When Was JBC Hit?

[Dan O'meara]

A further note on John Connally's various statements and testimonies regarding the shooting, in the light of someone recalling a really traumatic, life-threatening event. Someone like Andrew will take a quote that he finds useful, ignore everything else then argue that Connally wouldn't make it up. I totally agree, I don't believe Connally is making anything up, I believe he is doing his very best to genuinely recall the shooting but his recollection of it is distorted in various ways. Because of this, his testimony cannot be taken at face value but must be 'interpreted' as it is not wholly reliable. It must be measured against evidence such as the Z-film, which should be considered primary evidence.
Steve Barber touched on this issue earlier in the thread.
On another thread Robin Unger posted this very clear gif (excellent work again Robin).
It shows JBC rising and looking back towards the president after ducking down in front of the jump seats.
Nowhere in the dozens of statements he gave in interviews, reports, testimonies etc., does JBC mention this specific and notable action. It is as if he has edited it from his mind. When looking at the clip below it is noticeable how freely he moves considering he has just been shot through the torso.
Like Jackie forgetting she climbed on the trunk, JBC seems to have forgotten this quite significant action, highlighting the dubious nature of putting eye-witness testimony before the Z-film:



In Connally's first interview in hospital he mentions seeing JFK slumped to one side but in all other statements he is adamant he didn't see the president at any time during or immediately after the shooting.

[Andrew Mason]

A further note on John Connally's various statements and testimonies regarding the shooting, in the light of someone recalling a really traumatic, life-threatening event. Someone like Andrew will take a quote that he finds useful, ignore everything else then argue that Connally wouldn't make it up. I totally agree, I don't believe Connally is making anything up, I believe he is doing his very best to genuinely recall the shooting but his recollection of it is distorted in various ways. Because of this, his testimony cannot be taken at face value but must be 'interpreted' as it is not wholly reliable. It must be measured against evidence such as the Z-film, which should be considered primary evidence.

I dont ignore anything Connally said.  I am just not able to attribute much weight to some of the details, like his estimate of the number of seconds between hearing the first shot and feeling the impact of the bullet that struck his back.  Some of his recollections of those details are inconsistent with the recollections of many others. I find other witnesses as to the spacing of the shots to be more reliable. But I do accept his evidence that he heard the first shot and, after a perceptible period of time, felt the impact in his back. I accept that because it fits with the evidence of Nellie, Greer, Hickey, Altgens, Powers, Gayle Newman.

You, on the other hand are not just cherry picking one comment he made about it being a split second-a comment he later withdrew and said emphatically that it was not less than a second but more like 2.   You then proceed to editorialize and argue something contrary to what he always said. You want us to believe that the shot sound arrived at his ears after he was hit in the back, contrary to every statement that he ever made.  You are ignoring the substance of every statement he made on the subject, as well as ignoring all the other evidence that there were 3 distinct shots.

[Andrew Mason]

Your theory would also have to explain why he reversed the order of the two events that he distinctly recalled: hearing a rifle shot then feeling the hit.  It would also help if there was evidence to support the theory.

Technically, it is just an idea, like yours. A theory requires some testing, peer reviews, etc like the SBT has had over the past 60-plus years. We have been explaining the time distortion phenomenon. You just don’t appear to be listening. If I had not experienced it for myself during the snake strike encounter I might not be so adamant about this. I will try to explain what I experienced again and relate some of it to JBC’s recollections.
My instinctive reaction of jumping backwards (amygdala controlled) happened so fast and so automatic that is was already over with before I even “knew” what was going on. I was hiking alone and was not scanning the trail ahead of me like I should have been.

I am not sure how this is in any way similar to JBC being hit in the back by a bullet after he heard the first shot.  If I understand the neurological pathway correctly (I don't profess to have any expert knowledge of our neurological system so this may not be completely correct) your eye picked up the sudden snake movement and your brain automatically sent a signal to your leg muscles to move.  Your amygdala then made the decision to initiate flight or fight and caused the brain to release the appropriate biochemical to give your body the ability to carry out that response.

In JBC's case he heard a rifle shot. That might result in a startle response but he said it did not.  He said he recognized it as a rifle shot and immediately thought that an assassination was unfolding so his concern was for the President seated behind him. He said he turned to the right and (at least in his hospital interview) said that he saw that the President had slumped. He then decided to turn to the left to get a view of the President but felt the impact of the bullet in his back before he could complete that turn. I don't see the hormones kicking in from a stimulated amygdala to really be a factor in that. 

