JFK Assassination Forum

DVP has argued that at Z225 JFK and JBC both show other signs of being struck and he might be right about that. He bases that on JFK's facial expression at Z225. Given the low resolution of the Z-film and we can't compare JFK's facial expression to Z224, I don't think that is conclusive. There is no question that JBC's right shoulder dips dramatically at Z225 but I simply can't say whether that is a reflexive response or it is being moved by the force of the bullet. Either seems possible to me.

It's not just Connally's right shoulder that is moving around between Z224 and 225, it's both shoulders that are (IMO) unquestionably flinching. And this flinching is occurring in the exact same frame (Z225) in which Connally's facial expression changes and his mouth opens. Also take note of Connally's necktie curling up, which was being caused no doubt by the sudden flinching of the shoulders, forcing the tie to move.

What we're seeing here are the immediate involuntary reflex reactions being exhibited by Governor Connally after being struck by a bullet:



And then, just one frame later, the Hat Flip:

You are relying entirely on JBC saying he turned to his right after the first shot and you are relying entirely on you thinking that happened at z164-170.  So you are relying on only one witness and you are also ignoring the possibility that his turn to look at JFK occurred after z230. 

Wrong. I am relying on two witnesses. JBC and the Z-film and the latter corroborates the former. We see JBC doing what he said he did upon hearing the first shot and he turns in the way we would expect him to turn after hearing a shot that came from above, behind, and to his right.

I am suggesting that one can rely on a large number of witnesses who said the same thing independently.

You mean like the large number of witnesses who said the shots came from the GK. Ddi they corroborate each other?

In fact, there are at  least 22 witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot and not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot.

I don't give a rip that not a single witness said JFK smiled and waved to them. I can see JFK waving at them. We can't tell from the Z-film if he was smiling but it seems likely he would have.

That is 22:0.

No, it is 22-1 and in this case  22 < 1 because the 1 is Zapruder's camera. That's the only one we can be sure got it right. The truth is not subject to majority rule

If they were assumed to be no more than 50% reliable, the probability that all 22 would get it wrong is 1/2^22= 1 in 4 million.

Why would we assume something like that?

If they were 95% accurate as the studies on witness recollection show,

Pure BS. What studies show that?

the probability that they would all be wrong is on the order of 1 in 1000 trillion. 

What is the probability that all the witnesses who said the shots came from the GK were wrong?

But you are entitled to stick to your interpretation of the zfilm.  I am just astonished that it would persuade anyone to conclude that 80%-100% of the witnesses as to three different facts (shot pattern, JFK hit by first shot, Location of JFK at time of first shot) were all wrong in the same way.

I'm astonished that you think that is a more reliable indicator than the Z-film. I will concede that the Z-film can't tell us for sure when the first shot was fired and it is theoretically possible the first shot was fired before Zapruder resumed filming which would make the second and third shots closer together, but I find more probably there was roughly 3.75 seconds between the first and second shots and just under 5 seconds between the 2nd and 3rd because I believe the first shot was fired at or about Z151.

That is all he does. You are right.  He stops waving at z193. He then turns forward and lowers his hand.  That is what witnesses said he did in response to the first shot.

And you continue to put absolute faith in fallible witnesses. The one reliable witness doesn't show JFK reacting until after he reappeared from behind the sign. It's possible he began reacting a few frames earlier when we can't see him but that's not something I will assume.

See Mary Woodward:
I said that at z224 JBC's shoulders were rotated only 30 degrees at most:

When you can prove to me Mary Woodward was correct about what she saw, I'll be happy to respond.

 
For a shot at z193 JBC was turned far to the right, close to 2:30/3 o'clock (75-90 degrees):

WOW!!! Your powers of perception are as bad as your methodology. At no point before he was struck is JBC tuned even close to that much.

Maybe you should study their evidence first. It is much more likely that the large proportion of witnesses got it right if it was a simple observation of a detail reported by most witnesses.

Why should I study unreliable evidence when I have to best evidence available to tell me what happened?

I once did a presentation on fact finding to a professional group using Powerpoint. Near the beginning of the presentation a playing card for exactly one second and made no comment. At the end of the presentation, I asked the audience if they noticed a playing card and, if so, to write down on a slip what the card was.  About 70% said Four of Spades and 30% chose other cards. One person had not noticed the card because they were not looking at the screen for that one second. I asked him to decide what the card was from the evidence provided on the slips. He said "Four of spades" and he was absolutely right. Witnesses are reliable. Not all and not always. But large numbers of witnesses that agree are quite reliable.

And you think your little experiment is equivalent to seeing the POTUS shot dead in front of you.
Here are the results of an actual scientific study:
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
"Eyewitness testimony is far less reliable than most people assume. In controlled studies of criminal lineups, witnesses pick the actual suspect roughly 45 percent of the time, pick nobody about 35 percent of the time, and pick a known-innocent filler about 20 percent of the time. Those numbers shift dramatically depending on how the lineup is conducted, how much stress the witness experienced, and how much time has passed since the crime. Eyewitness misidentification is the single largest contributor to wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence, showing up in roughly 69 percent of those cases."

