When Was JBC Hit?

[Andrew Mason]

My plotting says JFK arrived opposite the lamppost at Z190. This is way closer to the Cutler and Roberdeau placements than Z186. I used the line-of-travel at the center of the street. If more to the south, he would arrive later than Z190.

As explained to you countless times, you're using a dissolved-foreground frame capture that allows the lightness of the white car to bleed through. It's a camera effect that I wonder if the human eye could duplicate. I don't think the SS intentionally wanted the foreground to dissolve; it just happened. From the SN window, Kennedy was dark-on-dark in his limousine and pictures of the foliage taken through the still cameras on Nov. 22 and during the SS reenactment show the foliage obscured the car in the Z190s.

A properly-focused camera and scientific placement of the automobile shows the President obscured in the Z190s. He becomes distinguishable by the mid-Z200s. Bear in mind that the Queen Mary's bright horizontal features (the cream-colored partition, jump-seats and folded canopy) that aid in sighting were not present during the assassination.

Are you saying that Oswald would not have been able to distinguish the oak leaves (green or brown colour) from the dark blue limousine and the red haired, blue suited JFK?  Are you suggesting that Oswald could not have seen JFK while passing beneath the oak tree branches? 

In the final analysis, all that really matters is whether JFK could have been hit by the time he reached the Thornton Freeway sign.  I still put him there at z200 at the latest.  If the car was moving 1 foot per frame, that fits with your view that he was opposite the lamp post at z190.  I just view the evidence as putting it a bit earlier, particularly the appearance that he is reacting by z198, Ready removing his right hand from the front handhold to turn to the right/rear at z199, Phil Willis saying that his z202 photo was taken an instant AFTER the first shot, Betzner saying that the first shot occurred a moment after his z186 photo, Linda Willis saying that the first shot occurred when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign (which appears to be from z196 to about z205 (by aligning Linda, JFK and a few feet below the bottom of the sign):

I have adjusted the position of the Limo and the followup QM to show the positions of JFK and Clint Hill at the time Betzner took his z186 photo, showing the limo width at 1/2 the width of a lane (brown line) and the left side of the limo just inside the left lane marker and with JFK's midline 1/5th of the width of the car (15 inches) inboard from the right edge of the car.


It looks to me like JFK at z186 is no more than 2 feet from being even the lamp post at z186 ie. he was even with the lamp post at z188.  You say z190.  We are not differing by much. Again, that fits quite well with a first shot by z200.

[Andrew Mason]

Never, at any point, have I proposed the theory that there were only two shots.
You're thinking of Jack Nessan.

Clearly, one of your many problems is that you pay no attention to what other members.

Sorry about that.Your theory is that the third shot was after z313 and disappeared without a trace, despite dozens of witnesses saying that the headshot was the last. Have you ever thought that that shooter might be actually looking at his target as he was shooting? 

Just because you fail to understand the subtleties of an argument you want to lash out with vitriol.

There is nothing subtle about the underhand tactics you constantly use to defend a theory that is truly demented.
Almost every single element of it is ridiculous and is more than worthy of the scorn poured upon it.
You use the evidence like a plaything and have no interest in reasoned debate - if it doesn't agree with your demented theory then it's wrong.

You think 3 shots, 3 hits, which was the FBI’s working scenario for several months, is demented? Do you think JBC and Nellie were demented too?  That was their theory. It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.

[Jack Nessan]

Sorry about that.Your theory is that the third shot was after z313 and disappeared without a trace, despite dozens of witnesses saying that the headshot was the last. Have you ever thought that that shooter might be actually looking at his target as he was shooting? 

You think 3 shots, 3 hits, which was the FBI’s working scenario for several months, is demented? Do you think JBC and Nellie were demented too?  That was their theory. It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.

“You think 3 shots, 3 hits..... It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.”

