JFK and JBC were hit with separate bullets

[charles wallace]

This post is for people who think. The people who say JFK and JBC both are
shot for the first time with the same bullet at Z224 are misleading you.
In Z224 JFK is emerging from behind the sign but close viewing will make
you realize that his arm position is almost the same as Z228 which clearly
shows JFK reacting to being shot. At Z228 JBC is in the position he stated
he was in when he was shot. WC testimony excerpt: I heard....a rifle shot.
I ...turned to my right...I was turning..back..then I felt like someone
hit me in the back. In Z237 and Z238 JBC can be seen with his cheeks
puffing out expelling air from his pierced collapsing lung. It takes time
for reactions to happen. At Z224 whether you think JFK is bringing his
arms up towards his throat as a voluntary or involuntary reaction it takes
time for this to happen. This shot is not like the shot at Z313 where the
top of JFK's head comes off in the same frame that the bullet passes
through the brain. I ask that you use your brain and not be mislead. After
thinking about it you should now know that JFK and JBC were hit with
separate bullets.

For those interested in what really happened they can find posts on my JFK
murder page that explain it.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/JFKs-murder/681606495193460

[Anthony Marsh]

There is much more than just Connally's WC testimony. There is his
bedside interview. And Connally told the WC that he could see in the
Zapruder film that he was hit at about frame 230.

[bigdog]

So you think JBC started flipping his right arm upward at Z226 in
anticipation of being shot a couple of frames later. That is the same
frame JFK's arms jerked upward. We know this because we can see his right
hand in Z224 and it is lower in Z225 indicating he had not yet reacted to
having been shot. The next frame is the one in which both JFK and JBC
simultaneously flip their arms upward.

You really should check out DVP's website. It shows quite clearly with
enlarged frames. It is the clincher for the SBT.

[bigdog]

On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:59:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> There is much more than just Connally's WC testimony. There is his
> bedside interview. And Connally told the WC that he could see in the
> Zapruder film that he was hit at about frame 230.

Well, there you go again. Relying on a witness.

[Anthony Marsh]

Frame 230 is not being a witness. It is being an analyst.
Studying the evidence.

[mainframetech]

DVP's website is extremely biased. I don't trust it. It's also been
used in the past in attempts to embarass others that DVP lost debates to,
where he will repeat only selected portions of a conversation, showing him
as the debate master. That's not the sign of an objective site to me.



When you see people reacting it may be from a loud noise, a bullet
strike, a yes from someone nearby, or an immediate gastric problem, or any
number of things.

Chris

[bigdog]

And missing Connally's arm flip which began at Z226.

So tell us what you see in Z230 that tells you JBC was hit then?

[charles wallace]

It is a fact that the autopsy doctors and FBI agents said the back entry
was DOWNWARD and Dr. Baden said the back wound was lower in JFK's body
that the throat wound. Hence there was no SBT.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are making a fundamental error. The FBI did not make their own
independent examination of the body. They were not doctors. All they did
was write down what the doctors said. You can't use the FBI agents as
independent corroboration. If a reporter writes a story about an
explorer finding gold you can't say that the reporter found the gold.
And it wasn't hard to guess that the bullet was on a downward trajectory
when the SS told the doctors that the shooter was behind and above the
limo. But NO ONE measured the downward angle. Could be 5 degrees or 80
degrees.
And please don't cite Baden. He lied and said that JFK was leaning over
to account for the downward 20 degree angle. Have you ever seen him
demonstrate the angle?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Baden%5B1%5D.jpg

He is a prime supporter of the SBT.

[David Von Pein]

MAINFRAME SAID:

DVP's website is extremely biased. I don't trust it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Chris/Mainframe probably thinks I've faked this film clip....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2tK_GSE7HOg/UolSwJ5-AEI/AAAAAAAAw1s/9I0RZMn_3yY/s1600/109.+Z225-Z226+Toggling+Clip.gif

[Anthony Marsh]

What about the lapel flip? Can't we count on you for anything?
How could you forget that?

