Re: Missing the first shot

Andrew Mason wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Andrew Mason wrote:
>>
>>> claviger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew,
>>>>
>>> ......
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How do you tell from those frames that he is hit in the back by it?=
=20
>>>>> How
>>>>> would the reaction to the shot that he described - turning to see=20
>>>>> JFK -
>>>>> differ from what you think a person would do in response to being=20
>>>>> hit in
>>>>> the back? Don't we have to go with the evidence?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where did the bullet go that wounded JBC? What
>>>> happened to the =93first=94 bullet that hit JFK?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Claviger,
>>>
>>> The answer to these questions is provided in the evidence.
>>>
>>> There is abundant evidence that the first bullet passed through JFK=20
>>> but did not strike JBC in the back. There is also pretty good=20
>>> evidence that it could not have changed direction, that it exited JFK=
=20
>>> with not insignificant speed (it did not strike bone) and it did
not=20
>>> forcefully=20
>>
>>
>> False premise. It DID strike bone. T-1.
>>
>>> strike anything in the car. It was travelling right to left so it=20
>>> went to the left side of JBC's jump seat. JBC had only one wound on=20
>>> his left side (left thigh) and the wound characteristics fit=20
>>> perfectly CE399.
>>>
>>
>> Such a trajectory is physically impossible. Connally's back would be=20
>> in the way.
>=20
> The back is not in the way with the shoulders turned to the right as in
> this photo:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/Photos/JBC_z200_rear2_reenactment.jpg
>=20

Yes, it is. That photo proves my point. The back was in the way of any=20
bullet hitting the inside of the left thigh.

> Andrew Mason