What about JBC, Bob >>>> Dear Mr. Harris, >>>> >>>> I have read your interesting interpretations of witness testimony >>>> and I would love to hear you explain John Connally testimony. > >>>Certainly. > >>>John Connally heard a shot in the range of Z177-184. He turned to his >>>right, as we see him do in the frames leading up to Z193. > >>>He was struck by a bullet at Z224, which was or was almost silent. That >>>shot very likely, passed through both Kennedy and him. > >> Is this a Joke. >> >> Let me quote from your own web page >> >> "Of course, The President was struck by the first shot, as well as Govenor >> Connally, which probably occurred around Z186." >As I stated on my home page at the link for this article, I am in the >process of making changes related to the early shots. >But they have nothing at all to do with the Z285 shot, which is the >primary issue in that article. Of course it effects that shot. Since much of your basis for that shot is witness testimony, you have to square that Z224 shot with their testimony. That is why you want to make it silent. Because it doesn't match with your spin on the witness testimony. I thought you were better than this. I believe in an earlier version of your web page you even specifically mentioned that you wouldn't speculate on silent shots. >> If you think they were both shot at frame Z224 you are accepting >> Posner's theory about the timing of the second shot, And if you >> admit that Connally is reacting to a shot between Z177 and Z184 >> you are discrediting your own theory that the first shot was at Z186. >> This would also be strong support of Posner's first shot at Z-160. >There was no shot at Z160. Why? Because you say so? >"Strong support" is a meaningless term unless you are discussing politics. >The goal here is simply to get it right. Huh? >> Why on earth would you claim th Z224 shot was silent? >Because no-one (heard) it. That's what you say. I think everybody heard it. This is our major bone of contention. I will grant you one point. A large number of witnesses thought this Z224 shot was much closer to the Z313 shot than I think it was. I just believe these witnesses are wrong. You claim they were right and that there was a silent shot at Z224. We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue and people will have to decide for themselves which is more likely. You will have to admit though, that a theory that depends on a silent shot is far from "proof". >> If you are >> going to speculate on silent shots, there is no point in discussing >> anything. Ther could have been twenty silent shots for all >> anybody can prove. >That's not true at all. The evidence that a shot was fired at Z224 are >based on reactions by the victims. I cannot entirely rule out the >possibility that no shot was fired then, but it seems unlikely. I agree, there is plenty of evidence for a Z224 shot. It's good to know we can agree on something, but what about silent misses? >But if there was a shot fired then, it is rather obvious that no-one, or >almost no-one heard it. Had a shot come from the MC, Jackie would have >been exposed to a shock wave in excess of 130db and a muzzle blast that >was nearly as loud. Do you see her or any of the other limo passengers >reacting to such a thing? >Think of a large firecracker going off a few feet from your ear. What >Jackie would have heard would have been considerably louder. I am not an expert on accoustics. This shock wave, would that be audible even from a gun that had been "silenced"? I believe Jackie claims she heard loud noises all the time during motorcades and she learned to ignore them. I am not saying she wouldn't have been startled by the sound, but she wouldn't necessarily make an overtly visible reaction. >>>He was one of those extremely rare witnesses who did not hear the Z285 >>>shot. If you look at him at Z285 and immediately after, you will see why. >>>At that point, his face swells up like a small beach ball, probably due to >>>some reaction in his lungs. >> He missed that, just like he missed the fact that this >> supposed Z285 shot came from the Dal-Tex building. Some day we can >> have a discussion about all those Dal-Tex witnesses, and we can start >> with, uhm... well then there is uhh.. well I guess that isn't important. >Out of nearly 400 witness, how many do you have that identified the >alleged TSBD SN? >Now, out of those 4 or 5 witnesses, how many spotted it because they *saw* >the barrel of the rifle? A Daltex shooter could easily have been sitting >back from the window in that darkened closet and never have been seen. I am not talking about just eye witnesses, after all one of the best LN witnesses is Harold Norman, who never saw the SN, but heard the shells hitting the floor, and the action of the rifle. As a matter of fact most of those eye witnesses heard the shot first, and then looked up at the depository. As a matter of fact, one of your own witnesses, Phillip Willis who was standing across the street from the depository said this: Mr. Willis - I knew it came from high above directly across the street from me, and that is the one thing I was absolutely positive about Mr. Liebeler. - You made that judgment from the sound of the shots? Mr. Willis. - From the sound, absolutely. And this may be verified by the fact that I took several pictures of the crowd immediately around that building." (meaning the depository) Please note the words, "the one thing I was absolutely