I Just looked at a computer simulation of the JFK "magic bullet"...

[catnhatnh]

and wondered why we've never seen a simulation of the head shot and how that missed Connally? I mean, after all, they claimed Connally sat inboard and lower than Kennedy-wouldn't that put Connally in it's path?

Editted to add: or a front seat occupant or the vehicle? Where is the matching bullet damage to the car itself. Certainly the bullet continues forward and down and impacts the vehicle somewhere? Or does this bullet change directions also...

Additional edit: A shot from the grassy knoll would miss both the windshield and the trunk lid. A shot from the sixth floor seconds after the magic bullet...no so much.

[AZCat]

1. As sick and disgusting as it is...

you should download and play JFK: Reloaded (it's officially abandon-ware, so downloading is perfectly legal). The post-shooting analysis is interesting.

[jberryhill]

2. Are you talking about this one?

The model from "Beyond Conspiracy":

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=945851971705051747

[Bassman66]

4. Sleight of hand.

There is no way that you could so accurately project that line back to the window in the schoolbook depository, a centimeter here or there for either Connolly's or Kennedy's position (or both) would align it with any of the buildings behind the car.

Kennedy is behind the sign when he is hit, his exact body position is unknown.

This reminds me of the WTC collapse models that were tweaked until they gave the desired result.

This video is psuedo-science because it doesn't discuss tolerance limits and probabilities, instead it gives us a "fact".

It smells.

[AZCat]

5. Which "WTC collapse models" would you be referring to?

Please be specific, and reference the relevant sections of the NIST report. I'd hate to think you haven't read the report yourself and are merely repeating what someone else has told you.

[Bassman66]

7. You know the ones.

But that's a distraction from the main point isn't it and I'm not getting dragged into that. Distraction.. who'ed have thought.

This video is psuedo-science for the reasons I stated.

[AZCat]

8. So you're not willing to back up your point. That's what I thought.

If so, then you shouldn't have fucking said it in the first place.

[Bassman66]

9. Psuedo-science, it's the new Science.

So you're not worried about the way the "fact" in this video is presented then without discussion of probabilities and tolerances?

[AZCat]

10. I'm more worried that you're unwilling to support your arguments. n/t

[Bassman66]

11. The NIST tweaking is documented.

For example, did the fireproofing fall off or not?

So what about this video, do you agree it's psuedo-science?

[AZCat]

12. If you'd read the fucking report you'd know what NIST based that on.

More importantly, how is this relevant to the "tweaking" of their models, and which of them did they tweak? Please - be explicit. This dancing around makes me think you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

If anything is pseudo-science, it's the "truth movement".

[Bassman66]

13. I've given you an example of tweaking.

So, let's get back to this video.

Do you agree it's psudeo-science?

[AZCat]

14. No, you didn't.

You didn't document crap, you just made another unsupported claim. Keep this up and you'll be all the way to China by morning!

[Bassman66]

15. Did the NIST models have parameters?

Yes or no?

Who decides what parameters are fed into it? Modeling is designed to look like science but hides that fact that much of it is subjective.

I gave you an example.

Now, about this video, are you going to say if it's psuedo science or not or are you going to continue with the obvious attempt at distraction?

[AZCat]

16. You don't even know which models are relevant.

Nor do you know how the values for the input variables were established, or what values you would have suggested (or what alternative method you would have chosen) in lieu of the ones chosen by NIST. Instead you hand-wave, and whine about something you obviously read somewhere but haven't bothered to look into on your own. Pathetic.

I need to go to bed, so please have something a little less juvenile for me to read tomorrow. I expect adults to be able to construct logical arguments with a sound basis and sufficient evidence to support them, not just make shit up because they're too lazy to go do a little research.

[Bassman66]

17. Distraction (and very obvious at that).

The models had parameters, yes or no? Some of the parameters are subjective, yes or no?

Now about this video, do you agree it is psuedo-science?

