The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Mon 27 Oct 2014, 7:33 am

First topic message reminder :

FB post made by Linda Giovanna Zambanini. Linda has a background in nursing. I'll take this from Linda over a thousand pages of "research" by certain others on this topic every single time. Yes, we all knew the SBT was crap - but now we have an actual logical explanation for the wounds and prima facie evidence that a change in stories was coerced.

Frankie Vegas, I don't think you or Greg Parker are in a the JFK groups I'm in, so I wanted to share with you and the whole Downunder Crew a BOMBSHELL I found yesterday! :
I came upon a fascinating WBAP TV (NBC) film that is composed of clips from JFK's Texas stops. It has many clips I have never seen before, including an absolute BOMBSHELL from an interview of Dr. Shaw and the other surgeon, Dr. Shires, discussing their surgery on Connolly.
Dr. Shires opens, saying there were 3 wounds - and lists the back wound separately from the wrist and leg wounds, calling it a "tangential wound" - not a through and through wound. Shaw then says CLEARLY, the bullet that entered Connolly's back DID NOT PENETRATE into the body cavity! It was STOPPED by the rib which it shattered and fragments of the rib penetrated the pleura (lining) and lung. The bullet did not penetrate the lung - let alone transit the thorax and exit the anterior chest wall! Of course, this is absolute proof the "magic bullet" was a complete fabrication - the bullet never passed THRU THE BODY to hit the wrist and then the thigh! It completely and utterly destroys the SBT! The clip goes from 40:00 to 43:03. At 41:00 Shaw starts talking about the back wound .... at 41:45 - 42:07 Shaw says:
"In other words, the bullet never actually entered the body cavity, but it caused an opening into the body cavity, by the shock like impact against the rib, which it fractured. THE BULLET, ITSELF, DID NOT ENTER THE BODY CAVITY - IT ONLY WENT THROUGH THE CHEST WALL."
In concluding, Dr. Shires says he agrees with Mrs. Connolly that it's a good thing he turned because "...otherwise the bullet would have been straight through and through and would have involved the heart."

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02395_s01.do

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 4:15 am

greg parker wrote:

jack ferguson wrote:Is there active research going on here? The back of the head always showed an exit wound in frame 313.

Jack, welcome. Yes, there is active research happening here. But this was a rare incursion into these particular areas.

The reason we largely stay out of this area is shown within this thread. The debates go round and round and have done so for over 50 years and got us no closer to closure.

Most of us here believe the correct path is in exonerating Oswald. There is a justice system that is supposed to deal with the questions raised, but until that system can be convinced that the wrong guy has been pinned, then conspiracy theories and bullet trajectories will continue to be discussed for another 50 years.

There is little substantive difference between Oswald and Steven Avery or the many now freed by the Innocence Project. The one difference is that Oswald never got his day in court. Ironically, his own murder disallows him from the same considerations and assistance to clear their names that innocent men on death row can access.

I never thought of it that way. The main thing is to prove that jfk had to be shot by two shooters or more. The Hsca admitted four shots but said the grassy knoll shot missed. Laughing

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 7:42 am

jack ferguson wrote:

greg parker wrote:

jack ferguson wrote:Is there active research going on here? The back of the head always showed an exit wound in frame 313.

Jack, welcome. Yes, there is active research happening here. But this was a rare incursion into these particular areas.

The reason we largely stay out of this area is shown within this thread. The debates go round and round and have done so for over 50 years and got us no closer to closure.

Most of us here believe the correct path is in exonerating Oswald. There is a justice system that is supposed to deal with the questions raised, but until that system can be convinced that the wrong guy has been pinned, then conspiracy theories and bullet trajectories will continue to be discussed for another 50 years.

There is little substantive difference between Oswald and Steven Avery or the many now freed by the Innocence Project. The one difference is that Oswald never got his day in court. Ironically, his own murder disallows him from the same considerations and assistance to clear their names that innocent men on death row can access.

I never thought of it that way. The main thing is to prove that jfk had to be shot by two shooters or more. The Hsca admitted four shots but said the grassy knoll shot missed.

Yep, that was the HSCA conclusion... immediately challenged by the government with another study.

We have done extensive work on Oswald's alibi here. There is no doubt he was on the first floor and briefly on the front steps during the motorcade.

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 10:34 am

greg parker wrote:

jack ferguson wrote:

greg parker wrote:

jack ferguson wrote:Is there active research going on here? The back of the head always showed an exit wound in frame 313.

Jack, welcome. Yes, there is active research happening here. But this was a rare incursion into these particular areas.

The reason we largely stay out of this area is shown within this thread. The debates go round and round and have done so for over 50 years and got us no closer to closure.

Most of us here believe the correct path is in exonerating Oswald. There is a justice system that is supposed to deal with the questions raised, but until that system can be convinced that the wrong guy has been pinned, then conspiracy theories and bullet trajectories will continue to be discussed for another 50 years.

There is little substantive difference between Oswald and Steven Avery or the many now freed by the Innocence Project. The one difference is that Oswald never got his day in court. Ironically, his own murder disallows him from the same considerations and assistance to clear their names that innocent men on death row can access.

I never thought of it that way. The main thing is to prove that jfk had to be shot by two shooters or more. The Hsca admitted four shots but said the grassy knoll shot missed.

Yep, that was the HSCA conclusion... immediately challenged by the government with another study.

We have done extensive work on Oswald's alibi here. There is no doubt he was on the first floor and briefly on the front steps during the motorcade.

A lot of witnesses said the last two shots were close together.

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 10:48 am

jack ferguson wrote:

greg parker wrote:

jack ferguson wrote:

greg parker wrote:

jack ferguson wrote:Is there active research going on here? The back of the head always showed an exit wound in frame 313.

Jack, welcome. Yes, there is active research happening here. But this was a rare incursion into these particular areas.

The reason we largely stay out of this area is shown within this thread. The debates go round and round and have done so for over 50 years and got us no closer to closure.

Most of us here believe the correct path is in exonerating Oswald. There is a justice system that is supposed to deal with the questions raised, but until that system can be convinced that the wrong guy has been pinned, then conspiracy theories and bullet trajectories will continue to be discussed for another 50 years.

There is little substantive difference between Oswald and Steven Avery or the many now freed by the Innocence Project. The one difference is that Oswald never got his day in court. Ironically, his own murder disallows him from the same considerations and assistance to clear their names that innocent men on death row can access.

I never thought of it that way. The main thing is to prove that jfk had to be shot by two shooters or more. The Hsca admitted four shots but said the grassy knoll shot missed.

Yep, that was the HSCA conclusion... immediately challenged by the government with another study.

We have done extensive work on Oswald's alibi here. There is no doubt he was on the first floor and briefly on the front steps during the motorcade.

A lot of witnesses said the last two shots were close together.

That they did. That forms part of the overall evidence for more than one shooter, but it doesn't get Oswald off. It's also been known since the assassination itself and hasn't made any difference to the official verdict.

In all sincerity, Jack, we can't keep handing up the same evidence as proof of our case and expect a different outcome from it. What we want is encompassed in the name of the forum. It seems pointless to us to pursue evidence that has already been flogged to death for nil result.

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:23 pm

Oswald's guilt is THE central plank in the official account of the assassination. If we can show that Oswald was where he said he was at the time of the murder—i.e. he was on the First Floor near the entrance, NOT on the Sixth Floor—then the official account goes up in smoke. Period. The official case against him falls like a house of cards. Because if Oswald wasn't where they said he was, then everything else they said is now officially suspect. At this point, all of the arguments and theories used to support the official story have to be discarded and it opens everything up to be reevaluated anew.

Prayer Man—Oswald on the First Floor down in front—represents the single best way to demolish the official account.

Just the other day, a prominent researcher remarked with a note of surprise "…what impresses me most is the formidable collection of witnesses and reports that place the encounter [Oswald-police officer] on the first floor. How that remained concealed for so long really is remarkable."

Yeah. Now go connect the dots.

Prayer Man is the road less traveled. Till now.

Prayer Man is all about the exoneration of Oswald. Prayer Man is the best way to reopen the Kennedy case. And we at ROKC are the only ones pursuing this.

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 4:40 pm

Excellent post, Stan. Fuck the number of shots fired/shooting sequence. The PM research has the most potential to reopen this case.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 2:49 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Excellent post, Stan. Fuck the number of shots fired/shooting sequence. The PM research has the most potential to reopen this case.

