JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Benjamin Cole on June 17, 2026, 04:10:04 PM
-
Recently there was discussion in this forum regarding the shape of the wound in Gov. JBC's back.
Here is a drawing of the wound, by JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpFNWnyY/Screen-Shot-2569-06-17-at-21-59-57.png)
Shaw thought it most likely that JBC was shot from above and behind, by a slug unimpeded by any obstructions. No tumbling. So you had an elliptical or ovoid wound, north-south on JBC's body.
Shaw debrided the wound, thus enlarging the final resulting scar.
In addition, there is a small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Qzf7y5F/Screen-Shot-2569-06-16-at-07-45-56.png)
I doubt the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling.
The evidence, as seen in JBC's shirt and the doctors sketch, points away from a tumbling bullet.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
If JBC was turned as he was hit, it would lead to a non-circular entry wound, depending upon where the shot originated, would it not?
If he turned in reaction to hearing the first shot, it implies he was hit by a second bullet and probably too soon after hearing the shot to have been fired from the same bolt action rifle.
-
If JBC was turned as he was hit, it would lead to a non-circular entry wound, depending upon where the shot originated, would it not?
If he turned in reaction to hearing the first shot, it implies he was hit by a second bullet and probably too soon after hearing the shot to have been fired from the same bolt action rifle.
"probably too soon"???
Just how did you figure that one out.
JBC is seen starting his turn in reaction to the first shot at Z164. The second shot was fired at about Z219-220. That's 3 seconds after JBC reacted and the reaction was not immediate. If Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z155 was in reaction to the shot, it was fired in the Z147-148 time frame. That is based on the lag time of 7-8 frames between when the head shot was fired and Zapruder's reaction at Z318. That's about 4 seconds between the first and second shot. More than enough time to fire an aimed shot.
-
"probably too soon"???
Just how did you figure that one out.
JBC is seen starting his turn in reaction to the first shot at Z164. The second shot was fired at about Z219-220. That's 3 seconds after JBC reacted and the reaction was not immediate. If Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z155 was in reaction to the shot, it was fired in the Z147-148 time frame. That is based on the lag time of 7-8 frames between when the head shot was fired and Zapruder's reaction at Z318. That's about 4 seconds between the first and second shot. More than enough time to fire an aimed shot.
I’ll believe JBC’s interpretation of the Z film of being hit at 234 over yours. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
-
KB--
IMHO, you are correct, that JBC's wound-shape and the small round bullet-hole in his shirt suggest he was largely facing forward when shot by a non-tumbling bullet from behind. That is what the evidence shows. That is what Dr. Robert Shaw, his surgeon, thought most likely.
We know what the Connallys testified to, and Nellie had a ringside seat, and was uninjured, and was remarkably cool in a same-day press conference.
So, if the Connallys are correct, when was JBC struck?
My best guess is sometime after Z-295, but before Z-313.
Of course, many, many witnesses described the "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots.
That cadence lines up with JFK hit ~Z-221, JBC at ~Z-295+ and JFK at Z-313.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
I’ll believe JBC’s interpretation of the Z film of being hit at 234 over yours. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
So you think JBC could sync up what he felt with what he saw in the Z-film. He did come close. He was less than a second off. JBC remembered his cognitive reaction to being shot. He doubled over and twisted to his right and he saw he did that after Z234. What JBC didn't remember was his involuntary, reflexive response of flipping his right are up and back down. He never looked for the response he didn't remember making. That arm flip came less than a half a second before his cognitive reaction.
I've never heard any CT even attempt to explain JBC's arm flip or why it happened at precisely that same frame that JFK's raised his arms. Since they have no explanation for why JBC would suddenly flip his right arm up and down so they just choose to ignore it. I'm betting you will do the same.
-
KB--
IMHO, you are correct, that JBC's wound-shape and the small round bullet-hole in his shirt suggest he was largely facing forward when shot by a non-tumbling bullet from behind. That is what the evidence shows. That is what Dr. Robert Shaw, his surgeon, thought most likely.
We know what the Connallys testified to, and Nellie had a ringside seat, and was uninjured, and was remarkably cool in a same-day press conference.
So, if the Connallys are correct, when was JBC struck?
