LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Joe Elliott]

What is it that makes people think that sarcasm makes for good arguments?

Look all you like, but don’t pretend there’s anything objective about the “reactions” you think you see. People use what they think are “reactions” to justify shots in a whole bunch of different frames. Absent a recording turning up, there is no way to verify any of them.

Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.

[John Iacoletti]

There’s nothing coincidental about it. People who believe in a single bullet see what they consider simultaneous reactions, and people who believe in separate shots see separate reactions.

[Andrew Mason]

Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.

I don't see why it would be a coincidence for both men to react to the first shot. They are both reacting to the same stimulus. So they are not independent events. A coincidence would be events having independent causes occurring at the same time.

[Joe Elliott]

Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.

I don't see why it would be a coincidence for both men to react to the first shot. They are both reacting to the same stimulus. So they are not independent events. A coincidence would be events having independent causes occurring at the same time.

Don't see any coincidences?

How about Connally's initial reactions being related to his wounds?

* The forward movement of Connally's right shoulder, both the location and direction of the bullet corresponding to the location and direction of Connally's movement.
* The movement of the right side of Connally's coat, again, near the location of the bullet exiting Connally's chest.
* The movement of Connally's right wrist, again, near the location of the bullet striking the wrist.

* There is also the jerking up of JFK's elbows right at the time, although, yes, this could be the result of JFK being wounded, while Connally was reacting to hearing this same shot. Although it would be strange that Connally movements correspond to Connally's wounds that would occur about three seconds later, movement of his shoulder, coat and wrist.

* And the coincidence of the lining up of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wound and Connally's back wound. LNers were fantastically lucky that this movement of Connally occurred in the z220's, when these wound locations line up so well with the SBT. It would have been far better for CTers if these movements started after z-240, when these locations were not lined up.
* And the coincidence of the Zapruder camera jiggle at z-227, corresponding with a shot at z-222.

These may all be coincidences. But if so they are real coincidences that support the SBT. If there were plotters behind this assassination, they were very lucky to have so many things fall their way. Not at least seeing some coincidences shows how strong your bias is.

[Andrew Mason]

Don't see any coincidences?

How about Connally's initial reactions being related to his wounds?

* The forward movement of Connally's right shoulder, both the location and direction of the bullet corresponding to the location and direction of Connally's movement.
* The movement of the right side of Connally's coat, again, near the location of the bullet exiting Connally's chest.
* The movement of Connally's right wrist, again, near the location of the bullet striking the wrist.

* There is also the jerking up of JFK's elbows right at the time, although, yes, this could be the result of JFK being wounded, while Connally was reacting to hearing this same shot. Although it would be strange that Connally movements correspond to Connally's wounds that would occur about three seconds later, movement of his shoulder, coat and wrist.

All of this is consistent with what JBC said he did in reaction to the first shot.  He said he turned around in an attempt to see JFK.  Not only is his turn from z228 to z270 consistent with what he said he did, there is no other time where he makes any attempt at all to see JFK.

* And the coincidence of the lining up of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wound and Connally's back wound. LNers were fantastically lucky that this movement of Connally occurred in the z220's, when these wound locations line up so well with the SBT. It would have been far better for CTers if these movements started after z-240, when these locations were not lined up.

But the JFK neck wound trajectory and the right armpit of JBC never align with the SN, so I think it is a stretch to call that a coincidence.  The path through JFK was right to left at an angle of at least 9 degrees to the car direction at z222. Over the distance between JFK and JBC (at least 24") the bullet would have traveled 24 (tan 9)=3.8 inches farther left.  If JFK's neck at z222 (assuming he was leaning over the right side of the car and miraculously in the ensuing 2 frames moved about 3 inches farther left) was 8 inches inside the car, JBC's right armpit would have to be 12 inches inside the car.  Do you really think JBC was that far inside the car?

* And the coincidence of the Zapruder camera jiggle at z-227, corresponding with a shot at z-222.

These may all be coincidences. But if so they are real coincidences that support the SBT. If there were plotters behind this assassination, they were very lucky to have so many things fall their way. Not at least seeing some coincidences shows how strong your bias is.

Again, movement of both men in response to the first shot is not a coincidence. They are not independent events.  It is what the evidence said occurred.  But the evidence also says that JBC was not hit in the back by it.

[Andrew Mason]

Mason's trying (it's pathetic, really) to move Connally's torso wounding down from the Z220s to Z272, where he thinks the Connally-falling-towards-Nellie movement (that began in the Z240s) is a "sailing forward" movement by Connally caused by the bullet's impact at Z272.

Oh yeah, his Z270s bullet just missed the President's head, causing his hair to flutter. Also, the left visor, that's been flapping from wind-flow over it all along Elm, moves in connection with his Z270s shot.

