JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

Hank, I hope you will address this issue about Mrs. Connally.

Already did. I pointed out you're questioning the validity of the eyewitness testimony ("We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say") when it points away from your scenario (like the time estimations of the duration of the shooting as five seconds or less by Hill, Greer, and Kellerman) and accepting the eyewitness testimony of Nellie Connally when it suits your purposes.

You then attempt to explain away her errors of perception, but avoid the issue that if she had errors of perception, that calls into question how good a witness she was. Some people call that cherry-picking. Others might call it data-mining. Regardless of what one calls it, ignoring the hard evidence and retaining only those elements of the disparate eyewitness testimony that confirms one's beliefs is not the best way, nor the most appropriate way to resolve any crime. One can support any theory with that selective approach in this most-heavily documented case of all time. And trust me, I have seen your approach a lot. It's what every conspiracy theorist does (from David Lifton - who invented the JFK body alteration theory to salvage his conspiracy theory when evidence revealed it was untenable, to Dr. Fetzer, who opined there was a mobile photo alteration lab in Dealey Plaza to alter the Altgens photo when evidence showed the Altgens photo was transmitted across the country within a hour of the assassination, among others).

And that's apparently exactly what you're doing, accepting a 30-year later recollection that a second rifle was found on a different floor, that the selected eyewitnesses confirm your theory, that the ballistics evidence implicating Oswald's rifle was planted or swapped, etc.

And BTW, when I said I had acquired a digital copy of the Zapruder film in 1965. I meant to say 1995. I need to be less sloppy in this moderated status, since there is no chance to go back and fix the typos

I understood what you meant. I purchased the Medio CD myself back in the 1990's. I still have one in the original wrapper, and another I used. I figured the unwrapped one would someday be worth a lot of money. Not so much.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.

Asked and answered. "...that Oswald acted alone" is a negative proposition. Further, your argument doesn't really discuss consilience, nor address the anti-consilience others have noted it to demonstrate. You really aren't therefore in a position to judge whether consilience favors or disfavors your case.

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

Asked and answered. Your argument depends on fundamental premises which are simply your subjective extrapolation and speculation from the observations, not the observations themselves. As Harvard professor Peter Gomes writes, the most insidious interpretation is the one you deny having made.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes there is. I just presented one, which contradicts none of the legitimate evidence.

No, you especially haven't. As has been noted, your approach is anti-consilience. You've started with your desired conclusion and retconned things to fit, even going so far as to invent most of the back story out of whole cloth: suppressed weapons? phantom shots? magical disappearing snipers? phantom rounds which hit nothing in Texas? That's about as far removed from a consilience of evidence as it is to get.

And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.

Obviously, you've not proven your case for anyone other than Oswald being the assassin. You studiously avoid Hank's damning rebuttals which expose the fatal flaws of your anti-consilient "hypothesis".

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

Evidence of your making up evidence out of whole cloth. What early shots?

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

What shot at 285? This is your anti-consilient approach, making up an entire back story. Remember, that's the opposite of consilience.

Therefore, Oswald could not have been the only shooter involved in the attack on President Kennedy.

Therefore, you have yet to show that. The ball is still in your court. Do you have any actual evidence?

 

[zooterkin]

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

I think you may be confused about the meaning of the first highlighted word, as you seem to be implying that the highlighted phrases are facts.

Also, there's a William, from Ockham, who is wondering if you need a shave.

 

[CORed]

Yes there is. I just presented one, which contradicts none of the legitimate evidence.

And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

Therefore, Oswald could not have been the only shooter involved in the attack on President Kennedy.

What you have presented is a poorly supported conjecture about the timing of Oswald's shots, and the existence of an undetermined number of additional shots, based on a cherry-picked interpretation of eyewitness accounts and a highly questionable interpretation of movements of of people recorded on film.

I don't know, but strongly suspect that you started with the assumption that their were shots in addition to Oswald's three, and from that begged question and a huge helping of confirmation bias, you have concocted an alternative narrative involving extra shots from for which no real evidence actually exists. This narrative appears to be very convincing to you, and to nobody else on this forum. You haven't actually proven anything at all, nor have you produced any evidence to justify considering you narrative as a plausible alternative to the Warren Commission narrative.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, see, this is the part where you literally need to produce a smoking gun.

