FROM BEHIND

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I entered the Lincoln Tunnel on a bus heading East yesterday. And there
was in front of that bus a car likewise heading East. I watched that car
throughout the entire trip through the tunnel. And guess what? When it
exited the tunnel it was still heading East.

I couldn't understand how that could happen. It entered from the West and
exited from the West.

What does this have to do with the JFK assassination?

Nothing, except this is an analogy.

The car is the bullet.

The tunnel is JFK's head.

"From behind" is "from the West".

If a car can enter a tunnel from the West and exit the tunnel likewise
from the West and people can understand it did nothing remarkable but
continue through the tunnel in a unremarkable path and did exactly what
would be expected, I wonder why CTs cite the clear statement of Dr. Humes
that the bullet that struck JFK entered from behind and also exited from
behind and somehow that becomes something remarkable and suggests
something strange about the bullet path.

Humes is saying the bullet went through JFKs' head. It entered the back of
his head coming from behind and it exited coming from behind. To normal
people, there's nothing remarkable about this claim.

In Conspiracyville, where they speak only in Liftonish, that's somehow
evidence of body alteration.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Show me the bullet hole on the head.

[19efppp]

This is not an analogy; it is a metaphor. You know nothing about the
English language.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Call it what you will, the point I made goes unaddressed by you.

David Lifton pretends the language by Humes suggests a shot from behind
and another from the front. He uses his interpretation of that Humes
phraseology to argue for the President's wounds being altered. But the
phraseology suggests nothing of the sort; it suggests the bullet kept
traveling in the same direction. Lifton, like conspiracy theorists
everywhere, overlays his own interpretations over the words of a witness
and / or expert, pretends his interpretation is the only possible one,
ignores any other interpretations, and builds his argument for conspiracy
on his own interpretations.

It's nonsense.

Hank

[19efppp]

You may be right about Lifton. But I don't see the need to explain
whatever Hume might have said. Nothing about the body can be trusted after
it left Parkland Hospital.

[Mark]

Something happen to it on AF-1? Mark

[19efppp]

The murderers had control of the body, so they could have done whatever
they wanted to, wherever they wanted to. The murderers had control of the
autopsy. You wouldn't trust the results if Oswald had controlled the
autopsy, would you? It is my policy never to trust the results of
autopsies controlled by the murderers. It's just a policy.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. We aren't allowed to talk about THAT theory.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

So you believe Lifton's theory even though Lifton's 'evidence' is merely
his own unique misinterpretation of various remarks made by various
witnesses.

Interesting.

[19efppp]

Lifton's theory is irrelevant to me. I don't even know what it is and I
don't care. But, you want to label me with his theory so that you can
attack me for whatever it was that he said. Same with Bill Cooper, except
that I do know what he said. I base nothing on Cooper or Lifton.

[Anthony Marsh]

One big tell was that Lifton hgot the orientation of the head wrong in
the autopsy photos.

I cornered him one night and asked him to explain the dent of the chrome
topping and he couldn't.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Well, let's talk about your theory then. Here's what I know of it:

== QUOTE ==

The murderers had control of the body, so they could have done whatever
they wanted to, wherever they wanted to. The murderers had control of the
autopsy. You wouldn't trust the results if Oswald had controlled the
autopsy, would you? It is my policy never to trust the results of
autopsies controlled by the murderers. It's just a policy.

== UNQUOTE ==

The pertinent points are 'The murderers had control of the body... The
murderers had control of the autopsy..."

You have yet to establish any of that. You haven't named any murderers,
nor shown us the evidence that establishes they were murderers. You
haven't shown us the evidence these people that you haven't named had
control of the body or the autopsy.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

At least Lifton tried to advance an argument and showed us his purported
evidence. He failed everywhere, but at least he gave it a go.

Go ahead, give it a go. Show us your evidence.

Hank

[19efppp]

The fact that you are ignorant of a circumstance does not mean that it has
not been established as fact. The fact that you are unable to reason
should not prevent others from doing so.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Ok, so you've got nothing to add other than to insult me ("unable to
reason").

We all knew that was coming.

So no evidence advanced to support your assertion of murderers, then. Also
no evidence advanced that these supposed murderers (which of course you
didn't name) had control of the autopsy or control of the body. Two more
assertions you made but present no evidence for.

Apparently you think insulting anyone who asks for your evidence is your
best approach here. I can only think of one reason you might take that
approach. You don't have any evidence.

Feel free to add to the list. Or better yet, just post your evidence.

Hank

[Jerry Organ]

Actually lifton didn't want to talk about it. He kept his theory to
himself during the HSCA investigation because he didn't trust the
Committee. They would have put his allegations to the test with interviews
and scientific opinion. You know, get at the truth.

Having his theory crushed would not have been helpful to his book
contract. Amazing what stuff got published then while LN books were few
and far between.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I cannot understand how no one asked him (apparently no one did; he didn't
address it in his book) that if all of the shooters were located in front
of JFK then how did Connally get shot in the back?

If you read the mostly positive reviews of his book none of the
reviewers/authors seem to think of this basic problem for his argument.

[Anthony Marsh]

It was not a Lifton theory. If you don't know about it, I'm not going to
tell you. I don't know for sure where Lifton thought the body was altered.

> himself during the HSCA investigation because he didn't trust the
> Committee. They would have put his allegations to the test with interviews
> and scientific opinion. You know, get at the truth.
>

That's fair. I had some doubts too.

> Having his theory crushed would not have been helpful to his book
> contract. Amazing what stuff got published then while LN books were few
> and far between.
>

I think Best Evidence did well enough without too much more work.
Sales, not accuracy.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

That bothersome little detail struck me the moment I heard about his
thesis. A friend told me over some beers in the campus pub he had seen
this guy on a morning talk show talking about the alteration of the wounds
of JFK. I told him I could destroy Lifton's argument in four words: "Who
altered Connally's wounds?"

He immediately recognized the problem with Lifton's thesis. This is a
problem that still escapes the alterationists best attempts at an
explanation. Lifton had to know it was a problem, that's why he mentioned
Connally so few times in the book. It's been a while since I lifted
Liton's tome, does he even deal with the Magic Bullet Theory (AKA Single
Bullet Fact)? That was a staple of conspiracy books back then. If he
avoided it entirely, that's a major tell he knew Connally's wounds were
going to be an issue towards selling his bizarre theory of body
alteration.

i asked Lifton in the early '90s at an ASK conference how could Connally
be shot in the back if all the shooters were in front of the limo. His
response was "I'll cover that in my next book".

We're approaching 30 years since I asked. Still no word from Lifton on
when that book is coming out.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:04:16 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

Cool story, Henry!

Oh wait, it's not.

It's a False Equivalency logical fallacy.

But next time you take the bullet train to Barcelona, feel free to tie it
into your "Oswald alone" narrative and share it with the rest of us.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh please. You were never at any conference. We asked him every day.
I cornered him and asked how his shooters from the front could dent the
chrome topping.

[Ace Kefford]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:04:16 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

So your theory is that Oswald took Kennedy from behind? Is that right?

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 9:04:16 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-382.html

> In Conspiracyville, where they speak only in Liftonish, that's somehow
> evidence of body alteration.
>

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html




> Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/25/2019 4:53 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> That bothersome little detail struck me the moment I heard about his
> thesis. A friend told me over some beers in the campus pub he had seen
> this guy on a morning talk show talking about the alteration of the wounds
> of JFK. I told him I could destroy Lifton's argument in four words: "Who
> altered Connally's wounds?"
>
> He immediately recognized the problem with Lifton's thesis. This is a
> problem that still escapes the alterationists best attempts at an
> explanation. Lifton had to know it was a problem, that's why he mentioned
> Connally so few times in the book. It's been a while since I lifted
> Liton's tome, does he even deal with the Magic Bullet Theory (AKA Single
> Bullet Fact)? That was a staple of conspiracy books back then. If he
> avoided it entirely, that's a major tell he knew Connally's wounds were
> going to be an issue towards selling his bizarre theory of body
> alteration.
>

Jeez, your not trying hard enough. A WC defender could claim that Oswald
only shot Connally by mistake and someone else shot JFK. A dedicated kook
could claim that Connally was hit by ricochets. Maybe even the parade bar.

> i asked Lifton in the early '90s at an ASK conference how could Connally
> be shot in the back if all the shooters were in front of the limo. His
> response was "I'll cover that in my next book".
>
> We're approaching 30 years since I asked. Still no word from Lifton on
> when that book is coming out.

When is your book coming out?

>
> Hank
>

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Please explain.

I used the analogy of "from the west" to explain what Lifton
misinterpreted. If the bullet entered the head "from behind" and exited
"from behind" it didn't reverse directions, it just kept going forward.
Just as a car entering the tunnel "from the west" and exiting the tunnel
"from the west" didn't reverse its direction of travel either. It just
kept going East.

Lifton misunderstands simply English and thinks a bullet exiting the head
"from behind" means the bullet exited traveling from the front to the
back. It doesn't. It means the bullet was traveling *from behind* to the
front.

"From behind" means traveling from the back to the front. Lifton pretends
it means the exact opposite.

>
> But next time you take the bullet train to Barcelona, feel free to tie it
> into your "Oswald alone" narrative and share it with the rest of us.

A pity you can't stay on the subject long enough to tell us what precisely
I got wrong.

Hank

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Hi Boris,

Perhaps you should feel free to tie in your "Oswald was complicit in the
murder of JFK" narrative and share it with the rest of us.

Or at least share it with Hank, since he called you on it awhile back as
you froze like a deer-in-the-headlights.

How was Oswald complicit?

What do you think would've happened to Oswald in 1964 had Ruby not
silenced him? Death penalty or life in prison?

I can't wait to hear your answer.

Sorry to change the subject everybody, but I thought with Boris making one
of his rare appearances here, he might honor us with a response.

Cheers!

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Tony Marsh:

You state I was never at any conference. This is why you get no traction
here with me and a multitude of others. You have no way of knowing whether
what you assert is true. You don't know me, my travel plans, where I
stayed. You OFTEN just blurt out BS to make it look like you have a
rebuttal when you don't.

I could refer you to Martin Schackelford or Howard Platzman. I actually
met Howard when we both on the same flight to Dallas and we struck up a
conversation after I observed him reading a book on the JFK assassination.
I had known Martin from conversations online and we enjoyed breakfast
together and discussed the case.

None of that matters to you. You often just claim any old thing you can
think of to make it appear you have a point.

You don't. Your assertion here is just another example of why nobody on
either side takes you seriously.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Ace:

My claim is that all the evidence indicates Oswald shot JFK from behind.
And that Lifton badly misinterpreted Humes words that the bullet exited
"from behind" in arguing for all the shots coming from the front & body
alteration.

Neither of those assertions are 'theory'. Both are facts.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

DVP:

You're again too accepting of the conspiracy spin put on those words by
conspiracists like Lifton and Holmes.

But just as a car entering a tunnel 'from the west', and exiting the same
tunnel 'from the west' means the car didn't reverse direction, a bullet
entering 'from behind' and exiting 'from behind' means the billet didn't
reverse direction either.

You're accepting the spin put on the words by Lifton.

The words mean what they say. The bullet exited the head traveling 'from
behind' -- it was traveling from back to front. Not the reverse.

That's what Humes said, and all the spin in the world won't turn that
bullet around.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > It's a False Equivalency logical fallacy.
>
> Please explain.

I'm not going to explain what you already realize. It's a False
Equivalency fallacy, and you know it. Otherwise, if Lifton maintains there
were no shots from behind then this is obviously incorrect, but by all
means continue using it to discredit an entire body of work, and continue
trying to marry the beliefs of one to the beliefs of all. It's just more
of your poisoning the well, but we're all as used to it as we are of your
faux politeness.

>
> A pity you can't stay on the subject long enough to tell us what
> precisely I got wrong.

On the contrary. Saying, "What does this have to do with the JFK
assassination? Nothing" is one of the few things you've ever gotten right.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/27/2019 7:12 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> Tony Marsh:
>
> You state I was never at any conference. This is why you get no traction
> here with me and a multitude of others. You have no way of knowing whether
> what you assert is true. You don't know me, my travel plans, where I
> stayed. You OFTEN just blurt out BS to make it look like you have a
> rebuttal when you don't.
>

You have never provided any evidence that you attended any conference.
Bigfoot did. I saw him.

> I could refer you to Martin Schackelford or Howard Platzman. I actually
> met Howard when we both on the same flight to Dallas and we struck up a
> conversation after I observed him reading a book on the JFK assassination.
> I had known Martin from conversations online and we enjoyed breakfast
> together and discussed the case.
>
> None of that matters to you. You often just claim any old thing you can
> think of to make it appear you have a point.
>
> You don't. Your assertion here is just another example of why nobody on
> either side takes you seriously.
>
> Hank
>

You can't even prove who you are. I can. McAdams met me in person at the
conference in Washington.

[Anthony Marsh]

"Simply"? You simply misunderstand Simple English. You prefer Old English.

> "from behind" means the bullet exited traveling from the front to the
> back. It doesn't. It means the bullet was traveling *from behind* to the
> front.
>
> "From behind" means traveling from the back to the front. Lifton pretends
> it means the exact opposite.
>

Either way his theory makes no sense.
And neither do you. SHOW us your diagram of the head wound.

[Anthony Marsh]

Case overturned on appeal.
Police would then have to advise suspects on their "Oswald rights."

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not true.
And Lifton made up his own version.
That is what an alterationist does.

[David Von Pein]

Hi Hank,

I have no idea why you're claiming that I am "accepting the spin" of CTers
on this "From Behind" topic. I'm certainly doing no such thing. Just the
opposite, in fact. I've always maintained that Humes' double-"From Behind"
verbiage was meant to indicate *only* the location of the assassin, not
the location of the wounds:

"Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to
convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN." -- DVP; June 2006

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-382.html

But if I were to accept the CT spin, I'd be *agreeing* with them when they
say that Humes meant that "Exited from behind" really means "There's a big
hole in the back of Kennedy's head". And, of course, I don't agree with
that "spin" at all, since it's obvious from all the autopsy photos and
X-ray (plus the Zapruder Film) that there was no large wound of exit in
the rear (occipital) portion of JFK's cranium.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 10:13:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/27/2019 7:12 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > Tony Marsh:
> >
> > You state I was never at any conference. This is why you get no traction
> > here with me and a multitude of others. You have no way of knowing whether
> > what you assert is true. You don't know me, my travel plans, where I
> > stayed. You OFTEN just blurt out BS to make it look like you have a
> > rebuttal when you don't.
> >
>
> You have never provided any evidence that you attended any conference.

And there's the LOGICAL FALLACY of attempting to switch the Burden of
Proof. You made an assertion that I never attended any conference above.
Your assertion, your burden of proof. I do NOT have to disprove your
contentions. You need to prove them.

> Bigfoot did. I saw him.

And you have pictures to prove this? Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. We'll wait.

>
> > I could refer you to Martin Schackelford or Howard Platzman. I actually
> > met Howard when we both on the same flight to Dallas and we struck up a
> > conversation after I observed him reading a book on the JFK assassination.
> > I had known Martin from conversations online and we enjoyed breakfast
> > together and discussed the case.
> >
> > None of that matters to you. You often just claim any old thing you can
> > think of to make it appear you have a point.
> >
> > You don't. Your assertion here is just another example of why nobody on
> > either side takes you seriously.
> >
> > Hank
> >
>
>
> You can't even prove who you are. I can.

You can prove who I am? Great. Show me who I am.

Considering you once claimed I was a member of a SWAT team in California,
I find your assertion rather amusing. Considering you also claimed I
posted under a half dozen alias, I find that even more amusing. This is
why you have no credibility here.

> McAdams met me in person at the
> conference in Washington.

How does that establish I was never at an ASK conference in the early
1990s? How does that establish I never met Schackleford or Platzman? How
does that establish I've used about a half-dozen aliases here?

