The First Shot

[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]

[Andrew Mason]

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.

It does not fit the evidence of the Connallys that JBC was hit on the second shot.  Minor details have to fit with the rest of the evidence and some (how he was facing when hit, and when he said "no, no, no") are unclear even from the JBC's own statements made at various times.

JBC would become aware of being shot approximately 500 milliseconds after impact, this is roughly equivalent to 9 Z-frames.

It does not take 500 ms to feel an impact.  It may take 100-200 ms to respond physically, but there is no perceptible time lag between the impact and feeling the impact.  And it makes no sense that he heard the shot 100 ms after it reached his ears but did not feel the shot until 500 ms after it hit. You are just making that up.

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".

Hardly "adamant".  He was of the opposite view in 1966 and was very unsure in 1978.  Nellie always maintained that he said it after the first and before the second shot that hit him in the back.  Jackie's evidence is not materially different. 

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.

There had to be at least 2 seconds between them. Oswald had to use the bolt action to eject the shell and load a new cartridge. He may not have had to reaim if he was holding the rifle tightly to himself and the boxes. But if that was the case, why did it miss the whole car?

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.

It is perhaps a minor problem, but Tague said the shot that struck him was on the second shot.

"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.

When I say "fundamentally" I am referring to important material facts that can be established by and are consistent with the preponderance of the evidence. 

You agree that the first shot passed through JFK's neck, that the shot pattern was 1......2...3 and that there were three shots.  But you disagree that the second shot struck JBC and offer all sorts of reasons why JBC's and Nellie's clear evidence that he was struck on the second shot was wrong, along with Greer, Powers, Newman, and Hickey. But your excuses for why they may have been wrong is not evidence that he was hit by the first shot. You need evidence that JBC was struck in the back on the first shot.   There is no such evidence at all. None.

Similarly, with the "missing shot" required by the SBT, there would have to be evidence of a missed shot.  There is none.  The witnesses who gave evidence that some use to support a missed shot are not consistent with each other let alone consistent with a missed shot.

At its most elementary level, the evidence as to the shots establishes at least the following:

1. that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3
2. that the second shot struck JBC.
3. that there were three shots.

Only the three shot, three hit scenario fits that evidence and is consistent with the zfilm.

Your main problems are -

The shot at z195 occurs while JFK is hidden by the foliage of the oak tree.

He was never hidden by the foliage and, besides, by z195 he was clear of the tree as the Secret Service film from December 1963 shows. I suggest that this is where it occurred because Jack Ready starts doing what he said he did after the first shot at z199; that Phil Willis said he took his z202 photo immediately after the first shot; that Linda Willis put the first shot when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign which is between z195 and z205; that TE Moore and D. Hooker said the president was at or almost at the Thornton Freeway sign when the first shot sounded (z200); Rosemary Willis turns her head sharply rearward toward the TSBD at z204 - she said she did immediately after the first shot and saw pigeons flying from the TSBD; etc.

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.

Why would the foliage be denser on May 24 than on Nov. 22?  You can see in the SS film that JFK is clear of the foliage before he reaches the Thornton sign.

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.

You are assuming there is no reaction behind the sign AND that there would necessarily be a demonstrative reaction immediately.

The physical unlikelihood (bordering on impossibility) of the shot at z271 passing through JBC.

I will leave it to experts to opine on that. To my knowledge such a scenario was never presented to any medical expert. 

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 deflects very little. If you turn JBC to the right his right armpit and right nipple align pretty well with a shot to the rear (at that point, the angle of the car to Oswald was essentially 0 - a straight line) without passing through the right lung.

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.

I have to strongly disagree.  Dr. Shires indicated that the wrist would likely have been pressed against his chest in order for the bullet to drag jacket fibres deeply into the wrist wound. He also said that for the bullet to have struck the dorsal side of the wrist as it did, the wrist would have to be turned (pronated) which would occur naturally if he was turned right.   The only time he has the wrist in that position and is turned right is from about z240-280.

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

I don't attribute much weight to his recollections of minor details unless they are consistent with the rest of the evidence.  The evidence that he was struck on the second shot is reliable because it does fit the rest of the evidence.  He was not sure of how was facing and when he was hit or when he said "no, no, no" in relation to when he was hit.  His opinion as to which zframe he was hit does not fit with the rest of his evidence, let alone other bodies of reliable evidence, particularly the 1.......2...3 shot pattern.

[Dan O'meara]

It does not fit the evidence of the Connallys that JBC was hit on the second shot.  Minor details have to fit with the rest of the evidence and some (how he was facing when hit, and when he said "no, no, no") are unclear even from the JBC's own statements made at various times.
It does not take 500 ms to feel an impact.  It may take 100-200 ms to respond physically, but there is no perceptible time lag between the impact and feeling the impact.  And it makes no sense that he heard the shot 100 ms after it reached his ears but did not feel the shot until 500 ms after it hit. You are just making that up.Hardly "adamant".  He was of the opposite view in 1966 and was very unsure in 1978.  Nellie always maintained that he said it after the first and before the second shot that hit him in the back.  Jackie's evidence is not materially different. 
There had to be at least 2 seconds between them. Oswald had to use the bolt action to eject the shell and load a new cartridge. He may not have had to reaim if he was holding the rifle tightly to himself and the boxes. But if that was the case, why did it miss the whole car?
It is perhaps a minor problem, but Tague said the shot that struck him was on the second shot.
When I say "fundamentally" I am referring to important material facts that can be established by and are consistent with the preponderance of the evidence. 

You agree that the first shot passed through JFK's neck, that the shot pattern was 1......2...3 and that there were three shots.  But you disagree that the second shot struck JBC and offer all sorts of reasons why JBC's and Nellie's clear evidence that he was struck on the second shot was wrong, along with Greer, Powers, Newman, and Hickey. But your excuses for why they may have been wrong is not evidence that he was hit by the first shot. You need evidence that JBC was struck in the back on the first shot.   There is no such evidence at all. None.

