Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Do you understand that the CONNALLYS are the only two people in Dealey Plaza to react to the first shot other than SSA READY, LANDIS, HICKEY and HILL looking toward the grassy knoll? Do you understand that the CONNALLYS are the only two people in Dealey Plaza to react to a second shot that was supposedly fired before Z-313? CLINT HILL did not react at the sound from the first shot, he reacted when CONNALLY laid down in the limo, just prior to the second shot at Z-313. Has this evidence been considered in your analysis or the 'pundit' Gary Murr's trilogy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) "Researchers" desperately looking for any perceptible sign of a bullet striking CONNALLY are able to point to a frame that might indicate puffed cheeks or a frame where the lapel seems to move. FACT, CONNALLY absorbed the full impact from a high powered rifle, 100% of the energy was transferred to his body on impact, the impact would have driven him in the direction of the force, just the same as the man holding the rifle as firmly as possible was driven back by the force. Difference being the man holding the rifle is braced, CONNALLY was not. CONNALLY does not move in any frame before Z-325 that would be indicative of absorbing the force of a missile from a high powered rifle. CONNALLY in Z-325 is driven in the direction of his wounds, which are down and to his left. The wounds I might add are aligned in Z-325, is there another moment in the ZAPRUDER film where CONNALLY's body is aligned? Edited September 23, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Hello Robert: "Pundit" Gary Murr here - just kidding. Though I did take it upon myself to share my 20+ years of research on the Connally wounding with James Gordon [and indeed others over these same intervening years] - we do agree to disagree on a number of issues in this matter. It may be of interest to you to know that one of these major differences that I hold with James and other researchers is that I remain convinced, based upon all that I have been able to study and acquire, that John Connally's thoracic wounding did occur after the fatal head shot and only after this point in time [Z313]. FWIW Gary Murr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Gary Thank you for the reply. Where may I review your work, I am interested based on your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Why would the WC document and present vital information in a manner that is not definitive. This shirt has most likely been rolled at the top, biased on the right, in effect this raised the appearance of the hole in the shirt significantly higher. Why would the WC do this...so as to conform to a shot coming from the sixth floor. Because a hole too low would make the proposed SBT second shot impossible, as if it wasn't impossible already, it would also make any shot from the 6th floor to be impossible. It may be just my perception, but does this photograph appear to have also been taken from the left and not straight on? The shirt could have also been pulled inward, moving the hole more towards the back and away from the side. Edited September 23, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Robert: Unfortunately my plans to publish all of my work fell through just over a year ago. That coupled with the fact that I have been working on a parallel assassination related subject matter in my spare time over the past 8 years has served, to a certain extent, in "derailing" my interest in the Connally wounding. However, having spent better than two decades traversing this particular quagmire has resulted in a three part trilogy that I can transmit portions of "electronically" to you. Perhaps you could send me a private e-mail? Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Robert: In answer to the questions you posed in your post # 35; the photograph of the shirt was taken by members of the FBI Lab upon receiving the clothing from the Governor's office on April 9th, 1964 [? - sorry, I do not have my notes in front of me at the moment and am going from memory here]. When you view the originals of this photograph, which were taken in colour, the shirt is actually pinned to a cork bulletin board giving it the "rolled"/raised appearance you have commented on. And the photograph is taken roughly "straight on", though it appears that the board was not quite perpendicular to the camera/film plane, or vice versa. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Gary, then you also noticed FBI's display of the shirt in effect may have raised the location of the bullet hole. Is this significant in your analysis? In other words do you believe that the hole is where the WC claims or could it possibly be lower and to the side? I remember comments at the time, I have not been able to resurrect them, but it had to do with CONNALLY's entrance wound being 'on CONNALLYS side, under his armpit' I thought it had been a comment during a press conference from a doctor. But then I was 11 at the time. Edited September 23, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Gary, in other words this photograph was taken with evidence displayed in this awkward manner because the FBI blatantly attempted to obfuscate evidence. Edited September 23, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Robert: The holes in the clothing are the "holes" in the clothing, and by that I mean I do not feel that they have been "moved' or tampered with, though as you may or may not be aware, Dr. Pierre Finck expressed the opinion that some of the governor's clothing apertures had been potentially tampered with or enlarged through the use of "scissors." As an aside, I was allowed access to and handled all of the governor's clothes during a visit to NARA II in the spring of 1999. To my way of thinking, the appearance and positioning of the clothing holes were dictated by the position of the governor himself at his moment of wounding impact. The governor's suit jacket was an appropriately custom tailored garment, and the shirt was an Arrow dress shirt again fitted to the governor's physique. I also do not feel that the FBI photographed the garments in the manner that they did in an effort to alter the "positioning" of the holes in either the shirt, suit jacket, or trousers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Gary "To my way of thinking, the