Was Nellie Connally a Witness?

[WhiskyJoe]

Was Nellie Connally a Witness?

I big pro CT argument is that Nellie Connally saw JFK was wounded and then
turned and was looking at her husband when he was wounded. Therefore JFK
and Connally were wounded by two different bullets and therefore they both
could not have been wounded by the same bullet during Z220-223.

But whoa Nellie. Was Nellie even a witness? It is not unusual to have
people who claim they were at a famous event but really weren't. Like
Beverly Oliver as the "Babushka Lady". Or James Worrell who set the
world's record in taking a bus from Love Field to Dealey Plaza in less
than negative fifteen minutes. Could Nellie be of that type of witness?
Was she claiming to be there just to get attention?

Well, no, she was there all right. She was definitely present. But a
witness during the critical time period? Clearly not. The Zapruder film
shows that at:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Z225: she is looking straight ahead

Z230: she is still looking straight ahead

Kellerman's head is in the way during Z233-238, and not until Z239 do we
see clearly that she is turning to her right, we can just make out the sun
on the left side of her nose.

So during the critical Z220's, Nellie is not looking at either JFK nor
Connally. So we can't really use her to tell if JFK and Connally were both
wounded around Z222.

The minimum requirements of a witness is that they have to be present at
the scene of the crime. And also, they have to be looking in the right
direction. If they are looking in the wrong direction, they are not of
much help.

And, of course, the notion of using a witness to tell if two people are
wounded at the same time is silly. We do not have the eyes of chameleons.
We cannot watch one person with the left eye and watch a different person
with the right. We can only watch one person at a time.

And even if Nellie was looking in the right direction the whole time. Even
if we were not asking the impossible, looking at two different people but
just one. Eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Even when they are looking in the
right direction the whole time, they can still be mistaken.

The story of Nellie is likely she was looking straight ahead. She heard
her husband yell after being wounded. She turned past him to look at the
obvious target, JFK. She saw his arms were raised and that he was wounded.
She then turned to look at her husband. She perceived that he was wounded.
She assumed that he could not have been wounded without her knowing about
it immediately. Therefore she assumed that the moment of perception was
also the moment he was first wounded. Then she pulled him down.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Was Nellie [Connally] even a witness? .... She was there all right.

She was definitely present. But a witness during the critical time period?

Clearly not. The Zapruder film shows that." <<<

Exactly, Joe. Exactly.

==========================================

NEWSGROUP REWIND (FROM OCTOBER 2007):

Regarding Nellie Connally's adamant anti-SBT stance -- That's
explainable in a lone-assassin light too, in my opinion. And in a very
believable "human nature" type of fashion.

In short -- Nellie just flat-out didn't see the INITIAL INVOLUNTARY
REACTIONS made by her husband just after Bullet CE399 tore through
JBC's body at frame #224 of the Zapruder Film.

In fact, if you watch this stabilized version of the Z-Film....

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov

....it's quite obvious that Nellie wasn't even looking at either JFK
or JBC until about Z235 or so, when her head turns sharply and
abruptly to the right. This, of course, is well after both men have
been struck by a bullet.

Just watch Nellie closely and then try to determine whether or not she
could possibly have noticed anything going on with either JFK's or
JBC's initial reactions to external (bullet) stimulus until about
Z235?

Nellie first notices her husband's distress as a result of JBC
screaming "Oh, no, no, no!"; but there's no way she saw JBC's "dropped
shoulder" at Z224; the open mouth and pained look on JBC's face at
Z225; or the quick up-and-down arm/hat flip beginning at Z226.

All of that stuff occurs in the blink of an eye, plus it's occurring
when Nellie isn't even looking in her husband's direction.

So it's not surprising to me that Nellie thought the men were struck
by separate bullets. I'm just disappointed that nobody thought to take
Nellie into a room someplace, sit her down, and have her watch (frame-
by-frame) a good, clear digital copy of the stabilized Zapruder Film
(like the linked copy above), in order for her to see for herself the
"JBC Initial Reactions" to a bullet striking him at Z-Frames 224 to
approximately 235.*

* = As far as I know, Nellie never engaged in such a Z-Film-watching
session prior to her death in 2006. But I could be wrong about that
assumption I suppose. -- DVP; October 5, 2007

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/685265c4de4370ee

OCTOBER 2007:

>>> "Wow, maybe she {Nellie C.} could not have seen the lapel flip from
her point of view! But you overlook the fact that both Connallys studied
the Zapruder frame slides very carefully." <<<

Obviously not carefully enough.

