JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on December 28, 2025, 10:36:02 AM

Title: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on December 28, 2025, 10:36:02 AM
I posted this a few weeks ago at another forum:

Dr. Gregory said he thought the bullet entered the top side of JBC's right wrist and exited the bottom side. If so, how could a bullet that exited JBC's chest have done that? We know that JBC was holding his cowboy hat in that hand. Was he holding his cowboy hat really awkwardly near his chest or somewhat lower equally awkwardly when he was shot at Z-222?


Another member replied:

Ai response

Dr. Gregory was absolutely right about the wrist wound orientation, but his interpretation does not contradict the Single Bullet Theory once you factor in Connally’s real arm position.

Three key points:

1️⃣ Connally was NOT holding his hat up by his chest

At Z-222/223, Connally’s right wrist was held low and turned inward, almost flat across his lap. This position is visible in multiple Z-frames.

➡️ He only raises the hat after he has been hit and is reacting.

2️⃣ The bullet exiting Connally’s chest was traveling downward and to his right

This matches:

• the sixth-floor angle,

• Connally’s rotated body position,

• and the inward-turned orientation of his wrist.

Thus, the bullet exiting his chest would naturally continue forward-downward → into the top, radial (thumb-side) portion of his wrist, exactly as Dr. Gregory described.

3️⃣ The wrist wound does NOT require an “awkward” hat-holding position

Connally was holding the hat loosely by the brim, low over his lap.

His wrist was not vertical — it was angled inward and slightly raised.

➡️ When the bullet exited his chest, his wrist was already in the line of fire.

No strange or contorted pose is needed.



Why Dr. Gregory’s testimony actually supports the SBT

People often quote Gregory as if he disproved the SBT — he didn’t.

He said the entry to the wrist slanted downward and toward the thumb side.

That is exactly the direction the bullet would travel after:

1. entering JFK’s back → exiting his throat

2. entering Connally’s back → exiting his chest

3. continuing forward/downward → striking Connally’s wrist

Gregory did not say the wrist wound was inconsistent — he said he could not determine the exact direction without seeing Connally’s arm position at the moment of impact.

The Z-film now shows us that position clearly.



🔍 So the correct reconstruction is:

• At Z-222, Connally is rotated rightward.

• His torso is turned.

• His wrist is low, across his lap, turned inward.

• Hat held loosely by the brim.

• The bullet exits chest → strikes wrist in the orientation Gregory described.

Everything matches the physical evidence.



Bottom Line Answer:

The wrist wound is perfectly consistent with the bullet that exited Connally’s chest.

No awkward hat position is needed.

No second shooter is required.

This is why every modern forensic reconstruction (not just the Warren Commission) reaches the same conclusion.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on December 28, 2025, 11:18:25 AM
I posted this a few weeks ago at another forum:

Dr. Gregory said he thought the bullet entered the top side of JBC's right wrist and exited the bottom side. If so, how could a bullet that exited JBC's chest have done that? We know that JBC was holding his cowboy hat in that hand. Was he holding his cowboy hat really awkwardly near his chest or somewhat lower equally awkwardly when he was shot at Z-222?


Another member replied:

Ai response

Dr. Gregory was absolutely right about the wrist wound orientation, but his interpretation does not contradict the Single Bullet Theory once you factor in Connally’s real arm position.

Three key points:

1️⃣ Connally was NOT holding his hat up by his chest

At Z-222/223, Connally’s right wrist was held low and turned inward, almost flat across his lap. This position is visible in multiple Z-frames.

➡️ He only raises the hat after he has been hit and is reacting.

2️⃣ The bullet exiting Connally’s chest was traveling downward and to his right

This matches:

• the sixth-floor angle,

• Connally’s rotated body position,

• and the inward-turned orientation of his wrist.

Thus, the bullet exiting his chest would naturally continue forward-downward → into the top, radial (thumb-side) portion of his wrist, exactly as Dr. Gregory described.

3️⃣ The wrist wound does NOT require an “awkward” hat-holding position

Connally was holding the hat loosely by the brim, low over his lap.

His wrist was not vertical — it was angled inward and slightly raised.

➡️ When the bullet exited his chest, his wrist was already in the line of fire.

No strange or contorted pose is needed.



Why Dr. Gregory’s testimony actually supports the SBT

People often quote Gregory as if he disproved the SBT — he didn’t.

He said the entry to the wrist slanted downward and toward the thumb side.

That is exactly the direction the bullet would travel after:

1. entering JFK’s back → exiting his throat

2. entering Connally’s back → exiting his chest

3. continuing forward/downward → striking Connally’s wrist

Gregory did not say the wrist wound was inconsistent — he said he could not determine the exact direction without seeing Connally’s arm position at the moment of impact.

The Z-film now shows us that position clearly.



🔍 So the correct reconstruction is:

• At Z-222, Connally is rotated rightward.

• His torso is turned.

• His wrist is low, across his lap, turned inward.

• Hat held loosely by the brim.

• The bullet exits chest → strikes wrist in the orientation Gregory described.

Everything matches the physical evidence.



Bottom Line Answer:

The wrist wound is perfectly consistent with the bullet that exited Connally’s chest.

No awkward hat position is needed.

No second shooter is required.

This is why every modern forensic reconstruction (not just the Warren Commission) reaches the same conclusion.



I believe that the response you quoted has it right. I think that if JBC had not been holding his hat, that the more relaxed position of his palm facing towards his belly would be the expectation. The fact that JBC was holding his hat is what caused the rotation of his forearm such that the palm of his hand would be facing downward instead of the more relaxed position with the palm facing his belly.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on December 29, 2025, 12:02:34 AM
TG-

In this scenario, as what frame in the Z-film do you believe Gov. JBC was struck?

I contend, based on JBC's testimony, that he was struck at ~Z-295 (JBC being pushed forward at ~Z-295, as he testified. along with his other recollections).

Thanks 
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on December 29, 2025, 01:21:38 AM
In which frame of the Z-film do you believe Governor Connally was struck?  I contend, based on JBC's testimony, that he was struck at ~Z-295 (JBC being pushed forward at ~Z-295.

Z-222, plus or minus a frame.

What makes you think Connally remembered correctly?
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on December 29, 2025, 09:11:46 AM
TG--

Well, his wife said as much also.

I have read Gov. JBC's WC and HSCA testimonies, and those of Drs. Gregory and Shaw, many times.

At Z-222, JBC is sitting bolt upright. He has been shot through the chest, had his right wrist fractured and the slug penetrated into his thigh?

And that after that, he makes a 180-degree turn in his seat to look for JFK? Unaware of his own grievous injuries?

JBC recalls he was pushed forward by the slug that struck him, and immediately immobilized.

That lines up with ~Z-295.

Also, most ear-witnesses heard a "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots. That limes up with JFK struck at ~Z-222, and then JBC at ~Z-295 and then JFK again at Z-313.

That's my story, and I am sticking with it.




Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on December 29, 2025, 09:33:02 AM
TG--

Well, his wife said as much also.

I have read Gov. JBC's WC and HSCA testimonies, and those of Drs. Gregory and Shaw, many times.

At Z-222, JBC is sitting bolt upright. He has been shot through the chest, had his right wrist fractured and the slug penetrated into his thigh?

And that after that, he makes a 180-degree turn in his seat to look for JFK? Unaware of his own grievous injuries?

JBC recalls he was pushed forward by the slug that struck him, and immediately immobilized.

That lines up with ~Z-295.

Also, most ear-witnesses heard a "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots. That limes up with JFK struck at ~Z-222, and then JBC at ~Z-295 and then JFK again at Z-313.

That's my story, and I am sticking with it.

Suit yourself.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on December 30, 2025, 02:10:47 AM
TG-

And my sartorial splendor is peerless.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on December 30, 2025, 04:44:04 AM
Bottom Line Answer:

The wrist wound is perfectly consistent with the bullet that exited Connally’s chest.

No awkward hat position is needed.

No second shooter is required.

This is why every modern forensic reconstruction (not just the Warren Commission) reaches the same conclusion.
The exit wound on the palm side of the wrist could have been made by a bone shard. There were two large fragment and some small pieces broken from the radius.

 The bullet struck the distal side of the radius I.e. near the middle of the forearm. So if the wrist was rotated right, how does the bullet deflect left? Wouldn't it naturally defect right? How does the bullet not deflect away from the point of contact? 
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on December 30, 2025, 05:58:36 AM
The exit wound on the palm side of the wrist could have been made by a bone shard.

Yes, and it could have been caused by a miniature UFO, too.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on December 31, 2025, 04:43:16 AM
Yes, and it could have been caused by a miniature UFO, too.
There was evidence of bone shards: 7-8 bone fragments, maybe more according to Dr. Gregory (4 H 120).  No evidence of a UFO, miniature or otherwise.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on December 31, 2025, 05:19:27 AM
Some people say Gov. JBC was shot through the wrist while holding his cowboy hat.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6ptShVct/Screen-Shot-2568-12-31-at-12-05-36.png)

The image above is Z-223. JFK was likely shot ~Z-220 in his upper back.

OK, JBC does not look injured, although, according to the SBT, a slug has passed through his chest, taking out part of rib, exited his front, leaving a large gaping wound, then entered the dorsal side of his wrist and fractured it, before penetrating his left thigh.

I don't see JBC's gray cowboy hat in Z-223, unless it is the blue-ish (not red!) smudge on his chest, below the tie of the necktie. If that is cowboy hat, then JBC is very likely holding it with the ventral side of his wrist facing his chest.

