6 Milliseconds in Dallas

[john....@gmail.com]

http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif.html

[bigdog]

On Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:47:27 PM UTC-4, john....@gmail.com wrote:
> http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif.html

This is the single most compelling piece of evidence for the SBT. JFK's
and JBC's arm both start upward in perfect unison, like two puppets being
pulled by the same string. They are in fact reacting to the same bullet.

[Mike]

On 9/28/2014 8:47 PM, john....@gmail.com wrote:
> http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif.html
>


Very misleading 6 milliseconds from Von Pein.


To see what is actually happening you have to look at more frames.

Connally is raising his hat and turning to his LEFT. Connally is being
STARTELD by something that passed his LEFT side.

But you do not see that in Von Pein's biased animation.

Here is the entire sequence...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o

[john....@gmail.com]

It's impossible to deny or disprove.
The evidence is irrefutable.

[john....@gmail.com]

The Governor is being startled by a bullet in his back.

[john....@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:44:22 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

So it was David Von Pein who altered the Zapruder film?

[john....@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:44:22 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

Turns to his left? Andrea Bocelli would be able to see that Connally
turns to his RIGHT.

[Oswald Spengler]

On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:44:22 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

Mike, do you believe that Jackie shot Governor Connally?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2014 7:44 PM, Mike wrote:
> On 9/28/2014 8:47 PM, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif.html
>>
>>
>
>
> Very misleading 6 milliseconds from Von Pein.
>
>
> To see what is actually happening you have to look at more frames.
>
> Connally is raising his hat and turning to his LEFT. Connally is being
> STARTELD by something that passed his LEFT side.
>

Maybe it was a bee.

[Anthony Marsh]

No

[OSWALD SPENGLER]

Maybe it was a gall wasp escaping from Indiana State University. Marsh
said maybe it was a bee. Very funny.

[Mike]

No he is not and if you look at the evidence you will see that.

[Mike]

If you cannot see that Connally is reacting to his LEFT then you should
find another hobby because photographic interpretation is not your
strong suit.

[bigdog]

On Monday, September 29, 2014 7:44:22 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

The clip you posted is completely consistent with the toggled frames
posted by DVP. Kennedy's arms jerking upward to the level of his throat is
perfectly synchronized with Connally's arm/hat flip. Both upward motions
were sudden movements which began at Z226.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:03:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Yes

[mainframetech]

It's laughable. As noted elsewhere, the back wound had NO EXIT, as per
the prosectors. Read 'page 111' on the following page:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=68509

They reached a point where they said of the back wound "there's no
exit". Therefore all this talk about the SBT is just more wasted time
over a wacky WC theory of the lawyers.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:53:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

[OSWALD SPENGLER]

Do you understand the difference between left and right? I have 20-10
vision.

[Mike]

The toggled frames DVP hosts create a false impression that is resolved
only when the entire sequence is shown.

Only by watching the entire sequence do we see that Connally is not hit
by a bullet in the sequence that DVP hosts. Instead we see that Connally
turns to his LEFT and does his hat flap. It is OBVIOUS that the bullet
which passsed through JFK passed by Connally's LEFT side and became CE399.


When the entire sequence is shown it is OBVIOUS that John Connally is
reacting to the bullet that passed his LEFT side. (The hat flap).

[Mike]

You are demonstrating that you are not reasonable.

A reasonable person , once Connally's true startle reaction is pointed
out, would have to at least re-evaluate.

All of the evidence supports the fact that the bullet which struck JFK
in the back exited JFK's throat and passed by Connally's left side.

ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

[Mike]

On 9/30/2014 1:22 PM, Mike wrote:
> On 9/30/2014 12:27 PM, bigdog wrote:

> You are demonstrating that you are not reasonable.
>
> A reasonable person , once Connally's true startle reaction is pointed
> out, would have to at least re-evaluate.
>
> All of the evidence supports the fact that the bullet which struck JFK
> in the back exited JFK's throat and passed by Connally's left side.
>
> ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

I am not going to argue with an "unreasonable" person. So lets see
something from you beside your mantra.

[bigdog]

More blah-blah-blah

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.
- Thomas Paine

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2014 1:36 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:53:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:47:27 PM UTC-4, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif.html
>>
>>
>>
>> This is the single most compelling piece of evidence for the SBT. JFK's
>>
>> and JBC's arm both start upward in perfect unison, like two puppets being
>>
>> pulled by the same string. They are in fact reacting to the same bullet.
>
>
>
>
> It's laughable. As noted elsewhere, the back wound had NO EXIT, as per
> the prosectors. Read 'page 111' on the following page:
>

That is not true. That was just the initial guess by one incompetent
doctor.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=68509
>
> They reached a point where they said of the back wound "there's no
> exit". Therefore all this talk about the SBT is just more wasted time
> over a wacky WC theory of the lawyers.
>

The SBT wasn't invented until 1964.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:04:23 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

> The toggled frames DVP hosts create a false impression that is resolved
> only when the entire sequence is shown.
>
> Only by watching the entire sequence do we see that Connally is not hit
> by a bullet in the sequence that DVP hosts. Instead we see that Connally
> turns to his LEFT and does his hat flap. It is OBVIOUS that the bullet
> which passsed through JFK passed by Connally's LEFT side and became CE399.
>

Really? How did CE399 make it to the guerney inside Parkland if it didn't
hit Connally?

>
> When the entire sequence is shown it is OBVIOUS that John Connally is
> reacting to the bullet that passed his LEFT side. (The hat flap).

Oh, that makes sense. <snicker>

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:04:46 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
> On 9/30/2014 12:27 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:03:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 9/29/2014 4:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:47:27 PM UTC-4, john....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif.html
>
> >>
>
> >>> This is the single most compelling piece of evidence for the SBT. JFK's
>
> >>> and JBC's arm both start upward in perfect unison, like two puppets being
>
> >>> pulled by the same string. They are in fact reacting to the same bullet.
>
> >
>
> >> No
>
> >
>
> > Yes
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> You are demonstrating that you are not reasonable.
>
>
>
> A reasonable person , once Connally's true startle reaction is pointed
> out, would have to at least re-evaluate.
>

I re-evaluated and came ot the same conclusion. Your explaination is goofy.

