Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272

[Jack Nessan]

I like how you pretend you don't know that there were three spent shells found in the sniper's nest. While not proof positive, it does corroborate the consensus of the witnesses that there were three shots, including the testimony of the three employees who were directly below Oswald. The three spent shells aren't proof positive of three shots, but I find it extremely unlikely that both the consensus is wrong AND Oswald started with an empty shell in the rifle, because that is the only way there could only have been two shots.

BTW, what do you believe caused Tague's injury?

While not proof positive,

Exactly, it is not proof of anything other than maybe an extra ejected shell casing. Like the WC postulated.

You constantly state the witnesses are unreliable except on this one issue, and then you only reference the earwitness testimony. A little hypocritical.

...the consensus of the witnesses that there were three shots, including the testimony of the three employees who were directly below Oswald.

Did you purposely leave out mentioning the eyewitnesses in your consensus.

The three employees below the SN never stated that at all. Not one of them on their worst day indicated there was an early missed shot. You already know this.

BTW, what do you believe caused Tague's injury?

According to Tague it had nothing to do with the first shot.

[Andrew Mason]

What do you mean, "If the shot was from behind"?

It hit him in his back.

I meant if the bullet trajectory was from directly back to front of his torso ie. it could not have missed the scapula and struck the fifth rib as it did.

Regardless, . . .

ME: Is this statement correct? -- "The bullet that struck John Connally on 11/22/63 penetrated his right side, not his back, and struck his fifth rib with such great force that it broke it near the spine. It did not penetrate or hit his scapula. If the bullet had hit him in the back, it would have, at most, glanced the rib."

Perplexity AI: No. As written, the first and last sentences conflict with the primary medical testimony.

Dr. Robert Shaw placed Connally’s entrance wound in the right posterior shoulder, medial to the axillary fold—i.e., the back/posterior chest, not simply “his right side.” He testified that the projectile passed through the chest wall and hit the fifth rib at approximately its midpoint, following the rib’s slant and shattering about 10 cm of it.

The medical testimony supports saying that there was no documented scapular penetration or scapular fracture. It does not support saying that the bullet struck the fifth rib “near the spine”: Shaw said its midpoint.

And the final claim is not correct as a categorical statement. A projectile entering from the posterior chest can miss the scapula and still directly strike—and severely shatter—the fifth rib. A posterior entry does not logically require only a glancing contact.

Accurate revision

The bullet that wounded John Connally entered the right posterior shoulder/chest, medial to the axillary fold, without a documented strike of the scapula. It passed through the chest wall, struck the fifth rib at approximately its midpoint, and shattered roughly 10 cm of the rib. The fact that the entrance was posterior does not, by itself, mean the rib impact had to be glancing.

ME: Disregarding the wounds to his wrist and to his thigh, are the entrance and exit wound locations plus the shattering of ten centimeters of his fifth rib consistent with the theory that he was hit when his back was turned towards the TSBD?

Perplexity AI: Yes — in broad anatomical and geometric terms, Connally’s chest wounds and fifth-rib damage are consistent with a shot from the sixth-floor TSBD when he was rotated so that his right posterior chest [i.e., his back] faced back toward the Depository. They are not, however, sufficiently specific to establish that origin on their own.

Wound course

The documented course was an entrance in Connally’s right posterior chest/back, medial to the axillary fold, descending through the chest, striking and fragmenting the fifth rib at approximately its midpoint, then exiting the anterior right chest below the nipple. The Commission’s account likewise describes an entrance on the right side of his back and a downward chest trajectory.

If Connally had turned to his right — as the Commission’s reconstruction proposed — his right posterior thorax would be exposed toward a shooter behind and above him at the TSBD. A downward, forward-moving projectile could therefore enter the posterior chest [i.e., his back], strike a rib obliquely, and emerge through the front of the right chest.

The rib fracture

Shattering approximately 10 cm of the rib suggests a high-energy collision, potentially along an oblique segment of the rib; it does not require a frontal impact. It is compatible with the Commission’s claimed rear-to-front, downward course. The fracture’s extent cannot determine whether the firearm was in the TSBD rather than another rearward or elevated location.

ME: You said, "Shattering approximately 10 cm of the rib suggests a high-energy collision, potentially along an oblique segment of the rib; it does not require a frontal impact."

Question: Does it require a side impact?

Perplexity AI: No. It does not require a side impact.

Shattering a long rib segment requires significant energy transfer and a trajectory that intersects the rib, but the direction can be posterior-to-anterior, lateral-to-medial, anterior-to-posterior, or some oblique combination. The clinically relevant geometry is the projectile’s angle relative to the curved, sloping rib, not whether it approached from the victim’s anatomical side. Bone damage and the wound tract must be reconstructed together to infer direction.

Applied to Connally

If “side impact” means a shot entering Connally’s right flank/lateral chest, the evidence does not require it. A shot entering his right posterior chest could strike the fifth rib forcefully as it moved forward and downward; if its course was angled across or partly along the rib, it could fragment an extended portion of it.

Conversely, the approximately 10 cm fracture does suggest that the bullet’s contact had a meaningful component along the rib’s length—an oblique collision rather than a trivial surface graze. But “oblique to the rib” is not synonymous with “from the side.” The path can be oblique to a rib while originating behind and above Connally.

ME: Does it require the bullet's penetrating his right side instead of his back?

Perplexity AI: No. The rib fragmentation does not require a bullet to have entered Connally’s right lateral side rather than his back.

A bullet entering the right posterior chest/back can intersect the fifth rib at an oblique angle and transfer enough energy to fracture a long section, especially if its path has a component along the rib’s curved/sloping course. The critical variables are the impact angle relative to the rib, velocity, projectile orientation, and the rib’s geometry—not whether the skin entrance is classified as “side” or “back.”

The medical descriptions themselves locate Connally’s entrance in the right posterior chest/back, while describing the fifth-rib fragmentation. Thus, the documented injury is direct evidence that severe rib damage is compatible with a posterior entrance.

Your AI misconstrues what I am saying.  I did not say the bullet struck near the spine. I said it struck the fifth rib with enough force to cause a fracture near the spine. I was referring to the medical observation of Dr. Shaw for the HSCA medical panel that the bullet struck the fifth rib in the right armpit with enough force that it pushed the rib in and caused a fracture of that rib farther up the rib ie. near the spine.

[John Corbett]

While not proof positive,

Exactly, it is not proof of anything other than maybe an extra ejected shell casing. Like the WC postulated.

You seem to have an idiotic idea that unless evidence is 100% conclusive, it has no probative value and should be ignored. The reality is that evidence usually isn't 100% conclusive and should be weighed for probative value. 3 spent shells don't by themselves prove 3 shots were fired from the sniper's nest, but in conjunction with the statements of JBC, Glenn Bennett, Jarman, Norman, and Williams as well as the majority of spectators in DP who offered their opinion, it becomes highly probative 3 shots were fired from that location.

You constantly state the witnesses are unreliable except on this one issue, and then you only reference the earwitness testimony. A little hypocritical.

My position on witnesses has been consistent. Nothing a witness says should be assumed to be true or false. We should measure the credibility of any witness based on its compatibility with the body of evidence. JBC said he turned to look over his right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. The Z-film shows him doing that at Z164. He said after looking over his right shoulder, he started to turn back toward the front when he felt the second shot strike him. We see JBC react to being shot 62 frames, 3.9 seconds after his initial reaction. This fits perfectly with his description of the shooting.

...the consensus of the witnesses that there were three shots, including the testimony of the three employees who were directly below Oswald.

Did you purposely leave out mentioning the eyewitnesses in your consensus.

The three employees below the SN never stated that at all. Not one of them on their worst day indicated there was an early missed shot. You already know this.

Why do you have to tell an outright lie to make your point? I never cited the three employees on the 5th floor as evidence of a missed first shot and you know it. I cited them as evidence that three shots were fired. I have cited other evidence for a missed first shot, most notably the testimony of JBC whom we see reacting to the first shot almost 4 seconds before either he or JFK show signs of having been struck. One people who are arguing from weak positions have to lie about what someone else has said.

BTW, what do you believe caused Tague's injury?

According to Tague it had nothing to do with the first shot.

You didn't answer the question. I realize this presents a conundrum for you because it limits the possibilities for you. It would leave you with only one apparent possibility, that a fragment from the headshot caused the injury. If that's not what you believe, please clarify, but since you are a troll whose only purpose is to agitate, you never want to tell us what you actually believe because then you would have to defend it.

Tague didn't think it was the first shot. He might or might not be correct about that. There is nothing that refutes or corroborates his statement. It remains an open question.