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 8:37:08 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a False Equivalency logical fallacy.
> >
> > Please explain.
>
> I'm not going to explain what you already realize. It's a False
> Equivalency fallacy, and you know it.

Walk me through that argument. Or punt yet again, because you can't make
an argument for that assertion. You don't get to simply make assertions
and refuse to back them up without being called on it.

> Otherwise, if Lifton maintains there
> were no shots from behind then this is obviously incorrect,

This is what his book says. No shots from behind. His argument makes no
sense, because Connally was shot from behind (as was Kennedy, but we'll
table that for now). Connally's wounds are sufficient to establish
Lifton's theory is incorrect.

> but by all
> means continue using it to discredit an entire body of work, and continue
> trying to marry the beliefs of one to the beliefs of all.

The body of work is Lifton's. The argument is Lifton's. He points out the
plotters couldn't have shooters both behind and in front, because if any
bullets from behind were left in any of the victims and when recovered at
the autopsy weren't traceable to Oswald's weapon, that would reveal the
conspiracy.

So the only way to do this, according to Lifton, is to place all the
shooters in front of the President (which puts them in front of Connally
too, but Lifton fails to mention that). That way, any bullets that were
left in the body, according to Lifton, would have small entry wounds on
the front and the back of JFK would be unmarked. Therefore, to retrieve
those bullets (like the 'throat wound' bullet), the conspirators had to
have access to the body and be able to alter the wounds. They would do
this, according to Lifton, by enlarging the wounds in the front to extract
the bullets via the front of the body, and then create fake entry wounds
on the back of the body. This would fool the autopsy doctors, according to
Lifton, into thinking the shots were fired from behind. That's Lifton's
argument.

Read his book. I'm not making that up.

It makes no sense, because he ignores the wounds on Connally that were
likewise inflicted from behind. If all the shooters were in front of the
President, and the President's wounds were altered to look like they were
inflicted from behind, then Connally's wounds must have likewise been
altered. In his 747 page book, he didn't even try to explain why
Connally's wounds point to the rear, and how and when they were
altered.

> It's just more
> of your poisoning the well,

You don't understand what Poisoning the Well is, apparently. Explain to us
how pointing out the flaws in Lifton's theory is poisoning the well.

> but we're all as used to it as we are of your
> faux politeness.

And you must be desperate. Now my flaw is I'm polite, apparently. Explain
how you determined it was faux politeness. This should be very
interesting.

>
>
> >
> > A pity you can't stay on the subject long enough to tell us what
> > precisely I got wrong.
>
> On the contrary. Saying, "What does this have to do with the JFK
> assassination? Nothing" is one of the few things you've ever gotten right.

I went on to say "Except" and then point out exactly how it applied to
Lifton's argument. And how he was misinterpreting the language of Humes to
make it appear Humes was saying the bullet went in the back of the head
and out the back of the head. He wasn't. He said it went in from the rear
[to the front], and exited from the rear [to the front].

That's what Humes said. If you want to try to salvage Lifton's
interpretation, be my guest. I'm all ears.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Hi David,

For those who don't know, the discussion here centers on what Humes meant
by this exchange, specifically the last sentence Humes uttered below:
== QUOTE ==

Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.

Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is
entirely inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if
the shot were fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to
be fired from behind the President?

Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than
behind.

== UNQUOTE ==

I usually agree with about 99% of what you write, but when you wrote:

"It's hilarious that Ben Holmes thinks Dr. Humes' "from behind / from
behind" double-speak is proof of some kind of a large wound being present
in the back of JFK's head. It's absolutely hilarious that Holmes would
even bring up this obvious misstatement by Humes."

I had to point out that you're buying into the interpretation of Lifton
and Holmes when I see you claiming the Humes quote was an 'obvious
misstatement'. You also went on and characterized it as 'double-speak'.

It's nothing of the kind.

If a bullet enters the head 'from behind' it is traveling 'from behind' to
where?

Why, to the front. 'From behind to the front' is the point Humes is
making. 'To the front' is implied in the direction 'from behind'. Just as
much 'To the East' is implied if I state a car entered and exited a tunnel
travelling 'from the West'.

Likewise, if a bullet exits the head 'from behind', it is traveling 'from
behind' to where?

Why, also to the front. When Humes said the bullet entered and exited from
behind, he was saying the bullet went in the back of the head and came out
the front of the head, and he and Finck and Boswell found evidence of that
on both the entry and exit wounds on the skull.

He's not saying the bullet exited the back of the head, as Lifton asserts.

Humes didn't double-speak. He didn't issue an obvious misstatement. He was
clear the bullet was traveling from behind at all times.

You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet
came out the back of the head, and you're arguing not that Lifton's
interpretation is wrong. Rather, you're accepting that interpretation, and
arguing Humes misspoke, or double-spoke.

That's what I'm talking about when I say you accept the CT spin here.

Humes didn't misspeak. Lifton's spin on the statement is what's wrong
here, not Humes statement.

Humes was quite clear the bullet was always travelling from behind to the
front. Humes was saying that's what the autopsy says, and that's what I'm
telling you now.

Lifton's silly misinterpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.

I hope it's now clear what I was objecting to.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > >
> > > > It's a False Equivalency logical fallacy.
> > >
> > > Please explain.
> >
> > I'm not going to explain what you already realize. It's a False
> > Equivalency fallacy, and you know it.
>
> Walk me through that argument. Or punt yet again, because you can't make
> an argument for that assertion. You don't get to simply make assertions
> and refuse to back them up without being called on it.

There's that trademark blend of faux politeness mixed with "What do yuh
mean, I dunn't understand?" which fools nobody. You see, a bus is a big
motor thingie with four wheels. A bullet is a projectile missile. Analogy
aside, the two behave differently and one does not explain the other,
especially when describing a specific incident like, say, the JFK bullet,
and especially when presuming what you believe about the bullet's path to
be undisputed fact, as if you aren't assuming what you need to believe.
Nitpick some more, Henry. What a joke.

>
>
> > Otherwise, if Lifton maintains there
> > were no shots from behind then this is obviously incorrect,
>
> This is what his book says. No shots from behind. His argument makes no
> sense, because Connally was shot from behind (as was Kennedy, but we'll
> table that for now). Connally's wounds are sufficient to establish
> Lifton's theory is incorrect.

What bothers you about Lifton is not the "no shots from behind" theory,
because that's easily refutable. It's the "shots from in front" part you
hate. Because on the subject of Connally, his wrist wound was a wound of
entrance from the dorsal side as per Dr. Gregory. This excludes his
steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate
bullets, which I will chalk up to "opinion" because there's no way you're
going to allow his firsthand experience get in the way of your religion.

>
>
> > It's just more
> > of your poisoning the well,
>
> You don't understand what Poisoning the Well is, apparently. Explain to us
> how pointing out the flaws in Lifton's theory is poisoning the well.

What you're doing is taking the most easily refuted theory and attributing
it to CTers as a whole. It's a subtler version of painting all conspiracy
theorists as kooks by pointing out that some guy somewhere believes the
moon is made of cheese. It's more of the shoulder-shrugging "what did I
do?" BS I've seen from you a dozen times before. Your tonal argument is
boring, but at least it keeps questions about the evidence at bay.

[David Von Pein]

A "FROM BEHIND" ADDENDUM....

It's also very important to evaluate Dr. Humes' "From Behind" remarks
based on the context of the question he was being asked to answer at the
time, which was this question put to Dr. Humes by Allen Dulles of the
Warren Commission:

"Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is
entirely inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if

the shot were fired from in front or the side of the President? It had to

be fired from behind the President?"

The above question by Dulles was immediately followed by this response by
Dr. James Humes:

"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."

Therefore, as everyone can easily see, the context of Humes' "From Behind"
answer makes it perfectly clear that Humes' response to Dulles' question
was an effort on Humes' part to convey the fact that—in Dr. Humes'
professional medical opinion—President Kennedy's assassin could
only have been located "behind" the President when he was shot on November
22, 1963.

David Von Pein
July 24, 2019

[David Von Pein]

HANK SIENZANT SAID:

You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet

came out the back of the head...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, if that's what you think I am "accepting", okay. But I beg to
differ. Here's what I said to Ben Holmes in 2006. And this certainly
doesn't sound to me like I am "accepting Lifton's interpretation that
Humes was saying the bullet came out the back of the head"....

"Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to

convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of the exact
words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says verbatim TWICE.
He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF THE KILLER in BOTH of
his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks." -- DVP; June 2006

-------

By the way, I'm wondering where you got the idea that David Lifton had
ever put any kind of conspiracy "spin" on Dr. Humes' "From Behind"
testimony? Did Lifton bring this topic up in his "Best Evidence" book (or
elsewhere)? If so, I haven't run across it. And I haven't discussed this
particular "From Behind" subject with Lifton in any of our online
discussions over the last several years. I've discussed it with Ben
Holmes, but not Lifton.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 10:39:39 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a False Equivalency logical fallacy.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain.
> > >
> > > I'm not going to explain what you already realize. It's a False
> > > Equivalency fallacy, and you know it.
> >
> > Walk me through that argument. Or punt yet again, because you can't make
> > an argument for that assertion. You don't get to simply make assertions
> > and refuse to back them up without being called on it.
>
> There's that trademark blend of faux politeness mixed with "What do yuh
> mean, I dunn't understand?" which fools nobody. You see, a bus is a big
> motor thingie with four wheels. A bullet is a projectile missile. Analogy
> aside, the two behave differently and one does not explain the other,
> especially when describing a specific incident like, say, the JFK bullet,
> and especially when presuming what you believe about the bullet's path to
> be undisputed fact, as if you aren't assuming what you need to believe.
> Nitpick some more, Henry. What a joke.
>

Now you are employing and unjustified 1 to 1 equivalency claim. Hank isn't
postulating that buses and bullets always behave exactly the same in all
possible circumstances. (Which is really what you need him to be implying
in order for your objection to possess any validity.) He is pointing out
a *similar* patter of behavior. Buses heading one direction, are coming
from the other direct. Bullets heading in one direction, can be expected
to exit--if they exit at all--coming from the same direction they entered.
This seems a rather obvious concept, you only resist it because it works
against what you want to believe.

>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Otherwise, if Lifton maintains there
> > > were no shots from behind then this is obviously incorrect,
> >
> > This is what his book says. No shots from behind. His argument makes no
> > sense, because Connally was shot from behind (as was Kennedy, but we'll
> > table that for now). Connally's wounds are sufficient to establish
> > Lifton's theory is incorrect.
>
> What bothers you about Lifton is not the "no shots from behind" theory,
> because that's easily refutable. It's the "shots from in front" part you
> hate. Because on the subject of Connally, his wrist wound was a wound of
> entrance from the dorsal side as per Dr. Gregory. This excludes his
> steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate
> bullets, which I will chalk up to "opinion" because there's no way you're
> going to allow his firsthand experience get in the way of your religion.
>

Tell me again how you think Connally was holding his hat when he was hit?
Go to approx. the 37-39 second mark of this, freeze it at different
frames, then tell me just which side of his arm *had* to be hit by a
bullet exiting his chest coming from behind, just as the SBT insists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqzJQE8LYrQ

>
> >
> >
> > > It's just more
> > > of your poisoning the well,
> >
> > You don't understand what Poisoning the Well is, apparently. Explain to us
> > how pointing out the flaws in Lifton's theory is poisoning the well.
>
> What you're doing is taking the most easily refuted theory and attributing
> it to CTers as a whole. It's a subtler version of painting all conspiracy
> theorists as kooks by pointing out that some guy somewhere believes the
> moon is made of cheese. It's more of the shoulder-shrugging "what did I
> do?" BS I've seen from you a dozen times before. Your tonal argument is
> boring, but at least it keeps questions about the evidence at bay.

He's pointing out flaws in a *common* CT belief that *all* shots came from
the front; not just a Liftonism, though Lifton exemplifies this well since
he thought (quite erroneously) that he had found a way to explain away the
*real* "Best Evidence".


...Now let's see how long it takes Holmes to come over here and take an
out of context excerpt of this exchange and try to make something of it.

[Anthony Marsh]

He can't help it, he's a WC defender. He has no facts.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. He thought it exited the TOP of the skull. Look at the
Rydberg drawing done under his supervision. Do you even know what
tangential means?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/rydberg.gif

> making. 'To the front' is implied in the direction 'from behind'. Just
> as

No, silly.

> much 'To the East' is implied if I state a car entered and exited a
> tunnel travelling 'from the West'.
>
> Likewise, if a bullet exits the head 'from behind', it is traveling 'from
> behind' to where?
>

The top of the head.

> Why, also to the front. When Humes said the bullet entered and exited
> from

No, silly. You are calling your witness a liar. Not good for a staunche
WC defender.

> behind, he was saying the bullet went in the back of the head and came out
> the front of the head, and he and Finck and Boswell found evidence of that
> on both the entry and exit wounds on the skull.
>

Plural exit wounds? SHOW me. Stop making up crap.
What you do which McAdams is not brave enough to point to the bullet
wound above the right eye and call that THE EXIT, But then you know I'll
ask where the bullet goes next and both of you are too cowardly to
answer that question.
WC defenders are bullies until someone asks them a question and then
they run away crying.

> He's not saying the bullet exited the back of the head, as Lifton asserts.
>
> Humes didn't double-speak. He didn't issue an obvious misstatement. He was
> clear the bullet was traveling from behind at all times.
>
> You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet
> came out the back of the head, and you're arguing not that Lifton's
> interpretation is wrong. Rather, you're accepting that interpretation, and
> arguing Humes misspoke, or double-spoke.
>
> That's what I'm talking about when I say you accept the CT spin here.
>
> Humes didn't misspeak. Lifton's spin on the statement is what's wrong
> here, not Humes statement.
>

You're not brave enough to SHOW us what you think he meant.

> Humes was quite clear the bullet was always travelling from behind to the
> front. Humes was saying that's what the autopsy says, and that's what I'm
> telling you now.
>
> Lifton's silly misinterpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.
>

Not as misleading as you.

> I hope it's now clear what I was objecting to.
>

You object just to be objectionable.

> Hank
>

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 11:39:39 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a False Equivalency logical fallacy.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain.
> > >
> > > I'm not going to explain what you already realize. It's a False
> > > Equivalency fallacy, and you know it.
> >
> > Walk me through that argument. Or punt yet again, because you can't make
> > an argument for that assertion. You don't get to simply make assertions
> > and refuse to back them up without being called on it.
>
> There's that trademark blend of faux politeness mixed with "What do yuh
> mean, I dunn't understand?" which fools nobody. You see, a bus is a big
> motor thingie with four wheels. A bullet is a projectile missile. Analogy
> aside, the two behave differently and one does not explain the other,
> especially when describing a specific incident like, say, the JFK bullet,
> and especially when presuming what you believe about the bullet's path to
> be undisputed fact, as if you aren't assuming what you need to believe.
> Nitpick some more, Henry. What a joke.

Sorry, you lost me there. Does the English language meaning of 'from behind' or 'from the west' change because of the size of the object we're talking about? Or because it's a bullet as opposed to a car or a bus?

If it does, I apologize. Let's try a smaller thought experiment, with an arrow, and a bus, instead of a car and a tunnel as I originally suggested (I don't know where you got the bus from, but we can use that). Let's suppose an archer stands behind your bus and shoots an arrow through the rear window of the bus and it travels down the middle aisle.

I was not aware that shooting an arrow through a bus from behind, and having it enter 'from behind' and exit 'from behind' meant it reversed direction in mid-air. I always thought if it was travelling 'from behind' on both the entry and the exit it would be travelling toward the front in both cases.

That's exactly what Humes said, not only to Lifton in his phone call, but in the autopsy report and in his testimony. Lifton is simply pretending Humes meant something entirely opposite to what he consistently said everywhere.

Here's the exchange Lifton quotes:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is
entirely inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if
the shot were fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to
be fired from behind the President?
Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than
behind.
== UNQUOTE ==

If it exited 'from behind' it was travelling from behind the President toward the front. Lifton interprets that to mean it was travelling toward the back.

