Video: The Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Guy

[Jack Nessan]

You completely misrepresent what I have said repeatedly. I have never said a person is not able to recall events. I have said that witnesses don't remember things perfectly. The do remember some things but they also get some things wrong. The task is to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong by comparing their recollections to the body of evidence as a whole. In this case, we have a witness far more credible than all the other witnesses combined, and that is Zapruder's camera. Any eyewitness account that conflicts with the Z-film should be rejected.

As for my accepting earwitnesses as gospel, you obviously have not read what I have said about the earwitnesses who said the shots came from the GK. They were dead wrong. I know they were dead wrong because it conflicts with the body of evidence, starting with other earwitnesses who said the shots came from the direction of the  TSBD. We know they were right because EYEwtinesses saw a shooter firing from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor, 3 shell were found at the location the eyewitnesses pointed to, and a rifle was found elsewhere on the 6th floor. That rifle was possitively matched to the shells found in the sniper's nest and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting.

As for believing JBC, he said he turned to his right after he heard the shot that did not hit him.  The Z-film shows him start that turn at frame Z164. 6= frames later, we see his jacket suddenly bulge outward and two frames later he reacts by flipping his right arm upward followed immediately by him doubling over and twisting to his right, obviously in reaction to having been shot through the torso. I think JBC would know he heard a shot and then several seconds later he was hit by a follow up shot. The Z-film shows us that he did.
Your fallacy is believing eyewitnesses are needed to establish what happened. Many crimes are solved without eyewitnesses. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock left no witnesses when they murdered the Clutter family yet the investigators were able to convict them on the forensic evidence.
I have no idea what your point here is. The SBT is perfectly compatible with a first shot miss and second shot strike.
Yes it is. Now explain why that is wrong.
That is how you resolve cases where the eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts. They can't all be correct. That's why you turn to what other evidence is available to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
It is not an interpretation that JBC turned to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164 and 60 frames later his jacket bulged out and 2 frames after that he suddenly flipped his right arm upward. Do you dispute that is what happened.
Unlike you, I do not rely solely on witnesses to tell me what happened. I evaluate what they have said in the context of all the available evidence. That allows me to determine who got what right and who got things wrong.
Since you foolishly rely solely on witnesses, I'm not surprised you can't understand the concept of corroboration.
That might be the dumbest thing you have written.......so far.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You have decided your opinion has taken on the status of fact. You were given corroborating evidence. Lots and lots of corroborating evidence. Nelly, Jackie, JBC and JBC crying out after the first shot is clearly corroborating evidence. You responded with a strange post about the Clutter Family murder? Something that is not even remotely relevant.

There was not a shot at Z14, Z150, or Z160 or whatever. The corroborating eyewitnesses explained that JFK reacts to the first shot. Just the way JBC describes in the Hospital Room interview.

After the first shot strikes JFK and JBC, JBC turns and looks directly at JFK, and JFK is slumped just like he describes and so many eyewitnesses described as having taken place after the first shot. There is no doubt he saw JFK after he was hit behind the sign.

This whole Early Missed Shot is pure tripe. Not one shred of evidence to it at all. Apparently, you are not going to provide any. Nothing but trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.

[John Corbett]

Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You have decided your opinion has taken on the status of fact.

On the contrary, my opinions are based on facts. The CTs prefer to believe the myths, of which there are a great many.

You were given corroborating evidence. Lots and lots of corroborating evidence. Nelly, Jackie, JBC and JBC crying out after the first shot is clearly corroborating evidence.

One confused witness isn't much corroboration for another confused witness. I prefer to use hard evidence as corroboration for witness statements, such as the Z-film. CTs prefer to put full faith in witness accounts because there is no hard evidence to support what they want to believe.

Interesting that you cite JBC since he was adamant from the start until he died that he was hit by the second shot.

Do you have any hard evidence that supports the other witnesses you have named?
I didn't thinks so.

You responded with a strange post about the Clutter Family murder? Something that is not even remotely relevant.

I cited that murder as an indication that it if Oswald had lived, it is highly unlikely he would have been executed due to the courts halting executions after 1967. Try reading for context next time.

There was not a shot at Z14, Z150, or Z160 or whatever. The corroborating eyewitnesses explained that JFK reacts to the first shot. Just the way JBC describes in the Hospital Room interview.

Still no real corroboration for your witnesses.

The witnesses you have named were all people who suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves under fire. It is quite understandable that they wouldn't perfectly recall the event.

After the first shot strikes JFK and JBC, JBC turns and looks directly at JFK, and JFK is slumped just like he describes and so many eyewitnesses described as having taken place after the first shot. There is no doubt he saw JFK after he was hit behind the sign.

The first shot did not hit either man. JBC was quite clear about that and the Z-film corroborates that recollection. He also said that upon hearing the first shot he turned to see JFK but could not because he did not turn far enough. We see that turn beginning at Z164. He was turning back toward the front when he felt the second shot strike him in the back.

This whole Early Missed Shot is pure tripe. Not one shred of evidence to it at all. Apparently, you are not going to provide any. Nothing but trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.

The Z-film, coupled with JBC's account, clearly shows us there was a missed shot before the two that hit the target. We can debate as to when that first shot was fired, but there is compelling evidence for that missed shot. We see the reactions of two people to that missed shot, JBC and Rosemary Willis. There is a clear consensus there were three shots and we can see when the second shot struck both JFK and JBC. By itself, the consensus is probative if not proof positive that there were three shots. Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.