> So tell us what you see in Z230 that tells you JBC was hit then?
>
>

What he saw. Facing forward. Not reacting BEFORE 230 and reacting after
230. Just as Alavarez pinpointed when the limo slowed down by noticing
the speed before and after frame 299 and plotting least squares fit
lines which intersected at frame 299.

[Aaron Kosminski]

This clip is definitely altered. They should be ducking in anticipation
of Z-284.5 from the Johnny Roselli storm drain.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:45:05 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> DVP's website is extremely biased. I don't trust it. It's also been
> used in the past in attempts to embarass others that DVP lost debates to,
> where he will repeat only selected portions of a conversation, showing him
> as the debate master. That's not the sign of an objective site to me.
>

No argument there. DVP's website is biased. It is pro-reality and
anti-fantasy.

>
> When you see people reacting it may be from a loud noise, a bullet
> strike, a yes from someone nearby, or an immediate gastric problem, or any
> number of things.
>

Now you sound like Jim Moore who claimed JFK wasn't shot when he
reappeared from behind the sign, he was just assuming a defensive posture
after hearing the first shot.

Maybe you are right about the gastric problem. Maybe JFK and JBC got some
bad food at the breakfast that morning and they reacted to it at exactly
the same instant.

[bigdog]

Well yes, he did react after Z230 by doubling over but that was his
secondary reaction. Of course you can't see his immediate reaction which
was the involuntary flipping of his right arm upward at the same instant
JFK's arms flew upward at Z226. You can't see that because you don't want
to see that. You don't want to see evidence that JFK and JBC reacted at
the same time because they were shot at the same time. That would indicate
the SBT is valid and with the exception of Bob Harris, CTs would want to
face that fact about as much as Dracula would want to face the sunrise.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:44:45 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

LOL! Nope. I think the original Z-film was altered and you've just
got a copy of part of it...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Keep dancing. I showed how Connally determined that he was hit at frame
230. If you want to move your SBT to frame 230 that would be fine. I
won't tell anyone.
And again, the HSCA had its own SBT. So they are a dime a dozen.

[David Von Pein]

Why do CTers just flat-out ignore the obvious signs of distress seen on
Gov. Connally just after Z224? The shoulders flinch, the mouth opens, his
facial expression changes, and that right arm goes flying upward. (Not
even to mention the lapel displacement.)

But, per CTers, NONE of that stuff has anything at all to do with a bullet
hitting the Texas Governor.

And CTers claim that LNers "ignore" the evidence??? Gee whiz.

[bigdog]

It would be pretty stupid to move the SBT to four frames after JFK and JBC
simultaneously reacted to being shot. Only a CT would do something that
illogical.

You didn't show how Connally determined he was hit at frame 230. You
showed how he guessed he was shot at frame 230. It wasn't a bad guess.
Less than a half second off. He was looking for when he saw himself doing
what he remembered doing, doubling over and twisting to his right. He
guessed he had been hit a few frames earlier so Z230 seemed about right.
Of course Rossley tells us Connally said he was hit between Z231-234. I
could play your game and say it isn't much of a theory because you guys
can't settle on a frame, but I wouldn't stoop to doing that. I don't need
to. I can demonstrate that JFK and JBC simultaneously jerked their arms
upward at Z226. Connally can be forgiven for overlooking that reaction
since it was an involuntary movement which he didn't remember doing. That
simultaneous arm flip has been pointed out to you so what's your excuse
for ignoring it. But go ahead and keep relying on your star witness. It
will keep you from ever getting the right answer. Of course, I don't think
you really want the right answer. You have devoted too much of your life
to the wrong one.

[TED ROSSLEY]

Connally was hit between frames 223-224. Marsh wants to blame the CIA for
the sinking of the Titanic.

[TED ROSSLEY]

The Governor's shoulders flinching, mouth opening, his
facial expression changing, and that right arm flying upward prove that
Connally was taking one for the team. He was in on it. Tough guy.

[Anthony Marsh]

No guess. He examined the highest quality Zapruder frames.

> Less than a half second off. He was looking for when he saw himself doing
> what he remembered doing, doubling over and twisting to his right. He

No. Facing forward.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/19/2014 9:26 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Why do CTers just flat-out ignore the obvious signs of distress seen on
> Gov. Connally just after Z224? The shoulders flinch, the mouth opens, his
> facial expression changes, and that right arm goes flying upward. (Not
> even to mention the lapel displacement.)
>

Why do you keep changing the SBT frame?
Why do you think Connally was lying?