Nellie's head doesn't turn toward JFK until about Z250, well after BOTH
Kennedy and Connally have undeniably been hit by the same bullet.

Just one good hard look at this stabilized version of the Zapruder Film
(linked below) demonstrates that Mrs. Connally could not possibly have
known with 100% certainty that JFK and JBC were definitely hit by separate
bullets, as she always maintained. There's no way possible she could have
known that.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov

And, based on the SUM TOTAL of all of the evidence, we KNOW that Mrs.
Connally was merely mistaken when she firmly maintained that her husband
and President Kennedy were struck by two different bullets.

How can we be sure of this?

Because --- The Single-Bullet Theory is a rock-solid FACT (based on that
aforementioned "SUM TOTAL" of evidence in the Kennedy murder case).

And conspiracy theorists, as usual, will continually overlook this
powerful statement uttered by Governor Connally himself (in front of
millions of CBS-TV viewers):

GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory
of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One- Bullet Theory
is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."

EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
President Kennedy?"

GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe

I guess we should just ignore the above "THAT'S POSSIBLE" statement made
by John B. Connally, Jr., in mid-1967, huh? Should we just pretend he
never said "That's possible" during that interview with Eddie Barker?

Or was Mr. Connally, as many CTers probably believe, just going with the
flow of the "Official Government-sponsored LN line" when those two words
("That's possible") came out of his mouth in 1967?

>>> "You are always wrong." <<<

Coming from Mr. Kettle (aka: Tony "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be
With Respect To The Murder Of John F. Kennedy" Marsh), I'll take that as a
compliment. Thanks.

=====================================

"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-
bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it
was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven
FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is
also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck
President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit
Governor Connally." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)

~~~~~

"You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single- Bullet
Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967

~~~~~

"It's a straight line....it {the SBT} is the only way it COULD have
happened." -- Dale K. Myers; 2004

=====================================

[John Fiorentino]

Nice analysis. Thank you!

John F.

"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9b036ce7-d679-4eb2...@f38g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

[Andrew Mason]

WhiskyJoe wrote:
> Was Nellie Connally a Witness?
>
> I big pro CT argument is that Nellie Connally saw JFK was wounded and then
> turned and was looking at her husband when he was wounded. Therefore JFK
> and Connally were wounded by two different bullets and therefore they both
> could not have been wounded by the same bullet during Z220-223.
>
> But whoa Nellie. Was Nellie even a witness? It is not unusual to have
> people who claim they were at a famous event but really weren't. Like
> Beverly Oliver as the "Babushka Lady". Or James Worrell who set the
> world's record in taking a bus from Love Field to Dealey Plaza in less
> than negative fifteen minutes. Could Nellie be of that type of witness?
> Was she claiming to be there just to get attention?
>
> Well, no, she was there all right. She was definitely present. But a
> witness during the critical time period? Clearly not. The Zapruder film
> shows that at:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
> Z225: she is looking straight ahead
>
> Z230: she is still looking straight ahead

This is only the critical time period in your opinion. She thought the
critical time period was when her husband was shot and she says she was
looking at him then. So the fact that she is not looking at him at z230
tells you that this was not when he was shot.

>
> Kellerman's head is in the way during Z233-238, and not until Z239 do we
> see clearly that she is turning to her right, we can just make out the sun
> on the left side of her nose.
>
> So during the critical Z220's, Nellie is not looking at either JFK nor
> Connally. So we can't really use her to tell if JFK and Connally were both
> wounded around Z222.
>
> The minimum requirements of a witness is that they have to be present at
> the scene of the crime. And also, they have to be looking in the right
> direction. If they are looking in the wrong direction, they are not of
> much help.

Your point is valid only if you can independently and unequivocally
prove that JBC was shot at that time. Nellie's observations are
perfectly consistent with the zfilm if the second shot was at z271.

Besides, you think that JBC was trying to see the President in z180-200.
Obviously, JBC thought he had eyes on the side of his head.

