The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

Just JBC's statement that he did not consciously register hearing the muzzle blast which would have occurred 100 ms. or so after the second bullet struck him.  Why do you find it surprising that he would not remember hearing the sound?


Just to paraphrase:

Q: What evidence do you have that JBC's auditory brain function ceased after being shot?
A: He did not consciously register hearing the muzzle blast which would have occurred 100 ms. or so after the second
    bullet struck him.

If that was any more circular it'd have infinite angles.
There's no need to go stumbling down the road of the ins and outs of auditory brain function.
JBC is hit by the same bullet that passes through JFK. I have presented many arguments that demonstrate this is the case and this foray into the testimony of the Connally's has, surprisingly, supported this view. I say surprisingly as JBC is adamant he was missed by the first shot and hit by the second but a closer analysis of his testimony and how it relates to the Z-film has revealed he is hit by the first shot also.
The key point is that he doesn't hear the second shot that he assumes hits him.

He did not "assume" it hit him.  He felt the impact and it was enough time after the first shot that he had been able to recognize it as a rifle shot and turn around to see JFK.  Nellie said he also had time to say "no, no, no" before he received the bullet.  You cannot do that in 75-100 ms.

He hears the first shot perfectly and describes it in detail:

"I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot."
"...once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot,"

Equally, he is certain about the headshot:

"...the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly."
"It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear."

He hears these two very loud noises that he instantly recognises as rifle shots but he doesn't hear the shot that strikes him.

Well, he did not recall hearing it.  The sound did not register in his mind.

There is a very simple explanation for this apparent mystery - there isn't a second shot that hits JBC. He is describing being hit by the shot that has passed through JFK. As explained in my previous post -
JBC is hit at z223
The sound of the shot reaches him @ z225
He becomes consciously aware of being shot from Z232 onwards
It is no coincidence that, after careful examination of specific Z-frames Connally identifies z234 as the moment he is hit, at almost exactly the same instant we would expect him to become aware of a strike at z223 (give or take 100 milliseconds)
The gap between the sound reaching him (z225) and his awareness of being hit (z234) is around half a second. When asked about this time gap JBC is both insistent and consistent:

"A very, very brief span of time."

"...the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took,"

"My God, it was fast"

"A split second"

"Unbelievably quick"


There is not one shred of unequivocal evidence that there were two initial shots a 'split second' apart and a mountain of evidence that this was not the case. Because there wasn't two initial shots so close together. Just the one shot - the shot that passed through both JFK and JBC.
His recollections of the event are of someone 'projecting back' to this traumatic moment. His memories are not a 'video record' of what happened. His memory is 'stretching out' this split second moment:

"Trauma memories – like all memories – are malleable and prone to distortion...After a traumatic experience, intentional remembering (effortful retrieval) and unintentional remembering (intrusive mental imagery) can introduce new details that, over time, assimilate into a person’s memory for the event..."
[Memory Distortion for Traumatic Events: The Role of Mental Imagery]

It is much less of a stretch to conclude that the sound of the second shot did not register in his mind because he was overcome with the impact of being shot through the torso than it is to conclude:
1.  that he mistakenly thought he was not hit by the first shot,
2.  that the impact registered in his mind but long enough after the sound of the first shot caused him to hallucinate that he turned around to see JFK before he felt the impact, and caused him to recall that he said "oh, no, no, no" not because he realized he was hit but because he was overcome with the feeling of tragedy that an assassination was unfolding, and
3.  that caused Nellie to recall that he said "oh, no, no, no" BEFORE the second shot hit her husband.

[Dan O'meara]

He did not "assume" it hit him.

Is this another point-scoring "misunderstanding" on your part?
Of course he doesn't "assume" it hit him. When I wrote:

"...he doesn't hear the second shot that he assumes hits him."

...I am saying he assumes he was hit by the second shot! Not that he "assumes" he's been hit by a bullet that tore through his torso and shattered his wrist.

He felt the impact and it was enough time after the first shot that he had been able to recognize it as a rifle shot and turn around to see JFK.

Turn around to see JFK? Am I missing something?

Nellie said he also had time to say "no, no, no" before he received the bullet.  You cannot do that in 75-100 ms.

