James R Gordon

I am very pleased that Gary has posted this Charles Gregory drawing. I have had it for some time but left it to Gary when he wanted to post it or use it.

It is impossible to over emphasise the importance of this drawing. As Gary pointed, Charles Gregory is not suggesting that it was John Connally’s left hand that was injured. He used his own left hand to model the damage on John Connally’s right hand.

Unless there are members who insist on being obstinate, there now can be no dispute as to where this bullet entered John Connally’s right wrist. As I have pointed out above this bullet exited on the Volar side, i.e. the palm side.

Charles Gregory wrote his medical report in the afternoon after he completed his surgery of Connally’s wrist. As I recollect it was written even before Air Force 1 landed at Andrews Air Force base.

The importance of this drawing, especially for L/N’s, is how could the SBT, being fired from the rear, enter this wrist – where Gregory describes it does – and somehow exit through Volar or palm side of the right hand. And of course, at the point this is happening John Connally has the palm of his hand against his chest.

If the SBT is such a clear description of fact ( as L/N’s enjoy informing us ), then it should not be too difficult to explain how the bullet does that before going on to injure John Connally’s left thigh.

James.

Thomas,

I see your confusion, and it might be my expression - but I meant what I said.

A shot, fired from the rear, and striking John Connally's just below the thumb on the Dorsal side ought to continue to exit out the Dorsal of the right hand - i.e. exit out the back of the hand.

However the exit wound was on the Volar side i.e. the palm side of the hand.

Now at Z 223/4 Connally's palm side of his hand is towards his chest. We do not see that at 223/4 but a few frames later when his hand is raised we then see how it was positioned.

So the point I was making was this. If the SBT replicates the wounds correctly that Connally's wrist suffered the the bullet enters just low the thumb and rather than exit out the back of the hand - actually turned and exited out the palm side. Now since, at that point, the palm was facing his chest the bullet then re-entered Connally's chest.

Of course I am not saying the bullet did that. However to replicate the wounds Connally suffered that is what the bullet would have had to do.

James.

David Von Pein made the following point.

“A bullet that was almost completely out of gas hit that thigh.”

Until I saw the 2013 Nova program I might well have agreed with him. However Nova made clear that David’s statement is complete and utter nonsense. And that is not a comment of disrespect but fact. They were able to demonstrate that a Mannlicher Carcano bullet had the power to go through, I believe, 13 slats of pine. And what is even more amazing still be intact.

Staying with the SBT, from JFK’s entrance wound to Connally’s wrist wound the only bone the bullet actually strikes is Radius bone. The bullet does not strike the 5^th rib, it knocks into it from its side.

Therefore, unless David can cast doubt on the experiment on Nova, carried out by Lucien Haag, and demonstrate it is invalid then the idea that the Single bullet that can successfully pass through 13 slats of wood would be out of power having only struck the radius bone, it is clearly very wrong to suggest that the bullet was out of “gas” by the time it struck the thigh.

Robert Prudhomme made the following point.

“Enlarging this x-ray photo will help you to see that the radius bone (right side of right photo and same side as thumb) was not actually hit squarely by a bullet. In fact, the radius bone was hit more on the edge AWAY from the gap between the radius and ulna bones, yet somehow, CE 399 was able to pass BETWEEN the radius and the ulna. Did it put itself in reverse, back up two inches, and take another run at the gap between the bones? Enlarging this x-ray photo will help you to see that the radius bone (right side of right photo and same side as thumb) was not actually hit squarely by a bullet. In fact, the radius bone was hit more on the edge AWAY from the gap between the radius and ulna bones, yet somehow, CE 399 was able to pass BETWEEN the radius and the ulna. Did it put itself in reverse, back up two inches, and take another run at the gap between the bones?”

Robert makes the point I have also, at times, directed at David Von Pein and which he also ignored.

