JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Wound In Gov. Connally's Back
Lance Payette:
Dr. Shaw's operative report stated JBC's back wound was 3 cm. He clarified to the HSCA firearms panel that this was an error. The wound was 1.5 cm, with the 3 cm figure being the size after the wound had been debraded. The report of the HSCA firearms panel is very clear on this. Using the 1.5 cm figure, the panel concluded that the most likely interpretation was that the bullet was not aligned with its trajectory but had "yawed or tumbled" before entry. Concerning the path through JBC's body, the panel majority stated that the path was "entirely consistent" with the bullet having struck an "intermediate target" (JFK). It's not clear to me why anyone would think CE 399 had to be traveling full-on "sideways" when it entered JBC's back. Milicent Cranor's fire-breathing article keeps using the term "sideways," but even it notes that Shaw considered "slight tumbling" a possibility. Is there some huge distinction between "yawing," "tumbling" or being "sideways" at the point of entry? I suppose full-on sideways would produce a basically rectangular wound as long as the bullet itself, but can anyone say that this is essential to the SBT at the point of entry?
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 18, 2026, 09:45:35 PM ---
The WC solved the assassination, huh?! Sure they did! Umm, and never you mind that we now know that three of the seven WC members did not buy several of the WC's key conclusions,
--- End quote ---
Which means 4 got it right and 3 got it partly right.
--- Quote ---
and never mind that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the WC's investigation was biased and poorly conducted, that two gunmen were involved, that the first hit on JFK occurred when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree,
--- End quote ---
4 members of the HSCA dissented from the finding of a probable conspiracy which means the other 8 were idiots.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Benjamin Cole on June 18, 2026, 11:10:38 AM ---Huh?
PS: Cole's suggestion, that JBC was shot in the back while lying in Nellie's lap, is possibly the most preposterous thing ever posted on this forum...and that really is saying something.
I never suggested this.
--- End quote ---
Huuuh??
From REPLY#4 posted by yourself
"So, if the Connallys are correct, when was JBC struck?
My best guess is sometime after Z-295, but before Z-313."
Sometime after z295?
JBC is lying back in Nellie's lap between z295 and z313
What do you mean you've never suggested he was shot in the back while he was lying in Nellie's lap?
That's exactly what you're suggesting.
Benjamin Cole:
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg
JBC is not lying in his wife's lap at Z-295.
Please review the Z-frames available here:
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Yesterday at 11:20:14 AM ---https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg
JBC is not lying in his wife's lap at Z-295.
Please review the Z-frames available here:
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
--- End quote ---
Tell us how somebody could have shot JBC in that back at that point without shooting through Nellie first. Maybe Mary Moorman's Polaroid was really a camera gun. Is it just a coincidence she took her picture at the precise moment JFK was shot in the head.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version