, was pulled back by Nellie, then heard the third shot and saw blood
and brain matter fall on him.
> Oh yes he does. You just see what you been told to see.
What I've been told to see by Connally himself, you mean? The same
person you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring?
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
as he was about to turn to look over his other shoulder. You're the one
who keeps ignoring and ignoring and ignoring what he said.
> Because he doesn't look over his shoulder, comma. He only turned his head
> and went behind the sign and you claim he continued to turn and was
> returning at 225 when he emerged from behind the sign only a split second
> later.
Just after he emerges from the sign I clearly see him snap his head
forward. FORWARD, Research.
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
jerks violently at the same instant Kennedy does. Connally's sudden
flip of his hat is very obvious, when one watches the film at any speed.
> He didn't describe the turn you are talking about because it is not a turn.
> He only turned once.
You have already admitted he turns his head to the right before the sign.
> And this happens at Z290. When he IS hit.
HE'S FACING TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE LIMOUSINE AT Z290??????????
He's facing toward the ***REAR*** at Z290!!!
He said he was hit when he was facing toward the ***FRONT***!!!
"About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
He said it year after year after year, decade after decade after decade,
on television, in magazine interviews, to the Warren Commission, to the
HSCA...
He was hit when he was facing the ***FRONT***.
He never, ever, ever said he was hit while he was looking over his
shoulder, Research. He always, always, always said he was hit when he
was facing the FRONT, as he was just about to try to look over his OTHER
shoulder.
Do you finally get it, Research?
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This thread is getting a little to long and we are not getting anywhere.
We'd get somewhere fast if you'd just admit that Connally himself said
> This thread is getting a little to long and we are not getting anywhere.
he was hit just as he had turned to face forward, or slightly left of
forward:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
"I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
> I believe he said "he did not see anything out the ordinary". Not that he
> didn't see Kennedy.
OMG, after I've quoted it to you over and over and over? Here it is,
> didn't see Kennedy.
yet again, from his WC testimony and then his HSCA testimony. Both
times he said he failed to see Kennedy:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
"I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
Both times he said he was hit when he had turned to the FRONT.
> Whatever doc? You're the expert. I'm not trying to convince you that he did
> turn, but he did.
***FRONT***, ***THAT*** was when he was hit:
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
"I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
> I can't lip read either. But I don't see him moving his lips after 226?
I seem him very plainly opening and closing his mouth and many other
people say they can see it too. Look on the Internet if you don't
believe me. There are probably hundreds of matches showing people
saying they see it too.
> Where did you get this qoute?
> Cause that is not the statement he said in
> the documentaries.
including one I watched on Youtube yesterday. Here's his 6-22-64
interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjeOBoTDoo
He starts talking about the shooting somewhere around 1:30. And he says
exactly what I've been saying all along.
He said he heard a shot and turned to the right, but did not turn far
enough to see JFK.
He said just as he was starting to turn the other way to look over his
*left* shoulder, *that's* when he got hit.
He then said he said, "My God, they're gonna kill us all."
He said then his wife pulled him down.
Then he said he heard the third shot, and was splattered by material
from the President's head.
I've seen at least one other interview from later, in color, where he
says these same things.
> I know he made a statement on a gurney while in the
> recovery room. But I just can't find that one? I know I have it. I think
> he did at least three televised statements. And they are not exactly
> alike.
a period of several decades. In all versions I've read or seen, he said
he heard the first shot, turned to look but didn't see JFK, was hit just
as he was turning the other way, said My God they're going to kill us
all, was pulled back by Nellie, then heard the third shot and saw blood
and brain matter fall on him.
> Oh yes he does. You just see what you been told to see.
person you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring?
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
"I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
He's the one always saying he was hit just as he was facing front, just
as he was about to turn to look over his other shoulder. You're the one
who keeps ignoring and ignoring and ignoring what he said.
> Because he doesn't look over his shoulder, comma. He only turned his head
> and went behind the sign and you claim he continued to turn and was
> returning at 225 when he emerged from behind the sign only a split second
> later.
forward. FORWARD, Research.
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
back."
"I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or
process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
> Don't see that Connally jerk. Now Kennedy does.
You're not looking very carefully then because Connally quite obviously
jerks violently at the same instant Kennedy does. Connally's sudden
flip of his hat is very obvious, when one watches the film at any speed.
> He didn't describe the turn you are talking about because it is not a turn.
> He only turned once.
> And this happens at Z290. When he IS hit.
He's facing toward the ***REAR*** at Z290!!!
He said he was hit when he was facing toward the ***FRONT***!!!
"About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight
ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
on television, in magazine interviews, to the Warren Commission, to the
HSCA...
He was hit when he was facing the ***FRONT***.
He never, ever, ever said he was hit while he was looking over his
shoulder, Research. He always, always, always said he was hit when he
was facing the FRONT, as he was just about to try to look over his OTHER
shoulder.
Do you finally get it, Research?
Anthony Marsh
Sep 4, 2012, 12:36:50 PM9/4/12
to
On 9/4/2012 12:27 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5044...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This thread is getting a little to long and we are not getting anywhere.
>
> We'd get somewhere fast if you'd just admit that Connally himself said
> he was hit just as he had turned to face forward, or slightly left of
> forward:
>
> "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
> left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
> got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
> to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
> back."
>
> "I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the
> process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
> the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
> the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or
> less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
>
As usual for a WC defender you use selective quoting to leave false
> In article <5044...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This thread is getting a little to long and we are not getting anywhere.
>
> We'd get somewhere fast if you'd just admit that Connally himself said
> he was hit just as he had turned to face forward, or slightly left of
> forward:
>
> "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
> left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
> got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit
> to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the
> back."
>
> "I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the
> process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into
> the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made
> the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or
> less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit."
>
impressions.
>> Where did you get this qoute?
>
> That's from his WC testimony.
>
>> Cause that is not the statement he said in
>> the documentaries.
>
> Nonsense, I've heard him say these same things in several documentaries,
> including one I watched on Youtube yesterday. Here's his 6-22-64
> interview:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjeOBoTDoo
>
> He starts talking about the shooting somewhere around 1:30. And he says
> exactly what I've been saying all along.
>
> He said he heard a shot and turned to the right, but did not turn far
> enough to see JFK.
>
> He said just as he was starting to turn the other way to look over his
> *left* shoulder, *that's* when he got hit.
>
> He then said he said, "My God, they're gonna kill us all."
>
> He said then his wife pulled him down.
>
> Then he said he heard the third shot, and was splattered by material
> from the President's head.
>
> I've seen at least one other interview from later, in color, where he
> says these same things.
>
>> I know he made a statement on a gurney while in the
>> recovery room. But I just can't find that one? I know I have it. I think
>> he did at least three televised statements. And they are not exactly
>> alike.
>
> They are very similar. His story, in fact, was remarkably similar over
> a period of several decades. In all versions I've read or seen, he said
> he heard the first shot, turned to look but didn't see JFK, was hit just
> as he was turning the other way, said My God they're going to kill us
> all, was pulled back by Nellie, then heard the third shot and saw blood
> and brain matter fall on him.
>
>> Oh yes he does. You just see what you been told to see.
>
> What I've been told to see by Connally himself, you mean? The same
> person you keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring?
>
0 new messages