Can't find diagram of shots to jfk from conspiracy point of view?

[William Charleston]

[quote=Edwin Ortiz]
Bill Charleston

I hear you, William, and am in full agreement with everything you say, especially Connally's statement that the shot in the back knocked him over.

John Connally is a key witness but like virtually every other witness in Dealey Plaza, he got some things right and some things WRONG! Key question then is HOW do you separate the correct observations from the incorrect?

You filter out the correct from the incorrect by looking at independent evidence that could NOT have been altered by the conspirators in the government who will do anything to hide the truth. For now, just consider as a premise that the conspiracy to kill JFK came from powerful people in the US government. Once you understand how to PROVE what happened during the shooting, I'll show how to prove that only powerful US government insiders could have hidden this from the public and the investigators.

To PROVE that a conspiracy killed JFK, it is only necessary to show that two of the shots were fired quicker than the bolt action rifle in the Texas School Book Depository could have been fired. To get a hint that might be true, listen to just one of the MANY witnesses who say the last two shots were BANG-BANG. Always remember that no matter what a witnesses says, it does NOT prove anything. At this point, we are just trying to find something a lot of witnesses said they heard that is CONSISTENT with other evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NNcYG-m08g

I can bore you to tears by playing videos of witness after witness saying they heard BAM-BAM for the last two shots. Always remember, that proves nothing no matter how many people say they heard BANG-BANG. The conspirators in the US government hid that important observation by convincing the presstitutes that those people heard echoes, not two separate shots. In the Wizard of Oz, remember Dorthy looking at the curtain but the Wizard yelled to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain? :-) The presstitutes have been attempting to bury the BANG-BANG observations because the Wizard in Washington said those were echoes, NOT TWO SEPARATE SHOTS! When witnesses say BANG-BANG, it's almost comical how the interviewers simply IGNORE that very significant observation.

So what other evidence shows that the last two shots might have been fired BANG-BANG? Everybody on the planet is going to first look at the Zapruder film and see what that shows:


[video]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b97/Cortex_2005/zapruder.gif[/video]

As you look at this a few times, it is obvious that JFK is thrown back and to the left then immediately afterwards John Connally is thrown forward violently. It is important to note that Connally goes quickly forward and after going forward, he is pulled over into Nellie Connally's lap. Nellie did not and could not have caused John Connally to go forward so quickly immediately after JFK's head shot like the US government wants you to think happened.

The next video shows more relevant information that attempts to tie more of this jig saw puzzle together:




I've investigated many industrial incidents but I don't believe anybody would say that I argued with them about what they told me. But John Connally says they argued with him and Walter Cronkite goes on to say that they overruled what John Connally said he thought happened.

Later in the video I briefly show that there is other evidence that shows the last two shots were fired BANG-BANG, two shots 0.7 seconds apart. That evidence also allows the location of the two shooters to be determined that fired the last two shots:

Zapruder frame 313: Shot from grassy knoll
Zapruder frame 325: Shot from Texas School book depository

The shot at Z313 fired from the grassy knoll knocked JFK back and to the left
The shot at Z325 fired from the TSBD behind JFK missed his head and hit Connally in the back.

I haven't proven anything at this point but I have shown that it is reasonable to believe the last two shots were fired BANG-BANG. IF you are interested, I will show you how to prove that is true, then you can begin to understand who and tie names to the label of "powerful people in the US government." You will also see later that the US government went to great lengths to discredit any information that conflicted with the SBT fairy tale.

[Drew Phipps]

Unfortunately, the well-documented and accepted existence of an "after" conspiracy to get the Lone Nut story sold doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything about anyone's participation in a BEFORE conspiracy. There are many good reasons, such as fear of nuclear war, fear of rioting, fear of pogroms, following orders like a good soldier, etc., why people might have participated in a cover-up.

The key to finding "before" conspirators is to find activity necessary to the cover-up that occurred prior to the assassination.

[Richard Hocking]

"... The presstitutes have been attempting to bury the BANG-BANG observations because the Wizard in Washington said those were echoes, NOT TWO SEPARATE SHOTS! When witnesses say BANG-BANG, it's almost comical how the interviewers simply IGNORE that very significant observation."

The "echo" argument used by Lone Nut enthusiasts to explain the nearly simultaneous reports of the last two audible shots
is easily dismissed.

The Warren Commission concluded that exactly 3 shots were fired from the same location, using the same rifle. If this were the case, all three shots should have produced the same echo pattern.

