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

[Andrew Mason]

Ok I am not sure in this Z270 frame if JC is still holding the hat with his right hand because it looks now like it’s in his LEFT hand.
At Z frame 230, it looks like the right hand was holding it , so did he inadvertently switch to holding it with left hand?

If that is his left hand, in addition to switching the hat, he must have also switched his left arm to his right shoulder.

[Andrew Mason]

You're only fooling yourself. Nobody else is buying this.

I follow the Feynman principle: quote, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool,"

That is why I base conclusions on the evidence.  I don’t rely on my own interpretation of ambiguous head turns in the zfilm and speculate why all the evidence must be wrong.  When it comes to choosing between independent bodies of independently and well corroborated evidence and my spidey senses, I go with the evidence.  Apparently, you don’t.

[John Corbett]

I follow the Feynman principle: quote, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool,"

That is why I base conclusions on the evidence.  I don’t rely on my own interpretation of ambiguous head turns in the zfilm and speculate why all the evidence must be wrong.  When it comes to choosing between independent bodies of independently and well corroborated evidence and my spidey senses, I go with the evidence.  Apparently, you don’t.

You go with your interpretation of cherry picked witnesses' accounts and ignore all the hard evidence that proves your interpretations are dead wrong. Frame Z271 alone disproves your theory. Oswald could not have shot JBC in the back at that frame because JBC was facing Oswald and JBC's shoulders were turned roughly 45 degrees off perpendicular to the bullet flight. That makes a back entry wound impossible. You ignore hard evidence because that doesn't support your fairy tale version of the assassination. 

[Andrew Mason]

You go with your interpretation of cherry picked witnesses' accounts and ignore all the hard evidence that proves your interpretations are dead wrong. Frame Z271 alone disproves your theory. Oswald could not have shot JBC in the back at that frame because JBC was facing Oswald and JBC's shoulders were turned roughly 45 degrees off perpendicular to the bullet flight. That makes a back entry wound impossible. You ignore hard evidence because that doesn't support your fairy tale version of the assassination.

That you would suggest that presenting ALL the witnesses represents "cherry picking" requires a new definition of cherry-picking.  That you believe that your interpretation of why you think people turned their head, while ignoring the evidence of why they turned (eg. Mary Woodward) and when they turned (80+ witnesses - virtually all of the witnesses who gave evidence on when JFK reacted and where he was when the first shot occurred), is "hard evidence" is a perfect example of not following Feynman's first principle.

[John Corbett]

That you would suggest that presenting ALL the witnesses represents "cherry picking" requires a new definition of cherry-picking.  That you believe that your interpretation of why you think people turned their head, while ignoring the evidence of why they turned (eg. Mary Woodward) and when they turned (80+ witnesses - virtually all of the witnesses who gave evidence on when JFK reacted and where he was when the first shot occurred), is "hard evidence" is a perfect example of not following Feynman's first principle.

You don't present all of the witnesses. You ignore the ones who said the shots were evenly spaced and you ignore the ones who said the first two shots were closer together. On top of that, you ignore what some of the witnesses said about those last two shots. Some said the last two shots were right on top of each other with almost no time between them. That would suggest they heard two sounds from the same shot. That could be an echo. It could be the sound of the impact on JFK's skull. Such impacts on a hard surface can be quite loud. The other possibility is they heard the sonic boom of a supersonic bullet, which also can be quite loud and which the would have heard about 1/10 of a second before hearing the muzzle blast.

https://gunsamerica.com/digest/two-sources-of-sound-when-you-shoot-subsonics-vs-supersonics/

"The crack or sonic boom of the bullet passing just over your head, if you’re close enough, will cause hearing damage."

[Andrew Mason]

You don't present all of the witnesses. You ignore the ones who said the shots were evenly spaced and you ignore the ones who said the first two shots were closer together.

No I don't.  And you would know that if you had read those 9 pages I posted.  Not only do I not ignore them, I quote what they said and provide cites.  The fact is there are only three general possibilities of the spacing of three shots and not everyone will recall it correctly. 