The real reason for the SBT is the assumption that all of JBC's wounds occurred on the same shot.

It is not an assumption. It is a logical conclusion based on reliable evidence. Something your beliefs are lacking.

If that was the case, then there was no where for the shot through JFK to go other than to strike JBC and if he was struck only once, the SBT would have to be correct.  I am suggesting that the SBT is wrong because so much evidence conflicts with it.  And I suggest the reason it is wrong is that the assumption that JBC was struck by only one bullet is wrong.

I suggest your thought process is faulty. You rely completely on the least reliable form of evidence there is, eyewitness accounts. Then you compound the problems by using your confirmation bias to select which witnesses you choose to believe.

But just to humor you, let's pretend it happened the way you claim it did. You have JFK hit by the first shot which then goes on to strike JBC in the thigh.
Shall we call this SBT 2.0? Strangely, the bullet only had enough energy left to make a shallow penetration into JBC's thigh. The father/son Haas team showed that a a 6.5mm Carcano bullet could penetrate 3 feet of pine board but you want us to believe that after passing through nothing but the soft tissue of JFK's torso, the bullet only penetrated an inch or two into JBC's thigh. We also only have two bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented bullet found on the floor of the limo by the Secret Service. Doesn't your theory require a third bullet? And we haven't even mentioned the wound to Tague. How do you suppose that happened.

I don't care how consistent your chosen witnesses are with each other, they aren't consistent with what the Z-film shows which invalidates them. I will never understand your obsession with relying on witnesses when we have so much more reliable forms of evidence to tell us what happened.

You are relying entirely on JBC saying he turned to his right after the first shot and you are relying entirely on you thinking that happened at z164-170.  So you are relying on only one witness and you are also ignoring the possibility that his turn to look at JFK occurred after z230. 

I am suggesting that one can rely on a large number of witnesses who said the same thing independently.  In fact, there are at  least 22 witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot and not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot. That is 22:0.  If they were assumed to be no more than 50% reliable, the probability that all 22 would get it wrong is 1/2^22= 1 in 4 million. If they were 95% accurate as the studies on witness recollection show, the probability that they would all be wrong is on the order of 1 in 1000 trillion.  But you are entitled to stick to your interpretation of the zfilm.  I am just astonished that it would persuade anyone to conclude that 80%-100% of the witnesses as to three different facts (shot pattern, JFK hit by first shot, Location of JFK at time of first shot) were all wrong in the same way.

The sequence you posted shows that from Z189 until JFK goes behind the sign, the only thing he was doing was slowly and calmly lowering his right hand after waving to the few remaining spectators on that section of Elm St.

That is all he does. You are right.  He stops waving at z193. He then turns forward and lowers his hand.  That is what witnesses said he did in response to the first shot.  See Mary Woodward:

It think it is hilarious that after telling us JBC only rotate his shoulders at most 30 degrees to the right you show a drawing that shows his shoulders turned about 75-80 degrees in order to avoid being hit by the bullet exiting JFK's throat. You also show him leaning way over to the side of the car. When you have to resort to such extreme exaggerations to make your theory work, doesn't that cause you to question the validity of your theory?

I said that at z224 JBC's shoulders were rotated only 30 degrees at most:
 
For a shot at z193 JBC was turned far to the right, close to 2:30/3 o'clock (75-90 degrees):

One should reject any large body of witnesses who give accounts that conflict with the Z-fillm.

Maybe you should study their evidence first. It is much more likely that the large proportion of witnesses got it right if it was a simple observation of a detail reported by most witnesses.

I once did a presentation on fact finding to a professional group using Powerpoint. Near the beginning of the presentation a playing card for exactly one second and made no comment. At the end of the presentation, I asked the audience if they noticed a playing card and, if so, to write down on a slip what the card was.  About 70% said Four of Spades and 30% chose other cards. One person had not noticed the card because they were not looking at the screen for that one second. I asked him to decide what the card was from the evidence provided on the slips. He said "Four of spades" and he was absolutely right. Witnesses are reliable. Not all and not always. But large numbers of witnesses that agree are quite reliable.

I agree with the CTs on one point. Without the SBT, there had to be two shooters and a conspiracy. Fortunately we have the Z-film and other evidence that tells use positively the SBT is valid. I would go so far as to agree with Dale Myers when he said it isn't a single bullet theory, it is a single bullet fact.

The real reason for the SBT is the assumption that all of JBC's wounds occurred on the same shot.  If that was the case, then there was no where for the shot through JFK to go other than to strike JBC and if he was struck only once, the SBT would have to be correct.  I am suggesting that the SBT is wrong because so much evidence conflicts with it.  And I suggest the reason it is wrong is that the assumption that JBC was struck by only one bullet is wrong.

I agree that the Groden black &white photo is obviously a "Fake"

Authentic Autopsy Photo.