In lay language this bullet struck just behind the thumb on Dorsal side of the right hand. On the 3D model of the hand this is illustrated by the yellow circle. It exits on the palm side, or Volar side, around the middle of the wrist. In exiting in that position what the bullet has done is to separate the Hamate bone from metacarpal 5, which can be seen on the x-ray

The point that Robert makes, that is spot on, is if the bullet entered just below the thumb why does it not exit out the Dorsal side, the back of the hand? That is how Nova 2013 shows the exit. It should have exited out the Volar side.

Now why is Robert’s point so important and why did David ignore him? Because at this point the palm of the right hand, the Dorsal, was towards Connally’s chest.

So if the Single Bullet theory correctly follows the injuries sustained by John Connally, then it should have entered on his Dorsal just below the right thumb and exited in the middle of the Volar………………..

and then re-entered John Connally’s chest!!!!!!

Now that really is a magic bullet.

James.

I listened to this video and there were a number of issues I felt were worth raising.

One question Posner was asked was whether Oswald was capable to assassinating JFK.

Was he able to carry out the shot. Posner replied “Well he did it, therefore he was capable of carrying out the shot.” Posner believes it is possible to prove that Oswald was able to carry out the assassination because it can be established that he did fire the shots

Misses the first shot? James Tague shot at Z 160ff

It is Posner’s position that the first shot was around Z 160. That means that James Tague was injured at that point. I am not sure that Tague was in position that early or that a shot for JFK, at Z 160, would lead to Tague.

The SBT actually entered JC thigh. It exited his thigh during surgery.

When talking about the SBT, it is Posner’s position that the bullet embedded itself into John Connally’s left leg. It removed itself during Connally’s examination. That is nonsense.

Back and to the left.

There was some discussion of the head shot and why the head moves back and to the left. Posner is derisive of a Grassy Knoll gunman. I have some sympathy with this point. A shot from around 100 feet by a high powered rifle may well have caused more damage. The shot from the TSBD hitting the head where it did – and with the body already sloping to the left – might well have forced the body to the left. I am not saying that happened, but I can see a logic for it.

George Hickey story.

Then there was a discussion of the George Hickey case. I agree that the notion that George Hickey fired the fatal shot is quite ludicrous. Posner was reeking with sarcasm when he discussed this. However, what was not brought up was the trajectory analysis that is discussed within the book. I remember being very impressed with it and I remember fellow members commenting on this work – not the idea of George Hickey as the gunman.

Jim Garrison case.

Again Posner was scathing about Garrison and his case. It is beyond dispute that Garrison poorly conducted this case. However no mention was made as to the infiltration of people into the case whose purpose was to thoroughly undermine the case and have Garrison fail. Garison’s failure was not all of his own making. There appears to have been considerable measures taken to ensure that he failed.

Oswald the only person missing from thee TSBD

Posner point that Oswald was clearly guilty was that he was the only one missing from the TSBD after the assassination. I understand that is complete nonsense. I understand that there were quite a few missing.

Conspiracists are only conspiracists because they have not properly examined the evidence.

This really sums up the tone of the interview. Both Posner and the interviewers agreed that conspiracists are only conspiracists because they have not properly read or examined the evidence. And by implication LN’s are LN’s because they have read and examined the evidence. And, if only a conspiracist would take the time to properly read the evidence then they too could be a LN’s.

It was not really an informative interview. Posner was too glib and the questions were leading. There was no attempt to seriously question him to see why he feels the way he does about the assassination.

James.

Raymond,

In conversations with Dennis O'Driscoll, Seamus Heaney was asked whether he feared death.

He replied. "Certainly not in the way I'd have feared it sixty years ago, fearful of dying in the state of mortal sin and suffering the consequences for all eternity.

It's more grief than fear, grief at having to leave 'what thou loves well' and whom thou loves well."

I can't think of a better reply to that question.

James.

Greg,

Thank you for this post. I had not been aware of David's article on Sherry's book. I agree whole heartedly with his conclusions. When Sherry posted on Lancer about this book, which I did buy and read, I commented on the impossibility of a frontal shot at Z 312/3. I pointed out that had such a shot occurred from the Tripple Underpass then it would have needed to pass through the car and was bound to injure other passengers, like nellie Connally first.

I got a reply that basically said she was right and I was wrong.