Yeah, my "bats__t crazy" theory, as you have called it, is that the evidence means something. You seem to think that it is wrong to accept the evidence for what it says.

I am not the first person to think that the shots may actually have been 1........2....3  with the last two in rapid succession.  It seems the FBI thought this for several months after the assassination just based on the evidence, as this Warren Commission model demonstrates:


The three strings show the shot paths. It is derived from the evidence and indicates where the president's car was located when each of the shots occurred. I reached the same conclusion long ago just following the evidence and only discovered this model recently (it appears to have been posted in October 2013).

Of course, the model was made for the WC before the "experts" and the Connallys themselves started thinking they could see things in the zfilm and before the FBI's "reconstruction" in May 1964.

One only needs to see one of Mason's SketchUp SquarePants graphics to see he doesn't understand perspective and spatial alignment. His Pet Theory was quite clever at one time but it never panned out.

It never panned out for you because you refuse to accept the evidence that the last two shots were closer together, or that the first shot struck JFK in the neck, or that Hickey saw what he said he saw, or that Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot as he said he did, etc.  You think that all the dozens of witnesses who said that the last two shots were in rapid succession were wrong.  I don't.

[Andrew Mason]

It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.

It is a matter of NOT interpreting - just read them:
Robert H. Jackson (2 H 159):

• "Then we realized or we thought that it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. ... I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure. "

Linda Willis (7 H 498):

• "Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went. "

Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell(7 H 478)

• "I heard the shot. Mrs. Cabell said, “Oh a gun” or “a shot”, and I was about to deny and say “Oh it must have been a firecracker” when the second and the third shots rang out. There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession. There was no mistaking in my mind after that, that they were shots from a high-powered rifle".

Lady Bird Johnson (5 H 564):

• "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."

Luke Mooney (3 H 282):

• "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot."

So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.



You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.

Right. Maybe they were just drying some wet string.

The model does not represent the Warren Commission's final word on the shot sequence, other than options they might have considered.

Obviously, it does not represent their final word.  They endorsed the SBT after all.  But you seem to think that one has to be on magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen to even begin to think that this could be where the shots occurred. I don't think Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford were into drugs.  (Not sure about McCloy).

See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this Link for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.

Reitzes numbers are, in large part, based on statements made long after the events that are not documented in evidence. Many quotes are from Larry Sneed who claims to have interviewed witnesses for his 1998 book "No More Silence".  He cites TE Moore as an evenly spaced witness based on something said to Sneed decades after the event, but ignores Moore's original statement in which he said that the first shot occurred by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign (z200), that he observed the President slumping and then heard two more shots.  That puts the last two shots after JFK starts slumping (ie. after z225).   Reitzes uses Emmett Hudson as an "evenly spaced" witness but ignores his 22Nov63 statement in which he stated: “he then heard two more loud reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot.” 

Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".

I don't interpret.  I read.  He either saw what he said he saw or he was just making it up and lying.  I don't accept that he was lying.

Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.

The turn reaction starts about 1/2 a second after hearing the shot which I place at z271-272. That is not an unusual reaction delay.  He may have been already thinking about turning after hearing the first shot and hearing JBC screaming "Oh, no, no" around z245.

[Joe Elliott]

Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.

Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.

In popular history, the trial of witches in the late Middle Ages was a great tragedy, resulting in the needless death of thousands of innocent women. But what does the witness testimony have to say? In thousands of cases eyewitnesses testified before judges about the witchcraft they observed. The support for the practicing of witchcraft is overwhelmingly supported by eyewitness testimony. Surely, they couldn't have all been lying or mistaken. If we have the same faith that Andrew Mason has in eyewitnesses, we would have to say that popular history is wrong. That much harm was averted by the death of all those witches.

Or on the question of Bigfoot. Rational thinking says they don't exist. If we can't capture one, surely we could shoot and kill one. Or get one run over by a car. Or if that is not big enough, a logging truck. Or find a body, Or a skeleton. Or at least a skull. If nothing else, we should at least be able to find EDNA of an unknown primate, as we can find the EDNA of other animals like bears and lynxes. But year after year, nothing turns up. And yet, the eyewitness evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is overwhelming. Thousands have seen a Bigfoot. Surely not all those witnesses could be lying or mistaken.

Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons. A belief that witchcraft is real, that Bigfoot is real, can influence what people perceive. A plausible reason why Bigfoot sightings were so rare before 1958, but much more common afterwards, particularly after the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. The Crack-Thump of a single rifle shot can be mistaken for two shots. And is perhaps more easily mistaken for two shots for a longer shot at 88 yards than ones at 63 or 43 yards. Or the sound of the shot and of a bullet fragment striking  the metal windshield frame. Their are possible explanations for witnesses being mistaken in 1963.

As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.