JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

BloodBath

And you are the one straw-manning and asking stupid questions. How about trying to counter what I have spent most of time and space talking about and what I have requested multiple times that you try and dispute. CE399.

It still does not explain why no residue was found on his face/cheek. Pretty unlikely for someone who allegedly fired 3-4 shots from a bolt action rifle at such a pace that he would have had to chamber a new round quickly while maintaining his scope vision with the rifle close to his face.

Tipsy McSwagger

EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

namloc1980

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dr Shaw was the doctor who operated on Gov Connelly. And he could not understand how the magic bullet looked like it did. How many Doctors do we have to listen to before you guys wake up?

Is he a ballistics expert??

BloodBath

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

Ok I'm willing to acknowledge that. I don't know the gun design or the forensics involved. Now how about trying to dispute CE399.

That's how a conversation works. Unfortunately in this field there is usually lot's of misinformation as many people have tried to make money from this topic for many years. This is how we weed out what is and is not important evidence.

Now since you take this experts opinion at face value, why do you not take the opinion of 3 ballistics experts used in the commission who all believed CE399 was not the bullet that caused any of those bone injurys. The facts relating to the fragments back up that claim 100% and the proper scientific tests also back it up.

Tipsy McSwagger

BloodBath wrote: »

Ok I'm willing to acknowledge that. I don't know the gun design or the forensics involved. Now how about trying to dispute CE399.

That would take a while and I would need to research it a good bit because I can’t remember a lot about it tbh.

BloodBath

Well likewise. Some of my comments have been made from memory. I have not visited this topic in many years which is why I said the paraffin tests showed negative all over. I didn't re-check that before posting. Jumping on someones simple mistakes and using it as a stick to beat them with is not going to get us anywhere.

I am willing and open to counter arguments that may even change my opinion.

ligerdub

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Its just text from a book is it not? Have you looked to see if this book references direct quotes? Could the author be misrepresenting Connelly words? I have seen Connelly on many different videos detailing his side and he says something entirely different. Connelly gave his testimony at the Warren Commission it not like this author claims. Skeptics are well known to lie to push an agenda.

There are quote marks in the passage of text, it's a quote from John Connally. The author of the book undertook a telephone interview with him to get this information, a fairly standard approach to undertake writing a book. Of course you can choose to disregard this, but the reality is if the quote is true or false (no reason to believe it was just fabricated) the validity of the claims can be verified by looking at the video evidence and a breakdown of how he came to change his opinion, which I'll go into later.

"I have seen Connelly on many different videos detailing his side and he says something entirely different." Indeed you did, because he based his views on what happened by what his wife said, not what he saw with his own eyes. He assumed that he was hit by a different shot to Kennedy for 2 main reasons:

1. The WC said the first shot hit both of them but he obviously knew that wasn't true. He heard it but knew he wasn't shot (not something you'd fail to notice). Since the WC said the 1st shot hit both of them he obviously thought that this was at least partially valid and it still hit Kennedy, but that he was instead hit with the 2nd shot. This is a reasonable error.

2. He could not see Kennedy when he turned around i.e. he did not see Kennedy being hit:

“When the first shot was fired I thought of nothing else but that it is a rifle shot,” he said. “I then had the time to turn to my right, I had time to think, time to react. I turned to my right to see if I could see anything unusual, and especially to see if I could see him out of the corner of my eye, because I immediately thought of an assassination attempt. I didn’t see anything but the general blur of waving and of people moving. Nothing really unusual. I did not see the President out of the corner of my eye. I started to turn to look over my left shoulder and had about come to the point where I was looking straight forward again and I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me.” (Connally press conference, December 1963).

You can see this clearly in the Zapruder film. He doesn't take a full look around behind him until after he himself is shot.

So that leaves him relying on his wife, so let's look at that. This was all in the original text from earlier but let's re-examine. When she "heard the first shot, I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. Then very soon there was the 2nd shot that hit John."

She also said "as the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying "Oh, no, no, no" Then there was the 2nd shot and it hit John." Connally himself stated that he said this after he had been hit...not beforehand.

Nellie Connally had incorrectly stated the 2nd shot as being the 1st. Going back to the author's quote being true or false and why it's not important, let's examine Nellie's statement about "turning over my right shoulder and looking back". You can see that she doesn't turn to her right until Kennedy is hit and pulls his arms up to his neck, at which time you can see that John Connally had himself been shot.