Could a bullet have passed through the wrist holding the cowboy hat, and then entered his left thigh? The wrist seems too close to the right side of JBC.

How did the bullet pass through JBC's wrist from the dorsal (wristwatch side)?

At Z-227, JBC appears to holding his cowboy hat in front of himself, although the image is blurry.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

JBC and his wife both said the shot pattern was: JFK struck by the first audible shot, JBC by the second, and JFK by the third.

Something doesn't add up about the SBT.
 
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on December 31, 2025, 06:26:08 AM
Some people say Gov. JBC was shot through the wrist while holding his cowboy hat.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6ptShVct/Screen-Shot-2568-12-31-at-12-05-36.png)

The image above is Z-223. JFK was likely shot ~Z-220 in his upper back.

OK, JBC does not look injured, although, according to the SBT, a slug has passed through his chest, taking out part of rib, exited his front, leaving a large gaping wound, then entered the dorsal side of his wrist and fractured it, before penetrating his left thigh.

I don't see JBC's gray cowboy hat in Z-223, unless it is the blue-ish (not red!) smudge on his chest, below the tie of the necktie. If that is cowboy hat, then JBC is very likely holding it with the ventral side of his wrist facing his chest.

Could a bullet have passed through the wrist holding the cowboy hat, and then entered his left thigh? The wrist seems too close to the right side of JBC.

How did the bullet pass through JBC's wrist from the dorsal (wristwatch side)?

At Z-227, JBC appears to holding his cowboy hat in front of himself, although the image is blurry.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

JBC and his wife both said the shot pattern was: JFK struck by the first audible shot, JBC by the second, and JFK by the third.

Something doesn't add up about the SBT.

Is his right shoulder significantly lower than his left shoulder?
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on December 31, 2025, 07:05:35 AM
No.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on December 31, 2025, 08:23:25 AM
No.

Yes, it is.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on December 31, 2025, 10:15:33 AM
TG-

Perhaps measured with a micrometer, one could detect a difference in the height of JBC's left and right shoulders in Z-223.

Of course, human bodies are not perfectly symmetrical anyway.

In any event, Happy New Year and remember---

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on December 31, 2025, 11:35:20 AM
JBC was sitting at an angle to his right as we can see in Z223. He was sitting in that orientation for most of the motorcade as can be seen in the photographic record. It seems reasonable to me that his knees would have been angled to his right also; which would be a more relaxed and natural position and give him a little more leg room due to the corner where the right end of the back of the front seat and the side of the limo are. It appears to me that JBC had the hat in his right hand, holding it by the brim. His right forearm would have been resting across his lap with his right wrist nearing his left thigh and the right hand (palm side down) and the hat supported by his left thigh. When the bullet struck his wrist, his right hand flips up extremely fast. Much faster than a normal raising of the hat would be. This suggests an instinctual reaction to the bullet hitting his wrist. JBC remembered feeling the bullet hit him in the back and just didn’t realize that he had also been hit in the wrist and thigh (due to the shock of the pain in his back and chest).
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on December 31, 2025, 11:58:58 AM
This problem remains:

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

That happens ~Z-295.

As Z-223? Connally looks fresh as a daisy.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Dan O'meara on December 31, 2025, 12:37:53 PM
Some people say Gov. JBC was shot through the wrist while holding his cowboy hat.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6ptShVct/Screen-Shot-2568-12-31-at-12-05-36.png)

The image above is Z-223. JFK was likely shot ~Z-220 in his upper back.

OK, JBC does not look injured, although, according to the SBT, a slug has passed through his chest, taking out part of rib, exited his front, leaving a large gaping wound, then entered the dorsal side of his wrist and fractured it, before penetrating his left thigh.

I don't see JBC's gray cowboy hat in Z-223, unless it is the blue-ish (not red!) smudge on his chest, below the tie of the necktie. If that is cowboy hat, then JBC is very likely holding it with the ventral side of his wrist facing his chest.

Could a bullet have passed through the wrist holding the cowboy hat, and then entered his left thigh? The wrist seems too close to the right side of JBC.

How did the bullet pass through JBC's wrist from the dorsal (wristwatch side)?

At Z-227, JBC appears to holding his cowboy hat in front of himself, although the image is blurry.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

JBC and his wife both said the shot pattern was: JFK struck by the first audible shot, JBC by the second, and JFK by the third.

Something doesn't add up about the SBT.

The still below is from z-frame 222.
It is the frame BEFORE the first shot passes through both JFK and JBC.
I've circled the cuff of JBCs shirt which shows his right hand was held up in front of his chest just before the shot passed through him.

(https://i.postimg.cc/zXb6jQ7k/z222-close2cuffcircle2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Below is a crop from the next frame, z223.
Note, the cuff is no longer present. The bullet has struck JBC's wrist and, momentarily, knocked his hand downwards.
The bullet has passed through JFK and JBC IN BETWEEN z222 and z223.
It is an amount of time so small as to be difficult to comprehend. It is a fraction of the time it takes to blink.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZR6Fnrxm/z223goodcrop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Note, also, that JBC still looks calm and composed in z223. This is how he looked as he passed behind the Stemmons sign. Even though he has been shot through he still looks composed because the time periods we are dealing with are so small that he hasn't had time to react to being shot.
His reaction begins in the next frame, z224.
This is also the frame that captures the moment all the bone/gristle/blood is blown out of his chest and causes the right side of his jacket to bulge forward.
Below is a cropped combination of z223 and z224 showing this bulging effect:

(https://i.postimg.cc/BbcrTPsR/z223z224jacketbulge.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The clip below starts at z222.
We see JBC's shirt cuff, which instantly disappears and reappears in a fraction of a second.
From being calm and composed, JBC begins to react in a really violent and extreme way.
Both men have clearly been shot through at this point.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ydtwF0TS/JBC-close-z222-230.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on December 31, 2025, 01:02:19 PM
The still below is from z-frame 222.
It is the frame BEFORE the first shot passes through both JFK and JBC.
I've circled the cuff of JBCs shirt which shows his right hand was held up in front of his chest just before the shot passed through him.

(https://i.postimg.cc/zXb6jQ7k/z222-close2cuffcircle2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Below is a crop from the next frame, z223.
Note, the cuff is no longer present. The bullet has struck JBC's wrist and, momentarily, knocked his hand downwards.
The bullet has passed through JFK and JBC IN BETWEEN z222 and z223.
It is an amount of time so small as to be difficult to comprehend. It is a fraction of the time it takes to blink.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZR6Fnrxm/z223goodcrop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Note, also, that JBC still looks calm and composed in z223. This is how he looked as he passed behind the Stemmons sign. Even though he has been shot through he still looks composed because the time periods we are dealing with are so small that he hasn't had time to react to being shot.
His reaction begins in the next frame, z224.
This is also the frame that captures the moment all the bone/gristle/blood is blown out of his chest and causes the right side of his jacket to bulge forward.
Below is a cropped combination of z223 and z224 showing this bulging effect:

(https://i.postimg.cc/BbcrTPsR/z223z224jacketbulge.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The clip below starts at z222.
We see JBC's shirt cuff, which instantly disappears and reappears in a fraction of a second.
From being calm and composed, JBC begins to react in a really violent and extreme way.
Both men have clearly been shot through at this point.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ydtwF0TS/JBC-close-z222-230.gif) (https://postimages.org/)


Great post Dan. I hadn’t noticed the cuff in z222 before. As long as JBC’s wrist was in the path of the bullet, it shouldn’t matter whether or not it was down in his lap or up near his chest. I think that the bullet’s path would have been deflected by his wrist bone. And if it was up near his chest (as it appears in your post), the bullet would seem to have ample time and space to reach JBC’s left thigh.

JBC’s drastic right shoulder drop and obvious pain on his face are what appear to me to be the doubling over reaction to the impact of the bullet.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on December 31, 2025, 02:17:28 PM
This problem remains:

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

That happens ~Z-295.

As Z-223? Connally looks fresh as a daisy.


Not a problem in my book, just an incorrect interpretation. Also, take a look at the image below from Don Roberdeau’s map. You should be able to see that JFK was directly in front (90-degrees to line of travel) of the Newmans at about z295. Since JBC was seated in front of JFK, that places JBC a little past the Newmans at about z295. Therefore the Newmans would see JBC’s back at about z295 (if they were to be looking at him). Yet, the Newmans reportedly said they saw blood already pooled on JBC’s shirt before he passed them (which would have to have been prior to the Z295 time frame in order for them to see the front of his shirt). So, it seems quite apparent that JBC was hit prior to the z295 time frame (contrary to what you are suggesting).

(https://i.vgy.me/J87QDy.jpg)

Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on December 31, 2025, 02:55:05 PM
The still below is from z-frame 222.
It is the frame BEFORE the first shot passes through both JFK and JBC.
I've circled the cuff of JBCs shirt which shows his right hand was held up in front of his chest just before the shot passed through him.

(https://i.postimg.cc/zXb6jQ7k/z222-close2cuffcircle2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Below is a crop from the next frame, z223.
Note, the cuff is no longer present. The bullet has struck JBC's wrist and, momentarily, knocked his hand downwards.
The bullet has passed through JFK and JBC IN BETWEEN z222 and z223.
It is an amount of time so small as to be difficult to comprehend. It is a fraction of the time it takes to blink.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZR6Fnrxm/z223goodcrop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Note, also, that JBC still looks calm and composed in z223. This is how he looked as he passed behind the Stemmons sign. Even though he has been shot through he still looks composed because the time periods we are dealing with are so small that he hasn't had time to react to being shot.
His reaction begins in the next frame, z224.
This is also the frame that captures the moment all the bone/gristle/blood is blown out of his chest and causes the right side of his jacket to bulge forward.
Below is a cropped combination of z223 and z224 showing this bulging effect:

(https://i.postimg.cc/BbcrTPsR/z223z224jacketbulge.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The clip below starts at z222.
We see JBC's shirt cuff, which instantly disappears and reappears in a fraction of a second.
From being calm and composed, JBC begins to react in a really violent and extreme way.
Both men have clearly been shot through at this point.

