You and Tony Marsh are like two peas in a pod. Every time I have challenged you with a question for which neither of you had an answer, you both resorted to the cowardly "I've already answered that" dodge which was a lie every time either of you resorted to it.

Nope. It's just that you constantly repeat arguments that I and others here have already answered. In some cases, you dishonestly snip comments from replies without giving notice that you've omitted them, and then you make false arguments that were answered in the comments you snipped (as we'll see below).

Over the past 35 years, I have answered the same questions countless times without resorting to such a  dodge. The reason you won't provide a scenario with specific time frames and locations for each of the shots is because you know it would get ripped to shreds. There is no way you can sync up the BBN's shot scenario with the Z-film so you refuse to do it. Keep running and hiding from the tough questions. It's what you do best. You don't have the guts to lay your cards on the table.

This is another example of your dishonesty. You snipped without notice my point that if you assume the Zapruder film is pristine, you can make a credible case the dictabelt shots can be synced with wound events in the Zapruder film. Let's read the paragraph where I made this point and see what you snipped without notice from it -- the statement in italics is what you snipped:

Now you're desperately trying to use the Zapruder film to refute the acoustical evidence, when in fact the acoustical evidence is further scientific proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. However, since you assume the Zapruder film is pristine, I should point out that Dr. Thompson has made a credible case that the dictabelt's gunshots can in fact be synced with wound events in the Zapruder film (Thompson also believes the film is pristine).

You quoted the first sentence but snipped the second sentence, and then falsely accused me of ducking the issue of syncing the dictabelt's gunshots with the Zapruder film. This is just one more example of your lack of integrity.

I do my own thinking. . . .

Yes, and that's a big part of the problem.

I do my own thinking and I don't need to know everything every LN has hypothesized over the years nor am I obligated to defend it.

This ranks right up there with your other self-discrediting statements of "I don't need to be objective" and "I don't need a rational explanation."

And I didn't say "every LN." I said, "You don't even know what your own side's experts have said on those subjects." One of the reasons you blunder so much is that you have not even read what your own side's experts have said on many issues.   

LN's agree that Oswald was the assassin and he fired the shots from the 6th floor sniper's nest. Beyond that there is a good deal of disagreement among LNs regarding the timing of the shots. We have LNs who don't accept the SBT and we even have at least one LN on this forum who thinks Oswald only fired two shots.

Your juvenile dodge continues. Again, I didn't say "every LN," and I certainly wasn't referring to LNers in this forum. I said you haven't read what your own side's experts have said on numerous issues. For example, you clearly don't know what Lattimer, Piziali, and Sturdivan have said on key issues involving wound-ballistics evidence.

BTW, umm, who are the LNers who don't accept the SBT? Surely you can name just one of them, right?

Because it does. There is no way to sync the BBN conclusions with the Z-film which is why you won't even try.

I get it: In your uneducated, juvenile mind, if you repeat misleading, vacuous arguments often enough, they become true to you. You have made it obvious that you have no explanation for the presence of gunfire N-waves and gunfire windshield distortions on the dictabelt. Yet, you keep assuming the acoustical evidence is invalid and then proceed from there.

Similarly, you have not laid a finger on the evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film. I've provided you with several links to scientific studies that prove the film has been altered. You've ignored them, again, and then you go from there.

You're the one who is royally ducking evidence he can't explain, not I.

MG: . . . when in fact the acoustical evidence is further scientific proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.

That statement deserves five 

This is the classic dodge every CT eventualy is forced to fall back on. When the evidence doesn't fit their belief in conspiracy, it is the evidence that is fraudulent. You just won't admit it it your beliefs which are FUBAR. If Tink can do that, why can't you?

You don't seem to even know the meaning of the word "dodge." Umm, it's not a "dodge" at all. It's the straightforward argument that since the acoustical evidence has been scientifically proven to contain gunfire N-waves and gunfire windshield distortions, since the BBN scientists identified timing-movement correlations that prove the dictabelt's gunfire was recorded by a motorcycle microphone in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, and since dozens of film experts and several physicists have noted scientific evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film, any actual or perceived conflicts between the dictabelt and the Zapruder film must mean (1) there is a problem with the Zapruder film and/or (2) that shots were fired that the dictabelt could not record because they came from a gun with a silencer or were fired by a gunman who was standing several feet from the opening through which he was firing.