Unlike David Mantik, I did not have the ability to comment on her actual thesis - the blood spatter as well as the medical contradictions of the skull to such a thesis.

It is an excellent article, which will probably be ignored. However I will be interested if Sherry does respond. I will be interested in her response to the very valid points David has just raised.

James

Raymond,

A very impressive thread this.

You have, through a variety of means, demonstrated why Seamus Heaney was an impressive poet as well as an impressive human being.

It has been a joy to read your contributions.

Thank you.

James.

Raymond,

Thank you for that. Seamus Heaney was my favourite 20th century/21st century poet.

I am a bit shocked he is dead. I had not been aware he had been ill for a while.

I know he had an extensive vision and view, but my favourite are his Mossbawn poems.

It will be a while before we see his likes again.

James.

Bill,

You have just demonstrated to the forum that you have no idea of 3D analysis.

You draw a line from the TSBD to a point on Elm Street and then comment how, to you, it seems quite possible that a shot from that building could have caused Connally's injuries.

Dearie me. That really does not bode well for your argument. You really should not make that kind of mistake.

James.

Addition:-

To illustrate the point I made above I have edited your original image.

Could Connally be struck from the TSBD at Z 285? The answer is yes. However from the TSBD, the strike could not replicate the actual wound he suffered.

In the edited diagram the yellow arrow represents the angle Connally is facing at that point.

The Red arrow demonstrates the source of the bullet in order to recreate the actual wound Connally suffered. That line makes clear that to suffer the wound he did suffer, if he were struck at Z 285, then the source of that wound - at that particular frame - would have to have come from the South Plaza not the North Plaza.

A shot from the North Plaza - in particular the TSBD - would strike him ( as you white arrow indicates). However as my yellow arrow indicates ( which shows the direction Connally is sitting at this time ) the wound that a shot from the TSBD would create at this time is very different from the wound that he did sustain

Actually Bill, your previous post does not clear things up a bit.

Your thesis is that John Connally was wounded after the head shot. You use a variety of sources to support your claim. My point, which you do not appear to want to address is if he receive his wound at that point then:-

the source of that shot would not be the TSBD.

The wound John Connally received ran down the outside of his 5th rib. If you are in agreement that, that, is exactly how Connally was wounded

THEN

because of the position of the car at Z 325 and the position of John Connally within the car, the source of the shot would actually be the Records building.

If you are in agreement that the source of the wound to John Connally was other than the TSBD then we are in agreement. However if it is your position that when John Connally was wounded at Z 325 the source of the shot was the TSBD, then you are completely wrong. Geometry proves you wrong. Acoustics play no part here. It matters not one iota what the acoustics say on this point. There is no geometrical way that at Z325 a line can be drawn, from the TSBD, to accurately simulate the wound John Connally received. The only way the wound to John Connally can be accurately simulated is if the source of that wound is directed from the Records building and not the TSBD.

James

Bill,

There is a difference between idle speculation and serious research. According to your post Connally was struck twice. Once with the second shot from the TSBD, even though you are oblique as to what that wound was. You then contend, as you have for some time, that he received his thorax wound from shot 5 - which was the 3rd shot from the TSBD and occurred at Z 325.

Forgetting the Nellie rescue and the point that Connally received his thorax wound much earlier, you are suggesting that when Connaly received this wound its source was the TSBD. If the wound was received at Z325, which it certainly was not, it would have to be a "through" wound - one that enters his chest. Why? Connally is facing forward, or maybe slightly to his left. Taking account of the direction of the car on Elm Street at Z325 then such a strike would have no option than to travel through the chest. John Conally's medical file makes it clear the shot ran down the outside of the chest wall. Actually it ran down the line of his 5th rib.

Your contention is that Connally was struck at Z325. Well if he was, and I am not agreeing he was, and if the shot replicated the wounds he received then the source of that shot would not be the TSBD. because of the nature of the wounds he received as well as the way he was positioned at that time, the source of the shot would actually be the Records building.