(https://i.postimg.cc/ydtwF0TS/JBC-close-z222-230.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

   DAN -  Go to YOU TUBE.   Search -  " Zapruder Film JFK Assassination Best Quality HD 1080p"   by - windvale  (0:28)

       That's a far better Z Film Copy than the one you have posted above.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Dan O'meara on December 31, 2025, 03:54:16 PM
   DAN -  Go to YOU TUBE.   Search -  " Zapruder Film JFK Assassination Best Quality HD 1080p"   by - windvale  (0:28)

       That's a far better Z Film Copy than the one you have posted above.

I'm already aware of Windvale's site - https://www.youtube.com/@windvale/videos

Although it's a great resource, nothing he has posted is that much better in quality.


Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on December 31, 2025, 06:00:01 PM
I'm already aware of Windvale's site - https://www.youtube.com/@windvale/videos

Although it's a great resource, nothing he has posted is that much better in quality.

   Your call on the research material you want to hang your hat on.
   With respect to the Z Film snippet you have posted, that snippet is a perfect example of why anything taken out of context can then be interpreted in many different ways. If you had presented the Z Film Frames Immediately following the end of your posted snippet, everyone would see that Gov Connally then turned all the way around and went face-to-face with JFK. Your claim that Connally had already suffered rib damage, a punctured lung, and a fractured (R) wrist prior to his "turn around" point, is hard to believe. If you examine a better Z Film Copy, you will see that Connally has his mouth wide open when he is in the process of completing that "turn around" toward JFK. This is the portion of the Z Film that I believe Dan Rather was referencing with respect to his reporting seeing Gov Connally get shot in the chest when facing the TSBD. (paraphrasing). The Hi Definition JFK Assassination Images that we are now being permitted to examine, are answering many 62+ yr old questions that have previously hindered the solving of this case. Rather viewing an even better copy of the Z Film than we have now, makes his Z Film Reporting the weekend of the assassination increasingly credible.   
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Dan O'meara on December 31, 2025, 06:36:11 PM
   Your call on the research material you want to hang your hat on.
   With respect to the Z Film snippet you have posted, that snippet is a perfect example of why anything taken out of context can then be interpreted in many different ways. If you had presented the Z Film Frames Immediately following the end of your posted snippet, everyone would see that Gov Connally then turned all the way around and went face-to-face with JFK. Your claim that Connally had already suffered rib damage, a punctured lung, and a fractured (R) wrist prior to his "turn around" point, is hard to believe. If you examine a better Z Film Copy, you will see that Connally has his mouth wide open when he is in the process of completing that "turn around" toward JFK. This is the portion of the Z Film that I believe Dan Rather was referencing with respect to his reporting seeing Gov Connally get shot in the chest when facing the TSBD. (paraphrasing). The Hi Definition JFK Assassination Images that we are now being permitted to examine, are answering many 62+ yr old questions that have previously hindered the solving of this case. Rather viewing an even better copy of the Z Film than we have now, makes his Z Film Reporting the weekend of the assassination increasingly credible.   

The stills and clip I have posted perfectly demonstrate the exact moment the bullet passed through both men.
Just because you find it "hard to believe" doesn't mean anything.
You provide no counter-argument or counter-evidence.
We have versions of the Z-film many times better than the shaky, blurry home movie Dan Rather based his disastrously incorrect impressions on. After a single, hurried view, he got almost everything wrong about it.
That you would take his incoherent ramblings over the actual film says it all about what you are willing to hang your hat on.


Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on December 31, 2025, 07:14:52 PM
The stills and clip I have posted perfectly demonstrate the exact moment the bullet passed through both men.
Just because you find it "hard to believe" doesn't mean anything.
You provide no counter-argument or counter-evidence.
We have versions of the Z-film many times better than the shaky, blurry home movie Dan Rather based his disastrously incorrect impressions on. After a single, hurried view, he got almost everything wrong about it.
That you would take his incoherent ramblings over the actual film says it all about what you are willing to hang your hat on.

    (1) Why do you believe that Rather was viewing a Z Film copy that was "shaky, blurry, home movie..." quality?  (2) How many "...shaky, blurry, home movie..." Z Film "copies" do you believe were already floating around on the weekend of the assassination? 
   
     I would have far less respect for Rather's LIVE World Wide Z Film observations if CBS had then assigned him to Hoboken, New Jersey. Instead, his LIVE Z Film "incoherent ramblings" were rewarded with Rather being selected to replace Walter Cronkite as the CBS Anchor Man. I believe this was Rather being rewarded for his Z Film silence going forward. NBC to this day has Not released its' Original Wiegman Film. NBC to this day has Not released its' Original Darnell Film. Rather's Z Film silence going forward is right in line with this continuing "cooperation" by the "News" Media. 
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on December 31, 2025, 11:50:43 PM

Could a bullet have passed through the wrist holding the cowboy hat, and then entered his left thigh? The wrist seems too close to the right side of JBC.

How did the bullet pass through JBC's wrist from the dorsal (wristwatch side)?

At Z-227, JBC appears to holding his cowboy hat in front of himself, although the image is blurry.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

JBC and his wife both said the shot pattern was: JFK struck by the first audible shot, JBC by the second, and JFK by the third.

Something doesn't add up about the SBT.
The SBT was concocted by Arlen Specter to explain where the bullet that passed through JFK’s neck went. No one considered the possibility that Connally was struck by two separate bullets, although some members of the WC (McCloy and possibly Russell) thought that Connally could have been hit in the back and not felt it.

To see where the bullet went after passing through JFK’s midline one has to first determine when it occurred and then recreate the trajectory from the SN through JFK and see what it could have hit. It appears to have occurred between z190 and z200 and a right to left shot through JFK at that time would have gone to the left of Connally’s spine.

There is a simple explanation that vindicates the Connally’s adamant position that the SBT is wrong and is perfectly consistent with a single shooter.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on January 01, 2026, 01:54:19 AM
RS--

That is correct.

I didn't want to go through the whole song-and-dance, but in fact Gov. JBC makes a 180-degree turn in his seat after Z-223, then begins to again face forward, and then is struck and pushed forward violently ~Z-295.

Exactly as he testified to the WC and HSCA.

Those who posit that JBC was shot at ~Z-223, are also positing JBC makes a 180-degree run in his seat to check on JFK---after JBC had been shot through the chest, had a section of rib expelled through a large exit wound in his chest, then had his wrist fractured and then had a bullet penetrate his thigh.

That just does seem to hold water.

In fact, the only reason I believe there was a JFKA conspiracy is the cadence of shots. A single-shot per bolt-action rifle could not strike JBC and JFK within one second.

That leads to a second gunsel. The GK smoke-and-bang show is also suspicious, and possibly a diversion.

I suspect there was a small plot to perp the JFKA, although if G2 was involved, who knows how high up it went.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 01, 2026, 02:10:48 AM
The SBT was concocted by Arlen Specter to explain where the bullet that passed through JFK’s neck went. No one considered the possibility that Connally was struck by two separate bullets, although some members of the WC (McCloy and possibly Russell) thought that Connally could have been hit in the back and not felt it.

To see where the bullet went after passing through JFK’s midline one has to first determine when it occurred and then recreate the trajectory from the SN through JFK and see what it could have hit. It appears to have occurred between z190 and z200 and a right to left shot through JFK at that time would have gone to the left of Connally’s spine.

There is a simple explanation that vindicates the Connally’s adamant position that the SBT is wrong and is perfectly consistent with a single shooter.

   The assumption You are making is that the JFK Back Wound connected to the JFK Throat Wound. We all know that Dr Humes jammed his finger into that back wound and the depth of that wound stopped at the 1st knuckle of Humes finger. This shallow back wound being the result of the bullet that SA Paul Landis has admitted to finding in the back seat of the JFK Limo at Parkland Hospital. The importance of somehow connecting those 2 wounds is why Specter handled the Q/A of Tomlinson. Tomlinson found the Magic Bullet that SA Landis placed on a gurney at Parkland Hospital. Then, Gerald Ford moved the Warren Report written description of the JFK BACK Wound up to the base of JFK's neck. Total  BS:
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Dan O'meara on January 01, 2026, 03:14:05 AM
RS--

That is correct.

I didn't want to go through the whole song-and-dance, but in fact Gov. JBC makes a 180-degree turn in his seat after Z-223, then begins to again face forward, and then is struck and pushed forward violently ~Z-295.

Exactly as he testified to the WC and HSCA.

Those who posit that JBC was shot at ~Z-223, are also positing JBC makes a 180-degree run in his seat to check on JFK---after JBC had been shot through the chest, had a section of rib expelled through a large exit wound in his chest, then had his wrist fractured and then had a bullet penetrate his thigh.

That just does seem to hold water.

In fact, the only reason I believe there was a JFKA conspiracy is the cadence of shots. A single-shot per bolt-action rifle could not strike JBC and JFK within one second.

That leads to a second gunsel. The GK smoke-and-bang show is also suspicious, and possibly a diversion.

