Nellie Connally Destroys the Single-Bullet Theory

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I believe that the autopsists were right when they hypothesized that the reason there was no throat exit wound is because the bullet was one of those blood soluble ones produced the CIA's MK-Ultra program.

If so, the toxin in it would have been a paralytic. I imagine that what we see with JFK is about what we'd see if had been given a paralytic shot.

It fits the known facts rather nicely.

 

Expand  

So he becomes paralyzed at z200 and then his arms jump up at z225.

 

You think the paralytic takes effect instantaneously?

(And JFK's arms don't exactly jump.)

 

[Michael Griffith]

Just behold the embarrassing, ridiculous, and disingenuous reaching that WC apologists are doing in this thread. It is a sight to behold. It would be comical if the subject were not a serious one. 

Given that someone has cited Pat Speer's analysis of Nellie Connally's testimony, I think we should look at some of Speer has said on the matter:

•           Bugliosi then has Nellie Connally, "startled by the loud frightening noise that emanates from somewhere to her right," turn to look in this direction. He stops it right there, and in the process, leaves something out. A big something. Her Warren Commission testimony, which Bugliosi cites, reads: "I heard a noise…I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck" (4H146-149). In subsequent interviews, Mrs. Connally would repeatedly assert that Kennedy was hit by this first shot. Why, if Bugliosi trusts her testimony that her husband yelled out "Oh, no, no, no!" just before he was shot--when she wasn't even focusing on her husband at the time--does he refuse to believe she saw Kennedy reacting to a shot when she claimed to be looking right at him?

•           On page 481, Bugliosi finally gets around to offering his reasons for rejecting Nellie Connally's consistent claim that she saw Kennedy, sitting but 3 feet away from her, react to the first shot. In one of the most bizarre and deceptive arguments in a book filled with bizarre and deceptive arguments, he asserts that we know Nellie Connally was confused because "In her Warren Commission testimony, she testified that immediately after hearing the first shot, she 'looked back and saw the president as he had both hands at his neck.' We know from the Zapruder film, of course, that Kennedy showed no visible reaction to the first shot around Z160, so we know Mrs. Connally was wrong." Well, I'll be. Talk of your circular reasoning. Bugliosi claims we know a shot was fired at frame 160 of the Zapruder film, in large part because Governor Connally testified to turning to his right just after the first shot. As President Kennedy was clearly not hit at this time, however, Bugliosi proposes that this first shot must have missed. This makes Governor Connally and his fervent belief that the first shot hit Kennedy an obstacle. No problem, says Bugliosi, Governor Connally was a gunshot wound victim, and his recollections of the moments just before and after he was shot are an understandable blur. Never mind that this undercuts the value of Connally's testimony, the very testimony upon which Bugliosi's first shot miss theory has been built. Besides, says Bugliosi, "Governor Connally's conclusion that the president was hit by the first shot is based solely, it seems, on the recollection of his wife, Nellie." And why can't we trust Nellie's recollection? Because her recollection conflicts with the first shot's being fired at frame 160, a precise time divined by Bugliosi from her "confused" husband's testimony! Apparently, we are to disregard the statements and testimony of any witness whose statements and testimony conflict with Bugliosi's proposed first shot miss, an event so far unsupported by the full statements and testimony of every witness he's provided.

•           But if that wasn't bad enough, on page 481 Bugliosi offers us a second reason to distrust Nellie Connally's assertion that the first shot struck the President. His second reason is that "She also said that after the first shot, she recalls her husband exclaiming, 'Oh, no, no, no.' But he testified, 'When I was hit' (which he said was by the second shot) is when 'I said 'Oh, no, no, no.'" Umm, wow. Did Bugliosi really forget that he'd previously argued that she was right when she said her husband yelled out "Oh, no, no, no!" after the first shot, and that he'd used her statement, at that time, to discredit her husband? He can't have it both ways. He can't say her husband is wrong because she disagrees with him and then turn around and say we can't trust her because he disagrees with her. (LINK)

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And if John Connally had been able to study this Z-Film clip of Z222-Z225 below (which I know he never was able to do before he died in 1993), what do think his opinion would have been regarding when he was hit?