He relented on his understanding of events later in life, he changed his mind, it happens. Look at an interview from 1991, not exactly a slaying of the WC.

In any event, as I've mentioned previously, the opinion of Connally is at best interesting or food for thought, it is not Gospel. The proof of the pudding is in the more forensic and scientific analysis of events through the various photo and video analysis and other ballistic evidence available.

Forgive me for laughing when you said "Skeptics are well known to lie to push an agenda". I mean no disrespect, but you seem very entrenched in a certain way of thinking.

Cheerful Spring

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I suppose he didn’t murder Officer Tippett either?

Did ever cross your mind Officer Tippett was involved in the conspiracy? He just happens to stop Oswald before his name was even broadcast as a suspect.

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub wrote: »

There are quote marks in the passage of text, it's a quote from John Connally. The author of the book undertook a telephone interview with him to get this information, a fairly standard approach to undertake writing a book. Of course you can choose to disregard this, but the reality is if the quote is true or false (no reason to believe it was just fabricated) the validity of the claims can be verified by looking at the video evidence and a breakdown of how he came to change his opinion, which I'll go into later.

"I have seen Connelly on many different videos detailing his side and he says something entirely different." Indeed you did, because he based his views on what happened by what his wife said, not what he saw with his own eyes. He assumed that he was hit by a different shot to Kennedy for 2 main reasons:

1. The WC said the first shot hit both of them but he obviously knew that wasn't true. He heard it but knew he wasn't shot (not something you'd fail to notice). Since the WC said the 1st shot hit both of them he obviously thought that this was at least partially valid and it still hit Kennedy, but that he was instead hit with the 2nd shot. This is a reasonable error.

2. He could not see Kennedy when he turned around i.e. he did not see Kennedy being hit:

“When the first shot was fired I thought of nothing else but that it is a rifle shot,” he said. “I then had the time to turn to my right, I had time to think, time to react. I turned to my right to see if I could see anything unusual, and especially to see if I could see him out of the corner of my eye, because I immediately thought of an assassination attempt. I didn’t see anything but the general blur of waving and of people moving. Nothing really unusual. I did not see the President out of the corner of my eye. I started to turn to look over my left shoulder and had about come to the point where I was looking straight forward again and I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me.” (Connally press conference, December 1963).

You can see this clearly in the Zapruder film. He doesn't take a full look around behind him until after he himself is shot.

So that leaves him relying on his wife, so let's look at that. This was all in the original text from earlier but let's re-examine. When she "heard the first shot, I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. Then very soon there was the 2nd shot that hit John."

She also said "as the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying "Oh, no, no, no" Then there was the 2nd shot and it hit John." Connally himself stated that he said this after he had been hit...not beforehand.

Nellie Connally had incorrectly stated the 2nd shot as being the 1st. Going back to the author's quote being true or false and why it's not important, let's examine Nellie's statement about "turning over my right shoulder and looking back". You can see that she doesn't turn to her right until Kennedy is hit and pulls his arms up to his neck, at which time you can see that John Connally had himself been shot.

He relented on his understanding of events later in life, he changed his mind, it happens. Look at an interview from 1991, not exactly a slaying of the WC.

In any event, as I've mentioned previously, the opinion of Connally is at best interesting or food for thought, it is not Gospel. The proof of the pudding is in the more forensic and scientific analysis of events through the various photo and video analysis and other ballistic evidence available.

Forgive me for laughing when you said "Skeptics are well known to lie to push an agenda". I mean no disrespect, but you seem very entrenched in a certain way of thinking.

Actually, he sticking to the same story if you watched the video. He did not change his mind about getting hit till he turned to look around.

Cheerful Spring

namloc1980 wrote: »

Is he a ballistics expert??

He operated on Connelly and he saw the wounds. The bullet hit bone obviously it would have deformed.

Again this bullet was not even found at the crime scene. It was found on a stretcher at Hospital sometime later after the shooting.

Someone could have come in easily and planted it. Care to explain how nobody noticed a bullet on Connelly when he was brought in for surgery. Where was it tugged in his sock?

Cheerful Spring

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

There is a glaring problem with the testimony given by Cunningham.

Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek
Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general
atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the
paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission. Dr. Guinn
said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of
the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should
also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax
impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had
informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis'
because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.

'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two
parallel tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.'
The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of
radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both
hands and both cheeks

Cheerful Spring

BloodBath wrote: »

More whattaboutary. How about you focus on 1 thing at a time instead of acting like a fly bouncing from 1 thing to another.

Dispute the CE399 evidence I have provided. Dispute Ruby's confession. Dispute the doctors opinions. Dispute the ballistics experts opinions.

Ruby was spotted at Parkland by a few people. Even a reporter claims he saw Ruby at the hospital just after Kennedy arrived.

JJayoo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

To me, that image looks higher than the picket fence. It looks like a figure of a person with a rifle in his right hand probably moving away after firing the shot? Could be wearing a hat of some kind?

You are seeing what you want to see with this pic.

There is no one in this picture

Timberrrrrrrr

JJayoo wrote: »

You are seeing what you want to see with this pic.

There is no one in this picture

Ask him about his magic mirror in the 9-11 thread. He always sees what suits his agenda.

Tipsy McSwagger

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did ever cross your mind Officer Tippett was involved in the conspiracy? He just happens to stop Oswald before his name was even broadcast as a suspect.

No

ligerdub

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually, he sticking to the same story if you watched the video. He did not change his mind about getting hit till he turned to look around.

That's your response to my post? Infuriating.

I hate to be that poncey 2018 type poster, but your posts are the worst example of confirmation bias I've ever seen.......by a considerable distance. You consistency ignore or dismiss valid opposition to your entrenched beliefs.

Indeed Connally's version of events didn't change, but specifically in terms of what he himself was hit with. His understanding of what other people believed obviously did change.

His version of events to what happened to him:

Shot 1: Heard a shot/He was not hit

Action: Turn to his right (note THIS DOES NOT MEAN TURN AROUND!!!!)

"When the first shot was fired I thought of nothing else but that it is a rifle shot,” he said. “I then had the time to turn to my right, I had time to think, time to react. I turned to my right to see if I could see anything unusual."

Look at the video:

Look at the first 2 seconds, go to 0.25 speed if you have to. Keep looking at it. Clear as day he has a noticeable snap turn right of his head at the 2 second mark. This is the "turn to my right" he refers to.

To make this as clear as possible:

Frame 161, looking straight ahead https://ibb.co/tX1tT0M



Then frame 178, he has turned to the right. https://ibb.co/JQX3f8j



He makes no more turns rightward after this until AFTER he is shot himself, at which point he makes a right turn to the point of turning around. His movements after frame 178 are a slow move left and forward towards sitting in a normal forward facing position, as he himself describes in his version of events after hearing the first shot.

If you can see him move rightward at a point between then and being shot himself then please enlighten us. Bear in mind that this right turn has to be consistent with the following version of events:

" I had time to think, time to react. I turned to my right to see if I could see anything unusual, and especially to see if I could see him out of the corner of my eye, because I immediately thought of an assassination attempt. I didn’t see anything but the general blur of waving and of people moving. Nothing really unusual. I did not see the President out of the corner of my eye. I started to turn to look over my left shoulder and had about come to the point where I was looking straight forward again and I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me."

This version of events is entirely consistent with him making that turn of his head at frame 178. There is noticeable time for him to process the above before getting hit by the next bullet.

Shot 2: Hit by shot he did not hear

"I started to turn to look over my left shoulder and had about come to the point where I was looking straight forward again and I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me."

Upon being hit said "oh no no no. My God they are going to kill us all" You can clearly see in the video he says nothing until he himself is hit.

Again this is consistent with the time gap between turning to his right and then starting to turn back towards forward facing, as shown in the Zapruder film.

Shot 3: Kennedy hit in head.

Visual:

What did he see? Absolutely nothing. He has no visual evidence to state that he was hit by a different shot to Kennedy's back/throat wound.

In summary to what John Connally said happened:

- There were 3 shots
- The 1st one missed him
- The 2nd shot hit him after which he said "oh no, no no"
- The 3rd shot missed him

This has always been his version of events, and has always been the correct version of events. You are correct about one thing, HIS story about himself didn't change. He made claims about Kennedy being hit with the 1st bullet though.....even though HE HIMSELF admitted he didn't even see Kennedy being hit. Therefore he can't himself be considered a reliable witness (as hard as that is to believe.....particularly for you it seems). He saw nothing, he just assumed Kennedy was hit by the 1st bullet for no other reason than the WC and his wife said he was.