My best guess is sometime after Z-295, but before Z-313.
Of course, many, many witnesses described the "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots.
That cadence lines up with JFK hit ~Z-221, JBC at ~Z-295+ and JFK at Z-313.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
There are also some who believe that it was the first two shots that were closer together, though not as many who recall it being the last two that were bunched together.
At Saturday night NPIC briefing board preparation, Dino Brugioni said the secret service was particularly interested in the frames near when JFK disappeared and reappeared from behind the sign. No, the film was not altered and I don’t believe NPIC had the original film which was still in Chicago and probably damaged by that time.
-
There are also some who believe that it was the first two shots that were closer together, though not as many who recall it being the last two that were bunched together.
At Saturday night NPIC briefing board preparation, Dino Brugioni said the secret service was particularly interested in the frames near when JFK disappeared and reappeared from behind the sign. No, the film was not altered and I don’t believe NPIC had the original film which was still in Chicago and probably damaged by that time.
The truth is not subject to majority rule. Although there is no definitive proof of when the first shot was taken, I firmly believe the preponderance of evidence is that it was fired in the Z147-148 window which would mean there were about 4 seconds between the first and second shots and about 5 seconds between the second and third shots. What muddies the water is that a single shot can produce multiple sounds and those sounds for the third shot would seem to be right on top of each other. Because the bullet traveled at roughly twice the speed of sound, witnesses near the limo would hear those other sounds before they heard the muzzle blast from the sniper's nest. The impact on JFK's skull, the mini-sonic boom of a bullet passing over their heads, the impact on the windshield frame would all produce sounds that would reach the ears of the nearby witnesses before the muzzle blast.
-
The truth is not subject to majority rule. Although there is no definitive proof of when the first shot was taken, I firmly believe the preponderance of evidence is that it was fired in the Z147-148 window which would mean there were about 4 seconds between the first and second shots and about 5 seconds between the second and third shots. What muddies the water is that a single shot can produce multiple sounds and those sounds for the third shot would seem to be right on top of each other. Because the bullet traveled at roughly twice the speed of sound, witnesses near the limo would hear those other sounds before they heard the muzzle blast from the sniper's nest. The impact on JFK's skull, the mini-sonic boom of a bullet passing over their heads, the impact on the windshield frame would all produce sounds that would reach the ears of the nearby witnesses before the muzzle blast.
While the truth is not subject to majority rule, the fact that one LN zealot "firmly believes" the "preponderance of evidence" shows something is not exactly dispositive either.
-
While the truth is not subject to majority rule, the fact that one LN zealot "firmly believes" the "preponderance of evidence" shows something is not exactly dispositive either.
The LN position is not dependent on identifying when the first shot was fired. The shot missed so it's hardly necessary to identify when it missed to reach he ironclad conclusion that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK. It is simply not possible for the state of the evidence to be what it is if somebody else had fired the shots. If i were, somebody would have come up with it by now. The CT position is that we should not believe what he evidence is telling us.
-
Recently there was discussion in this forum regarding the shape of the wound in Gov. JBC's back.
Here is a drawing of the wound, by JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpFNWnyY/Screen-Shot-2569-06-17-at-21-59-57.png)
Shaw thought it most likely that JBC was shot from above and behind, by a slug unimpeded by any obstructions. No tumbling. So you had an elliptical or ovoid wound, north-south on JBC's body.
Shaw debrided the wound, thus enlarging the final resulting scar.
In addition, there is a small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Qzf7y5F/Screen-Shot-2569-06-16-at-07-45-56.png)
I doubt the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling.
The evidence, as seen in JBC's shirt and the doctors sketch, points away from a tumbling bullet.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yx9CV4kz/JBC-jacket-inside.jpg)
The small hole in the back of JBC's shirt and the small hole in the front of his jacket prove, beyond the slightest doubt, that the bullet was not "tumbling" [ ::)]
For traditional LNer's (not the Tinfoil Nutters who have emerged from the woodwork recently) this poses a very large problem.
JFK and JBC were shot through by the same bullet at z222/223. The bullet did not tumble.
How, then, can this bullet be CE399?