>
> All of the evidence supports the fact that the bullet which struck JFK
> in the back exited JFK's throat and passed by Connally's left side.
>

Really? Where did it go after it passed Connally's left side.

>
> ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

...points to Oswald.

[bigdog]

No what? No Connally's right arm didn't fly upward in the same frame
(Z226) that JFK's arms began moving upward? Is that really what you are
claiming?

[Mike]

Lets see how reasonable you are.

Lets see what you are willing to admit to.

Do you admit that Connally is STARTLED by something to his LEFT side?

Do you admit that his hat swipe is a reaction to that?

And if you do admit it then what was he STARTLED by?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes.

If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not
have struck President Kennedy. Why? Because it is extremely unlikely, if
not impossible, that this same bullet could have caused JFK to react the
way he does in frame 225. In the Zapruder film Kennedy is seen to be
clearly reacting to a wound by frame 225. In this frame his right arm is
at his chest and is bent sharply inward. His left arm is at about the
level of his diaphragm. Together, his arms appear to be in somewhat of a
football-like blocking position. If a missile transited Connally at
frame 224, it would have gone through Kennedy at almost the exact same
fraction of a second, between frames 223 and 224, or during 224 alone
(as Posner opines). But Kennedy could not have stopped waving his right
hand, begun to move his left hand, and brought his right arm to his
upper chest, all in less than two frames (or in less than 1/9th of a
second). Ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy has argued that it would
have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right around four frames,
for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him doing in Z225:

Mr. CHESLER. Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next
frame, 225. How much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was
filmed and the time that frame 225 was filmed?

Dr. McCARTHY. About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a
shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about
an 18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or
an opinion as to when the President was hit with the bullet--how much
before this point?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated,
there is a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time
that a message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by
your mind to a muscle before you can get movement. You've experienced
that every time you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it was
hot and were burned because of the delay, because you couldn't get--let
go or move fast enough to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just
couldn't make your body move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with
you; it takes about a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to
full power--to get the muscles to move.

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200
milliseconds before the movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in
the film would that be?

Dr. McCARTHY. That would be at 221 AT A MINIMUM [i.e., at the
latest, and notice this is just based on timing it from a reaction at Z225]

Mr. CHESLER. And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes.

Mr. CHESLER. Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit
at 224 according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by
the same bullet?

Dr. McCARTHY. NO. (63:235-236, emphasis added)

[Anthony Marsh]

Someone has a theory that it went into the thigh.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2014 11:05 PM, bigdog wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:04:23 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
>> The toggled frames DVP hosts create a false impression that is resolved
>> only when the entire sequence is shown.
>>
>> Only by watching the entire sequence do we see that Connally is not hit
>> by a bullet in the sequence that DVP hosts. Instead we see that Connally
>> turns to his LEFT and does his hat flap. It is OBVIOUS that the bullet
>> which passsed through JFK passed by Connally's LEFT side and became CE399.
>>
>
> Really? How did CE399 make it to the guerney inside Parkland if it didn't
> hit Connally?
>

Fell out of his clothes. Ruby planted it. Etc.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:26:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > No what? No Connally's right arm didn't fly upward in the same frame
> > > (Z226) that JFK's arms began moving upward? Is that really what you are
> > claiming?
>
> Yes.
>

So despite the fact that DVP's outstanding website clearly and unmistakably shows that JFK's arm was still moving down from Z224-225 and just as clearly shows his arms began moving upward at Z226, the same frame we see JBC's arm flip upward showing his hat for the first time, you want to claim they didn't both raise their arms in exactly the same frame. Way to deny the obvious. Why should anyone take you seriously? (Not that anyone does)

>
> If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not
> have struck President Kennedy. Why? Because it is extremely unlikely, if
> not impossible, that this same bullet could have caused JFK to react the
> way he does in frame 225. In the Zapruder film Kennedy is seen to be
> clearly reacting to a wound by frame 225. In this frame his right arm is
> at his chest and is bent sharply inward. His left arm is at about the
> level of his diaphragm. Together, his arms appear to be in somewhat of a
> football-like blocking position. If a missile transited Connally at
> frame 224, it would have gone through Kennedy at almost the exact same
> fraction of a second, between frames 223 and 224, or during 224 alone
> (as Posner opines). But Kennedy could not have stopped waving his right
> hand, begun to move his left hand, and brought his right arm to his
> upper chest, all in less than two frames (or in less than 1/9th of a
> second). Ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy has argued that it would
> have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right around four frames,
> for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him doing in Z225:
>

For someone who is always chastising others for making strawman arguments, you have given us a doozie with this one. Who the hell said JFK reacted at Z225. I have consistently said both men reacted at Z226. And good luck finding a post where I said where I said the bullet struck at Z224. I have consistently been saying at or about Z223 and you know it. At 18.3 fps, four Z-frames would be over 218 milliseconds, so the 200 milliseconds McCarthy stated would be necessary for JFK to react is actually slightly less than four frames, which is perfectly consistent with my often repeated statement that the single bullet hit at or about Z223. And don't try to pull your standard crap that I keep changing the frame because both us and everyone who has read what I have been writing for years knows that isn't true.

For a change, why don't you try refuting what people actually write instead of knocking down strawmen as you just did here.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 9:22:29 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> Fell out of his clothes. Ruby planted it. Etc.
>

Now you are getting as hilarious as Chris and Bob. How would it have gotten into Connally's clothes if it didn't hit him.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 3:18:44 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

> Lets see how reasonable you are.
>

Let me guess. You are appointing yourself the judge of that.

>
> Lets see what you are willing to admit to.
>
> Do you admit that Connally is STARTLED by something to his LEFT side?
>

No. Connally is startled by the bullet that just hit him in the back.
Right after it left JFK's throat.

>
> Do you admit that his hat swipe is a reaction to that?
>

His "hat swipe" is a reaction to a bullet hitting his wrist.

>
> And if you do admit it then what was he STARTLED by?

I just told you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Now you're just getting silly.
I didn't say it happened that way. Some idiot asked what other
possibility there was. Helpern brought it up a long time ago.

[Anthony Marsh]

4 frames to react. If you see movement in frame 226 that would mean he
was hit no later than frame 222, not you 223.

Or if you claim frame 225 then Kennedy would be hit earlier than frame 221.
You said reacting in frame 226 then he would be hit no later than frame
222. I said HIT. You said reacted. He needs 4 frames to react.