As I've already pointed out to you, Nellie's mistake on this issue has been dealt with (Reply #615).
Some witnesses are good witnesses and some are bad. Not all are equal. On his website, Pat Speer has collated the witness accounts of almost everyone who had anything to say about the shooting. It is a truly colossal effort and invaluable research tool. He has put together virtually every relevant word Nellie Connally spoke and wrote about the shooting and concludes:

" Mrs. Connally’s statements are a hodgepodge of what she remembers mixed with what her husband told her he remembered, mixed with her inaccurate recollections of what he told her he remembered. Her latter-day statements that her husband yelled out “no, no, no” while turning to the left before he was hit, and that he was hit while spinning back around to his right are but one example. The Zapruder film shows that Connally yelled out both “no, no, no” and “my God” as he faced his right between Z-240 and 260, and never turned to his left in between. Furthermore, while the break between these utterances is around Z-250, Mrs. Connally testified before the Warren Commission that she felt her husband was hit by Z-229. These inconsistencies in her testimony make interpreting her words difficult."

I tend to agree with this analysis. That she is describing two shots a split second apart is enough to question her reliability but there is far more amiss than that. Doubtless you will continue to wheel her out even though she completely refutes your own model but you might score the odd point here and there.

Well, he did not recall hearing it.  The sound did not register in his mind.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm pointing out Andrew

I posted:

He hears the first shot perfectly and describes it in detail:

"I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot."

"...once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot,"

Equally, he is certain about the headshot:

"...the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly."

"It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear."

He has no difficulty hearing and recognising these two very loud noises he instantly recognises as rifle shots but he doesn't hear the shot that hits him. You rolled out the old sniper adage "If you heard the shot you weren't the target". I imagine this is a boastful reference to successful kills. Not applicable in this case.
The point is, he does hear the shot that hits him.

He hears these two very loud noises that he instantly recognises as rifle shots but he doesn't hear the shot that strikes him.
It is much less of a stretch to conclude that the sound of the second shot did not register in his mind because he was overcome with the impact of being shot through the torso than it is to conclude:
1.  that he mistakenly thought he was not hit by the first shot,

It's not less of a stretch but it's not impossible. Again, this is not just about this one specific aspect of the shooting in isolation. It is part of a larger interlocking 'matrix' of information. But it's a difficult point to argue against on it's own as it also makes sense.

2.  that the impact registered in his mind but long enough after the sound of the first shot caused him to hallucinate that he turned around to see JFK before he felt the impact, and caused him to recall that he said "oh, no, no, no" not because he realized he was hit but because he was overcome with the feeling of tragedy that an assassination was unfolding

One of us is definitely hallucinating. This is the second time you've used the phrase "turned around to see JFK" and I don't recall him saying that anywhere. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean he remembers "attempting to turn round to see JFK".

"he said "oh, no, no, no" not because he realized he was hit but because he was overcome with the feeling of tragedy that an assassination was unfolding"

LOL. JBC was upset the day was ruined.
It's a little ironic that the statement you lifted this notion from is one in which JBC identifies being hit before saying "Oh, no, no, no"!!
D'oh!
This also agrees with his WC testimony where he specifically states  saying this after being hit. It makes more sense (to me
at least) that JBC starts shouting out in response to being shot. Both phrases - "Oh. no, no, no" and "My God, they're going to kill us all" should be viewed in this light. It is of interest to note that Jackie Kennedy testifies to JBC 'yelling' and 'screaming'. In part of her deleted WC testimony she describes him screaming "like a stuck pig" (6-5-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 5H178-181, with words deleted from the Warren Commission's transcript only to be re-discovered by Harold Weisberg and Mark Sobel)
This notion of JBC screaming and yelling is supported by the Z-film where he appears to be doing exactly that.

3.  that caused Nellie to recall that he said "oh, no, no, no" BEFORE the second shot hit her husband.

Good old Nellie again.
Let's not forget, after hearing the first shot Nellie immediately turned to see JFK "with both hands at his neck". She wasn't even looking at JBC at the time he himself states he was hit.
Go figure.

[Andrew Mason]

Is this another point-scoring "misunderstanding" on your part?
Of course he doesn't "assume" it hit him. When I wrote:

"...he doesn't hear the second shot that he assumes hits him."