It is one thing to attempt to persuade members on your theory about when you believe Connally was wounded, but it would help if you actually understood where the source would be given a particular moment in the Z film. Because of the curvature of the road certain points do lead back to the TSBD and certain points do not and simply cannot. Z325 given the position and direction of the car as well as how Connally is seated, does not lead back to the TSBD......unless you wish to distort and change the medical record.

James.

Bill,

When I delivered the presentation I did not want to be seen reading. You will note I go forward a number of times, and off screen, that is to check my place. That is why I made an error there.

You are right about 325, Connally is not yet fully lying on Nellie's lap.

Now as to the central argument. Both Nellie and John in both testimony as well as videos recordings state that while he was being rescued Nellie talked to him and comforted him. That can be clearly seen in the sequence. If this is not the moment that John Connally was being rescued, can you show me another moment where Nellie is talking into his ear.

As I have pointed out to you a number of times, the Connally narrative is confusing. E.g. both John and Nellie state that he was lying down on her lap when they heard and received the effects of the head shot. Zapruder makes clear that is just wrong.

Connally states that when shot he moved forward and looked down. That can be seen in the frames from 231 onwards. ( I do not have my notes with me. )

The central area of dispute that we have is this.

You interpret the frames from 315 onward to describe the point Connally was wounded. You believe that major movement we see in Connally is the response he is making to a wound.

I, on the other hand, believe this movement we are seeing is the consequence of Nellie pulling him out of danger.

I may have made an error when I said the sequence ended at 325, but I believe the movement we see from 290 onwards is Nellie rescuing her husband. I believe the cropped Zapruder frames at the end support this position.

You mention that John Connally received a wound at 223/4. What wound are you suggesting he receives?

My problem with your position is not that I disagree with the acoustic evidence, shots may well have been fired at those points. Where I disagree is that the shot after the head shot, this .7 second moment, was when Connally received his chest wound. If the 290 sequence is indeed Nellie rescuing him and comforting him as she does so, then he has already received his wound before the moment you suggest he was wounded.

James.

Bill,

For me the flaw in your analysis is the point that John Connally received his thorax wound post 313. As you know very well, for a time that was also my position. However, I changed my position when I was able to establish that between 290 to 325 Nellie is actually the one who is making Connally move. She is doing so because she is attempting to rescue him. In order to do that she turns him to his left, until he is facing forward and then pulls him onto her lap.

Below is an extract of a presentation I made this April to Dealey Plaza UK’s 2013 Seminar. The extract picks up after I had described Frederick Webb’s believe that Connally was wounded at Z 297.

There is one error in the presentation. I state that Z 281 was the trigger moment for Nellie: it was the moment she realizes that Connally was wounded. That is an error. After Z 281 she returns to look into the back of the car. The true trigger moment is Z 290/91.

If I am right that what we see during the 290 to 325 sequence is Nellie rescuing John Connally, then you have to be wrong. John Connally cannot be wounded post head shot if he has already been wounded by 290 and is being rescued by his wife.

I believe the file size is around 1GB. It is that size in order to gain reasonable sound and video resolution.

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/be8bb99d-83e1-4452-a34e-f4e89838f22f/N94_Y5w91qkJsRAHBdQ5Iw2

James

Pat,

Is right. Bill was in and out of OR#5 throughout the surgery performed on John Connally. That is why he was in scrubs.

James.

David,

Thanks to Gary Mack, I now know who it is. It is Bill Stinson the Administrative Assistant to John Connally.

Gary pointed out that the Sixth Floor Museum has an oral history and one or more related photos of him. There’s also this report including page 16:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_Price_Ex_2-35.pdf

At this point Dr. Shaw came out of the surgeons locker room; he, Julian Read, the Governor's press aide, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Stinson and I proceeded down to 101 and 102, where Mr. Stinson introduced Dr. Shaw, who gave a report on the progress of surgery thus far on Governor Connally.

You will find the complete description on P. 16 of the pdf.

James.

I need a little help.

I am trying to work out who is standing next to Robert Shaw at this press conference. He is ringed in white. I am being led to believe that it is Tom Shires. I am not persuaded because the shape of the hair is very different. The shape of the head is more rotund that Tom Shires.