Bam Bam … Bam Bam … Bam Bam

No witness gave that description of the shot sequence.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Richard

Excellent argument and, surprisingly, one that I never thought of. Yes, why would only one of the three shots produce an echo, if they were all from the same origin?

William

I'll go even one better. Why not three shots within the .7 second period, assuming there was some form of coordinated fire taking place? I say this because there would appear to be two entrance wounds on JFK's skull (one in the right temple and one just to the right of the external occipital protuberance - coincidentally, exactly where the large blowout was observed at PH) and one wound in JBC's back. Although the ear witnesses only heard two shots close together, evidence of the "firecracker" sound of the first shot, back near the Stemmons Freeway sign, is a strong indication that at least one of the rifles in Dealey Plaza was equipped with a suppressor.

Would a "firecracker" noise be audible over the sound of two unsuppressed rifle shots?

From the WC testimony of Roy Kellerman, Secret Service:

"Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat."

Would two shots qualify as a "flurry"?

[Drew Phipps]

Kellerman's stated actions don't match with the Zapruder film. In the film, he doesn't look back till after Connally is hit. There wouldn't be enough time for him to do all that stuff between the Connally hit and Hill arriving on the car. So, he is either mis-remembering the sequence of events (possibly still drunk from the night before), or the Zapruder film has portions removed from it. "Occam's Razor" suggests Kellerman is merely wrong.

That being said, "Flurry" implies to me, three or more. So Kellerman is basically saying 5 or more shots, in total, hit the car or occupants, and at least one miss for the lucky Mr. Teague, for a grand total of 6. Or, by using this word, Kellerman is (un?)consciously explaining his apparent lack of action until it was too late.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Or, Kellerman may have made one of the William Greer split-second "1,000 mph" turns, and it disappeared when frames were removed from the Zapruder film.

[Michael Cross]

"... The presstitutes have been attempting to bury the BANG-BANG observations because the Wizard in Washington said those were echoes, NOT TWO SEPARATE SHOTS! When witnesses say BANG-BANG, it's almost comical how the interviewers simply IGNORE that very significant observation."

The "echo" argument used by Lone Nut enthusiasts to explain the nearly simultaneous reports of the last two audible shots
is easily dismissed.

The Warren Commission concluded that exactly 3 shots were fired from the same location, using the same rifle. If this were the case, all three shots should have produced the same echo pattern.

Bam Bam … Bam Bam … Bam Bam

No witness gave that description of the shot sequence.

Brilliant. And simple. Perfect combination.

[William Charleston]

RichardExcellent argument and, surprisingly, one that I never thought of. Yes, why would only one of the three shots produce an echo, if they were all from the same origin?WilliamI'll go even one better. Why not three shots within the .7 second period, assuming there was some form of coordinated fire taking place? I say this because there would appear to be two entrance wounds on JFK's skull (one in the right temple and one just to the right of the external occipital protuberance - coincidentally, exactly where the large blowout was observed at PH) and one wound in JBC's back. Although the ear witnesses only heard two shots close together, evidence of the "firecracker" sound of the first shot, back near the Stemmons Freeway sign, is a strong indication that at least one of the rifles in Dealey Plaza was equipped with a suppressor.Would a "firecracker" noise be audible over the sound of two unsuppressed rifle shots?From the WC testimony of Roy Kellerman, Secret Service:"Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat."Would two shots qualify as a "flurry"?

