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

[Andrew Mason]

Thank you for sharing that.  I appreciate that.   I am open to logical solutions and I can now see the perspective better that has been put forward.  I still think the elevated umbrella in the Zapruder Frames are showing a very close proximity to the car.   I think the umbrella should be further over in order to conform to angular alignment.  The sign itself must be about 4 feet high.   Zapruder's perch is quite a bit west of the sign.
I think no matter which way you look at it, given Zapruder's elevated position, the umbrella man should be over about where the black suited man is in the Willis' photograph below the sign in my opinion and then have the umbrella moved over to match his position.    To me, that would be the logical placement, matching the bush up above outside the sign!
 
He is being shown on the outside of the corner post of the sign which lines up with the motorcycle antennae on Willis' photograph  The angle doesn't look right.  At any rate, unusual for a man to be using a fully extended umbrella on that day and it appears JFK and JC are looking right at him.  The SS in the followup car as well.  Again for me, I can see this as an attention attraction.   I would never buy into the umbrella having some sort of weapon built in.    I still suspect the angle of the bullet to the neck came would be more logical in a frontal shot coming from Nellie's side from the person whose hands disappear behind the body after finishing the "clap" - very rapidly.  This being when the car was behind the sign in the Zapruder film.  I can't find those 2 people one black and one white? on the Bronson frame.  They must be right at edge and not captured!

Again it has always been my speculation that it was a well coordinated event and when Jean Hill heard 2 shots, she was correct.  A second almost simultaneous noise (shot) from up the knoll will have everyone looking in that direction.  That is from her TV interview on the very first night.

The Stemmons sign is 15 feet from the people you see on the sidewalk and the grass beneath the sign is a bit higher than the level of the sidewalk.  So keep in mind the perspective and positions of the photographers:  In Zapruder's film the sightline to the umbrella is downward so it crosses the plane of the sign at a point above the height of the umbrella and then continues down to the umbrella. This makes the bottom of the sign board appear to be below the umbrella.  In Willis 5 the sightline is horizontal. The slightly higher sign makes the sign appear a bit higher than the tops of the umbrella located 15 feet in front when looking at it from Willis' position.

Furthermore, the umbrella is raised from just over the holder's head in Willis (z202) to the maximum height seen in z225.  It goes from just above the bottom of the sign to about the middle of sign - about 2 feet. You can see this increase in the Bronson frames compared to Willis 05.

[Allan Fritzke]

I have been studying and looking at these frames (Bronson, Willis and Zapruder) and trying to figure out what does not add up with them.   I believe there is a fairly major correction in the Willis  photo which was deliberately done.  The bush you see above the Stemmons Freeway sign should be in line with the bush alongside the sign (above the umbrella) in that drawing!  I call it a drawing because if that has been altered, what else has?  This is the only way that Zapruder could capture his view of the top of the limousine without being up 100 feet higher!  We only miss seeing Jacqueline's pink bonnet at Z218-Z219.  Looking at Zapruder's vantage point in the Willis photo, it is impossible for him to see the top of the car!  His line of sight as shown in the picture below does not allow him to see the top of the limousine and Jacqueline's bonnet!

It is also noteworthy that in the Bronson Film you have a "very tall" man (and his dog?) right at the curbside facing perpendicular to the limousine.  That is a prime suspect if and when the neck shot occurred!  This man in the suit in Willis 05 is at the same proportion as the umbrella man and yet he is right beside the limousine when it passes (curbside) and is at least a car length closer (30 to 40 ft) to the scene.  His size should be closer and should be close to the size of the lady in black - just visible to the front of Clint Hill (LHS) of the first picture blow up I have shown.

The bush above the sign is the match to the one beside it!  Clearly a problem!!!  That sign needs to have coherency with the lady in black shown in Zapruder Z194 (LHS of sign)  It looks like that sign has been elevated above her head when she should be shown at the front of it in my opiniion!  The "white" is bleeding onto the shoulder in the picture from where it was moved. The white scarf? maybe is another lady - definitely see the black in behind her at that frame!

Another issue with the Bronson Film (an optical illusion?) is that we can't see the appearance of the third lane.  It seems to me the limousine should be in the middle of the road so that motorcycles could be driving alongside of the followup car!

[Andrew Mason]

I have been studying and looking at these frames (Bronson, Willis and Zapruder) and trying to figure out what does not add up with them.   I believe there is a fairly major correction in the Willis  photo which was deliberately done.  The bush you see above the Stemmons Freeway sign should be in line with the bush alongside the sign (above the umbrella) in that drawing!  I call it a drawing because if that has been altered, what else has?  This is the only way that Zapruder could capture his view of the top of the limousine without being up 100 feet higher!  We only miss seeing Jacqueline's pink bonnet at Z218-Z219.  Looking at Zapruder's vantage point in the Willis photo, it is impossible for him to see the top of the car!  His line of sight as shown in the picture below does not allow him to see the top of the limousine and Jacqueline's bonnet!

You need to study it some more.  Leaving aside the technical hurdles of doctoring a film and Willis' photo, you are suggesting a massive conspiracy.  A much simpler answer is provided if you actually take the time to measure everything and do a proper sightline analysis.  If you are going to compare the Bronson film and photographs you have to make sure the film frame and photos were taken at the same time.  The Willis photo is taken at z202.  The umbrella has not yet been raised.  In Bronson it is 2 feet above his head. In Willis, the umbrella man has the hand holding the umbrella down at his side. In Bronson it is up by his head. The bush appears to be along the base of the concrete wall.  If you draw a line from Willis eye-level to the top of umbrella man's head it is just below where the bush is.  What is the problem?

