The surgeon assumed the elongated entry wound on JBC's back was the result of a tangential strike without considering that it could have been the result of a yawing bullet. The geometry of the shot no matter what frame you theorize the bullet struck rules out a tangential strike. Only a moron could conclude a shot fired from behind, striking JBC in the back during the frames you posted, could have possibly entered below his right nipple. With this nonsense you post, you demonstrate you are not a person who should be taken seriously, but that was determined a long time ago.

I don’t know how you can post so much without reading the posts of those you are responding to. It would indeed be nonsense to suggest a bullet entered below JBC’s right nipple. That is where the bullet exited. “With this nonsense you post, you demonstrate you are not a person who should be taken seriously, but that was determined a long time ago.”

[Edit/apology: I was too quick to respond to John. I withdraw my comment. See my next post above.]

The manhole did have a gouge in it did it not? Is not there a photo of the manhole cover showing there is a mark? ( or am I experiencing the Mandela effect?)

That was Foster's initial claim but when showed a picture of the manhole during his WC testimony, he couldn't point out any such gouge.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and -
Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture here of a concrete slab. or manhole cover. Do you recognize that picture?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Does the picture show - tell me what it shows there.
Mr. FOSTER - This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - See any mark on the manhole cover?
Mr. FOSTER - No, sir; I don't. not on the - well, it is on the turf, on the concrete, right in the corner.

If there is no photo then it’s just a witness having seen something but no actual physical evidence
on the manhole cover, and the bullet (or partial bullet with missing lead ) that caused the uprooted grass,   not in the archives or in WC documented items, means either it was not found or that there was  a post event conspiracy of avoiding introducing that bullet.

Why does it always wind up there being a possibility of conspiracy? The photo with the man reaching into that uprooted grass, where is his WC testimony?

Why is there never any actual evidence of a conspiracy?

It’s good there is still a fall back scenario of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom or in the Domino room   (where his blue jacket was found a month after the event) otherwise Oswald not seen at the time of the shooting could get really problematic.

   The Oswald "alibi" was planned. Officer Baker confronting Oswald was Not part of that planned alibi. It caused Oswald to hit the panic button. As a result, he fled the building.

The amount of evidence demonstrating that the first shot passed through both men at z222/z223 is ridiculous. Anyone who genuinely accepts the weight of evidence can come to no other conclusion.

Yes, there is ample evidence that a bullet passed through those men at that time frame but there is also ample evidence that there was a shot before that. JBC insisted until his dying day that it was the second shot that hit him. He heard a shot before the one that hit him. Glenn Bennett also heard a shot before seeing the second shot strike JFK. We can see JBC turn to look over his right shoulder at Z164 which he said was his reaction upon hearing the first shot. Are we supposed to believe that both JBC and Bennett imagined hearing a shot before the shot that struck JFK and JBC, because that is what is required to believe the first shot was the single bullet. I can understand how you could be unconvinced of a first shot miss but I don't know how you can be so certain there wasn't a missed first shot. I think there is strong evidence the first shot was fired about Z147 but I wouldn't go so far as to declare that a certainty because the evidence is less than definitive. It seems completely illogical to me that you could rule out even the possibility of a missed first shot.

Once accepted there is little choice but to have the headshot as the second shot followed by a third, missed shot.

I don't know how anyone can say there was positively a missed third shot when there is practically no evidence of that and there is very strong evidence that the first shot missed. Tell us why you think a missed third shot is more likely than a missed first shot. What are you seeing that the rest of us can't?

In reality, the first shot was a miss in that the target was the head and the shot missed low, passing through JFK's neck. Luckily for the shooter JFK stayed in an upright position as he took his time to line up the fatal headshot.

How can you know what Oswald was aiming at. As a Marine, he would have been trained to shoot at center of mass. That doesn't prove he was aiming his first shot and JFK's torso, but it is certainly a possibility. How can you be so sure the back shot wasn't his aiming point and the headshot struck high? You seem to want to arbitrarily dismiss possibilities except the ones to your liking.

I assume the shooter had already decided he was going to take a third shot, which is why it followed so closely behind the second shot, but why did it miss so wildly?
I suspect the shooter pulled the shot high due to the sudden arrival of Clint Hill on the back of the limo.

Your suspicions aren't evidence of anything, nor are your assumptions, but you seem to lean heavily upon them to establish your beliefs. It seems odd to me that Oswald would have even taken that shot once JFK fell over to his left which he did as soon as Jackie had climbed out onto the trunk, which she did just as Clint Hill was grabbing the handhold.

Disappointingly, I can't figure out the timestamp as convincingly as I would have hoped.
I was sure there was enough overlapping assassination footage to piece a timeline together but that appears not to be the case.

The frame in Bell showing the limo entering the shadow of the underpass can be timed at approximately 9 seconds after the headshot.
10 seconds later we have this frame from Bell:



Weigman has finished filming the Hesters and is in the process of standing up.
Frustratingly, the Bell film cuts here and resumes showing that Weigman has suddenly arrived near the Newmans:



At the moment I can't bridge this cut.