YOU ASKED: "Why not three shots within the .7 second period?"The autopsy information with the head wounds along with the information from the witnesses at Parkland Hospital suggest that more than two shots hit President Kennedy in the head. So why not two or more?It turns out there is additional evidence that also shows the last two shots were fired a split second apart. The first shot was fired from the right front and the second shot was fired from behind the limousine. Taken together with other information, it is quite damning.The average JFK "researcher" has been brainwashed to believe that the audio recording of the Dallas police radio channel does NOT contain the sounds of the shots. As I have show in great detail, this is OBVIOUSLY not true, the sounds of the shots were recorded and the government is terrified you will finally see what happened when JFK was shot.First, let's see how the audio evidence fits the Zapruder film's timing. In the film, we see first JFK shot in the head at Z313 then 0.7 seconds later begining at frame Z325, we see John Connally thrown forward as the bullet strikes him in the back. After Connally is bent over forward by the force of the bullet as it hits him in the back, we then see him being pulled over into Nellie's lap. The work done by the audio experts shows that the Z313 shot was fired from the grassy knoll (right front of JFK) which knocked him violently back and to the left. The last shot was fired from behind which missed JFK's head and hit John Connally in the back, exited his chest and then struck his right wrist as the bullet traveled forward toward the front seat.You probably notice a big problem with that scenario. All of Connally's wounds could NOT have been caused by the bullet at Z325, the angle was too shallow to have gone down and hit Connally in the left thigh. And this is the main reason that every one of the JFK "EXPERTS" has bought the lie that Connally could NOT have been struck later than about Z frame 240. The reason they think that is that everyone knows that all of John Connally's wounds were caused by ONE BULLET.If Connally was not wounded in the left thigh at Z325, when was he wounded there? It turns out there is an easy answer to that question but one you will not find in any book or documentary. I am the only one who describes the correct sequence:John Connally made TWO radical movements exactly when the audio evidence shows shots were fired.1. 4.8 seconds BEFORE the JFK head shot, John Connally throws up his hands, snaps his head TOWARD his left and then shortly thereafter, he starts to turn his whole body toward the right to look over his right shoulder which is exactly what he says he did.2. 0.7 seconds AFTER JFK is shot in the head, Connally is bent over violently forward as a bullet fired from behind knocks him forwardAs you look at the Zapruder film from Z224, 4.8 seconds BEFORE JFK head shot to Z325 0.7 seconds AFTER JFK head shot, you'll notice John Connally turns to his right to look back toward where he thought the shot came from. After the shot hit him in the back, John Connally had an exit wound in his chest about the size of a baseball (described by Nellie Connally). If Connally was struck in the back before Z325, where is the blood on his white shirt? How could he turn to look over his right shoulder with a massive wound to his chest?
  ZCLOSEB272.BMP (Size: 1,012.55 KB / Downloads: 1) The obvious answer is that John Connally was not struck in the back until he is bent over (starting at Z325) which is what he said happened. The other obvious thing that must be true is that he was not wounded in the left thigh at Z325, he was wounded in the left thigh when the Z224 shot was fired. The wound to his left thigh was caused by a bullet fragment, not a bullet. Connally's lead surgeon called the wound "trivial" and it was caussed by a bullet fragment yet the WC crowd says the bullet came out of the wound and was found on a stretcher. Surely you have seen Daryl Tomlinson (the orderely who found the bullet on a stretcher) say the stretcher was NOT Connally's stetcher. But the Warren Commission chose NOT to believe him :-)This lie has lived so long because it is easy to fool Americans, convince the press and they will hammer the public into believing anything necessary to protect the government's lies. This next presentation on the NON-HISTORY CHANNEL showed Connally describing his wounds and they did a decent job on aligning his description with the Zapruder film. Then the typical journalists jump back to showing President Kennedy shot in the head even after they showed earlier that John Connally was bent over AFTER JFK WAS shot in the head. And how did they get away with it? They zoomed in to show Connally bent over and then they go back to show JFK shot in the head afterwards.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAcIf you want to know more to make it even clearer the gubermint lied and forged to hide the truth, simply ask. When you know how to prove what happened during the shooting, the previously hard answers become ridiculously simple to figure out what actually happened. But don't ask Dale Myers, Vince Bugliosi or the History Channel, they still don't have a clue that the gubermint made fools of them.You probably need to know and understand more before all of this makes sense. The keepers of the big lie have relied on you just getting pieces of the big picture to keep you in the dark. At this point it should be reasonable to you but it still might not rise to the level of proving that the SOB's killed JFK and then forged and lied. The information is available but we humans have to learn one step at a time.Bill Charleston

[Bob Prudhomme]

RichardExcellent argument and, surprisingly, one that I never thought of. Yes, why would only one of the three shots produce an echo, if they were all from the same origin?WilliamI'll go even one better. Why not three shots within the .7 second period, assuming there was some form of coordinated fire taking place? I say this because there would appear to be two entrance wounds on JFK's skull (one in the right temple and one just to the right of the external occipital protuberance - coincidentally, exactly where the large blowout was observed at PH) and one wound in JBC's back. Although the ear witnesses only heard two shots close together, evidence of the "firecracker" sound of the first shot, back near the Stemmons Freeway sign, is a strong indication that at least one of the rifles in Dealey Plaza was equipped with a suppressor.Would a "firecracker" noise be audible over the sound of two unsuppressed rifle shots?From the WC testimony of Roy Kellerman, Secret Service:"Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat."Would two shots qualify as a "flurry"?