You bear the burden of proving your assertions. You said:

"Then there is the problem with a "silenced" rifle. You continue to ignore the fact that no marksmen used them in 1963"

Ergo, you need to prove that "no marksmen" used suppressed weapons in 1963.

The only silenced rifles considered reliable in 1963 were 9mm or .45 caliber.

Well, you haven't proven that either, but if you are correct then this issue is settled, since there are subsonic versions of both 9mm and .45 caliber bullets.

Silencer technology didn't really take off for rifles until the late 1980s, and only through rethinking the technology did they become acceptable for standard military use. You're oil can idea would have made the weapon inaccurate, and any experienced marksman would have scrapped it.

Uh huh, and the shot at 160 missed Kennedy and the entire limo, according Posner, Bugliosi and every other nutter I know of.

You need to reveal a secret weapon, and I don't think that you can.

I only need to prove that suppressed rifles were available then. Besides the fact that snipers used them 20 years earlier, in WW2, you have confirmed that there were at least, "reliable" 9mm and .45 caliber rifles available in 1963.

The silencer issue is settled.

Now, let's get to the gist of the issue. Why is it that the witnesses only heard ONE of the early shots?

Why is it that none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see following 285 and 313?

Why is it that EVERY SURVIVING LIMO PASSENGER REPORTED ONLY ONE EARLY SHOT?

If Oswald had fired all the shots, the earliest would have been the loudest and most startling, to the ears of the limo passengers. Why don't we see this, immediately following 160 or 223?

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, I can't defend three shots from Oswald, but I can establish the necessary two from his rifle at Z223 and Z313.

No sir, you cannot. Let's talk about 223. It's one of my favorite topics.

John Connally stated in his autobiography that the bullet which wounded him, fell from his stretcher to the floor and was recovered by a nurse. Now, if he was the only witness, I would agree that given his condition at the time, he might have been a bit deluded.

But he was corroborated by the Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade. Wade ran into that nurse, shortly after Connally's surgery and he saw her holding that bullet in her hand, stating that it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police, ASAP.

The nurse did as she was told and put the bullet in an envelope, then passed it to Officer Bobby Nolan, who was working security of the Governor at the time. He also confirmed that she said that whole bullet came from Connally's gurney.

The FBI claimed that they were told by nursing supervisor Audrey Bell, that the envelope Nolan received, was from her and that it contained only a single fragment from Connally's wrist. But Bell flatly denied that and stated in both her HSCA interview and ARRB testimony, that she actually passed her envelop to plain clothed agents and NOT a uniformed police officer. Nolan was in full state patrol dress that day.

She also stated that her envelope contained 3-4 tiny fragments, rather than only one as the FBI said, and of course, she was right about that too. It contained exactly four, but the FBI needed it to contain only one, since that was the number of items in Nolan's envelope. This article goes into much more detail on this issue:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

The 223 shot, was not fired by Oswald. Not only was the bullet NOT the one that Tomlinson recovered in the basement, but the 223 shot was not heard by anyone - not even John Connally, who was hit by it. He testified,

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.

Connally did not hear the 223 shot. Nor did anyone else.

In that statement, he also confirmed that there were TWO early shots - the first, which he heard and the second which he only felt.

The hard evidence shows this.

A bullet - later designated as CE399 - was recovered at Parkland Hospital after the shooting and it was determined, by analysis, to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Yes, CE399 was indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle, but not during the assassination. It was also, not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered, which is why every one of the four men to handle Tomlinson's bullet refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one.

Even more conclusive is the fact that the initials of Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI agent Elmer Todd, both of whom initialed the Tomlinson bullet, are not present on CE399.

It ONLY bears the initials of people who marked it at the FBI labs, after it was transferred there.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

Read the article that I previously linked for you in this post. It contains even more evidence which confirms these facts, including the fact that shortly after receiving fragments from the limo, which were large enough to compare with Tomlinson's bullet, he received a strange call in the wee hours of the morning, instructing him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found.