What mental gymnastics need to be employed to account for the metal fragments in JBC's wrist if the bullet didn't tumble.
For now we can ignore the FACT that there isn't the smallest particle of evidence linking CE399 to Parkland Hospital and a mountain of evidence against it.
We can also ignore the FACT that CE399 was entered into evidence as the bullet found in Parkland without anyone identifying it as such.
The evidence proves the bullet fired through both men did not tumble.
Yet there are metal fragments in JBC's wrist.
How do LNers square this circle?
PS: Cole's suggestion, that JBC was shot in the back while lying in Nellie's lap, is possibly the most preposterous thing ever posted on this forum...and that really is saying something.
-
Recently there was discussion in this forum regarding the shape of the wound in Gov. JBC's back.
Here is a drawing of the wound, by JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpFNWnyY/Screen-Shot-2569-06-17-at-21-59-57.png)
Shaw thought it most likely that JBC was shot from above and behind, by a slug unimpeded by any obstructions. No tumbling. So you had an elliptical or ovoid wound, north-south on JBC's body.
Shaw debrided the wound, thus enlarging the final resulting scar.
In addition, there is a small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Qzf7y5F/Screen-Shot-2569-06-16-at-07-45-56.png)
I doubt the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling.
The evidence, as seen in JBC's shirt and the doctors sketch, points away from a tumbling bullet.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
The hole in the shirt was obviously cut out or trimmed for some reason. It is square and trimmed not round or elongated and frayed. A picture of the hole does nothing as far as understanding whether the bullet was tumbling or not. The hole in the shirt is not representative of anything unless the reason for making the cuts to the hole is known and a description of the hole prior to the alteration.
-
Huh?
PS: Cole's suggestion, that JBC was shot in the back while lying in Nellie's lap, is possibly the most preposterous thing ever posted on this forum...and that really is saying something.
I never suggested this.
-
The small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day hole was enlarged twice to examine fibers for trace elements.
Even so, it is a small round hole, just large enough to accommodate a non-tumbling shot from a WC 6.5 slug.
-
The small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day hole was enlarged twice to examine fibers for trace elements.
Even so, it is a small round hole, just large enough to accommodate a non-tumbling shot from a WC 6.5 slug.
Is that what you convinced yourself of?
-
The small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day hole was enlarged twice to examine fibers for trace elements.
Even so, it is a small round hole, just large enough to accommodate a non-tumbling shot from a WC 6.5 slug.
The wound in JBC’s back was elongated and the bullet hole in JBC’s suit was elongated and you think the shirt that was sandwiched between them is somehow going to be different? Any doubt why the FBI showed little interest in the shirt?
-
Here is a photo of the hole in the rear of Gov. JBC's assassination-day suit. The hole was also enlarged to test fibers for metallic traces.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yNsbLPdx/Screen-Shot-2569-06-18-at-21-57-00.png)
To be sure, if JBC's back was not at a 90-degree angle to the entering bullet, then you get a tendency to some elliptical or ovoid shaping of the bullet hole, even if the bullet is not tumbling. Different cloths react differently to bullets.
This angle-of-entry is also why JBC had a north-south ovoid wound in his back. The bullet struck JBC on a downward path. Moreover, if JBC was leaning back at the time he was struck, the angle of entry would be even steeper, enlarging the original would.
Still, most convincing is the small round entry round hole in JBC's assassination day shirt. How a tumbling bullet squirted through that small round hole in JBC's shirt is...well, a reasonable question.
My take is Gov. JBC was struck by a straight, unimpeded shot from the TSBD6 sniper window, or close thereto, and that is also the sentiment of his surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
But hey, each to his own.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
Recently there was discussion in this forum regarding the shape of the wound in Gov. JBC's back.
Here is a drawing of the wound, by JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
[SNIP]
Shaw thought it most likely that JBC was shot from above and behind, by a slug unimpeded by any obstructions. No tumbling. So you had an elliptical or ovoid wound, north-south on JBC's body.
Shaw debrided the wound, thus enlarging the final resulting scar.
In addition, there is a small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day shirt.
[SNIP]
I doubt the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling.
The evidence, as seen in JBC's shirt and the doctors sketch, points away from a tumbling bullet.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
As usual, very good stuff, Ben.