...I am saying he assumes he was hit by the second shot! Not that he "assumes" he's been hit by a bullet that tore through his torso and shattered his wrist.

You have to read my whole answer. I was saying that he did not "assume" that it was the second shot that hit him. Rather he based that conclusion on what he observed:  BEFORE HE FELT THE IMPACT on his back he recalled hearing a rifle shot AND he recalled fearing that an assassination was occurring AND he recalled turning to check on the President. Under your scenario there was no time when he did that.  Under your scenario he was imagining that because he was hit in the back on the first shot.

Turn around to see JFK? Am I missing something?

Yes. There are several witnesses who said that JBC turned right to look at JFK after the first shot and before the second.

As I've already pointed out to you, Nellie's mistake on this issue has been dealt with (Reply #615).
Some witnesses are good witnesses and some are bad. Not all are equal. On his website, Pat Speer has collated the witness accounts of almost everyone who had anything to say about the shooting. It is a truly colossal effort and invaluable research tool. He has put together virtually every relevant word Nellie Connally spoke and wrote about the shooting and concludes:

" Mrs. Connally’s statements are a hodgepodge of what she remembers mixed with what her husband told her he remembered, mixed with her inaccurate recollections of what he told her he remembered. Her latter-day statements that her husband yelled out “no, no, no” while turning to the left before he was hit, and that he was hit while spinning back around to his right are but one example. The Zapruder film shows that Connally yelled out both “no, no, no” and “my God” as he faced his right between Z-240 and 260, and never turned to his left in between. Furthermore, while the break between these utterances is around Z-250, Mrs. Connally testified before the Warren Commission that she felt her husband was hit by Z-229. These inconsistencies in her testimony make interpreting her words difficult."

I tend to agree with this analysis. That she is describing two shots a split second apart is enough to question her reliability but there is far more amiss than that. Doubtless you will continue to wheel her out even though she completely refutes your own model but you might score the odd point here and there.

I will have to review her WC testimony but I am pretty sure she said he turned right not left. She told his doctors that he was turned right when hit. She said he moved from the impact and she reached out and pulled him down. You are saying he was hit facing forward and she counted to 3 before reacting.

[Edit after reviewing Nellie's WC testimony]
Let's look at Nellie's evidence together with the zfilm.  She is facing forward until about z236.  She then turns to her right and by about z253 she is looking back at JFK. At z268-272 she turns to her left from looking back and is watching her husband.  She then pulls him over.

In her WC testimony she said that she looked back at JFK before the second shot and did not look back at all after the second shot. That in itself puts the second shot no earlier than about z268 in Nellie's account. She said that when her husband was hit he recoiled to the right. To his doctors she said he was turned to the right when hit.  If she was not aware how much her husband had turned to the right before she turns to look at him at z271 and after, it may be that she heard the shot and at that time looked at him and saw him sailing backward as he was turned to his right and thought the shot caused him to turn to the right.  One thing is evident: she was not looking at her husband prior to z271. She is looking at her husband by z273 and possibly 271-272.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm pointing out Andrew

I posted:

He has no difficulty hearing and recognising these two very loud noises he instantly recognises as rifle shots but he doesn't hear the shot that hits him. You rolled out the old sniper adage "If you heard the shot you weren't the target". I imagine this is a boastful reference to successful kills. Not applicable in this case.
The point is, he does hear the shot that hits him.

It's not less of a stretch but it's not impossible. Again, this is not just about this one specific aspect of the shooting in isolation. It is part of a larger interlocking 'matrix' of information. But it's a difficult point to argue against on it's own as it also makes sense.

One of us is definitely hallucinating. This is the second time you've used the phrase "turned around to see JFK" and I don't recall him saying that anywhere. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean he remembers "attempting to turn round to see JFK".

Have you seen his interview in the hospital? He said that he saw the President had slumped. He doesn't say that in his WC testimony but he does say he turned to his right because he wanted to see the President (4 H 132-133).  One thing was clear to him: he was not hit by the same bullet that struck JFK.  As he stated in the Life article at page 48:

• "They talk about the 'one bullet
  or two bullet theory', he continued,
  "but as far as I'm concerned, there is no 'theory.' 
  There is my absolute knowledge, and Nellie's too,
  that one bullet caused the President's first wound,
  and that an entirely separate shot struck me."

