When Was JBC Hit?

[Andrew Mason]

That's not what Shaw actually said. He said that he debrided tissue "down to the region of the femur."

"The region of the femur" is a non-specific phrase that could mean anywhere relatively close to the bone. More importantly, he's the guy digging the hole that deep. The bullet wound is generally not as deep as the debrided volume around it, and as any Fackler will tell you, surgeons were in the habit of over-treating these wounds by removing too much tissue.

Well, he said there was a lead fragment embedded in the femur. Please explain how that occurs if the bullet does not touch the femur.

[Charles Collins]

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.  There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.


You cannot be referring to anything said by Brehm in his statements. In his interview with the Dallas Times Herald on 22Nov63 he recalled only two shots in total and JFK reacting to both. 

In a later FBI statement he described the same two shots but added that there was a third shot afterward. He said the President was very close at the time of the first shot. 

He was very detailed in both statements about JFK’s facial and bodily reactions to the first shot. In his FBI statement he said he thought the President was badly hit in the head but he describes seeing the President’s hair fly up on the second shot. No mention of his head exploding or even seeing blood. The hair flying up does not describe the dominant impression of the head shot.

He mentioned a third shot after that but does not describe any effect.  Mind you he was there with his 5 year old son so he may have been momentarily distracted. So his failure to notice the effect of the third shot may be because he had stopped looking at the President by the time of the third shot.

 What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.  His observation of JFK’s hair flying up on the second shot (which Hickey also observed at the time of the second shot) and his subsequent learning of JFK being shot in the head may explain why he thought the second shot struck him in the head.

Very few said the last two were that close. Even Brehm said they sounded like they were spaced “just about as quickly as an individual can manoeuvre a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.” 22H837

That is a hard to fit with three shots over 10 seconds.

He also said he was interested in seeing JFK because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination taking place. So his purpose in turning around was to see the President.
You naturally sit with your legs up well above your hips with your legs together?

Shires said the bullet passed through the subcutaneous fat and penetrated the outer thigh muscle. How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur? Explain the physics of that for us.
But you cannot conclude that he must have felt it immediately or even likely felt it immediately without evidence. The evidence is a. That he never felt it and b. many if not most people feel nothing initially from being shot when they remain conscious and the bullet produces no immediate functional impairment.

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.

No, they presented the evidence that the Single Bullet Conclusion is the only conclusion that fits the evidence.


There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

Tague would disagree with this opinion of yours.


What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.

No one said that Brehm saw it hit JBC. But when he learned that JBC had also been shot, he said that he deduced “within hours” that a bullet that hit JFK also hit JBC.
I suggest that you read the chapter on Charles Brehm in “No More Silence”. Then you won’t need to guess about these things.



How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur?

First, I am not certain that it did embed in the femur. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the x-ray. In response to your question, the same way a passenger (who is not wearing a seatbelt) in an automobile is thrown through the windshield when the automobile comes to an abrupt stop (in a crash for instance).

[Mitch Todd]

Well, he said there was a lead fragment embedded in the femur. Please explain how that occurs if the bullet does not touch the femur.

Yeah. He said there was a bullet fragment in the femur. That was his interpretation of Connally's leg x-rays. However, every other physician I can think of who has studied them says that Shaw's interpretation erroneous. Shaw was misled by an x-ray artefact on one of the images, and they place the actual fragment fairly near the surface. 

[Andrew Mason]

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.

No, they presented the evidence that the Single Bullet Conclusion is the only conclusion that fits the evidence.

In the section “The Shot That Missed” they went through evidence for each of the shots. For each shot they listed evidence that the shot did not miss and then discussed how that evidence may be flawed.  For each shot there were multiple independent pieces of evidence that each shot did not miss.  But they do not cite any evidence of anyone saying that the shot missed.

