Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272

[John Corbett]

Unfortunately, you picked the wrong witness.  This is the same Patricia Ann Donaldson who said that there was a pause after the first shot and the last two shots were fired rapidly "bam bam", as we see in the Youtube clip:

She describes the very short time the last two shots. So Donaldson must be mistaken about the placement of the President at the time of the first shot because the time between the last two shots that she describes does not permit JFK to have been hit in the neck by the second shot.

But Donaldson's mistake about the car location is understandable because she is mistaken about where she was standing.   Patricia Ann Donaldson, known by "Ann" worked at the Dallas Morning News and was standing with Mary Woodward just to the west of the lamp post as shown in the Roberdeau map:


and as noted by Woodward in her DMN story written a few hours later: "Four of us from Women's News, Maggie Brown, Aurelia Alonzo, my roommate Ann Donaldson, and myself had decided to spend our lunch hour by going to see the President. ... The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us, it seemed. .... [after talking about the second shot she says:] "This was followed rapidly by another shot."

i didn't present Patricia Ann Donaldson as an endorsement of her account. I presented her as an example of a witness who gave an account that conflicts with your pet theory that the first shot was fired at Z193. Your willingness to accept her description of the spacing of the shots but not her account of where the limo was when the first shot was fired shows a clear confirmation bias on your part. You will only accept the things she said that agrees with your beliefs. I don't think she got either right.

[Andrew Mason]

i didn't present Patricia Ann Donaldson as an endorsement of her account. I presented her as an example of a witness who gave an account that conflicts with your pet theory that the first shot was fired at Z193. Your willingness to accept her description of the spacing of the shots but not her account of where the limo was when the first shot was fired shows a clear confirmation bias on your part.

I accept her general description of the shots because it a) was volunteered without coaching and b) it fits with the general pattern that the vast majority of witnesses also recalled (most without promoting). I also note that in her original statements 24Nov63 and 20Mar64 she grouped the shots the same way.

But when it comes to the time of the first shot she just said that the first shot was a few seconds after he passed by.  She said that the President looked in her direction and she waved as he passed by and that the first shot sounded “a few seconds” after that. Z193 is about 5 seconds after.

She also noted that the first shot sounded when the President was waving. If that was accurate, that would fit a time from just before the end of the Towner film to z142 but also after z175.
 
So there is nothing inconsistent with her statements and what the other witnesses said about the location of JFK at the time of the first shot - generally after z186.

You will only accept the things she said that agrees with your beliefs. I don't think she got either right.

If you had said “You will only accept things she said that agrees with the total preponderance of the evidence as a whole” I would accept that.  I don’t base my conclusions on “beliefs”.

[John Corbett]

I accept her general description of the shots because it a) was volunteered without coaching and b) it fits with the general pattern that the vast majority of witnesses also recalled (most without promoting). I also note that in her original statements 24Nov63 and 20Mar64 she grouped the shots the same way.

But when it comes to the time of the first shot she just said that the first shot was a few seconds after he passed by.  She said that the President looked in her direction and she waved as he passed by and that the first shot sounded “a few seconds” after that. Z193 is about 5 seconds after.

She also noted that the first shot sounded when the President was waving. If that was accurate, that would fit a time from just before the end of the Towner film to z142 but also after z175.
 
So there is nothing inconsistent with her statements and what the other witnesses said about the location of JFK at the time of the first shot - generally after z186.

You cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and then you cherry pick the parts of their statements you choose to believe.

If you had said “You will only accept things she said that agrees with the total preponderance of the evidence as a whole” I would accept that.  I don’t base my conclusions on “beliefs”.

Actually, you do and you base them on whom you choose to believe.

[Andrew Mason]

You cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and then you cherry pick the parts of their statements you choose to believe.

You seem to have difficulty admitting that without “cherry picking” and without interpreting and just taking what they all said at face value, the overwhelming preponderance of all the witness evidence is that:
1. JFK reacted to the first shot
2. the last two shots were closer together and in fairly rapid succession
3. the first shot occurred with JFK in a position that is inconsistent with his position before z186.

That is all I am doing. If I was cherry picking I would not have included in my 9 pages all the witnesses who recalled a different shot pattern, or you would be able to provide me a list of witnesses who stated that they observed JFK at the time of the first shot and saw that he did not react.

Actually, you do and you base them on whom you choose to believe.

Yes, exactly.   But I choose to believe those whose evidence is independently corroborated and consistent the preponderance of all the rest of the evidence. That point seems to be missed.

[John Corbett]

You seem to have difficulty admitting that without “cherry picking” and without interpreting and just taking what they all said at face value, the overwhelming preponderance of all the witness evidence is that:
1. JFK reacted to the first shot
2. the last two shots were closer together and in fairly rapid succession
3. the first shot occurred with JFK in a position that is inconsistent with his position before z186.

