Subject: "Six Seconds" Paradox
Date: 06 Apr 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000406014122.28476.00001198@ng-fw1.aol.com>
Some students of the JFK case who strongly disagree with conclusions of the Warren Commission argue that it would have been impossible for a putative sixth-floor gunman to fire three shots in only six seconds. It seems paradoxical that the primary source for the "six second" limitation was...the Warren Commission. It just seems odd that the same people who reject everything about the WC cling so strongly to this particular WC hypothesis.
The WC believed that the so-called "single bullet" was the first shot, and the headshot was the third shot. Thus, the "six second" limitation. But if the WC was wrong, and the first shot missed, the assassination took more than six seconds.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: "Six Seconds" Paradox
Date: 08 Apr 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000408010335.22240.00000275@ng-ci1.aol.com>
To those who pointed it out, it is true that the Warren Commission did not specifically conclude that the second shot missed, but the arguments it presents tend to suggest that they leaned that way. And the working papers of the Commission suggest that they leaned that way. The WC argues against a first shot miss and a third shot miss. But it is true that they do present aguments for and against the second shot miss, also.
Nevertheless, I was pointing out the paradox that the primary source of one of the principal arguments against the Warren Commission was the Warren Commission itself. It seems odd that some who reject much of the Warren Commission's evidence accept this one limitation.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: "Six Seconds" Paradox
Date: 08 Apr 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000408011037.22240.00000276@ng-ci1.aol.com>
Eric Chomko wrote:
>Conally is holding his hat in 230, a tough trick with a bullet
>hole. Conally was hit after 230 probably around 238
But isn't Connally continuing to hold his Stetson after 238, as well?
I've always been leery about drawing firm conclusions from what we subjectively see in the Zapruder film. I was strongly swayed by the Connally/238 evidence (Cheeks puff, shoulder drops, hair musses) until I saw the DVD version of the original film. It subjectively LOOKS like JFK and Connally both seem to lurch at around 224.