[Dan O'meara]

You have to read my whole answer. I was saying that he did not "assume" that it was the second shot that hit him. Rather he based that conclusion on what he observed:  BEFORE HE FELT THE IMPACT on his back he recalled hearing a rifle shot AND he recalled fearing that an assassination was occurring AND he recalled turning to check on the President. Under your scenario there was no time when he did that.  Under your scenario he was imagining that because he was hit in the back on the first shot.

The important word in your post is "recalled". You use it three times.
JBC is recalling a traumatic event which is not like someone watching a video clip of the event and describing what they see, even though this is how you constantly present it. These quotes are from a research article entitled "Does Time Really Slow Down during a Frightening Event?"  [Chess Stetson,Matthew P. Fiesta,David M. Eagleman. Published: December 12, 2007https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001295]:

"Observers commonly report that time seems to have moved in slow motion during a life-threatening event."

"Our findings suggest that time-slowing is a function of recollection, not perception: a richer encoding of memory may cause a salient event to appear, retrospectively, as though it lasted longer."

"Temporal judgments – such as duration, order, and simultaneity – are subject to distortions."

The distortion of time duration, order of events and simultaneity of events relating to a traumatic event is a function of the recollection of these events. Such distortions are commonplace for such events and it is in this light that JBC's recollection of events must be viewed.
It is not a case of JBC 'imagining' or 'inventing' anything. It is the case that his honest recollections of the event are an honest attempt to reconstruct it from his memory. This is why the Z-film must be regarded as 'primary' and JBC's recollection of the event as 'secondary'. You seem to view things the other way round and that JBC's recollection of the event is unimpeachable and to be accepted without question.

"BEFORE HE FELT THE IMPACT on his back he recalled hearing a rifle shot..."

I would change you're phrasing to "BEFORE HE BECAME AWARE OF BEING SHOT he recalled hearing a rifle shot." As has already been discussed, JBC would become consciously aware of the impact approximately 500 milliseconds after the impact. The noise from the shot would have reached him approximately 400 milliseconds before he was aware of being shot. He would have heard the shot before becoming aware of being shot.
JBC reports turning to his right after hearing the shot, in order to catch a glimpse of the president. Your notion that the right turn JBC is describing here occurs between z250-2270 has been utterly refuted [Reply #628 and #631]. The fact you have to abandon almost every significant aspect of JBC's testimony in order to make it work says it all.
The right turn is followed immediately by the left turn he describes during which he becomes aware he is hit. The only moment this left turn occurs is during the z230's. What is notable is that the Z-film clearly shows JBC makes no attempt to turn to his right prior to this left turn (remember - you've dropped JBC's left turn from his testimony because it suits you to do so). There is something amiss with his recollection.

Yes. There are several witnesses who said that JBC turned right to look at JFK after the first shot and before the second.

This right turn is the one between z250 and z270. It comes between the first shot that passes through both men (z223) and the second shot (z313) - the headshot.
I'm not sure why you are providing evidence that supports my model 

I will have to review her WC testimony but I am pretty sure she said he turned right not left. She told his doctors that he was turned right when hit. She said he moved from the impact and she reached out and pulled him down. You are saying he was hit facing forward and she counted to 3 before reacting.

[Edit after reviewing Nellie's WC testimony]
Let's look at Nellie's evidence together with the zfilm.  She is facing forward until about z236.  She then turns to her right and by about z253 she is looking back at JFK. At z268-272 she turns to her left from looking back and is watching her husband.  She then pulls him over.

In her WC testimony she said that she looked back at JFK before the second shot and did not look back at all after the second shot. That in itself puts the second shot no earlier than about z268 in Nellie's account. She said that when her husband was hit he recoiled to the right. To his doctors she said he was turned to the right when hit.  If she was not aware how much her husband had turned to the right before she turns to look at him at z271 and after, it may be that she heard the shot and at that time looked at him and saw him sailing backward as he was turned to his right and thought the shot caused him to turn to the right.  One thing is evident: she was not looking at her husband prior to z271. She is looking at her husband by z273 and possibly 271-272.

You're above post is in response to one about Nellie's reliability as a witness. In your analysis of Nellie's movements you state:

"Let's look at Nellie's evidence together with the zfilm.  She is facing forward until about z236."

