Creative Speculation

> The "unsubstantiated speculations" in episode #12 are the conclusions of the HSCA's photographic panel...

The actual conclusions of the photographic panel were:

So in the first place, the reason that they had to take a vote on the questions was because there was a difference of opinion about the answers, with no objective fact that could be derived from the film to settle those differences of opinion. It simply isn't possible to establish as objective fact when each man was hit using the Zapruder, so any arguments that begin by pretending you can is inherently fallacious.

Furthermore, there's nothing in that conclusion to support your assertion that "Connally has not yet been hit by a bullet." What it actually says is that most of the experts voted that the first visible sign of a reaction in the film is "virtually immediately after be is seen emerging from behind the sign that obstructed Zapruder's view." If Connally was also hit when the panel voted that JFK was hit, frame 207, any reaction then wouldn't be seen in the film because Connally was behind the sign. Or, if the first actual reaction was at frame 224, that doesn't necessarily imply that that's when he was hit, because the visible reaction could have been delayed by a second. But you just offer your speculations as fact and jump to the unsound conclusion that there were two shots one second apart. Speculation is not evidence.

> If you had watched with care and attention, you would have realized that the case had already been made that Ms Adams WAS accurate about her timings and this was not only corroborated, but it was done with a visual reference - i.e. Miss Garner saw the two women leave to the staircase and then afterwards saw Mr Truly and officer Baker heading upstairs. These are the two men who encountered Oswald in the lunch room.

Um, maybe I didn't "realize" that because no such case is made in the video? How much "care and attention" is required to "realize" something that isn't there? But whatever... if you now want to make that argument, then actually make it or link to something that does and we'll see if the claims can withstand scrutiny.