When Was JBC Hit?

[Jerry Organ]

Canning’s drawing had nothing to do with the May 1964 re-enactment using the QM.

The only connection I presented was that they both had Kennedy as far right as he could go. However, it's hard to believe that Canning never reviewed the only incremental-stop-go-frame-by-frame reenactment.

Canning’s position was based on his analysis of Betzner’s photo in which Canning concluded that the view of JBC was blocked by the man standing in front of Betzner.  He concluded, incorrectly as he later admitted, that JBC’s right shoulder was left of the right side of the ‘blocking man’. He simply extended that sight line from Betzner past the right side of blocking man to the car and showed it on an overhead view of the actual presidential limo. He placed JBC’s right shoulder to the car-left of that line.

Canning refers to a single sight-line, but it's rather wide. In Betzner, Canning's wide sight-line goes from the handhold to the base of the rollbar. On close inspection, the left edge of the sight-line meets the base of the rollbar; the right edge goes by Kennedy's left shoulder.

Connally could not be seen in Betzner, but his absence means he is inboard relative to Kennedy. There's enough space between blocking man and JFK that, if Connally was not to Kennedy's left, a portion of Connally's head would have been seen. Canning made reference to "a similar angle in a photograph taken by James Altgens on Houston less than a minute earlier."



He evidently thought the Altgens Houston photo showed a small gap between Kennedy's left shoulder and Connally's right shoulder when looking from the trunk. I have tried to approximate what I think Canning might have visualized (kind of like how you visualize your trajectories as if they're real). On the right inset, even without correcting the plat's proportions and by just adjusting the parade bar, Connally begins to move rightward into his seat.

Thus, Connally is significantly inboard of Kennedy while on Houston. Since none of Connally's head appears in Betzner, then he must still be as inboard relative to Kennedy as he is seen to be in the Altgens Houston photo.

Canning also noted: "Connally cannot have been sitting very far to the left of this position in view of his location in Zapruder frame 190." So Canning wasn't just blindly placing lines on Betzner only.

[Royell Storing]

     In the Love Field footage of JFK and Connally getting into and then sitting down inside the Limo, you can Clearly see the position of JFK's (L) Knee relative to the Connally Jump Seat/Backrest. The routinely posted "line" stuff is cartoonish and subjective.

[Andrew Mason]

Canning made reference to "a similar angle in a photograph taken by James Altgens on Houston less than a minute earlier."

I am not sure where you are getting that from.  That is not something Canning ever said.  I am not sure he was aware of Altgens' #5 photo.

Here is Altgens' #5 with sightlines from Altgens to JBC and JFK.


and the projection of these lines onto an overhead of the car:


Showing JBC to be in the middle of his seat.  Canning acknowledged that his placement of JBC for the HSCA was wrong, as I have shown.

Thus, Connally is significantly inboard of Kennedy while on Houston. Since none of Connally's head appears in Betzner, then he must still be as inboard relative to Kennedy as he is seen to be in the Altgens Houston photo.

The issue is not whether JBC is inboard of JFK. The question is how much was he inboard?  Enough for JBC's right armpit to be on a right to left path through JFK's neck?  That just doesn't work - even for a first shot SBT at z222.

[Jerry Organ]

I am not sure where you are getting that from.  That is not something Canning ever said.  I am not sure he was aware of Altgens' #5 photo.

Here is Altgens' #5 with sightlines from Altgens to JBC and JFK.


and the projection of these lines onto an overhead of the car:


Showing JBC to be in the middle of his seat. Canning acknowledged that his placement of JBC for the HSCA was wrong, as I have shown.

Your sight-lines are never going to work because your convergence point is wrong and, more importantly, the HSCA limo drawing is deeply flawed. Why you insist on using it, I don't know.


You have Kennedy's back merging into the top of the seat-back. The Towner film and Croft Photo show Kennedy's back about three inches forward of the seat-back's front seam.

The issue is not whether JBC is inboard of JFK. The question is how much was he inboard?  Enough for JBC's right armpit to be on a right to left path through JFK's neck?  That just doesn't work - even for a first shot SBT at z222.

Connally is not over almost to the door in Z193. So if you're wrong and the SBT is wrong, then there must be another scenario as to what happened.