I suspect there was a small plot to perp the JFKA, although if G2 was involved, who knows how high up it went.

Those who posit that JBC was shot at ~Z-223, are also positing JBC makes a 180-degree run in his seat to check on JFK---after JBC had been shot through the chest, had a section of rib expelled through a large exit wound in his chest, then had his wrist fractured and then had a bullet penetrate his thigh.

That just does seem to hold water.


After the head shot, JBC turns away from the spray of material coming from JFK's head, so much so we can no longer see his head.
Seconds later he pops back up and appears to be looking back towards JFK.
According to your logic, this shouldn't be possible.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jh1SdM5s/JBCheaddownupcombo.png) (https://postimages.org/)


I didn't want to go through the whole song-and-dance, but in fact Gov. JBC makes a 180-degree turn in his seat after Z-223, then begins to again face forward, and then is struck and pushed forward violently ~Z-295.

Exactly as he testified to the WC and HSCA.


This part of your post is so wrong it's hard to know where to begin.
You make three 'observations':

1] JBC makes a 180-degree turn on his seat after Z-223
2] after this he "begins to again face forward".
3] After this he is " struck and pushed forward violently ~Z-295".

You then state that these observations were "exactly" as JBC testified to.
Firstly - JBC never stated that he did any of the things you claim he testified to.
Secondly - only one of your 'observations' is shown in the Z-film. After being shot JBC did turn 180 degrees in his seat and was facing JFK.
After this he 'swooned' into Nellie's lap.
He made no attempt to face forward.

But the truly bizarre claim is that JBC was "struck and pushed forward violently ~Z-295"
I have to question whether or not you've actually watched the Zapruder film.
At z295 JBC is lying in Nellie's lap. It is impossible for him to be shot in the back while in this prone position.
Furthermore, he stays in this position until after the head shot at z313!

It's hard to know what to think about such a wildly inaccurate claim concerning a fundamental piece of evidence.


Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on January 01, 2026, 11:45:00 AM
Connally: "I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood." (1 HSCA 42)

This is what JBC told the HSCA.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z302.jpg

This (above) is JBC--not yet in his wife's lap. But mouth open, appears to be in pain.

I am not sure what you are driving at.

Actually, in reviewing this again, it may be that JBC was struck even later than Z-295, but it is hard to tell. That is my best guess.

In any event, Happy New Year!

Caveat emptor, and draw your won conclusions.



Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on January 01, 2026, 01:23:36 PM
[...]

John B. Connally was a handsome, smooth-talking, charismatic politician who got ahead by projecting oodles and gobs of self-confidence.

I suspect that he wasn't nearly as sure about what had happened during the 10.2 seconds it took Oswald to fire all three shots as he pretended to be.

I think he made a lot of stuff up based on his foggy recollections and those of his wife.

To use AI terminology, he "hallucinated."

Kinda like GROK on steroids.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 01, 2026, 02:57:54 PM
Connally: "I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood." (1 HSCA 42)

This is what JBC told the HSCA.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z302.jpg

This (above) is JBC--not yet in his wife's lap. But mouth open, appears to be in pain.

I am not sure what you are driving at.

Actually, in reviewing this again, it may be that JBC was struck even later than Z-295, but it is hard to tell. That is my best guess.

In any event, Happy New Year!

Caveat emptor, and draw your won conclusions.

    When looking at a high definition Z Film Copy, it strikes me how much distance, in the blinks of an eye, that Gov Connally had to cover in order to end up laying in his wife's lap. (1) The 2 Connally jump seats are on opposite sides of the Limo, and, (2) the jump seats are separated by that Hump that runs down the center of the car. What we believe we are seeing on the Z Film with respect to Nellie Connally manhandling her wounded husband into her lap, is like that story we sometimes hear about a petit mother lifting an automobile all by herself in order to free her trapped child beneath it. Yeah, MAYBE this could happen? But to date, I have only heard about feats such as this or read about these almost instantaneous/Herculian actions in a comic book or in the, "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" Sunday Funnies. When you seriously consider what you are seeing on the Z Film and then apply your own real life experiences, (instantaneous timing issues too), you realize that there are portions of the Zapruder Film that would make a good Double Feature alongside the Road Runner Cartoon Series. How on earth can JFK suffer that gaping blowout hole in the SIDE of his head, and then NOT have blood/brain matter blown all over the (R) side/interior of the Limo? And/Or the (N) side of Elm St? There are numerous portions of the Current Z Film that flat-out defy real life experience.     
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 01, 2026, 06:18:43 PM
John B. Connally was a handsome, smooth-talking charismatic politician who got ahead by projecting oodles and gobs of self-confidence.

I suspect that he wasn't nearly as sure about what had happened during the 10.2 seconds it took Oswald to fire all three shots as he pretended to be.

I think he made a lot of stuff up based on his foggy recollections and those of his wife.

To use AI terminology, he "hallucinated."

Kinda like GROK on steroids.


You hit the nail on the head. People have tried to rely too heavily on JBC’s account. It is understandable for the fellow politicians to give JBC the benefit of the doubt because that’s what politicians often do for each other. Here’s some snippets from JBC’s book “In History’s Shadow” beginning on page 12:

”The first shot struck the President in the neck. His hands flew to his throat, a reflex. I turned, and felt the blow against my back. My body was aligned in such a way that the bullet passed through my chest, shattered my right wrist, and lodged in my thigh.”
.
.
.

”I was still conscious when the third shot blew off part of John Kennedy’d head. It is no longer possible to say with certitude how much of the race to Parkland Memorial Hospital I remember, and how much I have been told by Nellie, or picked up from watching the news films or reading the official reports.”
.
.
.
”The federal agents, who had been assigned to their own car (called “the Queen Mary”), jumped out and headed for the front entrance even as some in the crowd were still waving to the President.
.
.
.
”Twice during the race to the hospital, Nellie admitted, she had thought I was dead. I was in and out of consciousness. I came to just when the car jolted to a stop at the emergency entrance to Parkland Memorial. How strangely the mind works. I knew I was badly wounded and I thought fatally so. I knew the President was dead. Yet it made sense to me that the hospital orderlies would want to get him out of the car before they could think of treating me.
The back door was beside the jump seat I was in, and I realized I might be blocking the way. Arms snaked across Nellie to reach the President. Subconsciously, I suppose, I struggled to raise myself from Nellie’s lap to give them room. I half stood, then collapsed and passed out again.”

.
.
.
”They wheeled me into Trauma Room 2, and Dr. Duke probed the hole in my chest. Another doctor examined my wrist. They spotted more blood on my trousers, and someone fumbled with the belt and tried to wriggle them down my legs. I cried out sharply, “Cut them off!” When I spoke, peopled jumped back as if a coffin lid had moved. I hadn’t been given a sedative because it hadn’t occurred to them I would be conscious - if I was alive.
I don’t know which, but fear or stubbornness kept waking me. I heard someone say, “Let’s turn him over and see if he was hit somewhere else.” With that, I spoke up again. I said, “no, I was only hit once.”

.
.
.
”I knew many, many years ago that I would never be able to give people what they wanted or needed about that day. I have felt rage and grief and helplessness, as tens of millions of Americans did. What else I can share I have shared with Nellie because the lasting, bitter emotion of that day is numbness. Many of my memories are secondhand. I am missing the most historic minutes of my life. There are blank spaces in an unbearable scene; perhaps I could not have borne the scene otherwise. … This was what I missed, what I would put together from the accounts of those who survived that day in Dallas. … I had no sense of what was happening around me, or in Trauma Room 1, but I knew all I needed to know. Later, little by little, Nellie and others filled in the parts that were missing.”
.
.
.
”Everything I saw, heard, and felt is consistent with what was visible in the frame-by frame analysis of the film taken by Abraham Zapruder, a Dallas merchant who became an accidental historian:  The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy, I saw him clutch his throat. The second shot was the one that struck me; of this I have no doubt. Nellie had pulled me to her when the third bullet blew across the car a spray of the President’s brain.”


In the last snippet above I underlined an important distinction. JBC stated he had no doubt about only one aspect of that shooting sequence (the second shot struck him). JBC does not indicate that he has no doubt about the other aspects he outlined in that snippet. JBC has stated elsewhere that he could have been mistaken about the single bullet theory being wrong. If I find where I read that I will post it, I am still looking for it. With these things in mind, I think that the early missed shot is not disproved by JBC’s account.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 01, 2026, 11:33:21 PM

  You got it BACKWARD. An alleged "early missed shot" has to be PROVEN. This is why the SBT is a THEORY. Neither has been PROVEN.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on January 01, 2026, 11:46:12 PM
  You got it BACKWARD. An alleged "early missed shot" has to be PROVEN. This is why the SBT is a THEORY. Neither has been PROVEN.

Dear Sonderführer Storing,

Unless one believes that oodles and gobs of Deep State bad guys were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the planting of evidence, the shooting, the GETTING AWAY, the altering of every single photo and film, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!!!) cover up, an early missed shot and the SBT are the only logical explanations for what the witnesses heard, what the witnesses saw, what the photographers caught on film, what the police found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, the nature of the damage to the limousine, and the nature of the wounds that the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda dealt with.

D'oh

-- Tom
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 02, 2026, 01:06:26 AM
Dear Sonderführer Storing,

Unless one believes that oodles and gobs of Deep State bad guys were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the planting of evidence, the shooting, the GETTING AWAY, and the all-important (and evidently ongoing!!!) cover up, an early missed shot and the SBT are the only logical explanations for what the witnesses heard, what the witnesses saw, what the photographers caught on film, what the police found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, the nature of the damage to the limousine, and the nature of the wounds that the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda dealt with.

