JFK Assassination Forum

Although she doesn't specify Euins or a police motorcycle, she must surely be talking about Harkness and Euins on his three-wheeler, but Harkness is in uniform and looks absolutely nothing like Ruby.
As far as I'm aware, the only time Euins is on the back of the three-wheeler is when he is being taken from the railroad area to the front steps of the Depository building, so Adams would have seen him arriving rather than being taken away.
Unless she's talking about a completely unrelated incident it doesn't make sense.

It appears to me that her memory is faulty (inaccurate, mixed up, etc regarding some of the details). A prime example of why we should not think that we can rely on witness accounts to be totally accurate in all respects.

Bill Maher who is a fairly intelligent guy is still spreading the demonstrably false narrative that police officers were killed on Jan. 6.   Unreal.  No police officer was killed that day.  None died of any injuries sustained that day.  None.  There is no basis for this story except the initial false claim that was allowed by the leftist media and law enforcement to go uncorrected for months that a police officer had died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.  A complete falsehood.  A police officer died from natural causes from a blood clot the next day.   Only one person was killed that day.  An unarmed protestor shot by the police.

You are reading a lot into the word “instinctively”.

In his HSCA testimony, JBC said this (1HSCA42):

“Mr. CONNALLY, Mr. Cornwell, we had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what l thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from—I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up pretty erect.  I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.”

You are reading a lot into the word “instinctively”.

Yes, I admit that I am doing that. However it is interesting that JBC chose to use that word (not yours truly). I have only recently made the correlation between Connally’s word and my experience with the striking snake. If I didn’t know as fact that (due to gravity) snakes cannot hang in mid-air and slowly float to the ground over a time period that seemed like 2-3 seconds, I would have no problem swearing under oath that it appeared to do just that. But Connally had no similar reference to let him know that his memory might have been distorted.
Could I be reading too much into this? Of course I could be. Unlike some folks here, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I think it is risky to place a lot of weight on witness accounts unless there is other physical evidence to support them. The photographic record, especially the Z-film, can show us a lot. The lack of a sound track and the Stemmons Freeway sign blocking the view of the limo for a short time period requires us to have to improvise and use other clues to try to answer some of the questions.
The Stemmons sign blocks the view and prevents us from knowing whether or not JBC made an instinctive head turn just before he came back into view. However, while JBC was behind the sign, JFK is said to have made an 87-degree head snap to his left between Z203 and Z206 (see the Roberdeaux map notes). I believe this very quick head snap indicates an instinctive reaction by JFK during the time period in question. I believe it could be a reaction to a bullet traversing his lower neck. An additional instinctive reaction could be that Rosemary Willis is said to have snapped her head about 90-100 degrees between Z214 and Z217 (again see Roberdeaux map notes). So, with at least two other apparent instinctive reactions happening during the time period in question, it is reasonable to believe that JBC might also have had a similar instinctive reaction while he is hidden from view of the Zapruder camera.
Of course there is a lot more that can be seen on the Zapruder film. There are a lot of head snaps from the limo occupants and other actions that happen around the late Z150s and the Z160s. It is difficult for me to dismiss them without considering that they might be instinctive reactions to a missed first shot. If they are, then it is reasonable to believe that JBC could have not remembered this accurately. Again, putting too much weight on witness accounts is risky because they are often proven to be inaccurate.

           
        And 2 blue and 1 red hard hats in the Hughes film - believe there was construction going on further down Houston While looking at the construction worker's movements on the left side of Zapruder (easy to spot as he's next to a lampost) and thinking it may have been Jim Hicks as he is dressed the same apart from the hard hat, looked at the inside curve of Elm near the ponds where Hicks was supposed to be and there is an identical guy sitting on the wall - blue hard hat, khaki shirt and slightly darker trousers They could be twins

I dont ignore anything Connally said.  I am just not able to attribute much weight to some of the details, like his estimate of the number of seconds between hearing the first shot and feeling the impact of the bullet that struck his back.  Some of his recollections of those details are inconsistent with the recollections of many others. I find other witnesses as to the spacing of the shots to be more reliable. But I do accept his evidence that he heard the first shot and, after a perceptible period of time, felt the impact in his back. I accept that because it fits with the evidence of Nellie, Greer, Hickey, Altgens, Powers, Gayle Newman.

