"Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length"

That cannot be found in the autopsy report. It comes from the flawed Sibert and O'Neill report. The 1/13/1964 report does NOT cite the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*.

The Sibert and O'Neill report was not flawed but accurately presented the pathologists' findings by the end of the exam phase of the autopsy, and we know from multiple sources that the no-back-wound-exit finding did not change for at least the first two versions of the autopsy report.

We also know from Boswell himself and from Ebersole, among others, that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, which belies Humes's tale that he didn't learn of the throat wound until the following day.

We also know from multiple sources that the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that this was after the initial probing and after the chest organs had been removed.

But, incredibly, you guys simply refuse to acknowledge this massive body of mutually corroborating evidence.

This is just a brief summary of the evidence that I've documented extensively in several threads in this forum, most recently in the "JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory" thread.

I see John Corbett is still peddling his lie that the no-back-wound-exit finding was merely a "preliminary" finding.

Are you ever going to get around to addressing the main points of the OP, (1) the marked disparity between the FBI's shooting scenario and the WC's shooting scenario, and (2) the drastic contradiction between the FBI's locations for the limo for each shot and the extant Zapruder film?

On a side note, three days ago you said this in responding to a reply of mine:

Wow, really? You realize Manning's statement wasn't typed until 11/23/63, right?

You realize that Sibert and O'Neill's FD-302 wasn't typed until 11/26/63, right?

Umm, the main problem with Manning's statement is that he said he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet when he interviewed him on Friday night, but Oswald's wallet had already been confiscated hours before Manning interviewed him, as Officer Bentley and Detective Sims confirmed.

Well let’s not forget the king……..
       Charles Milles Manson

Is it possible that RFK's assassin was Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan?

The reason you think the "split second" reference is out of context is because of your profound ignorance regarding this case. It wouldn't be so bad but you've already been corrected on this specific issue in this very thread (and not that long ago).
Pat Speer has a comprehensive collection of everything Connally said about the shooting at his website. This is part of an FBI interview with JBC on the 11th December, '63.

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…Governor Connally felt the shots were fired so fast the assassin had hit him by accident on the second shot.”.


"It seemed like a split second"
"Fast, my God it was fast."
"A very, very brief span of time"
"unbelievably quick"
"Snapped his fingers three times rapidly"

Did you happen to notice that when I quoted JBC's WC testimony, I posted both the question and the answer. Why didn't you do that. Then we would know what he was responding to.

In any case when he described the time span to the WC, he said 10-12 seconds. I wouldn't describe snapping your fingers 3 times in that time span as rapid.

So, nothing has been taken out of context. You just aren't familiar with the evidence (even when it's already been pointed out to you).

You most certainly did take the quote out of context and when pressed on it, you only gave partial context. Why don't you post a link to the report you are citing so the rest of us don't have to guess at what it says.

Because I'm now expecting a certain amount of deviousness in these exchanges I felt it was important to concentrate on the part of JBC's testimony that you seem to have 'forgotten'. The part of his WC testimony that was actually about the amount of time between the first shot and JBC feeling the blow in his back which he assumed was a second shot:

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time...and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more...or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just the thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took..."

"These are the thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of...the first shot plus the blow that I took...that there were either two or three people involved or more...or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."
These are his actual words regarding the length of time between the first shot and the feeling of being shot. This length of time was so brief JBC felt that two or three people must be firing at him or that an automatic rifle was being used. Elsewhere he has used the phrase "split second" which would accurately convey the length of time JBC is trying to describe - literally less than one second.

He doesn't say "a split second". He gives a vague estimate of "A very, very brief span of time". How many seconds is that? JBC first turned in reaction to the first shot at Z164. He was struck less than 3 and a quarter seconds later. That seems rather brief to me. I've never been shot out but it it wouldn't surprise me that when that happens, things would seem to speed up for the person being shot at.

The hill I want to die on?
Don't you mean the hill JBC wants to die on.
He is the one describing what he remembers, not me.
That the gap between the first and second shots was incredibly small.
But this is not shown in the Z-film.
So why does JBC the gap was a split second?

Why did he testify it was about 10-12 seconds?

And here's another mystery for which you have no answer.
As we have seen, JBC can't emphasise enough how rapidly the shooting occurred.

10-12 seconds according to his testimony.

Over and over again he uses imagery and phrases that force home the extreme rapidity of the shots...but then he guesses at 10 to 12 seconds for the duration of the shooting!!