Again, you are the one who is ducking and dodging evidence all over the place, not I.

MG: You still, even now, weeks later, cannot provide a credible explanation as to how gunfire N-waves and gunfire windshield distortions got on the dictabelt if the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. And you're still refusing to deal with the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel said that there was a 93% chance that the timing-movement correlations occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in the plaza during the shooting, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll (and they only got the probability down to 77.7% by introducing two severe errors into their calculations).

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert in highly technical fields and so I don't try to explain them to other people. I leave that to people who are experts in these various fields. As for probabilities, those are nothing more than SWAGs (scientific wild Bahookie guesses).

So you finally feel compelled to comment on these two crucial NRC/NAS findings, and this is all you have to offer? Umm, no, the probability percentages are not "nothing more than SWAGs." Where in the world do you get that nonsense? Even the NRC/NAS panel members did not make such a ludicrous claim. Here you go again just making up nonsense and pretending it explains evidence you don't want to accept. The probability percentages were based on long-established scientific principles and bore no resemblance to wild guesses.

And if you were really willing to "leave that to people who are experts in these various fields," you would accept the findings of the 11 acoustical scientists who developed the HSCA's acoustical evidence. The HSCA's acoustical scientists said there was a 99+% probability that the timing-movement correlations occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire by a motorcycle microphone that was moving in Dealey Plaza during the shooting (the NRC/NAS guys said the probability was 93%, but the HSCA scientists were correct, yet 93% is still a very high probability).

Similarly, if you were really willing to "leave that to people who are experts in these various fields," you would accept the finding of the HSCA's acoustical scientists that there was a 95+% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll (the NRC/NAS guys said it was 77.7%, but this percentage was based on two marked errors in their calculations).

There's a reason the FBI doesn't speculate on probabilities. They know they are nothing more than guesses. When they analyze a piece of evidence, they decide something is either positive, negative, or inconclusive. If it's not black-and-white, there is only one shade of gray.

This is just naked ignorance.

First off, the FBI most certainly does offer percentages of probability when analyzing some crimes. You can Google this. So right off the bat, you don't know what you're talking about and are just spewing nonsense you've made up out of thin air.

Two, we're talking about two very different types of evidence. Your argument is comparing apples to liver tissue. The acoustical probability percentages were based on taking hard soundwave data from the test firing in Dealey Plaza, comparing those data with the soundwave data on the dictabelt, identifying correlations between the two data sets (echo correlations between the test-firing impulse patterns and the dictabelt's impulse patterns), and then calculating the probability that the correlations resulted from chance.

This has nothing to do with how the FBI decides that a piece of evidence is positive, negative, or inconclusive. And, again, the FBI will most certainly offer probability percentages when analyzing certain crimes. 

I know of one person who could tell you all about the value of probabilities. That would be President Hillary Clinton. Prior to the 2016 election, the New York Times gave her a 91% chance of being elected POTUS. How did that work out.

This is an idiotic comparison. Estimating a candidate's chances of winning an election bears no resemblance to how the BBN acoustical scientists and the NRC/NAS panel members calculated the probability that the timing-movement correlations were or were not the result of chance. They used the same known mathematical and statistical principles, but the NRC/NAS guys made one error in their calculations that caused them to increase the probability of chance from P<0.01 (i.e., less than 1%) to  P=0.07 (7%).

Nor does estimating a candidate's chances of winning an election bear any resemblance to how the Queens College acoustical scientists and the NRC/NAS panel members calculated the probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll. The Queens College scientists established a 26-point match between the test-firing grassy knoll shot's impulse pattern and the dictabelt's 144.9 impulse pattern and then calculated the probability that this match was the result of chance as being 5% or less, while the NRC/NAS panel members increased the probability of chance to 22.3% only by introducing two marked errors into their calculations, as MIT mathematician Dr. David Scheim noted.

MG: Uh, yes, I have. I've discussed two such tests. Sheesh, now you're just ba Walk:ld-face lying, or you have a terrible memory.

Now you're just blowing smoke. You have cited case studies regarding how other makes of FMJ bullets have behaved after striking a skull. Why don't you cite specific cases of how a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet behaves when it strikes a skull. Let me guess. You've already done that.