What year was the lapel flip discovered?

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

What year was the lapel flip discovered?

Gerry,

The Connally "Lapel Flip" was first noticed/"discovered" in 1975 (see this 3-page excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book).

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

[David G. Healy]

23 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The HSCA was wrong. Their ridiculously early Z190 timing for the SBT is....well, as I just said....ridiculous.

If JFK had been hit in the back by a bullet as early as Z190, it is inconceivable that we would see his hands AS LOW as they are in Z224 and Z225....

[...]

And, btw, when watching the above Z224-Z225 Z-Film clip a few times in a row, a good argument can be made for Kennedy actually LOWERING his right hand a little bit between those two frames, which only further tends to discredit the HSCA's absurdly early Z190 timeline for the SBT shot.

 

trying to sell KFC chicken to red meat eaters is "fools folly" son... but you already know that don'tcha?

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

trying to sell KFC chicken to red meat eaters is "fools folly" son... but you already know that don'tcha?

Sounds like something Clint Eastwood would say back in the day.

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

trying to sell KFC chicken to red meat eaters is "fools folly" son...

Try telling that to all these people in Austin, Texas, in 1960. Or do you think all these customers were buying the "hamburgers" also being advertised? (Click To Enlarge....)

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sean Coleman]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Try telling that to all these people in Austin, Texas, in 1960. Or do you think all these customers were buying the "hamburgers" also being advertised? (Click To Enlarge....)

 

Ah, the good old days…..when a ‘bucket o beaks’ n a ‘claw sandwich’ cost 60c…

[Charles Blackmon]

2 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Ah, the good old days…..when a ‘bucket o beaks’ n a ‘claw sandwich’ cost 60c…

What's a claw sandwich? Is that a U.K. specialty?

[David Von Pein]

55 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Ah, the good old days…..when a ‘bucket o beaks’ n a ‘claw sandwich’ cost 60c…

Yes indeedy!

Just look at the low prices in these KFC ads from the 1950s and 1960s.

I was looking just today at what the local KFC in my town is currently charging for some of their menu items, and it's almost obscene. If you can believe it, a bucket of 16 pieces of chicken (chicken only, mind you, with no sides included), costs $48.99 -- plus tax of course! (I kid you not.)

(Did anybody faint yet? I almost did when I saw that price.)

I'm sure glad I retired from the KFC food service industry before such outrageous prices hit the menus. I remember being quite embarrassed to tell people at the drive-thru that their family meal would cost them $25 or so back in the 1990s. Today, a full family meal can easily set you back a hundred bucks. It's unreal.

But let's now go back to a time when you didn't need to mortgage the homestead AND sell the car just in order to enjoy a good meal with the Colonel.... 😁

Click for a bigger view....

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Sean Coleman]

On 6/11/2023 at 1:16 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

What's a claw sandwich? Is that a U.K. specialty?

 

mmmm….finger lickin’ good….

Also a past favorite was the ‘quart o chicken milk.’
Hellish expensive at $3.50. Rumour had it that KFC had to employ children with tiny hands as only they could manipulate the chicken’s little teats. 

How did this thread turn into a DVP enterprises inc promotion……

Edited July 9, 2023 by Sean Coleman

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

How did this thread turn into a DVP enterprises inc promotion[?]

Ask Healy.

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Charles Blackmon]

This hi-jacked thread got me to thinking about inflation and what things cost then vs now. It looks like when you compare apples to apples, the $49 you would spend today for a family meal at KFC is only about 3% more than the $3.59 you would have spent for same product in 1966. I used the O-6 military pay scale for Air Force Colonel for an example of pay inflation, a job which paid $12,700 a year for 22 years of service in 1966, vs $141,876 a year in 2022.

 

Of course that 3% shows that wages have not kept up with inflation, but it gives you reassurance that we aren't in hyper-inflation (yet).

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

the $49 you would spend today for a family meal at KFC

But it's not a MEAL for $49, it's JUST the chicken. Nothing else. So your inflation comparison needs to be revised.

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by David Von Pein