You, on the other hand are not just cherry picking one comment he made about it being a split second-a comment he later withdrew and said emphatically that it was not less than a second but more like 2.   You then proceed to editorialize and argue something contrary to what he always said. You want us to believe that the shot sound arrived at his ears after he was hit in the back, contrary to every statement that he ever made.  You are ignoring the substance of every statement he made on the subject, as well as ignoring all the other evidence that there were 3 distinct shots.

I dont ignore anything Connally said.

Mason Untruth #3
You ignore virtually everything Connally says about the shooting.
1] You completely ignore Connally when he says "the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more". To try and equate this with a gap of over four seconds is ludicrous. How can you possibly justify such a ridiculous thing? I'd not noticed that he intimated there could have been more than three shooters! He is clearly describing an incredibly short time gap between hearing the shot and becoming aware of being shot. He is clearly describing a fraction of a second.
2] You completely ignore Connally when he says "someone was shooting with an automatic rifle". An automatic rifle fires multiple rounds per second. Once again, Connally is describing a time gap of a fraction of a second. Your preposterous notion that he is describing a 4+ second gap as automatic rifle fire is embarrassing.
3] You completely ignore Connally when he says " It seemed like a split second." He actually describes the time gap as a split second, as a fraction of a second. This is totally consistent with his descriptions of automatic rifle fire and three or more shooters. What it is NOT consistent with is a time gap of over four seconds.
4] You completely ignore Connally when he makes statements such as these to describe the time gap - "A very, very brief span of time", "Fast, my God it was fast" and "unbelievably quick". Connally is going out of his way to describe how incredibly sort the time gap was. In no way can these statements be used to describe a time gap of 4+ seconds. Connally is a man familiar with rifles (although you would have us think otherwise), how is he describing a gap of over four seconds as "unbelievably quick"? In what possible way could you interpret that as a description of anyone firing any kind of rifle, let alone an automatic rifle?
5] You completely ignore Connally when he names z231 to z234 as the frames he felt he was shot. On two separate occasions Connally gets to study the Z-frames and both times he has z234 as the frame he felt he was shot. You have it around z271 because you know better than Connally.
6] You completely ignore Connally when he says "I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." He is adamant he was looking "a little bit to the left of center" when he first felt the impact of the bullet. This ties in with his range of z231 to z234 as the frames he was hit because these are the only frames he is facing a little bit left of centre. He is adamant he was facing to the left when he felt the impact. But you know better than he does.
7] You have been recently using an interview you posted in which Connally describes a gap of almost two seconds to argue against my own position, even though I have demonstrated it is perfectly in accord with what I am proposing. The irony being that you completely ignore Connally's proposed gap of just less than two seconds! You have a gap more than double this! Once again, you are caught out using evidence that undermines your own demented "theory" in order to try (and fail) to score a point. The evidence is a plaything for you, something you treat with disdain.

Out of all of Connally's statements there is only one you accept, when he describes the shooting as being 10 to 12 seconds in duration, as this is the only statement you can get to fit with your demented "theory". You completely ignore ALL of his other statements specifically regarding the shooting. If I am wrong about this please post what other statements you fully accept.
In his FBI report Connally snapped his fingers together rapidly three times to illustrate the speed of the shots. This can be done in three or four seconds yet he describes the time gap as 10 to 12 seconds. There is a glaring contradiction between these two things. You completely ignore this contradiction and pretend there isn't one. I, on the other hand, have presented evidence that accounts for this contradiction - temporal distortions in the recalling process of those describing traumatic events. More evidence you completely ignore.


You, on the other hand are not just cherry picking one comment he made about it being a split second...

Mason Untruth #4
It's a bit more than "one comment". See above.

You want us to believe that the shot sound arrived at his ears after he was hit in the back, contrary to every statement that he ever made.

I know, from past experience, that when you lose it you start to post really weird things and this is an example. A rifle bullet travels faster than the speed of sound so, of course, Connally is going to hear the shot AFTER he has actually been shot. You are correct when you say that I want you to believe "the shot sound arrived at his ears after he was hit in the back". The bullet is traveling faster than sound so it will reach Connally before the sound does. Everybody knows this.
But you believe that this is "contrary to every statement that he ever made".
So, I would like you to reproduce any statement where Connally says the shot sound reached him BEFORE the bullet did.

Again, knowing you like I do, this will probably be part of the 'wilful ignorance' strategy you often use. I will have already posted the answer to this apparent conundrum but, even though you are aware of it, you will pretend you're not to try a score a point. Either that or you have genuinely lost it.
Let's see