>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Otherwise, if Lifton maintains there
> > > were no shots from behind then this is obviously incorrect,
> >
> > This is what his book says. No shots from behind. His argument makes no
> > sense, because Connally was shot from behind (as was Kennedy, but we'll
> > table that for now). Connally's wounds are sufficient to establish
> > Lifton's theory is incorrect.
>
> What bothers you about Lifton is not the "no shots from behind" theory,
> because that's easily refutable.

As you note, it's easily refutable. So I pointed it out. It is part of his theory that's low hanging fruit, so I reached for that first. But there's a lot wrong with Lifton's theory that I haven't even mentioned, like the fact that bullet wounds on a living person look nothing like a surgical wound on a dead one. For one thing, living people bleed extensively when they are shot. Dead people don't.

> It's the "shots from in front" part you
> hate.

Not in the least. I love Lifton's arguments about the shooter in front. It's not an accident that Lifton doesn't tell us where the shooters in front were at NO point in his 747 page book. A knoll shooter wouldn't be in front of the President at Zapruder frame 313. A knoll shooter would not suffice to explain the wounds visible in the President's head at Z314+. To put a shooter in front of the President, you need someone on or under the underpass, not the knoll. Again, Lifton's argument is that the shooters were in front of the President. He didn't say to the side. He said to the front. There's absolutely no evidence of a shooter in front of the President at Z313.

> Because on the subject of Connally, his wrist wound was a wound of
> entrance from the dorsal side as per Dr. Gregory. This excludes his
> steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate
> bullets, which I will chalk up to "opinion" because there's no way you're
> going to allow his firsthand experience get in the way of your religion.

It's never been his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate bullets. It was Nellie's. Let me quote his & her HSCA testimony:

== QUOTE==
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and pulled me down into her lap.
I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was fired. I only heard two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. I wasn't conscious of it. I am sure I heard it, but I was not conscious of it at all. I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced impact, just [slap of hands] almost like that. Almost that loud a sound; it made a very, very strong sound.
Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little finger. It was something that was unmistakable. There was no question in my mind about what it was.
About this moment in time, Roy Kellerman, who was the Secret Service agent sitting in the right-front seat, pushed, apparently was pushing some buttons on the panel, doing what, I don't know. I heard him say, "Let's get out of here fast," and the car lurched forward then. Bill Greer was the driver. He accelerated it tremendously.
When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit--no, I guess it was after I was hit--I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no, no, just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this 24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed. The President had been so marvelously received and then here, at the last moment this great tragedy. I just said, "no, no, no, no".
Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." ....
The shots came, in my judgment, the two shots I heard came from the same direction, back over my right shoulder, came from behind us. Very clear to me where they came from. I don't think any shots came from any other direction. I was conscious until we hit the Stemmons Freeway and then I faded into unconsciousness.
I revived when the car came to a stop at what was Parkland Hospital. Apparently, the braking of the car--we must have been traveling at an enormous rate of speed--the braking of the car brought me back to consciousness and you know it is strange what thoughts run through your mind.
The first thought that occurred to me was that I was in the jump seat, that the right door of the car was opposite my seat and that they couldn't reach the President. Well, I got out of the way and that is when I tried to raise myself up out of Nelly's lap and actually tried to get out of the car myself, so that they could get to him in the back seat.
I knew he was hit. I knew their first concern would be for the President. So, that was the reason why I lurched up, or tried to get up out of a reclining position. Of course, I couldn't. I wasn't able to. I got halfway up and just slumped again, as Nelly just told you. Then, someone did pick me up and put me on a stretcher and took me into an emergency room or trauma room, whatever it was.
I obviously didn't know what it was. At that point, I felt the first pain, really, that I had experienced and when I was on the stretcher, I was laid out. Then, there was excruciating pain in my chest.
At the time I was hit, strangely enough, I felt no sharp pain. It was as if someone had come up behind me with a doubled up fist and just hit me in the back right between the shoulder blades. It was that kind of a sensation.
I would have to volunteer the very, very strong opinion, I know much has been written, much has been discussed, I was being a participant, I can only give you my impressions, but I must say you, as I said to the Warren Commission, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet: Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well, be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. We obviously weren't hit by the third bullet. I was down reclining in her lap at the time the third bullet hit.
Mr. CORNWELL. I am sorry, I didn't understand one statement. You said Mrs. Connally doesn't agree it was the second bullet or the same bullet?
Mr. CONNALLY. The second bullet.
Mrs. CONNALLY. That what?
Mr. CONNALLY. That hit me. That hit him and me--
Mrs. CONNALLY. No; I heard three shots, I had three reactions, three separate reactions. The first shot, then I looked and saw the President, the second shot, John, and third, all this matter all over us.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you agree that your recollection is it was the second shot that hit the Governor?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I know it was the second shot that hit the Governor.
Mr. CORNWELL. And, where you disagree is as to the possibility or the question of whether or not it was the same bullet that hit, is that accurate, in other words, the Governor has no knowledge on that subject matter, would that be accurate, since you didn't turn around to see the President, after the first noise, you don't know whether he was hit and Mrs. Connally's recollection is that she did turn and saw him hold his throat before you were hit, is that accurate?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I did.
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit.
Mr. CORNWELL. And you have testified that of the two shots that you have a memory of hearing, they both, your immediate impression was they came from the right rear?
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct.
Mr. CORNWELL. And I don't believe we heard what Mrs. Connally's recollection is on that. What was your impression as to the
direction from which the three shots you heard came?
Mrs. CONNALLY. All from the right rear.
== UNQUOTE ==

Nellie heard three shots, all from the right rear. John heard only two (but not the one that hit him), both he heard were from the right rear. That would include the head shot. They aren't good witnesses for Lifton right there. The shoot that struck the President in the head came from the right rear according to these two witnesses, not the front or the right side. Why would you want to reference either in a thread devoted to Lifton's theory?

Connally also admitted above he could have been hit by the same bullet that struck the President: "Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet."

He admitted he could have been hit by the same bullet but points out his wife thinks otherwise. That doesn't sound a whole lot like "his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate bullets".

At least, not to me.

>
>
> >
> >
> > > It's just more
> > > of your poisoning the well,
> >
> > You don't understand what Poisoning the Well is, apparently. Explain to us
> > how pointing out the flaws in Lifton's theory is poisoning the well.
>
> What you're doing is taking the most easily refuted theory and attributing
> it to CTers as a whole.

No, I beg to differ. I attributed it to Lifton throughout. At no point did I claim all CTs believe this. Or even that most believe it. Or even that a substantial minority of CTs believe it. And you won't be able to quote me saying anything of the kind. Go ahead, go back and look. You are simply attributing to me something I never said or implied.

> It's a subtler version of painting all conspiracy
> theorists as kooks by pointing out that some guy somewhere believes the
> moon is made of cheese.

If Lifton wrong a 747 page book arguing the moon was made out of cheese, I would point out what contrary evidence he was ignoring and pointing out why he's wrong in his arguments. He didn't write such a book. He wrote a book contending that the President was struck by shooters in front in of the President, and the President's wounds were altered afterward to make it look like he was shot from behind. I pointed out that Lifton ignored the other victim, who was also shot from behind, revealing a pretty large problem with Lifton's theory, because if the shooters were in front of the President, they were also in front of the Governor, and the Governor's wounds were inflicted from behind... which means, according to Lifton own arguments that there were no shooters behind the President, the Governor's wounds must have been altered as well. And again, my points were directed at what Lifton wrote, at no time did I apply this (or even attempt to apply this) to all CTs as you complain.

> It's more of the shoulder-shrugging "what did I
> do?" BS I've seen from you a dozen times before. Your tonal argument is
> boring, but at least it keeps questions about the evidence at bay.

I'm dealing with the evidence. The evidence - and logic - indicates Lifton's argument makes no sense, and it indicates he is misinterpreting a phrase he's pulling out of context and trying to use it to justify his argument about the body alteration. You're attacking me instead of my arguments.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

So your argument amounts to complaining about a typo. My apologies.

>
> > "from behind" means the bullet exited traveling from the front to the
> > back. It doesn't. It means the bullet was traveling *from behind* to the
> > front.
> >
> > "From behind" means traveling from the back to the front. Lifton pretends
> > it means the exact opposite.
> >
>
> Either way his theory makes no sense.

Yes, that's what I said. Thanks for agreeing with me.

> And neither do you. SHOW us your diagram of the head wound.

Well, now you lost me. What part of my post you quote here, other than the
typo, did you think made no sense? Immediately above claiming that I made
no sense, you agreed with me. So I need a bit more detail to respond.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 11:43:04 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> HANK SIENZANT SAID:
>
> You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet
> came out the back of the head...
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, if that's what you think I am "accepting", okay. But I beg to
> differ. Here's what I said to Ben Holmes in 2006. And this certainly
> doesn't sound to me like I am "accepting Lifton's interpretation that
> Humes was saying the bullet came out the back of the head"....

You're accepting Lifton's interpretation of Humes' words and then mounting
an argument against Humes' words, not against Lifton's interpretation. You
called it an "obvious misstatement" by Humes' (it's not); you called it
'double=speak' by Humes (it's not); and you compared it to 'a slip of
the tongue' (it's not).

>
> "Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to
> convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of the exact
> words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says verbatim TWICE.
> He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF THE KILLER in BOTH of
> his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks." -- DVP; June 2006
>

I beg to differ here as well. In a sense you're correct because if the
bullet entered from behind then the gunman must be behind, but Humes is
talking about the evidence he saw on the body during the autopsy. He could
speak to what that evidence showed, and it showed to him, Finck and
Boswell that the bullet entered the skull from behind travelling forward
and exited the skull from behind out the front. He's talking about the
bullet damage observed on the skull, not the location of the shooter
specifically.

> -------
>
> By the way, I'm wondering where you got the idea that David Lifton had
> ever put any kind of conspiracy "spin" on Dr. Humes' "From Behind"
> testimony? Did Lifton bring this topic up in his "Best Evidence" book (or
> elsewhere)?

I got the idea because Lifton brought it up in BEST EVIDENCE.

> If so, I haven't run across it. And I haven't discussed this
> particular "From Behind" subject with Lifton in any of our online
> discussions over the last several years. I've discussed it with Ben
> Holmes, but not Lifton.

I got it from Lifton's book, BEST EVIDENCE.

On page 176 of the hard copy I have, in "Part II - A NEW HYPOTHESIS",
there's a short section entitled "Humes and Allen Dulles: A Strange
Interchange". (If you have a paperback, or a different edition, the page
number may be different, but you should be able to find it from the
information provided).

He has a paragraph of introduction to the exchange, quotes the exchange
(calling Humes response 'peculiar' therein), and then concludes:

== QUOTE ==

Taken literally, Humes seemed to be saying that 'scientifically' the shot
both entered and exited from the rear of the skull, as if the bullet had
made a U-turn inside the President's head ... If my theory was correct,
the rear of the President's head might have contained evidence of both
entry and exit, and Humes' answer might be a way of sidestepping that
issue ... Later I would find a number of other double-entendres in Humes
testimony, indicating to me that there was something wrong with the
President's body at the time of the autopsy, and that when Humes stumbled
across such matters, he took refuge in riddles.

== UNQUOTE ==

It was his misunderstanding and misinterpreting simple English that helped
lead Lifton down his own personal Rabbit Hole into body alteration. This
is one such example which he was kind enough to document for us. Another
of course was the 'surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the
skull' reference in the Sibert / O'Neill report.

If the bullet enters the head traveling from behind and exits the head
traveling from behind, it's traveling forward at all times. He somehow
converts simple English into a U-turn for the bullet inside the head. And
that helped fuel his belief in body alteration.

Hank

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 10:51:00 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 11:43:04 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > HANK SIENZANT SAID:
> >
> > You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet
> > came out the back of the head...
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Well, if that's what you think I am "accepting", okay. But I beg to
> > differ. Here's what I said to Ben Holmes in 2006. And this certainly
> > doesn't sound to me like I am "accepting Lifton's interpretation that
> > Humes was saying the bullet came out the back of the head"....
>
> You're accepting Lifton's interpretation of Humes' words and then mounting
> an argument against Humes' words, not against Lifton's interpretation. You
> called it an "obvious misstatement" by Humes' (it's not); you called it
> 'double=speak' by Humes (it's not); and you compared it to 'a slip of
> the tongue' (it's not).
>

But it definitely could have been worded better by Humes, to increase the
clarity of the statement.

Thanks, Hank, for the "Best Evidence" quote. I can no longer check my own
1981 copy of Lifton's book, because I no longer have it. I tossed it in
the trash several years ago.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are late to this controversy.

>
>> And neither do you. SHOW us your diagram of the head wound.
>
> Well, now you lost me. What part of my post you quote here, other than the
> typo, did you think made no sense? Immediately above claiming that I made
> no sense, you agreed with me. So I need a bit more detail to respond.
>

I don't give a fig about YOUR typos. I'm not a Gramar Nazi.
If you attack someone for his theory about the head wound then you
should show us your version. But you can't.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Answered here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/urSv4mcRbDk/mjzgKC7hCAAJ

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Straw man argument. With JFK's head tilted down a bullet entering from
behind and continuing forward as Humes said would exit the top of the
skull. See the Ida Dox drawing done for the HSCA.

>
> > making. 'To the front' is implied in the direction 'from behind'. Just
> > as
>
> No, silly.

Calling it or me silly is an assertion without evidence.

>
> > much 'To the East' is implied if I state a car entered and exited a
> > tunnel travelling 'from the West'.
> >
> > Likewise, if a bullet exits the head 'from behind', it is traveling 'from
> > behind' to where?
> >
>
> The top of the head.

Answered above.

>
> > Why, also to the front. When Humes said the bullet entered and exited
> > from
>
> No, silly. You are calling your witness a liar. Not good for a staunche
> WC defender.

Straw man argument. I'm claiming Humes said the bullet kept going forward,
that it did not exit the back of the head as David Lifton implied. Exiting
the top of the head is fully consistent with my claim the bullet did not
reverse direction and Lifton was in error for claiming it did.

>
> > behind, he was saying the bullet went in the back of the head and came out
> > the front of the head, and he and Finck and Boswell found evidence of that
> > on both the entry and exit wounds on the skull.
> >
>
> Plural exit wounds? SHOW me. Stop making up crap.

Straw Man Argument once more. One bullet struck the head, entering from
behind and one bullet exiting the head exiting from behind.

> What you do which McAdams is not brave enough to point to the bullet
> wound above the right eye and call that THE EXIT, But then you know I'll
> ask where the bullet goes next and both of you are too cowardly to
> answer that question.

The bullet wound behind the right eye was caused by the head shot from
behind. That fragment lodged behind the right eye.

> WC defenders are bullies until someone asks them a question and then
> they run away crying.

I'm here, pointing out your logical fallacies like straw man arguments and
ad hominems.

>
> > He's not saying the bullet exited the back of the head, as Lifton asserts.
> >
> > Humes didn't double-speak. He didn't issue an obvious misstatement. He was
> > clear the bullet was traveling from behind at all times.
> >
> > You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet
> > came out the back of the head, and you're arguing not that Lifton's
> > interpretation is wrong. Rather, you're accepting that interpretation, and
> > arguing Humes misspoke, or double-spoke.
> >
> > That's what I'm talking about when I say you accept the CT spin here.
> >
> > Humes didn't misspeak. Lifton's spin on the statement is what's wrong
> > here, not Humes statement.
> >
>
> You're not brave enough to SHOW us what you think he meant.

See the Ida Dox drawing. It illustrates the path of the bullet quite well.
The bullet entered the head traveling from behind, and it exited the head
the same way, traveling from behind.

>
> > Humes was quite clear the bullet was always travelling from behind to the
> > front. Humes was saying that's what the autopsy says, and that's what I'm
> > telling you now.
> >
> > Lifton's silly misinterpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.
> >
>
> Not as misleading as you.