[Mike]

On 10/2/2014 10:43 PM, bigdog wrote:

That is not a reasonable response to what we see in the video.

Here is the video sequence...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o


He turns and LOOKS to his LEFT well before he shows his grimmace of pain.

He does not look to his wrist. He looks to his LEFT and down.

[Mike]

On 10/3/2014 10:30 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
> 4 frames to react. If you see movement in frame 226 that would mean he
> was hit no later than frame 222, not you 223.

With Zapruders camera speed( 18 frames per seconds) it would have been 3
frames to react, not 4.

[Mike]

On 10/3/2014 10:52 AM, Mike wrote:
> On 10/3/2014 10:30 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>

>> 4 frames to react. If you see movement in frame 226 that would mean he
>> was hit no later than frame 222, not you 223.
>

> With Zapruders camera speed( 18 frames per seconds) it would have been 3
> frames to react, not 4.
>

A more accurate number would be about 2.4 frames for a reaction time
with Zapruders camera.

In the following video a basketball explodes at frame 354.
The fellow closest to the ball starts to react to the explosion at frame
358. The frame rate of that video is 30 frames per second. His reaction
time is calculated to be .133 seconds or 133 ms. Zapruders camera took
pictures at a rate of 18.3 frames per second. So .133 seconds times 18.3
seconds = 2.44 frames.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTxv0phIaAk

[bigdog]

Why would you even bring it up as a possibility? Just because somebody
else says something stupid, you think it's worth repeating.

[bigdog]

You need to dust off your high school algebra. 4 frames is over 218
milliseconds. 200 milliseconds is roughly 3.66 frames. That means if the
bullet hit early during the exposure of Z223, a reaction could be seen
late in Z226. It's also possible the bullet hit in the gap between Z222
and Z223. And yes, it might have hit at Z222. That's why I have
consistently said AT OR ABOUT Z223 which would include all of the above
scenario. The Z-film is simply too slow and has too low a resolution to
establish the precision you demand.

If you see movement in frame 226 that would mean he
> was hit no later than frame 222, not you 223.
>
> Or if you claim frame 225 then Kennedy would be hit earlier than frame 221.

I have never claimed Z225 since I saw DVP's web page that clearly shows
JFK's arm was still coming down at Z225.

>
> You said reacting in frame 226 then he would be hit no later than frame
> 222. I said HIT. You said reacted. He needs 4 frames to react.
>

3.66 frames.

[bigdog]

Honest to God I don't know what the hell you people are looking at. It is
very clear what we see happening in the Z-film especially when compared
with the account Connally gave under oath twice as well as in later
interviews. Connally was looking to the left side of Elm St. when he heard
the shot which caused him to turn sharply to his right. We see him make
that move at Z164. Unable to see anthing over his right shoulder, he began
turning back to his left when he felt the bullet strike him in the back.
This happened just about the time he reemerged from behind the sign. At
Z224 we see his coat bulge, hiding much of his white shirt. This would
have happened after the bullet had struck his wrist and lodged in his
thigh. Two frames later we see Connally's right arm with Stetson in hand
suddenly flip upward at precisely the same instant JFK's arms move upward,
both reacting to the severe wounds they received from the same bullet.
They reacted at the same time because they were hit at the same time.
Connally continued to rotate his trunk leftward after being shot until he
was facing almost straight ahead after which he turned and dipped sharply
to his right, the continued twisting to his right until he was facing the
rear of the limo. That's it in a nutshell.

[bigdog]

More than 3 but less than 4 if Dr. McCarthy's testimony is to be believed.
He stated it would take roughly 200 milliseconds for the victims to
reacte. 4 frames covers 218 milliseconds. 200 milliseconds covers 3.66
Z-frames.

[Mike]

Stop the self righteous crap. That is a clear sign that you are bluffing.

You are not looking at the data.

I asked you a very simple question.

I asked you to just tell me what you see.

I asked you if you see him look to his LEFT.

You do see him look to the LEFT and DOWN don't you?

And if you want to include Connally's testimony

he said he was hit about frame 234, not 226. You are saying 226, he did
not say 226.

Second, both John and Nellie Connally are adamant that he was not hit by
the shot that struck JFK. He says he was hit by a second shot.


And if you look at the film sequence , and not project a bunch of crapola
onto it, it is OBVIOUS that Connally is reacting to TWO separate
events....

He is first STARTLED to his LEFT by the shot that passed through JFK. A
second later Connally is struck , by the second bullet, which completely
missed JFK. That is what the film sequence shows.

[Mike]

I measured the response time. .133 is the actual response time for the
person in the basketball video.

The response time depends upon the type of stimulus....

"The average reaction time for humans is 0.25 seconds to a visual
stimulus, 0.17 for an audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch
stimulus."


For the video we are talking about audio stimulus and from the above
0.17 is the average. I measured .133 on the video that I provided. That
fits with the average.


For being struck by something that is a "touch" stimulus. The reaction
time for a "touch" stimulus is .15 seconds or 2.745 frames.

[OSWALD SPENGLER]

Are you saying that JFK was shot by his wife?

[Mike]

On 10/4/2014 10:51 AM, Mike wrote:

> Stop the self righteous crap. That is a clear sign that you are bluffing.
>
> You are not looking at the data.
>
> I asked you a very simple question.
>
> I asked you to just tell me what you see.
>
> I asked you if you see him look to his LEFT.
>
> You do see him look to the LEFT and DOWN don't you?
>
> And if you want to include Connally's testimony
>
> he said he was hit about frame 234, not 226. You are saying 226, he did
> not say 226.
>
> Second, both John and Nellie Connally are adamant that he was not hit by
> the shot that struck JFK. He says he was hit by a second shot.
>
>
> And if you look at the film sequence , and not project a bunch of
> crapola onto it, it is OBVIOUS that Connally is reacting to TWO separate
> events....
>
> He is first STARTLED to his LEFT by the shot that passed through JFK. A
> second later Connally is struck , by the second bullet, which completely
> missed JFK. That is what the film sequence shows.
>

Here is John and Nellie Connally describing exactly what we see in the
film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BbVH9NcDA

[bigdog]

I believe I just did that.

>
> I asked you if you see him look to his LEFT.
>
> You do see him look to the LEFT and DOWN don't you?
>

I see him looking to his left prior to Z164. He was rotating to his left when shot at or about Z223 but he never looked left again.

