JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

BloodBath wrote: »

Where did I idealise Kennedy. It's a well known fact Kennedy was hated in certain circles and no secret the LBJ hated him as well. I could link so much circumstantial evidence and information from whistle blowers that weren't bumped off that on it's own could maybe be explained but when the list is as long as it is it's not easy to casually push aside.

You think it's likely that JFK, Bobby and MLK were all targeted and killed by lone nuts in the space of 5 years?

It was a rogue element of the CIA rather than the CIA at large. We're talking about a country that is responsible for the deaths of over 20 million civilians in mainly illegal wars since after WW2, as well as removing the leaders of many countries, with this organisation at the centre of it.

It's a war machine that prints money for a certain group of people. Any threat to that is wiped out.

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.

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.

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.