Following in John Lattimer's footsteps, Gerald Posner and Dale Myers have muddied the waters by repeating Lattimer's false claim that Connally's back wound was 3.0 cm (1.2 inches) long. Myers even misrepresents the HSCA FPP's measurement of the back wound to support this falsehood, when the FPP specified it was only 1.5 cm long (7 HSCA 142-143). This is the same measurement that Dr. Shaw gave for the wound's length before he debrided it. The FBI lab noted that the holes in the back of Connally's coat and shirt were also 1.5 cm long. The 3.0 cm measurement was the wound's length after it had been surgically enlarged (debrided).
Why have so many WC apologists misrepresented the length of Connally's back wound, using the post-debridement length instead of the original length? Because they know that the damage on CE 399 (what little there is) proves that whatever it hit, it hit while traveling virtually sideways. Thus, in order for the SBT to work, it must have hit Connally's back while flying virtually sideways. This is why WC apologists have misrepresented the back wound's length as 3.0 cm.
Not only does Connally's 1.5 x 0.8 cm back wound rule out a sideways-striking bullet, or even a significantly tumbling bullet, but the wound track through Connally's chest likewise rules out either scenario, because the bullet created a small tunneling wound and shattered the rib while doing only minor damage to the muscles beside it. Dr. Shaw observed that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).
Incidentally, Connally's back wound was almost identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound: 1.5 x 0.8 cm (Connally) vs. 1.5 x 0.6 cm (JFK). Yet, no one but no one suggests that the rear headshot bullet was markedly tumbling when it hit the head.
Many lone-gunman theorists don't even know that CE 399's damage proves it struck an object while traveling virtually sideways. Yet, other WC apologists cite this fact, along with the erroneous 3.0 cm figure for the back wound's length, as "proof" that the bullet that hit Connally was markedly tumbling. A few months ago in this forum, a WC defender cited the fact that CE 399 struck while traveling virtually sideways as evidence for the SBT because he was under the false impression that Connally's back wound was made by a markedly tumbling bullet.
For anyone who is new to this aspect of the evidence regarding CE 399, I recommend famed researcher John Hunt's superb article "Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory":
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
And for those who are new to the subject of the important implications of the size of Connally's back wound and the nature of the wound track through his chest, I recommend Milicent Cranor's excellent aritlce "Big Lie About a Small Wound in Connally's Back" (Cranor now specializes in the medical evidence and has co-authored several peer-reviewed articles for medical journals):
https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm
I’ll believe JBC’s interpretation of the Z film of being hit at 234 over yours [John Corbett's].
Yes, the idea that Connally's dramatic Z238-243 reactions were delayed reactions from a hit at Z224 or earlier is unbelievable. But, SBT apologists must float this dubious speculation because they cannot accept a hit on Connally after Z224, even though Connally himself insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229.
Forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp, sudden pain, it takes no more than 300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression, and Connally's face shows a pained expression starting in Z239. There's no way this was a "delayed reaction" to a severe wounding that occurred 825 milliseconds/15 frames earlier at Z224, much less to a wound that occurred earlier than that.
Furthermore, starting in Z238, Connally's right shoulder is suddenly driven downward, which is not surprising since Connally said the bullet's impact felt like someone hit him very hard with their fist, saying "I felt as if someone had pounded me on the back with a fist, a blow so hard I doubled over." It is absurd to suggest that this was a "delayed reaction" from a hit at Z224 or earlier. This is why some WC apologists, such as Posner, claim that the shoulder drop is an optical illusion. Yeah, I guess Connally only imagined that the bullet's impact felt like the hard pounding of a fist.
-
As usual, very good stuff, Ben.
Ben is typical of he kinds of experts MTG likes to cite.
It's a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.
If you guys really had figured this all out, you would be able to answer the key questions of who, what, where , wand when. The WC answered all four of these quesstions. The where and the when are the easy parts. You guys trip all over yourselves trying to explain the who and the how.
-
Ben is typical of he kinds of experts MTG likes to cite.
It's a perfect example of he blind leading he blind.