Not a bad guess. I have it at just under 9 seconds.

This is an eternity as far as the shooting is concerned.
How is it possible to reconcile him snapping his fingers "three times rapidly" with 10 to 12 seconds?

That's easy. It wasn't as fast as him snapping his fingers 3 times. The Z-film indicates his 10-12 second estimate was pretty close. About a second too long.

 
There is zero evidence that supports such a long timespan between the first and last shot.
This is another thing JBC appears to have got wrong.

Tom Graves would argue with you on that point. To me, there is solid evidence the shooting took place in just under 9 seconds. 163 frames which works out to 8.9 seconds.

It should also be noted that people often refer to semi-automatic weapons as automatic

 
I knew it wouldn't be long before you started explaining what the witness really meant.
This is such a Nutter trait and you are as rabid as they come.
Even though you will fully agree that JBC knows his weaponry he still needs you, someone who can't think for himself, to explain what he really meant.

Do you seriously think he heard 3 separate shots from a fully automatic weapon?

JBC heard the first shot clearly but did not hear the second shot. Why not?

It's called sensory overload. The brain can only process so much information at a time and the bullet struck JBC before the sound of the shot reached him. Connally understood this perfectly when he testified to to the WC:

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any idea as to why you did not hear the second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, first, again I assume the bullet was traveling faster than the sound. I was hit by the bullet prior to the time the sound reached me, and I was in either a state of shock or the impact was such that the sound didn't even register on me, but I was never conscious of hearing the second shot at all.
Obviously, at least the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot. Obviously, it couldn't have been the third, because when the third shot was fired I was in a reclining position, and heard it, saw it and the effects of it, rather--I didn't see it, I saw the effects of it--so it obviously could not have been the third, and couldn't have been the first, in my judgment.

He emphasises over and over again that there was barely any time between the first two shots but the Z-film shows this not to be true. How can this be?

How long is "barely any time"?

He states that he turned to look over his right shoulder BEFORE he is shot but the Z-film shows conclusively that the one and only time he attempts to look over his right shoulder is AFTER he has been shot. How can this be?

Probably due to your willful blindness to what the Z-film shows.

He states that he is hit while his head is turned slightly to the left. There are only two times in the Z-film he does this - firstly in the z160's and he is clearly not hit then. Secondly in the z230's when it is clear he has already been hit. How can this be?

He said he had started turning back to his left when he felt the bullet hit him. He continued making that turn for about a half second during which time he also flipped his injured right arm into the air. After that reaction, he started turning and dipping back to the right. He remembered that. He had no memory of flipping his arm upward even though we clearly see him doing that in the Z-film, not coincidentally at the very same frame JFK flipped both of his arms upward.

The Z-film absolutely refutes JBC's account of the shooting on virtually every point. How can that be?

He got most things right but a few wrong. He misjudged the frame he was struck at because he was looking for the reaction remembered making, not the involuntary arm flip he had no memory of. He also believed for whatever reason that JFK had been hit by the first shot. I don't know why he believed that because by his own admission he couldn't see JFK when he turned.

Just to clarify, I don't believe for a second that he is lying. I believe he is honestly reporting the shooting exactly as he remembers it.
How do you deal with these inconsistencies and contradictions? 

I just gave you my answers. You're not entitled to ones you like.

Yeah, it has a ‘John Wayne Gacy’ vibe.

Oswald Cobblepot?

Ted Bundy must have felt short changed. Nobody ever mentioned his middle name.

For the record, I looked it up. His middle name was Robert. Theodore Robert Bundy.

Most WC critics, aka conspiracy theorists, have overlooked the full implications of the FBI's revealing and damning 1/20/1964 "visual aids brochure" (Commission Document 298) that was submitted as a visual aid supplement for its 99-page 1/13/1964 report on the assassination (Commission Document 107). Harold Weisberg zeroed in on CD 298 because it says JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets. It says JFK was hit with the first of the alleged lone gunman's supposed three shots, Connally with the second shot, and JFK with the third shot.