Yes. It's not like this other stuff isn't important or should be ignored, it's just not the way to reopen the case. Exonerate Oswald and then all of these other things will be looked at in excruciating detail with fresh, critical eyes.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 2:56 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Excellent post, Stan. Fuck the number of shots fired/shooting sequence. The PM research has the most potential to reopen this case.

The case will never be reopened without a ton of evidence that there was more than one person who shot jfk.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 3:02 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Excellent post, Stan. Fuck the number of shots fired/shooting sequence. The PM research has the most potential to reopen this case.

It's when he was shot and how the last two shots were so close together that two gunmen fired on Kennedy. That proves more than one shooter, without focusing on Oswald.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 3:37 am

jack ferguson wrote:

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Excellent post, Stan. Fuck the number of shots fired/shooting sequence. The PM research has the most potential to reopen this case.

The case will never be reopened without a ton of evidence that there was more than one person who shot jfk.

I disagree. If we can somehow get a hold of a high res scan of the Darnell film showing Oswald standing outside when the shots were fired (and there is plenty of evidence supporting this contention), the US Gov will have very little choice but to reopen it. You are free to disagree if you like.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 3:38 am

Jack:

No one here is stopping anyone from approaching this however they wish. If you think the best way to get things moving again is by convincing others that there was more than one shooter, go for it.

We only have so much time and energy. We think the best way to reopen this case is to show that 1) the second floor lunchroom encounter never happened as stated, 2) Oswald was down in front during the assassination (which we already have a ton of supporting evidence), 3) we believe the unidentified man standing in the Darnell and Wiegman films who superficially resembles Lee Oswald is none other than Lee Oswald.

It's easy to say people should do this or people should do that. It's another thing to take action. I personally believe that PM is the best way to exonerate Oswald. But I didn't leave it at that. I took action and wrote a book. Five months of hard work. Greg Parker has written two books already and is working on a third. His work directly supports exoneration of Oswald. Bart Kamp has done a tremendous amount of work to exonerate Oswald with his websites, his movies, and the book he is writing. And so many others here who are actively involved in the process of research, making trips to the archives to examine/scan documents, appearing on shows, making podcasts, and various blogging efforts. ROKC is a community that identifies what it wants to do and we do it.

We don't discourage anybody from pursuing this case in the manner they choose. If you think the best way to crack this case open is to prove there was more than one shooter, then roll up your sleeves and go after it. Maybe we'll both meet at the finish line.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 8:49 am

The Governor told us in no uncertain terms that he was shot very shortly after jfk. That is stunning evidence.

Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 9:26 am

jack ferguson wrote:The Governor told us in no uncertain terms that he was shot very shortly after jfk. That is stunning evidence.

Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

It is stunning evidence... that has been known from the start of this case and made not one iota of difference. If you think you can use this to help break the case open again where all others who have written about it have failed, I believe you'll have our undivided attention.

Do you have any new information about it? Any new insights?

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 10:37 am

Here are several things (IMO) it would take for the government to revise this case.

- The Kennedy family would have to be in favor of and push for any changes.

- Peer viewed agreement would help to get the attention of the media and family.

- The evidence and conclusions would need to be almost neutered.

- The SBT and rear headshot could remain and left in place.

- Agent Glenn Bennett's eyewitness account combined with the films tell us that jfk was shot in the back right before the headshot.

- It doesn't look more than 1/10th of a second between the shots. The back shot came first.

- The goal would be to provide the least controversial way of saying the lonegunman story is false because two gunshot wounds were fired too close together to come from one assassin.

- They would be admitting jfk was shot 3 times without saying he was shot from the front even once.

- It looks like the WC may have left out the second part of what Bennett saw. That's a key omission if true.

At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.

