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.

[Jack Nessan]

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.
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.
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.
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.

It is always interesting how phony this whole nonsense early missed shot show really is in the real world. Three shells does not mean three shots. Maybe it is your crap theory that is in need of an overhaul.

You have already stated the Zapruder film does not show exactly when an early missed shot occurred.  The three men under the SN in no way support anything but a two shot witness, a three shot witness with a shot after the headshot, and a first shot strikes JFK and two other maybe shots. You presented them as proof of an early missed shot because they would not be confused by the other noise and supposedly having missed the early missed shot.

JBC's statement is a result of him viewing the Zapruder Film in the hospital. I notice you are not quoting the one he made prior to it. Either quote Bennet accurately or let it go.

Only you apparently, are confused by what I believe. I believe what you believe except I can read witness statements and interpret evidence because at no point in time am I trying to prove a shot that never happened. It is so obvious there were only two shots it is frightening that any could believe otherwise. You on the other hand are constantly left embarrassing yourself defending something that is totally false. Today is no exception.

Tague is a total non-event and I will not waste one second of time in a discussion about him. It really appears you bring him up as way to try and extricate yourself from your early missed shot beliefs and nothing more.

[John Corbett]

It is always interesting how phony this whole nonsense early missed shot show really is in the real world. Three shells does not mean three shots. 

That's what I just said, Captain Obvious.

Maybe it is your crap theory that is in need of an overhaul.

You're too Helicopter to even put forth a theory. All you do is troll.

You have already stated the Zapruder film does not show exactly when an early missed shot occurred.  The three men under the SN in no way support anything but a two shot witness, a three shot witness with a shot after the headshot, and a first shot strikes JFK and two other maybe shots.

You just listed three scenarios and only one of them is a two shot scenario. Are you hedging your bets?

Why don't you give us YOUR evidence of a first shot strike or a shot after the headshot. Or are you all in on your two shot scenario? How do you square that with the testimony of Williams, Norman, and Jarman?

You presented them as proof of an early missed shot because they would not be confused by the other noise and supposedly having missed the early missed shot.

You're a lying sack of sh*t. I presented them as evidence of 3 shots. Nothing more. The evidence of the early missed shot lies elsewhere, primarily the statements of JBC and Glenn Bennett and the visible reaction of Rosemary Willis which occurred well before either JFK or JBC showed any signs of being hit.

JBC's statement is a result of him viewing the Zapruder Film in the hospital. I notice you are not quoting the one he made prior to it. Either quote Bennet accurately or let it go.

Yes, JBC did misspeak in his hospital room interview with Martin Agronski. He said he turned left in reaction to the shot when the film showed he turned to his right. Whether that was the result of having been in surgery for much of previous day is matter of conjecture. Even in that telling, he said he was not hit by the first shot which he only heard but did not feel. In every other telling of the event, he was consistent that he heard a shot that did not hit him followed by a second shot that did. He and JFK reacted at precisely the same time, a strong indication they were hit by the same bullet. If JBC was not hit by the first shot and the next shot was the headshot, which shot do you think did hit JBC?

As for Bennett, I will gladly post his entire report:

"Air Force Two landed at Love Field, Dallas, Texas at 11:35 A.M. Upon deplaning, I covered the fence and press areas. The President's plane arrived at approximately 11 :38 A.M. I stayed with the President and First Lady during the time they greeted the crowd on the apron and along the fence. The greeting lasted for about 10 minutes and the President/First Lady entered their car and the motorcade planned to depart. I asked while moving towards the follow-up car what position I should take, Mr. Roberts informed me that I should take the right rear seat of the follow-up. I took this position and held it during the entire motorcade. I left this rear seat position at one point in the trip to assist in getting well-wishers away from the President's auto. About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit'' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed.

The President's auto and the follow-up proceeded to the Parkland Hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital's parking lot, I was instructed by ASAIC Roberts to stay with the Vice-President who had followed us into the parking lot. I immediately went to the Vice-President's auto and accompanied him to a room on the ground floor of the hospital. I then continued with the Vice-President back to Washington, D.C. where I was relieved."