I'm sorry if my simple English mislead you. I tried to explain it as
simply as I could. I can try to use simpler words maybe in the future to
explain it. My problem is I can explain it to you, I just can't understand
it for you. You have to actually understand my point, not raise a bunch of
straw man arguments.

>
> > I hope it's now clear what I was objecting to.
> >
>
> You object just to be objectionable.

Ad hominem. Respond to the points I make, not the ones you wish to pretend
I made.



>
> > Hank
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/2/2019 1:25 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 10:51:00 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 11:43:04 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> HANK SIENZANT SAID:
>>>
>>> You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet
>>> came out the back of the head...
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Well, if that's what you think I am "accepting", okay. But I beg to
>>> differ. Here's what I said to Ben Holmes in 2006. And this certainly
>>> doesn't sound to me like I am "accepting Lifton's interpretation that
>>> Humes was saying the bullet came out the back of the head"....
>>
>> You're accepting Lifton's interpretation of Humes' words and then mounting
>> an argument against Humes' words, not against Lifton's interpretation. You
>> called it an "obvious misstatement" by Humes' (it's not); you called it
>> 'double=speak' by Humes (it's not); and you compared it to 'a slip of
>> the tongue' (it's not).
>>
>
> But it definitely could have been worded better by Humes, to increase the
> clarity of the statement.
>

I like how you make excuses for the autopsy doctors and then rely on
them. Cute. The Three Stooges!

So that's how you evaluate evidence. Had you seen the autopsy photos
before his book?
<crickets>
I did a favor for a WC defender who asked me to cut out the autopsy
photographs from Groden's book so that his wife wouldn't have to see them.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Not really. I read Lifton's book the year it was published, and saw
through it when I first heard his thesis. His nonsense could be rebutted
in four words: "Who altered Connally's wounds?"

> >
> >> And neither do you. SHOW us your diagram of the head wound.
> >
> > Well, now you lost me. What part of my post you quote here, other than the
> > typo, did you think made no sense? Immediately above claiming that I made
> > no sense, you agreed with me. So I need a bit more detail to respond.
> >
>
> I don't give a fig about YOUR typos. I'm not a Gramar Nazi.

Except in the post above this one, all you attacked was a typo, Mr. "I'm

not a Gramar Nazi".

Remember this exchange?

== QUOTE ==

> Lifton misunderstands simply English and thinks a bullet exiting the head
"Simply"? You simply misunderstand Simple English. You prefer Old English.

== UNQUOTE ==

> If you attack someone for his theory about the head wound then you
> should show us your version. But you can't.

LOGICAL FALLACY of Shifting the Burden of Proof. I need not detail all my
thoughts on a given subject to expose the illogical conclusions Lifton
reaches from quotes out of context, misinterpretations of statements, and
decades later memories culled from interviews.

He's built a solid case exposing exactly how he reached his bizarre
conclusion. It's not pretty.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 1:25:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 10:51:00 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 at 11:43:04 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > HANK SIENZANT SAID:
> > >
> > > You're accepting Lifton's interpretation that Humes was saying the bullet
> > > came out the back of the head...
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Well, if that's what you think I am "accepting", okay. But I beg to
> > > differ. Here's what I said to Ben Holmes in 2006. And this certainly
> > > doesn't sound to me like I am "accepting Lifton's interpretation that
> > > Humes was saying the bullet came out the back of the head"....
> >
> > You're accepting Lifton's interpretation of Humes' words and then mounting
> > an argument against Humes' words, not against Lifton's interpretation. You
> > called it an "obvious misstatement" by Humes' (it's not); you called it
> > 'double=speak' by Humes (it's not); and you compared it to 'a slip of
> > the tongue' (it's not).
> >
>
> But it definitely could have been worded better by Humes, to increase the
> clarity of the statement.

I had no problem understanding Humes was saying the bullet came from
behind and there was evidence of that found by the autopsists in both the
entry and exit wounds.

You agree now that's what he said, right?

Not sure why anyone else thinks that's at all confusing, and unsure how
Lifton thought that meant it exited out the back of the skull.

I still have all of Groden's and Marrs and Weisberg's and Lane's books. I
never discarded anything on the assassination.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Sorry, you lost me there.

That's unfortunate, on that subject you'll have to remain lost.

>
> It's never been his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit
> with two separate bullets. It was Nellie's.

Okay, just state for the record that Connally did not fully agree with his
wife on the matter, and that will tell me all I need to know.

[BT George]

C'mon "Boris". (Put in quotes since he has admitted elsewhere it is not
his real name.) Aren't you going to respond and dazzle us with your use of
logic and reason?

[BT George]

Hank on this one I have to agree with David. It was only after you parsed
Humes words that I fully understood what he was saying. Hindsight is
20/20, but I think it would have been much clearer if Humes had said
something along the lines that it wasn’t possible for the bullet
to have exited *in the way it did* if it was coming from anywhere *other*
than behind.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Boris snipped about 99% of my response to avoid responding to the points I
made.

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 9:07:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, you lost me there.
>
> That's unfortunate, on that subject you'll have to remain lost.

You avoided my point that the bullet travelling 'from behind' entering the
head -- like a car travelling 'from the west' entering a tunnel -- doesn't
change direction if it exits the head travelling 'from behind' anymore
than a car changes direction if it exits the tunnel travelling 'from the
west'.

>
> >
> > It's never been his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit
> > with two separate bullets. It was Nellie's.
>
> Okay, just state for the record that Connally did not fully agree with his
> wife on the matter, and that will tell me all I need to know.

I already quoted his response on that. Here you go again:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0024a.htm
== quote ==

Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and pulled me down into her lap.
I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was fired. I only heard two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. I wasn't conscious of it. I am sure I heard it, but I was not conscious of it at all. I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced impact, just [slap of hands] almost like that. Almost that loud a sound; it made a very, very strong sound.

. . .

Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet.
== unquote ==

In his Warren Commission testimony, he also stated he never saw the President nor the First Lady during the shooting:
== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred, I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing started, and, of course, as I have testified, then Mrs. Connally pulled me over into her lap and I was facing forward with my head slightly turned up to where I could see the driver and Roy Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into the back seat, so I didn't see either one of them.
== unquote ==

That means he doesn't know when the President was struck.

He makes quite clear he doesn't know what bullet struck the President. He said he never saw the President during the shooting. He also makes quite clear what his wife's opinion was. He understands that eyewitness testimony is often in conflict. It's a truism that if you have ten eyewitnesses, you'll have ten different eyewitness accounts. He also says 'it might well be' that one bullet struck both the President and himself.

That destroys your original claim that Connally always maintained he was struck by a separate bullet than struck the President: "his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate bullets..."

Now you're moving the goalposts slightly, and asking if he agreed with his wife about the sequence of shots. Most of the time he deferred to his wife's opinion. He was married, and if you're married, I'd wager most of the time you defer to your wife's opinion too, as do I ("A happy wife is a happy life" and all that).

But when testifying to the HSCA, without even being asked directly whether he thought he was struck by the same bullet as the President, he made clear he just did not know. That he never saw the President, so he couldn't speak as to just when the President was wounded. He left open the possibility that he and the President could have been struck with the second shot, and made clear his wife's opinion differed on that. Read it above.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Connally said he was hit by a different bullet:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris snipped about 99% of my response to avoid responding to the points I
> made.

You didn't make a point, you quoted some testimony which I alluded to once
and am now responding to yet again. We've been through this before. Not
everything you type is sacrosanct. Brevity is not "avoidance." Thank you
for assigning me motives based on your shallow and superficial
speculations. Passive-aggressive attacks are nothing new from you.

>
>
> On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 9:07:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, you lost me there.
> >
> > That's unfortunate, on that subject you'll have to remain lost.
>
> You avoided my point that the bullet travelling 'from behind' entering the
> head -- like a car travelling 'from the west' entering a tunnel -- doesn't
> change direction if it exits the head travelling 'from behind' anymore
> than a car changes direction if it exits the tunnel travelling 'from the
> west'.

No I didn't avoid it. I said it was nothing like a car, and that your
analogy is a poor false equivalency. You want to rehash it? It's a false
equivalency. And you're whining again.

>
> >
> > >
> > > It's never been his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit
> > > with two separate bullets. It was Nellie's.
> >
> > Okay, just state for the record that Connally did not fully agree with his
> > wife on the matter, and that will tell me all I need to know.
>
> I already quoted his response on that.

I didn't ask you to quote. I asked you to **state for the record that
Connally did not fully agree with his wife on the matter.**

Why couldn't you do that?

Oh, I know why...because you're too busy quoting testimony that post-dates
earlier recollection, and earlier testimony.

Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.


You will now whine that the nondescript "first shot" was the Tague bullet, but as his wife confirms, it wasn't:


Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
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."
I never again----

Then, naturally, Dulles is quick to cut her off. Perhaps he was snipping her response to avoid responding to the points she made....eh, Henry?

Now I'll retain your citation, even though I've just proven you lied by omission, because God forbid I "snip" any of Precious's golden post.

Here you go again:
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0024a.htm
> == quote ==
> Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
> I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and pulled me down into her lap.
> I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was fired. I only heard two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. I wasn't conscious of it. I am sure I heard it, but I was not conscious of it at all. I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced impact, just [slap of hands] almost like that. Almost that loud a sound; it made a very, very strong sound.
>
> . . .
>
> Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet.
> == unquote ==
>
> In his Warren Commission testimony, he also stated he never saw the President nor the First Lady during the shooting:
> == quote ==
> Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting?
> Governor CONNALLY. I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred, I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing started, and, of course, as I have testified, then Mrs. Connally pulled me over into her lap and I was facing forward with my head slightly turned up to where I could see the driver and Roy Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into the back seat, so I didn't see either one of them.
> == unquote ==
>
> That means he doesn't know when the President was struck.

No, it means you're either Begging the Question and, like you did with me, ascribing what you think someone else is thinking to fit your own narrative...or when faced with two contradictory claims, you opt to favor the claim of later recollection over the one of fresher recollection, even though the former is 1.) staler; 2.) vague; 3.) doesn't actually say what you claim it says.

>
> He makes quite clear he doesn't know what bullet struck the President. He said he never saw the President during the shooting. He also makes quite clear what his wife's opinion was. He understands that eyewitness testimony is often in conflict. It's a truism that if you have ten eyewitnesses, you'll have ten different eyewitness accounts. He also says 'it might well be' that one bullet struck both the President and himself.
>
> That destroys your original claim that Connally always maintained he was struck by a separate bullet than struck the President: "his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate bullets..."

And as I've just demonstrated, it wasn't *MY* claim, rather Connally's himself, and his wife's. But you were carefully selective in the testimony you chose and, like Specter, you also insist to know more than them (and probably for the same reason.)

Now again, state for the record that Connally did NOT fully agree with his wife on the matter. Tell us that he never insisted to the Washington Post on Nov. 21/66 that "there is my absolute knowledge that one bullet caused the president's first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind." Tell us that the very testimony which you omitted and I included didn't persuade members of the WC, particularly Russell, that the single–bullet theory was unconvincing. While you're at it, tell us that James Chaney (via Marrion Baker's testimony) doesn't corroborate the narrative I've just illustrated using only the testimony of Connally and his wife.

"Destroyed", it says.

The remainder of your post is utterly pitiful. May I "snip" it? Thanks.

[19efppp]

Gayle Newman said that Connally was hit by a different bullet. Then 50
years later, she changed her mind. "I don't remember that."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Connally said he was hit by a different bullet:

Henry knows that. He's just hoping no one else does.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 10:59:27 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Connally was wrong. Connally believe JFK was hit by the first bullet and
he knew he was hit by the second bullet. In fact, they were both hit by
the second bullet after the first bullet had missed.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:59:27 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Boris snipped about 99% of my response to avoid responding to the points I
> > made.
>
> You didn't make a point, you quoted some testimony which I alluded to once
> and am now responding to yet again. We've been through this before. Not
> everything you type is sacrosanct.

Never said it was. But can't we simply discuss the issues without you
getting upset with me? I see some things differently than you. But let's
agree that we can discuss this event without anger and name-calling. Let's
also agree that at this time nothing we say here will bring JFK back, or
any of the other members of the limousine (all of whom are dead). Or any
the witnesses (most of whom are also dead). Or any of the FBI agents,
Dallas Police Officers, Sheriff's Dept. Personnel, or anyone else we may
discuss who has also passed on.

> Brevity is not "avoidance." Thank you
> for assigning me motives based on your shallow and superficial
> speculations. Passive-aggressive attacks are nothing new from you.

This is the language I'm talking about above. There's no need for that. I
pointed out you snipped the bulk of my response (and you admit you did). I
pointed out you avoided responding to the points I made (and you deny I
made any). Then you state I advance only 'shallow and superficial
speculations' and 'passive-agressive attacks'. But you're not specific
about what precisely was shallow, superficial, or speculative, or where
the passive-aggressive attacks occurred. And you may claim I made no
points, yet your latest post consists of responses to the points you claim
I didn't make.

>
> >
> >
> > On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 9:07:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, you lost me there.
> > >
> > > That's unfortunate, on that subject you'll have to remain lost.
> >
> > You avoided my point that the bullet travelling 'from behind' entering the
> > head -- like a car travelling 'from the west' entering a tunnel -- doesn't
> > change direction if it exits the head travelling 'from behind' anymore
> > than a car changes direction if it exits the tunnel travelling 'from the
> > west'.
>
> No I didn't avoid it. I said it was nothing like a car, and that your
> analogy is a poor false equivalency. You want to rehash it? It's a false
> equivalency. And you're whining again.

And that point was shown to be erroneous by another poster (BT George)
here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/urSv4mcRbDk/61fQgCuTCAAJ

I didn't feel the need to address it, since it was already addressed, and
anything I could say would be mostly redundant. And you never responded to
his post, arguing for why it was the logical fallacy you're claiming it
was.

Aside from what you call the false equivalency, do you understand that
Humes testimony that the bullet was travelling from behind when it entered
and then exited the skulls means it was travelling in the same direction
and never reversed course? You didn't say. But that's the entire subject
matter of my original post in this thread (along with how Lifton
misinterpreted Humes words to argue for evidence of a supposed exit in the
rear of the skull).

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's never been his steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit
> > > > with two separate bullets. It was Nellie's.
> > >
> > > Okay, just state for the record that Connally did not fully agree with his
> > > wife on the matter, and that will tell me all I need to know.
> >
> > I already quoted his response on that.
>
> I didn't ask you to quote. I asked you to **state for the record that
> Connally did not fully agree with his wife on the matter.**
>
> Why couldn't you do that?
>
> Oh, I know why...because you're too busy quoting testimony that post-dates
> earlier recollection, and earlier testimony.

Do you see a conflict between his earlier and later testimony? I don't.

>
> Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
> Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
> Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
> Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have
> been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first
> place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet,
> but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I
> heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where
> I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the
> time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt
> anything.
> It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first
> bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a
> bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot,
> didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first
> shot and the third shot.

I have no problem whatsoever with the Governor's recollection as expressed
above. He didn't state the first shot hit the President from his own
knowledge, because he never turned completely around to see the President
before he himself was struck. His 'knowledge or understanding' comes from
his wife, who did testify the President was struck with the first shot.
But did she even turn around in time to view this? (more on this below).

>
>
> You will now whine that the nondescript "first shot" was the Tague bullet,

No, I put the Tague wound as from the lead core from the shot that struck
the President in the head. Don't try to put words in my mouth. And why the
'whine' language? Can't you simply treat me as a person who disagrees with
you without being disagreeable about it?

> but as his wife confirms, it wasn't:
>
>
> Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
> I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
> Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
> I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
> Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
> Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
> 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."
> I never again----

When did Nellie turn to view the President in the Zapruder film? Was it
before or after the Governor was wounded? (more on this below).

>
> Then, naturally, Dulles is quick to cut her off. Perhaps he was snipping her response to avoid responding to the points she made....eh, Henry?

He wasn't 'snipping her response'. He was interjecting a question.