If you guys really had figured this all out, you would be able to answer the key questions of who, what, where , wand when. The WC answered all four of these quesstions. The where and the when are the easy parts. You guys trip all over yourselves trying to explain the who and the how.
Let me translate this drivel for any newcomers: You have no idea how to explain the facts I've pointed out about the size of Connally's back wound and the narrow nature of the wound track through his chest and about why those facts refute the SBT. But, since you have no objectivity and no interest in doing serious research, you're going to ignore those facts and do more of your usual ducking and dodging, coupled with your hilarious assertion that the WC figured out the four key questions about the assassination!
The WC solved the assassination, huh?! Sure they did! Umm, and never you mind that we now know that three of the seven WC members did not buy several of the WC's key conclusions, and never mind that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the WC's investigation was biased and poorly conducted, that two gunmen were involved, that the first hit on JFK occurred when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that someone was moving boxes around in the sixth-floor window shortly after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there, that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the shooting weeks before it occurred, etc., etc.
The percentage of people who believe the WC got everything right is about the same as the percentage of people who believe that Bush and Cheney knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen. Congrats.
Moving on, I should add that one of the more honest WC defenders, Jim Moore, does not deny that Connally's right shoulder is driven downward starting in Z238 (Conspiracy of One, 2018 edition, p. 119).
-
Dr. Shaw's operative report stated JBC's back wound was 3 cm. He clarified to the HSCA firearms panel that this was an error. The wound was 1.5 cm, with the 3 cm figure being the size after the wound had been debraded. The report of the HSCA firearms panel is very clear on this. Using the 1.5 cm figure, the panel concluded that the most likely interpretation was that the bullet was not aligned with its trajectory but had "yawed or tumbled" before entry. Concerning the path through JBC's body, the panel majority stated that the path was "entirely consistent" with the bullet having struck an "intermediate target" (JFK). It's not clear to me why anyone would think CE 399 had to be traveling full-on "sideways" when it entered JBC's back. Milicent Cranor's fire-breathing article keeps using the term "sideways," but even it notes that Shaw considered "slight tumbling" a possibility. Is there some huge distinction between "yawing," "tumbling" or being "sideways" at the point of entry? I suppose full-on sideways would produce a basically rectangular wound as long as the bullet itself, but can anyone say that this is essential to the SBT at the point of entry?
-
The WC solved the assassination, huh?! Sure they did! Umm, and never you mind that we now know that three of the seven WC members did not buy several of the WC's key conclusions,
Which means 4 got it right and 3 got it partly right.
and never mind that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the WC's investigation was biased and poorly conducted, that two gunmen were involved, that the first hit on JFK occurred when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree,
4 members of the HSCA dissented from the finding of a probable conspiracy which means the other 8 were idiots.
-
Huh?
PS: Cole's suggestion, that JBC was shot in the back while lying in Nellie's lap, is possibly the most preposterous thing ever posted on this forum...and that really is saying something.
I never suggested this.
Huuuh??
From REPLY#4 posted by yourself
"So, if the Connallys are correct, when was JBC struck?
My best guess is sometime after Z-295, but before Z-313."
Sometime after z295?
JBC is lying back in Nellie's lap between z295 and z313
What do you mean you've never suggested he was shot in the back while he was lying in Nellie's lap?
That's exactly what you're suggesting.
-
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg
(https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg)
JBC is not lying in his wife's lap at Z-295.
Please review the Z-frames available here:
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
-
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg
(https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg)
JBC is not lying in his wife's lap at Z-295.
Please review the Z-frames available here:
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
Tell us how somebody could have shot JBC in that back at that point without shooting through Nellie first. Maybe Mary Moorman's Polaroid was really a camera gun. Is it just a coincidence she took her picture at the precise moment JFK was shot in the head.
-
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg
(https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg)
JBC is not lying in his wife's lap at Z-295.
Please review the Z-frames available here:
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
:D :D :D
It's you who needs to review the Z-film.
Here's a very interesting version of it created by a guy named Ant Davison.
View it full screen and slowed down.
After being shot JBC turns to look at JFK over his right shoulder and then 'swoons' backwards into Nellie's lap as he looks skyward, just before the headshot.
By z295 he is 100% in this position.