Ringed in green is Don Gustafson. Although his facial features fit, I understand that in November 1963 he was a first year resident. He died in April 2010. It is unlikely it would be him. I did consider Gerry Gustafson, but he informs me it was not him and in addition he wears glasses. The doctor in question is not wearing glasses.

That leaves me with two possible candidates. Ringed in red is Charles Crenshaw and he is inset in the lower left hand corner. However his hair style is not compatible. Ringed in cyan is the best candidate, James Terrell and he inset between Crenshaw and Shires.

I know nothing about him. Whoever it is, it is someone who does not perturb Robert Shaw, indeed Robert Shaw confers with him at one point.

There is a logic to it being Tom Shires, but everything argues against it. On the bottom right hand corner is an image of Tom Shires taken in 1970. I know that is seven years later, but the structure of his hair is just so different from the person I am trying to identify.

Can anyone help?

Thank you.

James.

David,

Your video of Robert Kennedy speaking, during the California primary is an excellent example of why he was so popular by that time. Yes, you are right that he does indeed make it clear that he is in agreement with the Commissions' conclusion.

However in David Talbot's book "Brothers" it is made clear that from the very first days Robert Kennedy was very suspicious as to what happened and indeed did some investigation on his own. David Talbot makes clear that Robert Kennedy used up quite a bit of energy looking into what happened. I actually doubt that in the middle of an election campaign, he would go on record criticising the Warren Commission. Politically the only road open to, at least until he was President himself, would have been to support the Commission. The repercussions from openly criticising the Commission during a Presidential election, would be severe and would most likely divert his campaign off track.

That said no one has been able to track the comment that Robert Kennedy apparently made suggesting he would re-investigate JFK's assassination. It may just be legend and was never said.

Therefore I agree that this is an ambiguous situation. What is true is that even by June of 1968 Robert Kennedy found the death of JFK still so painful that he found it difficult to refer to JFK other than in oblique terms, like the speech announcing MLK's assassination.

Although the question is surrounded in ambiguity I suspect his son is right and that Robert Kennedy may well have looked into the assassination had he lived to be President.

James.

Martin,

I have expanded, in detail, why the bullet that caused damage to the shirt and jacket – with regard to the chest wound – described a bullet that was essentially a complete bullet.

This is described on pages 23 to 27.

You will find the article at:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/1c28ce30-e41b-4278-90db-af140951408e/_KH-Vk3JIN_bHu1wqNZrnA2

You should find all my reasons there.

James.

Martin,

From the research I have done, 223/25 period is a non-starter as a valid moment that John Connally could have received his thorax wound. My reason is firmly based on the wound trajectory through his outer chest. Stretching that trajectory line backwards it clearly creates a different trajectory line to the Kennedy trajectory line.

It is a simple matter of geometry. In an earlier post I commented about how to verify for yourself where such a trajectory would lead to. Because at this point John Connally is significantly turned to his right, mathematically the trajectory line must go in a direction away from President John F. Kennedy. As I have pointed out before, the only way you can marry these two trajectory lines is if you have the wound pass through Connally’s chest, and therefore potentially kill him.

Speaking for myself, I have addressed the lapel problem and have given a link to where it can be found.

I am not an expert on these bullet fragments, but I do know that Connally’s clothes make clear that these fragments could not have caused the damage to his jacket or shirt, with respect to the chest wound only. That is pretty much a verifiable fact.

On the other hand there may be a case to make, with these fragments, for the wrist and thigh wound. However I have not studied these fragments with respect to these wounds so I will reserve judgment.

You are right about being hasty to point to evidence being removed. That said, all the evidence I have assembled suggests that the bullet that created the chest wound exited Connally’s body as a substantially complete bullet. I showed how it was impossible for that bullet to create the wrist wound. That means at some point and somewhere in the car was a bullet that was essentially complete. All I said was that in the present evidence chain there is not such bullet whereas there had to be such a bullet just after the assassination.

You are quite right about the limo being shipped off for repairs.

James.