Here is another example of your habit of pretending that your argument has not been refuted when it has been. I'm starting to wonder if perhaps you just have a bad memory. If not, then you're just lying. As anyone can confirm, in threads in which you have participated, I have presented evidence from two headshot wound-ballistics tests that used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ ammo: the WC's test and Lattimer's test.

See, for example, my reply in the "10 Reasons to Believe That Oswald Was Innocent" thread:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5099.msg182625.html#msg182625 

Furthermore, as anyone can also easily confirm, I have repeatedly provided you with the link to my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds" and urged you to read it. The article discusses the WC and Lattimer headshot wound-ballistics tests. Here's the link to the article, again:

"Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"

MG: And, as you know but dishonestly ignore, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st centuries, said FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of fragments after penetrating skull bone.

Why don't you cite one of his case studies of what a Carcano FMJ bullet will do when striking a skull.
Unless you can cite a specific case of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet striking a skull, that is an empty claim. If you don't have a specific case study of such a bullet, striking a skull, there is no way to say how such a bullet will react.

Oh, yeah! So DiMaio just didn't know what he was talking about regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets! LOL! Right! He was just fabricating or recklessly speculating when he categorically said FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking skull bone and when he said that x-rays that show a "lead snowstorm" of tiny fragments rule out FMJ ammo! You betcha!

Are you ever going to break down and read his book? The second edition is available free of charge on Google Books.

FYI, some bullet calibers are identified by the company that introduced it. Early .38 rounds were called Short Colt and Long Colt. The .40 S&W round is a common caliber for semi-automatic hand guns, and it is called that no matter what make of handgun uses it or if the ammo was manufactured by Smith and Wesson or not.

I get it: You're trying to make it seem like you know what you're talking about, but none of this has anything to do with the known forensic fact that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone.

The only known exception is a rare, if not unique, case in a wound-ballistic test where the FMJ bullet was fired from a very short distance, 10-20 feet, and did not have a chance to stabilize its flight and thus struck at a severe angle. However, we know this was not the case with the bullet that hit the back of JFK's head because the rear head entry wound was only 1.5 x 0.6 cm.

Nor will FMJ bullets deposit small fragments in the outer table of the skull from their cross section upon impact. Again, your side's best wound-ballistics expert, Dr. Sturdivan, has admitted this.

I notice you still have not explained the fact that bullet fragmentation pattern seen on the x-rays of the test skulls from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test looks nothing the pattern seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, both in the number of fragments and in the distribution patterns. That is a "case study" involving WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets that proves the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.

I also notice you still have not explained the fact that every single medical expert who has commented on what the skull damage indicates about the velocity of the bullet has noted that the damage indicates the bullet was a high-velocity bullet. But, uh-oh, the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle, as even the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, told the WC.

You just can't bring yourself to face the fact that your supposed lone gunman not only used the wrong kind of ammo but also used the wrong kind of rifle.

Whenever you try to play Mr Smarty Pants, you usually ended up making yourself look foolish. That's another trait you share with Tony Marsh.

Umm, if I tried, I couldn't make myself look as foolish and ignorant as you have made yourself look.

Why don't you tell us again why the distance that a bullet travels is irrelevant to how it will behave when it hits its target? Or how about repeating your blundering claim that the HSCA PEP said JFK was first hit at Z223-224? Or how about telling us why WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMI bullets? Or how about reminding us that there was no way, absolutely no way, that Secret Service agents would have let Chiefs Mills and Martinell search JFK's limo? Or how about a repeat of your claim that the only way Dr. Young's account makes sense is to assume that JFK's limo was driven to Bethesda?   

It is duly noted you have never offered a plausible reason why JBC would suddenly flip his right arm upward at the exact moment JFK also started raising his arms. Instead you act as if it never happened. Tony Marsh would refuse to acknowledge that arm flip as well. Are the two of you related by any chance?

It is duly noted that you are again fabricating or proving you have a terrible memory. I explained that the arm "flip" was a nervous twitching reaction to just having heard the sound of gunfire. His arm doesn't actually "flip"; it moves upward while he's still holding his hat as he's turning. Indeed, his upward arm movement may well simply be a natural accompaniment to his turning motion.   