The closest they come is with the first shot and the statement of SA Bennett. After suggesting that he was a very important witness (but carefully fail to offer any explanation of why he was not called to testify) as one of his statements - but not his notes made shortly after the events - suggest that the second shot struck JFK in the back. They then go through evidence that it missed and suggest that JBC could support a finding that the first shot missed because he turned “slightly” to the right and didn’t see JFK so maybe he had not been hit. They suggest that Nellie may have been confused about seeing JFK reacting before the second shot (not mentioning the film showing her watching JFK in the z250s but not looking at him anywhere around z225). They then practically concede that there is a lot of other evidence that the first shot struck and then suggest that JBC didn’t feel it right away.

There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

Tague would disagree with this opinion of yours.

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the shot on which Tague was hit (which he said was not the first and not the last of the three shots he heard) was a missed shot.  The fragment that deflected up off the curb had already struck something substantial before that, as it left residue of lead/antimony but no copper on the curb. There is absolutely zero evidence for a bullet impact anywhere outside the car.

What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.

No one said that Brehm saw it hit JBC. But when he learned that JBC had also been shot, he said that he deduced “within hours” that a bullet that hit JFK also hit JBC.
I suggest that you read the chapter on Charles Brehm in “No More Silence”. Then you won’t need to guess about these things.

If that is your definition of a witness who said that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that passed through JFK, you would have to include Arlen Specter, David Von Pein, and anyone else who reached that conclusion from seeing the film.

[/quote]

How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur?

First, I am not certain that it did embed in the femur. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the x-ray. In response to your question, the same way a passenger (who is not wearing a seatbelt) in an automobile is thrown through the windshield when the automobile comes to an abrupt stop (in a crash for instance).
[/quote]It was your contention that Dr. Shires did not say the bullet struck the femur.

 If your only answer is that a piece of lead could have separated from the base somehow and somehow avoided striking the same material that stopped the bullet

[Andrew Mason]

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.

No, they presented the evidence that the Single Bullet Conclusion is the only conclusion that fits the evidence.

The WC suggests that the SBT must be correct and, therefore, one shot missed.  But they acknowledge the evidence that each shot did not miss and cannot reach any conclusion as to which shot missed.  They cling to the SBT despite being unable to conclude which shot must have missed.

In the section “The Shot That Missed” they went through evidence for each of the shots. For each shot they listed evidence that the shot did not miss and then discussed how that evidence may be flawed.  For each shot there were multiple independent pieces of evidence that each shot did not miss. There is almost no evidence that any of the shots missed.

The closest they come is with the first shot and the statement of SA Bennett. After suggesting that he was a very important witness (but carefully fail to offer any explanation of why he was not called to testify) as one of his statements - but not his notes made shortly after the events - suggest that the second shot struck JFK in the back. They then go through evidence that it did not miss.  They suggest that JBC could support a finding that the first shot missed because he turned “slightly” to the right and didn’t see JFK so maybe he had not been hit. They suggest that Nellie may have been confused about seeing JFK reacting before the second shot (not mentioning the film showing her watching JFK in the z250s but not looking at him anywhere around z225). They then practically concede that there is a lot of other evidence that the first shot struck and suggest that JBC didn’t feel it right away.

There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

Tague would disagree with this opinion of yours.

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the shot on which Tague was hit (which he said was not the first and not the last of the three shots he heard) was a missed shot.  The fragment that deflected up off the curb had already struck something substantial before that, as it left residue of lead/antimony but no copper on the curb. There is absolutely zero evidence for a bullet impact anywhere outside the car.

What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.

No one said that Brehm saw it hit JBC. But when he learned that JBC had also been shot, he said that he deduced “within hours” that a bullet that hit JFK also hit JBC.
I suggest that you read the chapter on Charles Brehm in “No More Silence”. Then you won’t need to guess about these things.

If that is your definition of a witness who said that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that passed through JFK, you would have to include Arlen Specter, David Von Pein, and anyone else who reached that conclusion from seeing the film.

How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur?

First, I am not certain that it did embed in the femur. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the x-ray. In response to your question, the same way a passenger (who is not wearing a seatbelt) in an automobile is thrown through the windshield when the automobile comes to an abrupt stop (in a crash for instance).

