1
You are reading a lot into the word “instinctively”.
I don't see his reaction to the sound of the shot or to being hit in the back to be anything similar to suddenly noticing a snake.
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye,
The key words from JBC’s testimony have been bolded by me. An instinctive reaction is typically not voluntary. It is very quick and happens and is already complete before any thought has time to be formed in the mind.
Bill-
It's hopeless. That is why I no longer respond to our resident contrarian. Every interaction goes down the same rabbit hole. An amazing pattern repeated on every thread on this forum. Here he has taken issue with why Oswald would "end up on a go nowhere suburban street" if he were fleeing from the assassination. A false and misleading premise, but we are left in a sense of wonderment as to how the contrarian would answer his own question when Oswald he was supposed to be at his place of employment at this time. What would Oswald be doing if he had just assassinated the president and was on the run is obvious. Trying to escape. What do we know about his circumstances? We know that he didn't own or have access to a car. We know that he did ride the bus. We know that he had a bus transfer in his pocket. We know that he must have been familiar with the local bus routes as his primary means of transportation. We know that he had recently taken a bus to Mexico City and was familiar with the drill. None of that matters to the flat Earthers who suggest that no conclusion can ever be reached that they don't want to accept absent a time machine or Ouija board. Any manner of reasoned logic supported by the facts and evidence is rejected for that reason without providing any alternative explanation. It is a tortured exercise to suggest doubt by any means. No effort to shed light on what happened or even attempt to explain the consequences of their own objections having validity. The discussion stops and ends with taking issue as to the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
I am not sure how this is in any way similar to JBC being hit in the back by a bullet after he heard the first shot. If I understand the neurological pathway correctly (I don't profess to have any expert knowledge of our neurological system so this may not be completely correct) your eye picked up the sudden snake movement and your brain automatically sent a signal to your leg muscles to move. Your amygdala then made the decision to initiate flight or fight and caused the brain to release the appropriate biochemical to give your body the ability to carry out that response.
In JBC's case he heard a rifle shot. That might result in a startle response but he said it did not. He said he recognized it as a rifle shot and immediately thought that an assassination was unfolding so his concern was for the President seated behind him. He said he turned to the right and (at least in his hospital interview) said that he saw that the President had slumped. He then decided to turn to the left to get a view of the President but felt the impact of the bullet in his back before he could complete that turn. I don't see the hormones kicking in from a stimulated amygdala to really be a factor in that.
I don't see his reaction to the sound of the shot or to being hit in the back to be anything similar to suddenly noticing a snake. So far as I can tell, only you and Dan have thought there might be a connection. A neurologist's opinion might assist your argument but in the final analysis, such opinions must be supported by evidence and there would appear to be none from JBC.
I am not sure how this is in any way similar to JBC being hit in the back by a bullet after he heard the first shot. If I understand the neurological pathway correctly (I don't profess to have any expert knowledge of our neurological system so this may not be completely correct) your eye picked up the sudden snake movement and your brain automatically sent a signal to your leg muscles to move. Your amygdala then made the decision to initiate flight or fight and caused the brain to release the appropriate biochemical to give your body the ability to carry out that response.
Your theory would also have to explain why he reversed the order of the two events that he distinctly recalled: hearing a rifle shot then feeling the hit. It would also help if there was evidence to support the theory.
Technically, it is just an idea, like yours. A theory requires some testing, peer reviews, etc like the SBT has had over the past 60-plus years. We have been explaining the time distortion phenomenon. You just don’t appear to be listening. If I had not experienced it for myself during the snake strike encounter I might not be so adamant about this. I will try to explain what I experienced again and relate some of it to JBC’s recollections.
My instinctive reaction of jumping backwards (amygdala controlled) happened so fast and so automatic that is was already over with before I even “knew” what was going on. I was hiking alone and was not scanning the trail ahead of me like I should have been.
Goofy. I didn't speculate. I stated a fact.
I have news for you, Jackass... IF Oswald wanted to get to Jefferson and Marsalis, he was walking pretty much the most direct line to that point from the rooming house and that most direct line included taking Tenth Street from Crawford to the area of Marsalis and Jefferson. That was my point and it is not speculation, it is a fact. Look at a damn map.
A further note on John Connally's various statements and testimonies regarding the shooting, in the light of someone recalling a really traumatic, life-threatening event. Someone like Andrew will take a quote that he finds useful, ignore everything else then argue that Connally wouldn't make it up. I totally agree, I don't believe Connally is making anything up, I believe he is doing his very best to genuinely recall the shooting but his recollection of it is distorted in various ways. Because of this, his testimony cannot be taken at face value but must be 'interpreted' as it is not wholly reliable. It must be measured against evidence such as the Z-film, which should be considered primary evidence.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.