Recent Posts
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Paul Landis And What He Said
« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 02:18:27 AM »The short story is Paul Landis, Secret Service agent on 11.22, said he found a whole slug on the rear seat of the limo post-assassination, which he then deposited on JFK's gurney or operating table inside Parkland Hospital.
That slug likely became CE-399.
Landis, 88 years old when he made that statement (in his 2023 book also) had not clarified what he did for 60 years, either to the WC or the HSCA.
Admittedly, that is dubious.
OTOH, there is no dispute Landis was Secret Service, and where he said he was on 11.22, and he had/has no history of fabrications or delusions. He is not in the same category as James Files or Ed Hoffman. By all accounts, Landis is an honorable guy.
Landis, at long last, may have wanted to get something off his chest.
So, how could a CE-399-looking slug end up on the rear seat of the limo?
If we assume the first shot that struck JFK, the one in his neck-back, was underpowered, and traveling at about 700 feet per second (fps), it would leave shallow wound, from which the slug could fall out. Especially after JFK was struck again, sending a shock wave through his body.
JFK was ~167 feet from the TSBD6 sniper window when first struck.
A shot fired at 700 fps over 167 feet would have a drop of about 11 inches---interesting, meaning if LHO or other sniper had zeroed in on JFK's skull, the shot would have struck about 11 inches lower, or into the neck-back area.
So why believe the first shot was underpowered?
Many witnesses described the first shot as different in pitch and volume from the second and third shots, which were in rapid sequence and louder.
One of shells found in the TSBD6 sniper nest had a crimp in its neck, possibly indicating it had been hand-packed--that is, used again after original manufacture. Hand-packing was not uncommon in the 1960s, to save money, and still happens among gun enthusiasts, particularly with .38 ammo. But hand-packing requires skill, and an amateur job might have been botched.
With a limited number of rounds, LHO or other sniper may have decided on hand-packing. Where LHO got his ammo has always been a mystery. No one knows.
Or maybe the first round was defective, straight from factory.
In any event, as recently pointed out by Michael Griffith, even the FBI concluded that JFK and Gov. JBC were struck by separate rounds.
The LNT remains implausible, as the HSCA concluded in 1979.
That slug likely became CE-399.
Landis, 88 years old when he made that statement (in his 2023 book also) had not clarified what he did for 60 years, either to the WC or the HSCA.
Admittedly, that is dubious.
OTOH, there is no dispute Landis was Secret Service, and where he said he was on 11.22, and he had/has no history of fabrications or delusions. He is not in the same category as James Files or Ed Hoffman. By all accounts, Landis is an honorable guy.
Landis, at long last, may have wanted to get something off his chest.
So, how could a CE-399-looking slug end up on the rear seat of the limo?
If we assume the first shot that struck JFK, the one in his neck-back, was underpowered, and traveling at about 700 feet per second (fps), it would leave shallow wound, from which the slug could fall out. Especially after JFK was struck again, sending a shock wave through his body.
JFK was ~167 feet from the TSBD6 sniper window when first struck.
A shot fired at 700 fps over 167 feet would have a drop of about 11 inches---interesting, meaning if LHO or other sniper had zeroed in on JFK's skull, the shot would have struck about 11 inches lower, or into the neck-back area.
So why believe the first shot was underpowered?
Many witnesses described the first shot as different in pitch and volume from the second and third shots, which were in rapid sequence and louder.
One of shells found in the TSBD6 sniper nest had a crimp in its neck, possibly indicating it had been hand-packed--that is, used again after original manufacture. Hand-packing was not uncommon in the 1960s, to save money, and still happens among gun enthusiasts, particularly with .38 ammo. But hand-packing requires skill, and an amateur job might have been botched.
With a limited number of rounds, LHO or other sniper may have decided on hand-packing. Where LHO got his ammo has always been a mystery. No one knows.
Or maybe the first round was defective, straight from factory.
In any event, as recently pointed out by Michael Griffith, even the FBI concluded that JFK and Gov. JBC were struck by separate rounds.
The LNT remains implausible, as the HSCA concluded in 1979.
2
General Discussion And Debate (Any Topic) / Re: Am I the only one...
« Last post by Tom Scully on Today at 01:19:52 AM »Is it worth considering the demographics of Boston and Shreveport? Or is that out of bounds?
https://x.com/i/grok/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_54f26dd2-1fde-4cde-8122-8e7601928640
Hey, Tim, no, not out of bounds. I understand your point, I'm comparing apples and oranges to a possibly unreasonable extrent. OTOH, ChatGPT informs us the average net worth of Boston black households is $8,000 compared to $247,500 for white households.