D'oh

-- Tom

   "Logical Explanations" don't feed the bulldog.  The sudden appearance of the "getaway" car outside of the TSBD Proves a Conspiracy.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Tom Graves on January 02, 2026, 04:58:35 AM
"Logical explanations" don't feed the bulldog.  The sudden appearance of the "getaway" car outside of the TSBD proves a conspiracy.

LOL!

Good one!
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 03, 2026, 11:45:48 PM

an early missed shot and the SBT are the only logical explanations for what the witnesses heard, what the witnesses saw, what the photographers caught on film, what the police found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, the nature of the damage to the limousine, and the nature of the wounds that the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda dealt with.
How does an early missed shot or the SBT - neither of which are supported by witnesses, film, things found on the 6th floor, damage to the limo, or the wounds -  explain such evidence?
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 05, 2026, 08:30:18 PM

You hit the nail on the head. People have tried to rely too heavily on JBC’s account. It is understandable for the fellow politicians to give JBC the benefit of the doubt because that’s what politicians often do for each other.
It is one thing to not rely on JBC's account alone.  That's a reasonable thing to do.  But that doesn't mean that you then assume that it was wrong.

Let's look at some of what he said:

How does all this fit with other evidence?:

Quote
In the last snippet above I underlined an important distinction. JBC stated he had no doubt about only one aspect of that shooting sequence (the second shot struck him). JBC does not indicate that he has no doubt about the other aspects he outlined in that snippet. JBC has stated elsewhere that he could have been mistaken about the single bullet theory being wrong. If I find where I read that I will post it, I am still looking for it. With these things in mind, I think that the early missed shot is not disproved by JBC’s account.
There was a clip from an interview done a few years afterward in which he stated that it is possible that JFK was not hit on the first shot but that the best witness, Nellie Connally, disagreed with it and he agreed with her.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 05, 2026, 09:29:04 PM
It is one thing to not rely on JBC's account alone.  That's a reasonable thing to do.  But that doesn't mean that you then assume that it was wrong.

Let's look at some of what he said:
  • He said that they had progressed 150-200 feet down Elm St. from the turn when the first shot sounded.   
  • He said he turned around to his right to check on JFK after the first shot, which he did not feel but heard, and could not see him despite being very interested because he feared an assassination was unfolding. 
  • He then felt, but did not hear, a second shot that struck him in the back and exited his chest and which he immediately thought was a fatal wound.
  • JBC accepted Nellie Connally's recollection that JFK reacted to the first shot before the second shot. 
  • He then heard and observed the effects of the third shot.

How does all this fit with other evidence?:
  • First of all, estimates of distance are just that: estimates.  150-200 feet indicates a level of uncertainty of ±50 feet so he is, in effect saying 175 feet ±50 feet. So he is saying it appeared to him to be more than 125 feet and less than 225 feet. There is also some uncertainty as to exactly where he was measuring from, but let's assume it was from the red line here which is in line with the west side of Houston St.:
       (https://i.postimg.cc/bYb8f7Sw/z193-136ft-from-Houston.jpg)
    My measurement from that line to the middle of the President's limo is 136 feet and the limo is in between the lamp post and the Thornton Freeway sign.  This also happens to be where the Secret Service video puts JFK when he is first completely clear of the oak tree when viewed from the SN:
    (https://i.postimg.cc/289MSfvF/Clear_even_with_lane_line_ends.jpg)
    And then we have Mary Woodward who said that the first shot occurred as the President's limo just passed by her, or Gloria Calvery and Karen Westbrook who said that the President's car was "almost directly in front of where I was standing" when the first shot sounded".  Woodward was standing just west of the lamp post and Calvery and Westbrook were just west of Woodward, midway between the two lamp posts.  This also fits with occupants of the VP car who said that they had just completed the turn onto Elm and were heading to the triple overpass (it is still turning when last seen at z180). This also fits with occupants of the VP security car who said that their car had almost completed the turn and along side the TSBD when the first shot sounded. It is almost in that position when last seen in z190. It also fits with photographers Robert Croft and Hugh Betzner who put it a bit after z161 and just after z186 - and Linda Willis who said that JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot sounded (which puts it between about z195-z203). 
  • He said he turned around to his right to check on JFK after the first shot, which he did not feel but heard, and could not see him despite being very interested because he feared an assassination was unfolding. 
         We do not see JBC making any attempt to turn to look rearward prior to his turn that began at z228 or so and continued to about z278.  This fits with the observations of about 20 witnesses who said that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot by moving left/assuming a blank stare/bringing his hands to his chest/neck.  No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot.
  • He makes no attempt to get down until about z278 when he begins to fall back onto Nellie.  His description of events does not fit with him being hit at z223 which was 3 seconds before falling back onto his wife.  On the other hand, we have the evidence of both Nellie and JBC who, in looking at frames of the zfilm picked z230-ish as the point at which they thought he looked like he had been shot. Nellie was not cross-examined on this about her recollection that she looked back at JFK before the second shot and saw him with his hands to his neck before the second shot.  She said she did not look back after the second shot.  She is turned facing rearward until about z270.
  • While JBC accepted Nellie Connally's recollection that JFK reacted to the first shot before the second shot, she was only one of at least 20 other witnesses who recalled JFK reacting to the first shot. They are: T.E. Moore; Nellie Connally; David Powers; Gayle Newman; William Newman; John Chism; Faye Chism; James Altgens; Abraham Zapruder; Clint Hill; Linda Willis; George Hickey; Sam Kinney; Paul Landis; Cecil Ault; Harold Norman; Malcolm Summers; Mary Moorman; Jean Newman; Charles Brehm; Pierce Allman;
  • While there is some suggestion that there was a shot after the head shot, the vast preponderance of evidence is that this was the third and last shot.
There was a clip from an interview done a few years afterward in which he stated that it is possible that JFK was not hit on the first shot but that the best witness, Nellie Connally, disagreed with it and he agreed with her.

     If you are going to steadfastly rely on Gov Connally's recollections, you have to accept the entirety of what he said. The SBT relies on Connally being seated inboard of JFK's seated position in the back seat. How, if Connally is allegedly sitting "inboard" of JFK, can Connally turn to his (R) and, "...not see him"? The "...not see him" fits only if JFK is seated Directly Behind Gov. Connally.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 05, 2026, 10:29:00 PM

There was a clip from an interview done a few years afterward in which he stated that it is possible that JFK was not hit on the first shot but that the best witness, Nellie Connally, disagreed with it and he agreed with her.
The clip I was referring to was an interview by Walter Cronkite in 1967.  David Von Pein has it as part of his terrific collection of original material. (https://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2016/12/dvp-audio-video-master-index.html?m=1)  Check at about 1:20 of this clip (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOWi1leGJ3WkFKX3c/view?resourcekey=0-ZuctbRreABHd-dkgpKx7XA).
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 05, 2026, 10:31:44 PM
     If you are going to steadfastly rely on Gov Connally's recollections, you have to accept the entirety of what he said.
That isn't actually correct.  Every judge will tell a jury that they may accept some, all or none of a witness' evidence but that they should look at the evidence not in isolation but in relation to all the other evidence.

Quote
The SBT relies on Connally being seated inboard of JFK's seated position in the back seat. How, if Connally is allegedly sitting "inboard" of JFK, can Connally turn to his (R) and, "...not see him"? The "...not see him" fits only if JFK is seated Directly Behind Gov. Connally.

I agree that the right-left trajectory through JFK's midline does not strike any where near JBC's right side, based on the positions of the two men seen in the zfilm at any time while on Elm St.  JFK was slightly right of JBC but not enough for the path through his neck to go right of JBC's spine, and certainly not at z222-225.  The argument, however, appears to be that the turn of JBC to see JFK is prior to z200.  Although JBC wanted desperately to see JFK, it appears that he forgot that he needed to turn his head relative to his shoulders to do so.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 05, 2026, 11:20:11 PM
That isn't actually correct.  Every judge will tell a jury that they may accept some, all or none of a witness' evidence but that they should look at the evidence not in isolation but in relation to all the other evidence.

But I agree that the right-left trajectory through JFK's midline does not strike any where near JBC's right side, based on the positions of the two men seen in the zfilm at any time while on Elm St.  JFK was slightly right of JBC but not enough for the path through his neck to go right of JBC's spine, and certainly not at z222-225.  The argument, however, appears to be that the turn of JBC to see JFK is prior to z200.  Although JBC wanted desperately to seek JFK, it appears that he forgot that he needed to turn his head relative to his shoulders to do so.

    Just think about sitting in the Middle of an older car's front bench seat. It's easy to turn to your (R) and See/talk with the person sitting on the (R) end of the bench seat behind you. This is allegedly how Connally and JFK were positioned inside the JFK Limo. There's only 1 reason that Gov Connally could Not see JFK. Connally was close to being Directly inline with JFK.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 06, 2026, 03:23:15 PM
It is one thing to not rely on JBC's account alone.  That's a reasonable thing to do.  But that doesn't mean that you then assume that it was wrong.

Let's look at some of what he said:
  • He said that they had progressed 150-200 feet down Elm St. from the turn when the first shot sounded.   
  • He said he turned around to his right to check on JFK after the first shot, which he did not feel but heard, and could not see him despite being very interested because he feared an assassination was unfolding. 
  • He then felt, but did not hear, a second shot that struck him in the back and exited his chest and which he immediately thought was a fatal wound.
  • JBC accepted Nellie Connally's recollection that JFK reacted to the first shot before the second shot. 
  • He then heard and observed the effects of the third shot.