She went on to add a lot more detail after his question:
== quote ==
Mr. DULLES. To the right was into your arms more or less?
Mrs. CONNALLY. No, he turned away from me. I was pretending that I was him. I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband was shot. My concern was for him, and I remember that he turned to the right and then just slumped down into the seat, so that I reached over to pull him toward me. X was trying to get him down and me down. The jump seats were not very roomy, so that there were reports that he slid into the seat of the car, which he did not; that he fell over into my lap, which he did not.
I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him. So that I looked out, I mean as he was in my arms, I put my head down over his head so that his head and my head were right together, and all I could see, too, were the people flashing by. I didn't look back any more. The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.
I thought John had been killed, and then there was some imperceptible movement, just some little something that let me know that there was still some life, and that is when I started saying to him, "It's all right. Be still."
Now, I did hear the Secret Service man say, "Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital," and then we took out very rapidly to the hospital.
Just before we got to Parkland, we made a right-hand turn, he must have been going very fast, because as he turned the weight of my husband's body almost toppled us both.
== unquote ==

I fail to see what Dulles did wrong. Or why you say "perhaps he was
snipping her response". He had a question, he asked it. She answered
it.

>
> Now I'll retain your citation, even though I've just proven you lied by omission, because God forbid I "snip" any of Precious's golden post.

More name-calling, totally uncalled for. I didn't lie, I simply assess the
evidence (as opposed to the hearsay) differently. There was no omission,
and my name is Hank (not 'Precious'). Could you tell us why you feel the
need to resort to that kind of stuff?

>
> Here you go again:
> > https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0024a.htm
> > == quote ==
> > Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
> > I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and pulled me down into her lap.
> > I was in her lap facing forward when another shot was fired. I only heard two shots. I did not hear the shot that hit me. I wasn't conscious of it. I am sure I heard it, but I was not conscious of it at all. I heard another shot. I heard it hit. It hit with a very pronounced impact, just [slap of hands] almost like that. Almost that loud a sound; it made a very, very strong sound.
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet.
> > == unquote ==
> >
> > In his Warren Commission testimony, he also stated he never saw the President nor the First Lady during the shooting:
> > == quote ==
> > Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any reaction by Mrs. Kennedy after the shooting?
> > Governor CONNALLY. I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred, I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing started, and, of course, as I have testified, then Mrs. Connally pulled me over into her lap and I was facing forward with my head slightly turned up to where I could see the driver and Roy Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into the back seat, so I didn't see either one of them.
> > == unquote ==
> >
> > That means he doesn't know when the President was struck.
>
> No, it means you're either Begging the Question and, like you did with me, > ascribing what you think someone else is thinking to fit your own
> narrative...or when faced with two contradictory claims, you opt to favor > the claim of later recollection over the one of fresher recollection, even > though the former is 1.) staler; 2.) vague; 3.) doesn't actually say what > you claim it says.

The Governor denied seeing the President in his Warren Commission
testimony.

If he never saw the President, he doesn't know from his own personal
knowledge (as an eyewitness) when the President was struck, and he doesn't
know what happened as a result of the first shot.

That's what I said. That's also what he said here: "Now, there's a great

deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same
bullet, that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and
Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear
the second bullet."

There's no begging the question. There's no logical fallacy. There's no
avoiding the earlier statement to credit the latter one. Both times he was
consistent: He never saw the President during the shooting. Ergo, he
couldn't know what happened to the first shot - because he didn't witness
it.

Anything the Governor heard from his wife about what she saw is hearsay,
and is not admissible. Any conclusions he drew based on what she told him
is a conclusion he reached, it's not anything he witnessed and can attest
to.

Expert witnesses can draw conclusions and testify to what those
conclusions are. Eyewitnesses can only testify to what they personally
observed. You're citing his conclusion as if it's meaningful and
admissible. It's not. So I don't consider that.

And did Nellie turn in time to witness what she says she did? (again, more
on this below).

>
>
> >
> > He makes quite clear he doesn't know what bullet struck the President.
> > He said he never saw the President during the shooting. He also makes
> > quite clear what his wife's opinion was. He understands that eyewitness
> > testimony is often in conflict. It's a truism that if you have ten
> > eyewitnesses, you'll have ten different eyewitness accounts. He also
> > says 'it might well be' that one bullet struck both the President and
> > himself.
> >
> > That destroys your original claim that Connally always maintained he was
> > struck by a separate bullet than struck the President: "his steadfast
> > assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate bullets..."
>
> And as I've just demonstrated, it wasn't *MY* claim, rather Connally's himself, and his wife's. But you were carefully selective in the testimony you chose and, like Specter, you also insist to know more than them (and probably for the same reason.)
>

No, it was your claim I objected to, which you stated thusly: "his

steadfast assertion that he and Kennedy were hit with two separate
bullets..."

It wasn't *steadfast*, as he denied it above. That's my point.

Steadfast: "resolutely or dutifully firm and unwavering."

He wasn't unwavering. I quoted the waver.

> Now again, state for the record that Connally did NOT fully agree with his > wife on the matter.

He did, and that's the problem. You're mixing eyewitness testimony with
hearsay from his wife and quoting the Governor's conclusion, not what he
actually observed as a witness. He made it clear in his HSCA testimony.

> Tell us that he never insisted to the Washington Post on Nov. 21/66 that
> "there is my absolute knowledge that one bullet caused the president's
> first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a
> certainty. I will never change my mind."

Tell us how he knew with 'absolute knowledge' that the first shot hit the
President, since he testified he never saw the President during the
assassination. Was he accepting and repeating hearsay from Nellie? Is that
the source of his 'absolute knowledge'? That appears to be the source of
his 'absolute knowledge'.

> Tell us that the very testimony which you omitted and I included didn't
> persuade members of the WC, particularly Russell, that the
> single–bullet theory was unconvincing.

You quoted Nellie as the source of the claim that the President was hit
with the first shot. But did she even turn to observe the President before
the second shot? (More on this below).

> While you're at it, tell us that James Chaney (via Marrion Baker's
> testimony) doesn't corroborate the narrative I've just illustrated using
> only the testimony of Connally and his wife.

Have no clue what you're referring to, but it sounds like more hearsay to
me (Chaney via Baker would be hearsay, wouldn't it?)


>
> "Destroyed", it says.

"steadfast", you wrote. But he wasn't. I quoted the non-steadfast
statement that destroys your 'steadfast' claim.

>
> The remainder of your post is utterly pitiful. May I "snip" it? Thanks.

Snip to your heart's content. But I will point out that calling it
'utterly pitiful' doesn't establish it is. It's a mere unproven assertion
by you. And snipping it means you're again avoiding the points I made.

Separate from that, let me see if I understand the scenario you're
advancing here, because there are some questions about it I would
appreciate if you would answer. Thanks in advance:

1. You apparently believe the first shot hit the President, based on
Nellie Connally's testimony.

2. You also believe the second shot hit the Governor, based on the
Connally's (John & Nellie's) testimony.

3. And you believe the third shot hit the President in the head, based on
their testimony.

Do I understand all that correctly? Do you believe there were more than
three shots, or does the above account for all of them?

Okay, now comes the hard part, trying to make that scenario fit the known
evidence.

Question: How many shots were fired, in your scenario? From where?

Question: If the first shot hit the President, where did it go? No bullet
was found in the President's body at autopsy. What caused the throat wound
seen at Parkland (or the back wound seen at autopsy, if you believe the
throat wound was the wound inflicted during the shooting)? Or do you
believe there were both a throat wound and a back wound inflicted during
the shooting? In that case, what happened to those two bullets, as none
were found in the body?

Question: Approximately when in the Zapruder film was this wound (or these
wounds) inflicted on the President?

Question: Approximately when in the Zapruder film was the wounds inflicted
on the Governor? One bullet or multiple? Was this at Z224, or some other
frame(s) (please be as specific as possible).

Question: Does the Governor ever look back at the President before he is
struck? Did he affirm or deny in his testimony he never saw the President?
Can you observe the Governor looking back before he's struck in the
Z-film?

Question: Can the Governor affirm from his own experience when the
President was wounded, or was he relying on what he heard from another
witness (and reaching a conclusion from that hearsay)?

Question: When does Nellie look back at the President? Does she look back
before or after the Governor is struck, in your scenario? What does the
Z-film show?

Question: What shot inflicted the Tague wound? Why was no copper found in
the curb smear?

Now, I will tell you how I reconstruct the event and the questions above
and I will appreciate it if you answer them as well.

A) I am unsure as to whether there were three or two bullets fired during
the assassination. If three, then I believe the first shot missed and was
never recovered. I do not believe this bullet inflicted the Tague wound.
This shot (if fired) came about frame 160-166 and missed the limo
entirely.

B) The second bullet (or the first, if the one above was never fired)
struck the President in the back and exited his throat, nicking his tie,
and started to rotate. It struck the Governor in the upper right back and
caused all his wounds. It was recovered in Parkland and entered into
evidence as Commission Exhibit 399. That bullet was ballistically
traceable to (and fired from) Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world. This bullet did all the damage to the two men in
approximately Zapruder frame 224.

C) The third bullet (or the second, if the one in A was never fired) hit
the President in the rear of the head at Zapruder frame 313 (actually just
before this frame), exiting the top right side of the President's head.
Two large fragments comprising the bulk of the copper jacket were
recovered in the limo on the evening of the assassination. Those fragments
were ballistically traceable to (and fired from) Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The bulk of the lead core
separated from the copper jacket, exited the head, and struck the curb and
then James Tague.

I don't see Nellie Connally turning and looking back at the President
until after the wound on both men (in B above) was inflicted at Z224. This
is very pertinent, because if she only looks back at the President after
her husband is already struck, then her recollection of the event is
inaccurate and shouldn't be relied on. When she first looks at the
President and realizes he is reacting to a bullet wound, she gains the
impression he is reacting to the first shot. She doesn't realize her
husband is also struck at this time. She then realizes her husband is
struck and believes it was caused by the second bullet. And finally, of
course, she's ducking and pulling her husband down at the time of the
third shot. But if she never saw the President until after her husband is
wounded, then her belief that the first bullet struck the President and
the second hit the Governor is flawed by her perception of the event, not
the reality. Is what I am saying unclear to you? Let me know.

How do you reconstruct the event? How many shots? Does Nellie see the
President between the first and second shots? See (and please answer) the
questions above.

All the best,
Hank

PS: I apologize for the length of this response and any redundancy therein
in advance.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Where did she say that Connally was hit by a different bullet? Give us a
link/quote, please.

From her same day affidavit: "I heard a noise like a firecracker going
off. President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and covered his
head with his hands and then raised up. After I heard the first shot,
another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and
lay back on the seat of the car. When I first saw and heard all of this, I
thought it was all of a joke. Just about the time President Kennedy was
right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out, and the President put
his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head."

Nothing in there about her saying that the two men were hit by separate
bullets.

From a 11/24/63 FBI report: "She believed there were first two shots in
succesion, a pause, then another shot was fired which struck the
president."

Three shots.

[BT George]

For those interested in seeing Nellie Connally's *earliest* description of
her recollections and implications thereof regarding the first missed shot
now believed to be circa Z-160, this thread may prove enlightening when I
was engaging Bob Harris on his "Silencer Suppressed 2nd Shot" and Z285
"shot" theories. The second link is to a post in the thread to John
Reagor King (AKA "Carueleo") that sort of cuts to the chase on this point.
But the entire thread between Bob and me was pretty enlightening and
entertaining:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/bt$20george$20nellie$20connally$20bob$20harris%7Csort:date/alt.assassination.jfk/FnNOJIURCm8/s8eBJUkYshEJ


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/FnNOJIURCm8/s8eBJUkYshEJ

[19efppp]

I just don't see how you can honestly think that means one bullet shot
both men.

[BT George]

Excellent response. Let's see if and what he responds with.

Brock (BT) George

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 8:48:18 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

Nice post, but alas, Boris won't be responding to this one, or at least to
the specifics in the post you're asking him to respond to.

Boris has been posting at the Nuthouse for the past two years. We're still
waiting for his specific scenario, or even a general scenario.

In fact, we're still waiting for him to respond to your earlier challenge
to him to provide an explanation for Boris's own admission that Oswald was
complicit in JFK's murder. What does it mean? Boris isn't saying.

From what I've seen, Boris hangs around these forums only to shoot
spitballs at the historically accepted case or to recruit people to play
Fetch the Stick, a/k/a the 'ol Fringe Reset at ISF. Once he sees you're
sincerely interested in having a dialog on issues, Boris loses interest.

I'd be shocked if he actually engaged you in an exchange of ideas, but
good luck.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because he could SEE that the President had slumped. Do YOU think that JFK
naturally slumped in his seat to get more compfortable before being hit by
a bullet or was trying to slump to get into the correct position to get
YOUR SBT to line up? Connally thought it was because he thought it
indicated that he had just been shot. When some witnesses saw JFK throw
his hands up to his throat they thought he was joking in resonse to a
motorcycle backfiring.

> assassination. Was he accepting and repeating hearsay from Nellie? Is that

No, you mean in his hospital bed?

> the source of his 'absolute knowledge'? That appears to be the source of
> his 'absolute knowledge'.
>
>> Tell us that the very testimony which you omitted and I included didn't
>> persuade members of the WC, particularly Russell, that the

>> single???bullet theory was unconvincing.

Deflected by hitting his T-1 vertebra and exited his throat and went
over the winshield.

> was found in the President's body at autopsy. What caused the throat wound

Please diagram the trajectory otf CE399.
<crickets>

> seen at Parkland (or the back wound seen at autopsy, if you believe the
> throat wound was the wound inflicted during the shooting)? Or do you

Yes, from the back not from the back of the neck. The oly way to connect
the two is with a deflection.

> believe there were both a throat wound and a back wound inflicted during
> the shooting? In that case, what happened to those two bullets, as none
> were found in the body?
>

What happened to the bullet from your miss? Why don't you go down to
Dallas and dig it up?

> Question: Approximately when in the Zapruder film was this wound (or these
> wounds) inflicted on the President?
>

Z-09/210 + Z-312.6. Approximately.

> Question: Approximately when in the Zapruder film was the wounds inflicted
> on the Governor? One bullet or multiple? Was this at Z224, or some other
> frame(s) (please be as specific as possible).
>

Z-230, approximately.
Maybe also Z-328, approximtely.

> Question: Does the Governor ever look back at the President before he is
> struck? Did he affirm or deny in his testimony he never saw the President?

Yes.

> Can you observe the Governor looking back before he's struck in the
> Z-film?

> His earliest statement said he looked back and THEN HE was struck.
Witnesses are unreliable, but most people know when they are hit by a
bullet.

> Question: Can the Governor affirm from his own experience when the
> President was wounded, or was he relying on what he heard from another
> witness (and reaching a conclusion from that hearsay)?
>

He WAS there, you were not.

> Question: When does Nellie look back at the President? Does she look back
> before or after the Governor is struck, in your scenario? What does the
> Z-film show?
>

We don't need Nellie.

> Question: What shot inflicted the Tague wound? Why was no copper found in
> the curb smear?
>

Maybe the last shot. He was not hit directly.
I suspect it was the missing lead core from the base fragment.

> Now, I will tell you how I reconstruct the event and the questions above
> and I will appreciate it if you answer them as well.
>
> A) I am unsure as to whether there were three or two bullets fired during
> the assassination. If three, then I believe the first shot missed and was
> never recovered. I do not believe this bullet inflicted the Tague wound.
> This shot (if fired) came about frame 160-166 and missed the limo
> entirely.
>
> B) The second bullet (or the first, if the one above was never fired)
> struck the President in the back and exited his throat, nicking his tie,
> and started to rotate. It struck the Governor in the upper right back and

False. He was not hit in the back. Connally was hit in the right armpit.
If you don't understand the difference, go see a doctor.