Now let's consider what Nellie said.

The reason the two appear to have agreed timelines is because there is a serious misunderstanding of Nellie of what happened. She has her version of events arseways.

Her version of events:

1st shot:

- She says that after hearing it she turns to her right and sees Kennedy hit in the throat.
- She hears her husband say "oh no, no, no"

You can see (just about in this frame) that she is still facing forward. Kennedy has literally just been hit (as has her husband). https://ibb.co/Bf2GyPR



A couple of frames later you can see she turns towards Kennedy (she has reacted to hearing the shot), and he has his hands up to his neck. https://ibb.co/8sq6jtt



She is a lot more difficult to see in most videos, but her head turn right is quite clear in this video:

Shot 2:

Hit's John Connally

Shot 3: Kennedy hit in the head

Her version of events of what happened to John Connally:

- There were 3 shots
- The 1st one missed him (but he says "oh no, no, no" but why would he say this unless he was hit? Bearing in mind he explicitly said he couldn't see the President being hit)
- The 2nd shot hit him
- The 3rd shot missed him

This is why they appear to have consistent and agreeable stories. In terms of which shots hit Connally.

The problem here is that John Connally's version of events has bullet 1 at frame 178, where clearly neither he nor Kennedy are hit, and Nellie's bullet 1 is at a much later point.

A bigger problem here is that John was clear in saying "oh no, no, no" in response to being hit, which Nellie believed was after shot 1 (which she thought didn't hit him), and John knew to be after shot 2 (which he obviously knew hit him). It's clear as day she mistook what was shot # 2 to be shot #1. She found some phantom shot in the middle which there was clearly no time for anyway.

When this was told to John many years later he then changed his view to:

"Based upon the angles, the 2nd bullet, which went through his neck, could have gone through my back. The 2nd bullet could have hit both of us."

Let's be blunt about this. She heard 3 shots, none of which hit her. Her version of events are not as reliable as John's in terms of the order of shots that hit John Connally. His version of events are consistent with what's in the clip. She appears to have heard some mysterious shot between Kennedy getting hit first and her husband being hit, despite the fact that they are hit simultaneously in the clip, not to mention the fact that given his injuries it would be practically impossible for Connally to get all those injuries and not have hit Kennedy en route also. Finally, if there were 2 shots then they would also certainly be heard as one given the time difference.

I'm sure you'll discard this somehow. I have no further interest in debating this with you as you seem hellbent on keeping the blinkers on about this.

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub wrote: »

That's your response to my post? Infuriating.

I hate to be that poncey 2018 type poster, but your posts are the worst example of confirmation bias I've ever seen.......by a considerable distance. You consistency ignore or dismiss valid opposition to your entrenched beliefs.

Indeed Connally's version of events didn't change, but specifically in terms of what he himself was hit with. His understanding of what other people believed obviously did change.

His version of events to what happened to him:

Shot 1: Heard a shot/He was not hit

Action: Turn to his right (note THIS DOES NOT MEAN TURN AROUND!!!!)

"When the first shot was fired I thought of nothing else but that it is a rifle shot,” he said. “I then had the time to turn to my right, I had time to think, time to react. I turned to my right to see if I could see anything unusual."

Look at the video:

Look at the first 2 seconds, go to 0.25 speed if you have to. Keep looking at it. Clear as day he has a noticeable snap turn right of his head at the 2 second mark. This is the "turn to my right" he refers to.

To make this as clear as possible:

Frame 161, looking straight ahead https://ibb.co/tX1tT0M



Then frame 178, he has turned to the right. https://ibb.co/JQX3f8j



He makes no more turns rightward after this until AFTER he is shot himself, at which point he makes a right turn to the point of turning around. His movements after frame 178 are a slow move left and forward towards sitting in a normal forward facing position, as he himself describes in his version of events after hearing the first shot.

If you can see him move rightward at a point between then and being shot himself then please enlighten us. Bear in mind that this right turn has to be consistent with the following version of events:

" I had time to think, time to react. I turned to my right to see if I could see anything unusual, and especially to see if I could see him out of the corner of my eye, because I immediately thought of an assassination attempt. I didn’t see anything but the general blur of waving and of people moving. Nothing really unusual. I did not see the President out of the corner of my eye. I started to turn to look over my left shoulder and had about come to the point where I was looking straight forward again and I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me."

