JFK Assassination Forum

 It seems to me that Andrew Mason and others who don't believe that JBC and JFK were struck with the same bullet--and/or other reasons because of JBC's reactions--are either unaware, have forgotten about, or just don't know that Governor Connally did STRANGE, unreal things after being shot, that appear in both the Nix and Zapruder films.  Although difficult to see in the Orville Nix film after the fatal shot was fired, according to the Zappruder film, plus Mrs. JBC's testimony JBC falls or is pulled to his left by his wife, and stayed low for only a second before he raised back up and turned to look to the rear into the back seat as we lose him behind the foliage from the pyracantha bush bwtween Zapruder and the limousine.   After two seconds pass, he comes back into view once again, just before the limousine disappears beneath the underpass.

 I first wrote about this in 1999 titled which John McAdams published on his Website.  https://www.jfk-assassination.net/looking.htm    Years later, a researcher named Gerda Dunckel released a video on YouTube titled " Zapruder Stabilized JFK Or Connally?", in which she stabillized the Zapruder film beginning with frame 221 and continuing until the final frame of the film, with her focus on John Connally by placing "Crosshairs" over his image in the film, and asking the question about who is sitting erect-JFK or the governor-as the limousine approaches the underpass.  View the video here:

  Did the governor ever once mention rising back up in his seat?   No.  Not until the car reached Parkland Hospital, when he said he "Heaved himself up" to get out of the way of the people trying to reach JFK.  Obviously, the governor went into some type of shock upon being struck by the bullet he received.  Why else would he never mention sitting completely erect in his seat as the limousine entered the triple underpass, or again, as early as while Mrs. Kennedy is rising from the back seat to exit the limousine?  People suffering with being in shock have been known to do very unusual and dangerous things.  Mrs. Kennedy's actions captured in both the Zapruder and Nix films after the fatal shot is a prime example, and so is what the governor did. He knew someone was shooting at the occupants of the limousine, yet he did not make an attempt to get himself out of harms way.

 In a nutshell, I think it's impossible to rely strictly on Governor Connally's description of the shooting, when the Zapruder film shows some of the opposite of what he said he did.
The first sudden reaction seen by JBC upon entering Elm Street is his head turn from right to left.  Then, within 1/4 of a second, snap his head back to his right, where he remained transfixed the rest of the way down the street until he emrges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, when his shoulders hunch twice in rapid succession as the second shot/bullet strikes him in the back after exiting JFK's throat.   Both men can be seen reacting violently and simultaneously in the Zapruder film, meaning one bullet struck both men. 

It's hopeless.  Many CTers claim Hoover was behind the assassination directing the conspiracy and cover up.  But without missing a beat he is cited as the source of skepticism of Oswald's guilt.   Imagine Hoover pulling strings to frame Oswald, exposing himself to disgrace and prison, but then entertaining a conspiracy.  CTers cling to pedantic bits of evidence and make no effort to think about the implications of their own claims having any validity.   It is just so. Here are a couple of questions.

WHY FAKE OSWALD'S PRESENCE IN MEXICO CITY?  How would that advance the cause of the conspirators to frame him for the assassination?  Particularly if all the blame is to be placed on Oswald as CTers allege and no apparent effort is made by the most commonly named conspirators like the WC, LBJ, or Hoover to link the crime to Cuba or Russia.   In fact, CTers often criticize the WC for placing all the blame on Oswald and ignoring evidence of the possible involvement of others to avoid WWIII.  Oswald was already a known political kook for his defection to the USSR.  There is no need to fake his presence in Mexico City to further promote any such narrative. 

HOW DO THE CONSPIRATORS ENSURE THAT OSWALD ISN'T IN THE PRESENCE OF ANYONE DURING THIS TIMEFRAME WHO COULD PLACE HIM ELSEWHERE?  That could only be done if Oswald was cooperating with the conspirators.  In which case, the obvious solution to their problem is to - wait for it - send Oswald to Mexico City.  There is no conceivable scenario where a fake Oswald is sent to Mexico City and the real Oswald continues to go about his life in Mr. Magoo-like bliss while being implicated in the assassination.

I've read that the conspiracy believers argue that this staging of Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy was a sort of poison pill that was done to limit any investigation into the assassination; that Warren was told by LBJ that WWIII could result and that he shouldn't look into areas like Mexico City since it could lead to armageddon.

So it wasn't intended to frame him for the assassination but was intended to connect the Soviets to it. And by doing so limit the investigation - essentially stop it - out of fear of war with Moscow. Of course the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991 and many of the WC people were alive at that time. There was no chance of war since the USSR didn't exist. Why not reveal that part of the coverup?

In any case, I still want to know why they would do this and then release their photo of the impersonator and thus expose their plan. And how they could get the Soviets - who said at that time and over the next decades - that it *was* Oswald that they met to go along with it.

And conspiracists think the Zapruder film was faked, the backyard photos were faked, the autopsy x-rays and photos faked: would they really accept a photo of Oswald at the Soviet Embassy? And if *they* faked all of this other evidence why didn't they fake a photo of Oswald in MC? It's illogical and contradictory.

I was not contesting your idea. You have been asserting this nonsense for many years and I haven’t seen one person even coming close to saying he agrees with it.

You are contesting it.  But you don't challenge the evidence that supports it.  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.  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. And you ignore the vast majority of witnesses who recalled the shot pattern with the last two shots close together.

I was pointing out that JBC told us why he turned to his right. And that his reason is not the same as your imagined idea of why he turned to the right.

I was just responding to Mr. Zeon's suggesting that he turned to the right because his legs were to the right.  JBC said he turned around to check on JFK.  Why would he have first turned to his left to see JFK?

JFK had leaned forward. 
 We can see it when he emerges from behind the sign. Charles Brehm also said JFK was leaning forward. I believe that the lean forward by JFK is the reason (not that JFK was any further to his left) that JBC didn’t see JFK out of the corner of his eye when he instinctively turned to his right.

That makes no sense. When do we see JFK leaning forward prior to z224?  When are you suggesting that JBC turned around to try to see JFK?   

By the way, JBC wasn’t sitting cross legged on the floor (or doing more 25 or 6 to 4). Many years ago under a different screen name I did an experiment and posted photos on this forum and discussed it with you. The photos and discussion all disappeared along with all the other data when the website went down. My old computer is gone also, so I no longer have the photos. I set up a chair leaned back at the appropriate angle and put something in front of the chair to simulate the correct height of the chair above the floor of the limo. I suggest you try something similar that simulates the conditions in the limo better than just a cushion on the floor.

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

There are many reasons your idea is nonsense. Among them are the velocity of the bullet after it exited JFK’s neck was too high to only cause a slight wound, and that JBC would have felt it if he had been shot in the left thigh when you think he was.

Was it a slight wound or a wound that he must have felt?  Dr. Shires said it went down to the femur.  Obviously, you think he was wrong. I don't.   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.  You have yet to respond to the video I posted.  Here is another:

Here is a quote from the narrator beginning around 1:15: "Many people recount that within the first few moments of being hit by a bullet they didn't feel anything at all."

But he didn’t. You continue to deny the evidence against your idea. You still haven’t provided any response to the fact that JBC testified that he turned back to his right after he was shot. However, in your scenario JBC does not turn back to his right after he was shot in the back. This is because, as we can see in the Z-film, (JBC had already turned back to his right before the time that you think he was shot in the back.

You disagree with much of what the Connallys said.  I just disagree with a few minor details.  JBC himself said he was not sure where he was facing when hit in the back.  He recalled deciding to turn to his left to check on JFK and thought he was facing forward when hit.  I do not think that he was correct in that statement.  Neither did Nellie. She said he was turned to the right when hit. 

In the elections since Roe v Wade was overturned in the summer of 2020, the polls keep saying that the Republicans will do well. But in the real elections, the November 2022 elections and the other special elections, the Republicans do much worse than the polls said they would.

The polls keep saying that Trump is even or even a little ahead of Biden. But I expect the same pattern to continue. Trump will do significantly worse than the polls indicate.

Trump's best chance of victory is not to win the popular vote. Nor is it to lose the popular vote but win in the Electoral College. Trump's best chance of victory is to overturn the election after November 5, 2024. Through getting local officials to throw out votes wholesale, maybe all votes from certain counties, getting state legislatures to overturn the vote or getting congress to overturn the vote. I think this time there will be less emphasis of using the courts, which got them nowhere last time despite a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. And no massive assault on Congress on January 6 since they need surprise.

Also, voter suppression and intimidation will be used.

In the meantime, the MAGA motto should be: In Land-Line-Phone-Polls we trust.

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.

The issue is whether a shot through JFK could have passed directly to JBC’s thigh. I am suggesting that it did because there is consistent evidence that it occurred on the first shot and that this occurred between z190 and z200, and very strong evidence that JBC was not hit in the back by it.  Since we know that it exited JFK’s throat and would have continued in a straight line and did not hit the car, and since the thigh wound is consistent with being caused by a strike from the butt end of CE399, I am suggesting that it must have struck JBC’s thigh.  That means his left knee was out a bit to the left side.

One does not contest such an assertion by saying that both JBC’s legs may have been to the right. One has to show that the facts on which it is based are necessarily in conflict with the preponderance of the evidence.

In any event, if you sit on a cushion on the floor with your feet on the floor immediately in front of you, you will see that the natural position for a man’s legs would be for them to be spread apart. Try it. You’ll see.  With the right leg constrained by the right door, the left leg is out to the left.

I was not contesting your idea. You have been asserting this nonsense for many years and I haven’t seen one person even coming close to saying he agrees with it. I was pointing out that JBC told us why he turned to his right. And that his reason is not the same as your imagined idea of why he turned to the right. JFK had leaned forward. We can see it when he emerges from behind the sign. Charles Brehm also said JFK was leaning forward. I believe that the lean forward by JFK is the reason (not that JFK was any further to his left) that JBC didn’t see JFK out of the corner of his eye when he instinctively turned to his right.
By the way, JBC wasn’t sitting cross legged on the floor (or doing more 25 or 6 to 4). Many years ago under a different screen name I did an experiment and posted photos on this forum and discussed it with you. The photos and discussion all disappeared along with all the other data when the website went down. My old computer is gone also, so I no longer have the photos. I set up a chair leaned back at the appropriate angle and put something in front of the chair to simulate the correct height of the chair above the floor of the limo. I suggest you try something similar that simulates the conditions in the limo better than just a cushion on the floor.
 There are many reasons your idea is nonsense. Among them are the velocity of the bullet after it exited JFK’s neck was too high to only cause a slight wound, and that JBC would have felt it if he had been shot in the left thigh when you think he was. But he didn’t. You continue to deny the evidence against your idea. You still haven’t provided any response to the fact that JBC testified that he turned back to his right after he was shot. However, in your scenario JBC does not turn back to his right after he was shot in the back. This is because, as we can see in the Z-film, (JBC had already turned back to his right before the time that you think he was shot in the back.