Robert Prudhomme

James

Are you telling us Dr. Shaw was mistaken in observing the two inch exit wound was medial to (inside of) the right nipple? If the bone fragments had exited medial to the nipple, and the bullet lateral to the nipple, don't you think Dr. Shaw would have commented on the oddity of two exit wounds?

Robert

Coincidentally, I have been doing a fairly intensive study lately of Connally's wounds, as part of my research to establish what kind of bullets were used in the assassination. As I said before, I am reluctant to post on this forum, as I am unable to copy & paste, and I am much better able to express myself with the use of diagrams.

Right off the bat, let me say that for many years I have believed Connally was shot after z313. I do not, though, believe it was the force of the bullet only that knocked him over, nor was it Nellie. I believe the sudden braking of the limo mainly knocked this couple over, just as it bent Kellerman to the dashboard and Greer into the steering wheel.

My research of JFK's and JBC's wounds has convinced me that it was definitely not full metal jacket bullets used that day, nor were the bullets soft tipped hunting bullets or hollow point bullets. I can't go too deeply into details here but, suffice it to say, I believe a very special bullet known as a "frangible" bullet was used that day. For the full story, complete with diagrams, I recommend reading the thread "Inexplicable Wounds made by Special Bullets" at the Deep Politics Forum.

James Gordon

Your opinion about the exit wound on Connally's chest being lateral to his right nipple (further from the centre line of his body than the nipple was) is contradicted by the testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw, in his second appearance before the Warren Commission.

"Mr. Specter - Will you describe next the wound of exit?

Dr. Shaw - Yes; the wound of exit was below and slightly medial to the nipple on the anterior right chest. It was a round, ragged wound, approximately 5 cm. in diameter. This wound had obviously torn the pleura, since it was a sucking wound, allowing air to pass to and fro between the pleura cavity and the outside of the body."

Note Dr. Shaw's use of the word "medial" in his description of the wound. This means the wound was closer to the centre of his chest than his right nipple, not further.

As I stated before, your diagrams of the chest wound are grossly inaccurate.

I can tell you why the Connally's "spring" forward in their seats following z313. It is not just the shot in Connally's back, as this would not make Nellie spring forward. Greer has slammed on the brakes, and he and Kellerman are "springing" forward, as well. What you should really be questioning is why 4 out of 6 limo occupants are springing forward at this moment, while Jackie and JFK remain unaffected.

Why would they not move Connally's wounds? Simple. He lived for many years after 22.11.63, and they simply couldn't bury this evidence, as they did with JFK. Wounds leave scars, and there was always the chance someone would look at his.

"Mr. Specter - What damage had been inflicted upon a rib, if any, Dr. Shaw?

Dr. Shaw - About 10 centimeters of the fifth rib starting at the, about the mid-axillary line and going to the anterior axillary line, as we describe it, or that would be the midline at the armpit going to the anterior lateral portion of the chest had been stripped away by the missile."

Please show me the testimony where Shaw states the exit wound was lateral to the right nipple and not under the right nipple.

The bullet followed the rib for 10 centimeters (4 inches), stripping the bone away as it passed through. Considering the depth of the average human thorax, your purple line appears to be quite a bit shorter than this. Plus, the bullet travelled through flesh before exiting under the right nipple, making the actual wound track even longer.

As there is still some distance from the anterior axillary line to the nipple, and Dr. Shaw testified the bullet exited under the right nipple, I think it fair to say the bullet travelled at a right to left angle from the mid-axillary line to under the right nipple.

Having the bullet exit even close to the right nipple requires it to be travelling on a right to left course from the mid-axillary line; a course that would not have been possible had JBC been facing forward and the bullet fired from behind him.

Hello James

I know that what I am saying is difficult to follow but I have just been able to figure it out myself, and the conclusions I have made are very definite.

Unfortunately, I have never been able to c/p on this forum, and cannot use diagrams to support my argument, so I will attempt to explain it again.

If you are looking at a person's back, the mid axillary line on the chest, or crease of the armpit, is on the extreme outside point of the ribcage. The 5th rib proceeds, from this point toward the front of the person, to the anterior (front) axillary line in an inward bound curve. The right nipple is even further toward the centre of the chest on this curve. If one had x-ray vision and could look through a person, one could see that, viewed from behind, the nipple would be well to the inside of the margin of the scapula, and well inside of the anterior axillary line; in fact, the nipple is just shy of the mid-clavicular line.

If you look at an anatomical drawing of the ribcage and scapula, you will see it is not possible, looking from the back, to see the 5th rib, as the scapula entirely obscures it.

