If a bullet didn't go through JFK, then exactly how did Connally get hit?

[Jerry Organ]

You can't tell what the path was from the SN unless you know where the car was when the second bullet struck.  According to Nellie it was after she looked rearward toward JFK.  She is still looking at him at z256. According to Altgens, there was only one shot before his z256 photo. According to Greer, it prompted him to turn to the rear for the first time immediately, which he did at z278-280.  According to over 40 witnesses it was after the midpoint between 1  and 3.  According to Hickey and, perhaps, Kinney, JFK's hair on the right side flew up at the time of the second shot.   You will notice JBC start sailing forward immediately after z272.  JFK's hair flies up from z273-276.  The sun visor above Greer's head, that was hit by a bullet fragment, moves up between z271-272.  All of that is pretty consistent and points to a shot at z271-72.  At that point, JFK has already received his neck wound and the third shot causes the head wound has not occurred.  So shot no. 2 missed him.  If it just missed the right side of his head, which fits with what Hickey observed, it must have hit JBC on the right side.  To see if a shot from the SN has a clear path at that point, just put the car where it was at z272 and see how they line up.

Keep in mind JFK has moved left toward Jackie quite a bit and JBC has turned quite a bit to the right with his right armpit facing the SN.  His right wrist is pronated so the back of the wrist is against his right chest.

If you put the car at z272 with the angle of the car to a line from the SN much smaller because the road turns to that the SN is almost directly behind, you can easily see that a path from the SN to the right side of JFK's head goes into JBC's right armpit:

Seems Connally "sails forward" in the Z260s, as well.

[John Mytton]

Arlen actually demonstrated how it could be done - by the bullet passing just above JFK's right shoulder.

Thanks Tony, that trajectory was calculated to go right back to the sniper's nest window, the one with the shells and on one of the rifle rest boxes Oswald's fingerprints were orientated down Elm street and don't forget on the same floor Oswald's rifle with Oswald's prints and fibers that matched Oswald's arrest shirt. How on Earth can anyone be innocent with this mountain of evidence against them?

Btw the reason that they went over his shoulder was that it was easier than going through his shoulder.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

You asked the question and Arlen just showed you how it was possible - all it needed was the diameter of the bullet above JFK's right shoulder and there you go - you miss JFK and strike JC.

You can not rule out a shot from the Dal-Tex nor can you place Lee's hands on any rifle.

You asked the question and Arlen just showed you how it was possible - all it needed was the diameter of the bullet above JFK's right shoulder and there you go - you miss JFK and strike JC.

Yep and one of Oswald's bullets was unaccounted for, 3 shots 3 hits is perfectly plausible but we do have to consider Connally's back wound which was linear in shape indicating a tumbling bullet, how does a bullet start tumbling?

You can not rule out a shot from the Dal-Tex

The evidence is that the rifle that fired the shots was found on the 6th floor of the Depository, someone with a rifle was seen on the 6th floor of the Depository, 3 shells were found by the window on the 6th floor of the Depository, Harold Norman heard a bolt action rifle and what sounded like shells hitting the floor right above his head. And so far there is not one single piece of evidence that supports any manufacturing or planting of evidence.
Now putting aside any personal gut instinct, when a scientist examines the above so far undisputed evidence what must their conclusion be?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Many official committees looked at the SBT and to see if it was possible.

The problem is abundantly clear - JFK had to be in a specific position and posture to allow an alignment at ONE specific moment in time.

There is disagreement as to when the first shot struck anyone in the Presidential Limo let alone the possibility of an alignment between both men.

That's why the WC didn't pursue it. It was an exercise in futility.

What can't be disputed is that both men are reacting simultaneously, you can give excuses like Connally heard a sound but viewing the footage makes claims like that pure nonsense.

In the first frames as they emerge from behind the sign all seems well.



Connally's jacket billows.





Connally's right side is twisting down as his left shoulder bobs up and Kennedy's hands are starting to react.



Both men violently react, Connally's right wrist the one that was hit and Kennedy both show a similar reaction to something traumatic.



And in full motion the simultaneous reaction is clear as day and only dishonest people would deny they are moving at the same time.



Btw I grabbed these gifs from DVP's website, one of the best resources available.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Yep and one of Oswald's bullets was unaccounted for, 3 shots 3 hits is perfectly plausible but we do have to consider Connally's back wound which was linear in shape indicating a tumbling bullet, how does a bullet start tumbling?

The evidence is that the rifle that fired the shots was found on the 6th floor of the Depository, someone with a rifle was seen on the 6th floor of the Depository, 3 shells were found by the window on the 6th floor of the Depository, Harold Norman heard a bolt action rifle and what sounded like shells hitting the floor right above his head. And so far there is not one single piece of evidence that supports any manufacturing or planting of evidence.
Now putting aside any personal gut instinct, when a scientist examines the above so far undisputed evidence what must their conclusion be?

JohnM

Yep and one of Oswald's bullets was unaccounted for,

Oswald's bullets.. LOL

[John Mytton]

I am glad that you asked.

It took 61 cm (24 inches) of ballistic gel before the bullet started to tumble.

I don't believe JFK's neck was anywhere near that width.

According to the WC - the bullet that transited JFK struck no bone and left a very small circular hole in the throat - so why would it tumble between both men?

How do you know the bullet didn't strike JC at a tangent hence leaving a larger hole?

Dr. Robert Shaw elongated the back wound on JC by tissue debridement. He also corrected his official report which contained an error.

So much for a tumbling bullet.

Firstly, ballistics gel is good and all but we are talking about a bullet that hit a relatively solid object going through the neck and then emerging back into the air.

Lattimer recreated the neck with a neck and then put a card up in Connally's position to see if there was any tumbling and 5 out of 6 test bullets tumbled.



Secondly we know where Connally was hit and that was on the virtually flat of his back next to his armpit.



And we know the path went down and out just below his right nippple.

So we are left with just working out the maths.
1. If a bullet tumbles it's still moving in one direction and when this tumbling bullet strikes Connally it will make a keyhole in that shape.
2. If a bullet strikes at an oblique angle then we can create the same dimension but how do we account for the angles either he was shot from a blimp and the bullet magically changed direction as it passed through his body or what?



Geez Louise, it looks like the "tumbling bullet theory" gets to live another day, but do try again and next time bring your "A" game, K?

JohnM

[Ray Mitcham]

The bullet couldn't have been tumbling as it left JFK's throat, as the hole was too small and round.

[Howard Gee]

What you cant discount was that both men were hit by separate bullets fired by two gunmen located above and behind the President.

Where did the 2 separate bullets that struck both men go ?

You do realize that if you are claiming that CE399 didn't wound either man, then you are proposing two magical disappearing bullets, right ?