positive about." It is hard to believe that not one witness even heard a shot that they thought came specifically from the Dal-Tex building. An overwhelming number of witnesses described the shots as sounding the same. Even if people couldn't have pinpointed the location, they should have said, the second shot sounded different than the first and the third. >If the TSBD shooter had been out of sight, you would have had exactly >*ZERO* witnesses spotting him. Look through the witness testimonies. How >many of the Secret Service agents or others in the motorcade said the >shots came from a high elevation? There were almost none. Most expressed no opinion about the elevation, what does that prove? >Look at the Altgens photo - lots of reacting witnesses, but how many do >you see, looking up toward the 6th floor? I see exactly zero. What percentage of the witnesses are visible in that photo? >But you have lots of motorcade people saying they heard shots from the >"right-rear", don't you? >LNers have gone on for decades about how impossible it was to determine >the source of the shots. Why has everything changed now? Why is everyone >supposed to have been able to pick out the source for a single, audible >shot from that building, that was over-ridden 1.5 seconds later by the >Z312 shot? I agree with you. I will even accept the fact that this in no way proves that there was no shot. I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to have heard that shot, but it is curious that not one person was able to pinpoint that shot. >>>But are you actually saying you still believe Posner's DP theories??? >> Yes !!!!! >>>Are you aware that he lied about Rosemary Willis's movements and then >>>blatantly quoted her out of context in order to support a Z160 shot? >> Lie is a strong word. He has his interpretation of her movements, you >> have yours. My own opinion is that it is clear she stopped running >> in response to something. It is possible that she is looking at the >> depository, but I wouldn't swear to that. >No, Posner said Rosemary began to turn to look over her right should at >Z160. That's just a deliberate lie. She did no such thing. Like I said, lie is a strong word. I dont see her start to turn either, but I don't see a lot of the things you do either. I would not call you a liar. >> I can't believe you have the gall to criticize Posner for taking witness >> testimony out of context, when you do it constantly. >Bullshit! > >If that were true, you would have cited them, wouldn't you? I'm sorry if that sounded like an insult, but it is a fact of the matter that proponents on both sides of this debate, myself included, will take witness testimony out of context. We do it to prove our points without giving the enemy any ammunition. Both sides do it, and they justify it by saying the other guy does it, so if I don't it will make my arguments look week in comparison. Then we act outraged when we catch the other guy doing it. It's fun, but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth. >>>Are you also aware that he grossly misrepresented JBC's movements for the >>>same purpose? >> Oh, do tell me about this "gross misrepresentation." >Glad to. > >He claimed both in his book and on national television that JBC turned to >his right, beginning at Z162, in response to this mythical shot. But, he >failed to mention that Connally was already looking to his right and just >glanced across the road and back again, during the 1.1 seconds between >Z150 and Z170. JFK made a nearly identical left-and back movement just >before that. >This omission put a totally misleading spin on Connally's movements. See above. >>>None of the LNers around here even want to talk about Posner's DP theories >>>anymore. >> Other LNers can speak for themselves, but I was under the impression >> that Posner's sequence of shots was the genrally accepted theory among >> them. More than I can say for your theory among the conspiracy klan. >Are you suggesting that a popularity poll will settle this thing? If so, I >think you and I are both in trouble. Hey, you were the one who brought it up. >My suggestion that one bullet passed through both victims has not been >popular at all with these people. I can show you messages I received that >make your little attacks sound like something from Mr. Rogers >neighborhood. I don't doubt it, and I am sorry that you feel that I am attacking you. >>>At the very least, I admire your courage:-) >>>Bob >> And I resent you condescension :-) :-) (this section was pasted in from the Microanalyyzing Bennet thread) >>>>One of the worst examples in my opinion, is Nellie Connally. (this is >>>>probably the topic for a completely different discussion) But >>>>in short, you tell the readers of your page that Nellie thought >>>>the Governor was shot before he said "Oh, no, no, no". >>> >>>Yes, and that's absolutely, unequivocally correct, is it not? >>> >>> >>>>and the governor >>>>testified that he said "Oh, no, no, no" after he was shot. >>> >>>Ditto >>> >>> >>>>What you >>>>don't tell the reader is than Nellie also said that he was shot, before he >>>>said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." >>> >>>Yes, I also left out 99% of the rest of her testimony. >>> >>> >>>>Since the governor >>>>testified that he said "Oh, no, no, no" and "My God, they >>>>are going to kill us all" right after he was shot. These two statements >>>>taken together would narrow down where Nellie thought the