This version of events is entirely consistent with him making that turn of his head at frame 178. There is noticeable time for him to process the above before getting hit by the next bullet.

Shot 2: Hit by shot he did not hear

"I started to turn to look over my left shoulder and had about come to the point where I was looking straight forward again and I felt the impact of the bullet that hit me."

Upon being hit said "oh no no no. My God they are going to kill us all" You can clearly see in the video he says nothing until he himself is hit.

Again this is consistent with the time gap between turning to his right and then starting to turn back towards forward facing, as shown in the Zapruder film.

Shot 3: Kennedy hit in head.

Visual:

What did he see? Absolutely nothing. He has no visual evidence to state that he was hit by a different shot to Kennedy's back/throat wound.

In summary to what John Connally said happened:

- There were 3 shots
- The 1st one missed him
- The 2nd shot hit him after which he said "oh no, no no"
- The 3rd shot missed him

This has always been his version of events, and has always been the correct version of events. You are correct about one thing, HIS story about himself didn't change. He made claims about Kennedy being hit with the 1st bullet though.....even though HE HIMSELF admitted he didn't even see Kennedy being hit. Therefore he can't himself be considered a reliable witness (as hard as that is to believe.....particularly for you it seems). He saw nothing, he just assumed Kennedy was hit by the 1st bullet for no other reason than the WC and his wife said he was.

Now let's consider what Nellie said.

The reason the two appear to have agreed timelines is because there is a serious misunderstanding of Nellie of what happened. She has her version of events arseways.

Her version of events:

1st shot:

- She says that after hearing it she turns to her right and sees Kennedy hit in the throat.
- She hears her husband say "oh no, no, no"

You can see (just about in this frame) that she is still facing forward. Kennedy has literally just been hit (as has her husband). https://ibb.co/Bf2GyPR



A couple of frames later you can see she turns towards Kennedy (she has reacted to hearing the shot), and he has his hands up to his neck. https://ibb.co/8sq6jtt



She is a lot more difficult to see in most videos, but her head turn right is quite clear in this video:

Shot 2:

Hit's John Connally

Shot 3: Kennedy hit in the head

Her version of events of what happened to John Connally:

- There were 3 shots
- The 1st one missed him (but he says "oh no, no, no" but why would he say this unless he was hit? Bearing in mind he explicitly said he couldn't see the President being hit)
- The 2nd shot hit him
- The 3rd shot missed him

This is why they appear to have consistent and agreeable stories. In terms of which shots hit Connally.

The problem here is that John Connally's version of events has bullet 1 at frame 178, where clearly neither he nor Kennedy are hit, and Nellie's bullet 1 is at a much later point.

A bigger problem here is that John was clear in saying "oh no, no, no" in response to being hit, which Nellie believed was after shot 1 (which she thought didn't hit him), and John knew to be after shot 2 (which he obviously knew hit him). It's clear as day she mistook what was shot # 2 to be shot #1. She found some phantom shot in the middle which there was clearly no time for anyway.

When this was told to John many years later he then changed his view to:

"Based upon the angles, the 2nd bullet, which went through his neck, could have gone through my back. The 2nd bullet could have hit both of us."

Let's be blunt about this. She heard 3 shots, none of which hit her. Her version of events are not as reliable as John's in terms of the order of shots that hit John Connally. His version of events are consistent with what's in the clip. She appears to have heard some mysterious shot between Kennedy getting hit first and her husband being hit, despite the fact that they are hit simultaneously in the clip, not to mention the fact that given his injuries it would be practically impossible for Connally to get all those injuries and not have hit Kennedy en route also. Finally, if there were 2 shots then they would also certainly be heard as one given the time difference.

I'm sure you'll discard this somehow. I have no further interest in debating this with you as you seem hellbent on keeping the blinkers on about this.

We can see in this Photo Kennedy was already hit. Connelly got hit by a bullet in the back area this bullet exited out through his chest and hit his right wrist at the same time. Why is he still holding that hat in his right hand and why don't you see a reaction or jolt in that arm?



