we all got burned by that creature

Wiegman lying on the steps that lead to the pergola.

  STEVE - Thanks for posting that Bell still frame. To the (R) there is a Bench on the top of the steps. Below the bench is the Knoll Grass. Wiegman's legs/feet are on the same level as the Knoll Grass below that Bench. And there are Bell Film frames which include: (1) The Bench, (2) The Knoll Grass below the Bench, and (3) Wiegman MOVING (W) on the Knoll Grass.  Wiegman never said/wrote that he was "lying on the steps" while filming the Hester's, and no eyewitness has ever said they saw Wiegman lying on the steps. Plus, the Image Evidence does Not show him lying on the steps, or lying down anywhere at any point in time. Why would a professional photog do this, when he could film the Hester's while standing upright on the grass and/or go up the steps and film the Hester's from up there? This lying down stuff is disproven by the image evidence and makes absolutely no sense. Which is not uncommon for yet another JFK Assassination Urban Legend.

Likewise, we are being “hammered” by bad sourcing, posted by real people who say their source is true, but it’s not.  What a waste of time.  Does El Niño exist ? Hmmmm

hey, you guys, didn’t realize this until now, but if you hold your finger on the dancing gif, it stops !! which gave me time to compare the gentleman wearing the Lovelady Line of clothing with the Tan Man dancing, and you know what ?  They’re practically twins !  see for yourself !

Albert, “they” must have had squads of doppelgängers in the Plaza that dark day so long ago.  sigh.  those vicious Kennedy killers, as Ralph Sink would call us, i mean, “them”.

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).

EVERYONE who has spent much time arguing about the JFKA for any length of time has repeated the same arguments countless times. It's not as if there is much new material to talk about. You and I have both been at this for at least 35 years. You maybe even longer for all I know. You have no problem bringing up the same myths that were debunked long ago. If you are going to keep polishing off the same old myths, you should expect the same old rebuttals. Your problem with the tough questioning is not that you've answered them numerous times in the past. Your problem is you never had an answer for them in the first place, so you, like Marsh, resort to the cowardly "I've already answered that" reply which is simply not true. If you had an answer, you would be more than happy to respond. It's the questions that make you squirm which you avoid like the plague.

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:

Gladly.

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.

Pure 
It's not even good 

 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).[/b]

Is that a fact. Can you tell us how Tink synced the Dictabelt recording to the Z-film? It takes an incurable optimist to even ask you such a question.

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.

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

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."

Now you are just filibustering to avoid answering the question asked. It's not as if everyone can't see through your cowardly dodge.

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.

I don't have a side except the truth. I'm not required to know or defend every position every LN as ever taken on any point. That means I agree with the LNs on the fact Oswald acted alone, but disagree with some of them regarding the specifics. How would you respond if I said people on your side believe Mossad was responsible for the JFKA?

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.

There you go again, claiming I have a side. Do you know everything every CT has postulated about the JFKA and would you be willing to defend it?

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

Actually, I can. Andrew Mason. I've encountered others over the years.

I get it: In your uneducated, juvenile mind, if you repeat misleading, vacuous arguments often enough, they become true to you.

Now you are projecting. That's your ballgame. You've been spewing the same crap you were 35 years ago on the old Prodigy system. It hasn't improved with age.

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.

I don't need to explain things that aren't true. There are no gunfire N-waves on the Z-film. That theory conflicts with just about the entire body of evidence we have in this case?

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.

I don't recall you providing any such evidence. I only remember you asserting that without proof.

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

You don't present evidence. You present your goofy analysis of the evidence or you make up evidence that doesn't exist.

You don't seem to even know the meaning of the word "dodge."

I know it when I see it.

Umm, it's not a "dodge" at all. It's the straightforward argument that the acoustical evidence, since it 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.

Some people have hypothesized the Dictabelt recording contains "gunfire N-waves". That is hardly a scientific consensus.

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

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.

Show me the formula used to compute those "probabilities". Or did you just blindly accept those figures. I would have gotten straight A's in school if I had been allowed to grade my own work.

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).

SWAGs.

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).

I'm not going to accept a finding that flies in the face of the entire body of evidence in the JFK assassination. The HSCA finding requires us to believe a gunman fired a shot from the GK who wasn't seen by anyone during or immediately after the shooting. That alleged gunman didn't hit anything or anybody. No bullets or shells were ever recovered that hadn't been fired by Oswald's rifle. The placement of the alleged shots doesn't sync with any observable reaction on the Z-film. The consensus of witnesses was that there were three shots and three spent shells were found in the sniper's nest. The 3 employees directly beneath the sniper's nest heard three shots. Even the Dealey Plaza witnesses who thought the shots came from the GK said there were 3 such shots. Why does the Dictabelt only show one? 

