Originally posted by GBinOz
View Post
Thanks for your reply and the photo.
If by your first sentence you mean that what we see in frame 224 isn’t clearly discernible as a lapel, then I agree. But other than that, it’s very clear that in frame 223 we see his tie and part of his shirt and in frame 224 it’s blocked from view by something that has the same colour as his jacket and very likely is the right lapel of his jacket. What else should it be?
Of course, it may just have been a gust of wind that moved it, but I find it somewhat of a coincidence that it’s precisely in frame 224 that we see it. Furthermore, there’s also the quick lowering of his right shoulder. Within 0.27 seconds he moves it down, as if he’s been poked in the right side.
Taking these things together with the fact that he keeps his right hand holding the hat at shoulder level until at least 279, it seems that he was either hit close to frame 224 or by 2 different shots at some hard to determine later frame. Other than some possible facial expressions, there’s no clear reaction from Connally beyond frame 224 to anything that suggests a bullet strike, but he also has such expressions in frames 224, 225 and 226.
Seeing that, after frame 290, Connally is leaning back onto his wife’s lap, it seems very unlikely to me that any of his wounds could have been caused by a shot after that frame.
Again, I’m not necessarily talking about the single bullet theory, I’m only talking about what is to be seen in the Zapruder film, which is not that it confirms that Connally wasn’t hit before frame 230, which is not that it completely corresponds with Mrs. Connally’s statements nor that the governor doesn’t react before frame 240 or so, as some will have it. He clearly does react, starting at frame 224, at least with his facial expression. Whether anybody wants to see that as a reaction to being hit or not, is another matter. The Zapruder film is the most direct evidence we have to base anything on and that’s the only thing I’m willing to concentrate on.
Nell Connally said that when her husband was hit he reared up like a horse. There is certainly no indication of this in the frames around the 230s. I would estimate that he was hit around frame 295 as he is turning back to the left, but it is difficult to see as the film is showing only the neck and head. I agree that one shot through the abdomen would be unlikely to also hit the back of the wrist, but I see a violent movement around frame 326 that could account for a second shot/wound.
The whole single bullet theory falls at the first hurdle. Hume said the back wound did not transit the body. Boswell sketched the back wound at 5 1/2 inches below the shoulder line and Burkley signed off on this location. SS agents Bennett and Hill observed the wound 4" and 6" respectively below the shoulder line. Sibert and O'Neill said the back wound was shallow and considerably below the throat wound. Sibert was quoted as saying about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, "What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." The holes in the coat and shirt indicate about 5 1/2" below the shoulder line. At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch." Gerald Ford moved the wound from the back to the neck as a "clarification" of the SBT.
Regrettably, we are still at odds with our observations and opinions, but there it is.
All the best,
Frank
Leave a comment: