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

[Andrew Mason]

Do you see JBC reaching his right arm to the rear. If not, your whole exercise is pointless.

I was responding to your comment that the shoulders could not turn without the chest turning. It is generally a good idea to read the quoted part to which the response is referring.

Quit trying to play doctor. Your arguments are silly enough as a layman.

You weren't playing doctor in suggesting that the bullet entrance was not in the armpit, but now I am?

In order to save this turkey of a scenario you dreamed up years ago, you keep sounding more and more foolish. In order to buy this crapola, we would have to believe:

1. Oswald fired at JFK while he was still passing under the tree when all he had to do is wait on more second to have a clear shot.

I have shown you many times that JFK was clear when he was between the lamp post and the Thornton sign and was visible and trackable from the SN at all times he was under the tree. He may have wanted to fire the first shot without further delay.  You, on the other hand, believe that he waited for the car to travel a full car length after he was completely clear before deciding to fire a shot.

2. JFK and JBC were both hit at Z193, but neither reacted immediately. JFK slowly and calmly started to lower his right arm while JBC just continued to turn to look over his right shoulder oblivious to a deep puncture wound in his thigh.

When have I ever said that?  Do you actually read what I have written?

3. Almost two seconds later at Z226, both men exhibited a delayed reaction to being shot at exactly the same instant when both men suddenly and dramatically flipped their arms upward, JFK in reaction to his throat wound and JBC to his thigh wound.

Again, where did I ever say that JBC was reacting to his thigh wound? (correct answer: Never). He turned around, as he said, because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot and realized an assassination was unfolding.

4. JBC began twisting to his right and doubled over in reaction to being shot in the thigh, even though he said he did that in reaction to having been shot in the back. Amazing how willing you are to disregard witnesses when they don't fit your BS story.

Nellie said he was turned to the right when hit. JBC wasn't sure how he was turned. Gayle Newman said he was turned sideways when hit.  Who have I missed?

Here is what JBC showed us how he thought he looked when hit:


Does that look like anything seen around z222-226?

5. JBC, continued to turn dramatically in a clockwise direction until he was facing JFK and the shooter, all in reaction to being shot in the thigh.

Again, that is not what I have ever suggested he was reacting to.  He never felt the thigh wound.

6. With JBC turned to the rear and his shoulders roughly parallel to the sides of the car and Oswald behind him and slightly right, Oswald managed to fire a shot into his back near his right armpit, even though he had no view of JBC's back, and the bullet made about a 60 degree turn to the right to exit under JBC's right nipple.

Not anything close to a 60 degree deflection. I measure it as 24 degrees:

7. After having fired his first shot, Oswald took 4.3 seconds to take aim for his second shot but completely missed JFK and hit JBC instead.

He didn't miss by much to hit JBC.  Remember that hair flutter seen by Hickey and Kinney and seen in the zfilm starting about z273?

8. After missing JFK with his second shot after taking 4.3 seconds to aim, Oswald took only 2.3 seconds, the bare minimum time needed to fire an aimed shot with the Carcano, and made a precision headshot, killing JFK.

That's right. By just missing JFK's head on the second shot and having the gun strapped to his body and resting on boxes, as the car moved a bit right as it proceeded to the underpass the target moved into position.

One of these items is hard to believe.

I agree. None of them are accurate, as I have shown.  You don't seem to read or retain my posts very well. 

[John Corbett]

You don't seem to read or retain my posts very well.

Why should I? It's all nonsense.

You don't even seem to know that the recoil of the rifle would move the rifle off the intended target. Oswald would have to reacquire the target in his scope, place the crosshairs on his intended target, and then squeeze the trigger in order to fire an accurate shot. If he rushed any of these, he's not going to hit his target. What reason would Oswald have to try to fire the third shot in as little time as possible.

[Andrew Mason]

Why should I? It's all nonsense.

You don't even seem to know that the recoil of the rifle would move the rifle off the intended target. Oswald would have to reacquire the target in his scope, place the crosshairs on his intended target, and then squeeze the trigger in order to fire an accurate shot. If he rushed any of these, he's not going to hit his target. What reason would Oswald have to try to fire the third shot in as little time as possible.

I have fired a similar rifle (a WWI Lee Enfield .306) from a standing position.  It does pack quite a kick. But Oswald knew that because he had fired it many times before.  He knew that he would have a limited time to get up to four shots off.  That is why he used the strap and put the rifle on boxes.  That keeps the recoil going directly back.  With a secure stance the shoulder would have absorbed the recoil without any change in lateral or vertical position. The FBI conducted their own tests with three agents firing three aimed shots using a similar set-up to that found in the SN. See Agent Simmons' WC testimony at 3 H 444 ff.  The shots were remarkably accurate on the targets place at distances and angles replicating shots from the SN.

"Mr. SIMMONS. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4 mils. And against the third target, it
was 1.2 mils.
Mr. EISENBEBG. Again, could you convert those at a hundred yards to inches?"
Mr. SIMMONS. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is approximately 2 inches. 1.4 mils is approximately 4 inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3 1/2 inches."

"Mr. SIMMONS Yes. And the numbers which I will give you will be the average of two readings on stop watches.
Mr. EISENBEBQ. For each rifleman?
Mr. SIMMONS. For each exercise. 
Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.
Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, tired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.  Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight."

"Mr. EISENBERG. What were the targets that you used in your calculations?
Mr. SIMMONS. We used two circular targets, one of 4 inches in radius and one of 9 inches in radius, to approximate the area of the head and the area of the shoulders, or the thorax, actually. And a significant point to these calculations to us is that against the larger target, if you fire with the 0.7 mil aiming error which was observed against the first target, the probability of hitting that target is 1, and it is 1 at all three ranges, out to 270 feet.
Mr. EISENBEBG. Can you explain the meaning of the probability being l?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, the probability is effectively one. Actually the number is 0.99 and several more digits afterwards. It is rounded off to 1. Simply implying that the probability of a hit is very high with the small aiming errors and short range.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now of course this aiming error is derived from the three riflemen who you employed in the tests, is that correct?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you proceed to the other two?
Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 1.2 mil aiming error, again at the larger targets, the probability of hitting the target at 175 feet is 1; at 240 feet it is 0.96; and at 270 feet it is 0.92.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize the second two figures in terms of probability?
Mr. SIMMONS. These also are very high values."

[John Corbett]

Your theory depends on 8 highly improbable to impossible events. It is not even close to being plausible. There is no talking any sense into you. You will continue to delude yourself no matter how many problems with your goofball theory are pointed out to you.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over an over again and expecting a different result. It appears no matter how many problems I point out to you, you will continue with your silly rationalizations to convince yourself the impossible occurred. There is no point in me bothering to dissuade you from your fantasy. It is a joke and the joke is on you.