This is just naked ignorance.

Your belief system is based on FUBAR analysis of the body of evidence. Like Marsh, you have accumulated a vast body of knowledge regarding the JFKA, but you screw the pooch when it comes to making sense of it.

First off, the FBI most certainly does offer percentages of probability when analyzing some crimes. You can Google this.

Another favorite dodge of Marsh's. He would tell his adversaries to "learn to google". Rather than support your own arguments, the two of you expect others to find the support for your arguments. So lame.

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.

A few examples of FBI agent Paul Stombaugh declining to specify probabilities regarding the matching of fiber evidence, both the fibers found in the rifle bag and the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched Oswald's shirt.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what do you think the degree of probability is, if you
can form an opinion, that the fibers from the bag, fibers in the bag, ultimately came from the blanket?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When you get into mathematical probabilities, it is something I stay away from, since in general there are too many unknown factors. All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come. from this blanket, because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers.

Later in his testimony, regarding the fibers found on the butt plate of Oswald's rifle:

Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

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.

Yet you can't show us how those "probabilities" were calculated. You accepted the BBN claims at face value.

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. 

How about an example or two?

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%). 

It's all guesswork, i.e. SWAGs.

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.

Still waiting for evidence these weren't just SWAGs.

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.

Again you confuse refuted with disputed. You do a lot of the latter and rarely the former.

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 

Ten excellent examples of your FUBAR analysis.

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"

More 
But that is what you do best.

Oh, yeah! So DiMaio just didn't know what he was talking about regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets!

I never said that. I asked if he had done any case studies of how a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet reacts when it strikes a human skull. You could provide no examples. Only bluster.

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!

As is your custom, you give us your spin on what DiMaio said rather than quoting him.

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

Another example of you expecting me to find the support for your argument. If the book is on Google Books, you should have no problem performing a copy and paste to post it here.

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.

Saying "never" is hardly a scientific approach since "never" cannot be established.

The only known exception is a rare 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.

Oh, so never doesn't really mean never. If one set of circumstances can cause FMJ bullet to fragment in such a manner, how do you know there aren't other circumstances in which that would happen.

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.

Again I have to tell you, Sturdivan is not on my side and I am not obligated to accept or defend his opinions.

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

You underestimate yourself.

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?   

I based that observation on the information you provided in your OP regarding that subject. It was my mistake for trusting you had given us an accurate account of that story.

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.

A nervous twitch? Is that really the best you could come up with? That's hysterical. Isn't it amazing that upon hearing the first shot which would have caught him by surprise, JBC reacted by simply turning his shoulders in the direction he thought the shot had come from. Then he is so startled by the second shot that he flipped his right arm up and that was just coincidentally at the same moment JFK's arms started upward.

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. 

JFK did not freeze mid-wave. He simply quit waving and began slowly lowering his right arm, probably due to the fact that there were few people left on Elm St. to wave to.

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 pointed out to you many times, JBC remembered that he had doubled over after feeling the bullet hit him in the back. That was his cognitive reaction. His arm flip was an involuntary reflexive reaction to having been shot in the wrist. It's known as sensory overload. JBC was unaware of his wrist having been shot because his brain was processing the wound to his torso. Here is a brief description of sensory overload:

https://www.healthline.com/health/sensory-overload#symptoms

"What causes sensory overload?
Your brain functions like a beautiful, complicated computer system. Your senses relay information from your environment, and your brain interprets the information and tells you how to react.

But when there’s competing sensory information, your brain can’t interpret it all at once. For some people, this feels like getting “stuck”: Your brain can’t prioritize what sensory information it needs to focus on."

As has been explained for many years, the Z223-224 "jacket bulge" occurs because Connally is turning.

Are we supposed to believe that bulge only lasted 1/18 of a second because it was caused by JBC 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.

The movement of JBC's coat is clear and obvious. I'm not going to quibble about whether it should be referred to as a "jacket bulge" or a "lapel flip". What matters is it was caused by the bullet that exited from his chest and to which he reacted almost immediately.

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.