This bullet caused the wound in JFK that entered his back and exited his throat, and then wounded Governor Connally.

One bullet almost certainly did cause those wounds. But it was not CE399. It couldn't have been.

Two large fragments, comprising roughly half a bullet, were found in the limousine the evening of the assassination, and those two fragments were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Most likely, the bullet that contributed these fragments was the bullet that struck JFK in the skull.

Oswald might have fired that shot. But there is no way to be certain, since any evidence the FBI handled has to be suspect.

The hard evidence indicates two shots from Oswald's rifle were involved in the shooting and caused all the wounds in the two victims in the car.

No it doesn't. The ONLY forensic evidence which points to Oswald's rifle, is the limo fragments, and then, only if the FBI was honest about it. At best, that's a coin toss.

I count one early shot and one later one, and one sound of impact on the skull. Three sounds, heard by many as three shots.

Your theory about the final shots is ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence for it and it couldn't possible explain the 285 reactions, since they all occurred prior to head shot.

Have you considered only one of them was audible to most witnesses because there was only one shot fired early?

That argument is equally false.

Read the citation from John Connally that I posted for you. He was crystal clear that he heard a and then only felt the next shot. Obviously, he was hearing the one circa 160 and feeling the one at 223.

We both acknowledge the 223 shot, and there is additional evidence that it was preceded by an earlier shot, which provoked Mrs. Kennedy to turn toward her husband. Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lense then.

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get?

Why are you conjecturing more shots than are necessary again?

Never mind that every other LN advocate on the planet agrees that there were two early shots. The facts and evidence prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

And what evidence is there for a shot at Z285?

I have presented a small mountain of evidence, Hank. It's not good enough to allege that it doesn't exist. If you wish to refute my analysis, you might want to start with this brief article:

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Dr. Alvarez certainly didn't conjecture one there.

Alvarez proved that there was a startling noise at frame 285. He was obviously wrong in his speculation that it was a siren. The witnesses including the same people we see reacting, told us EXACTLY what they were hearing then. I have repeatedly cited them verbatim, in this subforum. Would you like to go over what each of them said?

BTW, in our last exchange, I asked you a very specific question about Mrs. Connally. I'm sure it was an oversight, but you did not respond. Let's talk about Mrs. Connally. What makes her special, is that she didn't just tell us what happened, she showed us.

I think it is easy to see when she reacted to the "second shot", which she mistakenly believed, hit her husband. I also linked to a presentation in which Secret Service agents confirmed that they made exactly the same mistake. What is your take on this?

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

 

[HSienzant]

...It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

Begging the question. You haven't established two early shots, especially not one that was "silenced" or "inaudible". Putting "Oswald could not have fired the early shots" in a statement is not the same as establishing there were early shots Oswald couldn't have fired.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

Begging the question once more. Everyone understands there was a shot at Z313, but you haven't established a shot at Z285. Repeating the litany of your arguments once again for everyone here won't be more convincing than the first ten times you argued for shots at Z285 and Z313. You haven't even tried to rebut the arguments I made in favor of one shot and one sound of impact within a quarter second of each other at the end of the shooting. You simply dismissed them by calling the arguments I put forth implausible, and knocking down massive quantities of straw men (which I pointed out in my prior posts).

Try taking on those arguments head on.

And, please go back to the very beginning of your ventures into this forum and tell us the evidence that puts Jim Braden as a conspirator. Be specific.

I asked nearly two months ago and reminded you of my desire to see that evidence more than once. For example, I asked here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10748930&postcount=2572

Here are just some of the posts you made with claims about Braden:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10748224&postcount=2526

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10748978&postcount=2577

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10805636&postcount=3930

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10832587&postcount=18

None of your posts naming Braden contained any evidence - only assertions. I'd like to see the evidence - naming names, citing the testimony. Do you have any you intend to share?

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes there is. I just presented one, which contradicts none of the legitimate evidence.

And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

Therefore, Oswald could not have been the only shooter involved in the attack on President Kennedy.

