JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[sackett]

MicahJava, you still haven't revealed who shot JFK.

Or who
Who
Who
Who wrote the book of love.

And while you're at it,
Tell us why fools have to fall in love.

 

[MicahJava]

MicahJava, you still haven't revealed who shot JFK.

Or who
Who
Who
Who wrote the book of love.

And while you're at it,
Tell us why fools have to fall in love.

I can't tell you how I think it happened, the mods will ban me.

Let's just say it involves a very much alive Marilyn Monroe crouching in the back seat of the Lincoln Limousine and Jackie's envious rage.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Unfortunately, the damage doesn't seem to add up to that.

All the physical evidence we have disagrees with you.

The autopsy disagrees with you.
The autopsy photos disagree with you.
The films of the assassination disagree with you.

You offer: The expected confusion of witnesses, decades old memory, and a whole lot of what you really, really, really, wish was significant.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I can't tell you how I think it happened, the mods will ban me.

Let's just say it involves a very much alive Marilyn Monroe crouching in the back seat of the Lincoln Limousine and Jackie's envious rage.

So, you are just going to keep throwing disconnected (and contradictory) evidence about, but never actually explain what it is you want to prove?

That sounds dodgy to me. It sounds like you know you will be told what it would take to convince us, and you know your evidence doesn't add up to your conclusion, or you know there is evidence, that will pointed out to you, that contradicts your conclusion.

But feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[MicahJava]

Paul O'Connor 1977 HSCA interview:

O'Connor recalls that Jenkins or someone else told him that the doctors had "... found a fragment of a bullet lodged in the intercostal muscle on the right rear side..." of the President's body.

O'Connor was also told that "...alot of blood infiltrated the intercostal muscle."

O'Connor believes he was told this information by "...one of the corpsman, possibly the photographer."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md64.pdf

Recreating a crime scene in which the killers control the forensic evidence. Take what you can get. Noir. I get it. Now that I have diligently quote-mined from HSCA and ARRB documents, I have demonstrated that the JFK assassination was a violent transfer of power with the facade of the lone gunmen merely being a formality. What a fine charade our masters have set up for us to figure out. Now we can all riot in the streets because they apparently didn't do a very good job.

No, seriously. How do you guys account for all of these fragments like the kind O'Connor, Robinson, or David saw? The official story can only handle like two small fragments before it blows! Or hell, what about that whole bullet that was apparently recovered from the body? I am a child of the sun and I demand answers!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Paul O'Connor 1977 HSCA interview:

O'Connor recalls that Jenkins or someone else told him that the doctors had "... found a fragment of a bullet lodged in the intercostal muscle on the right rear side..." of the President's body.

O'Connor was also told that "...alot of blood infiltrated the intercostal muscle."

O'Connor believes he was told this information by "...one of the corpsman, possibly the photographer."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md64.pdf

So now you are offering hearsay from a decade after the event?

Recreating a crime scene in which the killers control the forensic evidence.

Okay, so, LHO didn't control the evidence.
Seeing as we have names for all those who gathered evidence at the autopsies, and chains of custody for the forensic evidence, perhaps you could clarify who exactly you are accusing here. And on what evidence?

Take what you can get. Noir. I get it. Now that I have diligently quote-mined from HSCA and ARRB documents,

Yes you have which is why....

I have demonstrated that the JFK assassination was a violent transfer of power with the facade of the lone gunmen merely being a formality.

...this is clearly wrong. You have demonstrated ALL you can use to support your claims are quote-mined sound bytes, taken out of context, with no substance.

What a fine charade our masters have set up for us to figure out. Now we can all riot in the streets because they apparently didn't do a very good job.

Or we could sit here, and raise an eyebrow at you.

No, seriously. How do you guys account for all of these fragments like the kind O'Connor, Robinson, or David saw?

Well, for a start we get the horse before cart. You offer us witness testimony, and seem to assume that is the measure by which we test the objective evidence. We have repeatedly pointed out, the objective evidence is how we validate those witnesses.

You have repeatedly ignored the posts pointing out the issues with human memory and WHY we use objective evidence to validate it.

The official story can only handle like two small fragments before it blows!

And this is just silly.

Nobody expects the "official story" to be perfect. It is however the theory that best fits the totality of evidence.