I don't see his reaction to the sound of the shot or to being hit in the back to be anything similar to suddenly noticing a snake.  So far as I can tell, only you and Dan have thought there might be a connection.  A neurologist's opinion might assist your argument but in the final analysis, such opinions must be supported by evidence and there would appear to be none from JBC.

[Charles Collins]

I am not sure how this is in any way similar to JBC being hit in the back by a bullet after he heard the first shot.  If I understand the neurological pathway correctly (I don't profess to have any expert knowledge of our neurological system so this may not be completely correct) your eye picked up the sudden snake movement and your brain automatically sent a signal to your leg muscles to move.  Your amygdala then made the decision to initiate flight or fight and caused the brain to release the appropriate biochemical to give your body the ability to carry out that response.

In JBC's case he heard a rifle shot. That might result in a startle response but he said it did not.  He said he recognized it as a rifle shot and immediately thought that an assassination was unfolding so his concern was for the President seated behind him. He said he turned to the right and (at least in his hospital interview) said that he saw that the President had slumped. He then decided to turn to the left to get a view of the President but felt the impact of the bullet in his back before he could complete that turn. I don't see the hormones kicking in from a stimulated amygdala to really be a factor in that. 

I don't see his reaction to the sound of the shot or to being hit in the back to be anything similar to suddenly noticing a snake.  So far as I can tell, only you and Dan have thought there might be a connection.  A neurologist's opinion might assist your argument but in the final analysis, such opinions must be supported by evidence and there would appear to be none from JBC.

I don't see his reaction to the sound of the shot or to being hit in the back to be anything similar to suddenly noticing a snake.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye,

The key words from JBC’s testimony have been bolded by me. An instinctive reaction is typically not voluntary. It is very quick and happens and is already complete before any thought has time to be formed in the mind. That is how the amygdala works, it  is much faster than the thought process that happens in the other parts of the brain. Again, feel free to research what is known about the amygdala. I can say very frankly that there was nothing voluntary about my jump backwards away from the snake. And it was already complete before I ever consciously noticed that there was a snake. It appears to me that JBC instinctively turned to his right due to the direction of the sound, then consciously realized that the sound was a rifle shot, then after failing to catch JFK out of the corner of his eye thought about an assassination attempt. All of this happened in a very short span of time. However, when the amygdala reacts like that, time can be distorted as we have been describing earlier in this thread.

[Andrew Mason]

I don't see his reaction to the sound of the shot or to being hit in the back to be anything similar to suddenly noticing a snake.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye,

The key words from JBC’s testimony have been bolded by me. An instinctive reaction is typically not voluntary. It is very quick and happens and is already complete before any thought has time to be formed in the mind.

You are reading a lot into the word “instinctively”.

In his HSCA testimony, JBC said this (1HSCA42):

“Mr. CONNALLY, Mr. Cornwell, we had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what l thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from—I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up pretty erect.  I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.”

[Dan O'meara]

I dont ignore anything Connally said.  I am just not able to attribute much weight to some of the details, like his estimate of the number of seconds between hearing the first shot and feeling the impact of the bullet that struck his back.  Some of his recollections of those details are inconsistent with the recollections of many others. I find other witnesses as to the spacing of the shots to be more reliable. But I do accept his evidence that he heard the first shot and, after a perceptible period of time, felt the impact in his back. I accept that because it fits with the evidence of Nellie, Greer, Hickey, Altgens, Powers, Gayle Newman.

You, on the other hand are not just cherry picking one comment he made about it being a split second-a comment he later withdrew and said emphatically that it was not less than a second but more like 2.   You then proceed to editorialize and argue something contrary to what he always said. You want us to believe that the shot sound arrived at his ears after he was hit in the back, contrary to every statement that he ever made.  You are ignoring the substance of every statement he made on the subject, as well as ignoring all the other evidence that there were 3 distinct shots.

I dont ignore anything Connally said.