A perfectly reasonable PRELIMINARY finding. Oswald had fired three shots. JFK had been hit by two. JBC had been hit by one. If not for the Zapruder film, that probably would have been the final conclusion. The Zapruder film revealed that JFK and JBC had been hit too close together to have been hit by separate shots from Oswald's bolt action rifle. There was no physical evidence of a second gunman. That presented a puzzle. I don't know how the thought process played out and when the SBT was first formulated, but it made perfect sense. The Secret Service reenactments showed that at the time the WC believed JFK was first hit (Z210-225), JBC was directly in line to be struck by a bullet exiting from JFK's throat. If JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet, it also meant that one of Oswald's 3 shots hadn't struck either man. That presented a missed shot to account for. The WC was never able to conclude which of the 3 shots missed and presented arguments for and against for each of the three shots to have been the miss, but they never indicated a preference for any of them. A missed shot was consistent with having only two recovered bullets. A missed shot also presented a second possible explanation for Tague's wound. Without a missed, about the only possibility would have been a fragment exiting JFK's head and continuing down range to hit the curb near Tague.

This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report cites the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the doubtful excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. That excuse cannot be floated for the 1/13/1964 report, because it specifically cites the autopsy report.

That's funny. I've never seen anybody but you offer that as an explanation for why the initial report concluded 3 shots, 3 hits. This is just you creating another strawman argument to attack.

[Actually, the 1/13/1964 report does not cite the autopsy report as such but cites the FBI report on the autopsy authored by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill; the FBI report on the autopsy includes every single important finding of the autopsy report and also provides additional information about the autopsy. So the 1/13/64 FBI report had the benefit of all the autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.]

What is revealing about the visual aids brochure for the 1/13/1963 FBI report is that it gives the timing of the shots by providing the distance from the sixth-floor window at which each shot occurred:

"SHOT ONE was fired from a distance of 167 feet"
"SHOT TWO was fired from a distance of 262 feet"
"SHOT THREE was fired from a distance of 307 feet"
(CD 298, pp. 21-23, 25, https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/10699)

What is especially revealing about the visual aids brochure is that it includes photos of a model of Dealey Plaza with model cars placed in the locations on Elm Street to represent where the limo was located when each hit occurred.

You'll notice that the photos show that the first hit occurred when the limo was nowhere near the Stemmons Freeway sign and was only 167 feet from the sixth-floor window (CD 298, pp. 21-24, 26-27). 167 feet from the sixth-floor window would be right around Z193. Humm, that's almost the exact same time that the HSCA's photographic experts determined that JFK was first hit (Z186-190), and JFK would have been out of the sixth-floor gunman's view from Z166-209.

The second-shot distance of 262 feet would put the hit on Connally at right around Z311.

The third-shot distance of 307 feet would put the third shot at right around Z318.

Again, this was still very early in the process. They had figured some things out but not everything. That would come later. You are being critical of working hypotheses rather than judging the final product. That wouldn't come until September 1964. You ought to read that sometime. Maybe it would stop you from making some of your sillier arguments.

Either the FBI experts were shockingly incompetent or they could not have been viewing the same version of the Zapruder film that was published in the Warren Report and that has been in circulation since 1975. It is too bad they did not identify the Zapruder frames for their three shots, even though they used the Zapruder fim as the main basis for their analysis, but at least they gave the window-to-JFK distance for each shot so we can see the severe mismatch between their timing for the second and third shots and the extant Zapruder film.

Again, the investigation was a work in progress and you are attacking preliminary results. I guess that's easier than attacking the final conclusions of the WCR.

The 1/13/1964 FBI report notes the following facts:

-- "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length" (p. 2).

-- "The bag [the paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest] was examined for any evidence of the outline of a rifle but no significant indentations were found" (p. 5).

-- Two women who rode on the Red Arrow bus with Oswald on the way to Mexico City, Patricia Winston and Pamela Mumford, said he recommended they stay at the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City because he said "he had stayed there several times and had found it inexpensive. (p. 49).

Who gives a (bleep) what a 01/13/1964 report said. They were a little more than one month into a nine month fact finding process. Do you think they should have found all the facts at that point?

The FBI confirmed there was indeed a Hotel Cuba in Mexico City, but the hotel's records did not show that anyone by the name of Oswald had stayed there (p. 49). So how did Oswald know about the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City? Just an amazingly lucky guess?

You focus on some really silly $hit.

-- Mrs. Alexandra Taylor, who "became friendly with Oswald's wife," described Oswald as "bright" and as someone "who could argue logically and persuasively, and who was positive in his ideas and strong in his convictions." She said "she found it hard to believe he would want to kill President Kennedy" (p. 29).

I guess we should just ignore all the evidence that Oswald was the assassin because a friend of his wife didn't think he would want to kill the POTUS. Brilliant reasoning, Clouseau.