How does all this fit with other evidence?:
  • First of all, estimates of distance are just that: estimates.  150-200 feet indicates a level of uncertainty of ±50 feet so he is, in effect saying 175 feet ±50 feet. So he is saying it appeared to him to be more than 125 feet and less than 225 feet. There is also some uncertainty as to exactly where he was measuring from, but let's assume it was from the red line here which is in line with the west side of Houston St.:
       (https://i.postimg.cc/bYb8f7Sw/z193-136ft-from-Houston.jpg)
    My measurement from that line to the middle of the President's limo is 136 feet and the limo is in between the lamp post and the Thornton Freeway sign.  This also happens to be where the Secret Service video puts JFK when he is first completely clear of the oak tree when viewed from the SN:
    (https://i.postimg.cc/289MSfvF/Clear_even_with_lane_line_ends.jpg)
    And then we have Mary Woodward who said that the first shot occurred as the President's limo just passed by her, or Gloria Calvery and Karen Westbrook who said that the President's car was "almost directly in front of where I was standing" when the first shot sounded".  Woodward was standing just west of the lamp post and Calvery and Westbrook were just west of Woodward, midway between the two lamp posts.  This also fits with occupants of the VP car who said that they had just completed the turn onto Elm and were heading to the triple overpass (it is still turning when last seen at z180). This also fits with occupants of the VP security car who said that their car had almost completed the turn and along side the TSBD when the first shot sounded. It is almost in that position when last seen in z190. It also fits with photographers Robert Croft and Hugh Betzner who put it a bit after z161 and just after z186 - and Linda Willis who said that JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot sounded (which puts it between about z195-z203). 
  • He said he turned around to his right to check on JFK after the first shot, which he did not feel but heard, and could not see him despite being very interested because he feared an assassination was unfolding. 
         We do not see JBC making any attempt to turn to look rearward prior to his turn that began at z228 or so and continued to about z278.  This fits with the observations of about 20 witnesses who said that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot by moving left/assuming a blank stare/bringing his hands to his chest/neck.  No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot.
  • He makes no attempt to get down until about z278 when he begins to fall back onto Nellie.  His description of events does not fit with him being hit at z223 which was 3 seconds before falling back onto his wife.  On the other hand, we have the evidence of both Nellie and JBC who, in looking at frames of the zfilm picked z230-ish as the point at which they thought he looked like he had been shot. Nellie was not cross-examined on this about her recollection that she looked back at JFK before the second shot and saw him with his hands to his neck before the second shot.  She said she did not look back after the second shot.  She is turned facing rearward until about z270.
  • While JBC accepted Nellie Connally's recollection that JFK reacted to the first shot before the second shot, she was only one of at least 20 other witnesses who recalled JFK reacting to the first shot. They are: T.E. Moore; Nellie Connally; David Powers; Gayle Newman; William Newman; John Chism; Faye Chism; James Altgens; Abraham Zapruder; Clint Hill; Linda Willis; George Hickey; Sam Kinney; Paul Landis; Cecil Ault; Harold Norman; Malcolm Summers; Mary Moorman; Jean Newman; Charles Brehm; Pierce Allman;
  • While there is some suggestion that there was a shot after the head shot, the vast preponderance of evidence is that this was the third and last shot.
There was a clip from an interview done a few years afterward in which he stated that it is possible that JFK was not hit on the first shot but that the best witness, Nellie Connally, disagreed with it and he agreed with her.



and Linda Willis who said that JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot sounded (which puts it between about z195-z203). 


Here's part of Linda's WC testimony:

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you were standing right along the curb on Elm Street, is that right, when the motorcade came by across the street from the School Book Depository Building?
Miss WILLIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you follow the motorcade down Elm Street at all, or did you stand on the corner up toward Houston Street and watch from there?
Miss. WILLIS. I was right across from the sign that points to where Stemmons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot hit him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Directly across from the sign that says, "Stemmons Freeway"?
Miss WILLIS. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you just stay right there, or did you go on down Elm Street?
Miss WILLIS. I stayed there. I was on the corner across from the courthouse when the motorcade first came down Main Street, and when it turned the corner on Houston, well, I followed along the street with the car, and then he turned the corner on Elm and I stood there where the Stemmons sign is.



First of all, Linda was not anywhere near the Stemmons sign. The image below shows her position on the sidewalk near her father and Croft:

(https://i.vgy.me/MX2O5P.jpg)

Secondly, this clip shows Linda rounding the end of the reflecting pool wall. She has her hands to her face at the beginning. I think she was either using her hands as a megaphone and shouting towards the limo, or perhaps shielding her eyes from the sun. Then almost simultaneously with her sister's (Rosemary) head snap towards the TSBD, but slightly later, Linda suddenly snaps her head towards the TSBD and points upwards at the TSBD. This indicates to me that she is pointing out where the sound of the first shot came from.

(https://i.vgy.me/5nOypC.gif)

Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 06, 2026, 04:32:08 PM
Far more fragments were removed from Connally's wrist than are missing from CE 399, a fact repeatedly confirmed by Nurse Bell, who saw and handled the fragments. So, yes, Connally's wrist wound refutes the SBT.

And then there's the fact that Connally was not hit before Z229, a fact that he confirmed to the WC and then to Life magazine three years later after studying the relevant Zapruder frames under high magnification.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 06, 2026, 04:46:35 PM

and Linda Willis who said that JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot sounded (which puts it between about z195-z203). 

Here's part of Linda's WC testimony:

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you were standing right along the curb on Elm Street, is that right, when the motorcade came by across the street from the School Book Depository Building?
Miss WILLIS. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you follow the motorcade down Elm Street at all, or did you stand on the corner up toward Houston Street and watch from there?
Miss. WILLIS. I was right across from the sign that points to where Stemmons Expressway is. I was directly across when the first shot hit him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Directly across from the sign that says, "Stemmons Freeway"?
Miss WILLIS. I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you just stay right there, or did you go on down Elm Street?
Miss WILLIS. I stayed there. I was on the corner across from the courthouse when the motorcade first came down Main Street, and when it turned the corner on Houston, well, I followed along the street with the car, and then he turned the corner on Elm and I stood there where the Stemmons sign is.



First of all, Linda was not anywhere near the Stemmons sign. The image below shows her position on the sidewalk near her father and Croft:

(https://i.vgy.me/MX2O5P.jpg)

You do have Linda Willis correctly identified in the zfilm.  She said "I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came.".  I don't find it unusual at all that she would identify the location of the President at the time of the first shot based on what she saw.  She said she saw that he was in line with her and the Stemmons sign: that her eyes, JFK and the Stemmons sign were "right in line".   If you plot a line from her position to the edges of the Stemmons sign you get this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/05TgNxKK/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_range_z196to205.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/KcJ8M4BW/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_z205.jpg)

Quote
Secondly, this clip shows Linda rounding the end of the reflecting pool wall. She has her hands to her face at the beginning. I think she was either using her hands as a megaphone and shouting towards the limo, or perhaps shielding her eyes from the sun. Then almost simultaneously with her sister's (Rosemary) head snap towards the TSBD, but slightly later, Linda suddenly snaps her head towards the TSBD and points upwards at the TSBD. ...(https://i.vgy.me/5nOypC.gif)
In that clip, Rosemary has her head turned right to begin.  She then looks ahead (a reasonable thing to do when running in a crowded area).  She then turns her head back to her right where she was looking when the clip began.

There is a "head snap", though.  It occurs from z202-206:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsF3w5Cx/z202_z206_RWillis.gif)
Quote
This indicates to me that she is pointing out where the sound of the first shot came from.
But she says she couldn't tell where it came from:  "I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came."  Besides, I don't see a clear arm gesture in my copy of the IOAA frames.  Frames 155-157 were damaged and you have included z157 which has a large dark blotch through the middle and skews the image and gives the impression of some arm movement.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 06, 2026, 05:00:38 PM
Far more fragments were removed from Connally's wrist than are missing from CE 399, a fact repeatedly confirmed by Nurse Bell, who saw and handled the fragments. So, yes, Connally's wrist wound refutes the SBT.

And then there's the fact that Connally was not hit before Z229, a fact that he confirmed to the WC and then to Life magazine three years later after studying the relevant Zapruder frames under high magnification.

   The fragments issue mentioned above is exactly why even Dr Humes did NOT Support the SBT.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 06, 2026, 05:12:14 PM
You do have Linda Willis correctly identified in the zfilm.  She said "I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came.".  I don't find it unusual at all that she would identify the location of the President at the time of the first shot based on what she saw.  She said she saw that he was in line with her and the Stemmons sign: that her eyes, JFK and the Stemmons sign were "right in line".   If you plot a line from her position to the edges of the Stemmons sign you get this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/05TgNxKK/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_range_z196to205.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/KcJ8M4BW/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_z205.jpg)
In that clip, Rosemary has her head turned right to begin.  She then looks ahead (a reasonable thing to do when running in a crowded area).  She then turns her head back to her right where she was looking when the clip began.

There is a "head snap", though.  It occurs from z202-206:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsF3w5Cx/z202_z206_RWillis.gif)But she says she couldn't tell where it came from:  "I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came."  Besides, I don't see a clear arm gesture in my copy of the IOAA frames.  Frames 155-157 were damaged and you have included z157 which has a large dark blotch through the middle and skews the image and gives the impression of some arm movement.