Mason Untruth #3
You ignore virtually everything Connally says about the shooting.
1] You completely ignore Connally when he says "the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more". To try and equate this with a gap of over four seconds is ludicrous. How can you possibly justify such a ridiculous thing? I'd not noticed that he intimated there could have been more than three shooters! He is clearly describing an incredibly short time gap between hearing the shot and becoming aware of being shot. He is clearly describing a fraction of a second.
2] You completely ignore Connally when he says "someone was shooting with an automatic rifle". An automatic rifle fires multiple rounds per second. Once again, Connally is describing a time gap of a fraction of a second. Your preposterous notion that he is describing a 4+ second gap as automatic rifle fire is embarrassing.
3] You completely ignore Connally when he says " It seemed like a split second." He actually describes the time gap as a split second, as a fraction of a second. This is totally consistent with his descriptions of automatic rifle fire and three or more shooters. What it is NOT consistent with is a time gap of over four seconds.
4] You completely ignore Connally when he makes statements such as these to describe the time gap - "A very, very brief span of time", "Fast, my God it was fast" and "unbelievably quick". Connally is going out of his way to describe how incredibly sort the time gap was. In no way can these statements be used to describe a time gap of 4+ seconds. Connally is a man familiar with rifles (although you would have us think otherwise), how is he describing a gap of over four seconds as "unbelievably quick"? In what possible way could you interpret that as a description of anyone firing any kind of rifle, let alone an automatic rifle?
5] You completely ignore Connally when he names z231 to z234 as the frames he felt he was shot. On two separate occasions Connally gets to study the Z-frames and both times he has z234 as the frame he felt he was shot. You have it around z271 because you know better than Connally.
6] You completely ignore Connally when he says "I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." He is adamant he was looking "a little bit to the left of center" when he first felt the impact of the bullet. This ties in with his range of z231 to z234 as the frames he was hit because these are the only frames he is facing a little bit left of centre. He is adamant he was facing to the left when he felt the impact. But you know better than he does.
7] You have been recently using an interview you posted in which Connally describes a gap of almost two seconds to argue against my own position, even though I have demonstrated it is perfectly in accord with what I am proposing. The irony being that you completely ignore Connally's proposed gap of just less than two seconds! You have a gap more than double this! Once again, you are caught out using evidence that undermines your own demented "theory" in order to try (and fail) to score a point. The evidence is a plaything for you, something you treat with disdain.

Out of all of Connally's statements there is only one you accept, when he describes the shooting as being 10 to 12 seconds in duration, as this is the only statement you can get to fit with your demented "theory". You completely ignore ALL of his other statements specifically regarding the shooting. If I am wrong about this please post what other statements you fully accept.
In his FBI report Connally snapped his fingers together rapidly three times to illustrate the speed of the shots. This can be done in three or four seconds yet he describes the time gap as 10 to 12 seconds. There is a glaring contradiction between these two things. You completely ignore this contradiction and pretend there isn't one. I, on the other hand, have presented evidence that accounts for this contradiction - temporal distortions in the recalling process of those describing traumatic events. More evidence you completely ignore.


You, on the other hand are not just cherry picking one comment he made about it being a split second...

Mason Untruth #4
It's a bit more than "one comment". See above.

You want us to believe that the shot sound arrived at his ears after he was hit in the back, contrary to every statement that he ever made.

I know, from past experience, that when you lose it you start to post really weird things and this is an example. A rifle bullet travels faster than the speed of sound so, of course, Connally is going to hear the shot AFTER he has actually been shot. You are correct when you say that I want you to believe "the shot sound arrived at his ears after he was hit in the back". The bullet is traveling faster than sound so it will reach Connally before the sound does. Everybody knows this.
But you believe that this is "contrary to every statement that he ever made".
So, I would like you to reproduce any statement where Connally says the shot sound reached him BEFORE the bullet did.

Again, knowing you like I do, this will probably be part of the 'wilful ignorance' strategy you often use. I will have already posted the answer to this apparent conundrum but, even though you are aware of it, you will pretend you're not to try a score a point. Either that or you have genuinely lost it.
Let's see 

[Charles Collins]

You are reading a lot into the word “instinctively”.

In his HSCA testimony, JBC said this (1HSCA42):

“Mr. CONNALLY, Mr. Cornwell, we had gone, I suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what l thought was a rifle shot and I thought it came from—I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so I was sitting up pretty erect.  I thought the shot came from back over my right shoulder so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.”

You are reading a lot into the word “instinctively”.