My point is to show how extreme Richard's POV is.
Total population figures are both genders combined.
Another angle.....females incarcerated in Idaho, 1,470, total population, 2 million. Wallethub safety ranking #19
Males incarcerated in Idaho, 9200, total population, 2 million.
Arkansas population 3,000,000 State and local combined imprisoned 23,850, including 1,650 females, safety ranking #46
females incarcerated in Massachusetts, 700, total population, 7 million. Wallethub states safety ranking #2
Males incarcerated in Massachusetts, 5300, total population, 7 million.
Only Floridas, Arkansas and Georgia actively execute :
Illinois population 12,700,000 Total incarcerated, 30,000 including federal prisoners State Wallethub safety ranking #38
New York population 20,200,000 Total incarcerated, 41,000 does not include federal prisoners safety ranking #20
Florida population 23,400,000 Total incarcerated 143,500 does not include federal prisoners safety ranking #47
Georgia population 10,700,000 Total incarcerated state prisons 50,400, total local state and federal 105,000 safety ranking #41
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence
« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Today at 12:35:23 AM »The Sibert and O'Neill report was not flawed but accurately presented the pathologists' findings by the end of the exam phase of the autopsy, and we know from multiple sources that the no-back-wound-exit finding did not change for at least the first two versions of the autopsy report.
The Sibert and O'Neill report is seriously flawed. It does not accurately represent the findings of the autopsy pathologists. We do not know from multiple credible sources that a no-back-wound-exit finding did not change for at least the first two versions of the autopsy report. There were no two first two versions of the autopsy report. There is the one and only autopsy report. It is not the third autopsy report. It is the only autopsy report that has ever existed on the autopsy of the body of President Kennedy done on Nov 22, 1963. The supplemental autopsy on the brain was done several days later.
Quote
We also know from Boswell himself and from Ebersole, among others, that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, which belies Humes's tale that he didn't learn of the throat wound until the following day.
The pathologists no doubt had a pretty good idea by the end of the autopsy that the wound in the throat was a bullet exit wound. But Humes needed it confirmed. That's why he phoned Dr. Perry.
Quote
We also know from multiple sources that the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that this was after the initial probing and after the chest organs had been removed.
Do we? Who were those multiple witnesses, and when did they testify under oath that they could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity?
Quote
Are you ever going to get around to addressing the main points of the OP, (1) the marked disparity between the FBI's shooting scenario and the WC's shooting scenario, and (2) the drastic contradiction between the FBI's locations for the limo for each shot and the extant Zapruder film?
The OP is flawed. The FBI's shooting scenario, as published in their 1/13/1964 report, was based on the seriously flawed Nov 26/63 FD-302 report of Sibert and O'Neill. The FBI had not read the actual autopsy report. Nor had they interviewed the autopsy pathologists.
Quote
Umm, the main problem with Manning's statement is that he said he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet when he interviewed him on Friday night, but Oswald's wallet had already been confiscated hours before Manning interviewed him, as Officer Bentley and Detective Sims confirmed.
The wallet had been removed from Oswald's possession by Bentley. Manning was afforded access to that wallet by the DPD. Oswald was being interviewed in the offices of the DPD. Manning was present during that interview. Oswald was asked by his interrogator about his possession of that Selective Service card. So, obviously, his wallet was there during that interview. When the interview was over, Manning examined the contents of the wallet.
4
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:10:56 AM »[quote author=Michael T. Griffith link=topic=5276.msg187495#msg187495
I see John Corbett is still peddling his lie that the no-back-wound-exit finding was merely a "preliminary" finding. [/quote]
If you want to see a liar, go look in the mirror.
Only a dumba$$ would conclude their early hypothesis was anything but a preliminary finding. They had an entrance wound in the back and no APPARENT exit. They would have had no way of knowing a tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound. Of course they would have thought there was no exit wound early process. As they got further along in the process they found the contusion on the pleura, the perforated strap muscles, and damage to the trachea rings. All that damaged tissue would have led them right to the tracheostomy incision and from there it wouldn't have been hard to figure out where the bullet went. Of course they would want to confirm their suspicions with Dr. Perry which they did. How stupid would it have been after discerning all that tissue damage for them to stick with their earlier hypothesis that there was no exit. That would have been MTG stupid.
