Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

IMO, Mistake in the Anti-SBT Argument

18 views
Skip to first unread message

black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2005, 10:24:18 AM4/19/05
to
I just rewatched Groden's "The Assassination Films" DVD (also referred
to on the case as "The Assassination Files". Some great footage here.

Groden narrates as the car emerges from behind the sign that Kennedy is
hit, Connally is not. It is often stated in even stronger trems, like
this:

As the car emerges from behind the sign, Kennedy is OBVIOUSLY hit but
Connally is OBVIOUSLY unhit.

It may have looked that way in stills or on tenth generation film
copies, but it sure doesn't look that way in Groden's Weitzman copy or
the IOAA version. To my eye, they both seem to lurch at the same time,
beginning at about Z-223.

But even today, much of the anti-SBT argument is predicated on this
JFK-hit, JBC-unhit interpretation.


Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 19, 2005, 2:10:10 PM4/19/05
to
On 19 Apr 2005 10:24:18 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
<black...@aol.com> wrote:

Hiya,

JFK isn't visible at 223. Look at 225. Do you see that JFK is already
in a reactive posture? Compare to Connally. And what's Jackie looking
at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.

Hmmmm.

Barb :-)
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 19, 2005, 2:30:16 PM4/19/05
to
black...@aol.com wrote:

Interesting. Of course you realize, I hope, that we can see part of
Connally before we see the President. So, according to the newest SBT
Connally emerges at Z-223 and then is hit at Z-224. Kennedy is not yet
completely visible so he had supposedly already been hit before we can
see him completely.

black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 19, 2005, 7:51:44 PM4/19/05
to

Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> JFK isn't visible at 223.

It looks to me like Connally is starting what I see as a lurch of both
men at ABOUT 223. (Hard to be precise.)

Look at 225. Do you see that JFK is already
> in a reactive posture?

Yes and no. His movements suggest that he might be reacting to
something. Gunshot? Previous gunshot? I can't say what he is reacting
to.

In still frame, things are not easy to interpret. In motion, they both
seem (to me) to lurch at the same time. Thus, I think the previously
cited anti-SBT argument is flawed by postulating absolutes about the
film that are not so absolute.

Compare to Connally.

In still frame, one can see frames where JFK appears to be reacting and
JBC does not. But in motion, I see them reacting together.

And what's Jackie looking
> at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.

To my eye, she is looking at JFK. Did he exclaim in some way?
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> Barb :-)
> >


black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2005, 12:31:29 AM4/20/05
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Interesting. Of course you realize, I hope, that we can see part of
> Connally before we see the President. So, according to the newest SBT
> Connally emerges at Z-223 and then is hit at Z-224. Kennedy is not yet
> completely visible so he had supposedly already been hit before we can
> see him completely.

The question is not: At which precise frame were they hit? It is, do they
react at the same time, or close enough for it to be one bullet? To my
eye, the DO react at the same time. It is easier to see in motion than in
still frame. And Groden's optical rotoscope version makes it even more
apparent.


JOHN LARRABEE

unread,
Apr 20, 2005, 12:42:41 AM4/20/05
to

<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113938532....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> > JFK isn't visible at 223.
>
> It looks to me like Connally is starting what I see as a lurch of both
> men at ABOUT 223. (Hard to be precise.)
>
> Look at 225. Do you see that JFK is already
> > in a reactive posture?
>
> Yes and no. His movements suggest that he might be reacting to
> something. Gunshot? Previous gunshot? I can't say what he is reacting
> to.
>
> In still frame, things are not easy to interpret. In motion, they both
> seem (to me) to lurch at the same time. Thus, I think the previously
> cited anti-SBT argument is flawed by postulating absolutes about the
> film that are not so absolute.
>
> Compare to Connally.
>
> In still frame, one can see frames where JFK appears to be reacting and
> JBC does not. But in motion, I see them reacting together.

Just a few comments from a frequent lurker. I've always contended that
the Z-film should be viewed at full speed to answer some questions and
studied frame-by-frame to answer others. Looking at one frame at a time,
it's nearly impossible to pinpoint when JBC was hit. When viewing the
film in motion, it certainly looks to me as if they are hit at the same
moment. Say "bang!" the split-second they emerge from behind the sign and
note their simultaneous reactions.

BTW, when JBC stated he was hit at about Z-230, was he looking at still
frames or the film in motion?

> And what's Jackie looking
> > at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.
>
> To my eye, she is looking at JFK. Did he exclaim in some way?

Excuse the graphic imagery, but I've often thought there is a moment when
JFK appears to be spitting up some blood.

> >
> > Hmmmm.
> >
> > Barb :-)

train

unread,
Apr 20, 2005, 12:46:15 AM4/20/05
to
It can be interpreted either way. To some it looks like a double hit
(JFK & Connally)=SBT. To others, the late Gov is startled from the
sound of gunfire.
The late Gov picked a spot where he was hit back in 1966 for Life
magazine that is about a second from when JFK is first visible emerging
from the sign.
For me, Nellie Connally is the best witness on this. If you match her
version of events to the Z-film, shot 1 hits JFK around Z-223/224 (as
jfk emerges from the sign). Shot 2 hits the late Govenor at around
Z-290. Shot 3 is the shot that killed JFK at Z-313.
Either 2 or more shooters or someone firing from the rear with an
automatic rifle (solo or in conjunction with the MC). Don't forget the
grassy knoll shooter.
No one will ever agree on this, but I believe Nellie has the best grip
on the reality of the situation. The assination occured in just a few
seconds, in real-time, not in frame by frame, not in slow motion, not
in freeze frame. Real time


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 20, 2005, 2:00:19 PM4/20/05
to
black...@aol.com wrote:


OK. Let's examine your concept. Connally is seen to be reacting to a
shot which you think happened at Z-224, according to Lattimer's theory.
But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225 which means the
shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222. The bullet
can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then Connally
at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.

black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 20, 2005, 11:24:08 PM4/20/05
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:

> OK. Let's examine your concept.