It's regrettable that you can't or more likely won't see the flaws in the above. But reality and the rules of logic don't conform to wishful thinking, no matter how fervent those desires might be.

 

[Robert Harris]

Another day, another straw man argument from Robert. I mentioned the shock wave not at all. Why he invokes it as part of his rebuttal is beyond my ken. Or even my barbie.

I "invoke it" it because it was the single, loudest noise that that was heard by Clint Hill and the people closest to him.

The sound of the impact of the bullet on the skull would make a noise separate and distinct from the sound of the weapon being fired.

Then why wasn't Clint Hill fooled? Why didn't he think he heard two, separate shots then, which would have been three in total?

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots have you described that you heard?
Mr. HILL. Two.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots?
Mr. HILL. No, sir.

I'm talking about the sound of the bullet being fired, which travels at the speed of sound,

That's called the muzzle blast. It arrived about 116 milliseconds after the shock wave.

and the speed of the bullet, which travels about three times as fast,

The speed of sound is about 1100 fps. The bullet traveled no more than 2100 fps. You might want to check your calculator

It took the muzzle blast, 245 ms. to reach Kennedy. (270/1100)

It took the bullet and shock wave, 129 ms. (270/2100)

Sooo, the muzzle blast arrived about 116 ms. (245-129) after the bullet/shockwave did. But to the witnesses, the shock wave and muzzle blast would have been perceived as a single noise.

Also, the gap between the two noises, to most of the witnesses wouldn't even have been that much. Most of the witnesses were well to the east of the limo then, so they did not hear the bullet strike the skull (if they heard it at all) until that sound traveled back to them, and being closer to the source of the shot, the muzzle blast would have arrived sooner.

To most of them, those two noise would have been perfectly simultaneous. In some cases, the muzzle blast would actually have been heard a few ms. before the head strike. There was NO discernible gap between the two noises.

give or take a few hundred feet per second. When the bullet travelled the 88 yards from the weapon to JFK's skull between frames 312 and 313, the sound of the weapon had only travelled one-third as far.

Your numbers are wrong, Hank. You're basing your theory on flawed data.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did the impact on the President's head occur simultaneously, before, or after the second noise which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Almost simultaneously. ​

That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.

Perhaps it sounds that way to you, but to me, it sounds like he said the noises were perceived almost simultaneously. Even more important, he repeatedly stated that he heard ONE SHOT then. He did not perceive two.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.​

That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.

Let me see if I have this right. The witness said the gap was two seconds, which to you, sounds like one fourth of a second???

To me, two seconds sounds more like umm... two seconds. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that one

Mr. GREER. To the best of my recollection, Congressman, was that the last two were closer together than the first one. It seemed like the first one, and then there was, you know, bang, bang, just right behind it almost. The two seemed, the last two seemed, closer to me than the other.​

That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.

No, it sounds like he said that last two "seemed closer" than the first two. How in holy hell do you get a quarter of a second out of that. But let's talk about that second shot he heard. He said,

Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not

When was he turned around? Was he turned around at 313? Was he turned around at 285?

http://www.jfkhistory.com/285.jpg

And of course, three witnesses mentioned the impact on the skull separate from the sound of the shot (Connally, Hill, and Greer):

They did no such thing. Not even one of them.

Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it,​

Yes, and he was turned around then, wasn't he? So, he couldn't have been thinking of 313. He could only have been hearing the shock wave at 285.

Governor CONNALLY. ...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.​

Yes, he heard the "the shot hit something". He never thought he was hearing two shots then and never claimed he heard two shots then; neither did anyone else.

Your theory fails in every case. Besides the fact that the head strike and muzzle blast were perceived as simultaneous, no one who was more than 10 feet from Kennedy, said they heard the bullet hit the head, at all. Can you name another witness, other than Hill and Connally, who claimed to hear the bullet strike?

And the fact that both Hill and Connally described it as the bullet striking the head, tells us that it didn't sound to them, like a high powered rifle shot. It sounded like a bullet striking the head.

Even more important than all that, you "theory" does not address the main issues, including the reactions following 285, all of which occurred prior to 313.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Nor do you address the analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, both of whom, confirmed that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285.