And, BTW, this reaction comes over 20 frames after JFK's right arm suddenly freezes in mid-wave starting in Z200, as the HSCA's photographic experts noted. 

JBC's right shoulder was driven downward immediately after being struck. That can be seen on David von Pein's outstanding webpage devoted to the single bullet theory:
https://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/

Between Z224-225 we see his right shoulder dip and his left shoulder rise. The website shows toggling between the critical frames from Z223-226. In rapid succession we see the following:

Z223-224 The right side of JBC's jacket suddenly bulges out, the result of the bullet having just passed through it.
Z224-225 JBC's right shoulder dips. JFK's right hand is still moving downward, a motion started before he disappeared
Z225-226 JFK suddenly flips both arms upward in reaction to being shot a few frames early. At this same instant, JBC's right arm suddenly flips upward, a motion which last 9 frames or about a half second.

All of the above motions are easily discernable with enlarged frames which DVP's website provides. These actions are perfectly consistent with a single bullet having passed through both men immediately preceding them.

LOL! Oh my! Where to begin? The first thought that comes to mind is this: Isn't it just amazing that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, insisted there was "no doubt" he was not hit before Z229?! Gee, how did he miss all of these "reactions"?!

As has been explained for many years, the Z223-224 "jacket bulge" occurs because Connally is turning. I see you've ditched the silly Z224 lapel-flip myth. I guess even you figured out that no lapel on this planet can flip up and down in 55 milliseconds.

Connally's right shoulder "dips" in Z224-225?! This is another silly DVP reach. Connally is in the process of turning in Z224-225, as he himself explained, and as is evident in Z228-230, and so the level of his right shoulder lowers slightly, a natural result of carrying out a turning motion. This is what DVP claims qualifies as matching Connally's description that the bullet hit him with such force that it felt like someone had punched him hard with a doubled-up fist.

BTW, you and DVP might want to consult with the current grand master of WC apologists, Gerald Posner, because he says the right-shoulder drop is an optical illusion. You guys might want to get your story straight, since the shoulder drop is a key piece of evidence.

Connally's hat, held by his right hand, stays at virtually the same level from Z229-233 and noticeably starts to drop at  -- gee, what do you know? -- Z234, the same frame that Connally himself identified as the moment of impact, and just four frames later, his right shoulder is dramatically driven downward while his cheeks puff and a pained expression appears on his face.

MG: caused his cheeks to puff, and caused a pained expression on his face in right around four frames, not 16 frames later, as you ridiculously claim (i.e., after your mythical Z222 hit). But you just don't care. You won't listen. You just keep repeating your argument over and over and over and over, and then accuse others of "ignoring" your points.

Oh, really. I'd love to see you cite a source for that claim. Just because CTs have repeated that same  line for years doesn't make it a scientific fact.

Oh, you'd love to see me cite a source for this known forensic fact, hey?! Well, okay! How about two of your side's own experts, Dr. John Lattimer and Dr. Robert Piziali, for starters?! This is why Piziali denied that JFK is reacting in Z225 at the 1992 ABA/Failure Analysis mock Oswald trial. This is why Lattimer said JFK was hit no later than Z221.

Have you not read any of Lattimer's SBT material? Do you even know who Piziali was? He was a ballistics expert who testified for the prosecution at the 1992 ABA/Failure Analysis mock Oswald trial. I'm guessing this is all news to you.

Piziali said that the same bullet struck Kennedy and Connally at Z224, and that a "reflexive reaction" to this impact would take "approximately 200 ms, which is exactly the time from when the bullet passes through Governor Connally's lapel and we see the first motion of the President's elbow." Umm, the 200-millisecond time for a reflexive reaction is correct, but the rest is demonstrably false, as even Pat Speer has noted:

Ouch. This was painfully incorrect. It was so incorrect that even the most ardent single-assassin theorists could see that it was incorrect. Beyond that the bullet did not pass through Connally's lapel, but at a lower point on his jacket, 200 ms is more than three-and-a-half frames of the Zapruder film. No one outside Dr. Piziali, of whom I am aware, has ever, after studying the Zapruder film, asserted that Kennedy's "reflexive reaction" starts at frame 227 of the film. Equally suspicious, upon cross-examination, Dr. Piziali confirmed that yes, it was his expert opinion that Kennedy was bringing his hand down after a wave in frame 225. This ignored that Kennedy's hands began rising back up in frame 226, not 227, and that frame 226 was not three and a half frames after . . . frame 224.