Secret Service agent Glenn Bennett was riding in the follow up car. He was the first to document, in contemporaneous notes, Kennedy taking the back shot. He wrote, “"I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."[339] The Warren Commission accorded his observations “substantial weight,” writing, "Although [Bennett’s] formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.”[

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 11:00 am

Hi Jack. I figured this was a stitch up with the shot sequence. That was some time ago and then I joined ROKC. Andrew Mason who is a lone gunman theorist did some work on the shot pattern and destroyed the official narrative. How he still thinks Oswald couldve done it I have no idea but he also dismisses the SBT. Go to Hasans podcast thread here at ROKC. We talk about it and there is a link to Masons research. Like the other guys say its gotten us nowhere. PM is the way forward. If we can get a clearer scan of Oswald on the steps its game over. The Zapruder is a silent film and has misconstrued by many. The WC invited no witnesses to testify to the first shot cause if they did the SBT wouldn't be possible. Check out the ear witness accounts thru those links Cheers

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 11:06 am

jack ferguson wrote:Here are several things (IMO) it would take for the government to revise this case.

- The Kennedy family would have to be in favor of and push for any changes.

Would be good, but not legally essential

- Peer viewed agreement would help to get the attention of the media and family.

RFK, JR is already on side, even if reading the wrong books. We are getting media attention. I have been interviewed a number of times, as has another member here. He has also appeared on TV. More appearances for him are likely. Some of us are also working on a documentary which will be unlike any other documentary on the case to date. It won't be backing the WC, nor will it be putting forward any conspiracy theory. It will concentrate on the new evidence we have amassed here.

- The evidence and conclusions would need to be almost neutered.

All you need to do is compare how Oswald was treated and the evidence used, to the many cases listed at the Innocence Project. Most innocent men were convicted through poor (or lack of proper) representation, junk science, false witnesses and misidentification, police malfeasance (planting of evidence, withholding of exculpatory evidence etc), the manufacture of false scenarios and the extraction of false confessions or witness statements. All of these things are present in Oswald's case, except a (false) confession - or any confession.

- The SBT and rear headshot could remain and left in place.

You can have whatever shots you want. Or take out any you don't want. It doesn't matter. Oswald was not a shooter. He was on the first floor.

- Agent Glenn Bennett's eyewitness account combined with the films tell us that jfk was shot in the back right before the headshot.

Bennett is not someone I've seen brought up in these types of discussions, so you may have some relatively new ground with him.

- It doesn't look more than 1/10th of a second between the shots. The back shot came first.

- The goal would be to provide the least controversial way of saying the lonegunman story is false because two gunshot wounds were fired too close together to come from one assassin.

As I said, it's an argument that has been run countless times in countless books and articles and gone nowhere. What I am trying to get across here is that it doesn't matter that it may be true. All that matters here is that it is so far, an argument that has failed to achieve anything.

- They would be admitting jfk was shot 3 times without saying he was shot from the front even once.

- It looks like the WC may have left out the second part of what Bennett saw. That's a key omission if true.

At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.

Secret Service agent Glenn Bennett was riding in the follow up car. He was the first to document, in contemporaneous notes, Kennedy taking the back shot. He wrote, “"I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."[339] The Warren Commission accorded his observations “substantial weight,” writing, "Although [Bennett’s] formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.”[

Like I said, you may have a new way of presenting this through Bennett. But I'd still have doubts it will go anywhere but round in circles. I'd be glad to be wrong. Whatever works is all that matters.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 11:33 am

What person has ever written that jfk was shot in the back before the headshot? I think I'm the first person in 53 years whose pointed it out. Show me anything that says that. I'd love to see it.

What Bennett witnessed is seen in all three films. The films tell the story of what really happened.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 11:50 am

jack ferguson wrote:What person has ever written that jfk was shot in the back before the headshot? I think I'm the first person in 53 years whose pointed it out. Show me anything that says that. I'd love to see it.

What Bennett witnessed is seen in all three films. The films tell the story of what really happened.

Jack, what I was responding to was the second part of your statement where you outline what you believe what the goal should be:

- The goal would be to provide the least controversial way of saying the lonegunman story is false because two gunshot wounds were fired too close together to come from one assassin.

That argument (about the closeness of the shots) has been done to death. But yes, I should have acknowledged that the first part of what you said re the head shot may be a new avenue in that I don't recall it. But then, I long ago lost interest in this area as a potentially fruitful one because of the fact it goes round and round and ultimately goes nowhere. Granted, trajectories and shot sequences can make for good debates among ballistic experts / "experts". I'd recommend people like Pat Speer and and Bob Prudhomme as people you might want to contact for peer discussion/review of your ideas. Both are passionate about these areas and seem to know their stuff.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 12:17 pm

I'm not talking about the closeness of the last two shots. I'm saying that the back shot and headshot are almost simultaneous, and that no one has ever made that case, ever. Not even me, really.