You can even butcher Clint Hill’s statement? Clint Hill can now be added to the long list of witnesses you obviously know little to nothing about. Seriously Andrew, give up this goofy theory. You seem to have no limits as to how far you will go or how tortured your interpretations will become to try and support this nonsense.

[Andrew Mason]

“You think 3 shots, 3 hits..... It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.”

You can even butcher Clint Hill’s statement? Clint Hill can now be added to the long list of witnesses you obviously know little to nothing about. Seriously Andrew, give up this goofy theory. You seem to have no limits as to how far you will go or how tortured your interpretations will become to try and support this nonsense.

Not based on his WC statement. It is based on this (beginning at 30:20 through to 35:00):

[Jack Nessan]

Not based on his WC statement. It is based on this (beginning at 30:20 through to 35:00):

“Not based on his WC statement.”

Not based on anything would be more to the truth.

You know what his statements concerning the number of shots were all along and you see fit to post this tripe? This isn’t even desperate; it is just outright throwing in the towel.

Give it up Andrew. This theory, as has been shown repeatedly over many years, is not even theoretically possible let alone a possibility. When you have to resort to claiming this kind of proof it is time to re-examine it all.

[Dan O'meara]

Sorry about that.Your theory is that the third shot was after z313 and disappeared without a trace, despite dozens of witnesses saying that the headshot was the last. Have you ever thought that that shooter might be actually looking at his target as he was shooting? 

despite dozens of witnesses saying that the headshot was the last.

I won't call this a bare-faced lie as I've underestimated how confused you seem to be.
For factual accuracy you are stating that there are at least 24 witnesses who say the headshot was the last shot.
Dozens?
There's no need to go out of your way to dig out all the witnesses who make up this comprehensive list.
Instead, just name ten witnesses who state the headshot was the last shot.

You think 3 shots, 3 hits, which was the FBI’s working scenario for several months, is demented? Do you think JBC and Nellie were demented too?  That was their theory. It is also Clint Hill’s, apparently.

You think 3 shots, 3 hits, which was the FBI’s working scenario for several months, is demented?

No.
I think your demented theory is demented.
Shooting through the oak tree
Having the bullet ricochet at least 40 degrees off Connally's ribs
Passing through Connally when he was turned side on to the SN window
The bullet smashing his wrist-bone without moving his hand
And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The staggering amount of evidence and testimony you simply ignore to try to make it work, the twisted interpretations you apply to the evidence, the constant evasiveness and deception...

Apart from that I reckon you're on to something 

[Andrew Mason]

“Not based on his WC statement.”

Not based on anything would be more to the truth.

You know what his statements concerning the number of shots were all along and you see fit to post this tripe? This isn’t even desperate; it is just outright throwing in the towel.

Give it up Andrew. This theory, as has been shown repeatedly over many years, is not even theoretically possible let alone a possibility. When you have to resort to claiming this kind of proof it is time to re-examine it all.

I never claimed it as proof of anything. It was in response to Dan saying that 3 shots, 3 hits is a demented theory. I just pointed out that JBC, Nellie and, apparently,Clint Hill, agreed with such a “demented theory”. When you accused me of twisting Clint Hill’s statement, I simply pointed out that I was not relying on his statement but on what he accepts as the correct sequence of events: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

You, on the other hand, think that anyone who thinks there were 3 shots, let alone 3 hits, is twisting the evidence..

[Dan O'meara]

I never claimed it as proof of anything. It was in response to Dan saying that 3 shots, 3 hits is a demented theory. I just pointed out that JBC, Nellie and, apparently,Clint Hill, agreed with such a “demented theory”. When you accused me of twisting Clint Hill’s statement, I simply pointed out that I was not relying on his statement but on what he accepts as the correct sequence of events: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

You, on the other hand, think that anyone who thinks there were 3 shots, let alone 3 hits, is twisting the evidence..

It was in response to Dan saying that 3 shots, 3 hits is a demented theory.

This is an out-and-out lie and I will be looking for you to retract it.