Another issue with the Bronson Film (an optical illusion?) is that we can't see the appearance of the third lane.  It seems to me the limousine should be in the middle of the road so that motorcycles could be driving alongside of the followup car!

The light line that you see appears to me to be the road surface, not the curb.  The curb is hidden by the grass in front of it. If the car was in the south lane, you would not be able to see the bottom of the tires due to the curb.

[Allan Fritzke]

I think the bush halfway up the sign is just a bush. In the following gif we see the same bush photographed from further down Elm street so the perspective is a little out but you get the general idea.



JohnM

Andrew, what I am looking at is the shrub over top of the Stemmons Freeway sign shown on the Willis 05 photograph.  It appears to be similar to the one just above the umbrella alongside the sign.   They are the same type of bushes. If it is above the sign, it means it had to be planted high up on the wall or on the other side - it does not look like a tree.    As John Mytton's gif pointed out, the bush all looks at the same level when you look at his other photograph he alternated the Willis' one with.   If that other picture in his gif is valid, I see no large bush hovering at the top of the sign behind it!   Maybe keystoning is a technique that came in to play here as well?    Some have suggested that has happened with the 3 photographs of Oswald holding a rifle in his backyard at various positions and the background appears to always be stationary.   That was taken with a handheld camera and not one on a tripod.

If that sign is really that high, how are you going to be able to see the top of the limousine (Jacqueline's head)  over the top of it like shown in the Zapruder film?  I know it will take more investigation.   I would like to know the approximate elevation of Zapruder's camera above the roadway where the limousine was.  The limousine was in the center lane.    Determine some geometrical dimensions. .    Once could determine the top height of that sign with geometry and determine its location wrt what one sees.     Some assumptions (throwing some numbers out there) would be
1) 140 feet from Jacqueline to Zapruder,
2) 20 feet? elevation  from camera to roadway difference  at the time of passing behind the sign
3) 40 feet from Jacqueline to the sign corner. 
4) Jacqueline's top of head 4 feet above roadway.

Maybe someone has made this calculation already?  I know Jerry Organ's post with positions may hold more answers if there was a calculation made already.

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew, what I am looking at is the shrub over top of the Stemmons Freeway sign shown on the Willis 05 photograph.  It appears to be similar to the one just above the umbrella alongside the sign.   They are the same type of bushes. If it is above the sign, it means it had to be planted high up on the wall or on the other side - it does not look like a tree.    As John Mytton's gif pointed out, the bush all looks at the same level when you look at his other photograph he alternated the Willis' one with.   If that other picture in his gif is valid, I see no large bush hovering at the top of the sign behind it!

??I see a tree that goes much higher than the extended sight line from Willis over the top of the Stemmons sign.  What do you think happened to the top of the tree?  Did it suddenly disappear from Willis's photo and replaced by a bush that happens to look much like the tree? Why would anyone do that?  This is silly.

If that sign is really that high, how are you going to be able to see the top of the limousine (Jacqueline's head)  over the top of it like shown in the Zapruder film?  I know it will take more investigation.   I would like to know the approximate elevation of Zapruder's camera above the roadway where the limousine was.  The limousine was in the center lane.    Determine some geometrical dimensions. .    Once could determine the top height of that sign with geometry and determine its location wrt what one sees.     Some assumptions (throwing some numbers out there) would be
1) 140 feet from Jacqueline to Zapruder,
2) 20 feet? elevation  from camera to roadway difference  at the time of passing behind the sign
3) 40 feet from Jacqueline to the sign corner. 
4) Jacqueline's top of head 4 feet above roadway.

Maybe someone has made this calculation already?  I know Jerry Organ's post with positions may hold more answers if there was a calculation made already.

??!! Look at frame z172.  The south curb of Elm is visible above the left corner of the sign to about the middle of the sign.   Do you see Jackie's head above the curb as she approaches the sign? So why would her head not be visible if the curb is visible?

[Nicholas Turner]

Andrew, what I am looking at is the shrub over top of the Stemmons Freeway sign shown on the Willis 05 photograph.

Isn't it the top of the tree planted infront of the wall, as seen in Willis 6?

[Allan Fritzke]

I stand corrected there is a tree there.  I was looking at Mytton's gif too much and missed the stem!    However, the illusion still is great when you compare sizes of the people relative to each other and where they are standing.  No one seems to know anything about the man and ? that are standing at curbside next to the President's limousine when the neck shot comes in.   In Willis slide,he looks very small.  There is a tall man standing there in the Bronson Film and someone else right beside him. I tried to blow up a picture to look at it in more detail.  Unfortunately, you need an original to look at.   It appears that whoever had there head next to him, suffered an "erase" out in the Bronson pictures I have been able to find on the internet. 

As well, there is something alongside of him, that appears to look like a dog (object?).    It certainly can't be a child because no hand is restraining them from running out - the man in the black suit clearly has his back to that object and standing on the curb.   

[Tom Pickering]

In my opinion, John Connally was a co-conspirator in the assassination of JFK who did not get hit at all.  Connally being hit was all staged to support the LHO explanation.