Fair enough.

Connally is seen to be reacting to a
> shot which you think happened at Z-224

No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS to
start at around 223.

, according to Lattimer's theory.
> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225

Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.

which means the
> shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.

You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.

The bullet
> can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
Connally
> at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?


Mike Bull

unread,
Apr 20, 2005, 11:33:25 PM4/20/05
to

<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113938532....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>


I think there is no doubt she is looking at JFK -- she is reacting to
him showing distress.

Mike :-)

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Apr 20, 2005, 11:34:09 PM4/20/05
to

On 19 Apr 2005 10:24:18 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
<black...@aol.com> wrote:

Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.

Al.

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 1:07:35 AM4/21/05
to
On 20 Apr 2005 23:33:25 -0400, "Mike Bull"
<michaela...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Agreed! And she achieved that stance...and maintained it .... by about
Z207, as her hat indicates while she is behind the sign. JFK, imo, had
already been hit, she was looking at him trying to figure out what was
wrong (her testimony that he had a puzzled look on his face, like he
might have a slight headache, perhaps).....

Barb :-)
>
>
>
> Mike :-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 1:13:58 AM4/21/05
to
On 20 Apr 2005 23:24:08 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
<black...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> OK. Let's examine your concept.
>
>Fair enough.
>
> Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>> shot which you think happened at Z-224
>
>No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS to
>start at around 223.

What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
lurch?

JFK isn't visible in 223.


>
>, according to Lattimer's theory.
>> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>
>Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
>being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.

Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
like they are "reacting" at the same time.


>
> which means the
>> shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
>
>You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
>backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.

The problem with that is that, as ITEK and others have noted, JFK is
already reacting when he becomes visible .... but Connally is
NOT...and Connally is visible frames before JFK. And then there's
Jackie .... already clearly looking at JFK with concern when *she*
first becomes visible, also a few frames before JFK appears.


>
> The bullet
>> can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
>Connally
>> at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
>
>Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
>reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?

If you are going to posit only a 1/9 sec difference in reaction
between the 2 men, then you are positing that JFK is not only shot but
is also seen to have made *visible* major muscle movements all within
that same frame. Impossible.

And then you are also ignoring Jackie.

Barb :-)
>

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 1:15:52 AM4/21/05
to
On 20 Apr 2005 23:34:09 -0400, Brandon Alexander <bank...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
:-)

Barb :-)
>
>Al.

black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 11:50:49 AM4/21/05
to

Blackburst: THAT's what I am disgreeing with, that JFK is reacting TO
AN INSHOOT while JBC is not.


black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 11:50:21 AM4/21/05
to
MY COMMENTS IN CAPS FOR CLARITY - I AM NOT SHOUTING!

Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2005 23:24:08 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> OK. Let's examine your concept.
> >
> >Fair enough.
> >
> > Connally is seen to be reacting to a
> >> shot which you think happened at Z-224
> >
> >No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
to
> >start at around 223.
>
> What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
> lurch?

IT IS SOMETHING I SEE ONLY IN MOTION, NOT IN STILL. HARD TO DESCRIBE.
HE SEEMS TO STIFFEN UP, HIS HAT SEEMS TO FLIP.


>
> JFK isn't visible in 223.

CONNALLY SEEMS TO START THIS MOTION AROUND 223. BOTH HE AND JFK SEEM TO
BE CONTINUING THAT MOTION IN SUBSEQUENT FRAMES. AGAIN, AS IT IS A
MOTION SPANNING SEVERAL FRAMES, IT IS HARD TO PICK A START OR END
POINT. I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRODEN ROTOSCOPE VERSION, IN
MOTION.


> >
> >, according to Lattimer's theory.
> >> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
> >
> >Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
> >being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>
> Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
> either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
> like they are "reacting" at the same time.

I DO SEE JFK MAKING SOME KIND OF MOTION AS HE GOES BEHIND THE SIGN, BUT
IT MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION TO A SOUND. BUT JUST AS THEY EMERGE, BOTH
SEEM TO REACT IN SUCH AN EXAGGERATED WAY THAT I THINK THIS COULD BE A
SIMULTANEOUS REACTION TO A SHOT.

JUST AN OPINION, FROM SOMEONE WHO ONCE THOUGHT I SAW TWO SEPARATE
REACTIONS IN MURKY VERSIONS OF THE FILM. THE CLEARER IT GETS, THE MORE
IT LOOKS SIMULTANEOUS TO ME. AND GRODEN'S "TRIPOD" ROTOSCOPE VERSION
TAKES A LOT OF DISTRACTING JITTER OUT.


> >
> > which means the
> >> shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
> >
> >You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
> >backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
>
> The problem with that is that, as ITEK and others have noted, JFK is
> already reacting when he becomes visible

QUITE POSSIBLE, BUT REACTING TO WHAT? MAYBE A MISSED SHOT? I THINK IT
IS POSSIBLE THAT THE "END" OF JFK'S STARTLE REACTION OVERLAPPED HIS
REACTION TO BEING HIT.
.... but Connally is
> NOT

CAPS ASIDE, I THINK HE LURCHES JUST AS HE COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE
SIGN.

...and Connally is visible frames before JFK. And then there's
> Jackie .... already clearly looking at JFK with concern when *she*
> first becomes visible, also a few frames before JFK appears.

BUT SHE COULD ALSO BE STARTLED BY A MISSED SHOT, LOOKING TO HIM TO SAY
WHASSUP?


> >
> > The bullet
> >> can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
> >Connally
> >> at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
> >
> >Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
> >reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
>
> If you are going to posit only a 1/9 sec difference in reaction
> between the 2 men, then you are positing that JFK is not only shot
but
> is also seen to have made *visible* major muscle movements all within
> that same frame. Impossible.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. I WAS USING ANTHONY'S FRAME OF
REFERENCE.

I SEE THEM LURCH AT THE SAME TIME.

JFK'S PRIOR REACTION MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION, "UNDERLAPPING" THE
ACTUAL STRIKE.

