The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

Calvary couldn't be referring to a more oblique view she had of the President as the limousine neared her.

Possibly.  But we aren't relying just on Calvery.

BTW, Rachey and Skelton support a first show miss. Rachey said "She observed President KENNEDY'S car pass her point of observation and almost immediately thereafter heard three explosions". Z201 is about eight seconds after the car passed her position; compare with about five seconds for a shot fired in the Z150s.

The President's car was opposite Virgie Baker (Rachley) about a full car-length before Zapruder started filming at z133. That is about 21 Zapruder frames, so around z112 if Zapruder had been filming then.  The time between z112 and z195 is 4.5 seconds.  Baker said that when the first shot sounded, the car had passed by and she could not see the President very well.  She said that the car had started slightly into the curve on Elm (WC testimony, 7H509).  So that might put it a bit farther along than z150.

Here's Connally merely "showing concern" -- doing what Mason says: "thinking an assassination was unfolding and fearing for the President".

The Governor's wrist goes limp, he's gasping for breath and his right shoulder drops in comparison to his left shoulder. Have you ever seen anyone exhibit such gyrations in order to turn around to check on the person behind?

According to Mason's Ash Heap Theory, Connally isn't shot in the chest and wrist until after this animation ends.

That's right Jerry.  Just following the evidence. Perhaps you could show us where you think JBC makes that rearward turn to look at JFK......

[Dan O'meara]

Again, you are relying completely on your interpretation that the occupants of the VP security car, in saying that they had made the turn onto Elm, could not possibly have been referring to the position of their car as shown in the Tyler animation at z201.  Particularly when Carter said that their car was along-side the TSBD - which is exactly the position seen in Tyler's animation at z201.  For some reason, you want to belittle others for disagreeing with your interpretation.

Mark Tyler was very aware of all these statements and states that the first shot could have been as early as z195.  So, in your view, has Tyler taken a disgraceful way to approach the evidence? 

The credible argument against the first shot being as late as z223 is based on evidence: Phil Willis, Linda Willis, the shot pattern (with the last shot being the head shot), SA Jack Ready, Rosemary Willis, as well as Croft and Betzner.   So you can't say I haven't presented an argument against a first shot at z223 based on credible evidence.  I can't help it if you don't find it credible and somehow think that no one could possibly have an honest belief that this evidence is credible and reliable.

The credible argument against the first shot being as late as z223 is based on evidence: Phil Willis, Linda Willis, the shot pattern (with the last shot being the head shot), SA Jack Ready, Rosemary Willis, as well as Croft and Betzner.   So you can't say I haven't presented an argument against a first shot at z223 based on credible evidence.

"The credible argument against...z223"?

How do Betzner, Croft and Ready undermine z223 in a credible way?


"I can't help it if you don't find it credible and somehow think that no one could possibly have an honest belief that this evidence is credible and reliable."

Do you find the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented credible and reliable?

[Andrew Mason]

Here is 4.5 seconds before Z195:



The president at that point is about 70 to 80 feet away from Virgie Baker's position on the Tyler map.

You are assuming Tyler has her correctly positioned.  And even if you are correct, you are exaggerating the distance. It is 50 feet based on the distance from the north side of Elm being 15 feet from the President.

Rachley said that she walked out of the front doors and crossed the street in front of the TSBD and stood at the edge of Elm St. Roberdeau has her at the end of the sidewalk directly in front of the TSBD front doors:

This is about 7 1/2 seconds before Z195. That's a long time to match with Baker's statement: "She observed President KENNEDY'S car pass her point of observation and almost immediately thereafter heard three explosions".

It is about 5 1/2 seconds before Z195 from the time the car is directly in front of Rachley where Roberdeau has her to z195. Here is 4.5 seconds before z195, which on Tyler's animation has the President's car just past the position of Rachley:




How many seconds is "almost".  Remember, she also said that when the first shot sounded, JFK was not very visible to her.