That is all I am doing. If I was cherry picking I would not have included in my 9 pages all the witnesses who recalled a different shot pattern, or you would be able to provide me a list of witnesses who stated that they observed JFK at the time of the first shot and saw that he did not react.
Yes, exactly.   But I choose to believe those whose evidence is independently corroborated and consistent the preponderance of all the rest of the evidence. That point seems to be missed.

I choose to believe the witnesses whose account jibe with the Z-film which is probably a minority of the witnesses.

When you say "the preponderance of all the rest of the evidence" you really mean the preponderance of the witnesses accounts of the shooting. You rarely if ever offer hard evidence to support you beliefs. Since you seem to place most of your faith in the witnesses over the forensic evidence, explain this:

https://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-documents/grassy-knoll-witnesses

Witnesses to Shots from the Grassy Knoll
Here is a list, in alphabetical order by surname, and no doubt incomplete, of those witnesses to President Kennedy’s assassination who claimed that one or more shots came from the general direction of the grassy knoll:
Victoria Adams
Danny Garcia Arce
Virginia Baker (née Rackley)
Jane Berry
Charles Brehm
Ochus Campbell
Faye Chism
John Chism
Harold Elkins
Ronald Fischer
Buell Wesley Frazier
Dorothy Garner
Jean Hill
Sam Holland
Ed Johnson
Dolores Kounas
Paul Landis
Billy Lovelady
Austin Miller
A.J. Millican
Luke Mooney
Thomas Murphy
Jean Newman
William Newman
Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers
Roberta Parker
Frank Reilly
Arnold Rowland
Edgar Smith
Joe Marshall Smith
Forrest Sorrels
James Tague
Roy Truly
Harry Weatherford
Seymour Weitzman
Otis Williams
Mary Woodward
Abraham Zapruder

How do you suppose 38 earwitnesses pointed to the same wrong location as the source of the shots? Did these witnesses corroborate each other?

[Tom Graves]

I choose to believe the witnesses whose account jibe with the Z-film which is probably a minority of the witnesses.

When you say "the preponderance of all the rest of the evidence" you really mean the preponderance of the witnesses accounts of the shooting. You rarely if ever offer hard evidence to support you beliefs. Since you seem to place most of your faith in the witnesses over the forensic evidence, explain this:

https://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-documents/grassy-knoll-witnesses

Witnesses to Shots from the Grassy Knoll
Here is a list, in alphabetical order by surname, and no doubt incomplete, of those witnesses to President Kennedy’s assassination who claimed that one or more shots came from the general direction of the grassy knoll:
Victoria Adams
Danny Garcia Arce
Virginia Baker (née Rackley)
Jane Berry
Charles Brehm
Ochus Campbell
Faye Chism
John Chism
Harold Elkins
Ronald Fischer
Buell Wesley Frazier
Dorothy Garner
Jean Hill
Sam Holland
Ed Johnson
Dolores Kounas
Paul Landis
Billy Lovelady
Austin Miller
A.J. Millican
Luke Mooney
Thomas Murphy
Jean Newman
William Newman
Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers
Roberta Parker
Frank Reilly
Arnold Rowland
Edgar Smith
Joe Marshall Smith
Forrest Sorrels
James Tague
Roy Truly
Harry Weatherford
Seymour Weitzman
Otis Williams
Mary Woodward
Abraham Zapruder

How do you suppose 38 earwitnesses pointed to the same wrong location as the source of the shots? Did these witnesses corroborate each other?

It would be interesting to know which shot or shots they were referring to, and to plot where the witnesses were standing to see if the echoes were more concentrated there.

[Andrew Mason]

[quote author=Zeon Mason link=topic=4893.msg177294#msg177294 date=
 

If instead of at Z224  JC is getting hit somewhere between  Z 270-Z280, by a 2nd bullet traveling 2000ft/sec hit his upper body mass , shoujd there not be be some indication of some moment of his upper body forwards?

Perhaps you mean this kind of uniform forward motion immediately before he goes back onto Nellie’s lap:

Since I’ve seen no alternative drawing to the one that JohnM posted to explain the wrist wound, I have to remain doubtful about a shot at Z270-z280 where the bullet exits JCs chest and  goes thru the top of his right hand wrist bone ,  exits the bottom of palm, and misses the hat. The trajectory line from TSBD is the question if it can be aligned with the entry and exit wound line thru JCs upper body in some position between Z270-z280.

If the bullet deflected off the back of the wrist as Dr. Shaw suggested and as the shirt cuff might suggest:


and if the narrow slit in the palm side was caused be one of many small bone shards created by the impact, then maybe that would explain why the fragments deflected up to the top of the windshield area….