Robert Mady Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Brad, 51 years of working on the problem has resulted in no workable solutions as to how or when CONNALLY is wounded, but researchers are tenacious, if they failed for 51 years, they are willing to rework the same problem again and again and again looking for a shred of truth to create a workable solution. Problem has always been garbage in garbage out. I already provided the solution as to how and when CONNALLY was wounded. Robert P. there is not a shred of credible evidence for any shots coming from the TSBD no evidence for any shots from the Western windows of the TSBD. Since civilian witnesses claimed the three rifle shots came from the monument area, why not determine the potential results of the three shots that came from the monument area? Do further analysis on how CONNALLY could have positioned himself to have been wounded from the side, from the monument area. You have discounted the significance of CONNALLYS posture too prematurely. You will find that his posture is the solution to how he was wounded from the side. When you determine how his wounds lined up, the solution is obvious. Look at the Zapruder film after the fatal head shot and know CONNALLY was not only facing forward, he was hunched down with his right arm tucked into his body, twisting his right side to the left. Which moves the point of entry forward and down. The bullet from the side nearly missed CONNALLYS body. JFK's back wound was post added by HUMES punching a hole into KENNEDYS back as the explanation for the 'pristine bullet' which was planted at the hospital to provide a forensic match to the murder weapon. Edited March 23, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Bob We have discussed this in another post. Connally cannot lean forward far enough, while facing forward, to transfer the 25° downward angle of his back wound onto a lateral plane, without running into the seat ahead of him. If he is twisted to the left and bent forward, the shot is now blocked by the seat ahead of him and the side bar behind the front door. To say a shallow wound was created by Humes, simply to explain the discovery of a pristine bullet at Parkland, is utterly ridiculous. If I was a conspitator, I would be far more worried about how I was going to explain a 162 grain bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, only penetrating an inch into the flesh of JFK's back, than I would be about matching a bullet to the rifle found on the 6th floor. Obviously, their worries were unfounded, as a great portion of the public have bought the story of the back wound being "shallow", including FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil, who should have known better. Edited March 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Robert, CONNALLY is doing more than leaning forward. Well anyway, enough said. HUMES altered the head wounds, why would creating the back wound be a problem? How else were they going to provide an explanation for the existence of the 'pristine bullet' ? Edited March 23, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 By not mentioning they had a pristine bullet? Call me stupid but, that is pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Robert P. whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 bump 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