There were six people who seemed to recall the reverse pattern: Nellie Connally, William Newman, Gayle Newman, Ken O'Donnell, Cecil Ault and Steven Wilson.  Only the Newmans gave their statements within a short time after the event.  The others were months after. William Newman initially (22Nov63) described only two shots 19 H 490:

• "We were standing at the edge of the curb looking at the car as it was coming toward us and all of a sudden there was a noise, apparently gunshot. The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up. By this time ha was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head."

Then in his next statement on November 24 (22 H 842), he said he recalled two shots close together for a total of three. He thought the first two were closer together though.

So one is left with having to assess the evidence.  I not only found the witnesses as to the 1.....2..3  pattern to be clearer and more descriptive and sure, but I also understood that the probability that the distribution of witnesses  was such that it was highly improbable that almost 80% would hear the shots and recall the same distinctive pattern and all agree on the same wrong pattern. If witnesses were generally able to recall the pattern there would be a clear preference for one possibility and the errors would be distributed randomly over the other two possibilities.  If everyone were really confused, one would expect a random distribution over all three possibilities.  This distribution is what one would expect only if the witnesses correctly recalled that the last two were closer:

On top of that, you ignore what some of the witnesses said about those last two shots. Some said the last two shots were right on top of each other with almost no time between them. That would suggest they heard two sounds from the same shot. That could be an echo. It could be the sound of the impact on JFK's skull. Such impacts on a hard surface can be quite loud. The other possibility is they heard the sonic boom of a supersonic bullet, which also can be quite loud and which the would have heard about 1/10 of a second before hearing the muzzle blast.

https://gunsamerica.com/digest/two-sources-of-sound-when-you-shoot-subsonics-vs-supersonics/

"The crack or sonic boom of the bullet passing just over your head, if you’re close enough, will cause hearing damage."

They would have heard reverberations, not distinct echos.  Mary Woodward also said that the shots were on top of each other and explained that the sound of the second had not completely died out before the third shot sounded.  That may be why so many recalled those two distinct shots being close together. 

At 200 feet, the crack would be heard 77 ms before the muzzle blast and would not be confused with separate shots.

[John Corbett]

No I don't.  And you would know that if you had read those 9 pages I posted.  Not only do I not ignore them, I quote what they said and provide cites.  The fact is there are only three general possibilities of the spacing of three shots and not everyone will recall it correctly. 

There were six people who seemed to recall the reverse pattern: Nellie Connally, William Newman, Gayle Newman, Ken O'Donnell, Cecil Ault and Steven Wilson.  Only the Newmans gave their statements within a short time after the event.  The others were months after. William Newman initially (22Nov63) described only two shots 19 H 490:

• "We were standing at the edge of the curb looking at the car as it was coming toward us and all of a sudden there was a noise, apparently gunshot. The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up. By this time ha was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head."

Then in his next statement on November 24 (22 H 842), he said he recalled two shots close together for a total of three. He thought the first two were closer together though.

So one is left with having to assess the evidence.  I not only found the witnesses as to the 1.....2..3  pattern to be clearer and more descriptive and sure, but I also understood that the probability that the distribution of witnesses  was such that it was highly improbable that almost 80% would hear the shots and recall the same distinctive pattern and all agree on the same wrong pattern. If witnesses were generally able to recall the pattern there would be a clear preference for one possibility and the errors would be distributed randomly over the other two possibilities.  If everyone were really confused, one would expect a random distribution over all three possibilities.  This distribution is what one would expect only if the witnesses correctly recalled that the last two were closer:

They would have heard reverberations, not distinct echos.  Mary Woodward also said that the shots were on top of each other and explained that the sound of the second had not completely died out before the third shot sounded.  That may be why so many recalled those two distinct shots being close together. 

At 200 feet, the crack would be heard 77 ms before the muzzle blast and would not be confused with separate shots.

If the "second had not completely died out before the third shot sounded" that could not possibly be two shots from Oswald's rifle. You keep arguing for things that are impossible.