>
> And if you want to include Connally's testimony
>
> he said he was hit about frame 234, not 226. You are saying 226, he did
> not say 226.
>

I could pull a Tony Marsh here and say you guys can't even agree on a
frame since he says Z230. Rossely tells us between Z231-234. It doesn't
matter. It was nothing more than an educated guess. Connally thought the
bullet hit him post Z230 because he remember he was facing to the front
when he reacted and he achieved that position at Z230, but the film record
shows he was still rotating when he was hit and his initial reaction, the
sudden flip of his left arm, began at Z226. Connally didn't remember that
involuntary reaction, so he guessed post 2230. It wasn't a bad guess.
About a half second off.

>
> Second, both John and Nellie Connally are adamant that he was not hit by
> the shot that struck JFK. He says he was hit by a second shot.
>

Connally was adamant he was hit by the seccond shot. If JFK was also hit
by the second shot, which he was, they were both hit by the same shot.

>

> And if you look at the film sequence , and not project a bunch of crapola
> onto it, it is OBVIOUS that Connally is reacting to TWO separate
>> events....
>

Yes he is. The first shot which he heard and the second shot which he felt.

>
> He is first STARTLED to his LEFT by the shot that passed through JFK.

I'm sure he was startled when that shot hit him in the back a millisecond
later. But at no time immediately before that or any time after that did
he look to his left. He never turned past looking straight ahead before he
twisted back to his right. You can't name a single frame from Z164 on when
Connally is looking to his left.

> A
> second later Connally is struck , by the second bullet, which completely
> missed JFK. That is what the film sequence shows.

So when he suddenly flipped his hat upward at Z226 and then back down
again, all in less than a half second, he must have been anticipating he
was about to be hit. It is mind boggling what you guys see and what you
have convinced yourselves of.

[bigdog]

Well, if nothing else, your math skills are better than Tony's. As far as
reaction times to a touch stimulus, Tony's expert, Dr. McCarthy testified
in a mock trial that it was about 200 milliseconds but I have read
elsewhere that it is about 150 milliseconds or as you say 2.745 frames. I
have no expertise in the subject of reaction times so I am in no position
to say which is more accurate. What is obvious to me is that JFK and JBC
reacted in exactly the same frame (Z226), both by suddenly jerking their
arms upward. JFK jerked both arms in reaction to the bullet passing
through his throat and JBC jerked his right arm up in reaction to his
wrist being shattered by the bullet that had passed through both men's
bodies. Whether that reaction came 150 or 200 milliseconds after the
bullet struck them, I cannot say. The Z-film is simply to slow to say
precisely which millisecond the bullet actually hit.

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't seem to understand what a reflex reaction is.
Give us examples of your touch stimulus.

>
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

If you see the coat move then you think he was hit in frame 224 not 223.

> have happened after the bullet had struck his wrist and lodged in his
> thigh. Two frames later we see Connally's right arm with Stetson in hand
> suddenly flip upward at precisely the same instant JFK's arms move upward,

Right arm holding the Stetson? Then how come Dale Myers showed Connally
waving with his right hand?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg

[Mike]

You need to study the evidence. John and Nellie are adamant Connally was
not hit by the same bullet that passed through JFK.

Here is the video of John and Nellie Connally....

They are describing exactly what I have been describing and what the
photographic evidence CLEARLY shows...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BbVH9NcDA


The hat flip is part of the STARTLE reaction and John Connallys turn to
his LEFT. And it is OBVIOUS when one looks at the film.

I am not going to play games with you.

Here is Dale Myers animation of the same frames...

John Connally's head turns to the LEFT at the SAME time that JFK lifts his
hands to his throat.

IT IS OBVIOUS.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/shot2.gif


I am not going to waste much more time with you on this. You have shown
me that your "re-evaluation" of the case was not very thorough.

[cmikes]

Actually, if he had it within four frames, that's just a hair more than
1/5th of a second off, which is damn close considering the trauma he went
through.

[Mike]

I am not interested in your repetition of the single bullet theory.


Let me get this right you are saying that John Connally does not turn
his head to the LEFT in the following sequence. Is that right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o

[Anthony Marsh]

As I predicted before, you would have to move your SBT to frame 222.
Please don't keep moving it every day. I am getting dizzy.

> consistently said AT OR ABOUT Z223 which would include all of the above

No, you said AT 222. 224 is about 222 so why don't you join Lattimer and
claim 224? Show some support for your fellow WC defenders.

> scenario. The Z-film is simply too slow and has too low a resolution to
> establish the precision you demand.
>

Not for me.

> If you see movement in frame 226 that would mean he
>> was hit no later than frame 222, not you 223.
>>
>> Or if you claim frame 225 then Kennedy would be hit earlier than frame 221.
>
> I have never claimed Z225 since I saw DVP's web page that clearly shows
> JFK's arm was still coming down at Z225.
>

225 is close to 222. YOU can't be any more precise than that.

[Mike]

On 10/4/2014 8:39 PM, bigdog wrote:

Let be sure I got this right....

You are saying that John Connally does not turn to the LEFT in the
following clip from the Zapruder film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o

[Anthony Marsh]

Because you can't eliminate a possibility just because YOU don't like it.

[Anthony Marsh]

I missed that. Where did he say touch stimulus? He was talking about
reflex reactions.

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there
is a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a
message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your
mind to a muscle before you can get movement. You've experienced that
every time you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it was hot and
were burned because of the delay, because you couldn't get--let go or move
fast enough to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just couldn't make
your body move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with you; it takes about
a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to full power--to get the
muscles to move.

> elsewhere that it is about 150 milliseconds or as you say 2.745 frames. I

150 ms for what? The blink of an eye? Apples and oranges.

[Anthony Marsh]

So your only way out is to call Connally a liar.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 8:52:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> If you see the coat move then you think he was hit in frame 224 not 223.
>

There you go again trying to tell other people what they think. Your time
would be better spent rethinking some of your ridiculous beliefs.

Your statement presumes that the coat would bulge the instant the bullet
strikes. That's not how it works. A stationary object, the coat, was hit
by a high speed missile. The missile is going to pass through the
stationary object before that object moves. If you have ever seen super
slow motion footage of a bullet passing through an object, you would know
that. The bullet exits and the material that is moved by the bullet
follows behind it. It is not pushed out ahead of the bullet.