I did address it, dumba$$. The FBI's initial finding was made just one month into the process and not surprising it was flawed. The WC continued to gather evidence throughout the process and correctly determined that a single bullet struck JFK and JBC between Z210 and Z225. Were they supposed to stick with a conclusion made just a month into the process even though they had better information? How stupid would that have been? MTG stupid.
Since you are accusing others of dodging YOUR questions, how about you man up and provide a plausible alternative to the SBT, something I challenged you do in your thread about the throat wound. A plausible alternative would explain JFK's non fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. It would tell us where the shots were fired from and where they ended up. You've had over 62 years to come up with one. Why haven't you been able provide an explanation supported by evidence?
Amazing how your kneejerk response to every anomaly is to assume it is evidence of a conspiracy when human error is by far the more likely explanation. People make mistakes and cops are people.
I see John Corbett is still peddling his lie that the no-back-wound-exit finding was merely a "preliminary" finding. [/quote]
If you want to see a liar, go look in the mirror.
Only a dumba$$ would conclude their early hypothesis was anything but a preliminary finding. They had an entrance wound in the back and no APPARENT exit. They would have had no way of knowing a tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound. Of course they would have thought there was no exit wound early process. As they got further along in the process they found the contusion on the pleura, the perforated strap muscles, and damage to the trachea rings. All that damaged tissue would have led them right to the tracheostomy incision and from there it wouldn't have been hard to figure out where the bullet went. Of course they would want to confirm their suspicions with Dr. Perry which they did. How stupid would it have been after discerning all that tissue damage for them to stick with their earlier hypothesis that there was no exit. That would have been MTG stupid.
Quote
Are you ever going to get around to addressing the main points of the OP, (1) the marked disparity between the FBI's shooting scenario and the WC's shooting scenario, and (2) the drastic contradiction between the FBI's locations for the limo for each shot and the extant Zapruder film?
I did address it, dumba$$. The FBI's initial finding was made just one month into the process and not surprising it was flawed. The WC continued to gather evidence throughout the process and correctly determined that a single bullet struck JFK and JBC between Z210 and Z225. Were they supposed to stick with a conclusion made just a month into the process even though they had better information? How stupid would that have been? MTG stupid.
Since you are accusing others of dodging YOUR questions, how about you man up and provide a plausible alternative to the SBT, something I challenged you do in your thread about the throat wound. A plausible alternative would explain JFK's non fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. It would tell us where the shots were fired from and where they ended up. You've had over 62 years to come up with one. Why haven't you been able provide an explanation supported by evidence?
Quote
Umm, the main problem with Manning's statement is that he said he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet when he interviewed him on Friday night, but Oswald's wallet had already been confiscated hours before Manning interviewed him, as Officer Bentley and Detective Sims confirmed.
Amazing how your kneejerk response to every anomaly is to assume it is evidence of a conspiracy when human error is by far the more likely explanation. People make mistakes and cops are people.
5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 11:58:12 PM »Did you happen to notice that when I quoted JBC's WC testimony, I posted both the question and the answer. Why didn't you do that. Then we would know what he was responding to.
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.
Quote
In any case when he described the time span to the WC, he said 10-12 seconds. I wouldn't describe snapping your fingers 3 times in that time span as rapid.
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.
Quote
You most certainly did take the quote out of context and when pressed on it, you only gave partial context. Why don't you post a link to the report you are citing so the rest of us don't have to guess at what it says.
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.
Quote
He doesn't say "a split second". He gives a vague estimate of "A very, very brief span of time". How many seconds is that? JBC first turned in reaction to the first shot at Z164. He was struck less than 3 and a quarter seconds later. That seems rather brief to me. I've never been shot out but it it wouldn't surprise me that when that happens, things would seem to speed up for the person being shot at.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.
Quote
Why did he testify it was about 10-12 seconds?
10-12 seconds according to his testimony.
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.
Quote
Not a bad guess. I have it at just under 9 seconds.Your ignorance about this topic is almost complete. Your opinion about it means less than nothing.
Quote
That's easy. It wasn't as fast as him snapping his fingers 3 times. The Z-film indicates his 10-12 second estimate was pretty close. About a second too long.Then why does he snap his fingers rapidly?
Why do all the descriptions you ignore stress how rapidly the shots were?
Quote
Tom Graves would argue with you on that point. To me, there is solid evidence the shooting took place in just under 9 seconds. 163 frames which works out to 8.9 seconds.Less than nothing.
Quote
Do you seriously think he heard 3 separate shots from a fully automatic weapon?