> caused all his wounds. It was recovered in Parkland and entered into

Including the wrist and the leg? Please diagram that path for me.
Do you think he caught it in midair and put it in his pcocket?
One guy thinks it fell out into his pants cuff.

> evidence as Commission Exhibit 399. That bullet was ballistically
> traceable to (and fired from) Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other
> weapons in the world. This bullet did all the damage to the two men in
> approximately Zapruder frame 224.
>

Connally said he was hit later, like Z-230.

> C) The third bullet (or the second, if the one in A was never fired) hit
> the President in the rear of the head at Zapruder frame 313 (actually just
> before this frame), exiting the top right side of the President's head.

Z-312.6.

> Two large fragments comprising the bulk of the copper jacket were
> recovered in the limo on the evening of the assassination. Those fragments
> were ballistically traceable to (and fired from) Oswald's rifle to the
> exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The bulk of the lead core
> separated from the copper jacket, exited the head, and struck the curb and
> then James Tague.
>

Almost. In addition to the middle of the bullet which went missing you
also have to account for the lead core of the base fragment which was
only the copper jacket.

> I don't see Nellie Connally turning and looking back at the President
> until after the wound on both men (in B above) was inflicted at Z224. This
> is very pertinent, because if she only looks back at the President after
> her husband is already struck, then her recollection of the event is
> inaccurate and shouldn't be relied on. When she first looks at the
> President and realizes he is reacting to a bullet wound, she gains the
> impression he is reacting to the first shot. She doesn't realize her
> husband is also struck at this time. She then realizes her husband is
> struck and believes it was caused by the second bullet. And finally, of
> course, she's ducking and pulling her husband down at the time of the
> third shot. But if she never saw the President until after her husband is
> wounded, then her belief that the first bullet struck the President and
> the second hit the Governor is flawed by her perception of the event, not
> the reality. Is what I am saying unclear to you? Let me know.
>
> How do you reconstruct the event? How many shots? Does Nellie see the
> President between the first and second shots? See (and please answer) the
> questions above.
>
> All the best,
> Hank
>
> PS: I apologize for the length of this response and any redundancy therein
> in advance.
>

Not long enough for me. You did not account for the lead missing from
the base fragment.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

There's a lot to parse in your post so I'll try and make it brief, because
you like to use a lot of loquacity to fool people into thinking you're
saying anything.

>
> The Governor denied seeing the President in his Warren Commission
> testimony.
>
> If he never saw the President, he doesn't know from his own personal
> knowledge (as an eyewitness) when the President was struck, and he doesn't
> know what happened as a result of the first shot.

And so just like Specter and the Warren Commission, Henry has decided what
people who were there know from what they don't know. He doesn't consider
several factors which I'll include shortly. And as for eyewitnesses, they
are not to be believed either. Such as Marrion Baker, whom I mentioned:

Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that
you remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two
shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.


Now even though this is direct testimony to the Warren Commission, you
don't consider it evidence for whatever imagined illegitimacy you can
dream up. But it doesn't matter whether it's hearsay or not, because this,
and Nellie, and the governor, are the pieces of testimony they would have
had to rely on to reconstruct what happened that day. And they clearly
didn't. So in other words, they simply ignored testimony which did not fit
the narrative they were trying to put together, and I've now provided
three examples of proof of this FACT. They instead opted to push the SBT,
which Specter intended as a hypothetical placeholder until it was adopted
as truth, and was/is **entirely speculative** and not based on available
testimony.

Maybe they should have just interviewed Chaney, instead of someone who
knew Oswald in junior high.

>
> Anything the Governor heard from his wife about what she saw is hearsay,
> and is not admissible.

Not "admissible" to who? Are you referring to the court case that never
happened? Or have you just decided which testimony you like from which you
don't?

>
> Any conclusions he drew based on what she told him
> is a conclusion he reached, it's not anything he witnessed and can attest
> to.

Now this is funny, because you are fully aware these are the exact
standards by which Oswald was found guilty of the Walker shooting:
conclusions based on what his wife told them but didn't witness herself or
could attest to.

Zip up your fly, Henry...your double standards are showing.

>
> Expert witnesses can draw conclusions and testify to what those
> conclusions are.

LNers don't believe expert witnesses. Too bad, you really should catch up
on some exchanges in the other forum. You'd know that if you did.

>
> Eyewitnesses can only testify to what they personally
> observed.

You don't believe eyewitnesses either. There's more examples of this than
can be counted. But we shall focus on Nellie for now.

>
> You're citing his conclusion as if it's meaningful and
> admissible. It's not. So I don't consider that.

If you had any idea how little I thought of what you'd "consider", you
wouldn't have written anything so laughable. I, on the other hand, find
the opinion of someone who was there and who was shot more meaningful than
some Internet disinformationalist. What to believe? Connally's personal
firsthand experience....or Henry's "belief," based on a report which did
not consider any evidence or testimony contrary to a linear narrative.

>
> And did Nellie turn in time to witness what she says she did? (again, more
> on this below).

Let's deal with this now. The Stemmons sign is neither your friend or
mine, but let's work with what we have. Because of that sign we don't know
exactly when the shot was fired, but we know his hands were to his neck
when they emerged. And, in fact, at this time Nellie was looking north (at
her husband). This is most evident when looking at frame 238 and the
frames directly preceding it.

Now do you assume she had no periphery vision? And do you assume that
between her periphery and the added advantage of real-time audio (which
the Z-film does not afford), she is neither credible enough or intelligent
enough to piece together this firsthand information in a way which
simulates her personal experience? Why do you assume she doesn't know what
she claims? And why would she claim what she doesn't know?

>
> Separate from that, let me see if I understand the scenario you're
> advancing here, because there are some questions about it I would
> appreciate if you would answer. Thanks in advance:
>
> 1. You apparently believe the first shot hit the President, based on
> Nellie Connally's testimony.

No, the first shot was likely the ricochet off the pavement when the limo
made the Houston/Elm turn, at a time which several witnesses described
hearing something like "fireworks".

>
> 2. You also believe the second shot hit the Governor, based on the
> Connally's (John & Nellie's) testimony.

At least one shot hit the governor.

>
> 3. And you believe the third shot hit the President in the head, based on
> their testimony.

I don't think I need anyone's testimony to "believe" a shot hit him in the
head.

>
> Do I understand all that correctly? Do you believe there were more than
> three shots, or does the above account for all of them?
>
> Okay, now comes the hard part, trying to make that scenario fit the known
> evidence.

Oh, it couldn't be that hard, Henry. The DPD had it figured out in 85
minutes. And Katzenbach, the next day.

But let's digress a minute, because there's a lot of known evidence which
I theoretically could ask you to support your scenario in return. Here's
just a VERY small sample:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9pPHYlVUIls/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ

Now I'm not asking you to debunk each one. There's simply too much, and
that's not even a fraction of the evidence which contradicts YOUR
scenario. What my point is, is that asking me to speculate is equally
pointless. It would make me, in effect, a one-man Warren Commission. And
I'm not going to answer a series of rhetorical questions you already know
the answer to. For instance, you know Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt
to Captain Stover regarding a "missile" removed by Humes. And you know Dr.
James Young (rather, his assistants) found a bullet in the Queen Mary. And
you know the Stemmons sign precludes *anyone* from knowing when the first
on-target bullet struck.

So what's the point of your questions? To prove that no one knows? Then
what makes the Warren Commission different?

[bigdog]

Your mistake is in assuming a witness accurately remembered the event. The
best witness was Zapruder's camera and it shows both men reacting
simultaneously.

[19efppp]

Your mistake is assuming that you understand "Zapruder's camera."
Sometimes you need the accounts of witnesses to understand what you see in
a film. But you don't care. You think this is all a waste of time, except
for your personal entertainment.

[Anthony Marsh]

Mever rely on witnesses. Only one in a million people can SEE the EXACT
millisecond that a bullet hit. Most people can see the result, but not
always.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, you started off so well, but you overlooked a couple of things.
First, Kennedy and Connnally could not be seen well on the Zapruder film
when the sign blocked the view. They did not have X-ray cameras back then.
Second, Each frame only covers 1/18th of a second and about half of that
time the shutter is closed so that the film can advance to the next frame.
That is why I say that the head shot was at Z-312.6. Even some of your WC
buddies hedge it by saying Z-223/224, so maybe the bullet hit during 223
or just when 224 started. You are free to make up your own frames that
way, but make sure that you change them at least every month.

[bigdog]

I have a working pair of eyes. That is all that is required.

> Sometimes you need the accounts of witnesses to understand what you see in
> a film. But you don't care. You think this is all a waste of time, except
> for your personal entertainment.

Connally's testimony before the WC fits perfectly with the scenario of a
first shot miss followed by a second shot striking both men. We see
Connally turn to look over his right shoulder where he thought the rifle
shot had come from while JFK continued to wave. That is perfectly
compatible with a first shot miss.

Several seconds after Connally turned we see him and JFK simultaneously
jerk there arms upward in reaction to being shot. Both men exhibited this
reaction in Z226.

What we know about eye and ear witnesses is that they get some things
right and some things wrong. A witness' statement should not be assumed to
be right or wrong without validating it against other evidence. If that
evidence corroborates what that witness has said, then the witness is
probably right. If it refutes the witness, that witness is probably wrong.
In this case, the Z-film corroborates Connally's account.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 8:16:14 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> There's a lot to parse in your post so I'll try and make it brief, because
> you like to use a lot of loquacity to fool people into thinking you're
> saying anything.
>

If I wasn't saying anything worth responding to, you wouldn't bother to
respond.

>
> >
> > The Governor denied seeing the President in his Warren Commission
> > testimony.
> >
> > If he never saw the President, he doesn't know from his own personal
> > knowledge (as an eyewitness) when the President was struck, and he doesn't
> > know what happened as a result of the first shot.
>
> And so just like Specter and the Warren Commission, Henry has decided what
> people who were there know from what they don't know. He doesn't consider
> several factors which I'll include shortly.

When you bring these factors up, I'll respond to them. but there's nothing
here to respond to. You're just asserting I'm wrong above. I'm not.

The Governor said he didn't see the President during the shooting. So he
was not an eyewitness to anything that happened to the President during
the assassination. Ergo, he doesn't know what he didn't see. I said that.
Any conclusions he reached from what he was told, or what he read, or what
he saw in the Z-film later is not pertinent here. He can testify to his
experiences as an eyewitness. His conclusions aren't a consideration.
That's just the way it works. Sorry if that messes up your argument.

> And as for eyewitnesses, they
> are not to be believed either. Such as Marrion Baker, whom I mentioned:
>
> Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that
> you remember?
> Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two
> shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Well, that conflicts with the Connally's account, who said the Governor
was struck by the second shot. Baker says Chaney thought the Governor was
struck with the third of three shots apparently.

Which witness do we believe? Or are you somehow going to assert they are
both correct? They can't be. They disagree on what shots struck when. This
is why we shouldn't put eyewitness testimony very high on the credibility
scale.

And what you're quoting from BAKER is hearsay, which wouldn't be
admissible in a court procedure, would it?

All three spoke of three shots, so maybe they are correct there... where
they agree. Do you think there were more than three shots, perchance? How
do you assess the evidence here?

>
>
> Now even though this is direct testimony to the Warren Commission, you
> don't consider it evidence for whatever imagined illegitimacy you can
> dream up.

It's *hearsay* from Baker. That is not an imagined illegitimacy. That's a
legitimate reason for excluding it. There are specific instances in which
hearsay is allowed. Can you establish this hearsay would be allowable in
court?

> But it doesn't matter whether it's hearsay or not, because this,
> and Nellie, and the governor, are the pieces of testimony they would have
> had to rely on to reconstruct what happened that day.

And all the other eyewitness statements. And the Zapruder film. And the
hard evidence like a rifle on the sixth floor, and three shells on the
sixth floor, and the two fragments recovered from the limo, and the bullet
found at Parkland, the testimony of the doctors and the autopsists,...
etc., etc. They considered all that and reached their conclusions. Your
statement makes it sound like all they had to consider was the hearsay
statement of Baker and the direct testimony of the Connally's. It was far
more than that.

> And they clearly
> didn't. So in other words, they simply ignored testimony which did not fit
> the narrative they were trying to put together, and I've now provided
> three examples of proof of this FACT.

You've cited a hearsay statement of Chaney's (through Baker) and the
conflicting statements of the Connally's. Tell us how you would reconcile
this. Tell us how you think the Warren Commission should have reconciled
the conflict. Is ignoring all the other evidence your best option? Didn't
the Governor's doctor who treated him in the emergency room conclude his
wounds could have been inflicted from above and behind by one bullet?

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER - And as to Diagram No. 5, what does that represent?
Dr. SHIRES - This, at the time of the discussion of Governor Connally's
injuries with his wife, before he really regained consciousness from surgery,
was the apparent position that he was in in the car, which would explain
one missile producing all three wounds.
== UNQUOTE ==
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0028b.htm

> They instead opted to push the SBT,
> which Specter intended as a hypothetical placeholder until it was adopted
> as truth, and was/is **entirely speculative** and not based on available
> testimony.
>

Only if you ignore the expert testimony that says otherwise. For example, Dr. Shires (who treated the Governor) said:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER - Now, looking again at Diagram No. 5, what is your professional opinion, if you have one, as to whether Governor Connally's chest injury, wrist injury, and thigh injury were caused by the same bullet?
Dr. SHIRES - Well we all thought, me included, that this was probably one missile, one bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say "we all thought," whom. do you mean by that?
Dr. SHIRES - Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory---as we were reconstructing the events in the operating room in an attempt to plot out trajectory as best we could, this appeared to be our opinion.
Mr. SPECTER - Did any of your assistants consult with you in those calculations?
Dr. SHIRES - I guess nearly all of them we have listed.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter and Dr. Patman?
Dr. SHIRES - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Osborne and Dr. Parker?
Dr. SHIRES - They were working with Dr. Gregory. If they discussed it, I'm sure they did---it was before I got there.
Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Boland and Dr. Duke who worked with Dr. Shaw?
Dr. SHIRES - Now, again, I talked to them and they were discussing it as they did the chest procedure, and again thought the same thing. Everyone was under the impression this was one missile---through and through the chest, through and through the arm and the thigh.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there any one of the doctors on either of these three teams who had a different point of view?
Dr. SHIRES - Not that I remember.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you think it is possible that Governor Connally could have been struck by two bullets, one entering his back and emerging from his chest and the second going into his wrist?
Dr. SHIRES - I'm sure it is possible, because missile sites are so variable, depending upon the size of the bullet, the speed at which it travels, whether it was tumbling or not. We have seen all kinds of combinations of entrance and exit wounds and it's just impossible to state with any certainty, looking at a given wound, what the nature of the missile was, so I am sure it is possible.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you think it is possible that, assuming a missile being a bullet 6.5 ram. with a velocity of over 2,000 feet per second, and the distance between the weapon and the victim being approximately 160 to 250 feet, that the same bullet might have passed through President Kennedy, entering his back near the midline and emerging from his neck, and then entering Governor Connally in the back and emerging from his chest, into his wrist, through his wrist and into the thigh?
Dr. SHIRES - I assume that it would be possible. The main thing that would make me think that this was not the case in that he remembers so distinctly hearing a shot and having turned prior to the time he was hit, and in the position he must have been, particularly here in Figure 5, I think it's obvious that he did turn rather sharply to the right and this would make me think that it was a second shot, but this is purely conjecture, of course.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, is there anything, aside from what he told you, that is, anything in the characteristics of the wounds on President Kennedy and the wounds on Governor Connally which would lead you to conclude that it was not the same bullet?
Dr. SHIRES - No--there is nothing. It could have been---purely from the standpoint of the wounds, it is possible.
== UNQUOTE ==

> Maybe they should have just interviewed Chaney, instead of someone who
> knew Oswald in junior high.

Yes, and maybe they should have taken ten years to conduct their hearings
so as to ensure everyone was heard in their entirety, even though everyone
but conspiracy theorists recognizes that eyewitness testimony isn't
reliable. For an example, contrast what Baker said Chaney said versus what
the Connally's said. What's the point of citing the Baker hearsay of
Chaney's words?

