JFK Assassination Forum

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.

Thanks for your opinion. Where's your counter research to dispute his?

Thanks for proving my point.

It would be charitable to call MTG's clusters "research".

I went and back and looked at some of your threads like this on the JFK Education Forum. Do you just copy and paste these conspiracy diatribes from place to place? Either way you're repeating a lot of stuff that has very little basis in reality .. your theories require all of the evidence to be fake, which is simply not believable.

MTG seems to enjoy playing doctor.

Yes, Mailer's summary seems pretty consistent with what Shuskevich himself said. I assume Shushkevich was just projecting from the fact that Oswald seemed so dull, unimaginative and compliant. The other interviews with those who did know Oswald and Marina personally are more telling. It was kind of interesting that no one (i.e., KGB) ever questioned Shushkevich or the others about Oswald and that he took some good-natured ribbing about being arrested after the JFKA. I really think the truth is pretty much what Mailer and everyone else who looks into the tale concludes: Oswald was just a goofball who was puzzling and even somewhat humorous to the Soviets but of no great interest.

FWIW, the rumors around the radio factory during Oswald's employment there, as relayed to me by my sister-in-law, had him being way more in-your-face lazy and uninterested in the work than comes through in some of the sources. He also mocked much of the factory routine, which would scarcely make sense for a false defector. It might make sense for an increasingly disaffected goofball, but one would logically expect a false defector to at least try to fit in. I thought the one interview hit the nail on the head with Oswald enjoying his "American defector" celebrity status for about six months but becoming increasingly unhappy as that wore off and he was now just another factory grunt in one of the duller outposts of the USSR.

I've mentioned before the extreme security at the factory. My sister-in-law worked in the "military" part as a technical illustrator, never having any idea what she was illustrating. All workers were checked every day as they exited the factory, down to the level of examining the contents of purses. Oswald worked in the "experimental shop," where they basically made prototypes (of anything, mostly household items). Ernst Titovets describes an incident of Oswald bringing home a tube-like device that Titovets later learned was part of a military radar unit. Oswald discussed with Titovets how one might make a bomb from the tube and then never mentioned it again. This incident would have been IMPOSSIBLE unless Oswald had been allowed to steal the tube just to see what he would do with it. I have to assume the "bomb" discussion was in a joking vein because Oswald knew damn well his apartment was bugged by the KGB. The whole thing is bizarre - but again, not the behavior of any sane CIA-operative false defector. If the Soviets hadn't been puzzled and somewhat amused by this goof, stealing part of a radar device could have got Oswald sent to Siberia for several unpleasant years.