EVEN IF WE COULD PINPOINT EXACT FRAMES WHEN REACTIONS COMMENCED, A
DIFFERENCE OF A SECOND OR LESS WOULD NOT PRECLUDE A SINGLE SHOT.


>
> And then you are also ignoring Jackie.

SEE ABOVE. I THINK YOU ARE READING MORE INTO HER LOOKING AT HIM THAN
THE EVIDENCE REQUIRES. COULD SHE HAVE LOOKED HIS WAY FOR ANOTHER REASON
- STARTLED, PERHAPS?


I DIDN'T START THIS THREAD TO DISCREDIT THE ANTI-SBT ARGUMENT. I STILL
AM AMAZED THAT 399 HAD SUCH MINIMAL DAMAGE AND LOSS OF MASS. AND THERE
ARE TRAJECTORY ISSUES. BUT ONE OF THE CENTRAL POINTS OF THE ANTI-SBT
ARGUMENT IS THAT THEY APPEAR TO BE HIT BY SEPARATE BULLETS. I AM
CONTESTING THAT, SAYING, "NO, CLEARER COPIES OF THE FILM DO SEEM TO
SHOW THEM LURCH AT THE SAME TIME", WEAKENING THAT PART OF THE ARGUMENT.


Lab4man

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 6:55:51 PM4/21/05
to

<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114096634.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

But that would preclude Oswald making two shots so quickly that the startle
reaction is still in progress when the second shot is fired.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 6:56:15 PM4/21/05
to
black...@aol.com wrote:
> MY COMMENTS IN CAPS FOR CLARITY - I AM NOT SHOUTING!
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
>>On 20 Apr 2005 23:24:08 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
>><black...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK. Let's examine your concept.
>>>
>>>Fair enough.
>>>
>>>Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>>>
>>>>shot which you think happened at Z-224
>>>
>>>No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
>
> to
>
>>>start at around 223.
>>
>>What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
>>lurch?
>
>
> IT IS SOMETHING I SEE ONLY IN MOTION, NOT IN STILL. HARD TO DESCRIBE.
> HE SEEMS TO STIFFEN UP, HIS HAT SEEMS TO FLIP.
>
>>JFK isn't visible in 223.
>
>
> CONNALLY SEEMS TO START THIS MOTION AROUND 223. BOTH HE AND JFK SEEM TO
> BE CONTINUING THAT MOTION IN SUBSEQUENT FRAMES. AGAIN, AS IT IS A
> MOTION SPANNING SEVERAL FRAMES, IT IS HARD TO PICK A START OR END
> POINT. I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRODEN ROTOSCOPE VERSION, IN
> MOTION.
>

If you think that Connally is reacting at Z-223, then that means that
the bullet hit him several frames earlier. So how do you then explain
the apparent lapel flip which Lattimer and others say proves that
Connally was hit at Z-224?

>>>, according to Lattimer's theory.
>>>
>>>>But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>>>
>>>Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
>>>being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>>
>>Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
>>either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
>>like they are "reacting" at the same time.
>
>
> I DO SEE JFK MAKING SOME KIND OF MOTION AS HE GOES BEHIND THE SIGN, BUT
> IT MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION TO A SOUND. BUT JUST AS THEY EMERGE, BOTH
> SEEM TO REACT IN SUCH AN EXAGGERATED WAY THAT I THINK THIS COULD BE A
> SIMULTANEOUS REACTION TO A SHOT.

Just as the HSCA said that they saw a reaction which they believed was
to a shot at Z-190. That might have been a reaction to HEARING an
earlier shot, not to being hit by a bullet.

>
> JUST AN OPINION, FROM SOMEONE WHO ONCE THOUGHT I SAW TWO SEPARATE
> REACTIONS IN MURKY VERSIONS OF THE FILM. THE CLEARER IT GETS, THE MORE
> IT LOOKS SIMULTANEOUS TO ME. AND GRODEN'S "TRIPOD" ROTOSCOPE VERSION
> TAKES A LOT OF DISTRACTING JITTER OUT.
>

But that distracting jitter leads to the jiggle analysis which fits in
quite well with JFK being hit at Z-210 and Connally at Z-230.

Only if you accept the FBI and WC fiction about the condition of CE 399.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 6:58:31 PM4/21/05
to
black...@aol.com wrote:

> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>
>>OK. Let's examine your concept.
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>
>>shot which you think happened at Z-224
>
>
> No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS to
> start at around 223.
>

Let me get this straight. You claim to see a lurch by President Kennedy
at Z-223?
You seem to be extraordinary researcher. Are you blessed with X-ray vision?

> , according to Lattimer's theory.
>
>>But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>
>
> Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
> being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.

Reacting to the excitement of a couple of his cervical vertebrae by the
close passage of a bullet.
His right hand jerking up quickly.

>
> which means the
>
>>shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
>
>
> You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
> backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
>

Not exactly. I could not pinpoint the exact frame numbers until I did
further analysis on the acoustical evidence. It was just coincidental
that it worked out to be Kennedy hit at Z-210 ( the earliest possible
frame according to the WC) and Connally hit at Z-230 (which is about
when he thought he was hit). Don Thomas's timing places a SBT shot
hitting both men at Z-224.

> The bullet
>
>>can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
>
> Connally
>
>>at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
>
>
> Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
> reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
>

Yes. The bullet will go through both men in less time than that.

>

Steve

unread,
Apr 21, 2005, 6:59:24 PM4/21/05
to
Just a few comments from a frequent lurker. I've always contended that

the Z-film should be viewed at full speed to answer some questions and
studied frame-by-frame to answer others.

SB: This is a very good point! Thanks!


Looking at one frame at a time,
it's nearly impossible to pinpoint when JBC was hit. When viewing the
film in motion, it certainly looks to me as if they are hit at the same

moment. Say "bang!" the split-second they emerge from behind the sign
and
note their simultaneous reactions.

SB: another excellent point, and I agree!