Jim,

When I responded in post 12, which I believe is the one you are referring to, I was specifically talking about 223/4 and a response that David Von Pein had made on Duncan’s forum.

I had specifically said that as far as the Single Bullet Theory is concerned there is no evidence to prove that, at 223/4, we have any proof that John Connally’s wrist was in a position to be wounded. David agreed, but posted frames 225/6 and directed my attention to the idea of Connally’s arm moving jerkily. Though I did not respond to the idea of the arm jerking, the images that David posted showed the wrist with the palm towards the chest. It was that was referring to. See image below:-

The actual entrance point on Connally’s wrist in on the Dorsal side just behind the thumb. That is indicated by the yellow circle. The exit point is on the Volar side and that is indicated by the red circle.

I was actually being sarcastic. My point was, since John Connally had the palm of his wrist towards his chest then had the bullet actually entered his wrist, as indicated by the yellow circle, then logic suggested that when it exited through the point indicated by the red circle it was bound to go on and re-enter the chest.

In case I have been misunderstood, I was not saying that is what happened. I was trying to illustrate how absurd David Von Pein was being, once he had made it clear that during the 223/4 period – as reflected by the 225/6 frames – John Connally had his arm [ most likely positioned ] with the palm, Volar side, towards his chest.

As to the general concept of when the wrist was injured, If we are assuming a shot, or wounding from behind, his arm has to be positioned at a -45º positioned – twisted 45º to the left. That ought to allow a trajectory entering through the Dorsal, the yellow circle, and out the Volar, the red circle. Any time when he has his wrist towards his chest, I cannot see how the wrist can be wounded in the way it was. I am not saying the wrist could not be struck – it could be struck – but the injuries would be different from what John Connally received.

As regard the wound to the thigh. The notion that the bullet continued its flight and ended up wounding the thigh is part of the SBT, being one of the seven wounds that needed to accounted for. It is not my position that the thigh wound was a follow-on from the wrist wound. To be fair it could have been, but it is not my position at the moment. Why it could have been is because of the difference between the size on the entrance wound - which was quite large - compared to the fragment the finally embedded itself in his thigh. The contradiction, between the size of the entrance wound compared to the size of the fragment was something that really puzzled Tom Shires. Indeed the size of the entrance wound may have been why on that first press conference Robert Shaw referred to a bullet in Connally's leg. Those who comment on this point, have not realised that while this press conference was going on Tom Shires was working on the leg wound.

Hope that helps.

James.

I would like to agree that this work by Gary Murr is quite astonishing.

It is no secret that Gary's work is the prime source to my research. Throughout my conversations with Gary, I have had access to a substantial portion of his research.

Both Gary's announcement, which I made on his behalf, as well as Larry's generous compliment just touch the enormity of what Gary has achieved. When I first got to know about this work it was a single volume in excess of 2,500 pages. Later Gary decided to edit this work into its present three volumes. However the pertinent point is the breadth of this research. I remember saying to Gary, when I first got to know about it, "how, on earth, can someone write 3 volumes about John Connally's wounding?" It is the answer to that question that disguises the extraordinary achievement of Gary Murr. The subtitle of the work is the "Wounding of John Connally." Why this work is quite breath taking, is because although the arc narrative is indeed focused on the wounding of John Connally; the breadth of the work is a narration of the workings of the Warren Commission as well as the HSCA and how they approached their work especially with reference to the wounding of John Connally.

What is also quite breath taking is not just the size of this work, but the detail of the work. I remember Gary commenting to me that when he buys a book he often goes to the footnotes. He informed me that it is there he finds the real gems of the research. Well having access to these footnotes all i can say is that the footnotes are worth the purchase of the book.

Today, in a personal message, Jeff Shaw commented that my recently published work on John Connally's wounding might be the reference work to his injury. I am proud of that work. However I need to point out, the source of that work is this trilogy written by Gary Murr. Though i would be proud if people see my work as shining light on the injuries sustained by John Connally, if any work is to be the definitive work on the injuries of John Connally then, in my view, it is this trilogy of books by Gary Murr.