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 6:59:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:45:05 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
>
> > DVP's website is extremely biased. I don't trust it. It's also been
>
> > used in the past in attempts to embarass others that DVP lost debates to,
>
> > where he will repeat only selected portions of a conversation, showing him
>
> > as the debate master. That's not the sign of an objective site to me.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No argument there. DVP's website is biased. It is pro-reality and
>
> anti-fantasy.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > When you see people reacting it may be from a loud noise, a bullet
>

> > strike, a yell from someone nearby, or an immediate gastric problem, or any

>
> > number of things.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Now you sound like Jim Moore who claimed JFK wasn't shot when he
>
> reappeared from behind the sign, he was just assuming a defensive posture
>
> after hearing the first shot.
>
>
>
> Maybe you are right about the gastric problem. Maybe JFK and JBC got some
>
> bad food at the breakfast that morning and they reacted to it at exactly
>
> the same instant.

Ridicule? Have you run out of intelligent comments?


It may be humorous to you, but I've seen people double up with pain
from an ulcer. It's as if they were shot in the stomach. Some other type
of problem could easily cause someone to react violently. Maybe even
woolen underwear.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:07:19 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/19/2014 9:28 PM, bigdog wrote:
>

> > You didn't show how Connally determined he was hit at frame 230. You
> > showed how he guessed he was shot at frame 230. It wasn't a bad guess.
>
> No guess. He examined the highest quality Zapruder frames.
>

And then made his best guess. Close, but no cigar.

>
> > Less than a half second off. He was looking for when he saw himself doing
> > what he remembered doing, doubling over and twisting to his right. He
>
> No. Facing forward.
>

He was facing forward when he began to double over but unlike what he has
demonstrated in some of his interviews, he didn't double over forward, he
twisted and dipped to his right. You will have as much luck showing JBC
doubling over facing forward as you did in finding a frame where he could
see JFK was slumped before JBC had been hit.

You really should learn to take your own advice. Never rely on a witness,
especially when you have a film record of the event that paints a
different picture than what the witness has said.

>
> > guessed he had been hit a few frames earlier so Z230 seemed about right.
> > Of course Rossley tells us Connally said he was hit between Z231-234. I
> > could play your game and say it isn't much of a theory because you guys
> > can't settle on a frame, but I wouldn't stoop to doing that. I don't need
> > to. I can demonstrate that JFK and JBC simultaneously jerked their arms
> > upward at Z226. Connally can be forgiven for overlooking that reaction
> > since it was an involuntary movement which he didn't remember doing. That
> > simultaneous arm flip has been pointed out to you so what's your excuse
> > for ignoring it. But go ahead and keep relying on your star witness. It
> > will keep you from ever getting the right answer. Of course, I don't think
> > you really want the right answer. You have devoted too much of your life
> > to the wrong one.
>

I guess Tony agrees.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 4:04:18 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:07:19 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/2014 9:28 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
>
>
> > > You didn't show how Connally determined he was hit at frame 230. You
>
> > > showed how he guessed he was shot at frame 230. It wasn't a bad guess.
>
> >
>
> > No guess. He examined the highest quality Zapruder frames.
>
> >
>
> And then made his best guess. Close, but no cigar.
>
> >
>
> > > Less than a half second off. He was looking for when he saw himself doing
>
> > > what he remembered doing, doubling over and twisting to his right. He
>
> >
>
> > No. Facing forward.
>
> >
>
>
>
> He was facing forward when he began to double over but unlike what he has
>
> demonstrated in some of his interviews, he didn't double over forward, he
>
> twisted and dipped to his right. You will have as much luck showing JBC
>
> doubling over facing forward as you did in finding a frame where he could
>
> see JFK was slumped before JBC had been hit.
>
>
>
> You really should learn to take your own advice. Never rely on a witness,
>
> especially when you have a film record of the event that paints a
>
> different picture than what the witness has said.
>

That is (of course) not good advice when the film record has been
altered.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/20/2014 4:04 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:07:19 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/19/2014 9:28 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>
>>> You didn't show how Connally determined he was hit at frame 230. You
>>> showed how he guessed he was shot at frame 230. It wasn't a bad guess.
>>
>> No guess. He examined the highest quality Zapruder frames.
>>
> And then made his best guess. Close, but no cigar.