Afterward, defense witness Dr. Roger McCarthy confirmed that a reflexive reaction on Kennedy's part would take about 200 ms, but disagreed with Piziali's conclusions. He asserted that Kennedy's hand movements in frames 225 and 226 were much too rapid to be reflective of his bringing his hand down after a wave, and that Kennedy was therefore most likely reacting to a shot at this time. He testified that, accordingly, Kennedy was most likely hit no later than frame 221, by a different bullet than the one hitting Connally at frame 224. (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12thesingle-bulletfact)

How about Failure Analysis ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy? I quote from Dr. McCarthy's testimony at the 1992 ABA/Failure Analysis mock Oswald trial:

Mr. CHESLER. Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next frame, 225. How much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was filmed and the time that frame 225 was filmed?

Dr. McCARTHY. About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about an 18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or an opinionas to when the President was hit with the bullet — how much before this point?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds [about four frames] between the time that a message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your mind to a muscle before you can get movement. You've experienced that every time you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it was hot and were burned because of the delay, because you couldn't get — let go or move fast enough to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just couldn't make your body move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with you; it takes about a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to full power — to get the muscles to move.

Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200 milliseconds before the movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in the film would that be?

Dr. McCARTHY. That would be at 221 at a minimum [i.e., at the latest, and notice this is just based on timing it from a reaction at Z225]

Mr. CHESLER. And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?

Dr. McCARTHY. Yes.

Mr. CHESLER. Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit at 224 according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by the same bullet?

Dr. McCARTHY. No. (Trial transcript, in Harrison Edward Livingstone, Killing the Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case, 1993, pp. 235-236)

And, mind you, Lattimer, Piziali, and McCarthy were talking about voluntary movements in response to gunfire. Your side's experts have claimed for decades that in only 109.2 milliseconds, or two Zapruder frames, JFK's upper body began to experience an involuntary neuromuscular reaction to the Z312 headshot, that the violent backward-leftward movement of his upper body began only 109.2 milliseconds after the Z312 impact. (Each Zapruder frame is 54.6 milliseconds.)

Here's the answer Google AI gives to the question "If a bullet enters your back and shatters one of your ribs, how long will it take for your face to have a pained expression?":

It will take roughly 100 to 250 milliseconds (about a tenth to a quarter of a second) for a person's face to display a pained expression after a bullet shatters a rib. To the human eye, this reaction appears entirely instantaneous.

So the maximum amount of time between the shattering of Connally's rib and the appearance of the pained expression would have been 250 milliseconds. 250 milliseconds equals 4.5 Zapruder frames (250 milliseconds divided by 54.6 milliseconds). Again, this would have been the maximum amount of time between wounding and pained expression.

I should note that the Google AI response cites two sources: An October 2006 article titled "Pain Processing Is Faster than Tactile Processing in the Human Brain" in the Journal of Neuroscience, and a 2020 article titled "Understanding Pain", published on the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation website and based on a study done by a "research team at Linköping University" and their 2019 article "showing that humans have a previously unknown high-speed pain signal system."   

Let's continue:

Here is how the timeline breaks down from the microsecond of impact to the actual facial movement:

1. Detection and Ascent (20 to 50 milliseconds) When the bullet shatters the rib, it instantly triggers a massive wave of mechanical and chemical trauma. Specialized, fast-conducting pain receptors (A-delta fibers) in the bone periosteum and surrounding tissue immediately fire electrical impulses. These signals race up the intercostal nerves to the spinal cord at speeds up to 60 meters per second.

2. Brain Processing (50 to 100 milliseconds) From the spinal cord, the signals cross over and ascend via the spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which routes them to the somatosensory cortex (for the physical sensation of pain) and the limbic system (for the emotional shock of it). The brain registers the conscious sensation of severe pain within roughly 100 milliseconds of the physical impact.

