JFK Assassination Forum

It seems obvious that if the person below impersonated Oswald at the Soviet Embassy and Cuban consulate that both Moscow and Havana would have exposed it, would have been telling the world about the act of deception. Screaming it in fact. They wouldn't hold it back. After all they both blamed the CIA for the assassination; why not include this into their allegation?

But like "the dog that didn't bark" was a clue the fact they didn't bark, didn't expose it certainly seems to me evidence - not proof but along with the other information pretty powerful evidence - that it *was* Oswald. Add the fact that both intelligence agencies investigated the incident (Oleg Nechiporenko quotes from the report by the head of the KGB who said it was Oswald) and concluded it was Oswald then what more do we need? We have, then, the Soviet investigation and the above Cuban investigation. Add the American investigation and what more is needed?

What's the other explanation? They were fooled by this person? A four year old can tell you it's not Oswald. And yes I know about the next allegation: "But what the phone calls??!"

The whole "Oswald in Mexico" thing is only significant as a way to color Oswald in the most negative way possible. In no other murder case it would matter where the suspect was weeks prior to the murder. It's only an issue in the Kennedy case and one can only wonder why.

The real question that is never asked is why it is of such importance where Oswald was weeks prior to the assassination when at the same time it's being claimed (by some LN's) that Oswald did not decide to kill Kennedy until 24 to 48 hours before the actual murder.

It seems obvious that if the person below impersonated Oswald at the Soviet Embassy and Cuban consulate that both Moscow and Havana would have exposed it, would have been telling the world about the act of deception. Screaming it in fact. They wouldn't hold it back. After all they both blamed the CIA for the assassination; why not include this into their allegation?

But like "the dog that didn't bark" was a clue the fact they didn't bark, didn't expose it certainly seems to me evidence - not proof but along with the other information pretty powerful evidence - that it *was* Oswald. Add the fact that both intelligence agencies investigated the incident (Oleg Nechiporenko quotes from the report by the head of the KGB who said it was Oswald) and concluded it was Oswald then what more do we need? We have, then, the Soviet investigation and the above Cuban investigation. Add the American investigation and what more is needed?

What's the other explanation? They were fooled by this person? A four year old can tell you it's not Oswald. And yes I know about the next allegation: "But what the phone calls??!"

I dont ignore anything Connally said.

Mason Untruth #3
You ignore virtually everything Connally says about the shooting.

As I said, I don't ignore anything. I just don't attribute any weight to his estimates of the length of time between the shots or his thinking that the shots were from an automatic rifle. These estimates ranged from a split-second to no, not a split second, more like two seconds to a very, very brief span of time, duly noting that he considered 10-12 seconds to be a very brief span of time.  I don't attribute weight to these estimates because they are inconsistent and do not fit with the spacing observed by many other witnesses.  I do attribute great weight to his recollection of hearing the first shot a perceptible amount of time BEFORE he felt the IMPACT of the bullet in the back.  I accept that because all statements he made about that are consistent and they fit with what is seen in the zfilm and with other witnesses as to when the second shot occurred.

As far as Connally's impression that it was fire from an automatic rifle, all I can say is that he accepts the Warren Commission report that Oswald fired all the shots with the bolt action 2766 MC so his impression was wrong by his own admission.  Besides, 10-12 seconds to fire and then reload aim and fire two more shots does not require an automatic rifle.

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.

You aren't serious are you?   In every statement he ever made he emphasized that he heard the first shot and THEN after turning around to his right, failing to see JFK properly and deciding to turn left he felt the impact of the bullet in his back. For example 4 H 135-136:
"Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn’t conceivably have
been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In the first place, I
don’t know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle
has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound
of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached
that far, and, after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and
start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet,
and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet,..."

What universe are you in Dan?

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.

I think dozens of witnesses who put the first shot around z190-200 and the lack of a single witness who said that JFK continued to smile and wave after the first "horrible ear-shattering noise" together with 40+ witnesses who volunteered their recall of the 1......2...3 shot pattern tell us more than equivocal grainy zframes even if interpreted by experts.  I agree that physical evidence is important, but SBTers seem to be ignoring all the physical evidence (eg. condition of CE399 not fitting damage to the fifth rib or radius and clothing and being unwilling to acknowledge that an elliptical shaped wound is consistent with a pristine bullet hitting at an angle).

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).

Here is Rosemary Willis' head turn at z213-217:


It looks like she has already looked back at the TSBD and is returning to look in the direction of the President's car.  The more interesting head movement is the right-rearward snap from z204-206:

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.

Witnesses may be accurate or inaccurate; reliable or unreliable.  But there are simple ways of determining that issue.  If all the witnesses who were watching JFK at the time of the first shot said that he did not continue to smile or wave and almost all of those witnesses said he did things that we see him doing after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign (which reaction appears to have started earlier) either all the witnesses were in collusion or they actually saw something that caused them to believe they saw JFK react to the first shot as we see him reacting when he emerges from behind the sign.

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.

What you are describing is in perfect accord with the science on this particular subject. Earlier I posted these quotes from "Does Time Really Slow Down during a Frightening Event?"  [Chess Stetson, Matthew P. Fiesta, David M. Eagleman. Published: December 12, 2007https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001295]:

"Observers commonly report that time seems to have moved in slow motion during a life-threatening event."

"Our findings suggest that time-slowing is a function of recollection, not perception: a richer encoding of memory may cause a salient event to appear, retrospectively, as though it lasted longer."

"Temporal judgments – such as duration, order, and simultaneity – are subject to distortions."

It's a really interesting piece and these 'distortions' are to be fully expected from someone undergoing an experience such as the one you describe.

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.

JFK is said to have made an 87-degree head snap to his left between Z203 and Z206

This head snap to the left (that first came up in the HSCA investigation if I'm not mistaken) has been completely debunked in REPLY#60 (pg8) of "The First Shot" thread, where it is shown, for a fact, that at z207 JFK's head is still orientated to his right.
The only other head movement that can be described as a "snap" is when JBC suddenly turns to look at Nellie (captured in the Croft pic), then turns to look to his right. Around the same moment both JFK and Jackie also turn to look to their right. Far from being a response to a shot, they are responding to the, well documented, calling out of Mary Woodward and her colleagues to get the President and the first lady to look in their direction.
In a motorcade the heads of the occupants are always turning from left to right. I've never understood how this can be used to gauge when a shot is fired as there are more reasonable reasons.