Better than you.

>>
>>> Less than a half second off. He was looking for when he saw himself doing
>>> what he remembered doing, doubling over and twisting to his right. He
>>
>> No. Facing forward.
>>
>
> He was facing forward when he began to double over but unlike what he has
> demonstrated in some of his interviews, he didn't double over forward, he
> twisted and dipped to his right. You will have as much luck showing JBC
> doubling over facing forward as you did in finding a frame where he could
> see JFK was slumped before JBC had been hit.
>

He said he was in the process of turning and was facing forward when he
was hit.

> You really should learn to take your own advice. Never rely on a witness,
> especially when you have a film record of the event that paints a
> different picture than what the witness has said.
>

No.

>>
>>> guessed he had been hit a few frames earlier so Z230 seemed about right.
>>> Of course Rossley tells us Connally said he was hit between Z231-234. I
>>> could play your game and say it isn't much of a theory because you guys
>>> can't settle on a frame, but I wouldn't stoop to doing that. I don't need
>>> to. I can demonstrate that JFK and JBC simultaneously jerked their arms
>>> upward at Z226. Connally can be forgiven for overlooking that reaction
>>> since it was an involuntary movement which he didn't remember doing. That
>>> simultaneous arm flip has been pointed out to you so what's your excuse
>>> for ignoring it. But go ahead and keep relying on your star witness. It
>>> will keep you from ever getting the right answer. Of course, I don't think
>>> you really want the right answer. You have devoted too much of your life
>>> to the wrong one.
>>
>
> I guess Tony agrees.
>

I guess you guess too much.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:22:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 4:04 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:07:19 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 9/19/2014 9:28 PM, bigdog wrote:

> >>> You didn't show how Connally determined he was hit at frame 230. You
> >>> showed how he guessed he was shot at frame 230. It wasn't a bad guess.
>
> >> No guess. He examined the highest quality Zapruder frames.
>
> > And then made his best guess. Close, but no cigar.
>
> Better than you.
>

Not really. His guess placed the shot 4 frames after his initial reaction.
I put the shot 3 frames before the reaction. Mine is more likely correct.
I've never claimed that Z223 is precisely when the bullet hit. It is an
approximation based on the best although somewhat inadequate tool, the
Z-film.

>
> >>> Less than a half second off. He was looking for when he saw himself doing
> >>> what he remembered doing, doubling over and twisting to his right. He
>
> >> No. Facing forward.
>
> > He was facing forward when he began to double over but unlike what he has
> > demonstrated in some of his interviews, he didn't double over forward, he
> > twisted and dipped to his right. You will have as much luck showing JBC
> > doubling over facing forward as you did in finding a frame where he could
> > see JFK was slumped before JBC had been hit.
>
> He said he was in the process of turning and was facing forward when he
> was hit.
>

There you go relying on a witness again and ignoring the hard evidence
presents a different picture.

>
> > You really should learn to take your own advice. Never rely on a witness,
> > especially when you have a film record of the event that paints a
> > different picture than what the witness has said.
>
> No.

I don't suppose there's any chance you can expound on that?

>
> >>> guessed he had been hit a few frames earlier so Z230 seemed about right.
> >>> Of course Rossley tells us Connally said he was hit between Z231-234. I
> >>> could play your game and say it isn't much of a theory because you guys
> >>> can't settle on a frame, but I wouldn't stoop to doing that. I don't need
> >>> to. I can demonstrate that JFK and JBC simultaneously jerked their arms
> >>> upward at Z226. Connally can be forgiven for overlooking that reaction
> >>> since it was an involuntary movement which he didn't remember doing. That
> >>> simultaneous arm flip has been pointed out to you so what's your excuse
> >>> for ignoring it. But go ahead and keep relying on your star witness. It
> >>> will keep you from ever getting the right answer. Of course, I don't think
> >>> you really want the right answer. You have devoted too much of your life
> >>> to the wrong one.
>
> > I guess Tony agrees.
>
> I guess you guess too much.

