View Single Post
Old 11th July 2015, 04:48 PM   #3273
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Does that sound like two shots to you:-)

LOL! Of course not. And his repeated use of the singular pronoun "it", makes it pretty clear, how many shots he heard then.

Perhaps you are being confused by this sentence,

"I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President."

...If Connally thought he heard two shots then, don't you think he would have said so?
All of the above is just one long straw man argument. I never said Connally heard two shots at the very end -- that's something you just invented to prolong the discussion. I said he heard two sounds at the very end -- one shot and one impact on the head.

Really, how do you expect to be able to rebut my claims if you can't understand my claims and even repeat them back to me accurately?


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Let's cut to the chase.
[Connally said:] "I didn't hear but two shots."
That's exactly what I said. What confused you about these remarks?

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Connally was quite clear about what he heard. Two shots, and an impact of the final shot. And he described two separate sounds connected with the final shot.

Did Connally remember two sounds at the end, the sound of the rifle shot and the sound of the impact?

Connally said he heard both the shot and the impact ...

That's not [Connally] saying he heard both the shot, and the impact of the shot?


Curiously, imbedded in your post, you also admit the very point I've been arguing for, and you've been arguing against:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
He's not describing two separate shots. He says he heard the shot his [hit] "something", which he correctly presumed, was the President.
JACKPOT. Yes, we have a winner!

Connally heard, in addition to one earlier shot, a final shot, and ALSO the impact of that final shot.

YOU JUST ADMITTED IT.

That's what I said originally, and what you originally argued he never said anything remotely like that. Forget your arguments? I don't. I sometimes just have to pick my spots.

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
For example, Governor Connally not only described the brain matter, he clearly differentiated between the sound of the final bullet being fired and the sound of the impact on the head.
== QUOTE ==
Governor CONNALLY. ... 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.

== UNQUOTE ==
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
He never said anything even remotely like what you claimed. In fact, he was very clear that he only heard two shots in total. Unlike the other witnesses, he only heard one of the final shots, which isn't too surprising, considering that he was only a few seconds from losing consciousness.
Connally heard two shots, and the impact of the final shot.
Exactly what Hill described.
Exactly what Kellerman was describing.

Those final two sounds are what many witnesses are talking about when they say the final two shots were "bunched", "on top of each other", "simultaneous", etc. One shot and one sound of impact, which you admit above is what Connally testified to (two sounds, closely bunched).

If there was a shot shortly before that (at about Z285), those witnesses should have described three sounds, two bunched shots and the sound of the Impact, or three closely bunched shots. Connally didn't, Clint Hill didn't, Kellerman didn't, Mrs. Kennedy didn't, Greer didn't.

Robert, exactly what witnesses did describe three sounds bunched at the end?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th July 2015 at 05:26 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top