She is facing forward until about z236.
In his WC testimony, after viewing slides of the Z-film, JBC identifies a range of z231 to z234 that he is hit.
In the interview in Life where he is studying Z-frames again he identifies z234 as the moment he is shot.
In her WC testimony, Nellie identifies z229 as the frame JBC is hit:

"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have an opinion as to which frame it was that Governor Connally was shot?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. I was in agreement with the Governor. I am not sure I remember the numbers so correct me, but I thought at the time that it was that 229--it could have been then through the next three or four frames."

As you point out, in the Z-film Nellie is turned forward until about z236.
What does it say about her reliability as a witness when we realise that both JBC and Nellie herself identify the moment of impact while she is still facing forward.
What do you say we leave Nellie out of this 

[Andrew Mason]

The important word in your post is "recalled". You use it three times.
JBC is recalling a traumatic event which is not like someone watching a video clip of the event and describing what they see, even though this is how you constantly present it. These quotes are from a research article entitled "Does Time Really Slow Down during a Frightening Event?"  [Chess Stetson,Matthew P. Fiesta,David M. Eagleman. Published: December 12, 2007https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001295]:

"Observers commonly report that time seems to have moved in slow motion during a life-threatening event."

"Our findings suggest that time-slowing is a function of recollection, not perception: a richer encoding of memory may cause a salient event to appear, retrospectively, as though it lasted longer."

"Temporal judgments – such as duration, order, and simultaneity – are subject to distortions."

The distortion of time duration, order of events and simultaneity of events relating to a traumatic event is a function of the recollection of these events. Such distortions are commonplace for such events and it is in this light that JBC's recollection of events must be viewed.
It is not a case of JBC 'imagining' or 'inventing' anything.

So the event that he recalled (turning around to check on JFK being concerned about JFK but not realizing he was hit) was because he heard the shot and after turning around to check on JFK and not being able to see him he then felt the impact that had occurred just before he heard the shot.  That is your theory?

It is the case that his honest recollections of the event are an honest attempt to reconstruct it from his memory. This is why the Z-film must be regarded as 'primary' and JBC's recollection of the event as 'secondary'. You seem to view things the other way round and that JBC's recollection of the event is unimpeachable and to be accepted without question.

No.  I just don't reject his evidence arbitrarily.  Unless it does not fit with the rest of the evidence, it should be given significant weight because he was the closest witness to describe the events surrounding the shot that hit him. 

You put all the weight on his opinion as to which zframe he thought corresponded to when he was hit.  You give no weight on his actual recollections of the events.  I am saying his opinion that he was hit at z234 does not fit with the rest of his evidence (unless the turn he described occurred behind the sign, which means the evidence as to the 1.......2....3 shot pattern was wrong and Nellie's recollection of not looking back after the second shot was wrong, and her recollection of immediately pulling JBC toward her was wrong, and Greer's evidence and Hickeys evidence were are all wrong, and the hair flip at z273-276 was a remarkable coincidence etc.). 

"BEFORE HE FELT THE IMPACT on his back he recalled hearing a rifle shot..."

I would change you're phrasing to "BEFORE HE BECAME AWARE OF BEING SHOT he recalled hearing a rifle shot." As has already been discussed, JBC would become consciously aware of the impact approximately 500 milliseconds after the impact. The noise from the shot would have reached him approximately 400 milliseconds before he was aware of being shot. He would have heard the shot before becoming aware of being shot.

Why would sound be relayed and processed by the brain faster than a bullet impact in the back?  I expect that the brain needs time to process a stimulus but i don't see any evidence that it processes a sound faster than an impact.

JBC reports turning to his right after hearing the shot, in order to catch a glimpse of the president. Your notion that the right turn JBC is describing here occurs between z250-2270 has been utterly refuted [Reply #628 and #631].

How is it refuted?  That is his turn. It is after the first shot and it is before the second shot.  We both agree on that.  The only issue is whether it is before he felt the impact of the bullet on his back.  Whether the first shot was at z195-200 or z223, that turn at z250-270 is well after the first shot.

The fact you have to abandon almost every significant aspect of JBC's testimony in order to make it work says it all.