second shot was. >>>>Unfortunately for you, it is well before Z285. >>> >>>Almost certainly, JBC was incorrect in his recollection >> >>Oh so now it is OK to dismiss witness testimony as incorrect. >> >> that he said, "My >>>God..." before the head shot. He appears to be saying "Oh, no, no, no..", >>>during the Z200's, but there really wasn't time for him to say anything >>>else before Z312, especially when you consider him at around Z285, when >>>his face swells up enormously. I assure you, he was not speaking to anyone >>>then. >>> >>>By my timing, and speaking quickly, the "My God...." statement takes about >>>3 seconds to say. In exactly which frames do you think JBC uttered those >>>words? > > >Michael, did you overlook my question? Unlike you, I can not determine everything by looking at the Zapruder film. > >In which range of frames do you place this statement??? > > > >>> >>>Also, remember Jackie saying, >>> >>>"I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise >>>really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then >>>suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, 'Oh, no, no, no.'" >>> >>>Why didn't she report hearing him say anything else? Do you suppose that's >>>because his other statement came *after* the final shots, and she was >>>hardly paying attention to JBC anymore? > > >You didn't answer this one either. She never heard it. So what? > >Do you think Jackie somehow forgot to report this much more dramatic >statement that someone was going to "kill us all"? > > >>> >>>Look, one or the other, either JBC or Nellie, made a small error on the >>>timing of that statement. Why would you go with JBC's recollection, >>>knowing that was the last sentence he made just seconds before losing >>>consciousness??? >>> >> >>JBC and Nellie may have been confused, but you would have to admit that >>the shot to Kennedy's head was a defining moment. JBC claims He said "My, >>God they are going to kill us all" before that shot, and Nellie said that >>she heard him say this before that shot. As a matter Of fact, they both >>claim that Nellie pulled John into her lap after the "kill us all" >>statement, and before the head shot. It is hard to believe they could both >>be so wrong. > >Nellie never stated where that statement came in relation to the head >wound. This is her description in the WC reports. > >"Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the >right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, My God, >they are going to kill us all." Where is her testimony about the head wound? After this? > >You might want to look at Martin Shackleford's article at McAdams website >where he describes the analysis that lip readers performed on the film. >They claim that JBC may have been talking between Z255 and 287, though >they said he was too dark to see. But in relation to the frames just >following Z312, they said, > >"Gov. and Mrs. Connally seem to be talking.." > >I can't help but think that the 312 shot may have happened, *while* JBC >was in mid-sentence. > Total speculation. >> >>JBC claims he was very aware what was going on after he was shot. He >>Specifically remembered hearing the head shot, and he even heard Kellerman >>on the radio after the head shot. >> >> >>But your right, the fact that Jackie never heard this statement is "proof" >>that he didn't say it 'till after the head shot. > >Of course, that alone, does not constitute proof. > >But I think there is very persuasive evidence in the film that JBC did not >say those words until the very end of the attack. > > >Bob > > >> >>Either way, this is a very important point that you edited out of your web >>page. > (end of paste) >You seem like a very angry and unhappy individual, Mike. Wait a minute, I double smiled your single smile, doesn't that make me twice as happy? Honestly, I am happier than a pig in shit to be able to hash out your theory. It is refreshing that a CTer will actually put forth a complete theory about what they think happened. Not to be condescending, but I do respect you for that. It is an exercise I wish anybody who claims to be a student of the assasination would do. Sometimes your "I know everthing" tone is annoying but it is a small price to pay. I'm sure my Oswald like spelling bugs you, but we all have our crosses to bear(sp?). To be honest, I am disappointed that you seem to be falling back into a Z285 shot proves it, and I don't need to prove anything else mode. > >But I assure you that if you hope to objectively defend Posner you won't >be getting any happier. > >Bob My objective isn't to defend Posner, it is to try make sure that someone who I believe was a murdering psychopath is not absolved of his crime in the history books. Many LN'ers are somehow accused of being anti-JFK if they think Oswald acted alone, but if Oswald did indeed murder JFK, and J.D. Tippit, it is a diservice to both of those men to absolve that him of that hideous crime. Many people have their own beef's with the CIA, the mob, the FBI, the military, LBJ, Nixon, etc, etc and they want to lay this hideous crime at their feet. Not to say that any of the above are deserving of a defense, but I can't do it at the expense of letting Oswald off. As an example, being from Buffalo, I loved O.J. and I wanted him to be innocent. In spite of my feelings, and the silly theories put forth by the dream team, O.J. will forever be tagged in my mind with the same label as LHO: double murderer. Mike.