The Warren Commission knew 1 of the 3 shots missed. Oswald gun can only fire three shots so they had to figure out how did two bullets cause those wounds to both Kennedy and Connelly. They had to come up with this explanation to pin it on Oswald.

The reality is though the wounds were inflicted by three bullets and one bullet missed.

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub It not confirmation bias.

The doctors have no reason to lie about the wounds Kennedy and Connelly suffered. They are men held in high regard in their profession. They saw different wounds.

The bullet that supposedly did this is virtually undamaged. Even though it broke bone and flesh in different parts of both men's bodies.

The Warren Commission is claiming the bullet when it left Kennedy throat yawed in the air. That means it was tumbling sideways and down and would lose momentum.

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub Warren Commission claims Oswald missed his first shot but there no evidence for this.

What likely happened Kennedy got hit by the first bullet in the back or front of the throat. Connelly who was sitting forward heard the shot but did not see Kennedy. His wife saw Kennedy was distressed and was lifting his arms to his throat.

Bang second shot 1 or 2 seconds later hits Connelly in the back exit out his chest and hits his wrist and thigh.

Bang third shot Kennedy head explodes.

Bang a fourth shot was fired when the car speed away towards the underpass. It explains why the bullet ended up that far away and hit a walker near the underpass

ligerdub

Cheerful Spring wrote:

ligerdub Warren Commission claims Oswald missed his first shot but there no evidence for this.

No they don't. They claim the 1st bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

ligerdub It not confirmation bias.

The doctors have no reason to lie about the wounds Kennedy and Connelly suffered. They are men held in high regard in their profession. They saw different wounds.

The bullet that supposedly did this is virtually undamaged. Even though it broke bone and flesh in different parts of both men's bodies.

The Warren Commission is claiming the bullet when it left Kennedy throat yawed in the air. That means it was tumbling sideways and down and would lose momentum.

How many guns have you fired? How many rounds? What did you shoot?

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub wrote: »

No they don't. They claim the 1st bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally.

The president's limo turns onto Elm Street. The first shot is fired, missing the president.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/kennedy-assassination-timeline-2013-11?r=US&IR=T/#1229-pm-8

Either way, it doesn't matter first or second shot missed.

Two bullets left to explain the wounds inflicted. If there more then three bullets there is a second shooter.

ligerdub

This is a discussion forum. I brought a detailed rebuttal of your statements from the Connallys and you completely ignored it save for introducing some random point about him holding on to his hat! This was already discussed earlier by another poster by the way. Connally was in shock and it's not like his hand was blown off!

How about you respect the ethos of this forum by actually considering what is put to you rather than introducing these curve ball statements barely related to the discussion?

You are subtly suggesting there that the picture represents that's where Connallys hands were when Kennedy was shot in the neck, which is totally wrong. Watch the video back again (futile request), you'll see he clearly does jerk his right hand upwards as he is hit.

The WC knew 1 of the 3 missed yes.....which is correct.

The reality is the wounds were inflicted by TWO bullets and one bullet missed.

It's evident by Kennedys reaction that he was hit in the throat (as an exit wound). This bullet somehow did not hit the car or anyone else according to you. It's garbage.

Again, you've been asked several times now how Connally could have been inflicted with those specific wounds without hitting Kennedy first. From where could these shots have come from that he gets shot in the back, through the lungs, onto the wrist, and hitting his leg without hitting Kennedy?

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub wrote: »

This is a discussion forum. I brought a detailed rebuttal of your statements from the Connallys and you completely ignored it save for introducing some random point about him holding on to his hat! This was already discussed earlier by another poster by the way. Connally was in shock and it's not like his hand was blown off!

How about you respect the ethos of this forum by actually considering what is put to you rather than introducing these curve ball statements barely related to the discussion?

You are subtly suggesting there that the picture represents that's where Connallys hands were when Kennedy was shot in the neck, which is totally wrong. Watch the video back again (futile request), you'll see he clearly does jerk his right hand upwards as he is hit.

The WC knew 1 of the 3 missed yes.....which is correct.

The reality is the wounds were inflicted by TWO bullets and one bullet missed.

It's evident by Kennedys reaction that he was hit in the throat. This bullet somehow did not hit the car or anyone else according to you. It's garbage.

Again, you've been asked several times now how Connally could have been inflicted with those specific wounds without hitting Kennedy first. From where could these shots have come from that he gets shot in the back, through the lungs, onto the wrist, and hitting his leg without hitting Kennedy?