Only you apparently, are confused by what I believe. I believe what you believe except I can read witness statements and interpret evidence because at no point in time am I trying to prove a shot that never happened. It is so obvious there were only two shots it is frightening that any could believe otherwise. You on the other hand are constantly left embarrassing yourself defending something that is totally false. Today is no exception.

It is obvious only to someone who is really, really bad at weighing evidence. Somebody like you. [quote
]
Tague is a total non-event and I will not waste one second of time in a discussion about him. [/quote]

Nice dodge.

It really appears you bring him up as way to try and extricate yourself from your early missed shot beliefs and nothing more.

I don't need to extricate myself from anything. I have the guts to stand by my beliefs and when I find the evidence less than conclusive, I'm willing to say that as well.

[Tom Graves]

You have already stated the Zapruder film does not show exactly when an early missed shot occurred.

How could it when it occurred half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second pause)?

[Jack Nessan]

That's what I just said, Captain Obvious.
You're too Helicopter to even put forth a theory. All you do is troll.
You just listed three scenarios and only one of them is a two shot scenario. Are you hedging your bets?

Why don't you give us YOUR evidence of a first shot strike or a shot after the headshot. Or are you all in on your two shot scenario? How do you square that with the testimony of Williams, Norman, and Jarman?
You're a lying sack of sh*t. I presented them as evidence of 3 shots. Nothing more. The evidence of the early missed shot lies elsewhere, primarily the statements of JBC and Glenn Bennett and the visible reaction of Rosemary Willis which occurred well before either JFK or JBC showed any signs of being hit.
Yes, JBC did misspeak in his hospital room interview with Martin Agronski. He said he turned left in reaction to the shot when the film showed he turned to his right. Whether that was the result of having been in surgery for much of previous day is matter of conjecture. Even in that telling, he said he was not hit by the first shot which he only heard but did not feel. In every other telling of the event, he was consistent that he heard a shot that did not hit him followed by a second shot that did. He and JFK reacted at precisely the same time, a strong indication they were hit by the same bullet. If JBC was not hit by the first shot and the next shot was the headshot, which shot do you think did hit JBC?

As for Bennett, I will gladly post his entire report:

"Air Force Two landed at Love Field, Dallas, Texas at 11:35 A.M. Upon deplaning, I covered the fence and press areas. The President's plane arrived at approximately 11 :38 A.M. I stayed with the President and First Lady during the time they greeted the crowd on the apron and along the fence. The greeting lasted for about 10 minutes and the President/First Lady entered their car and the motorcade planned to depart. I asked while moving towards the follow-up car what position I should take, Mr. Roberts informed me that I should take the right rear seat of the follow-up. I took this position and held it during the entire motorcade. I left this rear seat position at one point in the trip to assist in getting well-wishers away from the President's auto. About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit'' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed.

The President's auto and the follow-up proceeded to the Parkland Hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital's parking lot, I was instructed by ASAIC Roberts to stay with the Vice-President who had followed us into the parking lot. I immediately went to the Vice-President's auto and accompanied him to a room on the ground floor of the hospital. I then continued with the Vice-President back to Washington, D.C. where I was relieved."

It is obvious only to someone who is really, really bad at weighing evidence. Somebody like you.
Nice dodge.
I don't need to extricate myself from anything. I have the guts to stand by my beliefs and when I find the evidence less than conclusive, I'm willing to say that as well.

All that is presented in this post is a cry for help. Nothing more. A theory with no evidence or proof of any kind other than you think because you are presenting it that somehow makes it right. The witness statements completely allude you. All you have to do is present them the way the witnesses stated them. How about keep your barnyard opinion to yourself. The problem is without your analysis; the childlike summary is it is flat out wrong.

You can't even correctly interpret the three eyewitnesses located under the SN that you claimed were not influenced by all the other noise. It turned out they did not support an early missed shot in any wild interpretation of their statements and that seems to have created a huge problem in Corbett world. You first presented them with great fanfare but never took the time read what they really stated.

As far as what I believe, you have to be the most clueless individual breathing to not clearly understand that and maybe understanding that simple observation sheds a light on why you seem unable to understand what happened that day.

Try as you may, an early missed shot is a pathetic rationalization of the assassination. Completely void of evidence. The odd part is you know that to be true.