We EXPECT there to be people who misremember, we expect people to have honestly reached the wrong conclusion, we expect noise amongst the signal. People were shocked, people were scared, people were under pressure.

Or hell, what about that whole bullet that was apparently recovered from the body? I am a child of the sun and I demand answers!

I highlighted the problem.

Do you mean the one found in the gourney?
Or the fragments recovered from the body?
Otherwise "people remembering wrong and stories getting confused" is the answer.

 

[MicahJava]

I'm not out to impress you or people like you.

The others viewers may read the statements by Dennis David, Tom Robinson, and Paul O'Connor and judge their truthfulness and their memory for themselves. David and Robinson are talking about literally seeing and handling little jars of fragments, David saying that he distinctly remembered the fragments being of substantial size and that he personally typed a memo attached to this evidence.

David and Robinson statements, again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11562100&postcount=1920

These are autopsy witnesses just regarding fragments of bullets. As I have linked before, here is a compilation of evidence for a whole bullet extracted from Kennedy's body, starting at page 361 of this pdf: http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf

 

[HSienzant]

Paul O'Connor 1977 HSCA interview:

O'Connor recalls that Jenkins or someone else told him that the doctors had "... found a fragment of a bullet lodged in the intercostal muscle on the right rear side..." of the President's body.

O'Connor was also told that "...alot of blood infiltrated the intercostal muscle."

O'Connor believes he was told this information by "...one of the corpsman, possibly the photographer."

Hearsay from 14 years after the fact is NOT impressive.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Evidence for fragments recovered from the body that may have been sanitized from the forensic evidence:

From a report on mortician Tom Robinson's 1996 ARRB interview:

...Robinson said that the agent told him "it had to be this way" (in regard to having so many observers in the room), since there had to be "credible witnesses" to the wounds observed and procedures performed during the autopsy, because the "world was watching."

- Robinson said the same agent claimed to be a ballistics expert, and showed him a glass vial, similar to a test tube (which may have had a cork stopper on it), containing several pieces of tiny bullet fragments which had been removed from the President's head by pathologists, and that it contained "quite a few" fragments of "shrapnel". Robinson said that these bullet fragments were very small. When asked by ARRB staffers whether the number of fragments was closer to 2, 5, 10, or 15 fragments, he said that the total number would be close to 10 fragments.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711#relPageId=3&tab=page

A 33-year after the fact recollection supported by no physical evidence isn't persuasive. In addition, we know for a fact that some small fragments were removed from the President's brain during the autopsy.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/The_fragments.html

Dennis David told David Lifton in 1979 that he handled large bullet fragments and a receipt for these fragments.

A 16-year after the fact recollection supported by no physical evidence isn't persuasive. Why didn't Robinson mention these large fragments? Why didn't David mention small fragments? David also has a history of telling tales. He's the person responsible for the story that the autopsy was filmed, and that William Pitzer was murdered.

In a 1997 ARRB interview report, we read:

Preparation of Receipt for Bullet Fragments

Late on the evening of November 22, Mr. David said he was in the vicinity of the morgue, when the administrative watch officer for the Bethesna Naval Hospital asked him in he knew anyone with a clearance who could type. He answered, "I have a Secret clearance, and I can type." He said he was asked to type a Memorandum for the Record for a Federal agent wearing a suit, whom he assumed was Secret Service. (When asked to recall the name of the agent, i.e., the signature block on the memo, he said the name might have been "Sibert," but he wasn't sure.) He said that the agent dictated a receipt describing in some detail the gross physical characteristics of four bullet fragments which had been removed from the President's body at the post mortem examination. He said that in his estimation there was more metal than would be contained in one bullet, but probably less than would be contained in two bullets. He said the fragments were contained in a round pill vial with a plastic top (a snap-on cap). After typing the memo, he said the agent allowed him to handle the fragments, but then admonished him about security concerns and said that this was all to be treated as if it were classified information. He said the agent (who was wearing a blue suit, but otherwise seemed non-descript in appearance) then confiscated all copies of the memo, including the pieces of carbon paper, and even took the ribbon from the IBM Selectric typewriter with him.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md177.pdf

A 34-year after the fact hearsay recollection supported by no physical evidence isn't persuasive.

You've got one guy saying some small fragments were recovered, and another saying large fragments were recovered. You want to pretend these reinforce each other, but they don't. One of the men has a history of telling fish stories about the assassination - Dennis David. He's one of those people who come out of the woodwork to insert themselves into any famous event. Others like that in the assassination literature include Beverly Oliver, Ed Hoffman, and Gordon Arnold.