>
> And, of course, the notion of using a witness to tell if two people are
> wounded at the same time is silly. We do not have the eyes of chameleons.
> We cannot watch one person with the left eye and watch a different person
> with the right. We can only watch one person at a time.
>
> And even if Nellie was looking in the right direction the whole time. Even
> if we were not asking the impossible, looking at two different people but
> just one. Eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Even when they are looking in the
> right direction the whole time, they can still be mistaken.
>
> The story of Nellie is likely she was looking straight ahead. She heard
> her husband yell after being wounded. She turned past him to look at the
> obvious target, JFK. She saw his arms were raised and that he was wounded.
> She then turned to look at her husband. She perceived that he was wounded.
> She assumed that he could not have been wounded without her knowing about
> it immediately. Therefore she assumed that the moment of perception was
> also the moment he was first wounded. Then she pulled him down.

Or she pulled him down immediately, as she and JBC and Greer said.

Andrew Mason

[Thalia]

Thats the most convoluted silly excuse to dismiss someones's testimony I
have read in a long time. She was whipping her head back and forwards (in
fact her head whips back so fast in the Z film it is suspicious) and her
brain put everything she saw and heard together to come up with the fact
that she believed her husband was hit after JFK. Totally acceptable.

[WhiskyJoe]

> from David Von Pein:

> NEWSGROUP REWIND (FROM OCTOBER 2007):

> Regarding Nellie Connally's adamant
> anti-SBT stance -- That's explainable
> in a lone-assassin light too, in my
> opinion. And in a very believable
> "human nature" type of fashion.

> In short -- Nellie just flat-out
> didn't see the INITIAL INVOLUNTARY
> REACTIONS made by her husband just
> after Bullet CE399 tore through
> JBC's body at frame #224 of the Zapruder Film.

> In fact, if you watch this stabilized
> version of the Z-Film....

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov

Well, it seems everything has been
discussed before. I thought the
direction Nellie was looking from
Z220-235 would have been a new
subject.

I have heard from CTers many, many
times that both Connally's were
adamant that the Governor was struck
by a separate bullet. But never,
never, do they mention that Nellie
was not watching either JFK nor
JBC during the critical Z220-235
interval. Nor do they mention that
the Zapruder film does not show
JBC ever looking at JFK and that
JBC specifically said that he never
saw JFK during the shooting. So
how could JBC be a good witness
on whether he and JFK were hit be
the same bullet or not.

Also, while I have been told that the
Connally's saw stills of the Zapruder
film, I never found out if the
Connally's:

1. Did they get to watch a stabilized
motion film version of the Zapruder
film?

2. Did they get to watch any kind
of a motion film version of the
Zapruder film, if only the raw
non stabilized version of the film?

3. Did they only get to look at stills
of the Zapruder film?

4. Did they get to look at a really
good quality of the Zapruder film,
like one finds at:

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT_2-eng.htm#Sommet

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/223-226-eng.htm#sommet

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/Hat-eng.htm#sommet

5. Were they aware of the strange
motion of Connally's "soon to be hit"
torso, with the left shoulder being
driven down or at least moving down
during Z222-226?

6. Were they aware of the apparent
movement of the right side of
Connally's "soon to be hit" coat,
during Z223-224?

7. Were they aware of the sudden
jerking up to chin level of Connally's
"soon to be wounded" right wrist,
during Z225-230?

I would suspect that the answer to
these questions, for both Connally's
would be no for almost all, perhaps
all seven questions.

I have never heard at CT volunteer
that neither Connally saw the whole
thing and the Governor practically
nothing. They always go on about how
Nellie was certain it was two different
bullets, but never mention that the
Governor would go back and forth on
the issue. He didn't want to contradict
Nellie, particularly since he didn't
even see JFK, but would admit when
asked that it's possible that only
one bullet struck them both. And they
never mention that both heard shots
only from behind them, neither though
a shot came from the Grassy Knoll.
And they never mention how much
better we can see the assassination,
through stabilized, slow motion
versions of the Zapruder film.

> * = As far as I know, Nellie never
> engaged in such a Z-Film-watching
> session prior to her death in 2006.
> But I could be wrong about that
> assumption I suppose.
> -- DVP; October 5, 2007

I suspect you were right. Probably
from time to time, someone suggested
it, but she probably did not want
to look at such a disturbing memory.

Nellie and ever more so Jackie were
not extensively interviewed about
this nor studied the best material
for obvious reasons. And I believe
that when John Connally passed away
in 1993, the really good versions
of the Zapruder film had not been
made yet.

