Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272

[Tom Graves]

Not only was it not a sharp searing pain, Connally said there was no pain at all. Impact is not pain.

Senator Cooper. I wanted to ask you if you were very conscious of the fact -- you were conscious of a shot behind you, you were not aware of any shot from the embankment or overpass. The answer is what?

Governor Connolly. I am not aware of any shots from the overpass, Senator. I might repeat my testimony with emphasis to this extent, that I have all my life been familiar with the sound of a rifle shot, and the sound I heard I thought was a rifle shot, at the time I heard it I didn't think it was a firecracker, or blow out or anything else. I thought it was a rifle shot. I have hunted enough to think that my perception with regard to directions is very, very good, and this shot I heard came from back over my right shoulder, which was in the direction of the School Book Depository, no question about it. I heard no other. The first and third shots came from there. I heard no other sounds that would indicate to me there was any commotion or disturbance of shots or anything else on the overpass.

Senator Cooper. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet?

Governor Connolly. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade.

Senator Cooper. That is when you heard the first rifle shot?

Governor Connally. This was after I heard the first rifle shot. There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would find I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt that someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.

. . . . . . .

MY comment:

Connally was correct in saying that he felt the blow to his back “after I heard the first rifle shot,” because said missing-everything rifle shot had been fired about five seconds earlier at “Z-124” (i.e., at hypothetical Z-124), half-a second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second pause) at Z-133.

Connally didn't "hear" Oswald's second shot at approximately Z-222 because that's the one that hit him in the back ("feeling like a 12-inch jab") after travelling through JFK's upper back / lower neck.

[Andrew Mason]

MY comment:

Connally was correct in saying that he felt the blow to his back “after I heard the first rifle shot,” because said missing-everything rifle shot had been fired about five seconds earlier at “Z-124,” i.e., at hypothetical Z-124, half-a second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second pause) at Z-133.

Or he was correct because the 80+ witnesses whose evidence is inconsistent with a missed shot were not hallucinating and the first shot struck JFK in the neck.

[Tom Graves]

Or he was correct because the 80+ witnesses whose evidence is inconsistent with a missed shot were not hallucinating and the first shot struck JFK in the neck.

By "their evidence," I guess you mean their flawed memories of what had traumatically happened in front of them in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.

If so, I guess you're hallucinating, again.

[Andrew Mason]

Or, maybe you're hallucinating, again.

How can accepting what 80+ witnesses recalled be a hallucination?

[Tom Graves]

Or Connally was correct because the 80+ witnesses whose evidence is inconsistent with a missed shot were not hallucinating and the first shot struck JFK in the neck.

ME: Is it true that the statements of 80-plus witnesses to the JFK assassination are inconsistent with the idea the first shot missed everything?

GROK: No, that claim is not accurate or well-supported. It appears to be a misrepresentation or exaggeration often circulated in conspiracy-oriented discussions, but it does not align with the body of witness statements, physical evidence, or official investigations.

Key Context on Shots and Witnesses

Consensus on number of shots: Roughly 80% of witnesses who reported a number recalled hearing three shots (e.g., ~132 out of 178 in one HSCA-compiled set). Most described the latter two as bunched closer together, with a longer pause after the first. This is consistent with the Warren Commission, HSCA (despite its acoustic issues), and physical evidence (three cartridge cases in the TSBD sniper’s nest).

The "missed shot": Official analyses (Warren Commission onward) conclude three shots were fired from Oswald’s rifle in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), with one missing the limousine entirely (or deflected by a tree branch). Physical evidence shows no other bullet strikes on the car or occupants beyond the known wounds. The missed bullet was never recovered (possibly hit the street/curb or fragmented).

Timing and the First Shot

The first shot is widely placed early (around Zapruder frames ~133–190, after the limousine turned onto Elm Street but before clear reactions in the film). This aligns with:

Many witnesses (including some in the motorcade) initially mistaking it for a backfire, firecracker, or motorcycle noise, with little or no immediate reaction from Kennedy or others. This fits a miss better than an early hit.

Governor Connally and others recalling hearing a shot, then reacting to subsequent ones. Zapruder film synchronization (e.g., via Dale Myers' analyses) and vehicle positions support the first shot missing.

Witness statements vary (as expected in a chaotic, echoing urban environment with supersonic bullets creating shock waves), but the overall pattern supports a missed first shot rather than contradicting it. Claims of "80-plus witnesses" being inconsistent often cherry-pick or reinterpret testimony (e.g., focusing on those who thought shots came from the grassy knoll or heard different timings).