Do you really think he doesn't know what an automatic rifle is?
Do you think you know what he really meant?
Quote
It's called sensory overload. The brain can only process so much information at a time and the bullet struck JBC before the sound of the shot reached him. Connally understood this perfectly when he testified to to the WC:
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.
The brain can only process so much information at a time
You are the living proof of that
Quote
How long is "barely any time"?
Less than one second.
Quote
Probably due to your willful blindness to what the Z-film shows.
Please give an example of my "willful blindness".
Is this like you refusing to see Connally NOT turning to look over his right shoulder?
Quote
He said he had started turning back to his left when he felt the bullet hit him. He continued making that turn for about a half second during which time he also flipped his injured right arm into the air. After that reaction, he started turning and dipping back to the right. He remembered that. He had no memory of flipping his arm upward even though we clearly see him doing that in the Z-film, not coincidentally at the very same frame JFK flipped both of his arms upward.
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
Quote
He got most things right but a few wrong. He misjudged the frame he was struck at because he was looking for the reaction remembered making, not the involuntary arm flip he had no memory of. He also believed for whatever reason that JFK had been hit by the first shot. I don't know why he believed that because by his own admission he couldn't see JFK when he turned.
I just gave you my answers. You're not entitled to ones you like.
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.
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: CD 298 and CD 107: Overlooked Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 10:42:25 PM »"Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length"
That cannot be found in the autopsy report. It comes from the flawed Sibert and O'Neill report. The 1/13/1964 report does NOT cite the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*.
The Sibert and O'Neill report was not flawed but accurately presented the pathologists' findings by the end of the exam phase of the autopsy, and we know from multiple sources that the no-back-wound-exit finding did not change for at least the first two versions of the autopsy report.
We also know from Boswell himself and from Ebersole, among others, that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, which belies Humes's tale that he didn't learn of the throat wound until the following day.
We also know from multiple sources that the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that this was after the initial probing and after the chest organs had been removed.
But, incredibly, you guys simply refuse to acknowledge this massive body of mutually corroborating evidence.
This is just a brief summary of the evidence that I've documented extensively in several threads in this forum, most recently in the "JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory" thread.
I see John Corbett is still peddling his lie that the no-back-wound-exit finding was merely a "preliminary" finding.
Are you ever going to get around to addressing the main points of the OP, (1) the marked disparity between the FBI's shooting scenario and the WC's shooting scenario, and (2) the drastic contradiction between the FBI's locations for the limo for each shot and the extant Zapruder film?
On a side note, three days ago you said this in responding to a reply of mine:
Wow, really? You realize Manning's statement wasn't typed until 11/23/63, right?
You realize that Sibert and O'Neill's FD-302 wasn't typed until 11/26/63, right?
Umm, the main problem with Manning's statement is that he said he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet when he interviewed him on Friday night, but Oswald's wallet had already been confiscated hours before Manning interviewed him, as Officer Bentley and Detective Sims confirmed.
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Lee Harvey Oswald
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:16:28 PM »Is it possible that RFK's assassin was Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan?
This is by far the best example of a guy with three names:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1586537362246828
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Lee Harvey Oswald
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:05:18 PM »Well let’s not forget the king……..
Charles Milles Manson
Is it possible that RFK's assassin was Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan?
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Lee Harvey Oswald
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:02:39 PM »Well let’s not forget the king……..
Charles Milles Manson
Charlie spent time at Boys Town in Nebraska. Not very much time. We can hardly blame Boys Town for how he turned out since he ran away his first night there.
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:59:56 PM »The reason you think the "split second" reference is out of context is because of your profound ignorance regarding this case. It wouldn't be so bad but you've already been corrected on this specific issue in this very thread (and not that long ago).
Pat Speer has a comprehensive collection of everything Connally said about the shooting at his website. This is part of an FBI interview with JBC on the 11th December, '63.
(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…Governor Connally felt the shots were fired so fast the assassin had hit him by accident on the second shot.”.
"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"
Did you happen to notice that when I quoted JBC's WC testimony, I posted both the question and the answer. Why didn't you do that. Then we would know what he was responding to.
In any case when he described the time span to the WC, he said 10-12 seconds. I wouldn't describe snapping your fingers 3 times in that time span as rapid.
Quote
So, nothing has been taken out of context. You just aren't familiar with the evidence (even when it's already been pointed out to you).
You most certainly did take the quote out of context and when pressed on it, you only gave partial context. Why don't you post a link to the report you are citing so the rest of us don't have to guess at what it says.