[Jack Nessan]

On the contrary, my opinions are based on facts. The CTs prefer to believe the myths, of which there are a great many.

One confused witness isn't much corroboration for another confused witness. I prefer to use hard evidence as corroboration for witness statements, such as the Z-film. CTs prefer to put full faith in witness accounts because there is no hard evidence to support what they want to believe.

Interesting that you cite JBC since he was adamant from the start until he died that he was hit by the second shot.

Do you have any hard evidence that supports the other witnesses you have named?
I didn't thinks so.
I cited that murder as an indication that it if Oswald had lived, it is highly unlikely he would have been executed due to the courts halting executions after 1967. Try reading for context next time.
Still no real corroboration for your witnesses.

The witnesses you have named were all people who suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves under fire. It is quite understandable that they wouldn't perfectly recall the event.
The first shot did not hit either man. JBC was quite clear about that and the Z-film corroborates that recollection. He also said that upon hearing the first shot he turned to see JFK but could not because he did not turn far enough. We see that turn beginning at Z164. He was turning back toward the front when he felt the second shot strike him in the back.
The Z-film, coupled with JBC's account, clearly shows us there was a missed shot before the two that hit the target. We can debate as to when that first shot was fired, but there is compelling evidence for that missed shot. We see the reactions of two people to that missed shot, JBC and Rosemary Willis. There is a clear consensus there were three shots and we can see when the second shot struck both JFK and JBC. By itself, the consensus is probative if not proof positive that there were three shots. Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.

J Corbett---” Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.”

No, it does not.

You mean the first statement from JBC. The Hospital statement.

”we had just turned the corner, we heard a shot; I turned to my left—I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat—the President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly.”   

He actually turned to his right not his left. Does that make him a “confused witness”, doesn’t matter he was staring right at a slumping JFK. Just as said and just as described by the eyewitnesses. Then there is corroboration of witnesses of Nellie, Jackie, and JBC with what is seen on the Zapruder Film over JBC yelling OH No No No.   

Really a child running down a sidewalk and you interpreting her movements is your proof? Doesn’t take much to convince you. You just need to ignore the real evidence and pretend.

[John Corbett]

J Corbett---” Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.”

No, it does not.

You mean the first statement from JBC. The Hospital statement.

”we had just turned the corner, we heard a shot; I turned to my left—I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat—the President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly.”   

He actually turned to his right not his left. Does that make him a “confused witness”, doesn’t matter he was staring right at a slumping JFK. Just as said and just as described by the eyewitnesses. Then there is corroboration of witnesses of Nellie, Jackie, and JBC with what is seen on the Zapruder Film over JBC yelling OH No No No.   

Interesting how you cherry pick which parts of JBC's testimony you want to give credence to. Yes, Connally did make some misstatements of fact in his first interview. As you pointed out, he said left when he actually turned right. He also did not turn far enough to see JFK on his first turn. He didn't do that until his second turn, after he had been shot. By about Z265, he had turned almost completely around and it was only then that he could have seen JFK. Connoly's confusion in his initial interview with Martin Agronsky from his hospital be is understandable given he was in surgery a long time the day before and been heavily anesthetized. In every other telling of the event, JBC was remarkably consistent that he did not see JFK on his initial turn and in every telling, including the one from his hospital bed, he said he was not hit by the first shot. That's the part you always choose to ignore.

Really a child running down a sidewalk and you interpreting her movements is your proof? Doesn’t take much to convince you. You just need to ignore the real evidence and pretend.

That isn't the most compelling proof of the first shot but it does support the other evidence of the early missed shot, most notably JBC's insistence that the second shot is the one that hit him and the Z-film which shows him turning as he described in his WC testimony.

[Jack Nessan]

Interesting how you cherry pick which parts of JBC's testimony you want to give credence to. Yes, Connally did make some misstatements of fact in his first interview. As you pointed out, he said left when he actually turned right. He also did not turn far enough to see JFK on his first turn. He didn't do that until his second turn, after he had been shot. By about Z265, he had turned almost completely around and it was only then that he could have seen JFK. Connoly's confusion in his initial interview with Martin Agronsky from his hospital be is understandable given he was in surgery a long time the day before and been heavily anesthetized. In every other telling of the event, JBC was remarkably consistent that he did not see JFK on his initial turn and in every telling, including the one from his hospital bed, he said he was not hit by the first shot. That's the part you always choose to ignore.
That isn't the most compelling proof of the first shot but it does support the other evidence of the early missed shot, most notably JBC's insistence that the second shot is the one that hit him and the Z-film which shows him turning as he described in his WC testimony.

No, no one needs your opinion on JBC’s state of mind. Nellie and Jackie state what occurred, as did all the other eyewitnesses. What did not take place was an early missed shot. That is why you are unable to prove it. 

Rosemary Willis, seriously, a child and none of the adults surrounding her knew what was happening. Just her. That is your answer?

[John Corbett]

No, no one needs your opinion on JBC’s state of mind. Nellie and Jackie state what occurred, as did all the other eyewitnesses. What did not take place was an early missed shot. That is why you are unable to prove it. 

Rosemary Willis, seriously, a child and none of the adults surrounding her knew what was happening. Just her. That is your answer?

So you base your beliefs on two women who saw their husbands shot right before their eyes and you think they are going to remember the details of the event clearly. That's actually funny.