If Connally was facing forward, and the bullet struck him at the mid axillary line, outside of the margin of the scapula, how did the bullet manage to come into contact with the 5th rib AND follow the 5th rib on a course to just below the right nipple? Would the bullet not be required to change course, once it got past the scapula?

I explain this all much better at the Deep Politics Forum (JFK Assassination) on a thread called "Inexplicable Wounds made by Special Bullets". I have the advantage, on that forum, of actually being able to c/p diagrams and photos.

Hello James

According to the testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw, the bullet impacted Connally at the mid axillary line, or the midpoint between back and front of the thorax, making a burrowing wound that followed the 5th rib and then exited under his right nipple. This clearly shows a bullet path travelling at an angle of right to left in relation to Connally's thorax.

If Connally was hit at z230/231, while he was facing forward, this bullet would have to be following a path that well to the right of JFK in order to inflict such a wound on Connally.

In order for Connally to have received such a wound from a bullet originating from behind the limo, he would have to be turned to his right.

What makes you believe the bullet was sideways when it struck Connally? Do you believe the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally?

And where do you believe the bullet that struck Connally originated from?

Hello James

Just a quick observation about your anatomical diagram of the bullet path in post # 3.

For starters, your diagram is anatomically incorrect. The 5th rib does not extend further to the outside of the body than the scapula (shoulder blade). in fact, when viewed from the back, the 5th rib is hidden from view by the scapula. This is why Connally had to be turned to his right when struck by a bullet; or, the bullet was fired from the west end of the TSBD.

Next, your diagram shows the bullet traversing a path almost away from the chest when, in fact, the bullet was travelling towards the centre of the chest; following a path from the mid axillary line (where you have located the upper arm bone) to the anterior axillary line, and exiting under his right nipple. In other words, if Connally had been facing forward, this bullet would have had to have come from Connally's right rear in order to miss the scapula AND follow the inward travelling course it followed.

Robert

Do you believe Connally was facing straight ahead, to the right or to the left when he was hit in the back by a bullet?

Yes I have heard all of the theories, from silent gas powered air guns firing a toxic pellet to rocket powered flechettes, also tipped with paralyzing toxin and made to dissolve on contact with blood, fired from an umbrella.

Here are some REALLY good questions none of you have been able to answer.

If they could place this dart or pellet so accurately on JFK, why not just shoot him in the head with the first bullet and get it over with? What if Greer had been spooked by the firecracker sound and stomped on the gas before any following shots had been fired?

If this air gun was so silent, what was the "firecracker" noise so many heard?

P.S. Outside of the fact the SS all seem to be looking toward the Grassy Knoll, what other evidence is there they heard a shot from there at z190?

And why would the Secret Service agents and these witnesses be able to hear the first shot, and no one else was able to hear it?

But are you saying the SS agents, and no one else (outside of JFK), were aware of a shot by z190, and that is why they are looking toward the Grassy Knoll?

Mary Moorman was closer to the Grassy Knoll than the SS agents at the time of the first shot. Did she hear the shot they heard? Did James Altgens hear a shot at this time? How about Hudson? Explain that one to me.

It's quite simple, and I already pointed it out to you. A rifle shooting a bullet at supersonic speeds (in excess of 1125 fps or 767 mph) can be suppressed, but not completely silenced. In other words, you can silence the muzzle blast of the rifle, and hide the location of the shooter, but the bullet is breaking the sound barrier on its way to the target and creating a mini-sonic boom. Just like the crack of a bull whip, it can be quite startling if right next to you but, 40 feet away, just a curious sound.

If the shooter was, as I hypothesized, either on a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building or hidden in a pile of laundry bags atop the laundry van parked at the corner of Houston and Elm, the trajectory of a shot from him to the limo would have been well away from onlookers on either side of Elm. They may have heard a "firecracker" noise, but it would not likely have startled them.

However, chances are the two SS agents standing on the starboard side of the Queen Mary had the distinct privilege of having this shot just miss them on its way to JFK, and were startled enough to be looking around behind them with a "WTF?" look on their faces. Just because they were good little agents and said later they were merely scanning the crowd does not make it true. It is no coincidence they are both looking to the same location.

Why did Moorman and the other witnesses around the Grassy Knoll area not hear this shot? Simple. The bullet stopped in the upper part of JFK's right lung, and did not make a mini-sonic boom past the location of the limo at the time of the first shot.

Speaking of James Altgens, he testified to the Warren Commission that the first shot he heard was at the exact moment he took the photo at z255, and he was even further down Elm St. than Moorman was. How does that fit in?

