JFK Assassination Forum

And you still haven't provided a witness in support.{/

Now you are just outright lying. I just gave you five.

Have you actually spent any time researching any aspect of the assassination? My guess is when you were on the McAdams site all of this was explained to you, but your explanation then like now was to pretend the witnesses were unreliable.

I'm hardly the first person to recognize the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Not just in the JFKA, but in criminal cases in general.
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/

It is hard to believe this is the first time it was explained to you that an Early Missed Shot has no witness support.

Keep lying. It's what you do best.

Barnett and Williams are two shot witnesses, stated immediately after the assassination, Jarman a shot after the headshot stated 2 days after the assassination, and Norman gave a no reference three shots statement four days after the assassination, then states a year later he only really heard two shots.

I don't know what the forum record is for most lies told in a single post but you have to be close to breaking it if you haven't already. Bennett and Williams accounts most definitely support 3 shots. Bennett said he was scanning the crowd to his right when he heard the first shot. He immediately turn to look at JFK and then saw the shot that struck him in the upper back. He then saw the third shot strike him in the head.

I could only find Willaims testimony in PDF format which doesn't allow copy and paste but you can go to page 175 of his testimony and in the first paragraph he describes the three shots.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Williams.pdf

You question my knowledge about the JFK assassination and then show how little you know.

JBC was struck by the first shot, get over it.

DING! DING! DING! I think you just broke the forum record.

---------

There can be a million proponents of an early missed shot. It only means a million of you are wrong.

or the far more likely explanation that you are wrong given how many misstatements of fact you have made in just one post.

-------

It is a synopsis of JBC’s statements and compared to what is seen at Z160. I am not surprised you did not recognize it. So much for the Zapruder Film being used as hard evidence of an early missed shot.

So now you question the validity of the Z-film. Why am I not surprised. Over the past 35 years I have debated this case online, it's pretty much a given that when somebody with a goofy theory (like you) comes across a piece of hard evidence that conflicts with their theory, they will question the evidence rather than their pet theory. The Z-film shows JBC turning to his right beginning at Z164 just as he said he did in reaction to the first shot which he was adamant did not hit him. I think that is something he would know better than anybody else.

---------------

You seem to have missed the point. Here it is again.

Holland and Meyers understood there was no evidence of a shot. Unless you are thinking a small child running on the side walk and reacting to an imaginary shot that no adult heard is all the evidence you need.

More BS. Throw out Rosemary Willis' reaction. It is the least compelling evidence of a first shot miss. JBC's recollection is only compatible with him being hit by the SECOND shot. Agent Bennett clearly describes a first shot miss followed by two strikes on JFK. Williams, Jarman, and Norman all testified to three shots.

There are 2 shot earwitnesses and 3 shot earwitnesses. Which do you think is more probable. The 2 shot witnesses didn't recognize one of the shots or the 3 shot witness imagined hearing a shot that didn't happen.

The consensus of the “earwitnesses” was stating there were three shots but that is not what the eyewitnesses stated. The consensus of the eyewitnesses was there was only two shots.

I'd love to see your source for that but I'm betting you can't produce such a source.

The belief that JBC heard an earlier shot is your fantasy. He never stated that. He saw JFK slumped after the first shot. 

This has to be your biggest whopper of all. JBC was adamant every time he told the story that he was hit by the second shot. It is not my fantasy. It is his statement of fact. You are the one who seems to be out of touch with reality.

There  oare ther three shot narratives, maybe try one of those out and see if it makes more sense.

They all make more sense than you. Even Andrew Mason's goofy theory is closer to the truth than what you are trying to sell.

A theory without a single witness to support it is not much of a theory. Ask Andrew maybe he has a spare one he has not used in a while.

I can't decide if you are being deliberately dishonest or are really as ignorant of the facts as you seem to be.

Johnny Brewer & Oswald Arresting Police Officer McDonald

If not for Johnny Brewer's alertness and willingness to get involved, Oswald would have gotten inside the Texas Theater unnoticed, sat through the double feature, and left with the crowd after dark, by which time the trail would have gone cold. Oswald might well have eluded capture for days and possibly weeks. Eventually he would have been captured or killed in a shootout but there's no telling whether he would have killed more people before being brought to justice. Johnny Brewer is one of the unsung heroes of the JFKA.