***************************************

> from John Fiorentino:
> Nice analysis. Thank you!

Thank you.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2009 12:45 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/685265c4de4370ee
>
> OCTOBER 2007:
>
>
>>>> "Wow, maybe she {Nellie C.} could not have seen the lapel flip from
> her point of view! But you overlook the fact that both Connallys studied
> the Zapruder frame slides very carefully."<<<
>
> Obviously not carefully enough.
>
> Nellie's head doesn't turn toward JFK until about Z250, well after BOTH
> Kennedy and Connally have undeniably been hit by the same bullet.
>

So what? In case you didn't know, most humans have a thing called
peripheral vision. That do not have to be looking directly at something to
notice it.

> Just one good hard look at this stabilized version of the Zapruder Film
> (linked below) demonstrates that Mrs. Connally could not possibly have
> known with 100% certainty that JFK and JBC were definitely hit by separate
> bullets, as she always maintained. There's no way possible she could have
> known that.
>

Her belief is not just visual. It is also from hearing the shots. John
Connally HEARD the first shot, but did not hear the shot which hit him.

> http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov
>
> And, based on the SUM TOTAL of all of the evidence, we KNOW that Mrs.
> Connally was merely mistaken when she firmly maintained that her husband
> and President Kennedy were struck by two different bullets.
>

Only because you need the SBT to avoid admitting conspiracy, just like
Specter.

> How can we be sure of this?
>
> Because --- The Single-Bullet Theory is a rock-solid FACT (based on that
> aforementioned "SUM TOTAL" of evidence in the Kennedy murder case).
>

Circular argument.

> And conspiracy theorists, as usual, will continually overlook this
> powerful statement uttered by Governor Connally himself (in front of
> millions of CBS-TV viewers):
>
> GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory
> of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One- Bullet Theory
> is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
>
> EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
> could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
> President Kennedy?"
>
> GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
>
> I guess we should just ignore the above "THAT'S POSSIBLE" statement made
> by John B. Connally, Jr., in mid-1967, huh? Should we just pretend he
> never said "That's possible" during that interview with Eddie Barker?
>

Yes, we should.

> Or was Mr. Connally, as many CTers probably believe, just going with the
> flow of the "Official Government-sponsored LN line" when those two words
> ("That's possible") came out of his mouth in 1967?
>

Well, all he was doing was admitting that it was POSSIBLE. Even I have
done that. But he always said that he did not believe the SBT. You can
have both men hit at the same time without needing to believe CE 399 did
everything the way the WC said.

>>>> "You are always wrong."<<<
>
> Coming from Mr. Kettle (aka: Tony "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be
> With Respect To The Murder Of John F. Kennedy" Marsh), I'll take that as a
> compliment. Thanks.
>

Nice compliment but I never said what you put in quotes.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2009 11:46 PM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
>
> Was Nellie Connally a Witness?
>
> I big pro CT argument is that Nellie Connally saw JFK was wounded and then
> turned and was looking at her husband when he was wounded. Therefore JFK
> and Connally were wounded by two different bullets and therefore they both
> could not have been wounded by the same bullet during Z220-223.
>
> But whoa Nellie. Was Nellie even a witness? It is not unusual to have
> people who claim they were at a famous event but really weren't. Like
> Beverly Oliver as the "Babushka Lady". Or James Worrell who set the
> world's record in taking a bus from Love Field to Dealey Plaza in less
> than negative fifteen minutes. Could Nellie be of that type of witness?
> Was she claiming to be there just to get attention?
>

SO, what's YOUR claim? That she wasn't even there? Or that she was blind?

> Well, no, she was there all right. She was definitely present. But a
> witness during the critical time period? Clearly not. The Zapruder film
> shows that at:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
> Z225: she is looking straight ahead
>

Straight? Straight as in the midline of the limo or straight as towards
Zapruder?

> Z230: she is still looking straight ahead
>
> Kellerman's head is in the way during Z233-238, and not until Z239 do we
> see clearly that she is turning to her right, we can just make out the sun
> on the left side of her nose.
>

Mighty quick turn you have there. Could it be that some noise caught her
attention?

> So during the critical Z220's, Nellie is not looking at either JFK nor
> Connally. So we can't really use her to tell if JFK and Connally were both
> wounded around Z222.
>

SO what? She does not have to be looking right at something to notice it.

