When Was JBC Hit?

[Andrew Mason]

Clint is looks like he is looking at JFK at Z234, so he has to have seen the Z224 reaction,

There was no reaction at z224.
z234 is about half a second later. What reaction are you expecting in half a second?

You can think that JFK is not reacting at z224 and that his hands just happened to be in that position, but many reasonable people disagree and have concluded that it his reaction to the first shot started well before z224. I would suggest that the HSCA photographic panel’s conclusion that JFK began reaction to a severe external stimulus before he passed behind the sign is more likely to be correct than your view that he did not react until after z225.

[Jack Nessan]

I never claimed it as proof of anything. It was in response to Dan saying that 3 shots, 3 hits is a demented theory. I just pointed out that JBC, Nellie and, apparently,Clint Hill, agreed with such a “demented theory”. When you accused me of twisting Clint Hill’s statement, I simply pointed out that I was not relying on his statement but on what he accepts as the correct sequence of events: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

You, on the other hand, think that anyone who thinks there were 3 shots, let alone 3 hits, is twisting the evidence..

This whole post is just beyond the pale, once again.

Seriously, “Three shots and three hits”, where is the evidence other than in fantasy land? In fact where is there any piece of information backing this disjointed theory.

You did lump Clint Hill in this nonsense. What you left out in this huge BS story is you admit he stated there was a different number of shots in his earlier WC testimony. You remember “not based on WC Testimony”. Nellie referenced JBC was hit by the first shot and was confirmed by Jackie referencing JBC’s utterances after being struck by the bullet. JBC only ever stated he actually heard two shots.

The biggest obstacle to this nonsense is the fact there was only evidence of two bullets and two shells having been fired. It is easy to tell the people who know about firearms and those who do not by their belief in SBT. Based on the orientation of JBC and JFK, only a complete idiot would make the claim it was not possible.

[b]You, on the other hand, think that anyone who thinks there were 3 shots, let alone 3 hits is twisting the evidence.

What evidence? Can you prove three shots? Where is the evidence of three shots and three hits? Don't be shy, post it all. Torture all the witness statements that you want but when you are done how about provide the physical evidence that proves it. You have been at this a long time you must have a treasure trove of evidence to be posted. Can't wait to see it.

[Andrew Mason]

This whole post is just beyond the pale, once again.

Seriously, “Three shots and three hits”, where is the evidence other than in fantasy land? In fact where is there any piece of information backing this disjointed theory.

You did lump Clint Hill in this nonsense. What you left out in this huge BS story is you admit he stated there was a different number of shots in his earlier WC testimony. You remember “not based on WC Testimony”.

Clint Hill has always maintained that he heard only two shots and I never said otherwise.  I just said that he agrees there were three shots, three hits, one shooter.  In the Youtube video, if you were to watch it, confirms that.  He admits in the video that he heard only two shots but accepts there was a shot after the first shot and before the head shot, both of which he heard, while he was running between cars.  He accepts this because other agents told him there was such a shot.

Nellie referenced JBC was hit by the first shot and was confirmed by Jackie referencing JBC’s utterances after being struck by the bullet.

Now you are in fantasy land. Nellie never said JBC was hit by in the back by the first shot. She said he uttered "oh, no, no" after the first shot and before he was hit in the back by the second.

JBC only ever stated he actually heard two shots.

Yes. But he certainly said he was sure he was not hit in the back by the first because of the perceptible time difference between hearing the first shot, turning to see JFK and then feeling the forceful impact of the bullet that hit him in the back.

The biggest obstacle to this nonsense is the fact there was only evidence of two bullets and two shells having been fired. It is easy to tell the people who know about firearms and those who do not by their belief in SBT. Based on the orientation of JBC and JFK, only a complete idiot would make the claim it was not possible.

Whether it is possible depends on when it occurred. The issue is not whether it would be possible at some point but whether there is evidence to support it.

[b]You, on the other hand, think that anyone who thinks there were 3 shots, let alone 3 hits is twisting the evidence.

[Andrew Mason]

despite dozens of witnesses saying that the headshot was the last.

I won't call this a bare-faced lie as I've underestimated how confused you seem to be.
For factual accuracy you are stating that there are at least 24 witnesses who say the headshot was the last shot.
Dozens?
There's no need to go out of your way to dig out all the witnesses who make up this comprehensive list.
Instead, just name ten witnesses who state the headshot was the last shot.