[Bassman66]

18. "Juvenile".

I'm not the one trying juvenile distraction.

I have answered you, it is a FACT that the NIST models had parameters and it is a FACT that some of them are subjective.

Tweaking is a FACT. No amount of weeping and gnashing by you is going to change that FACT. I am not going to get side-tracked by you in details about something that is a distraction from the point about the video.

Please discuss the point at hand about this video being psuedo-science.

Do you agree this video is psuedo-science?

[Bassman66]

19. NIST, subjectivity and tweaks.

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm

The global analyses included, for each tower, a “base case” based on reasonable initial estimates of all input parameters.They also provided a range of damage estimates based on variations of the most influential parameters. This range included more severe and less severe damage cases.

QED.

Now, do you agree that this video is psuedo-science?

[AZCat]

55. Wow - you actually went and read part of the NIST report.

Very good, now can you somehow show that this is "pseudo-science", or are you just going to continue moving the goalposts? You should probably keep in mind that other people are reading this, and that making claims and not supporting them looks pretty stupid.

[Bassman66]

62. Another non-answer.

I preseume you now agree that the models do indeed get subjectively tweaked until a satisfactory answer is achieved.

[AZCat]

63. Are you done making pointless posts?

Care to move past this childish shit and answer the questions from the above posts?

[Bassman66]

66. Is that an admission you were wrong?

You got to love it.

[AZCat]

98. I'll tell you what I'd love.

I'd love it if you'd actually do a little work and back up your fucking claim, like I requested several times above.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Oh, bullshit....

It makes perfect sense and is hardly "pseudo-science", as it matches with other known physical evidence. Jesus.

[Bassman66]

42. "Bullshit"

I've gone to the trouble to explain to you how this video is psuedo-science and all you can say is "bullshit".

Do you have a problem with anything I specifically said?

Are you happy to have a "fact" presented to you in such a manner?

Are you happy they they didn't discuss tolerances?

"Bullshit"

?

[SDuderstadt]

49. I think Dale Meyers is far more reliable than you,...

Bassman.

[Bassman66]

59. That's just another way of you saying "bullshit"...

so what specifically was it I said that you have a problem with.

Are you happy to have a "fact" presented to you in this way?

I thought OCTers were more rational then this.

[Flatulo]

52. Bassman is correct about the tolerance projection problem...

If any of the starting positions were off by even a few inches, the projection of the line thru Connelly and Kennedy would miss Oswald's perch by many feet. Yet the animation shows a dead true bearing through Oswald's nest.

I don't know enough of the details of Meyers' animation to know how he accounted for variations in the starting positions. Does the projection *nominally* go through the Oswald's position, or is it one of millions of possible solutions that fit the cone of possible trajectories?

I usually think Bassman is off the mark, but in this case he raises a very valid point. It doesn't mean that the animation is incorrect; but it does raise serious questions about Meyers' methodology.

[AZCat]

56. Doing a sensitivity analysis is probably out of the question, though.

It doesn't really matter how difficult or unlikely a shot it was if Oswald managed to make it. Winning the lottery is very unlikely, but people still do it.

[Flatulo]

57. I don't subscribe to any 'second shooter' theories myself. nt

[Bassman66]

60. That's not an answer. nt

[AZCat]

64. It wasn't your fucking question.

In case you missed it, I was responding to Flatulo.

[Bassman66]

67. I know, so what. nt

[AZCat]

99. So it doesn't matter what you think of my answer.

That's what.

[jberryhill]

72. "millions of possible solutions that fit the cone of possible trajectories?"

There's a quantization issue involved, though - i.e. any set of trajectories within the cone that terminate on the face of the Schoolbook Depository have to be pruned according to the number of windows within the cone. Likewise, if the issue is determining whether it was feasible for there to be a "shooter at a window" or a "shooter on the roof of another building", then any N trajectories having a point of origin through "a window" or "a roof" are functionally the same trajectory for the purpose of the analysis.

I'm sure the straight line is primarily pedagogical. This was the Discovery Channel, not a conference presentation.

That said, there are some boundary conditions on those "millions of possible solutions". For example, the shooter is assumed to be standing on something and pointing a firearm at the origin of the trajectory. This rules out trajectories within the cone (however large) which have a point of origin that require shooting through a wall or being suspended in space.

[Bassman66]

77. The Dal Tex building is in the cone.

The video falsely presents the book store window as a "fact". The video maker says this a "fact".

This is psuedo-science designed to quiet the masses who don't ask too many questions.

[Flatulo]

82. Sure, there are not an infinite number of solutions, but even ruling

out the impossible ones, there is still the problem of there being an extreme magnifaction of any errors.

I would suggest that the analysis shows that the resulting trajectory is a likely one. Given the supporting data that Oswald was indeed perched up there in the window, it is likely that he fired the only shots.

[Bassman66]

83. You have evidence that Oswald was in the window?

"Case closed" as they say.
Let's all go home.

[Flatulo]

88. Someone was in the window. The sniper's nest was found very quickly.

I don't know for a fact that it was Oswald, so I stand corrected on that aspect of my statement.

Anyone know if his fingerprints were found anywhere in the sniper's perch?

[Bassman66]

89. Oswald was not seen on that floor at that time.

His fingerprints were certainly up there because he worked up there.

His palm print was found on the rifle about a week after it was first claimed there was nothing on it.

Oswald was identitied as being on the second floor (4 floors down) drinking coke, unflustered, possibly waiting by the phone, between 60 and 90 seconds after the shooting by policeman Marrion Baker because Baker had immediately rushed into the building when the shots were fired.

In my opinion Oswald was certainly involved somehow but it's unclear exactly what went on.

[SDuderstadt]

91. They absolutely were....

as well as at least one palmprint.

[defendandprotect]

103. No -- but Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint was . . .

Malcolm Wallace was LBJ's personal hit man ---

See Madelaine Brown's description of the coup on JFK at YouTube ---

[Bassman66]

20. Move Connelly 2 inchs left and Kennedy two inches right

and you've got 15 foot in any direction from the "snipers nest", the cone then includes the roof of the Dal Tex building.

Do the maths.

Of course this video doesn't discuss tolerances, it's giving us a "fact".

Psuedo science.

[jberryhill]

24. I was asking the OP if this is the video to which he was referring

...I'm sorry if that question bothers you.

[Bassman66]

25. You you think the video is psuedo science? nt

[jberryhill]

46. I don't think a television program on the Discovery Channel is science of any kind

In order to evaluate the video, a lot more information would be needed than someone is going to put into a few minutes in a documentary.

I was curious to know which video the OP was referring to, which is why I asked. I wanted to know if there were other attempted reconstructions of the type shown in the Discovery Channel documentary.

[Bassman66]

61. But it's presented as a "fact" and many people of a certain...

..mindset have lapped it up.

Is that confirmation bias?

[jberryhill]

71. No, that's not confirmation bias

Look, UFO's were presented as "fact" on TeeVee too. If you are really fascinated by the work of one guy shown in a Discovery Channel documentary, then you have a great starting point for digging into whatever he may have published on the subject, or even striking up a correspondence with him.

But for the purpose of a casual discussion on an internet message board, then asking whether a TeeVee show is "science" is a tad absurd. They may be presenting someone's results, but that is not the same thing as real science, which involves access to the nuts and bolts behind the results.

"Confirmation bias" is looking at a set of conflicting or ambiguous facts and selectively interpreting them to reach the result you already believed.

"Moving the goalposts" is re-defining the debate in mid-stream. The "single bullet theory" is derided as the "magic bullet theory" as best illustrated in the Oliver Stone movie which uses a geometrically incorrect setup to postulate an absurd flight path. The objection is that it is impossible to have a straight trajectory which accounts for all of the wounds. Your point is not that it is "impossible" for there to be a geometrically feasible single bullet theory, but that the proposed timing and positioning of the participants is incorrect, based upon variant statements made from Connally's memory. That's a different argument, because "incorrect" and "impossible" are two different things.

IMHO, when I watch the Z film at normal speed, I see a distinct simultaneous flinch by JFK and Connally not long after they emerge from the sign. Maybe I'm only imagining I see it, but that's the way it looks to me.

[Bassman66]

76. No, the video says this is a "fact".

I was the first one to point out that this "fact" was in fact not a fact.

"IMHO, when I watch the Z film at normal speed,I see a distinct simultaneous flinch by JFK and Connally not long after they emerge from the sign"

Of course you do, so what!

Try watching it frame by frame.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Look at 223 and 224 in particular. Connally is possibly hit between 223 and 224 (the lapel flap isn't a definite hit) in 224 you can just see that Kenedy already has his hands at or near his throat and that Jackie has her head tilted and appears to be looking at him before he comes into view.

A generous estimate of the time it would take for the bullet to leave Kennedy and hit Connally is 4/1000ths of a second, factor in JFK's reaction time and you have to say Kennedy was hit before 223, possibly in the last frame before he goes behind the sign when his hand seems to shoot up.

[defendandprotect]

104. The Discovery Channel has been sold and no longer reliable . . .

for any info on JFK ---

Remember they brought us TMWKK . . . those days are over!

[Bassman66]

21. Warren Commission Exhibit 895

This is what Oswald would have seen



Now that looks like Connelly would be hit in the left side to me and in the lower back.

On edit: It has to be asked why they used a different car for the reenactment.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Connelly was turning toward Kennedy when he was hit. n/t

[Bassman66]

23. Not in Zapruder 224. nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Connelly was turning back to his right, body over in the seat, when he was hit.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt2.gif

[Bassman66]

27. No, Conally's wounds mean he was sitting straight forward.

And in Z-224 (the lapel flap picture) he is sitting square to his seat.

You diagram is most amusing. What was Connallys ass sitting on?

[Bolo Boffin]

28. No.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/223-224.gif

And you're hotlinking. That's why I posted in plain text.

[Bassman66]

29. His shoulders are pretty square.

According to your diagram the bullet would exit in the center of his chest.

Just what was he sitting on though? Fresh air?

And you have cropped Kennedy from Z-224 where his hands are already moving to his throat in 224, the same instant Connally is supposed to be hit. Kennedy was hit before 224 or even 223 possibly at 206-210 (the damaged frames).

[Bolo Boffin]

30. No, they are not. They are square to the camera, not the seat.

I haven't done anything to that picture.

[Bassman66]

31. No but it is cropped and Kenedy is already has his hands...

..up to his throat indicating that he was hit somewhere before Z-224.

The bullet is estimated to be travelling at 1800 fps, lets be generous and say lost half of its speed when it left Kennedy, so 900 fps. Lets be generous and say four feet to Connally, that means it took 4/1000ths of a second to hit Connally, during this time Kennedy got his hands to his throat.

And Connally is pretty square in his seat, his neck is rotated.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Connelly is NOT square in his seat. He is square to Zapruder's camera.

Are you really thinking that the car was aimed straight at Zapruder at that moment? That's the only way Connelly could be square in his seat and also square in Zapruder's camera.

[Bassman66]

33. Connally had turned to look at Kennedy and....

..had turned pretty much back, his neck was still rotated.

Connally said he had turned to look at Kennedy (I wonder why), he and his wife were insistent that he was hit by a separate bullet, plus Jackie Kennedy appears to be tilting her head looking at Kennedy as she comes from behind the sign.

Kennedy was hit a few frames before Z-224, Connally was hit between Z-223 and Z-224, Kennedy already has his hands up at Z-224.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. If Connally had "turned back pretty much", then the car is aiming straight at Zapruder.

You can't escape this.

[Bassman66]

35. You need to watch frames Z-222 to 224

He's turning back after looking at Kennedy (as he said). By Z-224 (when he is hit) his shoulders are square with the roll-bar in the car.

He turned to look at Kennedy because something was wrong with him (and Jackie is looking too) and that is why he knows he was hit by a separate bullet.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. It's not that hard to understand that if Connally is square to his seat in 224, the car is aiming

straight at Zapruder.

[Bassman66]

38. I'm just saying what's in the Warren Commission.

Anyway Connally is (probably) shot between Z223 and Z224, Kennedy is already reacting at Z-224 you can see both hands.

Connaly knows they were two different bullets because the reason he turned in the first place was to look at Kennedy, something was up.

[dflprincess]

96. I apologize for not being able to find the link I thought I had to this

but, isn't another reason to believe there were two bullets is the length of time Connally continues to keep a grip on his hat something he would not be able to do with a shattered wrist?

[eomer]

79. His head is square to the camera but his shoulders are not.

Look at the distance from the side of his neck to the point of his shoulder in 224. That distance to his right shoulder from the right side of his neck is significantly longer than the distance for his left shoulder and left side of his neck. If his shoulders were square to the camera then those two distances would be roughly the same. The distance for the right is more than one and half times the distance for the left, showing that his right shoulder is more toward the foreground and his left shoulder is more toward the background, relative to the camera. Whether his shoulders are substantially square to the forward direction of the car is a bit harder to demonstrate. They look like they are to me but there could be some debate, some wiggle room if you will. But they are definitely not square to the camera.

[Bassman66]

84. His entry and exit wounds suggest he was square too. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

92. His head is not square to the camera. His shoulders are.

Look, people can actually see these pictures. It's not like you both are making up crap about something that is not available to be seen. The pictures themselves are right there to be seen.



223 and 224 are being cycled in that GIF. 223 is the one without the lapel flapping up and is clearer.

In 223, everyone can clearly see that Connally's head is turned away from the camera and that his shoulders are square to the camera.

In 224, Connally's head has moved some, but it still is not square to the camera. His shoulders have not moved at all. They remain square to the camera.

The limo is clearly visible in each of these framegrabs. It is not heading straight to Zapruder, but well off to the side. That means, since the shoulders ARE square to Zapruder's POV, that Connally is not sitting with his back against the seat of the limo. He's twisted to the side.

It AMAZES me that you will post factual inaccuracies about something so easily verified.

[eomer]

97. On what basis do you conclude the shoulders are square?

Surely the measurements I pointed out are the correct way to determine whether he is square to the camera or not. For him to be square to the camera the distances on the two sides of his body have to be equal (unless, of course, his body has a deformity).

You can easily see the limit of his left shoulder because of the contrasting pink color of Jackie's suit. The right shoulder is a bit harder to distinguish but in 223 you can see the blue background behind to find the extent of his right shoulder. There is quite a large, easily seen difference in those two distances.

Do you see the distances I'm talking about and deny the geometry --or-- do you not see how you can observe the apparent length of those two lines? I have no idea which it could be because they are both so obvious.

I agree, by the way, that his head is not square to the camera. My mistake. I was not paying a lot of attention to that part since it has no bearing on the bullet piercing his body.

[Bassman66]

37. FBI Expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt told the WC...

..I might say that as-in the motion picture-as the car comes
out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly to his right in
this manner. This would be in the first frame, in frame 222, he is turned just
slightly to his right, and from there on he turns almost square, straight on
with the car momentarily, and there is a jerking motion there at one point in
the film about there, at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to
turn.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/pdf/WH5_Shaneyfelt.pdf

[jberryhill]

47. "I wonder why"

Connally explained why he turned:


"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, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. 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.

Mr. Specter.
What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.

So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else."

[Bassman66]

65. Unfortunately Connally changed his story for the WC.

On the 28th November 1963 he told said on National TV that he turned and saw the Presdident slumped and then he was hit.

Now why did Connally change his story?

Add to that that even if Connally was hit at Z-224 (and there is some doubt - look at the actual hole in jacket nowhere near the lapel) Kennedy already had his hands at or near his throat, Kennedy was not hit at Z-224 or Z-223.

[Bassman66]

41. Did Connally change his story?

On November 28 1963, Connally said this on TV:

"We had just turned the corner. We heard a shot. I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to look in the back seat. The President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously as I turned, I was hit, and I knew I’d been hit badly"

He later told the Warren Commission that he didn't see the President:

"We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.
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, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. 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."

But he still insisted it was a different bullet.

Which version is true? There is possibly a head snap at Z-197 (and Zapruder jumps) and he could have looked at Kennedy whilst behind the sign.

[k-robjoe]

51. clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAc

Edit : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QdsxbOoUqY&feature=related ( 3 minutes out )

[jberryhill]

53. I'm certain that minor details were different every single time he told it, yes

The notion that memories are somehow static recordings is one of the problems with eyewitness testimony of any kind.

What I'm curious about is can you demonstrate a path through Connally's back and into his wrist that doesn't go through Kennedy. Forget about the rearward cone for a moment. How do you get into Connally's back?

[Bassman66]

58. "Minor details"

Yes I turned and saw the President slumped
No I turned and didn't see the Presdient

You're a riot.

Now why did Connally change his story?

[jberryhill]

73. Because he's in on it, obviously.

What's amazing about his loyalty to the plan is that even though he took a potentially fatal shot to the back and through his body, he's covering for them.

Gotta admire a guy like that.

[Bassman66]

78. Strawman.

Maybe he made or was persuaded to make a decision in the "national interest".

[jberryhill]

81. That puts him "in on it"

I don't care why he decided to protect the conspiracy.

Take that feller in Liechtenstein who turned in all of those rich tax cheats... It's called "doing the right thing".

[Bassman66]

85. That old one,

No it doesn't put him "in on it".
It means he made a "re-rememberance" for the "good of the nation".

[SDuderstadt]

93. Read what Connally actually said again, Bassman....

Your reading comprehension sucks, as usual.

"We had just turned the corner. We heard a shot. I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to look in the back seat. The President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously as I turned, I was hit, and I knew I’d been hit badly"

Compare that to your characterization of what Connally said:

Yes I turned and saw the President slumped

Then you turn around anc claim Connally's statements are contradictory:

No I turned and didn't see the Presdient

Exceot Connally does not say he saw the President slumped, does he? He says that the President HAD slumped. He's inferring that because he didn't see the President (and, since it was relatively safe to conclude that JFK didn't fly out of the car), that he must've been slumped over or else he would have seen him. It's also safe to assume that, because this was not a contemporaneous statement from Connally but, rather, sometime later, Connally is reflecting what he learned about JFK slumping.

This is the big problem in trying to reason with you. You take a statement, interpret it a certain way, then you won't even consider any other interpretation, no matter how silly or wrong your initial interpretation is. Nuance is not your strong suit.

[k-robjoe]

100. Context

"I turned to look in the back seat. The President had slumped."

Connally turning to look in the back seat. And seeing that the President had slumped :

[SDuderstadt]

3. Connally fell over into his wife's lap.....n/t

[Bassman66]

6. Oh yeah.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=945851971705051747

Seeing as people seem to like these computer sims that someone has spent an enormous amount of money on.

It's very close but Connolly does appear to be in direct line (or slightly to the left) when Kennedy's head gets hit.

Where did the bullet end up anyway if acted like "passing through a melon"?

If the bullet fragmented then it wasn't like passing through a melon and some of it's momentum would have been transferred to Kennedy's head.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Read both Connallys' testimony and they both stated...

that he collapsed in her lap after being hit. JFK, unfortunately, continued to be a prominent target because, among other reasons, he wore a fairly stiff backboard nearly everyday of his life, which prevented him from flopping over like Connally. Doesn't sound so suspect now, does it....

[Bassman66]

43. Look at the computer sim in the video.

His head was in line with Kennedy's (well very slightly left)

I noticed you avoided doing that.

Computer sims good, compter sims bad...

[SDuderstadt]

50. Do you see Nellie in the simulation?

I don't. Yet we know that he slumped over into her lap.

[Bassman66]

68. That's real funny.

No you can't see Nellie or her lap, they didn't animate her.

However they did animate Connally and unless Nellie was standing up his head wouldn't have been in her lap and it would have been in line with the Kennedy head shot.

Computer sims are good, computer sims are bad...

[SDuderstadt]

94. Watch the Zapruder film then. Jesus. n/t

[MinM]

44. Destroying the Single Bullet Theory - Frame 230

At the 7:30-minute mark of this video the 'Single Bullet Theory' is destroyed! :patriot:

[Bassman66]

45. Lapel flap

The hole is nowhere near the lapel.

So what is that in frame Z-224?

[SDuderstadt]

48. Let us know when you've solved the JFK assassination, Bassman.

I assume you'll turn your attention to it just as soon as you've solved 9/11. I can hardly wait.

[Bassman66]

69. Are you rattled?

It's the only way to explain some of these posts.

[SDuderstadt]

95. What's "rattling" is your absolute certainty....

about things you're poorly informed about.

[jberryhill]

54. So... anyway....

What computer simulation was it?

Not this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1970559950366261678

[Bassman66]

70. No I'm sure it won't be that one, it's inaccurate.

It has Oswald positioned in the snipers nest with a rifle when he should have been on the second floor with a bottle of coke.

[jberryhill]

74. And curtain rods...

Don't forget the curtain rods.

Obviously, he needed the curtain rods for some decorating work he had planned at the movie theater later that day.

[Bassman66]

75. No I don't believe he was holding the curtain rods when...

..he was seen on the second floor.

Also some of the vehicles in the video are seen running down predestrians and in 1963 I don't think that was legal but I'll have to look it up, it was Texas after all.

[jberryhill]

80. I'm talking about the curtain rods he brought to work that morning /nt

[Bassman66]

86. I don't see any curtain rods in the video.

They did find a paper bag that the curtain rods were in, but that's not in the video either.
There is something very wrong with this video.

[jberryhill]

87. Where do you suppose the curtain rods went?

[Bassman66]

90. That's a tough one.

There are no curtains in the video so I guess it rules that one out.

[jberryhill]

101. They landed at the corner of Church St. and Murray, I suppose /nt

[defendandprotect]

102. The "Magic bullet" and the head shot are two different shots . . .

The head shot missed Connolly . . . first, because he by that time had his head in

his wife's lap --- and second because the final head shot seems to have come from

the left front and from a lower position -- possibly from a storm drain.

But it did come from the side and Connolly was no where in the way for that shot.



The "MAGIC BULLET" which I'm repeating for you is a separate shot which is a lie.

Basically what they are telling you is that it enters JFK's back and goes thru his

body causing various wounds in Connolly. This is all a lie.

JFK's neck wound is a wound of ENTRANCE ---

The back wound was to his RIGHT SHOULDER --- IT WAS TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF HIS BACK.

AND IT WAS LOWER -- REPEAT LOWER -- THAN THE NECK WOUND.


This is a shot supposedly fired by Oswald from a sixth floor window at a DOWNWARD ANGLE.

AGAIN -- THE WOUND IN THE BACK IS LOWER AND IN THE PRESIDENT'S RIGHT SHOULDER.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Kennedy was leaning forward slightly while going down a hill.

His wounds are in a straight line from the sixth floor window.

The head wound moves his head forward in one frame of Zapruder before the explosion snaps his head back. In other words, it came from the rear as well.