>
>
> >
> > Anything the Governor heard from his wife about what she saw is hearsay,
> > and is not admissible.
>
> Not "admissible" to who? Are you referring to the court case that never
> happened?

Trial courts have rules for a reason that have been adopted over centuries
to reach the truth and protect the rights of the accused. We disregard
them at risk of losing sight of justice.

CTs like to argue that if Oswald was tried, this piece of evidence and
that piece of evidence wouldn't be admissible... well, I've adopted that
standard because many CTs like to use that standard when it's convenient
to them, but ignore it otherwise.

> Or have you just decided which testimony you like from which you
> don't?

I don't like hearsay, no. Eyewitness testimony is also unreliable.
Regardless of what was said by whom and when. I prefer hard evidence and
expert testimony.

>
> >
> > Any conclusions he drew based on what she told him
> > is a conclusion he reached, it's not anything he witnessed and can attest
> > to.
>
> Now this is funny, because you are fully aware these are the exact
> standards by which Oswald was found guilty of the Walker shooting:
> conclusions based on what his wife told them but didn't witness herself or
> could attest to.
>
> Zip up your fly, Henry...your double standards are showing.

You didn't respond to the point made whatsoever and are changing the
subject. I don't care to chase you down every rabbit hole right now. Right
now, let's stick to the Connally's and what they said about the seconds of
the assassination: Did the Governor witness the President during the
shooting (he says he didn't) or did he reach a conclusion based on what
his wife told him she saw?

>
>
> >
> > Expert witnesses can draw conclusions and testify to what those
> > conclusions are.
>
> LNers don't believe expert witnesses. Too bad, you really should catch up
> on some exchanges in the other forum. You'd know that if you did.

Sorry, I can't respond to vague points that mention no specifics about
anything. Also, if you can stick to the subject of the Connally's for the
moment, I would truly appreciate it.

>
> >
> > Eyewitnesses can only testify to what they personally
> > observed.
>
> You don't believe eyewitnesses either. There's more examples of this than
> can be counted. But we shall focus on Nellie for now.
>

Great. Really looking forward to you not changing the subject again.

> >
> > You're citing his conclusion as if it's meaningful and
> > admissible. It's not. So I don't consider that.
>
> If you had any idea how little I thought of what you'd "consider", you
> wouldn't have written anything so laughable.

No need to get testy. Just post your evidence and let's discuss.

> I, on the other hand, find
> the opinion of someone who was there and who was shot more meaningful than
> some Internet disinformationalist.

So there's the name-calling. Now I'm not a person who happens to disagree
with you about something, and trying to walk and talk through this with
you to find a resolution, no, now I'm "some Internet disinformationalist".

> What to believe? Connally's personal
> firsthand experience....or Henry's "belief," based on a report which did
> not consider any evidence or testimony contrary to a linear narrative.

His firsthand experience was he was shot with the second of three bullets.
His firsthand experience was he saw the President not at all, according to
his own testimony. Anything he says about what happened with the President
during and after the first shot is based on something other than his
firsthand experience... because he admitted he didn't experience it.

>
>
> >
> > And did Nellie turn in time to witness what she says she did? (again, more
> > on this below).

She did turn to look at the President. But that's not visible in the
Z-film until after the Governor is wounded, which, below, you appear to
admit.

>
> Let's deal with this now. The Stemmons sign is neither your friend or
> mine, but let's work with what we have. Because of that sign we don't know
> exactly when the shot was fired, but we know his hands were to his neck
> when they emerged.

We see his hands start to move to his neck as he emerged.

> And, in fact, at this time Nellie was looking north (at
> her husband). This is most evident when looking at frame 238 and the
> frames directly preceding it.

Z238 is after the Governor believed he was shot, wasn't it? Are you saying the Governor is wrong about that?
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.
== UNQUOTE ==

Here's what Nellie said she saw and heard:
== QUOTE ==

Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
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."

== UNQUOTE ==

She places the wounding of the Governor AFTER he says "Oh, no, no, no." She says it was about the time of the first shot (or just after) that her husband said that.

But the Governor says he said that immediately after he was struck with the second shot:
== QUOTE ==
I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no."
== UNQUOTE ==

How do you reconcile the differences between the Connally's here? Was
Nellie correct? Was John? Were they both wrong? They can't both be right.

>
> Now do you assume she had no periphery vision? And do you assume that
> between her periphery and the added advantage of real-time audio (which
> the Z-film does not afford), she is neither credible enough or intelligent
> enough to piece together this firsthand information in a way which
> simulates her personal experience? Why do you assume she doesn't know what
> she claims? And why would she claim what she doesn't know?

The President is hit by Z224. The Governor himself placed his wounding at
Z231 to Z234. Nellie, according to you, doesn't look at the President
until the Governor is already wounded.

Her version of events is a reconstruction of what she recalled. That
doesn't mean she anything but human. Like you yourself noted, this is her
piecing together the event after the fact.

>
>
> >
> > Separate from that, let me see if I understand the scenario you're
> > advancing here, because there are some questions about it I would
> > appreciate if you would answer. Thanks in advance:
> >
> > 1. You apparently believe the first shot hit the President, based on
> > Nellie Connally's testimony.
>
> No, the first shot was likely the ricochet off the pavement when the limo
> made the Houston/Elm turn, at a time which several witnesses described
> hearing something like "fireworks".

So the President is struck with the second shot, and the Governor with the
third and then the President again in the head with the fourth?

That makes Chaney (according to Baker) AND both Nellie and John Connally
wrong about the number of shots, doesn't it?

Why do you question me about what Nellie said when you don't believe her
in any case?

>
> >
> > 2. You also believe the second shot hit the Governor, based on the
> > Connally's (John & Nellie's) testimony.
>
> At least one shot hit the governor.

Was it the third? Was there more than one that struck the Governor? Don't
be shy, tell us what you think. Seriously, what is your scenario?

>
> >
> > 3. And you believe the third shot hit the President in the head, based on
> > their testimony.
>
> I don't think I need anyone's testimony to "believe" a shot hit him in the
> head.

I think I was clear I was trying to understand your scenario, and you're
now doing your level best to avoid putting it on the table. I said the
Connally's testimony (which you tell me I should believe) was the
President was hit in the head with the third shot. Which shot hit him in
the head in your scenario?

>
> >
> > Do I understand all that correctly? Do you believe there were more than
> > three shots, or does the above account for all of them?
> >
> > Okay, now comes the hard part, trying to make that scenario fit the known
> > evidence.
>
> Oh, it couldn't be that hard, Henry. The DPD had it figured out in 85
> minutes. And Katzenbach, the next day.

Change of subject -- twice. Make your scenario fit the Connally's
testimony. Go ahead, we'll wait.

>
> But let's digress a minute, because there's a lot of known evidence which
> I theoretically could ask you to support your scenario in return. Here's
> just a VERY small sample:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9pPHYlVUIls/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ
>

I don't chase down every link you care to provide. We're talking about the
Connally's right now.

Please stop trying to redirect the conversation.

> Now I'm not asking you to debunk each one. There's simply too much, and
> that's not even a fraction of the evidence which contradicts YOUR
> scenario. What my point is, is that asking me to speculate is equally
> pointless.

But you have been speculating already. You speculated, from what you said
here and from what little I understand of your scenario, at least four
shots, which the three witnesses you introduced into the conversation
didn't hear. They all spoke of three (one of which is hearsay, remember).

> It would make me, in effect, a one-man Warren Commission.

No, it would make you someone with a scenario they were willing to
support. Apparently you can't do that just yet. Okay, 55 years isn't
enough time for you to decide on what happened. Should we wait another 55
years for you to post your conclusions about what happened during the
assassination? Or is that not enough time?

> And
> I'm not going to answer a series of rhetorical questions you already know
> the answer to.

I asked some questions about the assassination, which you've avoided
answering. They were not rhetorical, as I'm asking for your view on
this... which I don't know. They go to the heart of how to assess the
evidence in this case.


Here they are again:
== QUOTE ==

== UNQUOTE ==

Please answer at your earliest opportunity. Thanks.

> For instance, you know Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt
> to Captain Stover regarding a "missile" removed by Humes.

Another Red Herring. You know what that is? That's the logical fallacy of
changing the subject. Why are you so quick to avoid the topic at hand and
so quick to want to discuss another topic?

> And you know Dr.
> James Young (rather, his assistants) found a bullet in the Queen Mary.

Another Red Herring. You know what that is? That's the logical fallacy of
changing the subject. Why are you so quick to avoid the topic at hand and
so quick to want to discuss another topic?

> And
> you know the Stemmons sign precludes *anyone* from knowing when the first
> on-target bullet struck.

There is hard evidence and eyewitness testimony and expert testimony that
ties all this together. If you simply stop looking for anomalies, you'd
understand exactly what happened. For example, approximately 90% of the
witnesses heard three shots. That includes both Connally's, and according
to Baker, includes James Chaney as well. And more witnesses heard fewer
than three than heard four or more. Are you saying there were more than
three shots fired? If so, why?

>
> So what's the point of your questions? To prove that no one knows? Then
> what makes the Warren Commission different?

The Warren Commission considered all the evidence and reached the only
reasonable and defensible conclusion based on that evidence. That Oswald
fired all the shots during the assassination.

The point of the questions is to seek a scenario of yours that we can
compare to the Warren Commission scenario and see which one explains more,
and better.

I apologize for the length of this response, but it takes a lot longer to
clean up a mess than make one.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 3:42:00 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Connally said he was hit by a different bullet:
>
> Henry knows that. He's just hoping no one else does.

Hank doesn't know that.

Connally said he was hit by the second bullet. He admitted to the HSCA he
might have been hit by the same bullet as the President, if the President
was also hit by the second bullet. He admitted he had no personal
knowledge of when the President was hit. He attributed that belief quite
clearly to his wife, Nelly.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. CONNALLY. I would have to volunteer the very, very strong opinion, I know much has been written, much has been discussed, I was being a participant, I can only give you my impressions, but I must say you, as I said to the Warren Commission, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet: Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. We obviously weren't hit by the third bullet. I was down reclining in her lap at the time the third bullet hit.
Mr. CORNWELL. I am sorry, I didn't understand one statement. You said Mrs. Connally doesn't agree it was the second bullet or the same bullet?
Mr. CONNALLY. The second bullet.
Mrs. CONNALLY. That what?
Mr. CONNALLY. That hit me. That hit him and me--
Mrs. CONNALLY. No; I heard three shots, I had three reactions, three separate reactions. The first shot, then I looked and saw the President, the second shot, John, and third, all this matter all over us.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you agree that your recollection is it was the second shot that hit the Governor?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I know it was the second shot that hit the Governor.
Mr. CORNWELL. And, where you disagree is as to the possibility or the question of whether or not it was the same bullet that hit, is that accurate, in other words, the Governor has no knowledge on that subject matter, would that be accurate, since you didn't turn around to see the President, after the first noise, you don't know whether he was hit and Mrs. Connally's recollection is that she did turn and saw him hold his throat before you were hit, is that accurate?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I did.
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit.
== UNQUOTE ==

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

No, he didn't see the President, according to his testimony, already
quoted. He therefore didn't see the President had slumped.

>
> > assassination. Was he accepting and repeating hearsay from Nellie? Is that
>
> No, you mean in his hospital bed?

No, what? He never saw the President, he said.

Just tell me what expert testified to this before the Warren Commission
and / or HSCA, and we can discuss further.

But if this is your view, then nobody cares. You're not a qualified expert
and have no standing here.

>
> > was found in the President's body at autopsy. What caused the throat wound
>
> Please diagram the trajectory otf CE399.
> <crickets>
>
> > seen at Parkland (or the back wound seen at autopsy, if you believe the
> > throat wound was the wound inflicted during the shooting)? Or do you
>
> Yes, from the back not from the back of the neck. The oly way to connect
> the two is with a deflection.

The autopsy doctors and the HSCA review panel experts disagree with your
assessment.

>
> > believe there were both a throat wound and a back wound inflicted during
> > the shooting? In that case, what happened to those two bullets, as none
> > were found in the body?
> >
>
> What happened to the bullet from your miss? Why don't you go down to
> Dallas and dig it up?

A bullet can travel for miles. There is no way to recover that missing
bullet, if indeed even one miss was fired.

>
> > Question: Approximately when in the Zapruder film was this wound (or these
> > wounds) inflicted on the President?
> >
>
> Z-09/210 + Z-312.6. Approximately.

Not sure what that means.

>
> > Question: Approximately when in the Zapruder film was the wounds inflicted
> > on the Governor? One bullet or multiple? Was this at Z224, or some other
> > frame(s) (please be as specific as possible).
> >
>
> Z-230, approximately.
> Maybe also Z-328, approximtely.

So two shots on the Governor? That conflicts with the testimony of the
Governor and his wife.

>
> > Question: Does the Governor ever look back at the President before he is
> > struck? Did he affirm or deny in his testimony he never saw the President?
>
> Yes.

Yes, what? Are you answering the first question or the second?

>
> > Can you observe the Governor looking back before he's struck in the
> > Z-film?
> > His earliest statement said he looked back and THEN HE was struck.
> Witnesses are unreliable, but most people know when they are hit by a
> bullet.

They know when they are struck in real life, but can you tell me if they
can pick out the right time in the film of the shooting?

That's what's pertinent here, not that the Governor knew he was struck at
the moment while he was riding in the limo... it's whether he could look
at a jiggly film (not motion corrected and stabilized) and pick out when
the bullet could strike him. You know he could do this accurately why?

>
> > Question: Can the Governor affirm from his own experience when the
> > President was wounded, or was he relying on what he heard from another
> > witness (and reaching a conclusion from that hearsay)?
> >
>
> He WAS there, you were not.

Not my question. Try answering my question.

>
> > Question: When does Nellie look back at the President? Does she look back
> > before or after the Governor is struck, in your scenario? What does the
> > Z-film show?
> >
>
> We don't need Nellie.

You need Nellie because the Governor said he never saw the President.

== QUOTE ==
Governor CONNALLY. We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
== UNQUOTE ==

>
> > Question: What shot inflicted the Tague wound? Why was no copper found in
> > the curb smear?
> >
>
> Maybe the last shot. He was not hit directly.
> I suspect it was the missing lead core from the base fragment.
>
>
> > Now, I will tell you how I reconstruct the event and the questions above
> > and I will appreciate it if you answer them as well.
> >
> > A) I am unsure as to whether there were three or two bullets fired during
> > the assassination. If three, then I believe the first shot missed and was
> > never recovered. I do not believe this bullet inflicted the Tague wound.
> > This shot (if fired) came about frame 160-166 and missed the limo
> > entirely.
> >
> > B) The second bullet (or the first, if the one above was never fired)
> > struck the President in the back and exited his throat, nicking his tie,
> > and started to rotate. It struck the Governor in the upper right back and
>
> False. He was not hit in the back. Connally was hit in the right armpit.
> If you don't understand the difference, go see a doctor.
>
> > caused all his wounds. It was recovered in Parkland and entered into
>
> Including the wrist and the leg? Please diagram that path for me.
> Do you think he caught it in midair and put it in his pcocket?
> One guy thinks it fell out into his pants cuff.

Dr. Shires diagrammed it for you. See his exhibit 5.

>
> > evidence as Commission Exhibit 399. That bullet was ballistically
> > traceable to (and fired from) Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other
> > weapons in the world. This bullet did all the damage to the two men in
> > approximately Zapruder frame 224.
> >
>
> Connally said he was hit later, like Z-230.

So what? He wasn't looking at a stabilized blown-up version of the Z-film.
He was doing the best he could looking at still frames and a jiggly film.