3. Motor Execution (50 to 100 milliseconds) Once the brain registers the trauma, it fires an involuntary motor command down the facial nerve (Cranial Nerve VII). This electrical signal triggers the facial muscles—specifically the corrugator supercilii (which pulls the eyebrows down and together) and the orbicularis oculi (which tightens the eyelids)—resulting in an involuntary grimace or wince.

So, I say again, your theory that Connally's pained expression starting in Z238 was a 16-frame delayed reaction to a shot at Z222-223 is preposterous. That reaction could have happened in as little as 100 milliseconds after the chest wounding, or at about Z235-236, as Connally's doctors concluded. At the very latest, it would have happened 4.5 frames after the wounding. Thus, Connally's selection of Z234 as the moment of impact is entirely consistent with what forensic science tells us about the speed of wound reactions.

You choose to ignore JBC's arm flip simply because you know what a powerful piece of evidence it is for the SBT.

Oh, yeah, a "powerful piece of evidence" indeed! Your "powerful piece of evidence" was so powerful that Connally rejected it as a wound reaction, and instead insisted he wasn't hit before Z229. Your "powerful piece of evidence" was so powerful that the HSCA's photographic experts likewise declined to identify it as evidence of a wound reaction, even though they were intently looking for even the slightest indication of a wound reaction in Z223-230. McCamy was grilled about this during the hearings. When he was specifically asked about evidence that Connally was reacting to a wound right after he emerged from the road sign, McCamy said Connally had a "distressed" look on his face, that he looked "concerned," and that his body was "taut" and "in a rather taut attitude." He said nothing about Connally's arm movement indicating a wound reaction. Nothing. Nada. Not one word. 

So, yes, that's one "powerful piece of evidence" alright: It's powerful evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about. 

Connally made it clear that when he first heard a shot he turned and looked over his right shoulder which we see him do at Z164. He made not sudden startle reaction upon hearing gunfire. But you would have us believe that after making such a measured reaction to the first shot, he would be startled by the second causing him to flip his right arm upward.

What Connally "made clear" was that he was not hit before Z229, that he was not hit by the same non-fatal bullet that hit JFK, that he did not hear the sound of the shot that hit him, and that the bullet hit his back with such force that it felt like someone had pounded him with a doubled-up fist.

You keep ignoring this overruling, determinative fact, and then accuse me of ignoring your dubious "powerful evidence" of Connally's arm movement when both Connally and the HSCA's photographic experts rejected the arm movement as a wound reaction.

This is where your acoustics evidence falls completely apart. If JFK is making a delayed reaction to being hit by a Z196 shot, what shot do you think caused JBC to double over in the Z230s? According to the BBN team, the next shot didn't occur until Z296. At least the HSCA accepted that JFK and JBC were hit by the same shot. Since you reject the SBT, that leaves you with a real conundrum. How do you square JFK and JBC having been hit by separate shots if you accept the BBN analysis? The obvious answer is you can't which is why you won't even try.

LOL! It would take several paragraphs to unpack all the errors and omissions crammed into these statements. What shot do I think caused Connally to double over "in the Z230s"? Umm, the same shot that Connally himself identified, the bullet that hit him in Z234, and which he insisted was not the same bullet that hit JFK! How about that?!

We both know you are being deceitful in citing the HSCA's endorsement of the SBT, since the HSCA said the alleged magic bullet hit at T1, that it hit below the throat wound, that it hit an upward angle, that it traveled through the neck at an upward angle, and the only way to make the trajectory align with the sixth-floor window is to assume JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet hit. You're the one with "a real conundrum."

The BBN team did not say the "next shot didn't occur until Z296." Again, you just make up nonsense. As I've already told you, neither the BBN nor the Queens College acoustical scientists did their own analysis of the Zapruder film. The syncing was fed to them by Blakey. The HSCA's experts also pointed out that the dictabelt had not necessarily recorded all the shots that were fired, the same point I've explained to you several times now.

"You won't even try" to deal with the scientific evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. You pretend it doesn't exist; you falsely assume the dictabelt would have recorded all shots fired if it had been recorded in the plaza during the shooting; and then you repeat your uninformed argument that the dictablet "doesn't square" with the Zapruder film.

JBC was looking for the reaction he remembered making. He wasn't looking for when his arm flipped up because he had no memory of having made that reflexive, involuntary reaction. Unlike you, I have the ability to apply critical thinking to the evidence.

