Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Connally Thorax Wound and the Missing Bullet


Recommended Posts

The Connally Thorax Wound

And

The Missing Bullet

Although at first glance this may appear an outrageous statement, close research makes it clear that rather than this being an example of research hyperbole it is indeed the logical and only conclusion to the thorax wound that John Connally sustained.

The supporting document is too long to be posted on this site. Therefore at the end of this posting is the link to the supporting document. The document is an Interactive PDF and therefore the two video clips on P. 1 can be viewed, when viewed through a computer or tablet.

There are three arguments, within the document, to support this proposition.

Argument 1:- The incompatibility of the President John F. Kennedy and John Connally wound trajectories.

Argument 2:- The description of how the bullet passed through John Connally’s thorax.

Argument 3:- The nature of the wound to the wrist that John Connally received and the evidence that John Connally’s wrist could not have been wounded at this point.

Argument 1:- Page 3 to Page 13 lays out the details of this argument.

It was necessary to return to this old chestnut, the “Single Bullet Theory”, because it has to be established just why the trajectory to President John F. Kennedy’s upper chest wounds cannot meet up with the trajectory for John Connally’s thorax wound. Put in simple terms, for the Single Bullet Theory to be a valid theory requires that the trajectory line from bullet’s source to John Connally chest exit point is a single straight line. If one discards the medical evidence of how John Connally was injured - especially the argument that the bullet passed through John Connally’s body outside the chest rib cage - then by placing the trajectory passing through his thorax it does appear possible to create that essential single line. However in doing so, this creates a wound that is different to the wound John Connally actually received. It is also a wound that places John Connally’s life in danger and - in some examples - immediately kills him. The true trajectory through John Connally’s body creates a trajectory line that is inconsistent with the Kennedy trajectory line. It is what I refer to as the “Twin Trajectories.”

Therefore the conclusion from this argument is that whatever bullet caused to President John F. Kennedy his upper chest wounds was not the same bullet that caused to John Connally his thorax wound.

Argument 2:- Page 14 to Page 25 lays out the details of this argument.

The description of how the bullet passed through John Connally’s thorax. This very detailed section attempts to describe just how the bullet had to have passed through the body of John Connally Put in simple terms, from the moment the bullet struck John Connally the head of the bullet never struck bone. On its journey through his body, the head of this bullet only came into contact with fine fabrics, skin, and flesh and muscles. It is accepted that such a contact and journey might well have made an impact on the bullet’s head - but essentially the head of the bullet ought to have remained intact and recognisable. It is, however accepted, that the body of the bullet when it came into contact with the 5th rib most likely did suffer damage. It is argued that quite likely it was squashed along the body of the bullet.

Therefore the conclusion from this argument is it that however squashed, as this bullet’s body most likely was, and having suffered impact damage as the head of the bullet may well also have suffered - the bullet still left John Connally’s body as a recognisable bullet.

Argument 3:- Page 26 to Page 29 lays out the details of this argument.

As with argument 1, it was necessary to return to this issue. Put in simple terms, the impact damage to the clothes of John Connally make it clear that the bullet that did impact with his wrist had already impacted with something else. The star like description of the head of this bullet, [ that created that entry damage to John Connally’s Arrow shirt and also carried fabric damage into the wound ] was nothing like what the bullet that exited his chest had to have looked like. That bullet had a head that was essentially intact. In addition, the damage to the right wrist of John Connally was so unique John Connally’s arm required to be positioned in a particular way. Looking specifically at Z 223/4 [ because according to the modern interpretation of the Single Bullet Theory, this is exactly when the wrist was injured ] it is an evident fact that we have no knowledge as to how John Connally’s arm was positioned at that point. Any evidence that his arm and wrist were positioned correctly is assumption. The evidence to establish this, beyond doubt, does not exist.

Therefore the conclusion from this argument is it that the bullet that exited John Connally’s chest did not go on to wound his wrist.

That means that the bullet that caused John Connally’s thorax wounds, exited his body as essentially a complete bullet. Therefore, after the assassination had concluded there was a bullet that has not been placed into evidence and there is therefore a bullet missing from the evidence chain in this case.

Link to Supporting file:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/1c28ce30-e41b-4278-90db-af140951408e/EPXzTHbyi4tKoTbF9QXliw2

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting stuff, James. Can I ask some points of clarfication.

(1) Are you saying that Dale Myers misplaced the actual, initial entry wound in JBC (and/or exit wound) or are you saying the only problem is the path he implies through the body?

(2) If we *did* go to 223-224 for a JBC hit... where does that trace back given your analysis? The Dal Tex still?

(3) I always thought the report of a 2.5cm entry wound in JBC was a reflection of surgery that Shaw performed, not the actual original size. Am I wrong on that?