>
> > have happened after the bullet had struck his wrist and lodged in his
> > thigh. Two frames later we see Connally's right arm with Stetson in hand
> > suddenly flip upward at precisely the same instant JFK's arms move upward,
>
> Right arm holding the Stetson? Then how come Dale Myers showed Connally
> waving with his right hand?
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg
>

Based on the primitive graphics which this link of yours shows, it appears
this is from Myers earliest animations. In the animation he produced for
ABC's Beyond Conspiracy, that error has been corrected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM

But go on attacking his earlier work if it floats your boat. What is
important is what the Z-film shows which is his Stetson was in his right
hand and it flew up with his right arm. Are you ever going to deal with
that fact?

[bigdog]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 9:00:12 AM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> I am not interested in your repetition of the single bullet theory.
>

Of course you aren't. You aren't interested in the truth. The myths are
much more fascinating to you.

>
> Let me get this right you are saying that John Connally does not turn
> his head to the LEFT in the following sequence. Is that right?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o

He never turns farther than facing straight ahead. He rotated to his right
upon hearing the first shot. Unable to see anything, he was turning back
to the front when he reacted to being hit. I would call that straightening
up. If you want to say he turned leftward from his extreme rightward turn,
that's fine. The point is he was never looking to his left during that
sequence. He never turned back to more than straight ahead.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 9:00:47 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > You need to dust off your high school algebra. 4 frames is over 218
> > milliseconds. 200 milliseconds is roughly 3.66 frames. That means if the
> > bullet hit early during the exposure of Z223, a reaction could be seen
> > late in Z226. It's also possible the bullet hit in the gap between Z222
> > and Z223. And yes, it might have hit at Z222. That's why I have
>
> As I predicted before, you would have to move your SBT to frame 222.
>> Please don't keep moving it every day. I am getting dizzy.
>

Just as predictable you would resort to this sort of crappy argument. I
guess when you are unable to articulate an argument for your own position,
sniping at other is the best you can do. I have consistently said at or
about Z223 and you know. Nothing has changed. All of the above scenarios
are at or about Z223.

>
> No, you said AT 222.

No I didn't. I said at or about Z223.

> 224 is about 222 so why don't you join Lattimer and
> claim 224? Show some support for your fellow WC defenders.
>

Other WC defenders can speak for themselves. Z224 would mean the coat
bulged in the same frame as the bullet passed through it. I don't believe
that would have happened and I don't believe JFK and JBC would have
reacted at Z226 if the bullet had only hit them two frames earlier.

>
> > scenario. The Z-film is simply too slow and has too low a resolution to
> > establish the precision you demand.
>
> Not for me.
>

Well of course not. When you just make up shit out of thin air without
regard to how it fits the evidence, you can be as precise as you want to
be. Those of us who base our beliefs on the evidence recognize the
limitations that places on us. We don't presume certainty on points which
the evidence doesn't permit us.

>
> > If you see movement in frame 226 that would mean he
>
> >> was hit no later than frame 222, not you 223.
>
> >> Or if you claim frame 225 then Kennedy would be hit earlier than frame 221.
>
> > I have never claimed Z225 since I saw DVP's web page that clearly shows
> > JFK's arm was still coming down at Z225.
>
> 225 is close to 222. YOU can't be any more precise than that.
>

It might be close but JFK's arm was still coming down at Z225. The upward
motion started a frame later.

>
> >> You said reacting in frame 226 then he would be hit no later than frame
> >> 222. I said HIT. You said reacted. He needs 4 frames to react.
>
> > 3.66 frames.
>

Since he can't dispute the math, Tony ignores the rebuttal.

[bigdog]

The fact that you consider it a possibility is quite amusing. And don't
use your standard cop out by saying someone else brought it up. If you are
going to raise the possibility, take ownership of it. Tell us you believe
it's possible.

[Anthony Marsh]

Connally turned to the left at Love Field. So what?

[Anthony Marsh]

Minor technical point. It was not Dr. McCarthy was not the medical expert
who stipulated 200m ms. He was citing his coleague Dr. Piziali:

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is
a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a
message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your
mind to a muscle before you can get movement.

Go argue with Dr. Piziali. He's online. Tell him to his face that he's an
idiot and that you are smarter. Dazzle him with your degrees.

>> in a mock trial that it was about 200 milliseconds but I have read
>> elsewhere that it is about 150 milliseconds or as you say 2.745 frames. I

No, and you never cite your source. I cite MY source. You just guess.

>> have no expertise in the subject of reaction times so I am in no position
>> to say which is more accurate. What is obvious to me is that JFK and JBC
>> reacted in exactly the same frame (Z226), both by suddenly jerking their
>> arms upward. JFK jerked both arms in reaction to the bullet passing
>> through his throat and JBC jerked his right arm up in reaction to his
>> wrist being shattered by the bullet that had passed through both men's
>> bodies. Whether that reaction came 150 or 200 milliseconds after the
>> bullet struck them, I cannot say. The Z-film is simply to slow to say
>> precisely which millisecond the bullet actually hit.
>>
>>
>
> I am not interested in your repetition of the single bullet theory.
>

How about a new SBT?

[Anthony Marsh]

Cherry picking. Connally said that he saw that JFK had been hit before
he himself was hit.

You always say OBVIOUS when you can't prove something.
Why don't you write in ALL CAPS to impress everyone with how you
actually believe the nonsense that you write?

[bigdog]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 1:55:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > I'm sure he was startled when that shot hit him in the back a millisecond
> > later. But at no time immediately before that or any time after that did
> > he look to his left. He never turned past looking straight ahead before he
> > twisted back to his right. You can't name a single frame from Z164 on when
> > Connally is looking to his left.
>
> So your only way out is to call Connally a liar.
>

You're only way out is to put 100% faith in what a witness remembers,
something you have repeatedly told others not to do. But a double standard
is SOP for you.

[Mike]

Stop playing games.

You know exactly what I am talking about.

The RAPID LEFTWARD movement of Connally's head....A Startle Reaction.
The hat flip is part of that reaction.

How fast does his head turn to the LEFT?

Focus on his head and hat movement and the movement of JFK's hands.