For starters, here are 1.33 dozens who described JFK being hit on the last shot heard: JBC, Nellie, Greer, Dave Powers, Curtis Bishop, Ken O’Donnell, George Hickey, Paul Landis, Clint Hill, James Altgens, Mary Woodward, J. W. Foster (WC testimony), Glen Bennett, William MacIntyre, Gayle Newman, William Newman.   

You think 3 shots, 3 hits, which was the FBI’s working scenario for several months, is demented?

No.
I think your demented theory is demented.
Shooting through the oak tree
Having the bullet ricochet at least 40 degrees off Connally's ribs
Passing through Connally when he was turned side on to the SN window
The bullet smashing his wrist-bone without moving his hand
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The staggering amount of evidence and testimony you simply ignore to try to make it work, the twisted interpretations you apply to the evidence, the constant evasiveness and deception...

All of what you say is demented is the only three shot, three hit, one shooter scenario that is possible on the evidence.  So you are actually saying that such a theory is demented. You are saying that Clint Hill and Gerald Blaine are promoting a demented theory.

[Jack Nessan]

Clint Hill has always maintained that he heard only two shots and I never said otherwise.  I just said that he agrees there were three shots, three hits, one shooter.  In the Youtube video, if you were to watch it, confirms that.  He admits in the video that he heard only two shots but accepts there was a shot after the first shot and before the head shot, both of which he heard, while he was running between cars.  He accepts this because other agents told him there was such a shot.
Now you are in fantasy land. Nellie never said JBC was hit by in the back by the first shot. She said he uttered "oh, no, no" after the first shot and before he was hit in the back by the second.
Yes. But he certainly said he was sure he was not hit in the back by the first because of the perceptible time difference between hearing the first shot, turning to see JFK and then feeling the forceful impact of the bullet that hit him in the back.
Whether it is possible depends on when it occurred. The issue is not whether it would be possible at some point but whether there is evidence to support it.

[b]You, on the other hand, think that anyone who thinks there were 3 shots, let alone 3 hits is twisting the evidence.

“he heard only two shots but accepts there was a shot after the first shot and before the head shot, both of which he heard, while he was running between cars.  He accepts this because other agents told him there was such a shot.”

He was told there was another shot and that is good enough for you. Somehow you can torture and twist that into confirming this goofy theory? In effect changing Clint’s testimony to fit this bizarre theory.

He went deaf while running. That is your assessment of years of statement to the contrary? That can happen? That erases years of statements there were only two shots. Is their a statement that actually means something to you because you can stumble around on the internet until you find a statement that is more to your liking?

 

“Yes. But he certainly said he was sure he was not hit in the back by the first because of the perceptible time difference between hearing the first shot, turning to see JFK and then feeling the forceful impact of the bullet that hit him in the back”

But Jackie and Nellie confirm that was the first shot. It was OK for other people to tell Clint Hill that he was wrong, but now to you JBC is somehow different? Jackie was not running anywhere, and she never heard a third shot. As did a very large number of other eyewitnesses. What is your excuse for them? They went deaf because they were standing or sitting there? What about all the eyewitnesses who place the second shot as the head shot. They went deaf and then regained their hearing for a third shot as the car accelerated?

This disjointed theory requires three shots and evidence of them. Can you prove three shots? Where is the evidence of three shots and three hits? Don't be shy, post it all. Torture all the witness statements that you want but when you are done how about provide the physical evidence that proves it. You have been at this a long time you must have a treasure trove of evidence to be posted. Can't wait to see it.

[Andrew Mason]

“he heard only two shots but accepts there was a shot after the first shot and before the head shot, both of which he heard, while he was running between cars.  He accepts this because other agents told him there was such a shot.”

He was told there was another shot and that is good enough for you. Somehow you can torture and twist that into confirming this goofy theory? In effect changing Clint’s testimony to fit this bizarre theory.

Again, you have to read the posts. I simply pointed out that Clint Hill accepts the 3 shot, 3 hit, one shooter theory. I didn't say he gave evidence of it. He clearly didn't because he always said he heard only two shots.  He accepts the "theory" that the first shot struck JFK and he reacted immediately to it (his own observation), that he jumped off the running board and ran to the President's car and during this run another shot was fired that struck Governor Connally (which he did not hear but believes because fellow agents told him), that as he was about to reach the President's car a third shot was fired and struck JFK in the head.  He believes that all shots were fired by the same gun although his only evidence is that the shots appears to come from his right rear.

He went deaf while running. That is your assessment of years of statement to the contrary? That can happen?

His mind was focused on getting to the President's car.  He had to run faster than both cars to do that. I expect there was a surge of adrenalin in his body.  He also commented that the noise of the car engine as he was right beside it may have affected his hearing.