Your assertion, that he is shot while in this position, is something the looniest Tinfoil Nutter would be proud of.
Maybe it's your belief that Nellie shot him in the back.
Doubtless you will continue to deny what is plain to the eye. This seems to be a tried and trusted technique.
Each to their own I suppose.
-
Here is a photo of the hole in the rear of Gov. JBC's assassination-day suit. The hole was also enlarged to test fibers for metallic traces.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yNsbLPdx/Screen-Shot-2569-06-18-at-21-57-00.png)
To be sure, if JBC's back was not at a 90-degree angle to the entering bullet, then you get a tendency to some elliptical or ovoid shaping of the bullet hole, even if the bullet is not tumbling. Different cloths react differently to bullets.
This angle-of-entry is also why JBC had a north-south ovoid wound in his back. The bullet struck JBC on a downward path. Moreover, if JBC was leaning back at the time he was struck, the angle of entry would be even steeper, enlarging the original would.
Still, most convincing is the small round entry round hole in JBC's assassination day shirt. How a tumbling bullet squirted through that small round hole in JBC's shirt is...well, a reasonable question.
My take is Gov. JBC was struck by a straight, unimpeded shot from the TSBD6 sniper window, or close thereto, and that is also the sentiment of his surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
But hey, each to his own.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
My take is Gov. JBC was struck by a straight, unimpeded shot from the TSBD6 sniper window, or close thereto, and that is also the sentiment of his surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
Mr. SPECTER - As to the wound on the back of Governor Connally, was there any indication that the bullet was tumbling prior to the time it struck him?
Dr. SHAW - I would only have to say that I'm not a ballistics expert, but the wound on his chest was not a single puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling.
A separate shot with a nose on impact would be result in a different set of wound descriptions. The bullet was tumbling to produce the wounds described by DR Shaw. SBT is the only answer.
-
My take is Gov. JBC was struck by a straight, unimpeded shot from the TSBD6 sniper window, or close thereto, and that is also the sentiment of his surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.
Mr. SPECTER - As to the wound on the back of Governor Connally, was there any indication that the bullet was tumbling prior to the time it struck him?
Dr. SHAW - I would only have to say that I'm not a ballistics expert, but the wound on his chest was not a single puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling.
A separate shot with a nose on impact would be result in a different set of wound descriptions. The bullet was tumbling to produce the wounds described by DR Shaw. SBT is the only answer.
The hole in the back of JBC's shirt proves you are wrong. You can't just ignore this inconvenient evidence.
The hole is entirely consistent with a nose-on impact at an angle and entirely inconsistent with a tumbling bullet.
And is it just me who finds the idea that the bullet would have continued 'tumbling' as it passed through JBC's torso ridiculous.
It continues rotating as it smashes through flesh and bone??
Where is all this rotational energy coming from?
It's like Corbett's suggestion that the bullet starts rotating 1000 per second as soon as it leaves JFK's throat!
I agree the bullet could deviate from its course as a result of passing through JBC and exit his chest on a different trajectory.
When it strikes his radius the bullet fragments. Tiny fragments are spread throughout his wrist (as shown in the pre-op X-Rays). A Slightly larger fragment passes through his wrist (explaining the "slit-like" exit wound in the crease of his wrist and the lack of a bullet hole through his wrist). But the largest fragment, the majority of the bullet, is deflected down into his leg after which it falls to the floor of Trauma Room 2 as JBC is being transferred from his stretcher to the operating table.
-
It's like Corbett's suggestion that the bullet starts rotating 1000 per second as soon as it leaves JFK's throat!
I never put a number on the rate of tumble, only that the bullet would tumble upon leaving JFK's throat. The Haag team showed through experiments that a Carcano bullet would predictably tumble upon exiting from ballistic gel. I don't know how many experiments they did or how consistent the rate of tumble would be. 1000 rpm might be a ballpark figure but I have no way of knowing that.
Somewhere I have a copy of Posner's Cased Closed but I can't find it right now. He dealt with this issue. I don't think he was the first to propose a tumbling bullet but it was the first time I had seen it.
-
The hole in the back of JBC's shirt proves you are wrong. You can't just ignore this inconvenient evidence.