> The minimum requirements of a witness is that they have to be present at
> the scene of the crime. And also, they have to be looking in the right
> direction. If they are looking in the wrong direction, they are not of
> much help.
>

Silly.

> And, of course, the notion of using a witness to tell if two people are
> wounded at the same time is silly. We do not have the eyes of chameleons.
> We cannot watch one person with the left eye and watch a different person
> with the right. We can only watch one person at a time.
>

She did not see JFK being hit. She noticed that JFK HAD already been hit.

> And even if Nellie was looking in the right direction the whole time. Even
> if we were not asking the impossible, looking at two different people but
> just one. Eyewitnesses can be mistaken. Even when they are looking in the
> right direction the whole time, they can still be mistaken.
>
> The story of Nellie is likely she was looking straight ahead. She heard
> her husband yell after being wounded. She turned past him to look at the

Yeah, prove that he yelled. Especially with a punctured lung.

> obvious target, JFK. She saw his arms were raised and that he was wounded.
> She then turned to look at her husband. She perceived that he was wounded.
> She assumed that he could not have been wounded without her knowing about
> it immediately. Therefore she assumed that the moment of perception was
> also the moment he was first wounded. Then she pulled him down.
>

No, YOU assume.

[bigdog]

The short answer is that, yes, Nellie Connally was a witness, but just not
a reliable one. I don't say that in a judgemental way. The sight of seeing
the President of the United States and her husband receiving devastating
wounds in a matter of seconds must have been a terribly traumatic
experience for her and I imagine the whole episode must have seemed a
blur. It is a natural tendency for the mind to fill in the blanks when the
eyes don't fully comprehend what is going on. I'm quite sure she firmly
believed her version of events was accurate, but as WhiskyJoe has deftly
pointed out, it was impossible for her to have seen what she thought she
actually saw. Her memory was understandably faulty and unreliable.

[bigdog]

Not in those exact words.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Nice compliment[,] but I never said what you put in quotes [which was
this: Tony "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be With Respect To The Murder
Of John F. Kennedy" Marsh]." <<<

And I never said you did say it. The quotation marks I utilized in that
instance were utilized (obviously) to "bracket" and "highlight" a
"nickname" for Anthony Marsh.

The quotation marks weren't being used to show a direct quote (which, of
course, is quite obvious by the way the quoted words are all inside the
two words "Tony Marsh", and due to the fact that I capitalized every word
within the "quoted" passage).

But, of course, Tony, knows all this already. But, as usual, he just feels
like arguing about something just for the sake of arguing about something.
It's a Marsh tradition. And that tradition is not likely to ever change.
Right, Tony?

[Andrew Mason]

It is only impossible if you insist that JBC was hit in the chest by
z230. It is quite possible for her to have seen what she said she saw
(along with dozens of others) ie JFK reacting to the first shot, if the
second shot was around z271.

Andrew Mason

[yeuhd]

On Jun 13, 11:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/12/2009 11:46 PM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
> > The story of Nellie is likely she was looking straight ahead. She heard
> > her husband yell after being wounded. She turned past him to look at the
>
> Yeah, prove that he yelled. Especially with a punctured lung.

From the WC testimony of John Connally:

Governor CONNALLY. I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no,
no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."

From the WC testimony of Nellie Connally:

Mrs. CONNALLY. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.
As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I
recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot,
and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a
wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill
us all."

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm sure you could say that about ANY witness. But you don't. You cherry
pick the ones you don't like.

[Vincent]

"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
939681f2-430d-4a6d...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>
> Mrs. CONNALLY. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.
> As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I
> recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot,
> and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a
> wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill
> us all."

Based on the Z film, it is around z289 that Ms Connally sees that her
husband is wounded. I have not yet translated the french language page I
made on this part of the film, but you can have a look here:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Connallys2.htm

My real problem with this part of the events is that Ms Connally says she
heard the shot that wounded her husband. Because she was turned in the
direction of her husband at z281 in a movement in the direction of JFK, this
would mean that the shot she said she heard must have happened between z281
and z289.

I am still troubled by this part of her testimony. Because we are confronted
with an alternative::

- Ms Connally "thinks" she heard a shot at the moment she thinks her husband
is wounded;

- Ms Connally did hear a shot, but that shot did not wound her husband (we
all know he was woulded well before z289) and did not hit anybody else. A
fouth shot that hit nobody? Hum

At this stage, I believe this shot is just a production of the mind of Ms
Connally who could not accept the fact that she did not see immediately her
husband was wounded. But I am still a bit puzzled.

