The way you argue against the early missed shot is by inventing excuses to disregard the clear majority of witnesses who heard three shots and the existence of three spent shells found in the sniper's nest. Yes, a majority of witnesses CAN be wrong but that doesn't mean they were wrong. The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence. In this case we have the three spent shells and the CORROBORATED statements of JBC and Glen Bennett. JBC heard a shot seconds before he felt a bullet strike him in the back. Bennett heard a shot BEFORE the one he saw strike JFK in the back. Both of these men HEARD a shot before the one that hit both JFK and JBC.
“The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence.”
Why don’t we do just that. JBC is your prime and only witness but does not support a single thing that is proposed. Not one. JBC believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot hit him.
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven't seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Where is the corroboration to an early missed shot?
------------------
What evidence? There are only you and your opinion. People were shoulder to shoulder along Elm street and not one person heard an early missed shot. The eyewitnesses all state JFK reacted to the first shot. You think he continued to smile and wave
It is not a debate, it is undeniable. Nothing anywhere indicates there was an early missed shot.
----------------------------------
“the CORROBORATED statements of JBC and Glen Bennett.”
Bennett is a two shot witness. He referenced just two shots. Get over it.
JBC’s part of this theory is nothing but you talking out of both sides of your mouth. JBC is being presented as both right and wrong with his same statement. On one hand, to you anyway, JBC is right when he states he heard a shot, that in his mind hit JFK but not him, and then he was wrong when he states he was struck by a separate bullet than the one that hit JFK, the one JBC never heard.
Then, according to this oddball early missed shot theory, an early missed shot is then followed by one bullet that hit both JFK and JBC. In this bizarre theory, JBC’s earlier statement is completely ignored. What did he know, he was wounded is that it? How is that in any way following anything but unsubstantiated personal beliefs?