The hole is entirely consistent with a nose-on impact at an angle and entirely inconsistent with a tumbling bullet.
And is it just me who finds the idea that the bullet would have continued 'tumbling' as it passed through JBC's torso ridiculous.
It continues rotating as it smashes through flesh and bone??
Where is all this rotational energy coming from?
It's like Corbett's suggestion that the bullet starts rotating 1000 per second as soon as it leaves JFK's throat!
I agree the bullet could deviate from its course as a result of passing through JBC and exit his chest on a different trajectory.
When it strikes his radius the bullet fragments. Tiny fragments are spread throughout his wrist (as shown in the pre-op X-Rays). A Slightly larger fragment passes through his wrist (explaining the "slit-like" exit wound in the crease of his wrist and the lack of a bullet hole through his wrist). But the largest fragment, the majority of the bullet, is deflected down into his leg after which it falls to the floor of Trauma Room 2 as JBC is being transferred from his stretcher to the operating table.
The hole in the back of JBC's shirt proves you are wrong. You can't just ignore this inconvenient evidence.
Absolutely meaningless. The tear in the coat and the wound in his back were both elongated. The wound on the rib was caused by a bullet sliding along the rib with the bullet in a vertical position for 10 CM before pushing through the rib.
Dr. SHAW - The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much along its line of inclination.
----------------------------------------
The hole is entirely consistent with a nose-on impact at an angle and entirely inconsistent with a tumbling bullet.
No, tumbling or yawing is a very rational explanation. Are you are promoting the idea the bullet went from Elongated (coat) to puncture (shirt) to elongated (back wound), and the hole in the shirt was cut back taking samples to the point no one knows what it looked like to begin with. There is no definitive explanation for how a shirt would tear as the bullet passes through it.
------------------------
And is it just me who finds the idea that the bullet would have continued 'tumbling' as it passed through JBC's torso ridiculous.
It continues rotating as it smashes through flesh and bone??
Why do you think it is cartwheeling? Yawing was the description I always read. Nose up or down.
The bullet was considered to be undamaged as it left JBC’s chest, but with greatly reduced velocity. The only damage that could possible have occurred to the bullet was when it struck the radius bone in the wrist which the rear of the bullet is flattened as a result. By the time the bullet had entered the wrist the velocity of the bullet had been greatly reduced which is exhibited in the shallow ½ inch deep thigh wound.
Dr. SHAW - The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.
Mr. SPECTER - So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.
Dr. SHAW - Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry.
-----------------------------
Where is all this rotational energy coming from?
It's like Corbett's suggestion that the bullet starts rotating 1000 per second as soon as it leaves JFK's throat!
I agree the bullet could deviate from its course as a result of passing through JBC and exit his chest on a different trajectory.
When it strikes his radius the bullet fragments. Tiny fragments are spread throughout his wrist (as shown in the pre-op X-Rays). A Slightly larger fragment passes through his wrist (explaining the "slit-like" exit wound in the crease of his wrist and the lack of a bullet hole through his wrist). But the largest fragment, the majority of the bullet, is deflected down into his leg after which it falls to the floor of Trauma Room 2 as JBC is being transferred from his stretcher to the operating table.
It was a round exit wound in JBC's wrist and a round entrance wound in JBC's thigh.
The bullet entered the wrist backwards with parts of his clothing on it and exited leaving a perfectly round hole in his wrist and then left a ½ inch deep wound in his thigh. Leaving only a minute amount of flakes from the bullet. No large fragments at all. By this point the bullet is a very reduced velocity.
-
The hole in the back of JBC's shirt proves you are wrong. You can't just ignore this inconvenient evidence.
Absolutely meaningless. The tear in the coat and the wound in his back were both elongated. The wound on the rib was caused by a bullet sliding along the rib with the bullet in a vertical position for 10 CM before pushing through the rib.
Dr. SHAW - The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much along its line of inclination.
----------------------------------------
The hole is entirely consistent with a nose-on impact at an angle and entirely inconsistent with a tumbling bullet.