The man who actually typed the fragment receipt is someone else entirely.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

(65) Sibert and O'Neill observed that Dr. Humes removed two
fragments from the right side of the skull; one 7 by 2
millimeters in size, the other 1 by 3 millimeters.(67) Special
Agents Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt for custody of these
fragments and immediately following the autopsy transported them
to Special Agent Kurt Frazier at the FBI Laboratory. (68)

(66) The receipt for the fragments has been a continuing
source of controversy. It states that Bureau agents received a
"missile," (69) as opposed to two fragments. Chester H. Boyers,
the corpsman who typed the receipt,(70) submitted an affidavit to
the committee which stated that the receipt was for two fragments
that Dr. Humes removed from the skull, despite the receipt's
caption of "a missile." (71) Boyers emphasized that he gave
Sibert and O'Neill only missile fragments.

This then is your evidence. And you are welcome to it.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Recreating a crime scene in which the killers control the forensic evidence. Take what you can get. Noir.

Except that there was no control initially, nobody would have foreseen the Kennedy people taking control of the body before an autopsy could be performed in Dallas, and nobody would have known Oswald would be shot.

Too many things did not go they way they should have if someone had planned it.

I get it. Now that I have diligently quote-mined from HSCA and ARRB documents, I have demonstrated that the JFK assassination was a violent transfer of power with the facade of the lone gunmen merely being a formality.

You have demonstrated nothing.

You have not been able to rule out Oswald as the shooter, and you certainly have not ruled out the Carcano as the weapon.

What a fine charade our masters have set up for us to figure out.

Wow, you don't have an original thought in your head. It explains your inability to think clearly on this subject.

Why would "our masters" kill a President who wasn't all that much?
Why kill a President who was under investigation for sleeping with a Stasi agent, and was likely going to be forced to resign, or at the very least - not re-elected?

What did "our Masters" get from killing JFK?

He had already doubled the size of the military under his program of "Flexible Response". He was pouring money into the space race. Wall Street was happy with him. Big oil was happy.

So what was the payoff?

Now we can all riot in the streets because they apparently didn't do a very good job.

Apparently not, because shooting a President in broad daylight in public means that if there was a conspiracy those behind it are the biggest idiots in the history of mankind (at least after we learned to make fire). Instead of poisoning him by messing with the dosage of the medications he was taking, which would have been the smart way to go, these "masterminds" enlist a mentally unstable Marine, give him A RIFLE WITH A PECULIAR CALIBER, and hope he gets a job in the neighborhood.

At the very least, if things went the way you'd like us to believe, there had to be as many as six people in Dealey Plaza, another four at Parkland in key positions, and maybe a dozen back in D.C. just to deal with the execution of all of your moving parts. This does not account for the next layers of management to control the never ending threads of this beast.

How can you not conceive of the impossibility of a conspiracy like the one you want to believe in?

No, seriously. How do you guys account for all of these fragments like the kind O'Connor, Robinson, or David saw?

Again, if you bothered to look at the ballistics, you'd see that the Carcano round would have shattered either upon penetrating the skull, or impacting the inside of the skullcap on the way out. JFK's head would have a lot of fragments from that round, and five minutes of research would confirm that.

It is safe to say that O'Connor, Robinson, and David had never seen damage from a Carcano round, and would have had nothing to base an assessment upon. (This is why I don't argue engineering issues on the 9-11 board - I don't know enough to comment)

The official story can only handle like two small fragments before it blows!

53 years. Still waiting, and I'm not holding my breath.

Or hell, what about that whole bullet that was apparently recovered from the body?

No whole bullet was recovered from JFK's body.

I am a child of the sun and I demand answers!

No you don't. You want to be placated. We've given you answers, but you ignore them because you've already made up your mind before you even looked at the facts. You assume that the FBI, CIA, and Warren Commission are unreliable, and instead you chose to believe questionable websites, and testimony of people recalling brief events that occurred so long ago. You ignore the human factor at every turn. JFK getting killed was traumatic for everyone, and especially for the people who were in Dealey Plaza. Emotions cloud judgement, and can alter memory.

I've seen guys like you come and go since 1970. I was a guy like you until 1996. You are wasting your time.

