It is amazing to me how much influence our preconceptions have on what we see in the photographic record. I am not immune to this phenomenon. People who can’t believe the SBT, for whatever reasons, will deny that JBC is reacting to being shot.
He is reacting.
I can't tell from the film whether he is reacting being hit in the back or reacting to hearing the first shot hit JFK and fearing an assassination unfolding (as he said occurred).
The only reason to think that the bullet through JFK's neck hit Connally is that the bullet passed through JFK's neck without deflecting and the car shows no sign of being hit. Arlen Specter admitted that this was the reason for the SBT.
If that is indeed the case, the SBT must be correct. The evidence would favour the first shot SBT and we would have to find (as John McCloy did) that the evidence that JBC was hit on the second shot must be wrong.
But if JBC was hit by two bullets and did not feel one because it caused only superficial wound that he did not notice for a few seconds before being hit in the back, then there is no problem with any of the evidence. In fact, the difference in JBC's wounds could be easily explained as would the condition of CE399. Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot would also fit. And the trajectory would fit much better. I can't think of any evidence that does not fit that scenario.
