JFK Assassination Forum

The way you argue against the early missed shot is by inventing excuses to disregard the clear majority of witnesses who heard three shots and the existence of three spent shells found in the sniper's nest. Yes, a majority of witnesses CAN be wrong but that doesn't mean they were wrong. The way you determine that is to compare their statements with other evidence. In this case we have the three spent shells and the CORROBORATED statements of JBC  and Glen Bennett. JBC heard a shot seconds before he felt a bullet strike him in the back. Bennett heard a shot BEFORE the one he saw strike JFK in the back. Both of these men HEARD a shot before the one that hit both JFK and JBC.

“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?

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.

Zapruder's granddaughter, Alexandria, explained the entire problem here, e.g., if you think the film is authentic you're a "Warren Commission apologist", Itek was controlled by the CIA, et cetera:

I guess it's just "the game," and without "players" there would be no "game," but I'm mystified as to why people keep feeling the need to engage with and try to refute self-evident nonsense? It just give the nonsense a veneer of credibility, as though it needed to be refuted and there's some fear that rational people might be persuaded. The one definitive response to someone like MTG is, "What you say MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL." Put it into a narrative that ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE and we'll talk. You can't, and you don't try, because IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. Folks who engage with MTG on his goofy "facts" are playing on his turf, just egging on his nonsense and ratcheting him up to the next level of nonsense. People who believe the things MTG asserts have cognitive faculties that are not tracking in the channels of normality. It's that simple. Engaging with MTG is like going to the local institution and trying to convince with rational argument the guy who insists he's Napoleon that he isn't really Napoleon. If you lined up the Z-film alteration fans - MTG, David Josephs, Keven Hofeling, et al. - you'd have a cast of characters who are intelligent, educated, articulate ... and completely outside the channels of rational thought, at least in this area of their lives. This was one great lesson of my three years of representing a mental health agency in the commitment of folks with serious mental illnesses who were deemed a danger to themselves or others. Few were obviously "crazy." Some held responsible positions. But they were way outside the channels of normality. At least when it comes to the JFKA, the narrative that Z-film alteration fans promote is way outside the channels of normality. If you can't see this, perhaps you have a problem. Accept my challenge and try to articulate a JFKA narrative from A to Z whereby the need to alter the Z-film and the alteration itself ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. Maybe work Napoleon into it if you think it will help.

  Trump just says what most people are afraid to say. That's why he consistently defies the polling and has been elected POTUS 3 times. Boys in girls locker rooms, Boys competing against girls, wide open borders, these are issues that Trump bluntly spells out. The vast majority of the voting public agrees with him. The Dem's want to shut him up any way they can, even though he is a Lame Duck. Trump's "straight talking" brings out into the open the absurdity of the Dem Party Policies. 
  And Trump is not afraid to continue pointing out the 2020 Election was rigged. People KNOW that election was crooked, just as the recent Calif Primary was. Same M.O. employed for both elections. Count alleged ballots endlessly until the Dem Candidate stuffs the box enough to turn the election around.