Connally actually made a successful turn and did see the President? You're some evidence-follower.

Notice I did not say that he did see the President. Those are your words.  Perhaps a remedial reading course would help you, Jerry.

Although in his first statement to the press, JBC said that he turned to look in the back seat and saw that "the President had slumped", in later statements it was not clear that he saw the President.  What he always claimed, however, was that he turned in order to see the President and when he could not get a good view he decided to turn the other way - to his left when he was struck in the back (he seems to get his left and right reversed in his hospital interview).

Connally made the effort to turn right before reaching the sign. He said he was facing forward or a bit left of forward (I figure his eyes were turned that way) when he was struck. The Zapruder film shows Connally almost facing forward by Z226.

And where do you see him even trying to look in the back seat? Where? Just give us a frame....

[Andrew Mason]

These exhibits aren't absolutes, but her location ("1") on CE 354 was marked. While near the east point of the curb, she would be in the street. This may be where she was when she heard the first shot ("Okay, after he had gone by, I got out into the street, I guess, along in here in the middle of the lanes.").

Ok.  So Roberdeau is more accurate than Tyler.

I see. Yet you go on to claim Connally did get a look at the President before turning back.

Where do I claim that?  I said Connally's statements are not entirely clear on what he saw. But what is clear is that he was trying to see the President.

As he approached the sign, Connally tried to look back with just his torso and neck, which limited his rotation. I suppose his legs at that point were positioned to prevent an easy rightward turn. Earlier in the motorcade, he had made a rightward turn to look back when his legs were in a better position for such a turn.

Oh, so he can't move his legs to see if the President has been assassinated?  Here is where you are suggesting he is trying to see the President:


I am having trouble seeing those eyes looking anywhere near the President.  Maybe we can take a closer look:



Nope. Still don't see anything that looks like even a half-hearted attempt to actually look back at all. None. Zilch.

At the end of this clip, Connally appears to "looks back" at Kennedy (The Governor's head is not fully turned and the President had leaned to his left), but if Connally is wounded through the torso, he's probably seeing stars. Of course you believe what preceded this "look back" in the animation was merely Connally showing "concern" (although your Theory has Connally wounded in the thigh which your Theory claims he did not sense; priceless).

Or what Connally is doing in the animation is, as you put it: "thinking an assassination was unfolding and fearing for the President". Connally doesn't get shot in the back and wrist, per your Theory, until after the animation ends, when there's not even an eye blink to signify he's been shot.

Yet you think he has been shot by then.....  Hmm...  Maybe getting shot in real life is not what you see in the movies.  As I see it, he sails forward and he falls back onto his wife.  That is exactly what Nellie described happened when he was shot.

[Jerry Freeman]

At 1:23 in this copy...Kennedy clearly hit...Connally still holding his hat [impossible if he was injured by the same bullet] The governor is looking as straight back at JFK as anyone in front of him could possibly get. CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.
Note---You Tube now considers the Zapruder film "Age Restricted" What next?

 

[Dan O'meara]

At 1:23 in this copy...Kennedy clearly hit...Connally still holding his hat [impossible if he was injured by the same bullet] The governor is looking as straight back at JFK as anyone in front of him could possibly get.

Look at the images of Connally Gerry has posted above.
His wrist is at such an unusual, almost unnatural angle because it has been shattered.
His wrist can no longer support his hand.
The probability of damage to the nerves running to his fingers is incredibly high.
Note that Connally's fingers are curled except for the index finger, which is straight.
This is indicative of damage to the Ulnar nerve, possibly from the fragment of bullet that exited the underside of his wrist.
IMO, Connally couldn't have let go of his hat if he'd wanted to.



 CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.
Note---You Tube now considers the Zapruder film "Age Restricted" What next?