I posted the link to the webpage. i encourage anyone who is interested to examine the various mini-clips and decide for themselves what is shown. I would wager few objective people would look at JBC's arm flip and conclude it was a "nervous twitch" [/quote]

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. [/quote]

There you go again, expecting me to accept and defend everything another LN has hypothesized. Posner made some valuable contributions with Case Closed but there were other claims he made that were  . He lost me when he repeated the myth that the WC had concluded Oswald fired three shots in 5.6 seconds or less. If he believed that, he was a piss poor researcher.

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.

That's right. It took JBC about nine frames to flip his arm up and down, about a half second. That was immediately followed by his cognitive reaction of doubling over and dipping to his right.

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.

Once again I have to remind you, my only side is the truth, and I don't let others do my thinking for me, even if we agree that Oswald acted alone.

Have you not read any of Lattimer's SBT material?

No why would I. The SBT is straight forward and is the only plausible explanation for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. You certainly have never offered one nor have any of the people "on your side".

Do you even know who Piziali was?

No, and I don't care.

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.

I've heard of the mock trial. So what?

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, no, this 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.

My own belief is the single bullet struck either later in the exposure of frame Z222, early in the exposure of frame Z223, or in the gap between those two frames when the film was being advanced and not recording. That fits perfectly with a 200ms reaction by JFK and JBC occurring at Z226 when both men suddenly and rapidly flipped their arms upward in perfect unison.

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)[/font]

JFK and JBC were not hit by different bullets. It is impossible to pinpoint an exact moment the bullet struck because we have clues, not definitive proof. Reasonable people can differ on how to interpret those clues to determine the moment the bullet struck, but there is no proof positive. I wouldn't quibble with those who believe the shot struck at Z221 or Z223. To me, Z222 is the sweet spot that seems most compatible when taking all the clues into account.

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.)

You can take all the "your side" comments and blow them out your a$$. I don't speak for Lattimer, Piziali, or McCarthy and they don't speak for me. They have their analysis of when the bullet struck and I have mine. My belief in a bullet strike at Z222, plus or minus one frame, fits all the available clues in the Z-film. A shot at that time frame is followed in rapid succession by JBC's jacket bulge, the dip of his right shoulder, and JFK and JBC flipping their arms upward in perfect unison.

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

Google AI was also my source that said the HSCA photographic panel concluded JFK was struck in the Z223-224 time frame so we both know how reliable that source is.

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.

That is based on your ridiculous premise that JBC's pained expression didn't begin until Z238. The resolution of the Z-film, even in enlarged frames, makes it unclear as to when JBC's facial expression showed pain.

 

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,

I would say Z226 is right after he emerged from behind the 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. 

I guess he didn't notice that. I didn't notice it until I saw the enlarged and stabilized frames on DVP's website. Apparently, McCamy rejects your premise that JBC didn't show a pained expression until Z238.

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

It's powerful evidence about your level of denial.

What Connally "made clear" was that he was not hit before Z229,

He was wrong. The only way he had of judging when he had been hit was to look for the reaction he remembered making which was to double over and dip to the right. That was his secondary reaction. when he went through the prints of the Z-frames, he wasn't looking for his arm flip because he had no recollection of having done that.

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.

JBC knew he had been hit by the second shot. For whatever reason, he believed JFK had been hit by the first shot, even though he had no first hand knowledge of when JFK was hit. It logically follows that if JFK was hit by the second shot and JBC was hit by the second shot, they were hit by the same bullet.

I'd love to see you sync up all these arguments you've made about the timing of JFK and JBC being hit with your precious acoustics evidence. I'd love to see it but I know I never will because you lack the guts to produce it.

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.

There is nothing overruling or determinative about your factoid.

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?!

You raise the question you don't have the guts to answer.

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's a five  lie.

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."

More 

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 could clear this all up if you would tell us where YOU believe the acoustics panel's shots sync up to the Z-film, but you are too much of a chicken$hit to do that.

"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.

There is no "scientific evidence" that the Z-film was altered. The fact that you believe such nonsense lumps you with flat earthers, moon landing deniers, and 9/11 truthers.

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.

JBC could do no more than look for when he did what he remembered doing. He would have had no reason to look for an arm flip he didn't remember making.

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.   

I'll gladly concede you have read far more on the subject of the JFKA than I have. Your problem is you just aren't smart enough to analyze it intelligently.

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.

I'll gladly put my analysis of the evidence and conclusions against yours any day. I'm also willing to lay my cards on the table and answer critical questioning about my beliefs, something you lack the courage to do.