Telling a witness he was wrong about his observation does not equate to pressuring him to change his story. The FBI knew the shots had not come from the GK and they told O'Donnell that. If he decided to alter his testimony, that is on him.

You don't quote Kenny O'Donnell. You quote Tip O'Neill quoting Kenny O'Donnell so we don't know how O'Donnel actually described the encounter. You are describing your impression of the impression O'Nell got from what O'Donnell said. A hearsay account hardly establishes that the FBI "pressured" O'Donnell to change his story. 

So I'll ask my question again. Why would the FBI pressure O'Donnell into changing his story.

The more fundamental question is, were any shots actually fired from the GK. There is no forensic evidence pointing to a shot from the GK. There were no eyewitness to a shot from the GK. There was an eyewitness who had a perfect view of the are behind the wooden fence when the shots were fired and he saw no one there. The only "evidence" of shots from the GK are the impressions of a group of earwitnesses who said all the shots came from the GK. They are contradicted by another group of witnesses who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. The latter group is corroborated by 3 spent shell found in the sniper's nest and the murder weapon found elsewhere on the same floor. No corroboration for the earwitnesses who thought the shots came from the GK. That includes Kenny O'Donnell.

Ken O'Donnell denied the allegations that he changed his testimony under pressure from anyone. He told the Chicago Tribune in an interview that they were "an absolute, outright lie." And Dave Powers, also quoted by O'Neill, denied the story as well.

I'll be lazy here and quote Wikipedia on this:

"In their memoir of Kennedy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, both O'Donnell and David Powers reported hearing only three shots and did not offer any speculation as to their origin.[12] According to a June 15, 1975 report in the Chicago Tribune, an unnamed "Central Intelligence Agency liaison man" told Congressmen that O'Donnell and David Powers had initially told assassination investigators that the shots that struck Kennedy came from a location other than the Texas School Book Depository, but that the two men were convinced, reportedly by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover or his main aides, to alter their accounts to the Warren Commission to avoid the possibility of revealing the CIA's plots to kill Fidel Castro which might result in an international incident.[12] During a telephone interview, O'Donnell said he testified truthfully and called the allegations "an absolute, outright lie."[12] In his 1987 autobiography Man of the House, former House Speaker Tip O'Neill wrote that he had dinner with O'Donnell and Powers in 1968, and that both men indicated that two shots were fired from behind the fence on the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza.[13] According to O'Neill, he pointed out to O'Donnell that he gave different information to the Warren Commission, and O'Donnell replied: "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."[13] However, Dave Powers denied such conversation and claim occurred and criticized his autobiography.[14]

Again, O'Neill's allegations were denied by both men.

See here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lQhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1934%2C3948488&hl=en

This is another example of how Michael Griffith uncritically accepts information that supports his pre-determined conspiracy view. And it doesn't matter whether it contradicts other claims he believes. Remember again he believes in the acoustics evidence that concluded three shots were fired from the TSBD and another shot came from behind the fence. But he quotes allegations that O'Donnell said the shots came from in front of the limo. That is, of course, completely at odds with the acoustics analysis. But he doesn't care.

One thing is certain beyond any rational, excusable doubt: JFK begins to react to being wounded long before Connally begins to react to being wounded. JFK starts to react at right around Z200, as does Jackie. JFK's and Jackie's reactions that we see in Z224 begin in Z202. Starting in Z202, Jackie snaps her head from left to right to look at JFK, and she's still intently looking at him in Z224.

To all but those chained down by the single-bullet theory, it is obvious that JFK was hit by no later than Z196, and we know Connally was hit at Z234 because he told us so after carefully examining high-quality prints of the relative frames under high magnification, which makes perfect sense because he clearly starts to react in Z238.

Now you are resorting to lies. You move up the time JFK was hit by about 26 frames and move the time JBC was hit to 12 frames later. Both are lies. JFK reacted to being shot when he suddenly raised his arms up to his throat beginning at Z226. JBC reacted to being shot when his injured right arm suddenly flipped upward beginning at Z226. You have never given a rational explanation for why JBC would suddenly flip his arm upward at the same instant JFK's arms started upward. Instead you resort to you Inartful Dodger routine.