BTW, when JBC stated he was hit at about Z-230, was he looking at still

frames or the film in motion?

SB: Excellent question. He was examining blow ups of singular frames
from the film, which, as you pointed out, when viewing the film in
single frames, one can obviously reach differnt conclusions than when
viewing the film at correct speed.

> And what's Jackie looking
> > at? Now look at Jackie in 221 and beyond.

> To my eye, she is looking at JFK. Did he exclaim in some way?

Excuse the graphic imagery, but I've often thought there is a moment
when
JFK appears to be spitting up some blood.

SB: Again, you are right on the money. Several of us in here
discussed at one time that JFK looks like he is gagging, which would
account for the two sudden motions where he thrusts his upper body
forward after being struck by the bullet and then into his raised
hands. His right hand actually appears to be covering his mouth, even
though it may not be, which indicates that he is not "clutching his
throat" as Mrs. Connally erroneously has stated. He very well could be
spitting up blood, and it would seem possible being that the bullet
ripped through his throat.

Your keen observations make for excellent conversation.

Steve

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -


jessie

unread,
Apr 22, 2005, 11:26:30 AM4/22/05
to

At frame 225 JFK is no longer looking at the crowd. His face is to
the front and he is no longer waving to the crowd, but his hand has
been pulled back to his chest area. These two changes took place
behind the sign and prior to frame 225.

At frame 225 JBC is still looking out to the crowd and appears
unbothered by anything.

At frame 226 to 227 JBC's head moves quickly from the crowd to the
front and then he faces the front for several frames. At frame 230
JBC begins show signs of his shoulders and arms reacting and in the
following frames JBC begins to turn back towards the crown and to
continue that motion into a slump. It is almost impossible to tell
exactly which frame that JBC was shot in due to the poor quality of
the film and his reactions not being very dramatic or animated.

While the film does not conclusively rule out the SBT, it certainly
casts serious doubt on it as the indications of two separate bullets
hitting both JFK and JBC have much greater support in the Zapruder
film.

If you add this together with the absolute physical certainty that the
bullet found on the stretcher at the hospital could not have possibly
traversed JFK and hit rib bone and wrist bone in JBC and have
maintained so much of its shape and weight, the SBT is less than 1
chance in a million. Even a FMJ bullet traveling at about 2000 FPS
would have been severely deformed and would have left several pieces
of steel in both JFK and JBC. The bullet that hit JFK's skull would
have been even more deformed and deteriorated from the impact with
bone.

The last shot that literally explodes JFK's head came in frame 313.
JFK's head is slumped forward with his chin down on his chest. This
last shot hits him from the front right and literally lifts JFK up and
throws him back from the impact. The blood spray from the impact is
huge and indicative of a front hit also. The movement is so violent
it moves Jackie also as she was attending to him at that point. Then
his head falls back down to the front as gravity over takes the power
of the impact. It is difficult to image anything but a sewer shot or
a low level shot being able to do this. If you add the car slowing
right by the sewer, the odds of a sewer being the location of that
shooter are tremendous and it also brings the driver into serious
question as being part of the conspiracy, and I don't think theory
should be used at this point. The only part that is theoretical is
how many and who was involved, not if it was a conspiracy.

One thing that bothers me is that when a bullet hits a body it makes
an auditable and loud sound. Not like the shot but the thud or thump
can be heard for one or two hundred yards when hunting. Given the
noise of the occasion, it would still have been auditable to anyone in
that car.

jessie

black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2005, 11:28:00 AM4/22/05
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> If you think that Connally is reacting at Z-223, then that means that

> the bullet hit him several frames earlier. So how do you then explain

> the apparent lapel flip which Lattimer and others say proves that
> Connally was hit at Z-224?

I'm not sure if I buy the lapel flap, especially given the wind. I'm
just saying I see a simultaneous lurch. But it is hard to peg it to a
particular frame, as motion is continuous/contiguous.

>
> Just as the HSCA said that they saw a reaction which they believed
was
> to a shot at Z-190. That might have been a reaction to HEARING an
> earlier shot, not to being hit by a bullet.

I agree.

>
>
> But that distracting jitter leads to the jiggle analysis which fits
in
> quite well with JFK being hit at Z-210 and Connally at Z-230.

Sure, for jiggle analysis, the original film is the best source,
although I think jiggle is hard to interpret definitively. But for the
motions of the victims, the rotoscope can't be beat.


>
> > I DIDN'T START THIS THREAD TO DISCREDIT THE ANTI-SBT ARGUMENT. I
STILL
> > AM AMAZED THAT 399 HAD SUCH MINIMAL DAMAGE AND LOSS OF MASS. AND
THERE
>
> Only if you accept the FBI and WC fiction about the condition of CE
399.
>

I've examined 399 in person. I don't think it's impossible for it to
have hit both men, but I would expect more in the way of deformation
and loss of mass.


jessie

unread,
Apr 22, 2005, 11:26:53 AM4/22/05
to
On 21 Apr 2005 18:59:21 -0400, "Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com>
wrote:

If you look frame by frame you can see the car jerking from 221
through 228, which appears to be due to movement of the hand held
camera. This movement makes it difficult to follow their movements
in those frames and may well account for some perceived reaction by
JBC in those frames. At least I hope camera movement causes it.

jessie

black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2005, 11:27:43 AM4/22/05
to

Lab4man wrote:
> <black...@aol.com> wrote in message

> >


> > EVEN IF WE COULD PINPOINT EXACT FRAMES WHEN REACTIONS COMMENCED, A
> > DIFFERENCE OF A SECOND OR LESS WOULD NOT PRECLUDE A SINGLE SHOT.
>
> But that would preclude Oswald making two shots so quickly that the
startle
> reaction is still in progress when the second shot is fired.

You state it as an absolute. Using still fames, the timing in the Zfilm
seems to take an eternity, but in motion, these are very short times.
IF a 6th floor gunman missed an earlier shot and IF it hit the pavement
near the rear of the car as some said, a startle reaction of even 3 or
4 seconds is possible. Especially if a few fragments of pavement came
into the limo.