>
> > C) The third bullet (or the second, if the one in A was never fired) hit
> > the President in the rear of the head at Zapruder frame 313 (actually just
> > before this frame), exiting the top right side of the President's head.
>
> Z-312.6.
>
> > Two large fragments comprising the bulk of the copper jacket were
> > recovered in the limo on the evening of the assassination. Those fragments
> > were ballistically traceable to (and fired from) Oswald's rifle to the
> > exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The bulk of the lead core
> > separated from the copper jacket, exited the head, and struck the curb and
> > then James Tague.
> >
>
> Almost. In addition to the middle of the bullet which went missing you
> also have to account for the lead core of the base fragment which was
> only the copper jacket.

What part of "The bulk of the lead core separated from the copper jacket,
exited the head, and struck the curb and then James Tague" didn't you
understand?

>
> > I don't see Nellie Connally turning and looking back at the President
> > until after the wound on both men (in B above) was inflicted at Z224. This
> > is very pertinent, because if she only looks back at the President after
> > her husband is already struck, then her recollection of the event is
> > inaccurate and shouldn't be relied on. When she first looks at the
> > President and realizes he is reacting to a bullet wound, she gains the
> > impression he is reacting to the first shot. She doesn't realize her
> > husband is also struck at this time. She then realizes her husband is
> > struck and believes it was caused by the second bullet. And finally, of
> > course, she's ducking and pulling her husband down at the time of the
> > third shot. But if she never saw the President until after her husband is
> > wounded, then her belief that the first bullet struck the President and
> > the second hit the Governor is flawed by her perception of the event, not
> > the reality. Is what I am saying unclear to you? Let me know.
> >
> > How do you reconstruct the event? How many shots? Does Nellie see the
> > President between the first and second shots? See (and please answer) the
> > questions above.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Hank
> >
> > PS: I apologize for the length of this response and any redundancy therein
> > in advance.
> >
>
> Not long enough for me. You did not account for the lead missing from
> the base fragment.

What part of "The bulk of the lead core separated from the copper jacket,
exited the head, and struck the curb and then James Tague" didn't you
understand?

Hank

[BT George]

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 7:16:14 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> There's a lot to parse in your post so I'll try and make it brief, because
> you like to use a lot of loquacity to fool people into thinking you're
> saying anything.
>
>
> >
> > The Governor denied seeing the President in his Warren Commission
> > testimony.
> >
> > If he never saw the President, he doesn't know from his own personal
> > knowledge (as an eyewitness) when the President was struck, and he doesn't
> > know what happened as a result of the first shot.
>
> And so just like Specter and the Warren Commission, Henry has decided what
> people who were there know from what they don't know. He doesn't consider
> several factors which I'll include shortly. And as for eyewitnesses, they
> are not to be believed either. Such as Marrion Baker, whom I mentioned:
>
> Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that
> you remember?
> Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two
> shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
>

Testimony is only *legal* evidence to the extent it is admitted *as* such.
So in order for you to appeal to this as *legal* "evidence" you must be
willing to adhere to the rules that govern it. That would include that
hearsay (testifying as to what someone else told you) is *not* normally
considered valid as *legal* evidence. CT's are forever complaining about
LHO's lack of a trial as proof he was innocent, but if he had, had his day
in court, it's likely most of the hearsay would have been barred, though
there are several exceptions:

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

But from the above, this statement might qualify as:


Most Common Hearsay Exceptions:

1. Present Sense Impression. "A hearsay statement may be allowed if it
describes or explains an event or condition and was made during the
event or immediately after it."

Regardless, any hearsay's value must be considered more meaningful when
supported by other forms of evidence. (E.g., the person saying it admits
to it/there is other *hard* and *circumstantial* evidence that support
it.) We shall return to the latter in a minute, and address your
complaint about Marina's testimony being allowed.

>
> Now even though this is direct testimony to the Warren Commission, you
> don't consider it evidence for whatever imagined illegitimacy you can
> dream up. But it doesn't matter whether it's hearsay or not, because this,
> and Nellie, and the governor, are the pieces of testimony they would have
> had to rely on to reconstruct what happened that day. And they clearly
> didn't. So in other words, they simply ignored testimony which did not fit
> the narrative they were trying to put together, and I've now provided
> three examples of proof of this FACT. They instead opted to push the SBT,
> which Specter intended as a hypothetical placeholder until it was adopted
> as truth, and was/is **entirely speculative** and not based on available
> testimony.
>
> Maybe they should have just interviewed Chaney, instead of someone who
> knew Oswald in junior high.
>
>
> >
> > Anything the Governor heard from his wife about what she saw is hearsay,
> > and is not admissible.
>
> Not "admissible" to who? Are you referring to the court case that never
> happened? Or have you just decided which testimony you like from which you
> don't?
>

See above, and below.

> >
> > Any conclusions he drew based on what she told him
> > is a conclusion he reached, it's not anything he witnessed and can attest
> > to.
>
> Now this is funny, because you are fully aware these are the exact
> standards by which Oswald was found guilty of the Walker shooting:
> conclusions based on what his wife told them but didn't witness herself or
> could attest to.
>

Hmmm. Remember what I said about other exceptions? From the above line,
this *one* comes into play on this issue:

Hearsay Exceptions if the Declarant is Unavailable to Testify in Court:

4. The declarant is either dead or has a physical or mental illness the
prevents testimony...

Oz was dead, therefore hearsay about what he told Marina (who probably
would have been barred on the Spousal Privilege rules if he had been
alive) was perfectly available for consideration. And your
characterizations aside, the weight accorded to to this hearsay should be
considered *inherently* superior to the example you gave unless the same
level of *other* corroborations existed for it. Oz may not have ever
admitted to what he told her, but there were other *solid* corroborations
to back up her claims.

(Just one example from the below link, is the note he left for her
testified by recognized handwriting experts to be in his own hand.):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt

So tell me again why we ought to *ignore* her *explanation* that *best*
ties together those other known facts about the case?

> Zip up your fly, Henry...your double standards are showing.
>

...I recommend you make sure you leave nothing dangling before you address
yours. :-)

>
> >
> > Expert witnesses can draw conclusions and testify to what those
> > conclusions are.
>
> LNers don't believe expert witnesses. Too bad, you really should catch up
> on some exchanges in the other forum. You'd know that if you did.
>

LOL! That *this* comes from the mouth of a CT is *incredibly* rich.
Virtually the entire CT effort is about debunking the conclusions of
*multiple* expert bodies that have supported the *salient* conclusions of
the WC!

> >
> > Eyewitnesses can only testify to what they personally
> > observed.
>
> You don't believe eyewitnesses either. There's more examples of this than
> can be counted. But we shall focus on Nellie for now.
>

And for sure "Boris" believes them when they do things like *positively*
ID Oz as a shooter, or testify of their *expert* findings based on the
*evidence* tested!

> >
> > You're citing his conclusion as if it's meaningful and
> > admissible. It's not. So I don't consider that.
>
> If you had any idea how little I thought of what you'd "consider", you
> wouldn't have written anything so laughable. I, on the other hand, find
> the opinion of someone who was there and who was shot more meaningful than
> some Internet disinformationalist. What to believe? Connally's personal
> firsthand experience....or Henry's "belief," based on a report which did
> not consider any evidence or testimony contrary to a linear narrative.
>

Ahhh. There "Boris" goes again. Asserting that someone he disagrees with
is an Internet "disinformationalist". Tell me "Boris" what's the going
rate that "they" pay LN's these days to spread "disinformation"? And
*more* importantly, for the love of all that is good and right, please,
please, please tell me *exactly* WHERE I need to go in order to get my
cut?!?

...After all, it's foolish to continue believing the *best* facts and
evidence for free when there's actual money to be had for doing so!

>
> >
> > And did Nellie turn in time to witness what she says she did? (again, more
> > on this below).
>
> Let's deal with this now. The Stemmons sign is neither your friend or
> mine, but let's work with what we have. Because of that sign we don't know
> exactly when the shot was fired, but we know his hands were to his neck
> when they emerged. And, in fact, at this time Nellie was looking north (at
> her husband). This is most evident when looking at frame 238 and the
> frames directly preceding it.
>
> Now do you assume she had no periphery vision? And do you assume that
> between her periphery and the added advantage of real-time audio (which
> the Z-film does not afford), she is neither credible enough or intelligent
> enough to piece together this firsthand information in a way which
> simulates her personal experience? Why do you assume she doesn't know what
> she claims? And why would she claim what she doesn't know?
>

You're actually close on this one "Boris". Indeed if you look at what I
linked to of the exchanges between me and Harris, I raised some of the
same points. *His* problem, was that her *first day* recollections argued
*against* her describing the first missed shot, and *towards* her
describing the (in Harris' mind "silencer suppressed") SBT shot. *Your*
problem, is that she seemed to be describing the wounding of Connally at a
time we *know* it didn't happen, both based on the Z-film (not to mention
his *own* testimonial timeline and that of Jackie Kennedy). Attend:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/FnNOJIURCm8/i3YmK35K6ckJ

(Any emphasis mine.)

"Then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. It came from the back. I turned
and looked at the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and
sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him.
There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise
was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the
President had not only been shot but could be dead.

Quickly there was a *second* shot ... *I reached over and pulled [John] to
me and tried to get us both down in the car.* Then came a third shot.."



Now "Boris", at what point in the Z film do we see Nellie perform the
action she said she did in reaction to the "second"shot?

...I hate to admit it, but Bob's own link to a good quality slo-mo of the
Z film is a pretty good study enhancement:

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

I say it's not before sometime in the 290's. So do you *seriously* think
looking at the Z film--and comparing his testimony and Jackie's (remember,
as can be seen *clearly* in the Z Film, she testified that she was so
transfixed at why the Governor was carrying on that she didn't at first
notice what happened to her own husband)---that Nellie was *accurate* in
assessing that the Governor was wounded so shortly before she began to
pull him down?

So as I told Harris, her "second" shot appears to be either a case of her
mind inserting an expected sound to go with the visual impression she got
of his being wounded at that moment, or perhaps, she had simply conflated
the sound of the first shot she heard with Kennedy's wounding and the
second (SBT) shot with the "later" *perceived* wounding of her husband.

>
> >
> > Separate from that, let me see if I understand the scenario you're
> > advancing here, because there are some questions about it I would
> > appreciate if you would answer. Thanks in advance:
> >
> > 1. You apparently believe the first shot hit the President, based on
> > Nellie Connally's testimony.
>
> No, the first shot was likely the ricochet off the pavement when the limo
> made the Houston/Elm turn, at a time which several witnesses described
> hearing something like "fireworks".
>

Wow! We *can* agree on what may have happened sometimes.

> >
> > 2. You also believe the second shot hit the Governor, based on the
> > Connally's (John & Nellie's) testimony.
>
> At least one shot hit the governor.
>

Duh.

> >
> > 3. And you believe the third shot hit the President in the head, based on
> > their testimony.
>
> I don't think I need anyone's testimony to "believe" a shot hit him in the
> head.
>

I think you should. After all, you *insist* on ignoring the evidence of
your *eyes* when looking at the men's simultaneous actions in the next few
frames after they came back in view from the Stemmons sign in favor of
witness testimony. So if the consensus of witnesses testified JFK actually
looked like he was shot in the heart, you should be compelled by your own
logic to assume the visually obvious on the Z film cannot be relied upon.

> >
> > Do I understand all that correctly? Do you believe there were more than
> > three shots, or does the above account for all of them?
> >
> > Okay, now comes the hard part, trying to make that scenario fit the known
> > evidence.
>
> Oh, it couldn't be that hard, Henry. The DPD had it figured out in 85
> minutes. And Katzenbach, the next day.
>

Looks like a dodge to me "Boris". What prevents you from spelling out
*your* shooting scenario, and then showing how it *better* fits the
evidence?

> But let's digress a minute, because there's a lot of known evidence which
> I theoretically could ask you to support your scenario in return. Here's
> just a VERY small sample:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9pPHYlVUIls/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ
>

Answer *his* challenge first, them maybe Hank will feel compelled to
address your attempt to shift the issue. He has laid out a *very*
compelling shooting scenario that takes account of all the known evidence,
so he has already carried his burden and is only asking of you that you do
the same thing. He's neither dodged you, nor asserted an unwarranted "this
is the accepted position, so I don't have anything to defend" argument."
So *go for it* "Boris".

> Now I'm not asking you to debunk each one. There's simply too much, and
> that's not even a fraction of the evidence which contradicts YOUR
> scenario. What my point is, is that asking me to speculate is equally
> pointless. It would make me, in effect, a one-man Warren Commission.

IOW, Hank was up to proposing a workable shooting scenario, but you
aren't. ...Got it.

And
> I'm not going to answer a series of rhetorical questions you already know
> the answer to. For instance, you know Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt
> to Captain Stover regarding a "missile" removed by Humes. And you know Dr.
> James Young (rather, his assistants) found a bullet in the Queen Mary. And
> you know the Stemmons sign precludes *anyone* from knowing when the first
> on-target bullet struck.
>

First things first. Address your dodge and then you may have a point.

> So what's the point of your questions? To prove that no one knows?

>

It "proves" nothing *except* that it is a credible, entirely *logical*,
and even *likely* shooting scenario that takes into account the most
*compelling* forms of evidence available in this case. Your failure to
offer an alternative speaks *volumes* about your inability to do likewise.

Then
> what makes the Warren Commission different?

They utilized logic and reason, *hard* evidence, and *powerful*
circumstantial evidence to outline and *entirely* credible conclusion that
*best* accounted for the *known* or *likely* facts. Your side? ...Not so
much.

[Anthony Marsh]

False. He said rhat he SAW that Kennedy had slumped.

[Anthony Marsh]

we need 4 or 5 frames to see a reaction, so you think they were shot at
221/22.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

That is funny. But I heard that one before, so not as funny as the first
time you claimed that.

If you look immediately below, you will be able to read that Connally
testified he did NOT see the President during the shooting sequence. It's
funny that you keep repeating the same false assertions even after you've
been provided evidence they are false. Here's his testimony to the Warren
Commission:

:::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK ::::::

> > == QUOTE ==
> > Governor CONNALLY. We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
> > So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
> > == UNQUOTE ==

:::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK :::::: LOOK ::::::

He failed to see him when he heard the first shot, then failed to see him after the first shot up through the time of the second shot. Here's more of his testimony, picking up from the point above:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.
== UNQUOTE ==

So when Connally testified to the Warren Commission, "...and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots..." was he lying?

And when he reiterated that in his testimony to the HSCA, was he lying then as well:
== QUOTE ==

Mr. CORNWELL. And, where you disagree is as to the possibility or the question of whether or not it was the same bullet that hit, is that accurate, in other words, the Governor has no knowledge on that subject matter, would that be accurate, since you didn't turn around to see the President, after the first noise, you don't know whether he was hit and Mrs. Connally's recollection is that she did turn and saw him hold his throat before you were hit, is that accurate?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I did.
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit.
== UNQUOTE ==

Or are you simply wrong to assert Connally saw the President slump?

Don't bother responding. We know you're wrong. We also know you will never accept the plain testimony of the Governor and will continue to insist he saw the President slump.

[Mark]

I see Marsh never did bother to resond. I would have. If I had a good
answer. He doesn't.

BD has tried to explain the evidence on this issue to him since I've been
on here.

I began see a pattern.

It was hard to miss it after Marsh let us know what he believed about the
curtain rods, Oswald's "conversation" with Mrs. Reid, Frank Bender and the
cigarettes, a CIA rogue hit squad, Oswald's strapless M-1 Garand, the
Warren Commission's liberal staffers were a bunch of fake liars, and . . .
I could go on but I don't think I need to.

It's like trying to talk to a 1960s regurgitating robot.

Mark

[bigdog]

I missed this when you first posted this but Mark's reply has bumped this
thread back up. If we accept 200 milliseconds as the amount of time
required for a startle reaction and each frame of the Z-film equates to 55
milliseconds, that's 3.6 frames so it would be 3 or 4 frames, not 4 or 5.
A reaction at 226 would mean a strike in the 222/223 time frame. Given the
limitations of the Z-film, only 18.3 frames per second, that's as precise
as we can get.