JFK Assassination Forum

“The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence.”

Why don’t we do just that. JBC is your prime and only witness but does not support a single thing that is proposed. Not one. JBC believes the first shot hit JFK and the second shot hit him.

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven't seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.

 

Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Where is the corroboration to an early missed shot?

 ------------------

What evidence? There are only you and your opinion. People were shoulder to shoulder along Elm street and not one person heard an early missed shot. The eyewitnesses all state JFK reacted to the first shot.  You think he continued to smile and wave

It is not a debate, it is undeniable. Nothing anywhere indicates there was an early missed shot.

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

“the CORROBORATED statements of JBC  and Glen Bennett.”

Bennett is a two shot witness. He referenced just two shots. Get over it.

JBC’s part of this theory is nothing but you talking out of both sides of your mouth. JBC is being presented as both right and wrong with his same statement.  On one hand, to you anyway, JBC is right when he states he heard a shot, that in his mind hit JFK but not him, and then he was wrong when he states he was struck by a separate bullet than the one that hit JFK, the one JBC never heard. 

Then, according to this oddball early missed shot theory, an early missed shot is then followed by one bullet that hit both JFK and JBC. In this bizarre theory, JBC’s earlier statement is completely ignored. What did he know, he was wounded is that it? How is that in any way following anything but unsubstantiated personal beliefs?

    Tying yourself to the mast Never ends well.

Steve's post somewhat relates to another "epistemological" point I was going to make. When you confront MTG and others like him with the stark reality that what they say MAKES NO SENSE, they do not - EVER - attempt to explain how it does make sense, even in their quirky view of the JFKA. They adopt one or both of two tactics:

1. You really know nothing about the JFKA. You may have been studying it for 50 years and have read essentially everything ever written, but you lack their deep knowledge. You are an amateur who has no business even participating in discussions about the JFKA, let alone trying to engage at the level of deep and arcane knowledge at which these folks operate. If only poor unworthy you knew what they know, you'd see what they see.

2. You're just a crank who thinks all CTers are crazy. Since many CTers are obviously not crazy, and many CT arguments are quite rational, this allows folks like MTG to adopt the high ground (I'm just like Larry Hancock!) and imply that it is in fact you who are crazy. No, sorry, there is a lunatic fringe of the CT community that is distinct and recognizable because what they say MAKES NO SENSE and THEY DON'T EVEN CARE that it makes no sense.

Pay attention, and you will see how many responses from MTG and his ilk fall into one or both of these categories.

Mr. Epistemology has now hit his morning golf balls and will make one more attempt at clarification ...

On another thread, Greg Doudna took me to task for ridiculing his elaborate Walker scenario. I admit, it makes no sense to me if Walker's only purpose was to stage an assassination attempt to enhance his reputation. But Greg's scenario is like John Orr's: it's internally consistent and accounts for the entire event. You can take it or leave it and even say "that makes no sense" when what you really mean is "that makes no sense to me." You can't say THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, because it does hang together with internal consistency and logic.

One trap we shouldn't fall into is thinking that whatever we believe (e.g., the LN narrative) is the "default rational" position and any other position is either ipso facto irrational or so "extraordinary" that it requires "extraordinary" evidence. Atheists do this all the time on religion forums, and I think we see it here from some LN zealots. Greg's Walker theory is not irrational and is "extraordinary" (to me) only in the sense that it is wildly different from the conventional explanation and seems fantastically, unnecessarily elaborate. But it just requires evidence, not extraordinary evidence, and you can take it or leave it. I wasn't clear about that on the other thread, more or less suggesting you were insane if you believed it.

Unlike Greg's Walker scenario, which as I said accounts for the entire event, the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. If the issue were simply "Was the Z film altered?" then Kevin's point that the silliness is not self-evident would be true. There is at least a body of supposed evidence and expert opinion that might cause an entirely rational person to say, in a vacuum, "By God, I think it was altered."

But the supposed alteration of the Z film is not a stand-alone issue. It is part and parcel of some theory as to what took place with the JFKA. It has to make sense within that context. You have to be able to articulate an internally consistent and reasonably logical theory of the JFKA in which the need to alter the Z film and the supposed alteration of it MAKES SENSE. Your theory doesn't have to convince me, but it has to MAKE SENSE. In philosophical terms, it has to be "epistemologically justified" even it happens to be 100% untrue. I can't think of any such theory and haven't heard one. In fact, to me it seems ridiculous. But since hope springs eternal, I did issue my challenge.

This is why CTers play the endless game of "What about THIS?" and "What about THAT?" and "What about THAT over there?" They want every issue to be examined in a vacuum. "Z film alteration = conspiracy." If they can keep the focus on the supposed Z film alteration as though it were a stand-alone issue, they can sound sorta-kinda persuasive. When you say, "Super! So what was the conspiracy and how does the necessity to alter the Z film fit into it? How would that have worked, from the time they were planning the JFKA and considering the possibility of cameras in Dealey Plaza to Abe doing his filming to the events immediately thereafter to the alteration itself? How would it have worked and what sense would it have made?" - well, then, they have no answer and shift the focus to "And what about THAT over there?"