As I said, I do not rely on aspects of his testimony that are inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. That rejection of those aspects is not arbitrary.  I do not rely on those aspects for reasons.  The aspects which I do not accept are: 1) that the time element between hearing the first shot and feeling the bullet hit him was a "split-second"  2) that JBC had completed his turn to the left after turning right to see JFK.  3) that he was accurate when he chose z234 as the frame in which he was hit in the back.

The right turn is followed immediately by the left turn he describes during which he becomes aware he is hit. The only moment this left turn occurs is during the z230's. What is notable is that the Z-film clearly shows JBC makes no attempt to turn to his right prior to this left turn (remember - you've dropped JBC's left turn from his testimony because it suits you to do so). There is something amiss with his recollection.

He suggested that he must have made his right turn while behind the sign.  Keep in mind, he did not have the ability to play the frames in sequence back and forth like we have. 

This right turn is the one between z250 and z270. It comes between the first shot that passes through both men (z223) and the second shot (z313) - the headshot.
I'm not sure why you are providing evidence that supports my model 

I agree with much of your "model" because much of your model is based on the evidence.  I agree that the first shot struck JFK and JBC, that JBC did not immediately feel the shot, and that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3.  The main points on which we disagree is your view that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was a shot after the head shot which means that the second shot occurred just before z313 and that there was a shot that missed.  In my view the second shot occurred at z271-272 and struck JBC in the back.

You're above post is in response to one about Nellie's reliability as a witness. ...
What does it say about her reliability as a witness when we realise that both JBC and Nellie herself identify the moment of impact while she is still facing forward.
What do you say we leave Nellie out of this 

Nellie is actually a very good witness for what she observed and when.  She is not as reliable in areas where she was asked to give an opinion after the fact of things that she did not consciously observe at the time.   But her observations at the time are completely consistent with the rest of the evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

So the event that he recalled (turning around to check on JFK being concerned about JFK but not realizing he was hit) was because he heard the shot and after turning around to check on JFK and not being able to see him he then felt the impact that had occurred just before he heard the shot.  That is your theory?
No.  I just don't reject his evidence arbitrarily.  Unless it does not fit with the rest of the evidence, it should be given significant weight because he was the closest witness to describe the events surrounding the shot that hit him. 

You put all the weight on his opinion as to which zframe he thought corresponded to when he was hit.  You give no weight on his actual recollections of the events.  I am saying his opinion that he was hit at z234 does not fit with the rest of his evidence (unless the turn he described occurred behind the sign, which means the evidence as to the 1.......2....3 shot pattern was wrong and Nellie's recollection of not looking back after the second shot was wrong, and her recollection of immediately pulling JBC toward her was wrong, and Greer's evidence and Hickeys evidence were are all wrong, and the hair flip at z273-276 was a remarkable coincidence etc.).  Why would sound be relayed and processed by the brain faster than a bullet impact in the back?  I expect that the brain needs time to process a stimulus but i don't see any evidence that it processes a sound faster than an impact.
How is it refuted?  That is his turn. It is after the first shot and it is before the second shot.  We both agree on that.  The only issue is whether it is before he felt the impact of the bullet on his back.  Whether the first shot was at z195-200 or z223, that turn at z250-270 is well after the first shot.
As I said, I do not rely on aspects of his testimony that are inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. That rejection of those aspects is not arbitrary.  I do not rely on those aspects for reasons.  The aspects which I do not accept are: 1) that the time element between hearing the first shot and feeling the bullet hit him was a "split-second"  2) that JBC had completed his turn to the left after turning right to see JFK.  3) that he was accurate when he chose z234 as the frame in which he was hit in the back.
He suggested that he must have made his right turn while behind the sign.  Keep in mind, he did not have the ability to play the frames in sequence back and forth like we have. 
I agree with much of your "model" because much of your model is based on the evidence.  I agree that the first shot struck JFK and JBC, that JBC did not immediately feel the shot, and that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3.  The main points on which we disagree is your view that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was a shot after the head shot which means that the second shot occurred just before z313 and that there was a shot that missed.  In my view the second shot occurred at z271-272 and struck JBC in the back.
Nellie is actually a very good witness for what she observed and when.  She is not as reliable in areas where she was asked to give an opinion after the fact of things that she did not consciously observe at the time.   But her observations at the time are completely consistent with the rest of the evidence.