His head movement was rapid and to the LEFT and was synchronous with the
movement of JFK's hands to his throat.

[Mike]

I say obvious when it is OBVIOUS.

It is OBVIOUS that John Connally is exhibiting a STARTLE reaction to
something that occurred on his LEFT side.

His RAPID head movement to his LEFT and associated hat flap are all
synchronous with JFK's movement of his hands to his throat.

IT IS OBVIOUS to anyone who seriously looks at the film.

Tony you have admitted in other threads that you do not even click on
the images to look at them. So whatever you say is not relevant.

Do you know what a Startle reaction looks like Tony?

I am going to ask you one more time, do you see John Connally's startle
reaction?

All you have to do is say yes or no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o


http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/shot2.gif

[Mike]

On 10/6/2014 7:10 AM, Mike wrote:
> On 10/5/2014 8:33 PM, bigdog wrote:

> Stop playing games.
>
> You know exactly what I am talking about.
>
> The RAPID LEFTWARD movement of Connally's head....A Startle Reaction.
> The hat flip is part of that reaction.
>
> How fast does his head turn to the LEFT?
>
> Focus on his head and hat movement and the movement of JFK's hands.
>
> His head movement was rapid and to the LEFT and was synchronous with the
> movement of JFK's hands to his throat.
>
>
>
>

I notice that you ignored this part in your response to my previous
post. So I am going to post it again.


Oh, and here is John and Nellie describing exactly what the film shows.
They both are adamant that John was not hit by the same bullet that
struck JFK...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BbVH9NcDA

[Mike]

On 10/6/2014 7:22 AM, Mike wrote:
> On 10/5/2014 8:49 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> I say obvious when it is OBVIOUS.
>
> It is OBVIOUS that John Connally is exhibiting a STARTLE reaction to
> something that occurred on his LEFT side.
>
> His RAPID head movement to his LEFT and associated hat flap are all
> synchronous with JFK's movement of his hands to his throat.
>
> IT IS OBVIOUS to anyone who seriously looks at the film.
>
> Tony you have admitted in other threads that you do not even click on
> the images to look at them. So whatever you say is not relevant.
>
> Do you know what a Startle reaction looks like Tony?
>
> I am going to ask you one more time, do you see John Connally's startle
> reaction?
>
> All you have to do is say yes or no.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o
>
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/shot2.gif

Also Tony, it is not credible for you to say you do not see a STARTLE
reaction when you see one.

Most people instinctively recognize a STARTLE reaction when the see it.
To say you do not see it when one is OBVIOUSLY present, is not credible.

[Mike]

"He never turned past looking straight ahead"...

You are not credible bigdog.

For you to make the statement you just made is not only unreasonable but
totally not credible.

Connally's makes a 90 degree leftward turn of his head in just a few
Zapruder frames demonstrating an OBVIOUS startle reaction to his LEFT.

You are not credible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o

[Anthony Marsh]

NO.

[Anthony Marsh]

Seems you don't know the difference between a possibility and a
probability. And as usual you claim I believe something which I don't.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/5/2014 9:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 9:00:47 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> You need to dust off your high school algebra. 4 frames is over 218
>>> milliseconds. 200 milliseconds is roughly 3.66 frames. That means if the
>>> bullet hit early during the exposure of Z223, a reaction could be seen
>>> late in Z226. It's also possible the bullet hit in the gap between Z222
>>> and Z223. And yes, it might have hit at Z222. That's why I have
>>
>> As I predicted before, you would have to move your SBT to frame 222.
>>> Please don't keep moving it every day. I am getting dizzy.
>>
>
> Just as predictable you would resort to this sort of crappy argument. I
> guess when you are unable to articulate an argument for your own position,
> sniping at other is the best you can do. I have consistently said at or
> about Z223 and you know. Nothing has changed. All of the above scenarios
> are at or about Z223.
>
>>
>> No, you said AT 222.
>
> No I didn't. I said at or about Z223.
>
>> 224 is about 222 so why don't you join Lattimer and
>> claim 224? Show some support for your fellow WC defenders.
>>
>
> Other WC defenders can speak for themselves. Z224 would mean the coat
> bulged in the same frame as the bullet passed through it. I don't believe
> that would have happened and I don't believe JFK and JBC would have
> reacted at Z226 if the bullet had only hit them two frames earlier.
>

Frame 222 is ABOUT 223. Frame 224 is ABOUT 223. So there is no
contradiction if you want to change to 222 or 224. But you think all the
WC defenders are moron so you want to make up your own frame.

>>
>>> scenario. The Z-film is simply too slow and has too low a resolution to
>>> establish the precision you demand.
>>
>> Not for me.
>>
>
> Well of course not. When you just make up shit out of thin air without
> regard to how it fits the evidence, you can be as precise as you want to
> be. Those of us who base our beliefs on the evidence recognize the
> limitations that places on us. We don't presume certainty on points which
> the evidence doesn't permit us.
>

Because I have better research material than you do.

>>
>>> If you see movement in frame 226 that would mean he
>>
>>>> was hit no later than frame 222, not you 223.
>>
>>>> Or if you claim frame 225 then Kennedy would be hit earlier than frame 221.
>>
>>> I have never claimed Z225 since I saw DVP's web page that clearly shows
>>> JFK's arm was still coming down at Z225.
>>
>> 225 is close to 222. YOU can't be any more precise than that.
>>
>
> It might be close but JFK's arm was still coming down at Z225. The upward
> motion started a frame later.
>

No. That's just the first frame where you can see it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/5/2014 9:32 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 8:52:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>> If you see the coat move then you think he was hit in frame 224 not 223.
>>
>
> There you go again trying to tell other people what they think. Your time
> would be better spent rethinking some of your ridiculous beliefs.
>
> Your statement presumes that the coat would bulge the instant the bullet
> strikes. That's not how it works. A stationary object, the coat, was hit
> by a high speed missile. The missile is going to pass through the
> stationary object before that object moves. If you have ever seen super
> slow motion footage of a bullet passing through an object, you would know
> that. The bullet exits and the material that is moved by the bullet
> follows behind it. It is not pushed out ahead of the bullet.
>
>>
>>> have happened after the bullet had struck his wrist and lodged in his
>>> thigh. Two frames later we see Connally's right arm with Stetson in hand
>>> suddenly flip upward at precisely the same instant JFK's arms move upward,
>>
>> Right arm holding the Stetson? Then how come Dale Myers showed Connally
>> waving with his right hand?
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg
>>
>
> Based on the primitive graphics which this link of yours shows, it appears
> this is from Myers earliest animations. In the animation he produced for

How did you figure that out all by yourself? Maybe you peeked at the
DATE of the journal.