    Let's bear in mind the Current Zapruder Film snippet we are looking at has been Spliced.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 06, 2026, 05:49:54 PM
You do have Linda Willis correctly identified in the zfilm.  She said "I was right in line with the sign and the car, and I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came.".  I don't find it unusual at all that she would identify the location of the President at the time of the first shot based on what she saw.  She said she saw that he was in line with her and the Stemmons sign: that her eyes, JFK and the Stemmons sign were "right in line".   If you plot a line from her position to the edges of the Stemmons sign you get this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/05TgNxKK/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_range_z196to205.jpg)(https://i.postimg.cc/KcJ8M4BW/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_z205.jpg)
In that clip, Rosemary has her head turned right to begin.  She then looks ahead (a reasonable thing to do when running in a crowded area).  She then turns her head back to her right where she was looking when the clip began.

There is a "head snap", though.  It occurs from z202-206:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsF3w5Cx/z202_z206_RWillis.gif)But she says she couldn't tell where it came from:  "I wasn't very far away from him, but I couldn't tell from where the shot came."  Besides, I don't see a clear arm gesture in my copy of the IOAA frames.  Frames 155-157 were damaged and you have included z157 which has a large dark blotch through the middle and skews the image and gives the impression of some arm movement.



Besides, I don't see a clear arm gesture in my copy of the IOAA frames.  Frames 155-157 were damaged and you have included z157 which has a large dark blotch through the middle and skews the image and gives the impression of some arm movement.


These clips were made with frames from Cold Case, not IOAA. Here is another clip that skips Z157 and it's large dark blotch; so no potential skewing. I have also zoomed in a bit on Linda. It is quite clear that she turns her head to her right and points up towards the TSBD.

(https://i.vgy.me/m3RvAH.gif)

Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 06, 2026, 06:18:27 PM
The fragments issue mentioned above is exactly why even Dr Humes did NOT Support the SBT.

Yes. Humes based his conclusion on Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments, which Gregory wrote on 11/22 shortly after the surgery when everything was still fresh in his mind (CE 392). Gregory wrote that description before he knew what he was supposed to say, before it became apparent that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that left fragments in Connally's wrist. Year later, Gregory changed his story and claimed that the fragments were only tiny flakes, but this is not how he originally described them.

Moreover, Nurse Bell repeatedly explained that the fragments were not flakes but were were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 millimeters in length by 2 millimeters wide. This squares with the recollection of one of Connally's other surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988 documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory, Shaw said, "I am sure that the bullet that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet [CE 399] shows."

BTW, Humes wasn't the only autopsy doctor who recognized that Gregory's operative record of the wrist fragments ruled out CE 399 as the source of those fragments. Asked if CE 399 could have been the bullet that struck Connally's wrist, Dr. Pierre Finck, answered, "No, for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," and he based this conclusion in large part on Gregory's operative record.

And how do WC apologists explain this evidence? Let me paraphrase: "Oh, umm, Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments in the operative record was 'mistaken,' even though he wrote it shortly after the surgery, and Nurse Bell was 'mistaken' too, even though she consistently said the fragments were not flakes, and even though she saw got a long and close look at the fragments! Mistaken. Mistaken. Mistaken."
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 06, 2026, 07:08:14 PM


Besides, I don't see a clear arm gesture in my copy of the IOAA frames.  Frames 155-157 were damaged and you have included z157 which has a large dark blotch through the middle and skews the image and gives the impression of some arm movement.


These clips were made with frames from Cold Case, not IOAA. Here is another clip that skips Z157 and it's large dark blotch; so no potential skewing. I have also zoomed in a bit on Linda. It is quite clear that she turns her head to her right and points up towards the TSBD.

(https://i.vgy.me/m3RvAH.gif)

   A while back, I viewed a filmed interview of the older Willis Girl posted on You Tube. It was done by the Sixth Floor, before Gary Mack became curator or whatever title he was eventually rewarded with. She immediately gave me the impression of being a Drama Queen. And definitely Not shy of the camera. Your pointing out her "hands to the eyes" routine would be inline with exaggeration garnering attention. Everything "over the top". 
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 06, 2026, 08:02:27 PM
Yes. Humes based his conclusion on Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments, which Gregory wrote on 11/22 shortly after the surgery when everything was still fresh in his mind (CE 392). Gregory wrote that description before he knew what he was supposed to say, before it became apparent that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that left fragments in Connally's wrist. Year later, Gregory changed his story and claimed that the fragments were only tiny flakes, but this is not how he originally described them.

Moreover, Nurse Bell repeatedly explained that the fragments were not flakes but were were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 millimeters in length by 2 millimeters wide. This squares with the recollection of one of Connally's other surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988 documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory, Shaw said, "I am sure that the bullet that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet [CE 399] shows."

BTW, Humes wasn't the only autopsy doctor who recognized that Gregory's operative record of the wrist fragments ruled out CE 399 as the source of those fragments. Asked if CE 399 could have been the bullet that struck Connally's wrist, Dr. Pierre Finck, answered, "No, for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," and he based this conclusion in large part on Gregory's operative record.

And how do WC apologists explain this evidence? Let me paraphrase: "Oh, umm, Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments in the operative record was 'mistaken,' even though he wrote it shortly after the surgery, and Nurse Bell was 'mistaken' too, even though she consistently said the fragments were not flakes, and even though she saw got a long and close look at the fragments! Mistaken. Mistaken. Mistaken."
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 07, 2026, 03:07:29 PM
It is quite clear that she turns her head to her right and points up towards the TSBD.

(https://i.vgy.me/m3RvAH.gif)
It is a bit of a stretch to say that it is "quite clear".  Can you show us any frame that has her pointing to the TSBD?  She has her arms up initially and then brings them down. At some point the right arm will have the hand at shoulder level but an intentional pointing usually lasts for long enough for someone to see it.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 07, 2026, 03:59:52 PM
It is a bit of a stretch to say that it is "quite clear".  Can you show us any frame that has her pointing to the TSBD?  She has her arms up initially and then brings them down. At some point the right arm will have the hand at shoulder level but an intentional pointing usually lasts for long enough for someone to see it.


In this frame Linda Willis clearly has her right hand up above her head.

(https://i.vgy.me/i2o5t7.jpg)


A short time later Linda Willis' right hand is even higher. The change in the angle of her upper arm (shoulder to elbow) from the first frame I showed indicates that she shoved her hand upwards and towards the TSBD in a pointing motion. She also appears to be looking in the direction that she is pointing.

(https://i.vgy.me/fxHfRx.jpg)

Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Lance Payette on January 07, 2026, 04:33:10 PM
In Linda Willis' 1991 interview, she specifically says she was "waving like everyone else." She says nothing about pointing at the TSBD. She says she thought the first shot was a firecracker, so she wouldn't have been pointing up at the sixth floor. In fact, she says she "never looked at the Depository because I was totally entranced by the President." Is "waving" just too dull for this Rorshach exercise? The woman in front is pretty clearly waving - as in "Yoo-hoo, Jackie, over here!"

https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 07, 2026, 04:54:06 PM
In Linda Willis' 1991 interview, she specifically says she was "waving like everyone else." She says nothing about pointing at the TSBD. She says she thought the first shot was a firecracker, so she wouldn't have been pointing up at the sixth floor. In fact, she says she "never looked at the Depository because I was totally entranced by the President." Is "waving" just too dull for this Rorshach exercise? The woman in front is pretty clearly waving - as in "Yoo-hoo, Jackie, over here!"

https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553

I disagree whole heartedly with your assessment Lance. JFK, Jackie, and the limo were in a significantly different direction from where Linda Willis is pointing. All you have to do is follow the panning motion of Croft and his camera to know where the limo is. If that seems too difficult, take a look at the full frame video that actually shows the limo and its occupants. Linda’s pointing motion seems to me to be a very quick instinctive reaction to the sound of the first shot. Unless she happened to look specifically at the sniper’s nest window and saw LHO aiming his rifle, she might not even remember this reaction at all. My opinion, yours may vary.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Lance Payette on January 07, 2026, 07:21:18 PM
I disagree whole heartedly with your assessment Lance. JFK, Jackie, and the limo were in a significantly different direction from where Linda Willis is pointing. All you have to do is follow the panning motion of Croft and his camera to know where the limo is. If that seems too difficult, take a look at the full frame video that actually shows the limo and its occupants. Linda’s pointing motion seems to me to be a very quick instinctive reaction to the sound of the first shot. Unless she happened to look specifically at the sniper’s nest window and saw LHO aiming his rifle, she might not even remember this reaction at all. My opinion, yours may vary.

Well, no, you don't disagree with my assessment - you disagree with Linda's assessment. Linda says she was waving, Linda says she thought the first shot was a firecracker, Linda says she never even looked at the Depository. Because Linda's own recollection is inconsitent with whatever point you're making, you attribute to Linda an "instinctive" reaction of which she was wholly unaware. The woman in front is clearly waving and clearly not looking up at the sixth floor, but Linda "instinctively" is. Ho-kay, on it goes.

14-year-old Linda told the WC she was directly across from the Stemmons sign when she heard the first shot, which she first thought was a firecracker but realized it was a shot when JFK's hands went to his throat. As I recall, this is also exactly when Gloria Calvery and her two companions said the first shot occurred.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_LindaWillis.pdf
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 07, 2026, 07:55:57 PM
Well, no, you don't disagree with my assessment - you disagree with Linda's assessment. Linda says she was waving, Linda says she thought the first shot was a firecracker, Linda says she never even looked at the Depository. Because Linda's own recollection is inconsitent with whatever point you're making, you attribute to Linda an "instinctive" reaction of which she was wholly unaware. The woman in front is clearly waving and clearly not looking up at the sixth floor, but Linda "instintively" is. Ho-kay, on it goes.