It was your contention that Dr. Shires did not say the bullet struck the femur. Shires always maintained that the lead was embedded in the femur.

Your only answer is that a piece of lead could have separated from the base somehow and somehow avoided striking the same material that the bullet encountered? Or was it like a car accident in which your body is stopped by the seatbelt but your nose flies off your face and hits the windshield?

[Dan O'meara]

It is interesting that Connally did not recall hearing the shot that hit him, as he describes the shots he did hear as being "very loud" and that he immediately recognised them as rifle shots:


"I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot."
"...once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot,"

Equally, he is certain about the headshot:

"...the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly."
"It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear."

When asked about the time gap between hearing the first shot and when he was hit by the second shot, it is clear he is describing a "split second", that is to say, a time gap of less than one second.

Mr. SPECTER: "What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?"

Governor CONNALLY: "A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit."

The following is lifted from the Pat Speers website -

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) "When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…"

A very, very brief span of time
Two or three people involved
Automatic rifle
My God it was fast
A split second
Unbelievably quick

Connally appears to be describing two shots, less than one second apart. He hears the first "very loud" rifle shot but not the second. Instead, after less than one second, he is aware of the impact of a second shot. We know there wasn't initially two shots less than a second apart so what is he describing?
It is well known that when a person recalls a traumatic event, the memory of that event can be distorted in various ways. John Connally was sat in the limo, probably thinking about the the Trade Mart as it was clear the parade was coming to an end. He was then shot through the torso, a massively traumatic, life-threatening injury. The worst person to ask to give an accurate account of this event would probably be Connally himself. The following quotes are from a research article entitled "Does Time Really Slow Down during a Frightening Event?"  [Chess Stetson, Matthew P. Fiesta, David M. Eagleman. Published: December 12, 2007https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001295]:

"Observers commonly report that time seems to have moved in slow motion during a life-threatening event."

"Our findings suggest that time-slowing is a function of recollection, not perception: a richer encoding of memory may cause a salient event to appear, retrospectively, as though it lasted longer."

"Temporal judgments – such as duration, order, and simultaneity – are subject to distortions."

The distortion of "temporal judgements" when trying to recollect a traumatic event are commonplace and it is in this light that JBC's recollections should be viewed. JBC is genuinely recalling events to the best of his ability, the problem being that his memory of the event is subject to various distortions.
When he is describing hearing the first shot and feeling the second shot less than a second later, he is actually describing the same shot. The "split second" time gap is caused by the fact it takes human beings a little time to become consciously aware of what is happening:

"Human thought takes time to form, and so the “right now” that we’re experiencing inside our skulls is always a little later than what’s going on in the outside world. It takes 500 milliseconds, or half a second, for sensory information from the outside world to be incorporated into conscious experience."

[ https://nymag.com/speed/2016/12/what-is-the-speed-of-thought.html#:~:text=Human%20thought%20takes%20time%20to,be%20incorporated%20into%20conscious%20experience. ]

JBC is hit
100 milliseconds later the sound of the shot arrives
400 milliseconds after that JBC becomes aware of being shot
In terms of z-frames the difference between being shot and becoming aware of it is approximately 9 frames.
If, as I propose, the first shot passed through JBC by z223, we should expect him to become consciously aware of being shot around z232.
JBC is hit at z223
The sound of the shot reaches him @ z225
He becomes consciously aware of being shot from z232 onwards
It is no coincidence that, after careful examination of specific Z-frames Connally identifies somewhere around z231 - z234 as the moment he is hit.
His recollections of the event are of someone 'projecting back' to this traumatic moment. His memories are not a 'video record' of what happened. His memory is 'stretching out' this split second moment:

"Trauma memories – like all memories – are malleable and prone to distortion...After a traumatic experience, intentional remembering (effortful retrieval) and unintentional remembering (intrusive mental imagery) can introduce new details that, over time, assimilate into a person’s memory for the event..."
[Memory Distortion for Traumatic Events: The Role of Mental Imagery]

It is also no coincidence that around z232 is the only time JBC is looking slightly left as this is the position he remembers being in when he first became aware of being shot:

"I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."