YOU ASKED: "Why not three shots within the .7 second period?"The autopsy information with the head wounds along with the information from the witnesses at Parkland Hospital suggest that more than two shots hit President Kennedy in the head. So why not two or more?It turns out there is additional evidence that also shows the last two shots were fired a split second apart. The first shot was fired from the right front and the second shot was fired from behind the limousine. Taken together with other information, it is quite damning.The average JFK "researcher" has been brainwashed to believe that the audio recording of the Dallas police radio channel does NOT contain the sounds of the shots. As I have show in great detail, this is OBVIOUSLY not true, the sounds of the shots were recorded and the government is terrified you will finally see what happened when JFK was shot.First, let's see how the audio evidence fits the Zapruder film's timing. In the film, we see first JFK shot in the head at Z313 then 0.7 seconds later begining at frame Z325, we see John Connally thrown forward as the bullet strikes him in the back. After Connally is bent over forward by the force of the bullet as it hits him in the back, we then see him being pulled over into Nellie's lap. The work done by the audio experts shows that the Z313 shot was fired from the grassy knoll (right front of JFK) which knocked him violently back and to the left. The last shot was fired from behind which missed JFK's head and hit John Connally in the back, exited his chest and then struck his right wrist as the bullet traveled forward toward the front seat.You probably notice a big problem with that scenario. All of Connally's wounds could NOT have been caused by the bullet at Z325, the angle was too shallow to have gone down and hit Connally in the left thigh. And this is the main reason that every one of the JFK "EXPERTS" has bought the lie that Connally could NOT have been struck later than about Z frame 240. The reason they think that is that everyone knows that all of John Connally's wounds were caused by ONE BULLET.If Connally was not wounded in the left thigh at Z325, when was he wounded there? It turns out there is an easy answer to that question but one you will not find in any book or documentary. I am the only one who describes the correct sequence:John Connally made TWO radical movements exactly when the audio evidence shows shots were fired.1. 4.8 seconds BEFORE the JFK head shot, John Connally throws up his hands, snaps his head TOWARD his left and then shortly thereafter, he starts to turn his whole body toward the right to look over his right shoulder which is exactly what he says he did.2. 0.7 seconds AFTER JFK is shot in the head, Connally is bent over violently forward as a bullet fired from behind knocks him forwardAs you look at the Zapruder film from Z224, 4.8 seconds BEFORE JFK head shot to Z325 0.7 seconds AFTER JFK head shot, you'll notice John Connally turns to his right to look back toward where he thought the shot came from. After the shot hit him in the back, John Connally had an exit wound in his chest about the size of a baseball (described by Nellie Connally). If Connally was struck in the back before Z325, where is the blood on his white shirt? How could he turn to look over his right shoulder with a massive wound to his chest?The obvious answer is that John Connally was not struck in the back until he is bent over (starting at Z325) which is what he said happened. The other obvious thing that must be true is that he was not wounded in the left thigh at Z325, he was wounded in the left thigh when the Z224 shot was fired. The wound to his left thigh was caused by a bullet fragment, not a bullet. Connally's lead surgeon called the wound "trivial" and it was caussed by a bullet fragment yet the WC crowd says the bullet came out of the wound and was found on a stretcher. Surely you have seen Daryl Tomlinson (the orderely who found the bullet on a stretcher) say the stretcher was NOT Connally's stetcher. But the Warren Commission chose NOT to believe him :-)This lie has lived so long because it is easy to fool Americans, convince the press and they will hammer the public into believing anything necessary to protect the government's lies. This next presentation on the NON-HISTORY CHANNEL showed Connally describing his wounds and they did a decent job on aligning his description with the Zapruder film. Then the typical journalists jump back to showing President Kennedy shot in the head even after they showed earlier that John Connally was bent over AFTER JFK WAS shot in the head. And how did they get away with it? They zoomed in to show Connally bent over and then they go back to show JFK shot in the head afterwards.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3-lZNR_yAcIf you want to know more to make it even clearer the gubermint lied and forged to hide the truth, simply ask. When you know how to prove what happened during the shooting, the previously hard answers become ridiculously simple to figure out what actually happened. But don't ask Dale Myers, Vince Bugliosi or the History Channel, they still don't have a clue that the gubermint made fools of them.You probably need to know and understand more before all of this makes sense. The keepers of the big lie have relied on you just getting pieces of the big picture to keep you in the dark. At this point it should be reasonable to you but it still might not rise to the level of proving that the SOB's killed JFK and then forged and lied. The information is available but we humans have to learn one step at a time.Bill Charleston

I could kiss you, William, I'm so pleased to find someone on these forums that can analyze a situation for himself.

