Huh? Do you even understand the issue here? Now, I'll tell you what: Let's see you produce or find a diagram, just a basic one, that shows how a tumbling bullet--you pick the angle of the pitch and yaw--would produce two vertical tears that were parallel but markedly differed in length--differed by 35% (4.8 cm vs. 3.1 cm) and were joined in the middle by a third tear to form an H.
You don't seem to be taking into account the fact that the tears paralleled each other. We're not talking tears that ran different directions at different angles. We're talking about two parallel vertical tears, joined in the middle by a tear so that they and the joining tear form an H. Perhaps it would help to quote the Warren Commission's description of the tears:
Do tell me how a single bullet that looked anything like CE 399 could have produced such a tear? Use some common sense to visualize in your mind how the bullet/fragment would have had to be shaped to produce an H-shaped tear with uneven sides. This is basic geometry.
Right! Because he was just the guy who experienced the hit! Yeah, what would he know?! And when he spent almost an hour looking at high-quality blowups of frames Z190-240 for Life magazine, he, being the person who was actually hit and knowing his own facial expressions, etc.--he was in no position to determine when he was hit!
This is nitpicking nonsense. Connally never, ever wavered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot and that was hit as he was turning after hearing the first shot, and the Zapruder film confirms this clearly.
Gosh! Maybe because she was focused on her husband?! Lots of people only heard two shots, partly because two of the shots came in very rapid succession and partly because of where they were and/or what they were doing at the time.
Did it ever occur to you that in his first statement Connally had not yet seen the Zapruder film, and that in his subsequent statements he was including hindsight observations based on his having seen the film? The point is that Connally never veered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot.
Any trajectory analysis that assumes a bullet exited Kennedy's throat is invalid from the outset, as I document in the OP of this thread. Again, no bullet exited the tie knot or the front of the shirt. No bullet penetrated the chest and lung cavities--we know this now from released documents. There was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, which is undoubtedly part of the reason that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point.
Now, you need to explain how on this planet any bullet that looked anything like CE 399 could have produced an H-shaped tear with uneven vertical sides. Let's hear and/or see it. This is silly because the laws of geometry and physics tells us that there is no way a virtually pristine bullet could have produced an H-shaped tear with uneven sides. But, please do give it a shot.
The bullet exited JBC's chest sideways. The shape of the tear is meaningless, the bullet was tumbling. Anything is possible.
----------------------------------------------
Michael Griffith: "Did it ever occur to you that in his first statement Connally had not yet seen the Zapruder film, and that in his subsequent statements he was including hindsight observations based on his having seen the film? The point is that Connally never veered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot."This exactly the point. JBC did not remember what had happened. His memory of the assassination is he turned to his left and seen JFK slumped. He never waivered in his statement that he cried out after he was wounded and both Nelly and Jackie stated repeatedly this was after the first shot. Jackie stated her attention was diverted from JFK because she is watching JBC screaming. SA Kellerman sitting in front of Gov Connally placed the headshot as the second shot. Once again another witness verifying JBC and JFK were both struck by the first shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot. Senator COOPER. Might I ask a question there?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Senator COOPER. A few minutes ago you said in response to a question that when you spoke to the driver the car leaped forward from an acceleration immediately. Did that acceleration occur before the second shot was fired?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Just about the time that it came in.
Senator COOPER. About the time it came in?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Not before?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No.
--------------------------------
Why ignore the witnesses who are completely unimpaired and simply observed what happened in favor of JBC who was wounded and could not properly recall what happened until he views the Zapruder film?
Perhaps McCloy explains it best.
Mr. McCLOY - Warren Commission Member to the HSCA about SBT
Twice in my life, and I am sure a number of people in this room may have had a somewhat similar experience, I stood right alongside of a man as he was shot. The first man--it was in World War I in France--was killed. The second man recovered from his wound. The circumstances of the second experience were really quite amazing. I am convinced, after my experience, that on occasion, when you are shot, you don't know the minute you are hit. There is a sort of a perceptible period following the impact before you get the full realization that you have been hit. In the first case, it was a fellow officer in World War I. We were not far apart and he quietly said, "Jack, I think I am hit." He shortly collapsed subsequently and died of his wound. The other experience, which is almost unbelievable, was in Berlin when we were rehearsing for the reception of President Truman, who was going to visit us at the American headquarters in Berlin after the war. I had been, as you know, an official of the Government, Military Governor, and later High Commissioner for Germany, and Gen. Lucius Clay, my predecessor as Military Governor was with me, and we began to rehearse the ceremony because President Truman was coming along that afternoon to visit the headquarters. We were rehearsing, for example, who would step up and first shake hands with the President, when the bugles should sound off, et cetera--"You are going to do this and you that." There was a friend of mine who was on Clay's staff and who later became a very distinguished jurist in Massachusetts. He became Chief Judge of the Supreme Judicial Court. His name was Cutter, and we designated him to pose as the President. We said, "you are going to be President Truman, you are going to be the President and are to stand here." We started through the rehearsal. This was in front of the headquarters in Berlin and, by George, Cutter turned to me at a certain point, sort of hesitated and said, "Jack, I think I'm shot," and in a little while, he collapsed. You can imagine what a tizzy that created.
I know Governor Connally very well; I have shot quail with him and I know he's a good shot and I know he is familiar with firearms.
Frankly, I don't think he knew exactly when he was hit. I saw his recent testimony--at least somebody reported to me, perhaps indirectly, that he wasn't as certain now as when he first appeared before us--before our Commission when he said he was sure it wasn't the same shot which hit President Kennedy which hit him. I don't know where that bullet could have gone if it didn't go through Governor Connally. Moreover, Governor Connally didn't know until the next day, I think it was, that he had been shot in the hand, as well as in the body. I am suggesting that the certainty which he felt earlier isn't entirely reliable. The Germans have a word for it. They call it the "nachschlag."
I believe those who had been close to places where people have been shot are frequently aware of a perceptible delay on the part of the victim in registering an awareness of the shot.
The OP proved nothing, lots of opinions and no facts. The SBT alone explains the only manner in which JBC could have been wounded. Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony confirm JBC was struck by the same bullet that passed through JFK.
There has not been one fact presented disproving SBT. At every turn opinion is offered as fact based on some lone professional offering a new analysis in direct contradiction to numerous other professional people. If anything your own analysis of the event helps prove the SBT is the only answer.
It seems every thing is being done to avoid the question. Explain JBC's wound if the bullet does not pass through JFK first. The trajectory of the bullet is from behind and from the 6th floor of the TSBD. You wrote a paper stating there was only two viable shells found in the SN. You no longer believe your own analysis?
