JFK Assassination Forum

You maintain a theory that requires JFK to not react to the first shot for several seconds and to smile and wave for several seconds afterward, despite the lack of a single witness who recalled seeing that and dozens who said he reacted quickly.

The Warren Commission indicated that they could not determine which shot missed. Although I have indicated that I believe that the first shot missed, I have not closed my mind to other possibilities. If another one of the shots missed, the reaction of JFK would fit with the witness accounts that you cite. That would make much more sense than your idea does.

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.  There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

You insist that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that struck JFK despite not having a single witness who said that occurred and JBC, Nellie, Powers, Gayle Newman, Hickey and Greer who gave evidence that it did not.

Charles Brehm was one of the closest witnesses and he said he came up with the single bullet idea right away. When the Warren Report came out and confirmed his idea, he felt that they got it right. So, please correct yourself regarding “not a single witness who said…” Also, even JBC said in his book that he could be wrong, and he is the one who was shot.

You cannot be referring to anything said by Brehm in his statements. In his interview with the Dallas Times Herald on 22Nov63 he recalled only two shots in total and JFK reacting to both. 

In a later FBI statement he described the same two shots but added that there was a third shot afterward. He said the President was very close at the time of the first shot. 

He was very detailed in both statements about JFK’s facial and bodily reactions to the first shot. In his FBI statement he said he thought the President was badly hit in the head but he describes seeing the President’s hair fly up on the second shot. No mention of his head exploding or even seeing blood. The hair flying up does not describe the dominant impression of the head shot.

He mentioned a third shot after that but does not describe any effect.  Mind you he was there with his 5 year old son so he may have been momentarily distracted. So his failure to notice the effect of the third shot may be because he had stopped looking at the President by the time of the third shot.

 What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.  His observation of JFK’s hair flying up on the second shot (which Hickey also observed at the time of the second shot) and his subsequent learning of JFK being shot in the head may explain why he thought the second shot struck him in the head.

And you ignore the vast majority of witnesses who recalled the shot pattern with the last two shots close together.

If there was a first shot miss that occurred near Z133, as some evidence suggests, then that pattern would be okay. Also, many of the witness accounts indicate the last two shots extremely close together. I suggest that those accounts are people who heard the bullet impact before the sound of the muzzle blast reached them. Therefore, those accounts should not be counted as hearing three separate shots.

Very few said the last two were that close. Even Brehm said they sounded like they were spaced “just about as quickly as an individual can manoeuvre a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.” 22H837

That is a hard to fit with three shots over 10 seconds.

JBC said he turned around to check on JFK.

Actually JBC’s testimony is that he turned as an instinctive reaction to the sound of the shot. Then when he didn’t catch JFK in the corner of his eye, he started to turn the other way in order to look over his left shoulder.

He also said he was interested in seeing JFK because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination taking place. So his purpose in turning around was to see the President.

So long as the knees are well above the hips, that is all you need.  The legs will be apart. Try it.

I have, and I disagree with you completely.

You naturally sit with your legs up well above your hips with your legs together?

Dr. Shires said it went down to the femur.

Not the bullet, only a very small particle [that was shed off of the bullet]. He said the bullet only penetrated as far as the muscle (just below the skin).

Shires said the bullet passed through the subcutaneous fat and penetrated the outer thigh muscle. How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur? Explain the physics of that for us.

You can't say he must have felt it because a. he didn't and b. many people who are shot do not feel it.

He also said he didn’t feel his wrist being shattered and only discovered that injury when he woke up in the hospital after the surgery. The reason is because of his back/chest wounds.

But you cannot conclude that he must have felt it immediately or even likely felt it immediately without evidence. The evidence is a. That he never felt it and b. many if not most people feel nothing initially from being shot when they remain conscious and the bullet produces no immediate functional impairment.

Dr. Shires said it went down to the femur.

That's not what Shaw actually said. He said that he debrided tissue "down to the region of the femur."

"The region of the femur" is a non-specific phrase that could mean anywhere relatively close to the bone. More importantly, he's the guy digging the hole that deep. The bullet wound is generally not as deep as the debrided volume around it, and as any Fackler will tell you, surgeons were in the habit of over-treating these wounds by removing too much tissue. 

Zelensky will gladly stop being a 'functional dictator' as soon as Russia withdraws from Ukraine.

What is the US plan after two years? I think it is simple. Outlast Russia. Considering how much greater America's and Europe's economies are greater than Russia, this should not be a problem. We should have no problem out producing Russia. If we decide to not outproduce them then we may, because of treaty obligations, have our own troops fight Russians invading other European countries. Just as those countries were obligated to help us in Afghanistan. They helped us. We should help them, if and when Russia attacks them.

So Zelensky has no incentive to find a way to end the war.  He is a dictator being funneled billions by our gullible politicians.  And the "plan" is to outlast Russia?  How did that work for Napoleon and Hitler?  How did that work for us in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan?   That is not a strategy or plan.  It is a hope with the initiative all on the side of Putin.  Even Springsteen learned that lesson: "I had a brother at Khe Sanh. Fighting off all the Viet Cong. They're still there, he's all gone."  Russia is not going to invade any NATO country.  That is classic Cold War/Dr. Strangelove propaganda.  If they can't overrun even regions of Ukraine, they pose no danger to anyone else.  Our military contractors have propped Russia up as the boogeyman for decades to keep the money flowing. 

I think the brain worm has eaten away at RFK Jr.'s effect on the election, one way or another.

If RFK only has half a functioning brain, that still puts him way ahead of Dementia Joe.  At least RFK can find his way off the stage and doesn't say "pause" when reading from the teleprompter.  What is with the radical leftists not wanting candidates to exercise their right to run for office and allow the voters to decide elections?  No love of democracy there.  Dems were trying to keep Trump off the ballot in several states.  The most egregious example of election interference in American history.  Now they are complaining about RFK.  Apparently, they have no confidence in the Big Guy and "Bidenomics."  LOL.   If this election is about results, Grandpa Joe is in huge trouble.  The country and world are in ruin due to his incompetence and cognitive impairment.  He may lose 40 or more states.

It's true that republicans have underperformed.  The leftist media has spun the abortion issue as the cause of recent disappointments for the republicans but that is largely a false narrative.  The underlying media narrative that Republicans have "banned" abortion is demonstrably false misinformation.  Not unlike "banning books" while merely making common sense efforts to ensure that age-appropriate books are in schools.  Overturning Roe was simply a long overdue and straightforward legal issue.  There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution.  Therefore, it is up to the states to make those laws.  A more important factor is "early" voting which has allowed Dems to harvest ballots from millions of students and minorities.  Many of whom don't support Biden and wouldn't otherwise vote for him.  As a result, Republicans have to win elections by about a 60-40 margin.

Republicans are not capable of winning 60-40. The Republicans best hope is losing 48-52 but having the election overturn by local officials, state legislatures and congress, like they tried in 2020. The more votes they can suppress, the closer they can make the election, the greater their odds of succeeding. The Republicans have a lot more time to think about how to do this. But the Democrats have a lot more time to think about to foil them. We shall see how this turns out. But be aware than they are millions determined to save Democracy and we are going to do a lot more work than we do in a regular election.