Nor do you address the fact that none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke startle reactions, like we see following 285 and 313.

As for your theory that there was only one early shot, I have proven you wrong about that, beyond any reasonable doubt. John Connally stated quite clearly, that he heard an early shot, and after that, felt a second shot, which he never heard. No one else heard it either, which proves that at least, that shot came from a suppressed weapon.

Mrs. Kennedy's reactions which preceded 223, adds further confirmation to that fact.​

 

[Robert Harris]

Already did. I pointed out you're questioning the validity of the eyewitness testimony ("We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say") when it points away from your scenario (like the time estimations of the duration of the shooting as five seconds or less by Hill, Greer, and Kellerman) and accepting the eyewitness testimony of Nellie Connally when it suits your purposes.

I'm sorry you chose to accuse me of distorting the facts to support my own opinions. Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining this clearly enough for you.

First, I have always questioned the validity of witness statements - no exceptions. All humans are prone to error and various studies have proven that witnesses, even in criminal cases, are no exception.

Witnesses who makes specific time estimates with no mention of using watches or other timing devices are even more unreliable. Their estimates are nothing more than guesses. That is especially true of the tiny minority who only heard two of the shots.

That's why I try to test witness statements whenever possible. Fortunately for us, we have the Zapruder film, which provides conclusive confirmations and denials of many statements made by witnesses who were in the limo during the attack.

I stated that Mrs. Connally was wrong in believing her husband was hit at 285, because there is solid, visible evidence, that he was hit at 223, at the same time JFK was. I think it is safe to say that pretty much everyone in this subforum agrees with that. At that frame, his jacket was blown open and his tie flipped to his left:

http://jfkhistory.com/pix/connally_at_223.jpg

His subsequent movements further corroborate that fact:

http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jbc.gif

So, Hank, I did not make that statement because I needed it to make my case. I made that statement on the same basis that I make ALL my statements - because it is supported by the facts and evidence.

You then attempt to explain away her errors of perception, but avoid the issue that if she had errors of perception, that calls into question how good a witness she was.

Let me try to be a little clearer for you. Mrs. Connally's perception was nearly perfect. In her position you, I or any other clear headed person would have said the same thing.

She heard ONE early shot, just like her husband heard and just like almost everyone else in Dealey Plaza heard. That was the shot at app. 150-160, which was confirmed by Posner, Bugliosi, and pretty much every other lone nut advocate on the planet.

The evidence for a pre-223 shot is BRD. In addition to John Connally's testimony and the reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Phil Willis, we can see Rosemary Willis, who told Gerald Posner that she stopped running when she heard that first shot, coming to a complete stop. Look at the film. That happened, prior to frame 223.

http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-willis-stop-dunckel-2.gif

Also, like the other witnesses, including her husband, Mrs. Connally never heard the shot at 223. She had no reason to believe that the governor had been hit. And since she could only see his back, she had no way of seeing his contorted face as we can see it from the Zapruder side of Elm Street.

So there is no reason she SHOULD have realized that he had already been hit. Her perception was not flawed. NONE of the witnesses realized that both men were hit by one shot, either. Neither did the authorities until months later.

Are you with me so far? Can you see how these conclusions are entirely driven by the facts and evidence, rather than my own needs?

Next, we have Mrs. Connally's statement that she looked back at JFK. But once again, I am not going trust her. I want to see PROOF, which fortunately for us, is clearly visible in the Zapruder film. I see her looking back at 258, give or take no more than 2 frames.

Do you agree?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Are you still with me, Hank? Do you see that so far, I am sticking purely with the facts and evidence, rather than what I need to present to support my analysis?

Now, let's talk about the most important issue - Mrs. Connally's statement that she turned her attention to her husband and pulled him back to her. Look again, at nellie2.gif. Do you agree that it is easy to see when she did that?

Will you also agree, that that happened in precisely the range of 290-292, in the same three frames or 1/6th of one second that the others in the limo ducked or spun around??

I would hope that you do, Hank. It will save me from making more GIFs in ridiculously slow motion

If you do agree, then the only remaining question is whether she was correct in stating that she did this in reaction to hearing the "second shot".