That erases years of statements there were only two shots. Is their a statement that actually means something to you because you can stumble around on the internet until you find a statement that is more to your liking?

I did not say it was evidence of anything except Hill's present agreement with the 3 shot, 3 hit, one shooter scenario.

 

But Jackie and Nellie confirm that was the first shot.

You need to exit lala land first. Then we can talk about the evidence.

[Jack Nessan]

Again, you have to read the posts. I simply pointed out that Clint Hill accepts the 3 shot, 3 hit, one shooter theory. I didn't say he gave evidence of it. He clearly didn't because he always said he heard only two shots.  He accepts the "theory" that the first shot struck JFK and he reacted immediately to it (his own observation), that he jumped off the running board and ran to the President's car and during this run another shot was fired that struck Governor Connally (which he did not hear but believes because fellow agents told him), that as he was about to reach the President's car a third shot was fired and struck JFK in the head.  He believes that all shots were fired by the same gun although his only evidence is that the shots appears to come from his right rear.
His mind was focused on getting to the President's car.  He had to run faster than both cars to do that. I expect there was a surge of adrenalin in his body.  He also commented that the noise of the car engine as he was right beside it may have affected his hearing.
I did not say it was evidence of anything except Hill's present agreement with the 3 shot, 3 hit, one shooter scenario.

 You need to exit lala land first. Then we can talk about the evidence.

Andrew, how could anyone ever doubt you. You would think before you construct such a cute and clever response you would first want to make sure you do not prove your own theory is wrong and nothing more than ridiculous, made-up useless tripe and has been since its inception so long ago.


Mason: “Again, you have to read the posts. I simply pointed out that Clint Hill accepts the 3 shot, 3 hit, one shooter theory. I didn't say he gave evidence of it. He clearly didn't because he always said he heard only two shots. He accepts the "theory" that the first shot struck JFK and he reacted immediately to it (his own observation), that he jumped off the running board and ran to the President's car and during this run another shot was fired that struck Governor Connally (which he did not hear but believes because fellow agents told him), that as he was about to reach the President's car a third shot was fired and struck JFK in the head.  He believes that all shots were fired by the same gun although his only evidence is that the shots appears to come from his right rear.

His mind was focused on getting to the President's car.  He had to run faster than both cars to do that. I expect there was a surge of adrenalin in his body.  He also commented that the noise of the car engine as he was right beside it may have affected his hearing.”

 
Clint Hill could not hear while running alongside the car you say. Turns out there was nothing to hear by your own admission JBC is wounded before Hill ever leaves the running board.


That “he reacted immediately and during the run another shot was fired that struck Governor Connally.” Also “His mind was focused on getting to the President's car.  He had to run faster than both cars to do that. I expect there was a surge of adrenalin in his body.  He also commented that the noise of the car engine as he was right beside it may have affected his hearing.”

"that he jumped off the running board and ran to the President's car and during this run another shot was fired that struck Governor Connally (which he did not hear but believes because fellow agents told him),"

One problem with all your drivel, Hill is still standing on the running board looking at JFK in Z255 in the Altgens photo. JBC is already reacting to having been shot two seconds earlier. Thanks for clearing that up. It is back to Clint Hill correctly identifying just two shots were fired and you have managed to completely erase your own ridiculous theory. Seriously, does the adrenaline caused by believing this flawed theory make your mind go blank and you stop thinking. Maybe if you just went deaf like you claim all these witnesses did that would be better.

 ------------------------------------

You never answered this part of the earlier post. Maybe take another shot at it. I would hate for you to miss your time to shine.

“Yes. But he certainly said he was sure he was not hit in the back by the first because of the perceptible time difference between hearing the first shot, turning to see JFK and then feeling the forceful impact of the bullet that hit him in the back”

But Jackie and Nellie confirm that it was the first shot. According to you, it was OK for other people to tell Clint Hill that he was wrong, but now according to you JBC is somehow different? Jackie was not running anywhere, and she never heard a third shot. As did a very large number of other eyewitnesses. What is your excuse for them? They went deaf because they were standing or sitting there? What about all the eyewitnesses who place the second shot as the head shot. They went deaf and then regained their hearing for a third shot as the car accelerated?
 
This disjointed theory requires three shots and evidence of them. Can you prove three shots? Where is the evidence of three shots and three hits? Don't be shy, post it all. Torture all the witness statements that you want but when you are done how about provide the physical evidence that proves it. You have been at this a long time you must have a treasure trove of evidence to be posted. Can't wait to see it.