JFK Assassination Forum

I was reading this story online and I found one paragraph particularly interesting:

"The problem wasn't simply that people disliked the verdict. The problem was that witness accounts didn't always match. Some statements changed over time. Certain details conflicted with physical evidence. Different people seemed to remember the night differently. The more reporters examined the story, the less straightforward it appeared."

Sound familiar. We've all seen the same issues raised over and over again in this forum. Only this story wasn't about the JFKA. It was about the suicide of actor George Reeves, TV's Superman in 1959. Despite this being an open and shut case of suicide, some people didn't want to accept the obvious answer. They continued to search for an alternate explanation and conspiracy theories grew out of it. The public lost interest in this story a long time ago but for many years, people interested in the case refused to believe it was a simple a case as the investigators determined. The convinced themselves there had to be more to it, just as JFKA CTs have done for decades.

This is silly. There was no forensic, photographic, and ballistics evidence that disproved the suicide explanation in the George Reeves case, whereas there is plenty of such evidence in the JFK case. That's part of the reason that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded at the end of their extensive two-year investigation that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that four shots were fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that Jack Ruby had extensive Mafia ties, that there was credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassination weeks before the shooting, that Ruby had help getting into the police basement to shoot Oswald, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement and why he shot Oswald, that someone was moving boxes around in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there, and that the eyewitness accounts of shots from grassy knoll were credible, among other findings.

We've known when Connally was hit for over 60 years now. He was hit at Z234. We know this from Connally himself. After viewing the Zapruder film in slow motion several times, he told the WC he wasn't hit before Z230. In 1966, LIFE magazine allowed him to study a high-quality print of the Zapruder film under high magnification. After doing so for some time, Connally reached two key conclusions:

1. He was certain he was not hit before Z229.

2. He identified Z234 as the moment of impact.

Connally had valid reasons for selecting Z234 as the moment of impact. Starting in Z238 his right shoulder rapidly collapses, his cheeks puff, and a pained expression appears on his face. The right-shoulder collapse matches Connally's earliest descriptions of the bullet's impact: he said the impact felt like someone hit him powerfully in the back with their first.

A Z234 hit makes perfect sense with what we see in the Zapruder film. It makes total sense that a bullet that hit Connally in the back would only take four Zapruder frames--4/18ths of a second or 218.4 milliseconds--to drive his right shoulder downward. 218.4 milliseconds is in the range of the speed of an eye blink. Eye-blink speed ranges between 100 and 400 milliseconds.

Similarly, the forced expulsion of air from Connally's lungs would have been quite rapid and forceful, quickly causing his cheeks to puff, just as we see in the Zapruder film virtually simultaneously with his right-shoulder drop. The cheeks start to puff just a frame or two after the right shoulder starts to drop.

Also, the shattering of 4 inches of rib bone alone was extremely painful and would have quickly caused a pained expression to appear on Connally's face. Forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp pain, it only takes 150-300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression.

Jim Moore, one of the most honest WC defenders around, concludes that Connally was hit at Z236 and he basis this partly on the rapid collapse of Connally's right shoulder starting in Z238 (Conspiracy of One, pp. 198-199, see also p. 159, where he says that Connally's right shoulder "drops dramatically").

Obviously, these reactions make no sense in a Z224-hit scenario. It most would not have taken Connally's right shoulder 14 frames to begin to be driven downward, nor would it have taken 14 frames for Connally to react with a pained facial expression and for his cheeks to puff.

It is worth noting that Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, studied the Zapruder film and concluded the bullet struck the Governor at Z236, "give or take 1 or 2 frames, and that Dr. Charles Gregory, Connally's wrist surgeon, opined that the hit occurred between Z234 and Z238.

But, of course, WC defenders here cannot accept the fact that Connally was not hit before Z229 because it destroys any version of their untenable Z220-224 SBT.

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.

An important point that I did not include in the OP is the fact that the autopsy evidence shows two separate, disconnected wound paths in the brain, i.e., the subcortical and cortical damage to JFK's brain. There is no wound path or fragment trail between these two wound paths—in other words, these are two separate, unconnected wound paths. The cortical damage is near the very top of the skull; it is close to the high fragment trail and is on the outer (or cortical) surface of the brain. The subcortical wound path is nearly 2 inches below the cortical damage and spans the length of the brain from front to back. The first expert to note these two separate wound paths was Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy.

British researcher Martin Hay has said the following on this issue:

. . . There were two separate and distinct areas of damage to the President’s brain, in the cortical and subcortical regions, and “no evidence of continuity” between the two. “An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage.” As Dr. Riley concluded, “The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy’s head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet.” (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/robert-a-wagner-the-assassination-of-jfk-perspectives-half-a-century-later)

The cortical damage was described in detail by the HSCA FPP (7 HSCA 131). The subcortical damage was described in detail by the autopsy doctors in the supplemental autopsy report (CE 391, p. 1). Incredibly, however, the HSCA FPP never specifically described the subcortical damage, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage! More on this in a minute.

In his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” Dr. Riley explained the problem posed for the lone-gunman theory by these two separate areas of damage:

In addition to the cortical damage just described, there was massive subcortical damage. This subcortical damage was far more extensive in terms of volume of tissue damaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex. In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well, extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. . . .

To understand this damage, it is important to keep several points in mind. First, when a bullet passes through the brain, it causes many types of damage in addition to direct mechanical damage from the missile. The multiple factors that can cause this additional damage need not be described here. The point, however, is that this wound may be viewed as a "cylinder of disruption" with a radius of approximately one inch that extends from back to front and passes through the center of the brain. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel [the HSCA FPP] provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report. Clearly, the "high" entrance wound does not and cannot account for the observed subcortical damage. (“The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, March 1993, pp. 10-11, 14, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf)

Dr. Riley phrased it this way in his article “What Struck John”:

In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . . The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors [i.e., the EOP entry site’s trajectory].

The exit wound is not and cannot be located where the HSCA Forensics Panel places it. Similarly, the autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at where government panels have claimed there was a "high" entrance wound. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html))

Dr. Riley also noted that the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report cannot account of for all the fragments and the damage to the cerebral cortex (i.e., the outer layer of brain tissue/the cerebrum’s outer layer):

The fragments distributed in and the damage to the cerebral cortex cannot be due to the shot described by Humes et al.; the wounds are discontinuous. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Here is one of Dr. Riley’s diagrams of the subcortical damage from his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries”:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3TWcg1KIC_lyQNEJoCpxrsB5zf-ozZQ/view?usp=sharing

Curiously, but not surprisingly, the HSCA FPP gave only a brief, superficial description of the subcortical damage, a description that, incredibly, gave the reader no idea that the damage was subcortical, i.e., that it was well below the cortical damage (7 HSCA 129). On the other hand, the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage, just as they said nothing about the high fragment trail.

Why these glaring omissions? Because the HSCA FPP and the autopsy doctors were only willing to acknowledge one bullet strike to the head and thus only one entry site. To make matters worse, the HSCA FPP refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the now-debunked cowlick entry site, and the autopsy doctors refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the EOP entry site.

Some might be curious to know what leading WC apologists have said about the two clearly separate cortical and subcortical wound paths in the brain. The answer: Nothing. Not one word. Vincent Bugliosi said nothing about them in his error-riddled tome Reclaiming History. Similarly, Gerald Posner says nothing about them in his mistitled propaganda book Case Closed.

To me, jiggle analysis of the Z-film is the best way to determine when the single bullet struck.

It may be the best way for you but it's not in general.
A forensic analysis of the reactions of both JFK and JBC in the Z-film tells us exactly when the bullet passed through both men - z222/223

I told you how I reached my conclusion. Can you tell me how you reached yours?

As for Jiggle Analysis...Sitzman makes the point that the sound of the shots was distant, not enough to make them jump. She often makes the point that if any of the shots would have come from the GK they would have jumped "sky-high". The thing that startled her was a coke bottle being smashed by a young couple fleeing the scene just to her right.
Jiggle Analysis is meaningless. Zapruder was an old man with vertigo stood on a narrow plinth. It's amazing how smooth the shot is considering.

The phenomenon of camera jiggle in reaction to gun shots is well established. Zapruder's camera jiggle is consistent for the second and third shots and we can determine that because we know when those shots were fired. Jiggle analysis allows us to be accurate to with in one frame. It is strong evidence for the first shot fired at Z147-148 although it's not as conclusive as for the later shots. We don't have visual evidence of that shot hitting anyone or anything.

CE888 gives us the earliest view from the sniper's nest during the recreation of the shooting. It shows the view from the sniper's nest at Z161 and JFK is just starting to pass under that tree. It could be that as Oswald was tracking JFK through his scope, that tree suddenly came into view in the mid 140s and that could have caused him to rush that shot resulting in a bad miss. Just speculation, of course, but it seems to be a reasonable possibility.