The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

So you read Connally's non apology apology at the end of his lies - oops- I mean testimony to the WC?

Cut and paste what you're talking about.

[Dan O'meara]

And another opinion stated as a fact.  Your specialty.

Read through the thread John. I present testable arguments concerning my opinions (try it some time)
If you've got a critique of what I'm presenting let me have it.
Don't just snipe from the side-lines.
Get involved.
Let's hear what you have to think about things.
Let's test your arguments.

[John Tonkovich]

Cut and paste what you're talking about.

So you haven't read it.
History Matters. National Archive.
Researching a topic before opining is ..essential.

[Dan O'meara]

So you haven't read it.
History Matters. National Archive.
Researching a topic before opining is ..essential.

I have read it John but I don't know what you're talking about. As usual.
The chances are, judging by your past record, that this is going to be a massive waste of time. More irrelevance.
So, if you know how to, cut and paste what you're talking about and explain, without any cryptic remarks, how this relates to the timing of the first shot.
The chances of you being able to do this are minimal but I would love to be surprised.

[John Tonkovich]

I have read it John but I don't know what you're talking about. As usual.
The chances are, judging by your past record, that this is going to be a massive waste of time. More irrelevance.
So, if you know how to, cut and paste what you're talking about and explain, without any cryptic remarks, how this relates to the timing of the first shot.
The chances of you being able to do this are minimal but I would love to be surprised.

More ad hominem.
In lieu of answers.

[Dan O'meara]

More ad hominem.
In lieu of answers.

As I expected, you've got nothing. Another worthless contribution. Another waste of time.

"The misdirection and obfuscation created by the WC in regards to the first shot had the purpose of saving John Connally's political future. If the public knew that Connaly was aware by Z223 that the President had been hit (Z207), and did nothing but burrow himself into the jump seats, Connally's persona - 6'4" Tough Guy Texan - would have been shattered. At the end of his WC testimony, he apologizes for his inaction, after lying profusely about ..everything. Please read Connally's testimony, if you haven't already. Thx."

You don't seem to realise that you're just making this stuff up. Worse than that, it doesn't make any sense. The only testable thing is your comment about Connally's WC testimony, something you've mentioned before, you seem to put great importance on it as if it explains something. I've read the testimony and I don't know what you're talking about (which has become a familiar feeling).
I've asked you to explain what you mean but you won't.
Why can't you explain what you mean?
Why don't you contribute?
Why don't you critique the arguments I've presented in this thread rather than make cryptic, meaningless, snide comments?
If you disagree with one of my arguments why don't you present a counter-argument?
You've got nothing and your contribution is worthless. This may seem harsh but it is accurate.

[John Tonkovich]

As I expected, you've got nothing. Another worthless contribution. Another waste of time.

"The misdirection and obfuscation created by the WC in regards to the first shot had the purpose of saving John Connally's political future. If the public knew that Connaly was aware by Z223 that the President had been hit (Z207), and did nothing but burrow himself into the jump seats, Connally's persona - 6'4" Tough Guy Texan - would have been shattered. At the end of his WC testimony, he apologizes for his inaction, after lying profusely about ..everything. Please read Connally's testimony, if you haven't already. Thx."

You don't seem to realise that you're just making this stuff up. Worse than that, it doesn't make any sense. The only testable thing is your comment about Connally's WC testimony, something you've mentioned before, you seem to put great importance on it as if it explains something. I've read the testimony and I don't know what you're talking about (which has become a familiar feeling).
I've asked you to explain what you mean but you won't.
Why can't you explain what you mean?
Why don't you contribute?
Why don't you critique the arguments I've presented in this thread rather than make cryptic, meaningless, snide comments?
If you disagree with one of my arguments why don't you present a counter-argument?
You've got nothing and your contribution is worthless. This may seem harsh but it is accurate.

Z207. First hit. SS, FBI, Time-Life surveys.

[Dan O'meara]

Z207. First hit. SS, FBI, Time-Life surveys.

As argued elsewhere in this thread, the first genuine reaction by JFK to being hit by the first shot occurs around z225. This is roughly one whole second after your proposed first shot. I would argue that such a long reaction to being shot is completely unrealistic. A reflex reaction would be in the order of 100 milliseconds (approximately). You are proposing a reaction time many times longer than this (approximately 1000 milliseconds).
How can you justify such a long reaction time to being shot?