 

[MicahJava]

A 33-year after the fact recollection supported by no physical evidence isn't persuasive. In addition, we know for a fact that some small fragments were removed from the President's brain during the autopsy.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/The_fragments.html


A 34-year after the fact hearsay recollection supported by no physical evidence isn't persuasive.

You've got one guy saying some small fragments were recovered, and another saying large fragments were recovered. You want to pretend these reinforce each other, but they don't. One of the men has a history of telling fish stories about the assassination.

The man who actually typed the fragment receipt is someone else entirely.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

(65) Sibert and O'Neill observed that Dr. Humes removed two
fragments from the right side of the skull; one 7 by 2
millimeters in size, the other 1 by 3 millimeters.(67) Special
Agents Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt for custody of these
fragments and immediately following the autopsy transported them
to Special Agent Kurt Frazier at the FBI Laboratory. (68)

(66) The receipt for the fragments has been a continuing
source of controversy. It states that Bureau agents received a
"missile," (69) as opposed to two fragments. Chester H. Boyers,
the corpsman who typed the receipt,(70) submitted an affidavit to
the committee which stated that the receipt was for two fragments
that Dr. Humes removed from the skull, despite the receipt's
caption of "a missile." (71) Boyers emphasized that he gave
Sibert and O'Neill only missile fragments.

This then is your evidence. And you are welcome to it.

Hank

Wow, Dennis's memory was so poor that he remembered being a totally different human being. You really showed me.

Officially, the story is two large fragments and several tiny pieces of one single bullet.

 

[MicahJava]

It is my understanding that some experts have said that the dark tadpole-looking line on the right side of the neck could represent the track of a missile. Is that right? If so, why is the dark line coming downwards when the back wound was lower than the throat wound? Doesn't this suggest a missile exiting down from the base of the head?

 

[HSienzant]

Wow, Dennis's memory was so poor that he remembered being a totally different human being. You really showed me.

No, Dennis is simply inserting himself into the story. Judy Vary Baker (who claims she was Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress) is another like this. The problem for these people is the record shows one thing, and when their story doesn't match it, their lies are exposed.

Officially, the story is two large fragments and several tiny pieces of one single bullet.

The two large fragments were recovered from the limo, not at the autopsy, contrary to the bunkem Dennis Davis spews. And they were ballistically matched to the weapon found on the sixth floor of the Depository - Oswald's rifle - to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Whether you like it or not.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

[qimg]http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/X_AUT_9.JPG[/qimg]

It is my understanding that some experts have said that the dark tadpole-looking line on the right side of the neck could represent the track of a missile. Is that right?

What experts? Please cite them.

If so, why is the dark line coming downwards when the back wound was lower than the throat wound? Doesn't this suggest a missile exiting down from the base of the head?

None of the autopsists, nor any of the forensic pathologists who ever reviewed the extant autopsy materials, ever suggested any such wound. What do your experts - and you - know that the best forensic pathologists in the country don't?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

No, Dennis is simply inserting himself into the story. Judy Vary Baker (who claims she was Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress) is another like this. The problem for these people is the record shows one thing, and when their story doesn't match it, their lies are exposed.

And so him and Robinson or David Lifton are in cahoots about the fragments being stored in a tiny test tube?

The two large fragments were recovered from the limo, not at the autopsy, contrary to the bunkem Dennis Davis spews. And they were ballistically matched to the weapon found on the sixth floor of the Depository - Oswald's rifle - to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Whether you like it or not.

Hank

I meant during the autopsy. I'm not in limousine territory.

What experts? Please cite them.

I was asking you or anyone else here. If you think it's nothing, OK but it seems like kind of a coincidence.

None of the autopsists, nor any of the forensic pathologists who ever reviewed the extant autopsy materials, ever suggested any such wound. What do your experts - and you - know that the best forensic pathologists in the country don't?

Hank

Actually, the autopsy doctors and others seriously considered that the throat wound could be anything but an exit from the back shot. One of the earliest explanations for the throat wound was a fragment wound from the head. It definitely doesn't look like the doctors always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.

 

[HSienzant]

Sounds like you are holding on to your first-shot-miss idea. No games please.