No. But they can see how a person is facing when they hear a shot.

Do you honestly believe anyone took note of which way JBC was facing when they heard the first shot. In fact, I doubt there were many if any spectators looking at JBC. Their attention would have been focused on Jack and Jackie. They were the ones the spectators came to see.

We cannot see him behind the sign but when he emerges at z224-225 we can see that he is already reacting:

We can also see JBC's right shoulder suddenly dip at Z225, one frame before he flips his arm upward. You continue to pretend that never happened because you have no explanation for why JBC would suddenly flip his arm upward and precisely the same time JFK raised his arms.

Since we cannot see him behind the sign we don't know when that reaction began. It looks to me like it may have started after z193:

Now you are just imagining things. JFK shows no reaction from Z193 until he goes behind the sign. When he reemerges, his right hand is still going down. It doesn't start up until Z226, the same frame JBC's right arm flips upward. And you want to chalk that up to coincidence.

Well, he never said he did that in relation to the second shot either. 

YES HE DID!

Where do you see him doubling over before z278?2 H 132-133:

Open your damn eyes!
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z247.jpg
It is preposterous to think JBC is not reacting to the shot that hit him less than a second and a half earlier. Anybody who denies that cannot be taken seriously and you sure as hell are not and never will be as long as you continue to peddle this nonsense.

• "We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except, just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately-the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him. I was turning to look back'

I have never said that he reacted to being shot in the thigh.  He said he never felt it. It is not uncommon for people not to feel bullets, especially in the extremities.

Did you just make that up? Never mind. I already know the answer to that. The reason JBC didn't feel the thigh wound was sensory overload. He didn't even know his wrist had been shattered because the chest wound overloaded his nervous system and it was the only thing he remembered feeling.

In fact, the fragment that struck Tague had to have a slow enough average speed over the 280 feet from the car at z271 to Tague in order to have enough time to drop to the pavement.  On a 3 degree decline after clearing the top of the windshield it would have had to have dropped almost 15 feet to strike the road near Tague. That would take almost a full second.  So it would have to be travelling an average of 280 ft/sec.
That was Zeon's suggestion about the bullet striking the upholstery and there was a close inspection of the car and no such hole was found.  There is not enough evidence for us to determine how it ended up where it did.  But there are several ways in which it could have happened. After passing though JFK, tumbling over the ensuing 4 feet of air and then, while spinning, striking the thigh butt-first on an angle plowing through leg muscle until reaching the femur depositing the lead fragment in the femur it may have bounced back.  It may have come out of the wound or it may have stayed in the wound.  Or it may have kept going and struck something in the car that caused it to bounce back without causing damage.  It may have bounced up and back off the thigh and ended up on JBC's lap or in the back seat or on JFK.  The person who found it was of the view that it came not from Connally's stretcher but from stretcher B that was already in the hallway and had some bloody sheets on it.

You theories get even more preposterous the hard you try to save your turkey of a scenario. Just to get over the front seat and Kellerman the bullet would have to have deflected upward at a very steep angle. It's hard to believe that a bullet striking JBC's wrist would cause that much change in direction but even if it did, it would now be flying in a parabolic arc. If my chance it came down and hit the curb in front of Tague, it's primary force would be gravity, not momentum and it would not have cause the chip in the pavement that apparently caused Tague's superficial face wound.

I have lost count of the ridiculous and impossible things you have pieced together to concoct this fantasy scenario of yours. It doesn't make the least bit of sense. It never did and it never will. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself by clinging to it.

TG:

I never understood the "Russia is OK" sentiment on the right-wing, which has some roots extending all the way back to Pat Buchanan, the Nixon guy.

Of course, the lefties were always for accommodating Russia, see James DiEugenio and Putin-puppet Oliver Stone. They have even re-fabricated the JFK legacy to their left-wing ideologies and agendas.

IMHO, you are correct in your assessment of the narratives around the JFKA, some funded by Moscow, and in latter years, some by Tehran.

It is an artifact of the times that while the JFKA LNT captured most of of the political right, the JFKA CT captured most of the political left. Almost no one has researched the JFKA CTs that point to Havana or Moscow, with rare exceptions such as James Woolsey or Gus Russo.

In JFKA-land, the ideology writes the agenda, and the agenda writes the narrative.

"Iran Iran Iran"

You sound like a MOSSAD agent.