> ABC's Beyond Conspiracy, that error has been corrected.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM
>

Somewhat, but then he introduces other errors.

> But go on attacking his earlier work if it floats your boat. What is
> important is what the Z-film shows which is his Stetson was in his right
> hand and it flew up with his right arm. Are you ever going to deal with
> that fact?
>

I have devoted my life to attacking everything he does. I don't even
like his mustache.
SHOW me exactly when the hat flies up and how far.

[bigdog]

On Monday, October 6, 2014 7:21:08 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> Stop playing games.
>
> You know exactly what I am talking about.
>

No, I really don't.

>
> The RAPID LEFTWARD movement of Connally's head....A Startle Reaction.
> The hat flip is part of that reaction.
>

He was already starting to turn back to his left before the bullet struck.
He continued rotating until the pain caused him to twist back to his
right. The hat flip was independent of the leftward rotation which began
earlier. That was triggered by the bullet strike.

>
> How fast does his head turn to the LEFT?
>

He was turned roughly 45 degrees to his right when he reappears. By Z230
he was facing straight ahead. That's a 45 degree turn in roughly a half
second.

>
> Focus on his head and hat movement and the movement of JFK's hands.
>

As I explained, the head and hat movements were independent of one
another. His whole upper body, not just his head was already turning
leftward when the bullet hit. That triggered the hat flip 3-4 frames after
the bullet hit.

>
> His head movement was rapid and to the LEFT and was synchronous with the
> movement of JFK's hands to his throat.

No it wasn't. He was turning left before JFK's hands went to his throat at
Z226.

[bigdog]

On Monday, October 6, 2014 7:22:40 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> Oh, and here is John and Nellie describing exactly what the film shows.
> They both are adamant that John was not hit by the same bullet that
> struck JFK...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BbVH9NcDA

That is because for whatever reason they had the erroneous belief that JFK
was hit by the first shot. They knew JBC was hit by the second shot and
they were right about that part. Since JFK was also hit by the second
shot, they were hit by the same bullet.

[Anthony Marsh]

It is not ethical for you to ask me a stupid question based on a faulty
premise without defining your terms and demand a yes or no answer.

> Most people instinctively recognize a STARTLE reaction when the see it.
> To say you do not see it when one is OBVIOUSLY present, is not credible.
>

You have a habit of seeing things that aren't there so I can't be sure
what you are seeing.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

That's a cartoon for Christ's Sake. A Dale Myers lie.
He removed the sign electronically. You can't see the behind the sign on
the Zapruder film. So now you are going to accept lies from Dale Myers?
Whose side are you on? Clearly not on the side of the truth.

[bigdog]

On Monday, October 6, 2014 9:17:41 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
> On 10/5/2014 9:06 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
> "He never turned past looking straight ahead"...
>
> You are not credible bigdog.
>

OK. I'll play along. Tell us at what Zapruder frame you see Connally
farther to this left than straight ahead.

>
> For you to make the statement you just made is not only unreasonable but
> totally not credible.
>

Conspiracy hobbyists such as yourself rarely find the truth to be credible.

>
> Connally's makes a 90 degree leftward turn of his head in just a few
> Zapruder frames demonstrating an OBVIOUS startle reaction to his LEFT.
>

Nonsense. Connally was never turned 90 degrees to his right and never
turned farther left than facing straight ahead so he did not make a 90
degree leftward turn.

>
> You are not credible.
>

Not to people who like to believe in fairy tales.

[bigdog]

Seems you don't know the difference between a possibilitiy and an
absurdity.

> And as usual you claim I believe something which I don't.

That's your SOP. Like you just did in another thread when you claimed I
believed Booth was a lone nut. Pathetic as usual.

[Mike]

You have got to be kidding me....

Here is one of your statements....

"He continued rotating until the pain caused him to twist back to his
right".

Bigdog, you are puppy. That statement is ridiculous.


Puppy, he shows pain when he is struck by the bullet.

He does not show pain when he is startled.

He is startled first and then struck by the bullet.

That is what the video shows.

That is what Nellie saw.

If you correctly interpret the photographic evidence you do not have to
rely on such a silly statement as this...

"He continued rotating until the pain caused him to twist back to his
right"

The entire startle reaction begins and completes before he is struck by
the bullet.



You never post the video when you post your description.

I know why because your description is not consistent with what we see.

Here is the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o

[Mike]

No, puppy, that is not what they say.

The clearly say that John was not hit by the same bullet that struck JFK.

[Mike]

If I see something its there.

The truth is that you will not admit to seeing anything that does fit
with your view of the case. That is the problem.

Now I did not ask you to see what I see.

I asked you if John Connally exhibits a STARTLE reaction.

Its a simple and ethical question.

But you cannot answer it. You are burdened too much by all your
previous(incorrect) statements.

And it is not a question like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

It is a simple ethical question designed to test your credibility.

[cmikes]

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 3:23:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>


Stuff Trimmed

> That's a cartoon for Christ's Sake. A Dale Myers lie.
>
> He removed the sign electronically. You can't see the behind the sign on
>
> the Zapruder film. So now you are going to accept lies from Dale Myers?
>
> Whose side are you on? Clearly not on the side of the truth.

How much do you really think that JFK and Connally moved while they were
behind the sign? Do you really believe that they were behind the sign
long enough to make any big sweeping movements with their bodies or arms
and still have time to get back into position when they came out from
behind the sign? Even if they could have, do you really believe that they
did so? Why would they?

[Mike]

Again you find some lame excuse to not answer the question.

I gave you a link to the actual video clip.

[bigdog]

I'm pretty sure I am not.

>
> Here is one of your statements....
>
> "He continued rotating until the pain caused him to twist back to his
> right".
>
> Bigdog, you are puppy. That statement is ridiculous.
>

But in the finest tradition of the conspiracy hobbyists, you are unable to
articulate why it is ridiculous. You think it is enough just to say it is

ridiculous.

