Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?

[Charles Collins]

I truly have no dog in the fight - and am not even sure what the fight is - but in the clips on page 6 of this thread it certainly looks to me as though the other women are doing "Yoo-hoo!" waving at something in the motorcade (I suppose LBJ had his fans too) and not pointing up at the sixth floor window. I'll bow out, but it does seem to me that these disputes over what the films and photographs show and what the witnesses said eventually turn into Rorshach exercises.

Thanks Lance, your opinion is appreciated and duly noted. I don’t rule out the possibility that you are correct. But I would point out that it appears there is nothing but a big gap in the motorcade where they appear to be looking and pointing. And the sniper would be up there where they could have easily seen him taking aim (if not already firing the first shot).

[Michael T. Griffith]

IOW, never mind what the guy who actually experienced the wound said about when he was hit, even though he spent considerable time analyzing the Zapruder film, first with the WC and then with LIFE magazine in 1967. When he studied the film with LIFE, he studied a high-quality print under high magnification. He insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229.

But, WC apologists cannot accept this because it destroys the single-bullet theory and the lone-gunman theory. So they assume that the guy who actually experienced the wounding, and who knew himself better than anyone else, just could not really discern when he was hit.

[Royell Storing]

I truly have no dog in the fight - and am not even sure what the fight is - but in the clips on page 6 of this thread it certainly looks to me as though the other women are doing "Yoo-hoo!" waving at something in the motorcade (I suppose LBJ had his fans too) and not pointing up at the sixth floor window. I'll bow out, but it does seem to me that these disputes over what the films and photographs show and what the witnesses said eventually turn into Rorshach exercises.

   One of those Old Women is "Yoo hooing" with a hanky in her hand. I believe a lot of the problem that exists to this day is people are looking at different copies/images of the assassination. The images that have been posted on this thread are Not the best/clearest I have seen. And I do Not have unfettered access to assassination images. I offer to direct people to better/clearer images, and they immediately turn me down. They flat-out refuse to even look at what I offer vs what they swear by. This reveals a closed mind and helps to explain why this murder remains unsolved after 62+ yrs. People such as this are not objective. They are not looking for the truth. They are "dug in".

[Andrew Mason]

The angle of their arms has them pointing at the sniper's nest window. I have tested this on two different 3D computer models that are quite accurate.

Charles, while I admire your creative attempts to find meaning in the change in arm position of Linda, I agree with Lance's comment that we are arguing about the correct interpretation of a Rorshach blot.   I don't see any arm pointing. But even if there was a brief arm point, I don't see why it would be in relation to a shot that she said did not occur until JFK was aligned with her and the Stemmons sign, which does not occur until more than 2 seconds later.

[Royell Storing]

Charles, while I admire your creative attempts to find meaning in the change in arm position of Linda, I agree with Lance's comment that we are arguing about the correct interpretation of a Rorshach blot.   I don't see any arm pointing. But even if there was a brief arm point, I don't see why it would be in relation to a shot that she said did not occur until JFK was aligned with her and the Stemmons sign, which does not occur until more than 2 seconds later.

   Why would someone fix their position via an object/Stemmons Sign that was diagonal to them? There's plenty of Landmarks almost directly across from her on the (N) side of Elm St to use for a pretty firm position fix. Makes me believe she is unsure and fears being shown to be incorrect.

[Charles Collins]

Charles, while I admire your creative attempts to find meaning in the change in arm position of Linda, I agree with Lance's comment that we are arguing about the correct interpretation of a Rorshach blot.   I don't see any arm pointing. But even if there was a brief arm point, I don't see why it would be in relation to a shot that she said did not occur until JFK was aligned with her and the Stemmons sign, which does not occur until more than 2 seconds later.

By the time Linda Willis testified to the WC, she would have been quite familiar with her father’s claim that his photo (that includes the Stemmons sign) was concurrent with the first shot. I believe that Linda was trying to support her daddy’s claim. If she actually did remember being inline with a sign, I suggest that it was the Thornton sign.

You asked for a frame showing the pointing. Sadly a lot of the enlarged crops of still frames from a movie film do seem like Rorschach blots. Especially if you aren’t looking at the right area of the image. Here is one of those frames I provided earlier with an outline of Linda pointing included:

[Andrew Mason]

   Why would someone fix their position via an object/Stemmons Sign that was diagonal to them? There's plenty of Landmarks almost directly across from her on the (N) side of Elm St to use for a pretty firm position fix. Makes me believe she is unsure and fears being shown to be incorrect.

Because the Stemmons sign was in line with JFK when the first shot sounded.  The other landmarks  were not in her line of sight when looking at JFK.