Similarly, with the "missing shot" required by the SBT, there would have to be evidence of a missed shot.  There is none.  The witnesses who gave evidence that some use to support a missed shot are not consistent with each other let alone consistent with a missed shot.

At its most elementary level, the evidence as to the shots establishes at least the following:

1. that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3
2. that the second shot struck JBC.
3. that there were three shots.

Only the three shot, three hit scenario fits that evidence and is consistent with the zfilm.
He was never hidden by the foliage and, besides, by z195 he was clear of the tree as the Secret Service film from December 1963 shows. I suggest that this is where it occurred because Jack Ready starts doing what he said he did after the first shot at z199; that Phil Willis said he took his z202 photo immediately after the first shot; that Linda Willis put the first shot when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign which is between z195 and z205; that TE Moore and D. Hooker said the president was at or almost at the Thornton Freeway sign when the first shot sounded (z200); Rosemary Willis turns her head sharply rearward toward the TSBD at z204 - she said she did immediately after the first shot and saw pigeons flying from the TSBD; etc.
Why would the foliage be denser on May 24 than on Nov. 22?  You can see in the SS film that JFK is clear of the foliage before he reaches the Thornton sign.
You are assuming there is no reaction behind the sign AND that there would necessarily be a demonstrative reaction immediately.
I will leave it to experts to opine on that. To my knowledge such a scenario was never presented to any medical expert.  It deflects very little. If you turn JBC to the right his right armpit and right nipple align pretty well with a shot to the rear (at that point, the angle of the car to Oswald was essentially 0 - a straight line) without passing through the right lung.
I have to strongly disagree.  Dr. Shires indicated that the wrist would likely have been pressed against his chest in order for the bullet to drag jacket fibres deeply into the wrist wound. He also said that for the bullet to have struck the dorsal side of the wrist as it did, the wrist would have to be turned (pronated) which would occur naturally if he was turned right.   The only time he has the wrist in that position and is turned right is from about z240-280.
I don't attribute much weight to his recollections of minor details unless they are consistent with the rest of the evidence.  The evidence that he was struck on the second shot is reliable because it does fit the rest of the evidence.  He was not sure of how was facing and when he was hit or when he said "no, no, no" in relation to when he was hit.  His opinion as to which zframe he was hit does not fit with the rest of his evidence, let alone other bodies of reliable evidence, particularly the 1.......2...3 shot pattern.

There is so much I disagree with in your post but I would like to focus on one thing regarding your proposed shot at z271.
The bullet exits JBC's chest and strikes his wrist shattering the large radius bone. It is a serious blow to his wrist but in the Z-film there is absolutely no instantaneous, mechanical reaction to this proposed shot at z271.
In the clip below we see JBC with his wrist in front of his chest, The clip runs from z268 to z280. At z271/272 JBC's wrist should be blown apart by a bullet exiting his chest but we see no such thing:



Here is a close up of the same clip:



This must be considered irrefutable proof that there is no shot that shatters JBC's wrist when you propose. To imagine he could sustain such a high impact injury without any kind of movement is a non-starter.

[Andrew Mason]

There is so much I disagree with in your post but I would like to focus on one thing regarding your proposed shot at z271.
The bullet exits JBC's chest and strikes his wrist shattering the large radius bone. It is a serious blow to his wrist but in the Z-film there is absolutely no instantaneous, mechanical reaction to this proposed shot at z271.
In the clip below we see JBC with his wrist in front of his chest, The clip runs from z268 to z280. At z271/272 JBC's wrist should be blown apart by a bullet exiting his chest but we see no such thing:



Here is a close up of the same clip:



This must be considered irrefutable proof that there is no shot that shatters JBC's wrist when you propose. To imagine he could sustain such a high impact injury without any kind of movement is a non-starter.

First of all, if it struck at z271 with his wrist and arm pinned between the chest and the seat back, a bullet striking the back of the radius is not going to move the wrist away from the chest, which is the direction that the bullet was travelling.   What it is more likely to do is change the clothing slightly and/or change the position of the hand slightly.  That is the kind of change we see from z271 to z272.

Second, JBC did not become aware of the wrist wound until he woke up with a bandage on his wrist after surgery.  That is easy to understand if he had it pressed against his chest and kept it pressed there.  That is more difficult to understand if his wrist was flying around and hanging on to his hat, which is what the SBT at z223 requires.

[Dan O'meara]

First of all, if it struck at z271 with his wrist and arm pinned between the chest and the seat back, a bullet striking the back of the radius is not going to move the wrist away from the chest, which is the direction that the bullet was travelling. 

Really Andrew?
When unequivocal and irrefutable evidence is put forward it's time to review and reassess your position.
In my opinion this would be the reaction of someone who genuinely wanted to get to the truth of what happened during the assassination.
I can say, with pride, it is something I've done myself on a couple of occasions when confronted with evidence that clearly demonstrated the way I was looking at things was incorrect and I hope it's something that happens again as it brings me closer to fully understanding these events. I know when I've been confronted with these things I've experienced something I've referred to elsewhere as "unseeing". - an almost conscious determination not to see what is before my eyes because it contradicts my previously held beliefs.

Look at this clip with open and honest eyes and you will see the near-impossibility of what you are suggesting - that a bullet exploding out of JBC's chest, shatters his wrist bone - the large part of the radius - and that this substantial force does not blow his hand out of the way:



There is not even the slightest hint that anything like this happens.
The reason for this is that JBC's wrist has already been shattered - at z223 - which is why his hand is being held at such an unnatural angle.