James

Gary Murr has asked me to post this announcement about the forthcoming publication of his research on the wounding of Governor John Connally.

c) The 2.5 chest exit wound.

You are right it is the excised wound and not the original wound and I am wrong. .

James & Stuart,

The entry wound in Conally's back was not 2.5 cm.

Martin,

I assume it is an error on your part to then focus our attention on the entry wound.

Both Stuart and I were referring to the Exit wound and not the Entry wound.

That reference was only the focus of the exit wounds size and not the entry wounds size.

James

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for your reply. I am grateful for this conversation, it is certainly more restrained than I am encountering in another forum. I am a little curious that since there have been 39 downloads, so far, of the article from this forum I have not met with more response, especially since I do feel that this is important research. But I am grateful for your response.

Martin Hay is correct to point out that the “lapel flap” is indeed a redundant concept. But just because a concept is redundant does not stop it constantly being raised as proof of a bullet strike. I did respond to this issue a little time ago, and I refer you to that response.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20059&hl=%2Bconnally+%2Blapel

I appreciate your concern about where the bullet went, after it exited John Connally’s body. I have deliberately stayed away from that arena. That said, it has not stopped David Von Pein from consistently taunting me with its absence. I do not do know where it disappeared to, all I can say is that my research suggests that at one point it was somewhere within the car. Although I am not a liberty to name them, two different researchers, and independently – and unknown to each other - have told me the same story about the finding of another missile after the assassination. One thing, that is clear to me, the trajectory angle of the bullet would not be able to account for the damage to the chrome edging. It is perfectly respectable, and indeed it is also responsible, to ask where such a bullet ended up. But I ask is it not also just as pertinent to state, irrespective of where such a bullet ended up, it is clear now that that evidence makes clear that at one point there was another bullet in this case that has not been accounted for?

On pages 28 and 29 I comment on the lack of evidence that we have to say precisely where the arm and wrist was at 223/4. My point there was simply to cast another stone into the pool of doubt about the Single Bullet Theory. On Duncan’s forum David Von Pein, who I acknowledge that I have respect for even though he can be irritating at times, [ as he is at the moment with regard to this article ] did respond to this issue of the position of the hand and wrist at 223/4. He posted images of the wrist and hand at 225/6. I should have investigated this myself and I am grateful David did raise. At these moments John Connally’s hand is positioned with the palm side towards the chest. Now that is a serious, if not damning, case against the Single Bullet Theory. That is so because of the manner that the wrist was wounded. See image below:-

The yellow circle points to the entry point: the red circle points to the exit point. Therefore if the palm is indeed facing the chest – and David has established it was during 225/6 – then how was such a wound inflicted. Are we expected to believe that somehow the bullet entered the wrist on the dorsal point just behind the thumb and then – for reasons absolutely outside of rational thinking – then exited the volar side of the wrist and re-entered the chest?

Because that is the only course open to it. Assuming that the bullet could actually enter the dorsal as indicated – which is impossible, but lets assume it is possible – then the bullet has no alternative but to exit through the wound in the volar side. And that wound, because of the position of the wrist, means there is no alternative but that the bullet has to re-enter the chest.

Again, I hope this has answered your concerns and that what I have said has been relevant.

James

Stuart,

I would like to expand on my earlier response to you. I am not sure I was as clear as I should have been.

a) With respect to Dale Myers and other modern interpreters of the Single Bullet Theory.

At times I find it frustrating that we are still required to address the Single Bullet Theory. The proponents of that theory have had a success of some magnitude. Although it was not part of this paper, nobody seems to have the slightest concern about the medical implications of bullets passing through the human body. That was where I entered this debate, looking at what would be the implications of a bullet passing through President John F. Kennedy’s upper thorax. If you are interested in what I wrote here is a link for that article.

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/885f5f4f-9554-48f7-aa04-fdf1854dfbf4/C4HIR-H5NBJObQHEtDCFOQ2

By the end of that study I realized that even though the Single Bullet Theory was a very powerful concept that had lasted for close on 50 years, it was medically flawed.

And it was then that I turned to the Connally wounding, as a wounding in its own right. It was only then I seriously focused on the interpretations such as that of Dale Myers. Until I had immersed myself in his medical records I had not been aware that the bullet never entered his chest cavity. It was the bone fragments that did that. That was when I noticed the extraordinary distortion that Myers made with the data.

It was only then I realized that in order to acquire his single line trajectory, he had no alternative but to have the trajectory line pass through Connally’s chest. But then he is in good company because both Posner and Bugliosi have done the same.

To get his single trajectory line Dale Myers has had to create a wound that will kill John Connally.

The problem is not the entrance wound. The problem is finding a means to establish a direct line from the Oswald window to the Connally chest exit wound and the only way that is possible is by having the bullet pass through Connally’s chest. If it were just Myers problem that would be one thing, but it is not. Every interpretation of the Single Bullet Theory has had to do that in order to acquire their straight line.

Where does the trajectory for the Connally wound track back to?

As I pointed out, in my analysis it sources somewhere between the Daltex and the Records building.

Maybe this will help you see why that has to be the case. Imaging you have a ruler running down your 5^th rib. Now if you are sitting forward, depending on seated position it might be possible for the line to lead back to someone behind you. Certainly if you are turned slightly to the right it ought to be.

However, at 223/4, Connally is turned to his right be around 25/27º. Turn your body in that direction and you do not need a 3D model to see that that trajectory has no hope of leading back to anyone seated behind you.

That is why I talk about the “twin trajectories” [ the President John F. Kennedy and the John Connally individual trajectories. ] And because there is no way these lines can ever meet, that, for me, is the killer blow to the Single Bullet Theory.

c) The 2.5 chest exit wound.

You are right it is the excised wound and not the original wound and I am wrong. It is true that CD 326 does describe the wound as 2.5 inches, and for some reason I had always thought that described the size of the original wound. I was wrong. It means the chest wound was .5 inches smaller but the wound is still the product of the exiting bullet as well as the bone fragments.

This change will affect where in that wound the bullet exited. Originally I had it exit on the RHS [ President John F. Kennedy’s POV ] It may now be a little more to the center.

d) The relative size of the exit wound to the size of the bullet.

Yes that is correct, even at 2 inches. However the size of the wound was not the responsibility of just the bullet. This wound was created by both the bullet as well as the bone fragments that exited John Connally’s chest. This is described on pages 19 – 21.

The fragment splatter down John Connally’s shirt is quite extraordinary. I have not counted them, but there must be something like 40 to 50 holes in the shirt. And some of them are quite large. That is why you have this large exit wound. Probably the bullet exited first and created the original hole. And it was through this hole the fragments also exited – and in doing that they increased the size of the wound.

By how much it is difficult to say.

e) The idea that the external damage to the chest was evidence of a tumbling bullet.

That is certainly what the Warren Commission and the HSCA wanted to be said. Robert Shaw was quite determined that the bullet never tumbled. His argument was that the muscles, above and below each rib, what are referred to as Intercostal muscles were undamaged. These muscle groups help the rib cage to twist and turn and move. Robert Shaw believed that had the bullet been tumbling and moving around, then these muscle groups would have been damaged. Because they were not damaged Robert Shaw concluded that had to mean that the bullet followed a straight line – and that line was that of the 5^th rib.

f) The nature of the damage to the wrist.

The wrist was struck behind the thumb and exited around the middle of the palm side. Because of the nature of this kind of damage there are very few points in Zapruder film when this wrist could have been damaged in the way it was. My tentative conclusion, which is not a part of this article, is that it was indeed a fragment from the head shot that did cause the wound. P. 27 gives you very good reasons why I think that way.

g) Finally, what do you think happened to the bullet after it transited JBC? Wouldn't it have caused extensive damage within the limo?

I do not know. All I know is that when the bullet left John Connally’s body, although it was damaged down in linear side, i.e. squashed it still resembled a complete bullet. At the end of the assassination somewhere in the car or on John Connally’s body that bullet had to be. Where it went afterwords I have no idea.

Hope that better explains my position and also answers your questions more fully.

James.