If she was wrong, then this was not just a case of faulty memory. It was a case of delusion. It means that she was hearing a non-existent rifle shot which she reacted to, thinking it wounded her husband.

And isn't it an incredible coincidence that she reacted to that "imaginary" gunshot at the same instant that Jackie and Kellerman ducked, while Bill Greer spun rapidly around as he made the worst mistake of his career, lifting his foot from the gas pedal?

And isn't it amazing that she reacted within less than 1.5 seconds prior to 313, while the large majority of witnesses heard "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack?

And if that isn't enough, isn't it amazing that Dr. Alvarez determined that Zapruder reacted to a noise at 285, within THE SAME 1/9TH OF A SECOND that Mrs. Connally did?

Of course, she was not delusional. In addition to the corroborations from the other witnesses and the scientists, there are a multitude of others who also thought Connally was hit by a second shot - after JFK was hit in the back and just prior to the fatal headshot.

I'm surprised that you chose not to discuss the Secret Service agents who came to that same conclusion. Did you look at this presentation? Do you think all of those secret service agents and other witnesses were delusional as well?

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

 

[HSienzant]

...the shot at 160 missed Kennedy and the entire limo, according Posner, Bugliosi and every other nutter I know of.

Then your research is inadequate. I suggest you re-read my posts on this subject in this very thread and its predecessor thread for an alternative view of whether there was a shot at Zapruder frame 160 or thereabouts.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Now, let's get to the gist of the issue. Why is it that the witnesses only heard ONE of the early shots?

You don't appear to have adequately considered the possibility that they only heard one early shot because there was only one early shot. The one at Z223.


Nor have you eliminated that possibility. You just assume as a given there were two early shots, then go about extrapolating from there.


I've quoted extensively from the record of the closest witnesses with firearms experience (Governor Connally, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) and all those men said they only heard only one shot before the head shot. Ironically, you were previously quoting these men to support your interpretation of the shooting - complete with phantom shooters, multiple missed shots, and silenced weapons. So you cannot plead ignorance of their testimony at this point in time.


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Why is it that EVERY SURVIVING LIMO PASSENGER REPORTED ONLY ONE EARLY SHOT?

Asked and answered -- multiple times. Maybe because there was only one early shot. Please show us how you know for a fact there was more than one.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No sir, you cannot. Let's talk about 223. It's one of my favorite topics.

John Connally stated in his autobiography that the bullet which wounded him, fell from his stretcher to the floor and was recovered by a nurse. Now, if he was the only witness, I would agree that given his condition at the time, he might have been a bit deluded.

But he was corroborated by the Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade. Wade ran into that nurse, shortly after Connally's surgery and he saw her holding that bullet in her hand, stating that it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police, ASAP.

The nurse did as she was told and put the bullet in an envelope, then passed it to Officer Bobby Nolan, who was working security of the Governor at the time. He also confirmed that she said that whole bullet came from Connally's gurney.

The FBI claimed that they were told by nursing supervisor Audrey Bell, that the envelope Nolan received, was from her and that it contained only a single fragment from Connally's wrist. But Bell flatly denied that and stated in both her HSCA interview and ARRB testimony, that she actually passed her envelop to plain clothed agents and NOT a uniformed police officer. Nolan was in full state patrol dress that day.

She also stated that her envelope contained 3-4 tiny fragments, rather than only one as the FBI said, and of course, she was right about that too. It contained exactly four, but the FBI needed it to contain only one, since that was the number of items in Nolan's envelope. This article goes into much more detail on this issue:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

The 223 shot, was not fired by Oswald. Not only was the bullet NOT the one that Tomlinson recovered in the basement, but the 223 shot was not heard by anyone - not even John Connally, who was hit by it. He testified,

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.

Connally did not hear the 223 shot. Nor did anyone else.

In that statement, he also confirmed that there were TWO early shots - the first, which he heard and the second which he only felt.



Yes, CE399 was indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle, but not during the assassination. It was also, not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered, which is why every one of the four men to handle Tomlinson's bullet refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one.

