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

[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 ?

[Jack Nessan]

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

That wasn't the correct alignment of the JBC and JFK.  JBC was slightly inboard of JFK. Specter proved the only way to place a wound in JBC's back was by the bullet passing through JFK first.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184651/m1/1/high_res/?width=930

[Jack Nessan]

You mean Arlen was standing next to the assassin with a movie camera and saw there was no possibility of JC being struck by a bullet 6.5 mm in diameter because JFK was in the way?

Who has shown that any bullet had transited JFK?

You posted image wasnt a reflection of when the shots were being fired Jack.

At least you understand the alignment of the two men shows the bullet needed to pass through JFK first. The only way to explain JBC's back wound was with a bullet passing through JFK and Specter proved that. If you have a photo that shows a different alignment post it. All the ones I have seen show that exact alignment.

[Andrew Mason]

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?

Actually, it was described by Dr. Shaw as an elliptical wound. He did not describe a wound that was inconsistent with a pristine bullet striking at an angle.