Look at the film in full motion, the Groden stabilized version if
possible. Imagine an early miss and JFK reacting: What the heck was
THAT? Jackie looks toward him. Connally starts to look back, but turns
the other way. Now a shot hits both men. Not an impossible scenario.


Mike Bull

unread,
Apr 22, 2005, 11:34:17 AM4/22/05
to

"Brandon Alexander" <bank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i7gd61hcjqg5vusf8...@4ax.com...


I have glasses, and don't see what you see. Perhaps it it you who is in
denial.

Mike :-)

r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 1:08:04 AM4/23/05
to


***JFK's left elbo is beginning to move away from his side at Z225.
Connally's right hand/hat are below the side of the car at the same frame.
In the next frame, JFK's arm is accellerated and Connally's hat in hand is
accelerating upward as well. The indication is that both men are
simultaneously reacting frame for frame.

***Ron Judge


Robert Harris

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 1:09:15 AM4/23/05
to
In article <alde611o0mslvjr6s...@4ax.com>,
Barb Junkkarinen <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:


I explained all this to you before, Barbara. Remember when you became so
angry because I suggested that you talk to a neurologist?

The reaction is the rising elbows, which are totally inconsistent with a
response to a neck wound. The elbows could only have risen as they did,
in reaction to the shock to nerves in the vertabrae that connect
directll to the elbow extensors.

And such a reaction is *extremely* rapid, and a perfect match for what
we see in the film. Kennedy was hit at 223 - exactly the frame in which
Connally was hit. The elbows began to rise around 226-227, just 3 frames
later.


Robert Harris


>
> Barb :-)
> >
> >Al.
>

--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called "Random Signatures" into your Preferences folder.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 11:04:54 AM4/23/05
to
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:


>>Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
>>"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
>>I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
>>both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
>>something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.
>
>Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
>the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
>they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
>reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
>:-)
>
>Barb :-)

How long were they behind the sign?

Al.

.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 11:11:17 AM4/23/05
to
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:


>>Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
>>"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
>>I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
>>both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
>>something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.
>
>Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
>the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
>they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
>reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
>:-)
>
>Barb :-)

How long were they behind the sign?

Al.

.

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 12:39:06 PM4/23/05
to
On 23 Apr 2005 01:09:15 -0400, Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You "explain" a lot of things to people .... and you are entitled to
your opinion. It's not necessarily worth more than that to others. :-)

>Remember when you became so
>angry because I suggested that you talk to a neurologist?

No, actually, I don't recall that. Why would I be angry about talking
to a neurologist ... with 25+ years working in a doctor's world, I'm
hardly doctor-shy ...nor short on resources.


>
>The reaction is the rising elbows, which are totally inconsistent with a
>response to a neck wound. The elbows could only have risen as they did,
>in reaction to the shock to nerves in the vertabrae that connect
>directll to the elbow extensors.

Did you miss the import of the comments above? Apparently. Not about
any one person's particular movements and what may or may have not
caused them .... but merely noting one is reacting when he comes from
behind the sign ... and one is not.


>
>And such a reaction is *extremely* rapid, and a perfect match for what
>we see in the film. Kennedy was hit at 223 - exactly the frame in which
>Connally was hit. The elbows began to rise around 226-227, just 3 frames
>later.

Oh, I see, you're still on that......

Barb :-)

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 12:54:12 PM4/23/05
to
On 23 Apr 2005 11:04:54 -0400, Brandon Alexander <bank...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen

1 full second + --- depending on where you consider them "behind" the
sign because they are at least partially obscured by the sign for many
frames before being totally obscured. Connally is first visible again
at 223; he's just going behind the sign at 195, he's totally gone by
208 with just varying degrees of the top of his head visible for
several frames before that .... essentially, we can't really see
anything about him in those frames leading up to that, but there are
those who, I have no doubtm, would argue he's not hidden by the sign
til later rather than earlier.

Barb :-)
>
>Al.
>
>
>
>.

Brandon Alexander

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 12:15:06 AM4/24/05
to
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:


>>Yeah, every time over the past five years when I've pointed that out the
>>"Which SBT are you talking about" bugs come crawling out of the woodwork.
>>I still wonder why. If one looks at that film in motion and cannot see
>>both men react in the wink of an eye, maybe one should get glasses or
>>something. It's unbelievable the denial these folks are in.
>
>Sure we can all see them both making reactive movements in the film in
>the "wink of an eye" .... it's just that some of us realize that
>they've been behind the sign and that one of them is not already
>reacting when he comes from behind the sign .... but the other one is.
>:-)
>
>Barb :-)

How long were they behind the sign?

Al.

.

black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 12:35:24 AM4/24/05
to

jessie wrote:
>
> If you look frame by frame you can see the car jerking from 221
> through 228, which appears to be due to movement of the hand held
> camera. This movement makes it difficult to follow their movements
> in those frames and may well account for some perceived reaction by
> JBC in those frames. At least I hope camera movement causes it.

>
> jessie

I can see the simultaneous lurch in the IOAA original, but this is why
Groden's optical rotoscope version is so handy. He "reframes" each frame
to position the car in essestially the same spot, removing or minimizing
most of the movement, allowing the viewer to focus on the actual content
of the film, the reactions of the occupants. It is almost as though
Zapruder had used a tripod, zoomed in a bit and kept the occupants
centered.

I'm NOT saying the SBT absolutely happened. I AM saying that the mistakem
notion of a significant gap in reaction time is due to critics watching
multi-generation copies of a jerky film. Or watching still frames, which
do not tell the same story as the film in MOTION. Both men lurch at the
same or nearly the same instant. I CAN'T say it means they were both hit
with the same shot, but I do feel that the classic SBT argument may well
be wrong: "In frame 225, we see JFK obviously reacting to a shot, but
Connally is obviously unhit", etc.

Just my opinion, but I'm sure others disagree.


Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 12:40:32 AM4/24/05
to

<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114096634.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> MY COMMENTS IN CAPS FOR CLARITY - I AM NOT SHOUTING!
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2005 23:24:08 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
>> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK. Let's examine your concept.
>> >
>> >Fair enough.
>> >
>> > Connally is seen to be reacting to a
>> >> shot which you think happened at Z-224
>> >
>> >No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
> to
>> >start at around 223.
>>
>> What do you see Connally doing at 223-224-225 that you would call a
>> lurch?
>
> IT IS SOMETHING I SEE ONLY IN MOTION, NOT IN STILL. HARD TO DESCRIBE.
> HE SEEMS TO STIFFEN UP, HIS HAT SEEMS TO FLIP.
>>
>> JFK isn't visible in 223.
>
> CONNALLY SEEMS TO START THIS MOTION AROUND 223. BOTH HE AND JFK SEEM TO
> BE CONTINUING THAT MOTION IN SUBSEQUENT FRAMES. AGAIN, AS IT IS A
> MOTION SPANNING SEVERAL FRAMES, IT IS HARD TO PICK A START OR END
> POINT. I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRODEN ROTOSCOPE VERSION, IN
> MOTION.

This is consistent with the ITEK study. From McAdams' site:

QUOTE:

>>>>

By frame 232-234 there is strong evidence that the Governor is reacting
to a significant effect on his body; or from other data, to a bullet
wound. He placed the time of his reaction at 234. We studied the film in
this area to determine if there were any striking changes in his physical
appearance which could be interpreted as the onset of a reaction. Five
photo analysts studied the original film from frames 222-240. ***They all
concluded independently that somewhere between 223-226 there are signs of
the beginning of a significant change in the governor's position and
appearance.

*** Some of their comments are paraphrased below.

- As Connally first clears the obscuring sign on frame 221, his facial
features are not discernable or distinct. Frames 222 and 223 show no
unusual action and Connally's face and features remain frozen (normal).
With frame 224, I observe a slight grimace, a minor body twist, a slight
arching of the back and a rearward head motion. These reactions continue
on frame 225 which includes a slight hiking up in the seat. By frame 226
Connally's head is turned forward which I judged to be a rapid reaction.
Frame 227 yields no information due to the high amount of smear, but the
following frames 228, 9 and 30 indicate a rapid reaction of the hand
holding the Stetson which was flicked up and down quickly.

- I observe a rotation of the Governor's body from right to left
beginning at frame 223. It isn't obvious that this is significant relative
to the study objective, however I also observe what I would consider an
involuntary and unusual motion of his right hand and arm at 225. Before
225, his hand is hidden from Zapruder's view, down below the edge of the
door. At 225-226 it can be seen to travel repidly upward until it is about
level with his chin in 228. From 228-230 he flips his hat rapidly. At 229
it appears upside down in his hand with the thin edge of the brim
extending toward Zapruder. By 230 the hat has flipped so that one can now
see into it. This all takes place within less than 1/3 of a second so it
would appear to be somewhat unusual.

- At frame #223 he is turned in the jump seat sitting well into the
car. I noticed a facial expression changing between #223 and 224 to a
grimacing look. His body has moved forward (toward the edge of the car)
with his right shoulder twisting to his left and downward. Between frames
#225 and 226 a rapid motion of the Governor's right hand begins, i.e. #225
- his hand inside of car, #226 - his Stetson hat appears over the edge of
the car, #228 - the hat is up in front of his chin concealing it. At #229
and 230 he flips his hat from edge on to a view of looking at the inside
of it.

Source: "John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis" - Itek Corporation, May
2, 1976, pp. 36-39 (***Emphasis in original)

>>>>
UNQUOTE


>> >
>> >, according to Lattimer's theory.
>> >> But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
>> >
>> >Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting to
>> >being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>>
>> Perhaps that's because they are behind the sign, so any movement
>> either is making when they come from behind the sign makes it *seem*
>> like they are "reacting" at the same time.
>
> I DO SEE JFK MAKING SOME KIND OF MOTION AS HE GOES BEHIND THE SIGN, BUT
> IT MAY BE A STARTLE REACTION TO A SOUND. BUT JUST AS THEY EMERGE, BOTH
> SEEM TO REACT IN SUCH AN EXAGGERATED WAY THAT I THINK THIS COULD BE A
> SIMULTANEOUS REACTION TO A SHOT.
>
> JUST AN OPINION, FROM SOMEONE WHO ONCE THOUGHT I SAW TWO SEPARATE
> REACTIONS IN MURKY VERSIONS OF THE FILM. THE CLEARER IT GETS, THE MORE
> IT LOOKS SIMULTANEOUS TO ME. AND GRODEN'S "TRIPOD" ROTOSCOPE VERSION
> TAKES A LOT OF DISTRACTING JITTER OUT.

I agree, and as I recall, this simultaneous reaction is visible
even in Stone's "JFK," oddly enough.

Jean

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:14:11 AM4/24/05
to
On 24 Apr 2005 00:15:06 -0400, Brandon Alexander <bank...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen

Did you miss my reply to this earlier today? This is the third time
I've seen this...

Barb :-)
>
>Al.
>
>
>
>.

jim....@fuse.net

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 9:06:17 AM4/24/05
to
Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film. Many other
eyewitnesses on both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and
observed JFK's immediate reaction at that time and location and have
stated so. John Connally also heard the first shot but testified many
times that he was not wounded by the first shot which wounded JFK in
the throat. Therefore JFK and JBC were not wounded by the same bullet
at the same time as some researchers conjecture. Connally has stated
many times that he was wounded by another shot after the first shot
which the Elm Street witnesses say hit JFK in the throat. While there
have been and will be many issues about this assassination that remain
unresolved, this issue is not one of them. Neither the Itek experts
nor anyone else, for that matter, can refute the Elm Street witnesses
and John Connally's first hand accounts of when the shooting started
and who was wounded by the first shot. Regards, Jim


Robert Harris

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 11:40:36 AM4/24/05
to
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:39:06 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:

I'm sure it is worth nothing to you Barbara.