>
> Puppy, he shows pain when he is struck by the bullet.
>

He sure does.

>
> He does not show pain when he is startled.
>

I'm pretty sure he did both at the same time. I'll admit I am assuming but
I bet he was startled when he saw he was bleeding profusely. He probably
was feeling quite a bit of pain then to.

>
> He is startled first and then struck by the bullet.
>

No. Those both happened at the same time.

>
> That is what the video shows.
>

That's what it shows you.

>
> That is what Nellie saw.
>

Nellie may have been the worst witness in Dealey Plaza.

>
> If you correctly interpret the photographic evidence you do not have to
> rely on such a silly statement as this...
>
> "He continued rotating until the pain caused him to twist back to his
> right"
>

You don't see him twist back to his right? You need to run the tape just a
little bit longer. It happens less than one second after his arm flips up
in the air.

>
> The entire startle reaction begins and completes before he is struck by
> the bullet.
>

Must have been another magic bullet. It just disappeared after it hit him.

>
> You never post the video when you post your description.
>

I guess I just assume everyone has seen the Z-film hundreds of times. It
not, they can find lots of YouTube videos that show it.

>
> I know why because your description is not consistent with what we see.
>

It apparently is not consistent with what you see. I have no idea what you
are seeing.

>
> Here is the video.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_H5spNq7o

I'm sure the people who haven't seen the Z-film will appreciate that link.

[bigdog]

John Connally said he was not hit by the first bullet. He knew he was hit
by the second one. That is all he is certain of. He said if JFK was hit by
the second shot, then he could believe the SBT. He has no first hand
knowledge of which bullet hit JFK because he could not see him until after
Connally was hit.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are confusing head with torso.

[Anthony Marsh]

No one said sweeping movements.
If you want to be a WC defender then you have to say that they are
always in perfect alignment for a SBT at any frame your buddies choose.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's a loaded question based on a false assumption.
How come you never answer my question and then you badger me?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no? Don't wait for the
translation. Just a simple yes or no.

> But you cannot answer it. You are burdened too much by all your
> previous(incorrect) statements.
>
> And it is not a question like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?".
>
> It is a simple ethical question designed to test your credibility.
>

No, it is meant to badger and insult because I won't agree with your
theory.

[Mike]

It is enough to say that it is ridiculous. Because it is ridiculous.

You say

"he continued rotating until the pain caused him to twist back to his
right"

You are making an excuse because the evidence does not fit your theory of
when he was struck by the bullet.

You do not know how to analyze evidence.

That fact that you need to resort to that kind of "projection" is but one
signal that your theory is not correct.

A reasonable person would investigate why do I have use that anomaly.

But I , and many others, already know that you are not reasonable.

You contempt for the evidence is remarkable.

Once that startle reaction is pointed out you have no reasonable defense.
That is obvious to anyone who seriously looks at the film.

You still deny something that is blatantly obvious once it is pointed out,
and that is the startle reaction that Connally exhibits to his LEFT.

Your contempt for the evidence is particularly insidious.

Here it is again in slow motion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HesB3lzbV0E

[Mike]

No.

John Connally has clearly stated on multiple occasions that he and JFK
were not hit by the same bullet.

Nellie also says this.

End of story.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ask me again next week. You can't draw any conclusions from a cartoon.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 2:14:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. Connally was never turned 90 degrees to his right and never
> > turned farther left than facing straight ahead so he did not make a 90
> > degree leftward turn.
>
> You are confusing head with torso.
>

Bullshit!!!. Neither Connally's head or torso turned 90 degrees to his
right until after he was hit. We've already established you can't cite a
single frame where he did this.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 11:51:20 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
> It is enough to say that it is ridiculous. Because it is ridiculous.
>

Thank you for at least admitting there is no logical reason for saying the
SBT is ridiculous. That is progress.

>
>
> You say
>
> "he continued rotating until the pain caused him to twist back to his
> right"
>
> You are making an excuse because the evidence does not fit your theory of
> when he was struck by the bullet.
>

We you like to articulate why or are you claiming this is self evident?

>
> You do not know how to analyze evidence.
>

Why don't you show us how it's done?

>
> That fact that you need to resort to that kind of "projection" is but one
> signal that your theory is not correct.
>

Projection?

>
> A reasonable person would investigate why do I have use that anomaly.
>
> But I , and many others, already know that you are not reasonable.
>
> You contempt for the evidence is remarkable.
>

You seem to think that just stating something is a fact makes it a fact.
You don't seem to feel any need to present your evidence or articulate
your position.

>
> Once that startle reaction is pointed out you have no reasonable defense.
> That is obvious to anyone who seriously looks at the film.
>

You get the Bob Harris award. You claim to see something that nobody else
sees.

>
> You still deny something that is blatantly obvious once it is pointed out,
> and that is the startle reaction that Connally exhibits to his LEFT.
>

Oh, so now it is "blatantly obvious". But still can't tell us what makes
it so blatantly obvious.

>
> Your contempt for the evidence is particularly insidious.
>
> Here it is again in slow motion...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HesB3lzbV0E

We've all seen the Z-film in real time, slow motion, freeze frame, blown
up, enhanced, etc. You seem to think that presenting a clip from the
Z-film makes your argument for you yet you cannot give us a single reason
why you believe what you choose to believe. In this thread, you haven't
articulated a single reason why you think what you claim to see is so
blatantly obvious. You think it is enough just to declare it to be so. Why
should anyone take you seriously?

[OSWALD SPENGLER]

Nellie was timing the shots with a stopwatch during the assassination
wasn't she?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Apparently John Connally has a startle reaction to a bullet that flies to
his left while Nellie Connally, next to him, has no reaction as that same
bullet flies past her right.

If the bullet is causing a startle reaction then why is JC the only one
startled?

[Mike]

You have a habit of manipulating the thread by removing the preceeding
posts so it is not clear what someone is responding to.

But I will respond you one more time.

However this is the last time because I will not waste my time on
someone who shows such contempt for the evidence and instead only
repeats the mantra of the Warren Commission.


This thread speaks for itself. Go back and read the posts. What to look
for has been enumerated many times.

And the film clip DOES speak for itself...

John Connally's startle reaction to his left IS self evident.

Now go back to your political science class and practice your Warren
Commission mantra. I have absolutely no interest at all in anything you
could say.