The difference between us is that I will admit when I am guessing.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:20:29 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:22:17 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > On 9/20/2014 4:04 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, September 20, 2014 11:07:19 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> On 9/19/2014 9:28 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> You didn't show how Connally determined he was hit at frame 230. You
>
> > >>> showed how he guessed he was shot at frame 230. It wasn't a bad guess.
>
> >
>
> > >> No guess. He examined the highest quality Zapruder frames.
>
> >
>
> > > And then made his best guess. Close, but no cigar.
>
> >
>
> > Better than you.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not really. His guess placed the shot 4 frames after his initial reaction.
>
> I put the shot 3 frames before the reaction. Mine is more likely correct.
>
> I've never claimed that Z223 is precisely when the bullet hit. It is an
>
> approximation based on the best although somewhat inadequate tool, the
>
> Z-film.
>

Still using the Z-film to measure things? Even with the missing frames
that have been pointed out?

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > >>> Less than a half second off. He was looking for when he saw himself doing
>
> > >>> what he remembered doing, doubling over and twisting to his right. He
>
> >
>
> > >> No. Facing forward.
>
> >
>
> > > He was facing forward when he began to double over but unlike what he has
>
> > > demonstrated in some of his interviews, he didn't double over forward, he
>
> > > twisted and dipped to his right. You will have as much luck showing JBC
>
> > > doubling over facing forward as you did in finding a frame where he could
>
> > > see JFK was slumped before JBC had been hit.
>
> >
>
> > He said he was in the process of turning and was facing forward when he
>
> > was hit.
>
> >
>
>
>
> There you go relying on a witness again and ignoring the hard evidence
>
> presents a different picture.

If by "hard evidence" you mean the Z-film, then it's not so "hard". It
was altered and not even all that well. Proven by witness statement and
video examination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE


I have shown these videos in a number of threads, and not once has
anyone argued with what they show. I guess it's too embarrassing to
comment on them.

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's just not true, Chris.
Did you kill-file me?
Maybe somebody should reply to me so Chris will see their response, and
my original post.
For the *third* time, now:

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ

First, the person (who I think must be about 15 years old) narrating
this has a very annoying way of speaking.

Now, I would like to point out that it is simply ridiculous to think
that the Z film has been altered merely because it shows a witness?s
recollection of when she stepped off the grass to be mistaken.

And you are highly suggestible, Chris--virtually under hypnosis--if you
buy the contention that the bystanders are somehow too large or that the
sharpness of the focus on their shadows in one frame indicates anything
significant.

As for the lamp post, the adenoidal idiot narrating this so portentously
doesn?t understand anything about perspective. All this nonsense was
debunked long ago.
Like here: http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/costella.html

I've never laughed harder than when I read James Fetzer?s ?The Great
Zapruder Film Hoax.? (There?s a hoax, all right, but it?s not the original
film.) My favorite chapter might be ?Weird Experiences En Route to
Duluth,? in which one reads about how two CTs decided that RainSensors in
Dealey Plaza must really be listening devices (what for? you might ask.
Why, to keep an ear on CTs, of course!), since these two geniuses were
unable to fathom why you would need more than one of them there (yes, it
does sometimes rain on only one side of a street--otherwise, every time it
rains anywhere, it would be raining all over the world... like that lovely
song about ?A Rainy Night in Georgia?). And don?t miss the section on
adjustable lamp-posts, Chris, I'm sure you?ll eat it up!




> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

This one starts, "My Name is Jack White." Say no more!

Don't you know, Chris, that Jack White--God rest his soul--was an
*absolute idiot*?

Just one example: He thought the moon landings were fake, and he thought
he had proved it with his own photo analysis.

Apparently he really believed his own hooey. It seems he was sincere.
Just incredibly stupid.

The next time I'm in the mood for laughing at CTs, I might play this
video. But there's always a fresh reason to laugh at them here at aaj,
and right now it's time for dinner.

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

They are too stupid for us to keep bashing you over the head day after
day.