But it is correct.


>
>>Remember when you became so
>>angry because I suggested that you talk to a neurologist?
>
>No, actually, I don't recall that.

IC, so you just forgot that I recommended you speak to a neurologist
to determine how much time would be expected to elapse between a
bullet strike and a neurological response.

Well, it has been a few years Barbara, hasn't it?

But surely, being in the medical field you have figured out by
yourself that you should ask neurologists about this.

Did you?

What did they say?


>Why would I be angry about talking
>to a neurologist ... with 25+ years working in a doctor's world, I'm
>hardly doctor-shy ...nor short on resources.

I'm afraid you will have to answer that one :-)

>>
>>The reaction is the rising elbows, which are totally inconsistent with a
>>response to a neck wound. The elbows could only have risen as they did,
>>in reaction to the shock to nerves in the vertabrae that connect
>>directll to the elbow extensors.
>
>Did you miss the import of the comments above? Apparently. Not about
>any one person's particular movements and what may or may have not
>caused them .... but merely noting one is reacting when he comes from
>behind the sign ... and one is not.

Yes, I guess I did miss the import of that.

Are you really sure that the reason one was reacting and the other
not, was that one emerged before the other:-)

Yes, JFK could be reacting at 224, but the elbows don't go up until a
frame or two later, so that reaction was extremely early. This is why
you have to talk to the neurologists Barbara. You will learn that the
very earliest reactions really could be within the first frame.

It is also possible that they were hit as early as 222, or I suppose,
even 221 although I would doubt 221.

>>
>>And such a reaction is *extremely* rapid, and a perfect match for what
>>we see in the film. Kennedy was hit at 223 - exactly the frame in which
>>Connally was hit. The elbows began to rise around 226-227, just 3 frames
>>later.
>
>Oh, I see, you're still on that......

I'm not sure I understand what "that" is. Can you be more specific?

And can you also explain why we should not "still be on" the fact that
JFK's elbows flew upward immediately after a bullet strike right next
to nerves in the vertebrae that connected to and controlled the
elbows?

I think you realize that JFK's arms did NOT rise for the purpose of
reaching for his neck.

So why did they rise, Barbara?


Robert Harris


>
>Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Robert Harris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Barb :-)
>>> >
>>> >Al.
>>>
>

The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

Robert Harris

unread,
Apr 25, 2005, 10:37:41 AM4/25/05
to
On 24 Apr 2005 00:15:06 -0400, Brandon Alexander <bank...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:15:52 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen

Kennedy was out of view for about 13 frames - 18 or 19 if we add the
missing frames.


Robert Harris

>
>Al.

Jean Davison

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 12:13:22 AM4/26/05
to

<jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
> reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
> established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.

Jim,

I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the time
of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if
there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him? Mrs. Kennedy and
the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by turning
right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their right:

http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg

Here's Zapruder frame 193, which shows Connally and Jackie turned
right, as they have been for several frames.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z193.jpg


Many other
> eyewitnesses on both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and
> observed JFK's immediate reaction at that time and location and have
> stated so.

If only eyewitnesses were always consistent and correct, but alas,
they aren't. In recent threads another poster here is arguing that many
witnesses heard what *they* called "the first shot" at about Z285. Other
witnesses placed it closer to the corner, soon after the limo turned onto
Elm Street. Since the evidence is inconclusive, IMO, I don't know exactly
when the first shot was fired, but I believe if was earlier than Willis
believed.

>John Connally also heard the first shot but testified many
> times that he was not wounded by the first shot which wounded JFK in
> the throat. Therefore JFK and JBC were not wounded by the same bullet
> at the same time as some researchers conjecture. Connally has stated
> many times that he was wounded by another shot after the first shot
> which the Elm Street witnesses say hit JFK in the throat. While there
> have been and will be many issues about this assassination that remain
> unresolved, this issue is not one of them. Neither the Itek experts
> nor anyone else, for that matter, can refute the Elm Street witnesses
> and John Connally's first hand accounts of when the shooting started
> and who was wounded by the first shot.

True, Connally said that he and JFK were hit by separate shots,
but there's a problem -- he also said that after he heard the first shot,
he wasn't able to turn far enough to ever see JFK, so how on Earth could
he know whether or not JFK was hit by that shot? He couldn't know that,
as he admitted when he testified to the HSCA:

QUOTE:

>>I don't know what the first shot did. All I know, all I am certain of in
>>my own mind is that the first shot did not hit me.<<

UNQUOTE

I agree that Connally wasn't hit by the first shot, because we can
see him turning to try to see JFK before he reacts to being wounded.

But, all this is really a different subject than the point I was
responding to -- that is, the virtually simultaneous reaction of Connally
and JFK on the Z film, as noted by ITEK.
Regards,
Jean

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 12:35:33 AM4/26/05
to
On 26 Apr 2005 00:13:22 -0400, "Jean Davison"
<walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
><jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
>news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
>> reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
>> established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>
>Jim,
>
> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the time
>of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if
>there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him?

Hi Jean ... long time no medical debate.<g>

What if there are other eyewitnesses that corroborate him? Like Betner
... for just one. His photo corresponds to 186 and he said he took his
photo just before he heard the firsty shot.

> Mrs. Kennedy and
>the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by turning
>right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their right:

C'mon, Jean, do you think maybe they are all looking somewhat to their
right because of the line of people waving and clapping at them?<g>

>
>http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
>
> Here's Zapruder frame 193, which shows Connally and Jackie turned
>right, as they have been for several frames.
>
>http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z193.jpg

Hey, now you're getong into my first shot territory, but at 193
they're still watching the people, don't you think?


>
>
> Many other
>> eyewitnesses on both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and
>> observed JFK's immediate reaction at that time and location and have
>> stated so.
>
> If only eyewitnesses were always consistent and correct, but alas,
>they aren't.

Fortunately some photos are "witnesses" too .... and when you have
several independent witnesses all saying the same thing, it's pretty
doubtful they are all incorrect ..... alas.