I've offered no scenario, merely disputed yours.

d) After viewing the films and slides, the Governor was of the opinion that he had been hit by frame 231.

e) The Governor stated that after being hit, he looked to his right, looked to his left, and then turned to his right. He felt the President might have been hit by frame 190. He heard only two shots and felt sure that the shots he heard were the first and third shots. He is positive that he was hit after he heard the first shot, i.e., by the second shot, and by that shot only.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm

Asked and answered. The Governor's opinion, and a buck, would get you a coffee at McDonald's. Of course, the buck itself, minus the opinion, also gets you a coffee at McDonald's. Which gives you a pretty good idea of what the Governor's opinion is worth.

There is a lot of evidence for some overlooked damage in the base of the skull and perhaps down the neck, as consistent with a low-velocity bullet entering low in the skull.

Which forensic pathologist expressed this opinion?

HSienzant, I already posted evidence that the autopsy doctors thought that 3 bullets entered Kennedy in exactly the scenario I'm proposing. Take some time and listen to the full audio of the supressed HSCA interview with Richard Lipsey. I think that Lipsey may have been completely right.

Really?

"It was obvious that one bullet entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his face and pretty well blew away the right side of his head... Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face... And then the other two bullets had entered the lower part of his neck and the best of my knowledge, or the best of my memory, one had exited... The other bullet had entered from behind and hit his chest cavity and the bullet went down into the body... When they did the autopsy first they cut the top of his head off "

Lipsey remembers the President was struck three times. He was struck by two bullets. Lipsey remembers one bullet was lost within the body. Full body x-rays were done and no bullets were within the body. Lipsey remembers they cut the top of JFK's head off. The top of JFK's head was removed in Dealey Plaza by the bullet that struck him in the head.

Lol, semantics garbage. Connally's Z190-231 scenario is a perfect match for the time period between the first two shots he perceived, which he described as "very, very brief".

Your math must vary from mine. When I work backward from the head shot ten or twelve seconds, I get a result much early than Z190. Can you show your work? Or at least admit you're ignoring Connally's time estimate of the shooting?

He even marked on a map where he thinks the shooting started. If you think Connally's statement through the years have been vague, check out the statements from people watching the motorcade the closest.

I think you can prove aliens from one of the moons of Jupiter killed JFK if you're so inclined by selecting judiciously from the witness testimony.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what Burkley means when he says things like "I believe it was a conspiracy" and "others besides Oswald must have participated" and "I would not care to be quoted on how many bullets entered the body". I'm sure this has nothing to do with him knowing about a whole bullet recovered, or him never being interviewed for any government investigation, or how his family still won't release his personal files to the public.

You brought up Burkley, and Burkley said, in the memo you cited, that he could eliminate two shots to the head if he had been called to testify. But you cited this memo to prove the exact opposite.

I think if you were standing in Dealey Plaza on 11/23/1963, the last two shots would probably sound close together. Depending on where you are standing, the last two shots could sound so close together that they blend into one.

It's curious to me that such a scholar of the assassination such as yourself can't even get the date of the assassination correct. And now you are back to arguing for two shots close together at the end of the shooting. Above, you're arguing for Connally thinking there were two close together at the beginning of the shooting (the time period between the first two shots he [Connally] perceived, which he [Connally] described as "very, very brief").

And then there's this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561
380&postcount=1907

I think you need to make up your mind. Or admit you think Connally was wrong about the number of shots. And admit you think the vast majority of witnesses (by most counts, approximately 90% of the witnesses that gave a number) were wrong in thinking they heard only three shots. All while you cite selective recollections of some of the witnesses.

I'm not convinced that's the best way to solve this crime. Can you tell us why you are?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The reported damage to the body, including the right cerebellum, is a good contender to explain the 224+ reactions. Some have suggested that he's reaching for his throat; if he is, he's very disoriented.

What? You think JFK was struck in the head with a bullet, remained upright, and kept his elbows splayed apart, and pointed to his throat wound despite a bullet that struck him in the back of the head and damaged his cerebellum?

Really?

http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/cerebellum
The cerebellum receives information from the sensory systems, the spinal cord, and other parts of the brain and then regulates motor movements. The cerebellum coordinates voluntary movements such as posture, balance, coordination, and speech, resulting in smooth and balanced muscular activity. It is also important for learning motor behaviors.

 

[MicahJava]

I've offered no scenario, merely disputed yours.

We know there was a shot at z190-z224, that's necessary. I don't see many good reasons to think there was a loud shot before that.