[Royell Storing]

  Like I said, that "line" stuff is subjective. Even you guys that continue posting it can Not agree.
  JFK liked tucking himself back into that corner/nook where the backseat backrest meets the passenger side of the vehicle. I believe this position was less stressful on his back. From this position he could also wave while his (R) arm/elbow was resting atop/supported by the side of the car. This made waving easier on his back. A bullet Exiting above JFK's adam's apple would have been hugging the passenger side of the car.

[Andrew Mason]

Your sight-lines are never going to work because your convergence point is wrong and, more importantly, the HSCA limo drawing is deeply flawed. Why you insist on using it, I don't know.


You have Kennedy's back merging into the top of the seat-back. The Towner film and Croft Photo show Kennedy's back about three inches forward of the seat-back's front seam.

The H&E drawing does not show the slope of the seat back.  We can use the sightlines projected onto this composite of the H&E drawing superimposed over your model with your trajectory from the SN through JFK (6.86 degrees to car direction) and mine at z193 (18 degrees to car direction):



I can accept your positions.  What I can't accept is the 6.86 degree angle that you need in order for the SBT to work. The angle from the SN to car direction at z222 was 9.5 degrees:



Your suggestion that JBC's back would have blocked the path to the left thigh with JBC turned as he was at z193 is the issue. As this photo demonstrates, the thigh could well have been on the straight line path:

Connally is not over almost to the door in Z193. So if you're wrong and the SBT is wrong, then there must be another scenario as to what happened.

Connally can be just where you put him, as can JFK. 

The SBT is wrong if "not being in conflict with large bodies of consistent evidence" is the test for correctness.  The scenario as to what happened is explained simply by the evidence of the first shot hitting JFK at around z193 (at which point the angle was around 18 degrees) and the last two shots being closer together, the first of which struck JBC in the right armpit and wrist, leaving fragments deflecting off the radius striking the windshield, windshield frame and the road/curb near Tague.

[Jerry Organ]

The H&E drawing does not show the slope of the seat back.  We can use the sightlines projected onto this composite of the H&E drawing superimposed over your model with your trajectory from the SN through JFK (6.86 degrees to car direction) and mine at z193 (18 degrees to car direction):

"6.86 degrees to car direction" Not me. I use a lateral of 8-degrees, the same angle I figured out on the HSCA map years ago.

I can accept your positions.  What I can't accept is the 6.86 degree angle that you need in order for the SBT to work. The angle from the SN to car direction at z222 was 9.5 degrees:

What 9.5 degree angle? I'll give you credit for one thing. You have a knack for taking any map and limo plat, and getting whatever angle you want.

Your suggestion that JBC's back would have blocked the path to the left thigh with JBC turned as he was at z193 is the issue. As this photo demonstrates, the thigh could well have been on the straight line path:

Connally can be just where you put him, as can JFK. 

Let's see how that fellow looks in a Z193 viewpoint.

The SBT is wrong if "not being in conflict with large bodies of consistent evidence" is the test for correctness.  The scenario as to what happened is explained simply by the evidence of the first shot hitting JFK at around z193 (at which point the angle was around 18 degrees) and the last two shots being closer together, the first of which struck JBC in the right armpit and wrist, leaving fragments deflecting off the radius striking the windshield, windshield frame and the road/curb near Tague.

The SBT and your Theory are something for the WC critic to, at least, consider.

[Andrew Mason]

"6.86 degrees to car direction" Not me. I use a lateral of 8-degrees, the same angle I figured out on the HSCA map years ago.

Ok.  My measurement was incorrect. The angle that I get for your trajectory line, correctly measured, is 7.5 degrees to the car direction:



You still have a bit of a problem putting JFK in the same position at z222 that he was in Altgens #5, however. He is not leaning against the side of the car in z222-225:


You have his forehead almost above the inside edge of the back seat compartment.  That may have been his position in Altgens #5 but it does not appear to be his position at z222. 

What 9.5 degree angle? I'll give you credit for one thing. You have a knack for taking any map and limo plat, and getting whatever angle you want.

The difference appears to be where we place the rifle.  If your placement is correct, the angle is 8.3 degrees:

The SBT and your Theory are something for the WC critic to, at least, consider.

My rejection of the SBT is based on all the evidence but primarily the evidence of the 1...........2......3 shot pattern, the evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot and the evidence that JBC was struck in the back by the second shot, not the first shot. The trajectory issues, condition of CE399, the concussion effect of the second shot and fragment striking Tague on the second shot, the hair flip on the second shot, Nellie's evidence, the absence of evidence of a missed shot etc. provide further support for the 3 shot, 3 hit shot sequence.