Even more conclusive is the fact that the initials of Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI agent Elmer Todd, both of whom initialed the Tomlinson bullet, are not present on CE399.

It ONLY bears the initials of people who marked it at the FBI labs, after it was transferred there.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

Read the article that I previously linked for you in this post. It contains even more evidence which confirms these facts, including the fact that shortly after receiving fragments from the limo, which were large enough to compare with Tomlinson's bullet, he received a strange call in the wee hours of the morning, instructing him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found.



One bullet almost certainly did cause those wounds. But it was not CE399. It couldn't have been.



Oswald might have fired that shot. But there is no way to be certain, since any evidence the FBI handled has to be suspect.



No it doesn't. The ONLY forensic evidence which points to Oswald's rifle, is the limo fragments, and then, only if the FBI was honest about it. At best, that's a coin toss.



Your theory about the final shots is ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence for it and it couldn't possible explain the 285 reactions, since they all occurred prior to head shot.



That argument is equally false.

Read the citation from John Connally that I posted for you. He was crystal clear that he heard a and then only felt the next shot. Obviously, he was hearing the one circa 160 and feeling the one at 223.

We both acknowledge the 223 shot, and there is additional evidence that it was preceded by an earlier shot, which provoked Mrs. Kennedy to turn toward her husband. Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lense then.

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get?



Never mind that every other LN advocate on the planet agrees that there were two early shots. The facts and evidence prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.



I have presented a small mountain of evidence, Hank. It's not good enough to allege that it doesn't exist. If you wish to refute my analysis, you might want to start with this brief article:

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html



Alvarez proved that there was a startling noise at frame 285. He was obviously wrong in his speculation that it was a siren. The witnesses including the same people we see reacting, told us EXACTLY what they were hearing then. I have repeatedly cited them verbatim, in this subforum. Would you like to go over what each of them said?

BTW, in our last exchange, I asked you a very specific question about Mrs. Connally. I'm sure it was an oversight, but you did not respond. Let's talk about Mrs. Connally. What makes her special, is that she didn't just tell us what happened, she showed us.

I think it is easy to see when she reacted to the "second shot", which she mistakenly believed, hit her husband. I also linked to a presentation in which Secret Service agents confirmed that they made exactly the same mistake. What is your take on this?

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

You make quite a few assertions in the above, but document very few of them.

Where is the evidence to support your assertions about a bullet recovered in the operating room? You cite the non-evidence of a published book ghost-written by another man. Please cite the direct testimony of Governor Connally on this subject. You don't because you can't. You know there is no evidence, so you cite hearsay.

Sorry, no. Not buying it.

Nearly every one of your paragraphs above can be followed by the simple question: "What's the evidence for this claim?"

And assertions without evidence in support are also not very convincing.

So slow down, and document your claims with evidence. And by the way, links to articles written by conspiracy theorists are not evidence.

For example, start with this paragraph: "But he was corroborated by the Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade. Wade ran into that nurse, shortly after Connally's surgery and he saw her holding that bullet in her hand, stating that it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police, ASAP."

Where and when did Wade testify to that?

Hank

 

[Robert Harris]

It's regrettable that you can't or more likely won't see the flaws in the above. But reality and the rules of logic don't conform to wishful thinking, no matter how fervent those desires might be.

If there were flaws, you would be able to describe them, with specificity.

 

[Axxman300]

You bear the burden of proving your assertions. You said:

"Then there is the problem with a "silenced" rifle. You continue to ignore the fact that no marksmen used them in 1963"

Ergo, you need to prove that "no marksmen" used suppressed weapons in 1963.

Nope. I'm not the guy who's wandered into a skeptics forum with a theory that hinges on a weapons technology not widely used by marksmen in 1963.

Well, you haven't proven that either, but if you are correct then this issue is settled, since there are subsonic versions of both 9mm and .45 caliber bullets.

None of which were used in the shooting. None reliable at the range required. The .45 might have been effective from the 6th floor, but it would have hit the target, and the doctors would have recovered the round and everyone would know there was a second gunman.

The surpressed .45 would have had little recoil, and with no loud blast the shooter is more accurate.

