|
|
|
|
|
 June 05, 2009, 08:42:01 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 341
|
Chris,
although I understand your reasoning & logic here, I think your making the same mistake that many have made before & that includes myself.
The fact is, you cannot & should not rely on a shooting victim to tell you what happened & exactly when, esopecially not when you have a film of the event that's giving you a completely different story.
Connally was so confident of what he said though, easy to see why we trust it but for me, it's just another honest victim doing his best to recall the events & failing miserably.
A very, very common occurence.
If he did not get hit at exactly the same time as JFK, whatever caused the throat wound scared the hell out of JBC as it whizzed by.
He then goes out of the way to see if Jack has been hit & looks right at him.
Only then does he himself start reacting to pain.
Then we have the headshot which was heard & felt by all in the car.
That's when JBC goes forward, self preservation.
The doctor who treated him gave his professional opinion that Connally could quite easily have been hit twice, once in the wrist & once in the back, the latter more shocking & serious wound erasing the memory of the stinging sensation in the wrist felt seconds before(I'm paraphrasing).
Of course, JBC would totally dissagree with that opinion because he was there & he was the one shot...
naturally we would see the logic in JBC's argument but he is wrong to be so confident.
Ain't it funny how he had so much concern for JFK during the shooting but gave not one single thought for his wife!
I'm personally not too sure if he shouted "they're going to kill us all" either but I'm more than confident he said it to himself, maybe not verbally though.
Just my 2c anyway
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 06, 2009, 12:52:08 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Massive Debunking Text
Very well said. Lock this thread.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Once a hardcore CT (in this case) but now pretty much totally converted to the contrary
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 06, 2009, 04:06:06 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2660
|
Massive Debunking Text
Very well said. Lock this thread. In defense to Chris, i'am grateteful you got no admistrative rights here, Johan. He is expressing his opinion. We do that too. Not? BTW, where had Alan wrote that in your quotation? Martin
-------------------------
-------------------------
Firework As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginGod bless Emmett Till: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginInsipired by the Movie "Invictus" and Nelson Mandela. What a poem! As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 06, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 341
|
Thanks Martin,
I try to be as positive as I can, even when dissagreeing.
The day comes when I display a negative attitude towards another poster in this case without due provokation will hopefully be the same day I, at least, take a break.
Hopefully Chris will read what I wrote in the context I had intended, rather than think about my reason for writing it which I promise you anyway, was for nothing but positive reasons.
Johan's post suprises me, that is far and away the type of reponse I would expect.
Just for some counter-balance.
Ignore everything I said, the Zfilm is not to be fully trusted anyway so Connally may have indeed got the shooting sequence 100% correct!
I'm complicated.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 06, 2009, 11:03:00 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2203
|
Connally was so confident of what he said though, easy to see why we trust it but for me, it's just another honest victim doing his best to recall the events & failing miserably. Well, well, those politicians have always a bad memory, when it's not that helpful for their career. In the beginning he spoke about a strong "push from behind", when the bullet(s) hit him, and he recalled that being AFTER he heard the first shot(s). If he did not get hit at exactly the same time as JFK, ... ... then the SBT is scrap. ... whatever caused the throat wound scared the hell out of JBC as it whizzed by. He then goes out of the way to see if Jack has been hit & looks right at him. Only then does he himself start reacting to pain. So you want to tell me, that he felt pain only about at least 5 seconds after Z222? Then we have the headshot which was heard & felt by all in the car. That's when JBC goes forward, self preservation. Or the push from a bullet from behind. The doctor who treated him gave his professional opinion that Connally could quite easily have been hit twice, once in the wrist & once in the back, the latter more shocking & serious wound erasing the memory of the stinging sensation in the wrist felt seconds before(I'm paraphrasing).
Of course, JBC would totally dissagree with that opinion because he was there & he was the one shot... naturally we would see the logic in JBC's argument but he is wrong to be so confident. Well, when you see somebody holidng his hat with all his fingers, you can be pretty confident, that his wrist is NOT smashed. Ain't it funny how he had so much concern for JFK during the shooting but gave not one single thought for his wife! How do you know? He was probably aware that all he shouted out no matter into which direction was heard by all occupants. My guess is, he realized that JFK is the target pretty fast. I'm personally not too sure if he shouted "they're going to kill us all" either but I'm more than confident he said it to himself, maybe not verbally though. I could not reproach him for that, cause I would have shown that natural fear reaction, too, thinking about my life comes first, instinctively mainly. Good thoughts of you, Alan! Highly appreciated! Chris Danke, Martin!