 
I reckon we'll just agree to disagree on this issue of the testimonies and how they fit with the Z-film.
Debating how someone recalls the details of a traumatic event is open to any kind of interpretation and I feel we're just getting into some kind of dead-end. It's the same once we get into the quagmire of such contradictory eye witness accounts. The debate we've had over the last few pages has pushed me into considering the smallest details of the model I'm proposing and I feel my model has been strengthened by this testing (I'm sure you feel the same way).
You're right about the main weakness of my model - the third missed shot.
There's no clear evidence I can point to that supports it. It's a matter of eliminating other possibilities which I feel I've done quite well.
After that it's just pure speculation.
I believe I've presented good arguments against a shot as early as z195 and the shot you propose for the shot that hits JBC in the back @ z271 and I'm happy to let the record show that.

[Andrew Mason]

I reckon we'll just agree to disagree on this issue of the testimonies and how they fit with the Z-film.
Debating how someone recalls the details of a traumatic event is open to any kind of interpretation and I feel we're just getting into some kind of dead-end. It's the same once we get into the quagmire of such contradictory eye witness accounts. The debate we've had over the last few pages has pushed me into considering the smallest details of the model I'm proposing and I feel my model has been strengthened by this testing (I'm sure you feel the same way).
You're right about the main weakness of my model - the third missed shot.
There's no clear evidence I can point to that supports it. It's a matter of eliminating other possibilities which I feel I've done quite well.
After that it's just pure speculation.
I believe I've presented good arguments against a shot as early as z195 and the shot you propose for the shot that hits JBC in the back @ z271 and I'm happy to let the record show that.

If I may summarize, as I see it, your model is consistent with and based on two very important bodies of witness evidence which establish:

• that the first shot struck JFK and
• that the shot pattern was 1........2...3

.
The biggest problems with your model, however, are:

• the Connallys' evidence, especially explaining how JBC heard the first shot but did not immediately feel it hit him in the back.  Although one can be shot and not feel it, JBC said he felt it. While there may be a delay in responding physically, there should be no delay in feeling that impact.    The WC had a similar problem and likely thought (McCloy, for example) that JBC was hit by the first shot but just didn't realize he was hit by it for several seconds until he saw blood. That version of the SBT is no longer au courant having been replaced by the second shot SBT which avoids this problem but which is inconsistent with facts 1 and 2 above.
• explaining why many witnesses close to the scene had clear recollections of the head shot being the last, and why the shooter would shoot again after obviously striking the target.
• explaining how a third shot missed the car entirely and left no trace of having hit anything very soon after striking the bullseye.

These problems are still less serious than the problems with the second shot SBT model which requires rejecting facts 1 and 2 and having the first shot miss the entire car at 175 feet, leaving no trace.

In the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario, there are no fundamental disagreements with the evidence.  It nicely explains the path of the first bullet after passing through JFK's neck, which was the main reason for proposing the SBT in the first place.  The main issues for most critics is the notion that JBC did not feel the thigh wound on the first shot and the path of the bullet through JBC if it struck him at z271.  These are not really problems with the evidence. They are problems with people's opinions of how bullets are supposed to behave and how the human body and brain should react to them.

[Dan O'meara]

If I may summarize, as I see it, your model is consistent with and based on two very important bodies of witness evidence which establish:

• that the first shot struck JFK and
• that the shot pattern was 1........2...3

.
The biggest problems with your model, however, are:

• the Connallys' evidence, especially explaining how JBC heard the first shot but did not immediately feel it hit him in the back.  Although one can be shot and not feel it, JBC said he felt it. While there may be a delay in responding physically, there should be no delay in feeling that impact.
  