appearance and positioning of the clothing holes were dictated by the position of the governor himself at his moment of wounding impact." This makes no sense. The governor's suit jacket was an appropriately custom tailored garment, and the shirt was an Arrow dress shirt again fitted to the governor's physique. Immaterial. I also do not feel that the FBI photographed the garments in the manner that they did in an effort to alter the "positioning" of the holes in either the shirt, suit jacket, or trousers. Then there is no rational explanation why the FBI documented important evidence in this haphazard manner other than gross incompetence. Did you take additional photographs of CONNALLYS shirt and back of his suit that you may share? I did not say the holes were moved, I said the appearance of the location of the hole had been intentionally adjusted to better conform to the WC/R fiction. Edited September 23, 2014 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Robert, why don't you write up the Kennedy-Connally wounding sequence as narrative, so it can be examined non-fragmentally? Edited September 23, 2014 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 David, you have a really good suggestion, but I don't have the skill set to accomplish that task. Not even sure the postings made are clear enough to properly convey conjecture. Hopes were that evidence connecting testimony with media or the revelation that media does not support WC/R theory or Conspiracy theories would be sufficient to cause the 'ah ha' moment if put in the most basic form. If I can be of help to answer any questions, I will. But, and this is absolute, do not believe me. It is important that anyone interested KNOW the truth. Analyze the evidence yourself, my only intention is to point to the truth by providing evidence that is coherent and connected and corroborative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 Robert: My responses to your feedback in blue Gary "To my way of thinking, the appearance and positioning of the clothing holes were dictated by the position of the governor himself at his moment of wounding impact." This makes no sense. It makes absolutely perfect sense. Think about it for a moment. If you were sitting perfectly erect and were impacted from behind by a bullet, wearing an appropriately tailored suit jacket that was buttoned up with a dress shirt underneath and the distance between the two pieces of clothing thus instantaneously struck were [hypothetically] less than 0.5" - 1.0" apart from one another would the "holes" in the clothing not basically match in position and appearance, irrespective of the orientation of the bullet at impact? However, if your torso were rotated at impact, left or right or whatever, and while both of these garments would also "rotate' with the movement of your thorax, would they still "line up" or would one garment not move quantitatively more than the other and potentially in more than one direction? [And by that I mean either horizontally or vertically or both] The governor's suit jacket was an appropriately custom tailored garment, and the shirt was an Arrow dress shirt again fitted to the governor's physique. Immaterial. Wrong - as outlined in my previous response above. I also do not feel that the FBI photographed the garments in the manner that they did in an effort to alter the "positioning" of the holes in either the shirt, suit jacket, or trousers. Then there is no rational explanation why the FBI documented important evidence in this haphazard manner other than gross incompetence. Whether a rational explanation is warranted or a factor of "gross incompetence" is a justifiable accusation is arguable. What is unfortunate is that those members of the Bureau responsible for the photographs did not take close-ups of these same clothing apertures when they had the chance to do so. However, Robert Frazier's lab notes on his examination of the Governor's clothing are extremely detailed and when examined properly are invaluable in determining a great deal about the orientation of the missile that struck the Governor, the makeup of these same missile and the potential pathway of same. And obviously one must always remember that by the time the FBI lab acquired these articles of the Governor's clothing the suit components had been professionally dry-cleaned and the shirt had been, at the very least, rinsed in water. Did you take additional photographs of CONNALLYS shirt and back of his suit that you may share? Yes, I had detailed color photographs taken of the Governor's clothing, including pictures of both interior surfaces of the suit jacket, front and back, where the bullet entered/exited, something that no one had done before. I also took detailed measurements of all apertures on the clothing for comparison with the existing record up to that point in time [1999]. I, of course, examined this clothing some 35 years removed from when Robert Frazier did and can only confirm that his measurements were accurate. Obviously there was more fraying along some of the edges of the "holes' at the time I handled the clothing, in particular on the "H" shaped aperture of exit found on the front of the Governor's shirt as well as the edges of the hole on the exterior surface of the right shirt cuff, but again this was to be expected. I also was able to examine those areas from which small control samples had been taken by members of the FBI lab. The photographs are included in my unpublished work; as for sharing them, that is something that I will ponder. I did not say the holes were moved, I said the appearance of the location of the hole had been intentionally adjusted to better conform to the WC/R fiction. I did not say that you said the holes as such had been moved. You have proposed that the FBI photographed the shirt in the manner/orientation that they did in an effort to "intentionally...conform to the WCR fiction." And while I will agree with you that the Commission Report is replete with numerous "fictions," I do not feel that the images of the Governor's clothing as photographed by the FBI were posed to promote the fiction of the SBT. Indeed, if you read Robert Frazier's testimony carefully he does not commit to verifying the truth of the hypothetical nuances of the SBT. This is even more obvious when you read and examine Frazier's rough lab notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now