Quote
Because I'm now expecting a certain amount of deviousness in these exchanges I felt it was important to concentrate on the part of JBC's testimony that you seem to have 'forgotten'. The part of his WC testimony that was actually about the amount of time between the first shot and JBC feeling the blow in his back which he assumed was a second shot:
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..."
"These are the thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of...the first shot plus the blow that I took...that there were either two or three people involved or more...or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."
These are his actual words regarding the length of time between the first shot and the feeling of being shot. This length of time was so brief JBC felt that two or three people must be firing at him or that an automatic rifle was being used. Elsewhere he has used the phrase "split second" which would accurately convey the length of time JBC is trying to describe - literally less than one second.
He doesn't say "a split second". He gives a vague estimate of "A very, very brief span of time". How many seconds is that? JBC first turned in reaction to the first shot at Z164. He was struck less than 3 and a quarter seconds later. That seems rather brief to me. I've never been shot out but it it wouldn't surprise me that when that happens, things would seem to speed up for the person being shot at.
Quote
The hill I want to die on?
Don't you mean the hill JBC wants to die on.
He is the one describing what he remembers, not me.
That the gap between the first and second shots was incredibly small.
But this is not shown in the Z-film.
So why does JBC the gap was a split second?
Why did he testify it was about 10-12 seconds?
Quote
And here's another mystery for which you have no answer.
As we have seen, JBC can't emphasise enough how rapidly the shooting occurred.
10-12 seconds according to his testimony.
Quote
Over and over again he uses imagery and phrases that force home the extreme rapidity of the shots...but then he guesses at 10 to 12 seconds for the duration of the shooting!!
Not a bad guess. I have it at just under 9 seconds.
Quote
This is an eternity as far as the shooting is concerned.
How is it possible to reconcile him snapping his fingers "three times rapidly" with 10 to 12 seconds?
That's easy. It wasn't as fast as him snapping his fingers 3 times. The Z-film indicates his 10-12 second estimate was pretty close. About a second too long.
Quote
There is zero evidence that supports such a long timespan between the first and last shot.
This is another thing JBC appears to have got wrong.
Tom Graves would argue with you on that point. To me, there is solid evidence the shooting took place in just under 9 seconds. 163 frames which works out to 8.9 seconds.
Quote
It should also be noted that people often refer to semi-automatic weapons as automatic
I knew it wouldn't be long before you started explaining what the witness really meant.
This is such a Nutter trait and you are as rabid as they come.
Even though you will fully agree that JBC knows his weaponry he still needs you, someone who can't think for himself, to explain what he really meant.
Do you seriously think he heard 3 separate shots from a fully automatic weapon?
Quote
JBC heard the first shot clearly but did not hear the second shot. Why not?
It's called sensory overload. The brain can only process so much information at a time and the bullet struck JBC before the sound of the shot reached him. Connally understood this perfectly when he testified to to the WC:
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.
Quote
He emphasises over and over again that there was barely any time between the first two shots but the Z-film shows this not to be true. How can this be?
How long is "barely any time"?
Quote
He states that he turned to look over his right shoulder BEFORE he is shot but the Z-film shows conclusively that the one and only time he attempts to look over his right shoulder is AFTER he has been shot. How can this be?
Probably due to your willful blindness to what the Z-film shows.
Quote
He states that he is hit while his head is turned slightly to the left. There are only two times in the Z-film he does this - firstly in the z160's and he is clearly not hit then. Secondly in the z230's when it is clear he has already been hit. How can this be?
He said he had started turning back to his left when he felt the bullet hit him. He continued making that turn for about a half second during which time he also flipped his injured right arm into the air. After that reaction, he started turning and dipping back to the right. He remembered that. He had no memory of flipping his arm upward even though we clearly see him doing that in the Z-film, not coincidentally at the very same frame JFK flipped both of his arms upward.
Quote
The Z-film absolutely refutes JBC's account of the shooting on virtually every point. How can that be?
He got most things right but a few wrong. He misjudged the frame he was struck at because he was looking for the reaction remembered making, not the involuntary arm flip he had no memory of. He also believed for whatever reason that JFK had been hit by the first shot. I don't know why he believed that because by his own admission he couldn't see JFK when he turned.
Quote
Just to clarify, I don't believe for a second that he is lying. I believe he is honestly reporting the shooting exactly as he remembers it.
How do you deal with these inconsistencies and contradictions?
I just gave you my answers. You're not entitled to ones you like.