On the contrary, the model I'm proposing fits JBC's testimony very well. It is your model that has to reject almost every salient point of his testimony.
JBC would become aware of being shot approximately 500 milliseconds after impact, this is roughly equivalent to 9 Z-frames.
From an impact at z223 he would become aware of being shot somewhere around z232.
It is hardly a coincidence he first selects z231 as the frame he is hit but after a closer examination of slides from the Z-film (in the Life article you posted) he decides z234 represents the frame he became aware of being hit. Both consistent with the approximation of z232 for when he should have become aware of being hit by an impact at z223.
You disregard this key piece of evidence.
It is also no coincidence that he is turning to his left when this happens, something he is adamant about in his testimony.
Another key piece of evidence you have to disregard.
He is also adamant he cries out "Oh, no, no, no" after being hit. This is confirmed by Jackie Kennedy's testimony where she describes JBC screaming it "like a stuck pig". This is confirmed by the Z-film where we see JBC clearly mouthing the phrase and appears to be shouting it. It should be noted that, although Jackie is first drawn to her husband she is immediately drawn to JBC as he shouts this out.
This is yet another key piece of evidence you must ignore.
The very short time gap JBC consistently describes between hearing the shot and becoming aware of being hit, the 'split second', is yet another key piece of his testimony you dismiss.
It must also be noted, JBC is recalling a traumatic event and these recollections are subject to various distortions - time slowing down, the order of events etc.
As for Nellie, she also identifies the frames between z229 and, approximately, z234 as the frames JBC is hit when she is still facing forward in the Z-film. This alone undermines her reliability as a witness and is reflected in Pat Speers' devastating critique of her reliability. She is not a very reliable witness but you seem to think Greer is a good witness...

   

• explaining why many witnesses close to the scene had clear recollections of the head shot being the last, and why the shooter would shoot again after obviously striking the target.

Again, we are into contradictory eye witness accounts. For every witness you produce who thinks he headshot is the last shot I will produce one who is sure there was a shot after the headshot. Evidence you have to ignore as I have to ignore those who insist the headshot was the last shot. Where does that get us.
As to why the shooter would take another shot after the patently devastating headshot, I can only speculate. The rapidity of the final shot, so close behind the second shot may indicate the shooter had already decided to take the third shot before he even got off the second one. Pure speculation.

• explaining how a third shot missed the car entirely and left no trace of having hit anything very soon after striking the bullseye.

Again, missing the shot completely can be explained by the rapidity of the third shot behind the second. It is even possible the shot was pulled as Clint Hill came into sight. Pure speculation.
As for there being no evidence of a third shot - there is clear evidence a manhole cover was struck during the shooting and it is possible a fragment of this caused Tague's injury.

In the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario, there are no fundamental disagreements with the evidence.  It nicely explains the path of the first bullet after passing through JFK's neck, which was the main reason for proposing the SBT in the first place.  The main issues for most critics is the notion that JBC did not feel the thigh wound on the first shot and the path of the bullet through JBC if it struck him at z271.  These are not really problems with the evidence. They are problems with people's opinions of how bullets are supposed to behave and how the human body and brain should react to them.

"In the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario, there are no fundamental disagreements with the evidence."

This is a pretty wild statement and it most certainly depends on the evidence you have specifically chosen to support your model. To assert it doesn't fundamentally disagree with all the evidence is way out there.
Your main problems are -

The shot at z195 occurs while JFK is hidden by the foliage of the oak tree.
I know you like to do some sketchy calculation using a video of the re-enactment. But the evidence of the re-enactment itself - the synchronising of photos from the SN with photos of "JFK" from Zapruders' position demonstrate, beyond a shadow of doubt, JFK is obscured by the foliage at z195 (foliage that was much denser at the time of the assassination). To have the assassin shooting through the tree is a non-starter. My model has no such problem.

You also have no clear, unambiguous reaction to a shot at z195 anywhere in the Z-film. This can hardly be said about my own model.

The physical unlikelihood (bordering on impossibility) of the shot at z271 passing through JBC.
JBC is turned 'shoulder on' to the SN making a strike to the top of his right armpit almost impossible but let's say it does strike him there - the bullet is moving away from JBC's body yet you are proposing the bullet, through some completely unknown mechanism, does a turn between 45 and 90 degrees to exit his chest.
It then strikes his wrist but the Z-film unequivocally shows there is no reaction to a shot that shattered his large wrist bone at the moment you propose. Another borderline impossibility.

We've already looked at how you have to dismiss nearly all of JBC's testimony.

One last word on eye-witness testimony - for every Phil Willis you produce to 'prove' when the shot occurred I will produce an Ernest Brandt or a John Templin to refute it. I believe we have strayed too far into this territory and it is just a dog chasing its tail.
[/list]