(4) Relatedly, isn't a 2.5cm wound awfully long relative to just about any bullet? What accounts for that?

(5) You mentioned at one point that internal damage seemed to be larger than the exit wound... doesn't that imply tumbling?

(6) How does one account for what some say is too little damage to JBC's wrist if a bullet and not, say, a fragment from the head shot, caused the wrist wound?

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

Just trying to clarify and help you refine.

Regards,

Stu

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart,

I’ll address your questions as best as I can.

(1) Are you saying that Dale Myers misplaced the actual, initial entry wound in JBC (and/or exit wound) or are you saying the only problem is the path he implies through the body?

In this image from Dale Myers, the entry point for President John F. Kennedy, my red line, is a reasonable position. See image below. However because of the turned position that John Connally is in, when that trajectory is carried forward the bullet has to go through John Connally’s chest. Infact it looks like it will also go through his heart as represented by the red line.

The actual trajectory through the outside of Connally’s chest wall is suggested by the yellow line.

You use the word “implies.” It is not implied. Because of the position that Connally has taken at this point, 223/4, the bullet must continue on that line. It is a trajectory requirement given the entry point and the turn that Connally’s body has made.

DaleMyers_zpsa21d89c6.png

(2) If we *did* go to 223-224 for a JBC hit... where does that trace back given your analysis? The Dal Tex still?

On Page 11 I point out, what I refer to as the twin trajectories. It is the yellow line indicated in the previous question that actually does not go to a building but between buildings. That line is the Connally trajectory pointer, not the Kennedy pointer.

I deliberately called this the “twin trajectories” because it is impossible, given Connally’s position in the car at 223/4, for both these lines to meet and create a single line trajectory that would be required for the Single Bullet Theory.

The Oswald trajectory to President John F. Kennedy and the John Connally trajectory go in different directions and that is why I refer to them as twin trajectories.

(3) I always thought the report of a 2.5cm entry wound in JBC was a reflection of surgery that Shaw performed, not the actual original size. Am I wrong on that?

It is actually 2.5 inches not cm. It was also an exit wound not an entry wound. In his deposition as well as his testimony Robert Shaw refers to 5cm. However he uses the adverb “approximately.” That comes to around 1.9 inches. However on the 28th of January when for the Secret Service he, along with Gregory and Shires, placed where the wounds were on Connally’s body he stated that the size of that wound was 2.5 inches. This is, I believe, the first specification as to the wounds size. I do not know what Shaw meant by “approximately”. I am not sure if he was being politic or not. So for my account I went back to CD 326 for my definition.

(4) Relatedly, isn’t a 2.5cm wound awfully long relative to just about any bullet? What accounts for that?

Again it is 2.5 inches and not cm. And yes you are right. 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.

(5) You mentioned at one point that internal damage seemed to be larger than the exit wound... doesn't that imply tumbling?

Now what I was referring to there was the damage to the middle lobe of the lung. These bone fragments virtually cut the middle lobe in two. There is an image of the extent of that damage on P. 22.

What I was referring to was that those fragments that tore down to the bottom of the middle lobe had ventured further than the location of the exit wound. That is what I was referring to. The exit wound was further up the body than the lowest point in the middle lobe damage.

(6) How does one account for what some say is too little damage to JBC’s wrist if a bullet and not, say, a fragment from the head shot, caused the wrist wound?

Because of the nature of the damage to the wrist, described on P. 26, 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.

(7) 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.

But the article describe very strong reasons why the bullet had to have survived its journey.

Hope those answers are of help to you.

James.

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) To go a step further, are you saying that Myers is wrong because he does not rotate JBC's torso enough?

(2) Side note, what sources are you using for your 3d recreation and what is your margin of error?

(3) A comment really... I think you are really going to have to account for what this bullet is supposed to have done when it exited JBC's torso. That is clearly going to be the area you are attacked on. If even a medium velocity round exited JBC without significant deceleration, and even with a dose of it, I imagine it would have done noticeable damage inside the limo.

-Stu

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart,

Myers problem is not where he has placed John Connally, it is John Connally's actual position that causes the problem. Had he been facing forward or slightly left it might have been possible to create a single trajectory. Because he is turned right it is not.

Some of the sources were Don Roberdeau's map for the plaza. As an aside I was able to verify his Zapruder positions are spot on.

The Dealey Plaza restoration document gave me a great deal info on buildings.

I had Robert West's survey material.

I had some of the plans for the TSBD.

I had quite a bit of the material generated through the May '64 re-creation.

The trajectory distances recorded in, I think it is CD 884, matched my distances to, at worst, within 2 feet. Usually it was within inches.

I have knowledge about what happened the bullet but I am not at liberty to say at the moment. That is why I did not comment on it.

