UNDERSTANDING BALLISTIC TESTING AND INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS VERSUS NEGATIVE RESULTS

Before it was sold, Oswald's revolver was rechambered but not rebarreled. This was so that the revolver could fire the longer (and skinnier) .38 Special instead of the .38 S&W (a better selling point).

The original chamber was too short for the longer .38 Special bullet. The .38 Special bullet is generally accepted as being a higher quality ammunition than the .38 S&W. However, since the revolver still had the original barrel, the skinnier (less diameter) .38 Special bullet traveled in an inconsistent path down the barrel, creating inconsistent markings from one bullet to the next and therefore made ballistic testing difficult.

This is the only reason the bullets removed from Tippit's body during the autopsy couldn't be matched to the weapon (sans Joseph Nicol, who was able to match one of the bullets to the weapon).

But most importantly, saying the bullets couldn't be matched to the revolver does NOT rule out the revolver as being responsible for those bullets.  The ballistic tests were simply inconclusive.

What I noticed was that although we were discussing Connally's recollections about the timespan between the first two shots, you avoided the WC testimony specifically dealing with that question?
Why did you do that?
It was down to me to post the relevant testimony and point out how devious you were being. Here is the relevant testimony again, the question and the answer:

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time...and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more...or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just the thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took..."

The point being made is that JBC can't stress enough how short the gap between the two shots is. Connally was a hunter who knew his rifles. If he was describing someone using a bolt action rifle he would have understood how quickly one of those could be used. When he says that he thought there were two or three people firing or someone was using an automatic rifle, he is describing shots taking place far quicker than a single person using a bolt action rifle.
Over and over again he uses phrase and imagery to express that it was a 'split second' gap between the two shots:

"A very, very brief span of time"
"two or three people involved"
"an automatic rifle"
"the rapidity"

Elsewhere he uses the same imagery and phrasing to describe the shots in general:

"extremely rapid"
"a very short period of time"
"It seemed like a split second"
"Fast, my God it was fast."
"A very, very brief span of time"
"unbelievably quick"
"Snapped his fingers three times rapidly"

Have you noticed how you ignore this very obvious part of JBC's description of the shots.
Why is that? Why don't you accept this part of his testimony?
Is it because it shoots down your silly little notion about when the first shot occurred?
I bet it is.

Not even you are so stupid as to describe that as rapid.
Snapping his fingers three times rapidly takes a lot less time than 10 to 12 seconds.
Over and over JBC emphasises how rapidly the shots were, even you can't deny this.
The reason you ignore this constant emphasis on rapidity is because this is yet another thing about JBC's testimony that blows your silly little notion out of the water. You desperately cling to his comment about 10 to 12 seconds as if this is the only thing he ever said about the timing of the shots.
The fact that he simultaneously remembers the shooting as very rapid yet taking such a long time can be explained without reverting to your strategy of ignoring the vast majority of his statements and clinging on to just one.

The "split second" quote is taken from an FBI report where JBC is asked about the timing of the shots. It is not taken out of context. It is very much in context. I don't believe you understand what 'context' means. You are using words and concepts you are not familiar with.
If you want to find out more about what JBC stated about the shooting I have already provided all the information you need to do that.
Get off your lazy Bahookie and do your own research.I've already provided the "split second" quote. You can try to wish it away all you want.
JBC doesn't just say" a very, very brief span of time". It's just so devious to try and present it like that. Your underhand tactics are so childish. As already stated, he constantly provides imagery and phrases that stress how short this timespan was. To compare it to an automatic rifle demonstrates he is talking about a timespan less than one second. As is comparing it to two or three people shooting at him. As is using the phrase "split second".
JBC is clearly talking about a timespan that is too short to be describing a single man using a bolt action rifle.
You can deny this all you want because it destroys your silly idea about an early missed shot.

This is the only interesting point you make and you don't even realise you're making it.
10 to 12 seconds is way longer than ALL of the other descriptions he gives about the shooting.
However, there is a rational solution to how he can simultaneously report the shooting be unbelievably rapid and 10 to 12 seconds.Your ignorance about this topic is almost complete. Your opinion about it means less than nothing.
Then why does he snap his fingers rapidly?
Why do all the descriptions you ignore stress how rapidly the shots were?Less than nothing.

Do you really think he doesn't know what an automatic rifle is?
Do you think you know what he really meant?
The brain can only process so much information at a time

You are the living proof of that

Less than one second.

 
Please give an example of my "willful blindness".
Is this like you refusing to see Connally NOT turning to look over his right shoulder?

This is mostly devious nonsense.
He stated that he was looking to his left when he was aware of being hit - "just left of center" was his actual description. Your devious attempt to avoid this statement is par for the course.
Just to reiterate - in the Z-film JBC is only turned to his left at two points. One is around the z160's when he is clearly not shot. The other is in the z230's AFTER he has been shot. It is at this point that JBC believes he was hit but the Z-film shows clearly that he had already been hit

He got most things right

Name 3 things he got right that are shown in the Z-film.
In fact, just name one. Surely even you can do that.