No, tumbling or yawing is a very rational explanation. Are you are promoting the idea the bullet went from Elongated (coat) to puncture (shirt) to elongated (back wound), and the hole in the shirt was cut back taking samples to the point no one knows what it looked like to begin with. There is no definitive explanation for how a shirt would tear as the bullet passes through it.
------------------------
And is it just me who finds the idea that the bullet would have continued 'tumbling' as it passed through JBC's torso ridiculous.
It continues rotating as it smashes through flesh and bone??
Why do you think it is cartwheeling? Yawing was the description I always read. Nose up or down.
The bullet was considered to be undamaged as it left JBC’s chest, but with greatly reduced velocity. The only damage that could possible have occurred to the bullet was when it struck the radius bone in the wrist which the rear of the bullet is flattened as a result. By the time the bullet had entered the wrist the velocity of the bullet had been greatly reduced which is exhibited in the shallow ½ inch deep thigh wound.
Dr. SHAW - The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.
Mr. SPECTER - So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.
Dr. SHAW - Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry.
-----------------------------
Where is all this rotational energy coming from?
It's like Corbett's suggestion that the bullet starts rotating 1000 per second as soon as it leaves JFK's throat!
I agree the bullet could deviate from its course as a result of passing through JBC and exit his chest on a different trajectory.
When it strikes his radius the bullet fragments. Tiny fragments are spread throughout his wrist (as shown in the pre-op X-Rays). A Slightly larger fragment passes through his wrist (explaining the "slit-like" exit wound in the crease of his wrist and the lack of a bullet hole through his wrist). But the largest fragment, the majority of the bullet, is deflected down into his leg after which it falls to the floor of Trauma Room 2 as JBC is being transferred from his stretcher to the operating table.
It was a round exit wound in JBC's wrist and a round entrance wound in JBC's thigh.
The bullet entered the wrist backwards with parts of his clothing on it and exited leaving a perfectly round hole in his wrist and then left a ½ inch deep wound in his thigh. Leaving only a minute amount of flakes from the bullet. No large fragments at all. By this point the bullet is a very reduced velocity.
There is so much nonsense and wrong-headedness in this post (as usual) that I can't be bothered trawling through it trying to straighten out all the misconceptions, misinformation, disinformation and misunderstandings.
As usual, I'll pick the misunderstanding I believe is most relevant to the discussion:
Why do you think it is cartwheeling? Yawing was the description I always read. Nose up or down.
I don't believe it was cartwheeling.
That's the whole point I was making.
The bullet didn't cartwheel or tumble or rotate or hit anything backwards.
That's the point I'm making.
What's funny is that you make the point about the bullet not cartwheeling, it only yawed - "Nose up or down", and then write "The bullet entered the wrist backwards..."
???
How did the bullet enter the wrist backwards if it didn't cartwheel??
Why are you not aware of the drivel you constantly post?
-
There is so much nonsense and wrong-headedness in this post (as usual) that I can't be bothered trawling through it trying to straighten out all the misconceptions, misinformation, disinformation and misunderstandings.
As usual, I'll pick the misunderstanding I believe is most relevant to the discussion:
Why do you think it is cartwheeling? Yawing was the description I always read. Nose up or down.
I don't believe it was cartwheeling.
That's the whole point I was making.
The bullet didn't cartwheel or tumble or rotate or hit anything backwards.
That's the point I'm making.
That's the point I'm making.
You are not making any point or sense for that matter. No one mentioned a bullet spinning 1000 rpm but you. You can’t even get your part right. JC said he didn't, that was all you. No one ever has, congratulations you are finally the first at something.
God, would you please clue in just once. Another post with all forms of nonsense front to back and top to bottom. And now here we have it, everything but what is relevant to yet another theory. A little reading on your part and you could have answered this for yourself. Obviously, the nerve I struck was the one that tethered you into reality. Dr Shaw completely ended your theory with just several statements. They were conviently listed for you. You know the ones you refused to acknowledge.
Even if you had done nothing more than reviewed the Knotts Lab cartoon, the answer to JBC’s wound trajectory through his body and the impossibility of it having been from a separate shot would have been answered for you. A direct shot nose first bullet would have created different wounds than the ones described by the Parkland Doctors and according to Knotts Lab would have originated from an altitude high above the vacant lot between the TSBD and the RR Yard.