Why the Claim Doesn't Hold

No unified "80+" bloc against a miss: Witnesses disagreed on shot origins (more pointed to TSBD than knoll, with many uncertain), but the three-shot sequence with a miss is compatible with the majority. Some Secret Service agents and bystanders described reactions (or lack thereof) consistent with an early miss.

Physical/film evidence takes precedence: The Zapruder film, bullet fragments, wounds, and ballistics strongly indicate the sequence (miss → neck/Connally wound → head shot). Eyewitness memory is fallible for precise timing under stress.

Alternative theories: Some (including early Warren doubts) considered other miss orders, but later analyses (film sync, reenactments) favor the first as the miss. Conspiracy claims sometimes argue the first hit Kennedy (implying extra shots/shooters), but this conflicts with film reactions and timing.

In short, witness statements are noisy and not perfectly consistent (normal for such events), but they are broadly compatible with the first shot missing—especially when cross-referenced with films, ballistics, and acoustics. The "80-plus inconsistent" assertion overstates divisions and underplays the preponderance of evidence for the standard timeline. Serious studies (e.g., by Dale Myers or HSCA) reinforce rather than refute it.

[Tom Graves]

How can accepting what 80+ witnesses recalled be a hallucination?

ME: Is it true that the statements of 80-plus witnesses to the JFK assassination are inconsistent with the idea the first shot missed everything?

GROK: No, that claim is not accurate or well-supported. It appears to be a misrepresentation or exaggeration often circulated in conspiracy-oriented discussions, but it does not align with the body of witness statements, physical evidence, or official investigations.

Key Context on Shots and Witnesses

Consensus on number of shots: Roughly 80% of witnesses who reported a number recalled hearing three shots (e.g., ~132 out of 178 in one HSCA-compiled set). Most described the latter two as bunched closer together, with a longer pause after the first. This is consistent with the Warren Commission, HSCA (despite its acoustic issues), and physical evidence (three cartridge cases in the TSBD sniper’s nest).

The "missed shot": Official analyses (Warren Commission onward) conclude three shots were fired from Oswald’s rifle in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), with one missing the limousine entirely (or deflected by a tree branch). Physical evidence shows no other bullet strikes on the car or occupants beyond the known wounds. The missed bullet was never recovered (possibly hit the street/curb or fragmented).

Timing and the First Shot

The first shot is widely placed early (around Zapruder frames ~133–190, after the limousine turned onto Elm Street but before clear reactions in the film). This aligns with:

Many witnesses (including some in the motorcade) initially mistaking it for a backfire, firecracker, or motorcycle noise, with little or no immediate reaction from Kennedy or others. This fits a miss better than an early hit.

Governor Connally and others recalling hearing a shot, then reacting to subsequent ones. Zapruder film synchronization (e.g., via Dale Myers' analyses) and vehicle positions support the first shot missing.

Witness statements vary (as expected in a chaotic, echoing urban environment with supersonic bullets creating shock waves), but the overall pattern supports a missed first shot rather than contradicting it. Claims of "80-plus witnesses" being inconsistent often cherry-pick or reinterpret testimony (e.g., focusing on those who thought shots came from the grassy knoll or heard different timings).

Why the Claim Doesn't Hold

No unified "80+" bloc against a miss: Witnesses disagreed on shot origins (more pointed to TSBD than knoll, with many uncertain), but the three-shot sequence with a miss is compatible with the majority. Some Secret Service agents and bystanders described reactions (or lack thereof) consistent with an early miss.

Physical/film evidence takes precedence: The Zapruder film, bullet fragments, wounds, and ballistics strongly indicate the sequence (miss → neck/Connally wound → head shot). Eyewitness memory is fallible for precise timing under stress.

Alternative theories: Some (including early Warren doubts) considered other miss orders, but later analyses (film sync, reenactments) favor the first as the miss. Conspiracy claims sometimes argue the first hit Kennedy (implying extra shots/shooters), but this conflicts with film reactions and timing.

In short, witness statements are noisy and not perfectly consistent (normal for such events), but they are broadly compatible with the first shot missing—especially when cross-referenced with films, ballistics, and acoustics. The "80-plus inconsistent" assertion overstates divisions and underplays the preponderance of evidence for the standard timeline. Serious studies (e.g., by Dale Myers or HSCA) reinforce rather than refute it.

[John Corbett]

Or he was correct because the 80+ witnesses whose evidence is inconsistent with a missed shot were not hallucinating and the first shot struck JFK in the neck.

Last time it was 40 witnesses. Did 40 more come forward?