Oh, yes, we've seen your "critical thinking" in action. If you had a modicum of critical-thinking ability, you would recognize how errant your argument is here. You would realize that you've ignored the fact that Connally spent at least an hour on two separate occasions analyzing the Zapruder film to determine when he was hit. The first time was when he repeatedly viewed the film in slow motion on a large screen for the WC. The second time was when he viewed high-quality color prints of each Zapruder frame provided by LIFE magazine in 1967 and studied them under high magnification. Both times he concluded he was not hit before Z229. He said there was "no doubt" about this.

My "blunder" was simply accepting a source without getting confirmation.

Your blunder was being so poorly read on the JFK case in the first place that you didn't even know when the HSCA PEP said JFK was first hit, and then you compounded that display of ignorance by being so lazy that you relied on an AI search result instead of checking the PEP's report. And here you are, like a bratty teenager, still unwilling to simply admit your blunder and move on.   

You on the other hand blunder badly when you try to analyze all the information you have accumulated over the years. Like Tony Marsh, you have accumulated a vast knowledge of the details of the JFK assassination but then apply the most FUBAR analysis imaginable to that wealth of knowledge, just like Marsh. It's amazing how similar you two are. Is it possible the two of you were separated at birth?

The only reason I even answer your ignorant, juvenile drivel is for the sake of others, especially newcomers. You're being dishonest just by pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it. You've proved over and over that you lack the education and reasoning skills, not to mention the integrity and maturity, to competently discuss JFK's death. You have no business being in this forum except as a silent reader.

       It's to the point now that anyone that does Not agree with you is producing a "fantasy".  That's tired and plain weak. You're better than this. I've seen it.

Anyone who makes up things that aren't true and insists they are true is a fantasist.
That's you Royell.
It's got nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with me.
You don't agree with reality. That's the problem.
Your constant insistence that Weigman can be seen running across the knoll in the Bell film is utterly bizarre. It's delusional. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me.
This forum is littered with the nonsense you have made up out of thin air and that you insist must be treated seriously.

Making up fantasies has got nothing to do with agreeing with me.
So you can stop crying about that, grow up and join the real world.

PS: I had a funny feeling Brian wasn't going to able to back up his claim about Sandy Larsen and it appears to be the case. But I stated that I would be willing to concede the point if he did so and that is still the case. That's called being reasonable, Royell. Give it a try some time.

Where can i get a good quality Couch film? my copy is poor and i can't discern ANYTHING Royell mentioned there.

Sandy Larsen matched the plaid bars on Lovelady's shirt to those on the shirt of the man going up the extension beyond any reasonable doubt..

I find this very difficult to believe.
If this were true you would have pointed us to this evidence.
It would not surprise me if this turned out to be another of your fantasies but I'm open to being proven wrong.
If you can really provide another clear piece of analysis that shows Lovelady's shirt and that is nothing to do with the Sprague print I will concede that it is Lovelady and Shelley on the Elm Street extension, even though it flies in the face of all other available evidence and appears to be a physical impossibility.

Where can I find Larsen's analysis?

       It's to the point now that anyone that does Not agree with you is producing a "fantasy".  That's tired and plain weak. You're better than this. I've seen it.

The man is Weigman and, as you say, he is sprawled across the steps from where he filmed the Hesters. He is just about to get up and race down the knoll to film the Newman's.

The problem is Royell.
I am trying to synchronise various films and photographs to get as good an estimate as possible for how long after the headshot the Darnell footage begins.
Royell has constantly tried to derail these attempts and one of his tactics is to make up nonsense off the top of his head that I then have to prove wrong.
Royell believes that the figure in question is not sprawling across the steps, as is obvious to anyone with half a brain, but that he is running across the knoll towards Zapruder. It is utterly bizarre but he just keeps on insisting this is the case even though the man is not moving and is clearly sprawled across the steps.

    You simply do Not understand the layout of the Knoll, and Wiegman being filmed by Couch. At what point do you believe that Wiegman moves (W)? Wiegman has to move (W) from his position on the Bell Film, in order to then run Down the knoll and arrive near the Newman family. Wiegman is filmed running DOWN the knoll on the Couch Film.