Yes, I admit that I am doing that. However it is interesting that JBC chose to use that word (not yours truly). I have only recently made the correlation between Connally’s word and my experience with the striking snake. If I didn’t know as fact that (due to gravity) snakes cannot hang in mid-air and slowly float to the ground over a time period that seemed like 2-3 seconds, I would have no problem swearing under oath that it appeared to do just that. But Connally had no similar reference to let him know that his memory might have been distorted.
Could I be reading too much into this? Of course I could be. Unlike some folks here, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I think it is risky to place a lot of weight on witness accounts unless there is other physical evidence to support them. The photographic record, especially the Z-film, can show us a lot. The lack of a sound track and the Stemmons Freeway sign blocking the view of the limo for a short time period requires us to have to improvise and use other clues to try to answer some of the questions.
The Stemmons sign blocks the view and prevents us from knowing whether or not JBC made an instinctive head turn just before he came back into view. However, while JBC was behind the sign, JFK is said to have made an 87-degree head snap to his left between Z203 and Z206 (see the Roberdeaux map notes). I believe this very quick head snap indicates an instinctive reaction by JFK during the time period in question. I believe it could be a reaction to a bullet traversing his lower neck. An additional instinctive reaction could be that Rosemary Willis is said to have snapped her head about 90-100 degrees between Z214 and Z217 (again see Roberdeaux map notes). So, with at least two other apparent instinctive reactions happening during the time period in question, it is reasonable to believe that JBC might also have had a similar instinctive reaction while he is hidden from view of the Zapruder camera.
Of course there is a lot more that can be seen on the Zapruder film. There are a lot of head snaps from the limo occupants and other actions that happen around the late Z150s and the Z160s. It is difficult for me to dismiss them without considering that they might be instinctive reactions to a missed first shot. If they are, then it is reasonable to believe that JBC could have not remembered this accurately. Again, putting too much weight on witness accounts is risky because they are often proven to be inaccurate.

[Dan O'meara]

You are reading a lot into the word “instinctively”.

Yes, I admit that I am doing that. However it is interesting that JBC chose to use that word (not yours truly). I have only recently made the correlation between Connally’s word and my experience with the striking snake. If I didn’t know as fact that (due to gravity) snakes cannot hang in mid-air and slowly float to the ground over a time period that seemed like 2-3 seconds, I would have no problem swearing under oath that it appeared to do just that. But Connally had no similar reference to let him know that his memory might have been distorted.
Could I be reading too much into this? Of course I could be. Unlike some folks here, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I think it is risky to place a lot of weight on witness accounts unless there is other physical evidence to support them. The photographic record, especially the Z-film, can show us a lot. The lack of a sound track and the Stemmons Freeway sign blocking the view of the limo for a short time period requires us to have to improvise and use other clues to try to answer some of the questions.

What you are describing is in perfect accord with the science on this particular subject. Earlier I posted these quotes from "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."

It's a really interesting piece and these 'distortions' are to be fully expected from someone undergoing an experience such as the one you describe.

The Stemmons sign blocks the view and prevents us from knowing whether or not JBC made an instinctive head turn just before he came back into view. However, while JBC was behind the sign, JFK is said to have made an 87-degree head snap to his left between Z203 and Z206 (see the Roberdeaux map notes). I believe this very quick head snap indicates an instinctive reaction by JFK during the time period in question. I believe it could be a reaction to a bullet traversing his lower neck. An additional instinctive reaction could be that Rosemary Willis is said to have snapped her head about 90-100 degrees between Z214 and Z217 (again see Roberdeaux map notes). So, with at least two other apparent instinctive reactions happening during the time period in question, it is reasonable to believe that JBC might also have had a similar instinctive reaction while he is hidden from view of the Zapruder camera.
Of course there is a lot more that can be seen on the Zapruder film. There are a lot of head snaps from the limo occupants and other actions that happen around the late Z150s and the Z160s. It is difficult for me to dismiss them without considering that they might be instinctive reactions to a missed first shot. If they are, then it is reasonable to believe that JBC could have not remembered this accurately. Again, putting too much weight on witness accounts is risky because they are often proven to be inaccurate.

JFK is said to have made an 87-degree head snap to his left between Z203 and Z206

This head snap to the left (that first came up in the HSCA investigation if I'm not mistaken) has been completely debunked in REPLY#60 (pg8) of "The First Shot" thread, where it is shown, for a fact, that at z207 JFK's head is still orientated to his right.
The only other head movement that can be described as a "snap" is when JBC suddenly turns to look at Nellie (captured in the Croft pic), then turns to look to his right. Around the same moment both JFK and Jackie also turn to look to their right. Far from being a response to a shot, they are responding to the, well documented, calling out of Mary Woodward and her colleagues to get the President and the first lady to look in their direction.
In a motorcade the heads of the occupants are always turning from left to right. I've never understood how this can be used to gauge when a shot is fired as there are more reasonable reasons.