[Robert Harris]

Nellie was actually, a very good witness but she did not realize her
husband was hit at the same time JFK was.

She mistakenly believed that he was hit by the next shot, to which she
visibly and very clearly reacts. This video explains what she said and
did, in great detail.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov

Robert Harris

In article
<9b036ce7-d679-4eb2...@f38g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

[Robert Harris]

In article
<a704a382-4b06-45bc...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/685265c4de4370ee
>
> OCTOBER 2007:
>
>
> >>> "Wow, maybe she {Nellie C.} could not have seen the lapel flip from
> her point of view! But you overlook the fact that both Connallys studied
> the Zapruder frame slides very carefully." <<<
>
> Obviously not carefully enough.
>
> Nellie's head doesn't turn toward JFK until about Z250, well after BOTH
> Kennedy and Connally have undeniably been hit by the same bullet.
>
> Just one good hard look at this stabilized version of the Zapruder Film
> (linked below) demonstrates that Mrs. Connally could not possibly have
> known with 100% certainty that JFK and JBC were definitely hit by separate
> bullets, as she always maintained. There's no way possible she could have
> known that.

That isn't true David.

She thought she "knew" he was hit later because she heard a shot and
then spun back toward her husband, realizing that he was wounded.

But you already knew that, didn't you David?

Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/14/2009 8:14 AM, yeuhd wrote:
> On Jun 13, 11:09 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/12/2009 11:46 PM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
>>> The story of Nellie is likely she was looking straight ahead. She heard
>>> her husband yell after being wounded. She turned past him to look at the
>>
>> Yeah, prove that he yelled. Especially with a punctured lung.
>
>
> From the WC testimony of John Connally:
>
> Governor CONNALLY. I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no,
> no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
>

That's what he said, but the Zapruder film shows he said nothing.

[Andrew Mason]

Vincent wrote:
> "yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:

No puzzle if, in fact, JBC is not wounded until the second shot - which
is what he said. Greer said he turned around immediately after the
second shot. Use that to determine where the second shot should be.

Andrew Mason
>
>
>

[Vincent]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
4a35545b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>
> That's what he said, but the Zapruder film shows he said nothing.

Which version of the Zapruder film did you see?
Because in the version I know:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/No_no_no-eng.htm#sommet

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/15/2009 12:33 AM, Andrew Mason wrote:
> Vincent wrote:

>> "yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:

Never. Never rely on witnesses. That is sloppy research.

> Andrew Mason
>>
>>
>>
>

[Andrew Mason]

Vincent wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:

> 4a35545b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> That's what he said, but the Zapruder film shows he said nothing.
>
> Which version of the Zapruder film did you see?
> Because in the version I know:
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/No_no_no-eng.htm#sommet
>
>
>

Which Nellie said he said BEFORE the second shot.

Andrew Mason

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/15/2009 10:25 PM, Vincent wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> a ?crit dans le message de news:

> 4a35545b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> That's what he said, but the Zapruder film shows he said nothing.
>
> Which version of the Zapruder film did you see?
> Because in the version I know:
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/No_no_no-eng.htm#sommet
>
>
>

I'm certainly not looking at the worst possible quality that you just
cited, very blurry, full of dirt. I suggest you get the MPI DVD. You are
seeing what your WANT to see, like the thousands that see the Virgin Mary
on a window.

[yeuhd]

On Jun 16, 1:43 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@sasktel.net> wrote:
> Vincent wrote:
> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 4a35545...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> >> That's what he said, but the Zapruder film shows he said nothing.
>
> > Which version of the Zapruder film did you see?
> > Because in the version I know:
> >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/No_no_no-eng.htm#sommet
>
> Which Nellie said he said BEFORE the second shot.

Further evidence that Nellie Connally got her chronology scrambled.