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 11:09:40 AM by Christoph Messner »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
 John Beckham |
June 06, 2009, 11:20:29 AM
|
Group: Guest
|
i agree with Johan. and am especially surprised by Alans remark. Alan, you called me a "nutjob" that's a real positive attitude! i did not provoke you, only questioned you. then you used a remark of mine as a quote?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 06, 2009, 11:46:21 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 341
|
i agree with Johan. and am especially surprised by Alans remark. Alan, you called me a "nutjob" that's a real positive attitude! i did not provoke you, only questioned you. then you used a remark of mine as a quote?
I stand by my remarks to you, you are a nutjob & a troll.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 06, 2009, 07:57:13 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9052
|
i agree with Johan. and am especially surprised by Alans remark. Alan, you called me a "nutjob" that's a real positive attitude! i did not provoke you, only questioned you. then you used a remark of mine as a quote?
John, Alan also insulted me, unprovoked (Robin's "Muchmore" thread, his DA comment, which I assume meant "dumbass"). When he has nothing, he resorts to name calling. It would be nice to see him take his break away from the forum now, but we know that he won't. I'm still waiting on him to come and debate Lee Bowers with me.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 08:34:05 PM by Bill Brown »
|
-------------------------
"The TRUTH doesn't require anyone's belief." - Dale Myers
"The human mind craves a mystery more than it loves the truth." - Dan Rather
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." - John F. Kennedy
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 07, 2009, 02:08:57 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
This is beginning to look like Lancer... Just fighting and calling eachother names.
Childish and ignorant. And that makes me lose interest. Maybe IŽll just stick to asking questions.
I am sorry if I offended anybody by saying "close the thread".. The very same topic is debated in the main forum.. You guys are really sensitive! :)
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 02:13:35 AM by Johan Windh »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 07, 2009, 05:21:33 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 341
|
i agree with Johan. and am especially surprised by Alans remark. Alan, you called me a "nutjob" that's a real positive attitude! i did not provoke you, only questioned you. then you used a remark of mine as a quote?
John, Alan also insulted me, unprovoked (Robin's "Muchmore" thread, his DA comment, which I assume meant "dumbass"). When he has nothing, he resorts to name calling. It would be nice to see him take his break away from the forum now, but we know that he won't. I'm still waiting on him to come and debate Lee Bowers with me. Unprovoked? What the hell are you & John attempting do do right here in this thread? Look the word up in a dictionary. Your a pair of trolls IMO & that is positive, I'm 100% sure I'm correct. Didn't I already say "no thanks" & give a reason why? Your abilitly to reason or even learn about the history of Bowers case is insulting. Your hero Myers has done quite a good job of analyzing the data on his web-pages, go read it again. Also Johan, don't worry about it, the word "debunking" has certain negative conatations & is usually associated with LNTs, that's all that I picked up on. I do feel your slightly over-reacting to my thoughts on John though. I've made lot's of, what I feel to be, reasonably interesting posts on the evidence in the past week since I came back. What a waste of  time.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
June 07, 2009, 05:48:52 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9052
|
i agree with Johan. and am especially surprised by Alans remark. Alan, you called me a "nutjob" that's a real positive attitude! i did not provoke you, only questioned you. then you used a remark of mine as a quote?
John, Alan also insulted me, unprovoked (Robin's "Muchmore" thread, his DA comment, which I assume meant "dumbass"). When he has nothing, he resorts to name calling. It would be nice to see him take his break away from the forum now, but we know that he won't. I'm still waiting on him to come and debate Lee Bowers with me. Unprovoked? What the hell are you & John attempting do do right here in this thread? Look the word up in a dictionary. Your a pair of trolls IMO & that is positive, I'm 100% sure I'm correct. Didn't I already say "no thanks" & give a reason why? Your abilitly to reason or even learn about the history of Bowers case is insulting. Your hero Myers has done quite a good job of analyzing the data on his web-pages, go read it again. Also Johan, don't worry about it, the word "debunking" has certain negative conatations & is usually associated with LNTs, that's all that I picked up on. I do feel your slightly over-reacting to my thoughts on John though. I've made lot's of, what I feel to be, reasonably interesting posts on the evidence in the past week since I came back. What a waste of time. Alan, I'm not going to get into a "dick measuring" contest here, but I know just as much about Lee Bowers as you. Again, if you care to find this out on your own, come to the other thread, otherwise quit implying that you're the only one that knows what he's talking about. Again, bring it on big guy.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