> In recent threads another poster here is arguing that many
>witnesses heard what *they* called "the first shot" at about Z285. Other
>witnesses placed it closer to the corner, soon after the limo turned onto
>Elm Street. Since the evidence is inconclusive, IMO, I don't know exactly
>when the first shot was fired, but I believe if was earlier than Willis
>believed.

Why?

ITEK also said JFK was already clearly wounded and reacting when he
came from behind the sign.

Barb :-)
> Regards,
> Jean

jim....@fuse.net

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 7:03:32 AM4/26/05
to

Jean, Its not a different subject. The Itek folks are ignoring the
first shot location and are conjecturing about Kennedy and Connaly
maybe being hit by the same bullet at Z223/224 because of some
movements by the two men that "appear" to be simultaneous. The cause
and effect connection they are trying to make is obvious, although
still conjecture, when compared to the eyewitness' testimony including
Connally himself. When Kennedy was struck at approximately Zframe 202
and Connally was not Connally doesn't need to "see" Kennedy for his
observation and testimony to be true because the other witnesses on
both sides of Elm Street heard the first shot and saw JFK's reaction to
it at that time and location. So whatever happened subsequent to that
first shot at Zf202/Willis slide No.5 in bullet time is eons before the
Zf 223/224/225 etc. that the Itek experts are talking about. Would you
or they have us believe, based on their interpretation of the Z frames
that after the first shot hit JFK in the neck at approximately Z202
another shot went in JFK's back and came out the exact same wound
location in his throat and then went on to cause all of Governor
Connally's wounds? That sounds a lot like that Theory that couldn't
shoot straight, doesn't it? If not, then what are you and they
referring to in the interpretation of the shooting sequence? If JFK
was hit before Connally, which he was, then the apparent movement by
both men at Zf223/224 is long after that first shot and was not caused
by what they want to believe:ie, a single shot that wounds both men at
approximately Z223/224. JFK and JBC were hit by two different bullets
regardless of what the Itek people think they see. Regards, Jim


black...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 10:34:05 AM4/26/05
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>OK. Let's examine your concept.
> >
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > Connally is seen to be reacting to a
> >
> >>shot which you think happened at Z-224
> >
> >
> > No. I see a lurch by both men that spans several frames. It APPEARS
to
> > start at around 223.
> >
>
> Let me get this straight. You claim to see a lurch by President
Kennedy
> at Z-223?
> You seem to be extraordinary researcher. Are you blessed with X-ray
vision?

No, as I said above, I see a simultaneous lurch by BOTH beginning at
about 223 (Connally) and continuing on to both men.

I brought the Groden and IOAA DVDs to work with me. I'll try to
describe the lurches later today.


>
> > , according to Lattimer's theory.
> >
> >>But JFK is seen to have already been reacting by Z-225
> >
> >
> > Reacting to what? I think you're saying that JFK started reacting
to
> > being shot before JBC. But I see them reacting at the same time.
>
> Reacting to the excitement of a couple of his cervical vertebrae by
the
> close passage of a bullet.
> His right hand jerking up quickly

We can't say definitively what he is reacting to, leading up to 223. He
could be reacting to a missed shot, he could be reacting to being shot.


>
>
>
> >
> > which means the
> >
> >>shot must have hit him several frames earlier, before Z-222.
> >
> >
> > You're positing a gunshot reaction at a specific frame and counting
> > backward. I see a simultaneous lurch.
> >
>
> Not exactly. I could not pinpoint the exact frame numbers until I did

> further analysis on the acoustical evidence. It was just coincidental

> that it worked out to be Kennedy hit at Z-210 ( the earliest possible

> frame according to the WC) and Connally hit at Z-230 (which is about
> when he thought he was hit). Don Thomas's timing places a SBT shot
> hitting both men at Z-224.

I am not convinced that JFK was hit at 210 and Connally at 230.

>
> > The bullet
> >
> >>can not be going slowly enough to hit JFK before Z-222 and then
> >
> > Connally
> >
> >>at Z-224. Therefore they were struck by separate bullets.
> >
> >
> > Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this, a difference in
> > reaction of 1/9th of a second means separate shots?
> >
>
> Yes. The bullet will go through both men in less time than that.

It is absolutely impossible for two men hit by the same bullet to SHOW
reactions 1/9 of a second apart?
>
> >


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 10:40:01 AM4/26/05
to
Jean Davison wrote:

> <jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:1114321882.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Jean, Do you recall that Phil Willis took his slide No.5 as a startle
>>reaction to hearing the first shot. Willis' first shot photo has been
>>established as being at Z frame 202 in the Zapruder film.
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I do recall that Phil Willis said that he took this photo at the time
> of the first shot, but isn't it possible that he's mistaken? What if

On what basis do you consider the witness mistaken?
You don't have to believe that he meant that JFK was hit by that shot
that he heard. There could have been an early missed shot.

> there's other eyewitness testimony that contradicts him? Mrs. Kennedy and
> the Connallys all said that they responded to the first shot by turning
> right, and in fact Willis 5 shows them all turned somewhat to their right:
>
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/will5.jpg
>

They could have had different rates of reaction. Arguendo they could
have been within the cone of the shock wave and reacted earlier than
Willis if Willis was just outside the cone of the shock wave.

Maybe because he qualified his statement and he gave more than just the
one statement that you have quoted. Perhaps in other statements he made
the distinction that he could not clearly see the President, but in his
peripheral vision it appeared to him that the President had slumped in
his seat.

r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Apr 26, 2005, 10:43:45 AM4/26/05
to


***As Z202 was "eons" before Z224, Kennedy would not be just beginning
to reflexively react to his wound at Z225. If Kennedy was struck by a
bullet at about Z202, he would have already reflexively reacted to the
sharp pain in his throat at the time he was beginning to pass behind
the sign.

***Ron Judge


jim....@fuse.net

unread,
Apr 27, 2005, 12:21:56 AM4/27/05