Uh huh, and the shot at 160 missed Kennedy and the entire limo, according Posner, Bugliosi and every other nutter I know of.

Oswald's first shot was deflected by the traffic light. The other two hit, everyone knows this.

I only need to prove that suppressed rifles were available then.

No, you need to point to a specific rifle and a specific shooter. Marksmen are creatures of habit, they use the same weapons, and they use the same tactics because they work. You need to point to a man known for his use of silenced rifles, and I would point out that such a man would have a reputation that would be known to those in the sharp shooting community. Then all you have to do is put him in Dallas on that day.

Besides the fact that snipers used them 20 years earlier, in WW2

Not widely, and the reason was that they were inaccurate at long range compared to the regular rifles. Distance = safety. The other reason is that suppressors (the big kids don't call them silencers) quickly foul the weapon, which also makes their use undesirable.

, you have confirmed that there were at least, "reliable" 9mm and .45 caliber rifles available in 1963.

But you have not proved any of those calibers were used.

The silencer issue is settled.

Hardly.

Why is it that EVERY SURVIVING LIMO PASSENGER REPORTED ONLY ONE EARLY SHOT?

This is where your theory strays into sociopathic behavior. You lack basic empathy and you seem not to understand how human beings function in a state of shock.

You just asked why a bunch of blue-blooded politicians, who were under fire, and taking horrific casualties, only heard one shot. Guess what? They heard all three, but they only recall the one. You ignore the human mind and how it works and doesn't work in cases of sudden emergency. The people in JFK's limo are technically the worst witnesses for the event past the first bullet strike. Their individual worlds shrank to a space of square inches for a few seconds.

The two big weak points of your theory is the needless use of a silenced weapon which no shooter in his right mind would use, and the reactions of people who were being shot at and hit while expecting them to act like it was a Sunday drive.

Look, I get it, you've done a lot of work, and it's hard to walk away from it. Your lack of firearms knowledge and unwillingness to do the research begs the question of how will you did your homework with the rest of this.

 

[Robert Harris]

Asked and answered -- multiple times. Maybe because there was only one early shot. Please show us how you know for a fact there was more than one.

I have refuted that argument over and over again. Your claim is that there was no shot circa 160, right? You are not disputing the shot at 223, right? Let's go very my refutations AGAIN.

John Connally proved you wrong in spades. He "heard" the first of those two early shots but only "felt" the one at 223,

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.

Mrs. Kennedy stated that she was looking to her left when she heard that first shot/noise,

Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise

She was looking to her left at 160, wasn't she? But by 223, she had turned completely to her right, looking at JFK. She had to have heard a pre-223 shot then.

Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lens then.

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get?

In addition to John Connally's testimony and the reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Phil Willis, we can see Rosemary Willis, who told Gerald Posner that she stopped running when she heard that first shot, coming to a complete stop. Look at the film. That happened, prior to frame 223.

http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-w...-dunckel-2.gif

Rosemary came to a complete stop before 223. You are wrong, Hank. There were at least two early shots. That fact is beyond reasonable doubt.

And here's another one, if that's not enough for. Mrs. Donald Baker testified,

Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker..

How could she have seen "sparks", rising from the pavement, from the 223 shot, that passed through two men?

 

[Tomtomkent]

On the one hand we could see human testimony as understandably flawed, and confused. And we can see people acting in the confusion of the moment, on film, while being shot at thrice, with two bullets wounding one man and killing another.

Or we can see the same confusion as absolute proof that people were startled, by snipers with suppressed weapons, failing to cause any known wound, without leaving a single recovered bullet, or indeed bullet hole, any evidence of their location or existence.

They would have needed to use a lower calibre of bullet than any found, or any that can be shown to have caused a wound.


And if my understanding of suppressed weapons is correct, and they were using those favoured I the war, they would have to be at close range to avoid hitting random members of the crowd due to decreased accuracy.(though I expect Hank willl correct me on this)

And all based on the assumption people are startled, in a way that can ONLY be explained by a very loud (silenced) noise!

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions.

Lets do something new.


Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here)