Yes, there are indeed problems for the Goobermint in tying Connally's back, wrist and thigh wounds together. In fact, looking at the medical evidence, the problem is even worse than what you think, although you are definitely on the right track.

While you have clearly established that JBC's back and wrist wounds were caused by separate bullets, the problem lies in connecting the bullet from the wrist wound (or a fragment of it) to the thigh wound. It is a very simple alignment problem, and I have posed it often to proponents of the SBT with, of course, no response from them.

The big problem with the wrist wound (lower forearm, actually) is that medical evidence from PH shows that the bullet struck the dorsal or back side of the forearm and exited the palm or underside of the forearm, passing through the soft tissue between the radius and ulna bones of the lower forearm. This immediately makes a myth of the SBT, as it is physically impossible for a sitting (or standing) man to hold his arm in such a position as to present the back side of his right forearm to a bullet exiting his right chest at the level of his right nipple. As the bullet supposedly passed between the radius and ulna bones of his right forearm, the back of his forearm would have to be facing his chest to open this space up. Try this yourself. Unless you are severely double jointed in the elbow, you simply cannot turn your forearm far enough to accomplish this.

It gets worse, though. Below is an x-ray of JBC's right forearm, viewed from the underside with the right thumb at the top right of the x-ray:



Do you see the problem? The bullet clearly struck the dorsal (top) aspect of the radius bone and appears to have hit more to the outside of this bone than towards the ulna bone. As there is no medical evidence of the bullet going through the radius bone, and Parkland doctors claim there was a through and through wound in soft tissue that passed between the ulna and radius bones seen above, how did this bullet strike the radius bone so squarely (enough to penetrate the bone or stop the bullet completely), somehow back up, move laterally to the gap between bones and then start again its journey between the two bones?

For this reason, I have difficulty believing the thigh wound is connected to the wrist wound, although I believe, as you do, that the thigh wound was the result of a fragment, and not a whole bullet.

[Drew Phipps]

Are you referring to the Dictaphone audio that was reviewed by the HCSA and found by their experts to contain 4 shots, and subsequently generally discredited (as the officer said to have recorded the shots was recorded on film far behind the location he needed to be for that analysis to be valid)?

Connally says he was hit once, before the head shot, and you can clearly see in the Z film, an agonized expression on his face as he turns back left prior to the head shot. If you watch the film in motion he makes a (more or less) smooth turn toward the front and collapses forward. I believe Connally is sincere, and courageous enough to tell his story even in the face of WC pressure. However, Connally believes the shot "blew" him forward, but that just doesn't happen. Hollywood movie magic.

Using M-C 91/38 and WC ammo as a reference (just because I am familiar with it) a 10.5 gram bullet (.023 lbs) travelling at 2100 ft/sec imparts a momentum of 48.3 ft lbs./sec to anything it hits (that stops the bullet completely). The above situation doesn't account for the energy lost by the bullet leaving the body, or by the energy lost by breaking bones and carving out a bullet track, but for the moment let's assume all the momentum is transferred to Connally.

Assuming facts most favorable to the scenario, if Connally weighed a total of 180 lbs (just a guess) and we only consider the upper portion of the body (roughly 2/3 of the normal body's total mass (120 lbs)), his torso would be pushed forward at the rate of 48.3/120 = .4 ft/sec or a mere 4.8 inches per second (18 zapruder frames). Connally pitching forward cannot be attributed solely to a single bullet. Or even 2 bullets, if one hit him in the wrist and exited. (In reality, less momentum is transferred because the bullet leaves his torso and breaks bones and leaves wounds in its wake.)

However, it is far more likely that the car is slowing down (as Clint Hill is running to catch it) and Connally's body is moving at the slightly higher speed, so inertia serves eventually to push him forward relative to the car. Nellie Connally also moves forward at the same time, and she wasn't struck by a bullet. Could be that the driver hit the brakes breifly in response to being spattered. Could be that Z frames after the headshot have been removed and stuff looks more sudden.

There's one other thing Connally must be wrong about. He describes the condition of the back of the limo after he is shot, but he plainly isn't looking in that direction then. No doubt he saw it later as he was being removed from the car.