I do agree with the CTs who say JFK and JBC were not hit at the same time. I estimate that JBC was shot in the back approximately 2 milliseconds after the bullet struck JFK in the back.

JBC could not possibly equate the time he was shot to a specific frame of the Z-film. All he could do was look for the reaction he remembered making and he gave a reasonable guess about that. The problem is the reaction he remembered making was not his initial reaction, which was the involuntary flip of his right arm which he had no memory of making. Since he didn't remember that reaction, there was no reason to look for that reaction. I would bet that had someone pointed out that arm flip to JBC as well as the bulging of his coat 2 frames earlier, he would have reached an entired different conclusion as to when he was hit. I don't think he was as thick headed as your typical CT.

I can tell you have no idea how badly you've embarrassed yourself here.

I pointed out that Kenny O'Donnell said that FBI agents pressured him into changing his account of where he heard shots coming from. And you replied by ignoring O'Donnell's account and posed a question that assumed the whole issue was hypothetical, as if O'Donnell never said that FBI agents pressured him into changing this story.

Telling a witness he was wrong about his observation does not equate to pressuring him to change his story. The FBI knew the shots had not come from the GK and they told O'Donnell that. If he decided to alter his testimony, that is on him.

You don't quote Kenny O'Donnell. You quote Tip O'Neill quoting Kenny O'Donnell so we don't know how O'Donnel actually described the encounter. You are describing your impression of the impression O'Nell got from what O'Donnell said. A hearsay account hardly establishes that the FBI "pressured" O'Donnell to change his story. 

So I'll ask my question again. Why would the FBI pressure O'Donnell into changing his story.

The more fundamental question is, were any shots actually fired from the GK. There is no forensic evidence pointing to a shot from the GK. There were no eyewitness to a shot from the GK. There was an eyewitness who had a perfect view of the are behind the wooden fence when the shots were fired and he saw no one there. The only "evidence" of shots from the GK are the impressions of a group of earwitnesses who said all the shots came from the GK. They are contradicted by another group of witnesses who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. The latter group is corroborated by 3 spent shell found in the sniper's nest and the murder weapon found elsewhere on the same floor. No corroboration for the earwitnesses who thought the shots came from the GK. That includes Kenny O'Donnell.

Now that I'm rereading it, I cannot believe that no one has mentioned Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why by Gerald McKnight. McKnight was a serious academic, and this book is widely regarded as one of the two or three absolute best CT tomes. McKnight doesn't go off on any wild CT tangents but simply provides a pretty devastating alternative perspective on the WC and the events swirling around it.

The fact that a majority of Americans don't believe the WCR is an indictment of them, not the WCR.

Mrs. Connally had the best seat in the house (pardon the flip expression) when it came to injuries sustained by her husband, Gov. JBC on 11.22.

She had the worst seat for determining what was going on. She was too close to what was happening to take it all in. She couldn't see both JFK and JBC in the same field of vision. That is why nothing she says invalidates the SBT.

Mrs. Connally's testimony flatly contradicts, and really obviates, the SBT-LNT theorizing.

After being shot, JBC was incapacitated, and she thought him "dead." 

I rather suspect a man shot through the chest with a large high-powered slug would in fact be incapacitated. That is a reasonable assumption.

By an unreasonable man.

The SBT-LNT hypothesis is that after being shot through the chest, JBC makes a 180-degree turn in his seat to check on JFK. That is, the SBT-LNT theory posits, despite contradictory evidence, that JBC was shot ~Z-221.

That's asinine. JBC turned 180 degrees in reaction to being shot through the chest.

The SBT-LNT hypothesis does not check out with the Z-film, or the testimony of both Connallys.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

My best guess is JBC is shot ~Z-295. After Z-221, JBC is bolt upright. Not doubled over.

Your best guess is FUBAR. The only thing you got right is that it was a guess, and very bad one. It's even worse than Andrew Mason's. I doubt either of you could spell "cat" if we spotted you the "C" and the "A"

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

We have and most of us think you and Andrew Mason haven't got a clue what happened.