Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » You only have to look at Connallys injuries to know for a fact that the shots came from behind.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Connolly does not believe the Warren Commission. He said the bullet hit him was a second bullet. He only believes Lee Oswald was the shooter. Why is so improbable for a second shooter or more to be involved. They found only 1 bullet on a stretcher that nobody knows where it came from. This single bullet found on a stretcher is how we ended up blaming Oswald and believing 1 bullet hit Kennedy, and Connolly. This is crazy stuff.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » All 4 men who found the rifle at the scene said it was a Mauser 7.65. I have hard time believing 4 police officers made a mistake? I think least two changed their mind forced to i betting. Two others stuck to their guns. And least i forget Roger Craig had least 3 assassination attempts against his life, after this. Never mind the countless others killed for the connection to this event.
The neutron activation analysis further supported the single bullet theory by indicating that there was evidence of only two bullets among the fragments recovered from the limousine and its occupants.(40) The consultant who conducted the analysis concluded that it was "highly likely" that CE 399 and the fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist were from one bullet; that one of the two fragments recovered from the floor of the limousine and the fragment removed from the President's brain during the autopsy were from a second bullet. (41)3 Neutron activation analysis showed no evidence of a third bullet among those fragments large enough to be tested.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Yes he does in their overall final decision,"I am convinced beyond any doubt that I was not struck by the first bullet, but just because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one finding does not mean I disagree with their overall findings."
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It don't work like that. If you disagree with the single bullet theory this means you disagree that Oswald fired a shot that hit you and Kennedy. If he was hit with a bullet and Kennedy was hit with two bullets. And 1 bullet missed. This means we have a second shooter. Eyetwitnesses claim to have heard between 4 and 6 shots that day.
Are Am Eye wrote: » Yes but as you said earlier on you can't draw any inferences from this. You're not telling us what happened in the Book Depository. Why was the gun changed?
tomwaterford wrote: » Surly the videos of the day will tell how many gun shots there were??
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The only evidence for a Carcano rifle was when Oswald was arrested and later they produced this rifle. Before this the rifle was a Mauser 7.65. So the rifle change occurred after this.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Eyetwitnesses claim to have heard between 4 and 6 shots that day.
Are Am Eye wrote: » Who fired the Mauser? You're just trying to pick holes in the established case. You can't describe any alternative narrative. I've listened to loads of conspiracy theorists. There's not just one alternative. But they'll all have their view of what went down I keep asking you what you think went down. And you refuse to answer. Is this because you don't know what happened.
Are Am Eye wrote: » Over 80% of witnesses heard three shots.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » This is what you Skeptics fail to understand continuously.
Charmeleon wrote: » He wasn't hit by the first bullet, either was JFK. They were both hit by the second shot that was fired. He had his back turned to JFK so couldn't see that JFK was reaching for his neck at the exact same time Connolly's jack puffs out as the bullet passes through. It is impossible for Connolly to know what bullet hit JFK first, he couldn't see through the back of his head. The Zapruder film shows they were both hit at the same time.
tomwaterford wrote: » Surly a skeptic is someone who deosnt believe the offial line?? Failing to understand this,deosnt bode well for amy future inquires you wish to lead?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I already told you my opinion, do you need glasses to read?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Forum debates. The Skeptics battle the conspiracy people. I understand the point the you making and it's valid.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » False.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Even Connolly thinks there was a 4 shots if my math is right!
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Watch the Zaprauder film also. A shot to the back of the head would have thrown brain matter into the air and it would have been visually easy to see.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » False. Even Connolly thinks there was a 4 shots if my math is right!
The Nal wrote: » Thats not false. Thats correct. 81% of people heard three shots. You're stuck in The Warren Commission and Rush to Judgement in 1966. 51 years of research has happened since. Read up man!
The Nal wrote: » Nope, you're wrong. Again. Connolly describes 3 shots, the 2nd only because he felt it being hit in the back."It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot." Here he is on his hospital bed describing 3 shots. And here he is talking about it years later. Connolly basically, wasn't sure. A man who has just been shot isn't going to be reliable for details.
The Nal wrote: » Explain a couple of things to me: 1. The bullet wipe on the rear of JFKs jacket. Impossible unless its the first surface hit. 2. The entry wound to Connollys back (and jacket) from a bullet in yaw. Impossible unless its the 2nd object hit. Bullets don't enter sideways unless they've just exited something. Thats when they tumble. 3. The squeeze on CE399 which is consistent with above, entering Connolly going sideways, slightly pancaking the bullet.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The percentage you have come up with too high. I have watched numerous JFK tv and documentary films over the years. Saw Eyewitnesses interviewed by newsman and reporters, and many of them were asked,’ how many shots you hear? While I agree the majority of eyewitnesses heard at least 3 shots,’ about 40 per cent of the eyewitnesses heard 4 shots or more. I would say the statistic is lot closer to 60%-40%
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Disingenuous of you to say he was not sure his always confident he was not shot with the same bullet. Please don’t be saying things that are not true!
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Connolly, does not believe the same bullet could have hit him and Kennedy. The Zaprauder home video,, appears to show a second or two delay between the rifle shots.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The four policemen first on the scene find a Mauser 7.65 rifle. There is no reports of finding a Carcano Italian made rifle at the scene. The rifle change occurred many hours (24 hours later) after Oswald was captured as a suspect.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The Warren Commission own ballistic experts could not at any time replicate the magic bullet damage. The WC ballistic experts strongly disagreed the bullet found suspiciously on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital (with no blood on the bullet) was the bullet that caused the damage to Connolly and Kennedy. We even have photographs of the tests and the damage to the bullets. So the bullet that was recovered at Parkland Hospital was not fired that day.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Never mind their denial Jack Ruby knew Oswald. Eyewitnesses have come forward even Oswald best friend revealed Oswald knew Jack Ruby and was seen hanging out with Guy Bannister, David Ferrie and Ruby at local hangouts.
The Nal wrote: » I More Jim Garrison madness. The wackiest of the wacky. Even Mark Lane said that. Really not even worth discussing. You've still ignored the JFK bullet wound pic, the bullet wipe, the bullet yaw wound to Connolly amongst other things. You have no interest in acknowledging anything that doesn't fit in with your tremendously broad and vague conspiracy theories. You're literally ignoring fact to suit yourself.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » You're a person who is clearly in denial. You can't even accept Connolly testimony you're a lost cause. There is no timeline when the rifle was shown to the News Reporters and onlookers. Do you not know a Carcano rifle and Mauser resemble each other on first look to a layman. We would have to look over this rifle over to be sure it was not a Mauser they are showing off, anyways either way you have yet to explain how Police officers can mistake identifying markings on the rifle they found? The Warren Commission own ballistic experts disagree with their findings, but this is the fault of Mark Lane and conspiracy minded people is this your belief. Nobody has replicated the magic bullet theory. You're peddling lies. According to you doctors who operated on Kennedy, the Ballistic experts, the eyewitnesses and police officers got it wrong, we should just trust the panel of politicians who wrote the Warren Commission report instead?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » a blind man wouldn't confuse them