 

[/quote]

[Andrew Mason]

Look at the images of Connally Gerry has posted above.
His wrist is at such an unusual, almost unnatural angle because it has been shattered.
His wrist can no longer support his hand.
The probability of damage to the nerves running to his fingers is incredibly high.
Note that Connally's fingers are curled except for the index finger, which is straight.
This is indicative of damage to the Ulnar nerve, possibly from the fragment of bullet that exited the underside of his wrist.
IMO, Connally couldn't have let go of his hat if he'd wanted to.

We have two very different approaches.
Me:I place no weight on opinions that conflict with the evidence. I stick to the evidence. 
You: Sometimes you base conclusions on evidence (ie. first shot struck JFK and shot pattern) but sometimes you disregard evidence in favour of your own opinion and theory. 

Opinions still have to be based on evidence.  Even if you had expertise in how the body reacts to bullet wounds, you still need evidence to support your conclusions.  For example, according to the medical reports there was no damage to the ulnar nerve in the wrist. The damage was on the radial side (Dr. Gregory, 4H124):

"Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence
but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile.
That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in
this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon
leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could hare been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion,
undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular
surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it
aside."

No other nerve damage was found (again, Dr. Gregory 4H127):

"The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was enlarged.
The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the condition of the major
nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so these nerves were identified and
explored and found to be intact, as were adjacent tendons. So that that wound
was then sutured, closed."

Moreover, the radius was shattered about 2 inches above the wrist joint (Gregory, 4H118): 

"The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption
began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on
the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.
There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the
midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less
than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease."

CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.

Again, you are injecting opinion based on no evidence and ignoring the evidence that we have.

[Dan O'meara]

We have two very different approaches.
Me:I place no weight on opinions that conflict with the evidence. I stick to the evidence. 
You: Sometimes you base conclusions on evidence (ie. first shot struck JFK and shot pattern) but sometimes you disregard evidence in favour of your own opinion and theory. 

Opinions still have to be based on evidence.  Even if you had expertise in how the body reacts to bullet wounds, you still need evidence to support your conclusions.

"I stick to the evidence."
 
You don't give a f%ck about the evidence.
You have demonstrated that time after time after time on this thread.
The latest is the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented, really strong evidence that supports my first shot at z223 and refutes your first shot at z195. I asked you:

"Do you find the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented credible and reliable?"

You didn't bother to reply. You offered up your own, paltry evidence that could be used to argue against a first shot at z223 so I asked:

"How do Betzner, Croft and Ready undermine z223 in a credible way?"

You didn't bother to reply.
Probably because you're embarrassed by how weak your cherry-picked nonsense is.
The question still stands.

For example, according to the medical reports there was no damage to the ulnar nerve in the wrist. The damage was on the radial side (Dr. Gregory, 4H124):

"Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence
but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile.
That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in
this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon
leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could hare been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion,
undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular
surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it
aside."

No other nerve damage was found (again, Dr. Gregory 4H127):

"The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was enlarged.
The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the condition of the major
nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so these nerves were identified and
explored and found to be intact, as were adjacent tendons. So that that wound
was then sutured, closed."

Moreover, the radius was shattered about 2 inches above the wrist joint (Gregory, 4H118): 

"The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption
began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on
the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.
There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the
midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less
than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease."

This is how good evidence should be treated.
I assumed nerve damage and that it was to the Ulnar nerve, and gave this as the reason why it was not "impossible" for JBC to hold on to his Stetson after such a serious wrist injury.
You have provided evidence that there was indeed nerve damage but it was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar, as I had assumed.

I stand corrected on that point - the damage was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar nerve.
I have taken that on board and accept it as it seems like solid evidence to me.

"Opinions still have to be based on evidence."

Give it a try some time. 

Again, you are injecting opinion based on no evidence and ignoring the evidence that we have.

I was responding to a post by Jerry and left some of his post in my own -

"CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.
Note---You Tube now considers the Zapruder film "Age Restricted" What next? "

This was actually posted by Jerry and is his opinion, not mine.
How he knows it was "a giant bowl of jelly" is beyond my comprehension.