There are two older ladies that are pointing upwards towards the sniper’s nest window. One of them has a white handkerchief in her left hand and thrusts her right hand pointing upwards towards the sniper’s nest window as she is backing up. They are also looking in an entirely different direction which is way, way, way, behind the JFK limo. There is a large gap in the motorcade between the Queen Mary and LBJ’s vehicle at that point in time. Nobody is there in that gap for them to be waving at. So it appears to me that, if they are waving, that it is possible that they could be trying to get the attention of the SS agents in the Queen Mary to alert them to the sniper. Or perhaps they were able to see LBJ’s vehicle approaching and wanted to get his attention; but I believe that the crowd was in the way such that they couldn’t yet see LBJ’s vehicle. These same two ladies can be seen hanging out in that same area in the pre-motorcade segment of the Zapruder film. I think it is possible that they (like Brennan) also noticed LHO in the window before the motorcade arrived, then saw him aiming his rifle.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 07, 2026, 11:11:38 PM


There are two older ladies that are pointing upwards towards the sniper’s nest window. One of them has a white handkerchief in her left hand and thrusts her right hand pointing upwards towards the sniper’s nest window as she is backing up. They are also looking in an entirely different direction which is way, way, way, behind the JFK limo. There is a large gap in the motorcade between the Queen Mary and LBJ’s vehicle at that point in time. Nobody is there in that gap for them to be waving at. So it appears to me that, if they are waving, that it is possible that they could be trying to get the attention of the SS agents in the Queen Mary to alert them to the sniper. Or perhaps they were able to see LBJ’s vehicle approaching and wanted to get his attention; but I believe that the crowd was in the way such that they couldn’t yet see LBJ’s vehicle. These same two ladies can be seen hanging out in that same area in the pre-motorcade segment of the Zapruder film. I think it is possible that they (like Brennan) also noticed LHO in the window before the motorcade arrived, then saw him aiming his rifle.

   Possibly pointing in the general direction of the TSBD is not, "pointing upwards towards the sniper's nest window". The TSBD has a very large footprint and sits on higher ground vs the downhill grade of Elm St. This higher ground includes the bushes/shrubs/garden that runs directly across from the TSBD.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 07, 2026, 11:21:04 PM
   Possibly pointing in the general direction of the TSBD is not, "pointing upwards towards the sniper's nest window". The TSBD has a very large footprint and sits on higher ground vs the downhill grade of Elm St. This higher ground includes the bushes/shrubs/garden that runs directly across from the TSBD.


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.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Lance Payette on January 08, 2026, 12:34:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on January 08, 2026, 12:57:03 AM
Ditto.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Benjamin Cole on January 08, 2026, 01:12:05 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqNNRYvz/Screen-Shot-2569-01-08-at-08-03-36.png)

In this frame, Z-223, you can see Jackie Kennedy is reacting to the apparent injury to JFK. She is looking at JFK.

Thus, some time has already elapsed from when JFK was actually struck. A few tenths of a second perhaps.

By Z-225, we see JFK already has his fists near his throat.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z225.jpg

Yet, Gov. JBC still appears uninjured.

The SBT looks very iffy.





Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 08, 2026, 01:50:48 AM
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).
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on January 08, 2026, 05:22:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 08, 2026, 05:30:31 PM
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".
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 09, 2026, 06:03:06 PM

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.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Royell Storing on January 09, 2026, 08:56:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 11, 2026, 12:02:00 PM
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:

(https://i.vgy.me/pShQD6.jpg)

Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 11, 2026, 08:12:54 PM
   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. 
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 11, 2026, 08:28:45 PM
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.
That would put the car about a car length before - 
(https://i.postimg.cc/05TgNxKK/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_range_z196to205.jpg)

Quote
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:

(https://i.vgy.me/pShQD6.jpg)
So that white area in her “arm” just happens to match the white area behind her “arm”?
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 11, 2026, 10:04:13 PM
That would put the car about a car length before - 
(https://i.postimg.cc/05TgNxKK/Linda_Willis_to_JFK_to_Stemmons_sign_range_z196to205.jpg)
So that white area in her “arm” just happens to match the white area behind her “arm”?



That would put the car about a car length before

If that idea is what happened, then: it takes a little time for a thought to form in the brain. The limo was still moving in the meantime.



So that white area in her “arm” just happens to match the white area behind her “arm?

It is called overexposure. Here’s a photo that shows the concept. It’s the full moon rising as photographed through the branches of a dogwood tree. The moon appears to be part of the limb. When actuality the moon is about 240,000 miles behind the limb.

(https://i.vgy.me/tdIlay.png)


If you watch the moving image (as the movie film is designed to be displayed) you might be able to see that the white area appears to be some white pants moving in the crowd beyond Linda Willis. Typically, the blurry still frames images “magically” become a much clearer moving image when displayed as a movie.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 12, 2026, 08:12:21 PM


That would put the car about a car length before

If that idea is what happened, then: it takes a little time for a thought to form in the brain. The limo was still moving in the meantime.
Or if she was correct that when the first shot sounded, JFK was passing the sightline between her and the Stemmons sign then it could be that the shot was a bit earlier than z195-z203.

Quote
So that white area in her “arm” just happens to match the white area behind her “arm?

It is called overexposure. Here’s a photo that shows the concept. It’s the full moon rising as photographed through the branches of a dogwood tree. The moon appears to be part of the limb. When actuality the moon is about 240,000 miles behind the limb.

(https://i.vgy.me/tdIlay.png)


If you watch the moving image (as the movie film is designed to be displayed) you might be able to see that the white area appears to be some white pants moving in the crowd beyond Linda Willis. Typically, the blurry still frames images “magically” become a much clearer moving image when displayed as a movie.
Its actually called "diffraction" and it occurs when light passes around a thin edge object.  It takes a bright light so that the interference pattern, which is constructive in the centre (i.e. behind the branch), also looks bright.   Your white pants lady theory does not provide the amount of light needed to create that effect.

I'll give you a B+ for creativity, though.
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 12, 2026, 10:37:49 PM
Or if she was correct that when the first shot sounded, JFK was passing the sightline between her and the Stemmons sign then it could be that the shot was a bit earlier than z195-z203.
Its actually called "diffraction" and it occurs when light passes around a thin edge object.  It takes a bright light so that the interference pattern, which is constructive in the centre (i.e. behind the branch), also looks bright.   Your white pants lady theory does not provide the amount of light needed to create that effect.

I'll give you a B+ for creativity, though.


Your white pants lady theory does not provide the amount of light needed to create that effect.


Andrew, I have to disagree with you. The moon is reflected sunlight. So is the light being reflected off of the white clothing. Here’s another image cropped from a Zapruder frame a few frames after the one with Linda Willis pointing towards the TSBD. As we can see, there is enough bright light being reflected off of the clothing to cause an apparent starburst effect (lens flare or refraction or whatever you want to call it).

(https://i.vgy.me/1f5Lba.jpg)


Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Andrew Mason on January 15, 2026, 05:58:54 PM

Your white pants lady theory does not provide the amount of light needed to create that effect.


Andrew, I have to disagree with you. The moon is reflected sunlight. So is the light being reflected off of the white clothing. Here’s another image cropped from a Zapruder frame a few frames after the one with Linda Willis pointing towards the TSBD. As we can see, there is enough bright light being reflected off of the clothing to cause an apparent starburst effect (lens flare or refraction or whatever you want to call it).

(https://i.vgy.me/1f5Lba.jpg)

You appear to be using z174 above for comparison.  However, it is much brighter than your Rorschach image, which is around z166.  I have brightened z166 so you can make out the faint white background to Linda Willis' right side. z174 is much brighter than z166 so even if your theory was possible, it would not explain why the right arm would not cover that faint white area behind it if the arm actually extended out from the body:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XfvsGqT/Linda-Willis-z166-z174-compare-closeup.gif)
Title: Re: Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?
Post by: Charles Collins on January 15, 2026, 08:32:46 PM
You appear to be using z174 above for comparison.  However, it is much brighter than your Rorschach image, which is around z166.  I have brightened z166 so you can make out the faint white background to Linda Willis' right side. z174 is much brighter than z166 so even if your theory was possible, it would not explain why the right arm would not cover that faint white area behind it if the arm actually extended out from the body:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XfvsGqT/Linda-Willis-z166-z174-compare-closeup.gif)



Andrew, I selected that frame from another group of frames I had available on my iPad. I often post from my iPad for convenience and when I am away. I selected that particular frame only because it features a "starburst effect" for the white clothes in the background and illustrates just how relatively bright that the reflection of sunlight on those white clothes was. That particular frame does not depict Linda Willis pointing because she had already started lowering her right arm.

Here is a crop from frame Z169 that shows the effect I am comparing to the moon photo effect. This frame is from the "Cold Case" production. The "Cold Case" frames are in HD quality. The "Image of an Assassination" frames that you are apparently using are sadly not in HD (only DVD quality). In the Z169 crop below we can still see a faint image of Linda Willis' right arm despite the bright white reflection of the clothes beyond her right arm. I added an arrow that points to the area where Linda Willis' hand is located.

(https://i.vgy.me/l4hbvu.jpg)



Again, a moving image shows what is happening much better than still frames. So, here again is a moving clip showing Linda Willis looking and pointing upwards towards the TSBD just after her little sister Rosemary Willis snaps her head towards the TSBD:

(https://i.vgy.me/BNNiuf.gif)