So, let me see if I have this straight. At z190, the SS agents are all looking at the Grassy Knoll because a shot was fired from there, but in Altgens 6 (z255), two SS agents are turned around looking behind the follow up car because they are just "scanning the crowd".

And you know this because, that is what the two SS agents said in their report?

Robert

It is incorrect to say that no one in Dealey Plaza reacted to the sound of a high powered rifle prior to z313. Proof of this can be seen in the Altgens 6 photo. While none of the bystanders can be seen reacting, the two SS agents standing on the starboard side of the follow up car are clearly reacting to something, as is the motorcycle cop on the starboard side of the limo.

What are they reacting to, and why is no one else reacting? The answer is quite simple. A rifle equipped with a suppressor, located either atop the laundry van at the corner of Elm and Houston or on a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building, has just fired a frangible bullet into the top of JFK's right lung, where it disintegrated and stayed.

As is typical of a suppressed high powered rifle shooting supersonic rounds (in excess of 1100 fps), the muzzle blast is completely silenced, masking the source of the shot, but the bullet makes a sharp but localized "crack" as it breaks the sound barrier.

The bullet likely just missed the heads of the two SS agents, and startled them, while those further away might have heard the crack but would not show the typical startle reaction to a bullet.

Dave

Lame Nut Argument #1:

A goodly number of witnesses all mistakenly saw the limo come to a stop, and a goodly number of that group mistakenly saw the limo swerve to the left.

Mass hallucination and mass hypnosis theories belong in a comic book, Dave, not a serious discussion about the JFK assassination.

Dave

You know what I love about Lame Nuts? It's like playing Whack-a-Mole; you bust one head and three more pop up with more stupid arguments.

Dave

Clint Hill said he saw a large hole in the back of JFK's head when he testified to the Warren Commission in 1964. Should we believe Clint Hill in 1964, or Clint Hill in 2014?

Thomas

Greer said he swerved, witnesses saw the limo swerve to the left, does the Zapruder film show a swerve?

Thomas and Pat

And the swerve?

Yup, Kathy, the witnesses were all wrong, and even more of a hoot, they all claim to have seen the same thing.

Were they handing out LSD on Elm St. that day, or do you think it was mass hypnosis?

Clinical studies of eyewitnesses clearly show that witnesses are incapable of perfect recall, and will often make mistakes about what they observed. However, I defy you to find a study showing eyewitnesses mistakenly reporting the same thing.

Limousine driver William Greer to Jackie Kennedy at Parkland Hospital:

"Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it, I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time."

Many witnesses also saw the limo swerve to the left, although the Zapruder film shows no such thing.

Think Greer was on LSD that day, too, Dave?

Since my last post on this thread, I have been doing a great deal of research on what type of bullets were fired at JFK during the assassination. We know they could not have been full metal jackets for the following reasons:

1. A FMJ bullet would not have left a cloud of dust like fragments in JFK's skull.

2. A FMJ bullet that entered JFK's back and penetrated his right lung would have exited his right chest. As far as we know, no exit wound was reported by witnesses in JFK's chest.

3. A FMJ bullet that entered JFK's throat would have exited the back of his neck and destroyed much of his neck vertebrae on the way through. Once again, no exit wound was reported on the back of JFK's neck.

There is a theory that the bullet that struck JFK's back and only penetrated an inch was the result of a "short shot". As the theory goes, the gunpowder in the cartridge the bullet was fired from did not fully ignite and, as a result, the muzzle velocity of the bullet was greatly reduced, and only allowed for shallow penetration in the flesh of JFK's back. This is utter nonsense, and anyone who subscribes to this theory has not been around firearms very much. Bullets begin to drop as soon as they leave the barrel of a rifle, and the only thing that keeps them in the air is the amount of energy imparted to them by the charge of gunpowder. If a rifle is sighted in for, say, 100 yards, and the shooter aims at a target at 50 yards, the bullet should land close to the bullseye and should be about 2 inches high. However, should the velocity be drastically reduced and the shooter is still aiming at the same spot, the great drop in velocity will make the bullet fall to the ground long before it reaches the target. In the case of JFK, it likely would have landed somewhere behind the limo. Remember, it is called a "short shot" for a reason, as the bullet will fall short of its target.

I have found a type of bullet capable of doing all of the things listed. Coincidentally, these bullets were still being manufactured in Italy for the 6.5mm Carcano as late as 1953, and possibly well into the 60`s. I will share the details with you in the next post. In the meantime, I recommend Googling "frangible bullets" and visiting the following link: www.DRTammo.com/DRT-Technology