Proving what happened to the bullet is of secondary importance. Proving the bullet exited complete is much more important. If I have made my case that the bullet did exit as a complete bullet, that is the critical point. It establishes that, at some point, there was another bullet in the case. Sure everyone would like to know what happened to it, but the fact it existed is much more important.

James.

Link to post
Share on other sites

James

Would the characteristics of the wound be consistent with a hit on

Connally alone after the head shot say z340 when Connaly was laying

To his left leaving his torso exposed between the seats ?.

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian,

My preferred moment is Z 230.

That said, as I have come to realise through the study I have done, there is no one moment that Connally could have been wounded. Of those various moments that return, what I refer to as a positive result, Z340 is one such moment.

And so the answer to your question is yes. A researcher let it be known to me that a bullet was found in Connally's clothes while he was in Parkland.

Being wounded at that moment would suggest the bullet might well remain in his clothes.

So there is a lot going for that Zapruder reference.

My reservation with that moment is that I am convinced that Z290 onwards is a sequence when Nellie rescues John. That therefore would suggest that by Z290 John Connally was already wounded 50 frames earlier.

James.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

B) 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 5th 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 5th rib.

f) The nature of the damage to the wrist.

WristWound_zpsdba7c007.png

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi James,

I did read your work and just wanted clarification. This last post goes a long way. I guess there are a few things still confusing to me, that I think would shore up what you are saying.

My understanding is that Myers and co. simply play connect the dots between the initial entry and exit wounds. What I am trying to understand is how they could be wrong about where the bullet went if we assume (a) the location of entry and exit are correct and (B) the position of the men in the limo is correct. I am not clear on that from reading the piece. If you are saying that their problem is the Z224 location, I think that makes some sense. But you probably have to do more to explain the lapel flip.

Secondly, I think the issue of where the bullet went and what it did is paramount to explain. It's one thing to infer that evidence was deleted or added to the record; John Hunt's work adds to your inference. But we have pretty good documentation on what damage there was to the interior of the limo. There is one interesting 6.5mm dent somewhere, and there is the matter of the windshield damage (I don't believe it is thru and thru) but neither seems consistent with what you are describing with the JBC damage. The angle doesn't work for the windshield, and the damage is too minimal for a bullet that would have been going nearly full throttle.

Keep in mind I am only trying to play devil's advocate to improve your work. Your analysis of the JBC damage seems convincing on its face. In fact, I would strongly encourage you to find independent medical experts, especially wound ballistics experts, trauma surgeons, and forensic pathologists, to verify what you have. You may want to start with conspiracy minded folks because if you cannot convince a Cyril Wecht, it is problematic. But then I would go cold turkey to experts; I found foreign experts are much more likely to offer opinions. I would be willing to help you on that. You may well have a deal breaker here-- IF you can explain the lapel flap and (more importantly) IF you can account for what happened after.

-Stu

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:-

RightArm_zps09fb1d21.png

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl:

Can you indicate to me the moment in time along Elm Street where John Connally had his right hand on his left leg/thigh in the position indicated in the image you posted? Your image shows someone with their left hand on their left leg/thigh. This will not work for John Connally.

Gary Murr

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to be privvy to arguments about this ad nauseum over at the alt. forums. We should credit the best arguments against our side, not the weakest ones or the ones that confirm our biases. So let me make the case for the lapel flip

(A) The jacket shows a low exit, but the shirt shows it to be higher-- the more likely bet is that the jacket rode up. That said, it is still not directly over the lapel, however...

(B) The argument is that there was as much as a jacket bulge as a lapel flip. I think anyone who looks at high quality versions of the relevant frames can see it is not the swift motion we see that caused the lapel flip from Rookstool. I don't particularly admire the following person's approach to the case, but he has the relevant clip isolated:

http://www.jfk-online.com/tempz.html

... in short, whatever lapel flip happened, it was a result of the jacket being forced forward. This has also been reproduced in shooting experiments.

© You also have what appears to be a flapping of the hat and a sudden movement of JBC's torso.

I am not completely sold on it, but I will say that the LN logic on it never made sense either. Even if JBC is hit at 224, it doesn't mean JFK was hit at the same time. JFK is showing a reaction to a wounding, but he is blocked by the sign-- he could have been reacting for several frames. In fact, I believe the most likely JFK hit is between 190-207. Part of why I am so interested in this is because I think James has brought forth one of the more credible cases I have seen that the trajectory has to involve a different frame.

The lapel is actually secondary to the point about the limo. Again, I am not doing an Arlen Specter "where did the bullet go" argument in terms of "why wasn't it found?" I am open to the inferences that evidence was deep-sixed in this case, especially given the work by John Hunt. The bigger problem is why there isn't more damage to the limo. A bullet that faces little or no resistance from direct contact with bone and that is not tumbling will retain a large share of its velocity. I can't imagine this not doing serious damage to the limo, in noticeable ways.

-Stu

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...