Asked and answered. The Governor's opinion, and a buck, would get you a coffee at McDonald's. Of course, the buck itself, minus the opinion, also gets you a coffee at McDonald's. Which gives you a pretty good idea of what the Governor's opinion is worth.

This started with others disputing that Connally's fast head turn after z160 was a coincidence. A used his own statements to show otherwise. Do you have any witness evidence for a first missed shot before z190-z224?

Which forensic pathologist expressed this opinion?

Do you dispute that the damage is consistent with a subsonic bullet penetrating the EOP and hitting the base of the skull? What else would you expect?

Really?

"It was obvious that one bullet entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his face and pretty well blew away the right side of his head... Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face... And then the other two bullets had entered the lower part of his neck and the best of my knowledge, or the best of my memory, one had exited... The other bullet had entered from behind and hit his chest cavity and the bullet went down into the body... When they did the autopsy first they cut the top of his head off "

Lipsey remembers the President was struck three times. He was struck by two bullets. Lipsey remembers one bullet was lost within the body. Full body x-rays were done and no bullets were within the body. Lipsey remembers they cut the top of JFK's head off. The top of JFK's head was removed in Dealey Plaza by the bullet that struck him in the head.

Try reading the entire interview, or even better listen to the audio. Lipsey is talking about the back wound being shallow, not exiting, and apparently not existing within the body; a bullet entering low in the head and exiting from the throat, and a tangential wound on the head.

Your math must vary from mine. When I work backward from the head shot ten or twelve seconds, I get a result much early than Z190. Can you show your work? Or at least admit you're ignoring Connally's time estimate of the shooting?

Where does the 'ten or twelve seconds' reference come from, again?

Let's say we allow frame z351 to represent the maximum time for the strong possibility of a loud shot shortly after z313, or for the sound of the shot from 313 to dissipate. 351 - 190 = 161. 161 divided by 19 (for the zfilm fps) is 8.47368421053 (seconds between z190 and z350). Meh, close enough to ten.

You brought up Burkley, and Burkley said, in the memo you cited, that he could eliminate two shots to the head if he had been called to testify. But you cited this memo to prove the exact opposite.

No, Burkley said that the possibility of two shots could be eliminated if the brain had been properly examined. He also said several times that he believes that it is physically impossible for LHO to do all of the damage to JFK.

It's curious to me that such a scholar of the assassination such as yourself can't even get the date of the assassination correct. And now you are back to arguing for two shots close together at the end of the shooting. Above, you're arguing for Connally thinking there were two close together at the beginning of the shooting (the time period between the first two shots he [Connally] perceived, which he [Connally] described as "very, very brief").

I am arguing that Connally did not perceive the last two shots close together, as most witnesses did. I think that some of the two-shot witnesses maybe thought that the last two shots were really one shot because the two were so close together. The one that hits Connally at z222 could be a subsonic bullet, therefore he could mean a completely different thing when he says that the first two shots were very close together.

And then there's this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561
380&postcount=1907

I don't know, man. Something about a protein or a clock or something.

 

[MicahJava]

What? You think JFK was struck in the head with a bullet, remained upright, and kept his elbows splayed apart, and pointed to his throat wound despite a bullet that struck him in the back of the head and damaged his cerebellum?

Really?

http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/cerebellum
The cerebellum receives information from the sensory systems, the spinal cord, and other parts of the brain and then regulates motor movements. The cerebellum coordinates voluntary movements such as posture, balance, coordination, and speech, resulting in smooth and balanced muscular activity. It is also important for learning motor behaviors.

Ladies and gentlemen, I just got HSienzant to admit that Kennedy was sitting upright at z222-224.

 

[abaddon]

Ladies and gentlemen, I just got HSienzant to admit that Kennedy was sitting upright at z222-224.

No, you didn't.

Far more interesting is the fact that you have claimed to be new to all of this, to be a few weeks at all of this, to be six months at all of this and to be years at all of this.

These claims of yours cannot all be true, can they?

Couple to that your proclivity and familiarity with wholesale spammage and one begins to wonder.

Unless you are willing to claim, which I doubt you so wish, to be an utterly gullible noob taken in by those wishing to shill a few bucks from you, something seems not quite right about your story.

So which is it? New, weeks, months or years? It can't possibly be all of them yet you have variously claimed them all.

Step up.