It's not developed beyond Bennett and the films. The neutered reference has to do with making it as vanilla as possible, making it more likely that they might acknowledge jfk was shot three times.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 12:56 pm

jack ferguson wrote:I'm not talking about the closeness of the last two shots. I'm saying that the back shot and headshot are almost simultaneous, and that no one has ever made that case, ever. Not even me, really.

It's not developed beyond Bennett and the films. The neutered reference has to do with making it as vanilla as possible, making it more likely that they might acknowledge jfk was shot three times.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

I still think you should discuss this with Pat or Bob. I can put you in touch with at least one of those if you want.

Making things as "vanilla" as possible is an area we can agree on. We believe we have enough evidence now to place Oswald briefly on the front steps at around the time of the shots. But the "vanilla" we need to get it accepted more widely is the original Darnell or Weigman films so that the clearest possible scans can be made. So far, NBC has refused to release those films, or even a first generation copy.

Thu 01 Dec 2016, 11:06 pm

jack ferguson wrote:What person has ever written that jfk was shot in the back before the headshot? I think I'm the first person in 53 years whose pointed it out. Show me anything that says that. I'd love to see it.

What Bennett witnessed is seen in all three films. The films tell the story of what really happened.

Good luck with proving that, Jack. At least we can prove the closeness of the last two shots which are virtually impossible according to ear-witness reports that even declare the first shot was the supposed SBT. I can't see what you claim Bennett witnessed. I believe JFK may have been shot in the back with the first shot but the 2nd hit Connally and the 3rd was the fatal headshot. Too many witness reports suggest just hearing 3 shots so I'll go with that. Not dismissing more due to possible silencers but the last two shots IMHO got Connally and JFK and different shooters and positions. In any case its all to no avail as I've encountered. Prayer Man has Oswald on the steps. That to me trumps everything else. This case is too far gone for forensic evidence. A clearer scan of the Darnell or Wiegman ends this nonsense. I think the shot sequence can prove more than one shooter and that's it. That hasn't taken this case anywhere but further discussion. We need a slam dunk Jack. PM is it.

Fri 02 Dec 2016, 4:29 am

It's got nothing to do with luck. This is some of the evidence which supports jfk was shot twice at the end. I can't post videos for some reason, but when I can you'll see just how simple it is.

- The dictabelt analysis said two shots were close together.

- Most, if not all witnesses reported the last two shots were close.

- Mary Moorman took a picture and said the same.

- Glenn Bennett saw the 2 shots hit back to back.

- All 3 films show exactly what Bennett reported.

Fri 02 Dec 2016, 4:59 am

jack ferguson wrote:It's got nothing to do with luck. This is some of the evidence which supports jfk was shot twice at the end. I can't post videos for some reason, but when I can you'll see just how simple it is.

- The dictabelt analysis said two shots were close together.

- Most, if not all witnesses reported the last two shots were close.

- Mary Moorman took a picture and said the same.

- Glenn Bennett saw the 2 shots hit back to back.

- All 3 films show exactly what Bennett reported.

Jack:

Why don't you pull it all together and write a paper? As if you were writing an article to be published. Putting it all down on paper helps you to better see the strengths and weaknesses of your arguments and assertions so you can improve/refine them. I think a lot of this stuff will be important when the case gets reopened, and you may bring some new insights and perspectives to the table. If you have a passion for it, then do it. Stay true to yourself.

Fri 02 Dec 2016, 5:09 am

The only thing that happens in a forum is talk and putting forth ideas. If you got something worth pursuing, you got to take it to the next level: a paper, a book, a podcast, a movie, etc. Otherwise it sits like the popular "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" thread at The Education Forum: 380,000+ views but that's all. Someone has to take it to the next, actionable level.

Fri 02 Dec 2016, 5:36 am

Stan,

Without agreement on what happened there can't really be progress. You have to ask yourself why disagreement rules in research circles. I think because telling the truth has never really been the goal. It's been to cover-up certain aspects and promote nonsense like the grassy knoll.

The Facts about Connally's Wounds

The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds