David Von Pein

Good. Now Ron Bulman also seems to be admitting that John Connally's wrist was, indeed, struck by a bullet as early as Z226. Excellent. Progress is being made.

You think ALL of this large amount of movement of Connally's right hand was being caused ONLY by the bullet itself, vs. some (if not most) of this movement being the result of Connally exhibiting an involuntary reflex reaction? You think the bullet itself moved the hand this much? I kind of doubt that, John. But at least you're willing to acknowledge that John Connally's wrist WAS hit by a bullet prior to Z227. Most members of this forum don't agree with you on that point at all.

Good gosh, you're splitting a lot of hairs here. You seem to want to fine-tune it down to about a millionth of a second regarding each victim's reaction time. Fact is, of course, that reaction times to people getting struck by bullets will vary from person to person. But in this Z-Film instance, we can SEE the two people who were being hit by a rifle bullet jerking their arms upward at precisely the same instant. Now, CTers can argue (and they will) that the REASON for the simultaneous reactions we see in JFK & JBC is not that they were actually reacting to the BULLET that was hitting them at just about this exact same time (and even CTers will have to agree with my "just about" statement here), but CTers will likely say that Connally was merely reacting to the SOUND of a bullet he heard whiz past his ear. I'd then ask: What's causing this sudden jerking up of Connally's right arm---the very same arm/wrist that (per CTers) has not yet been hit (but WILL be hit) by a bullet in another fraction of a second? Just hearing the SOUND of a bullet is causing this hat dance? That's a mighty convenient excuse for CTers, IMO.

Look again. The right hands of both Kennedy and Connally are rising upward at exactly the same instant. And keep in mind, it was Connally's right wrist that was smashed by a bullet:

And Mr. Niederhut can make the above bold (and totally unproven) claim despite the conclusions reached by multiple different official entities (WC, HSCA, Clark, and Rockefeller) who were assigned the task of looking into various aspects of the JFK case (and all of those entities, of course, also had the original first-generation autopsy photos and X-rays to look at during their respective investigations). But, I guess Mr. Niederhut thinks that ALL of the above organizations totally blew it (or simply lied)----from the WC on down the line. I don't blame Niederhut for not wanting to continue any kind of evidence-based discussion. If I were a CTer faced with the above two quotes I provided earlier, I'd bid everyone a hasty "adios" as well.

Basic Fact: JFK had just one single bullet hole of entry in his head. And that entry wound was located in the BACK of his head. Even with the "Above EOP or Below EOP?" controversy (and I don't deny there was and still is such a controversy), the ONE and ONLY entry wound was still definitely located in the REAR of Kennedy's skull without doubt. Here's what Dr. Michael Baden of the HSCA's FPP had to say: "There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; January 8, 2000 [Via Source Note #168 on Page 408 of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History"] And here's what four other doctors concluded for the Clark Panel in 1968: "Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

Yes.

Related Discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-709.html

The markings of both Frazier and Killion are visible on the bullet in this gif image posted earlier by Mark Ulrik:

Sean Coleman was correct in his earlier post on Page 6. I'm retired now though. None. I utilize video-sharing and blog platforms that require no funding at all. (The free Internet is great, isn't it? I only hope it can stay that way in the future.) My motives are simple --- I truly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who killed both John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. And Oswald very likely committed those murders on his own. Is it really any weirder than yours though?

I tip my hat to you, Joe. I think you might be the first Internet conspiracy believer that I have ever encountered to accept the SBT.

Those particular gifs are ones that I (thankfully) downloaded from Debra Conway's old JFK Lancer forum in approx. 2003. And I think most of those Z-Film clips, which I've also put all in one place on one of my Single-Bullet Theory In Action webpages, were originally posted at the Lancer forum by Bill Miller (remember him?). Bill and I had a lot of heated battles in the middle of the night during the days (and nights) when Lancer was thriving with lots of activity (circa 2002-2005). I could be misremembering who it was who originally posted all those handy Z-Film gif clips at Lancer in the early 2000s. Perhaps it wasn't Bill Miller. But I think he at least provided some of them at any rate. Anyway, I can tell you that it wasn't me who originally posted them online. But I'm certainly very glad I had enough sense to download them all for safe keeping. BTW, anybody and everybody (LNers and CTers alike) are, of course, free to download anything they want to download from any of my websites and blogs. On my Google Drive video pages, Google is even nice enough to provide a specific Download button in the upper-right portion of every "Drive" page. (Which is something that YouTube has unfortunately never provided.)

Same to ya.

Yes, that's precisely what he did. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIc3hRRHluY2NmR2c/view

Even though we can easily see that the two victims are clearly reacting to external stimulus at exactly the same time, beginning at Z225:

Beats me. It has never applied. A mistake, I guess. [And that mistake was corrected by the EF mods on July 30, 2022. Thank you.] Gee, thanks. Nice talking to you too.

A better question that you should be asking (given your belief of LHO actually being on the steps at 12:30) is: Why did Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF cover up his own perfect alibi? He never said a word to anybody during his interrogation about being on the steps during the shooting. Why not, Sandy? (And, no, I don't think Fritz & Co. lied about the things LHO said while in custody.)

You need to read (or re-read) "Reclaiming History". All of that stuff is covered in supreme detail by Vince B. in that book. Sandy, it seems to me that you have fallen for lots of conspiracy-tinged junk that even many CTers have abandoned. (The silly "$6500 up-front money" nonsense being a prime example.)

IMO, the SBT is a virtual certainty. No other anti-SBT alternative comes within fifty miles of matching the single-bullet conclusion. Do CTers really think that all of this shrugging and flinching and mouth-opening and grimacing and hat-flipping and lapel-flipping on the part of John Connally is being caused by something OTHER than a bullet? Really?....

So, you think that Oswald's note to Marina (Commission Exhibit No. 1) is a fake and a fraud, Sandy? Even though it was determined by both the WC and HSCA to have been written by LHO himself?

Why are you saying this, Sandy? Of course it happened. Oswald's on video saying it on live TV:

I disagree. I think the LNers are much better than CTers at evaluating the sum total of the JFK evidence and much better at reaching a more plausible and reasonable conclusion from that evidence. Here's something written four years ago by an outspoken LNer at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet Newsgroup. I think he makes some very good points here. (And I've changed a few not-so-kind terms to "CTers").... "The [conspiracy theorists] hate Occam's Razor, because in almost every case they opt for complex and fantastic explanations. Not once or twice. Not even dozens of times. HUNDREDS of times. This is why they won't put their ideas out there. Think I'm exaggerating? Just look at one thing, the BY [backyard] photo. Two possibilities, fake or genuine. They opt for the fantastic one. Now "faked" comes with a whole truckload of fantastic subsets --- getting competent people on board, acquiring a suitable "head" to use, etc. Now there are two possibilities why it was among Oswald's possessions, a simple one, it was one of his possessions or a fantastic one, it was planted. Again, the [CTers] opt for the complex fantastic one. Marina said she took a photo of Oswald holding the rifle. The simple answer is that this is true, the complex and fantastic one is that someone put her up to lying about this. Again the [CTers] go for the fantastic. Before they are done with this single issue they have posited an impossibly fantastic scenario involving dozens of people." -- Bud; June 30, 2018 You don't know that, Sandy. Oswald very likely DID have a motive. We just don't know FOR SURE what that motive was. "Motive" Talk: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-892.html Totally untrue, Sandy. The evidence indicates he tried to end the life of another human being on April 10, 1963 (General Edwin Walker). That certainly qualifies as a "history of violence". Actually, the evidence strongly indicates exactly the opposite. I believe Oswald was in Mexico City in Sept/Oct '63. But I don't think he was involved in any "plot" with Russia/Cuba. And I certainly don't believe there were any "Oswald imposters" running all over the place. There were no such "imposters" in Mexico and none in the USA either. (IMO.)

You're right. No harm in advocating for that at all. I'm all for it. I'd love to see higher-quality versions of those films.

Yikes! You mean you actually endorse the blurry-as-all-get-out "Prayer Man" theory? That theory is about as solid as a bowl of mush. (More here.) If Oswald had really been standing on the front steps at 12:30, can you explain why I don't have in my extensive video collection a recording of Oswald yelling this out to the TV cameras (or something similar) when he had ample opportunities to do so on both Nov. 22 and Nov. 23?.... "No, I didn't shoot JFK! I was standing right next to my friend Wesley Frazier on the steps of the Depository at the time of the shooting!" Instead, Oswald admits to the press he was INSIDE the building when JFK was being shot. Doesn't that seem kind of strange to you if Oswald, as you say, had an "airtight alibi"?