The single bullet theory or magic bullet theory is improbable it fantasy. Two bullets hitting Kennedy and Connelly a couple of seconds apart is not fantasy.

Kennedy was struck somewhere between frame 222 and 225. Frame 233 and 235 is when Connelly was hit. More than enough time to reload and shoot again.

ligerdub

Cheerful Spring wrote:

ligerdub It not confirmation bias.

It is. It's textbook stuff.

Cheerful Spring wrote:

The doctors have no reason to lie about the wounds Kennedy and Connelly suffered. They are men held in high regard in their profession. They saw different wounds.

Indeed they don't. They say the right side of his head was blown off, which it was (the video shows this). I'm not going to claim that there wasn't some sort of doctoring of the autopsy photos that make what we see online the same as what was really visible, but I don't believe this proves that the head shot or any of the other shots came from somewhere other than behind. The doctors were trying to save him, they were not performing an autopsy to try and establish where the wounds came from.

Cheerful Spring wrote:

The bullet that supposedly did this is virtually undamaged. Even though it broke bone and flesh in different parts of both men's bodies.

From one angle only. It didn't slam into any bone as such either.

Cheerful Spring wrote:

The Warren Commission is claiming the bullet when it left Kennedy throat yawed in the air. That means it was tumbling sideways and down and would lose momentum.

Lose momentum it doesn't mean stop.....it's still a bullet that has only hit a narrow range of skin at the point it Connally in the back.

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub You are ignoring what Connelly actually said.

Connelly heard a shot. But he did not see Kennedy don't you get that or understand that? Connelly wife, she saw Kennedy reach for his throat. That how she knows the second shot was a different bullet.

That second bullet hit Connelly 1 or 2 seconds later after Kennedy was hit by the first bullet.

ligerdub

Cheerful Spring wrote:

Kennedy was struck somewhere between frame 222 and 225. Frame 233 and 235 is when Connelly was hit. More than enough time to reload and shoot again.

Just how many frames do you think represent one second of real-time?

Again, I'll ask again, how was Connally hit like that WITHOUT hitting Kennedy? Answer that please.

ligerdub

Cheerful Spring wrote:

ligerdub You are ignoring what Connelly actually said.

Cheerful Spring wrote:

Connelly heard a shot. But he did not see Kennedy don't you get that or understand that? Connelly wife, she saw Kennedy reach for his throat. That how she knows the second shot was a different bullet.

Cheerful Spring wrote:

That second bullet hit Connelly 1 or 2 seconds later after Kennedy was hit by the first bullet.

I'm not going over this again with you. I've already explained this very clearly to you.

Cheerful Spring

ligerdub wrote: »

Just how many frames do you think represent one second of real-time?

Again, I'll ask again, how was Connally hit like that WITHOUT hitting Kennedy? Answer that please.

The event was over in 6 seconds or thereabouts. So we can time the shots off that Unfortunately, a sign blocked the motorcade when it passed down elm street so we don't see exactly which frame he got hit. When the car emerged from the street sign at frame 225 Kennedy was hit though. Frame 233 or 235 is when Connelly looked like he felt a blow from a bullet. That roughly about 1 or 2 seconds after Kennedy got hit by the first bullet.

Why not depends on the angle and what the shooter sees looking through the scope. Connelly got hit near the edge of his right shoulder the bullet obviously travelled down the side of the car and hit him there. Kennedy removing his arms from the resting place allowed the bullet to come in unhindered so it missed Kennedy right arm.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The event was over in 6 seconds or thereabouts. So we can time the shots off that Unfortunately, a sign blocked the motorcade when it passed down elm street so we don't see exactly which frame he got hit. When the car emerged from the street sign at frame 225 Kennedy was hit though. Frame 233 or 235 is when Connelly looked like he felt a blow from a bullet. That roughly about 1 or 2 seconds after Kennedy got hit by the first bullet.

Why not depends on the angle and what the shooter sees looking through the scope. Connelly got hit near the edge of his right shoulder the bullet obviously travelled down the side of the car and hit him there. Kennedy removing his arms from the resting place allowed the bullet to come in unhindered so it missed Kennedy right arm.

Its actually less than 1 second as it was filmed at 18.3 frames per second