In this extreme close up we see JBC turning left until he is facing " a little bit to the left of center" : 



It is at this moment JBC becomes aware that he is hit.

[Charles Collins]

The WC suggests that the SBT must be correct and, therefore, one shot missed.  But they acknowledge the evidence that each shot did not miss and cannot reach any conclusion as to which shot missed.  They cling to the SBT despite being unable to conclude which shot must have missed.

In the section “The Shot That Missed” they went through evidence for each of the shots. For each shot they listed evidence that the shot did not miss and then discussed how that evidence may be flawed.  For each shot there were multiple independent pieces of evidence that each shot did not miss. There is almost no evidence that any of the shots missed.

The closest they come is with the first shot and the statement of SA Bennett. After suggesting that he was a very important witness (but carefully fail to offer any explanation of why he was not called to testify) as one of his statements - but not his notes made shortly after the events - suggest that the second shot struck JFK in the back. They then go through evidence that it did not miss.  They suggest that JBC could support a finding that the first shot missed because he turned “slightly” to the right and didn’t see JFK so maybe he had not been hit. They suggest that Nellie may have been confused about seeing JFK reacting before the second shot (not mentioning the film showing her watching JFK in the z250s but not looking at him anywhere around z225). They then practically concede that there is a lot of other evidence that the first shot struck and suggest that JBC didn’t feel it right away.There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the shot on which Tague was hit (which he said was not the first and not the last of the three shots he heard) was a missed shot.  The fragment that deflected up off the curb had already struck something substantial before that, as it left residue of lead/antimony but no copper on the curb. There is absolutely zero evidence for a bullet impact anywhere outside the car.

If that is your definition of a witness who said that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that passed through JFK, you would have to include Arlen Specter, David Von Pein, and anyone else who reached that conclusion from seeing the film.
It was your contention that Dr. Shires did not say the bullet struck the femur. Shires always maintained that the lead was embedded in the femur.

Your only answer is that a piece of lead could have separated from the base somehow and somehow avoided striking the same material that the bullet encountered? Or was it like a car accident in which your body is stopped by the seatbelt but your nose flies off your face and hits the windshield?

The WC suggests that the SBT must be correct and, therefore, one shot missed.  But they acknowledge the evidence that each shot did not miss and cannot reach any conclusion as to which shot missed.  They cling to the SBT despite being unable to conclude which shot must have missed.

It is not necessary to conclude which shot missed in order to conclude that the single bullet conclusion is correct. There is conflicting evidence throughout this case and in most cases. It should be expected that there would be conflicting evidence regarding which shot missed.


If that is your definition of a witness who said that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that passed through JFK, you would have to include Arlen Specter, David Von Pein, and anyone else who reached that conclusion from seeing the film.

Yeah, well I was a live television witness to Ruby fatally shooting LHO. So were millions of other television viewers. But none of us were actually there to see it in person. Charles Brehm, on the other hand, was only feet from the limo when the shots were fired. That is what makes him a witness. The fact that he deduced the single bullet idea can be partially contributed to his personal war time experiences. He makes a very believable witness.



Your only answer is that a piece of lead could have separated from the base somehow and somehow avoided striking the same material that the bullet encountered? Or was it like a car accident in which your body is stopped by the seatbelt but your nose flies off your face and hits the windshield?

Now you are just being silly. The bullet had already struck two bones and was deformed by that impact. Very small lead particles were also deposited in JBC’s wrist, etc. The base of CE 399 shows us that a small portion of the lead had already been squeezed outwards similar to toothpaste being squeezed out of its tube. Under the above conditions, upon impact with the thigh, more small lead particles could be expected to be jarred loose from the base of the bullet. This is due to the sudden stop. (Example: It’s not the fall from the cliff that kills you. It is the sudden stop at the bottom.)