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

[Andrew Mason]

You'll never figure it out as long as you keep putting your faith in eyewitnesses.

No. You will never figure it out as long as you keep assuming that witnesses should be ignored. 

[Tom Graves]

No. You will never figure it out as long as you keep assuming that witnesses should be ignored.

Even though Abraham Zapruder was mistaken in thinking he'd filmed the whole assassination, he was right to explain that the reason he couldn't tell the direction the shots had come from was because there were too many echoes in Dealey Plaza.

It's too bad that your favorite witnesses didn't bring that up when they said the shots were "bang . . . . . . . . . . . bang-bang."

[John Corbett]

No. You will never figure it out as long as you keep assuming that witnesses should be ignored.

I've never said witnesses should be ignored. I've said their statements should be compared to the forensic evidence to see if they are corroborated or refuted. Sometimes they get it right.  Sometimes they get it wrong. We shouldn't believe witnesses just because they tell a story we want to believe. 

[Andrew Mason]

I've never said witnesses should be ignored. I've said their statements should be compared to the forensic evidence to see if they are corroborated or refuted. Sometimes they get it right.  Sometimes they get it wrong. We shouldn't believe witnesses just because they tell a story we want to believe.

I don’t have a story I want to believe apart from what the evidence establishes happened. The only reason to believe the witnesses is because they could not have been all independently wrong. If they had said JFK kept smiling and waving after the first shot, I would have accepted that too.  But in that case there would have been very different witness recollections as to where the first shot occurred, the shot pattern as well as a very different zfilm. And we wouldn’t necessarily be talking about it because
Oswald may have botched his next shots as he scrambled to set up the rifle on the boxes as the car moved away.

So what is the “forensic evidence” that rebuts the recollections of 25 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot (describing actions that are not seen in the zfilm prior to z193)?

[Tom Graves]

I don’t have a story I want to believe apart from what the evidence establishes happened. The only reason to believe the witnesses is because they could not have been all independently wrong. If they had said JFK kept smiling and waving after the first shot, I would have accepted that too. 

Your hypothetical is lame because JFK didn't "keep on smiling and waving" after Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot at "Z-124" (half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133).

He stopped waving and quickly turned his head to his left in Z-144.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z144.jpg



                                                                                     D'oh! ......... D'oh! ......... D'oh!

[John Corbett]

I don’t have a story I want to believe apart from what the evidence establishes happened.

BS. You've concocted a story that flies in the face of the evidence and you've spent decades convincing yourself of its plausibility when it isn't remotely plausible. It requires one to accept so many ridiculous premises that only a very silly person would believe it. 

The only reason to believe the witnesses is because they could not have been all independently wrong.

Nonsense. Of course they could have all been independently wrong. If dozens of earwitnesses could be wrong about the direction of the shots, they could also be wrong about the timing and the spacing of the shots.

If they had said JFK kept smiling and waving after the first shot, I would have accepted that too.  But in that case there would have been very different witness recollections as to where the first shot occurred, the shot pattern as well as a very different zfilm. And we wouldn’t necessarily be talking about it because
Oswald may have botched his next shots as he scrambled to set up the rifle on the boxes as the car moved away.

More silly analysis from a very silly person.

So what is the “forensic evidence” that rebuts the recollections of 25 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot (describing actions that are not seen in the zfilm prior to z193)?

The Z=film rebuts those witnesses. It shows both JBC and Rosemary Willis reacting to the missed shot over 3 seconds before JFK in JBC reacted to being hit by the second shot.

[Andrew Mason]

BS. You've concocted a story that flies in the face of the evidence and you've spent decades convincing yourself of its plausibility when it isn't remotely plausible.

Yes. I concocted “three shots, three hits” and immediately persuaded the Connallys and the FBI that this is how it occurred. I even persuaded the FBI to make this model of the shots:

 

It requires one to accept so many ridiculous premises that only a very silly person would believe it.

The only premise is that conclusions must be based on all the evidence.

The Z=film rebuts those witnesses. It shows both JBC and Rosemary Willis reacting to the missed shot over 3 seconds before JFK in JBC reacted to being hit by the second shot.

Right. And we know they are reacting to a shot because …… which means it could not possibly be due to anything else (fill in the …...).