[yeuhd]

On Jun 16, 10:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/15/2009 10:25 PM, Vincent wrote:
>

> > "Anthony Marsh"<anthony_ma...@comcast.net>  a ?crit dans le message de news:
> > 4a35545...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>
> >> That's what he said, but the Zapruder film shows he said nothing.
>
> > Which version of the Zapruder film did you see?
> > Because in the version I know:
> >http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/No_no_no-eng.htm#sommet
>
> I'm certainly not looking at the worst possible quality that you just
> cited, very blurry, full of dirt. I suggest you get the MPI DVD. You are
> seeing what your WANT to see, like the thousands that see the Virgin Mary
> on a window.

So, we're just imagining that John Connally opens and closes his mouth
several times in that frame sequence. Got it. What is John Connally
doing in your copy?

[Andrew Mason]

Would you not have to agree that she was consistently wrong in her
observations at the time of the shooting but only on the points that
suggested the shot was later than z230. On those points her observations
are consistent and all indicate a later shot (looking back at JFK before
the second shot, looking at JBC at the time of the second shot, JBC
saying oh, no, no after the first but before the second shot, JBC turned
right when hit, immediately reaching over and pulling JBC after the
second shot).

How does that happen?

Andrew Mason

[Vincent]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> a �crit dans le message de news:
4a38...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>
> I'm certainly not looking at the worst possible quality that you just
> cited, very blurry, full of dirt. I suggest you get the MPI DVD. You are
> seeing what your WANT to see, like the thousands that see the Virgin Mary
> on a window.

These images come directly from that DVD.
Maybe YOU should look at it?

[Vincent]

"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
e51b8f87-496d-47b3...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> > > "Anthony Marsh"<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a ?crit dans le message de
> > > news:
> >

>> I'm certainly not looking at the worst possible quality that you just
>> cited, very blurry, full of dirt. I suggest you get the MPI DVD. You are
>> seeing what your WANT to see, like the thousands that see the Virgin Mary
>> on a window.
>
> So, we're just imagining that John Connally opens and closes his mouth
> several times in that frame sequence. Got it. What is John Connally
> doing in your copy?

I bet Tony thinks Connally is chewing a gum or tobacco maybe?

[yeuhd]

On Jun 17, 10:47 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
> On those points her observations
> are consistent and all indicate a later shot (looking back at JFK before
> the second shot, looking at JBC at the time of the second shot, JBC
> saying oh, no, no after the first but before the second shot

But the Zapruder film does not show Nellie Connally looking at John
Connally at the time of the second shot. She's looking straight
forward. And no, I do not consider peripheral vision to be "looking
at".

And the Zapruder film shows him saying "No, no, no" after he is shot,
not before.

[yeuhd]

On Jun 17, 11:12 pm, "Vincent" <Alex_...@skynet.be> wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4a383...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>
>
>
> > I'm certainly not looking at the worst possible quality that you just
> > cited, very blurry, full of dirt. I suggest you get the MPI DVD. You are
> > seeing what your WANT to see, like the thousands that see the Virgin Mary
> > on a window.
>
> These images come directly from that DVD.
> Maybe YOU should look at it?

Any Zapruder film frames that anyone links to are always "the worst
possible quality".

[Andrew Mason]

Not if the second shot was after z250. And at least 48 witnesses put it
after z250.

You are assuming the second shot is around z223 and using that to
"prove" Nellie was consistently wrong on all of her evidence. I am
suggesting an alternative explanation in which she was right on her
observations. By simply accepting the witness evidence that JFK was hit
on the first shot and the second shot, which hit JBC in the torso, was
after the midpoint between the first and last shots, the problems with
her observations disappear.

Andrew Mason

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2009 11:43 PM, yeuhd wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:47 pm, Andrew Mason<a.ma...@spmlaw.ca> wrote:
>> On those points her observations
>> are consistent and all indicate a later shot (looking back at JFK before
>> the second shot, looking at JBC at the time of the second shot, JBC
>> saying oh, no, no after the first but before the second shot
>
> But the Zapruder film does not show Nellie Connally looking at John
> Connally at the time of the second shot. She's looking straight
> forward. And no, I do not consider peripheral vision to be "looking
> at".
>

I said that one does not have to be looking at something to notice it.

> And the Zapruder film shows him saying "No, no, no" after he is shot,
> not before.
>

No, no, no.

[Anthony Marsh]

He's grimacing in pain. You guys are assuming what you need to PROVE.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2009 11:12 PM, Vincent wrote:

Not the best sequence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Grimacing in pain. Gasping for air with a punctured lung.

[yeuhd]

Perhaps you "are seeing what your [sic] WANT to see"?