Jump to content


Fraudulent Enactment

  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Herbert Blenner

Herbert Blenner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 04 December 2014 - 03:28 PM

Fraudulent Enactment



On May 24, 1964, the Warren Commission staged a re-enactment of the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. They used slides made from the Zapruder film to position and orientate the stand-ins for the victims. During the presentation of this re-enactment to the Warren Commission, special agents Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt and Robert A Frazier described numbered slides that showed Governor Connally was turned slightly to his right as he vanished beneath and then emerged from behind the Stemmons sign. These orientations differ from the public copy of the Zapruder film that shows that Connally was turned sharply to his right as he sank beneath and then emerged from behind the sign.


For the web version of this article click the following link.





Act One



Arlen Specter initiated discussion of whether the orientation of Connally on a specific frame permitted a transiting bullet to have inflicted his torso wounds. He picked an extreme case of frame 249 where Shaneyfelt was able to give a definite response with a brief and lucid explanation.




Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 -  5H,  154




Mr. SPECTER. At frame 249 was Governor Connally in a position where he could have taken a shot with the bullet entering at the point immediately to the left under his right armpit with the bullet then going through and exiting at a point immediately under his right nipple?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; Governor Connally has begun to turn in his seat around in this manner, in such a way, turn to his right so that his body is in a position that a shot fired from the sixth floor window could not have passed through the path that it reportedly took through his body, if the bullet followed a straight, undeflected path.

Mr. DULLES. I don’t quite get that. You mean because of his having turned this way, the shot that was then - had then been fired and apparently had hit the President could not have gone through him at that point?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct under the stated conditions. Even a shot, independent of the shot that hit the President,  could not have gone through in that manner, coming from the sixth floor window, because the window was almost directly behind the automobile at that time and the Governor was in a position where the bullet couldn’t have gone through his body in the manner that it reportedly did. It would have come in through his shoulder and out through the other shoulder, in the way that he was lined up with the window.

Mr. SPECTER. So you say it could have gone through him, but it could not have passed through him with the angle of entry as disclosed in the Parkland Hospital records and described by Dr. Shaw?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct, if it followed a straight path.


Specter exploited this opportunity to do what he did best. He asked a question that confused an angle of entry with a transit angle of the bullet. In particular, Doctor Shaw documented the positions of Connally’s back and chest wounds. This information enabled calculation of the transit angles of the bullet through the torso. However, calculation of the angle of entry required both dimensions of the elliptical back wound of which only the longer dimension was reported by Shaw. Specter did not ask Shaw for the other dimension while taking his testimony. So the angle of entry could not have been calculated. 


Arlen continued to explore Connally’s orientation by asking Shaneyfelt to elaborate on his reasoning. Shaneyfelt complied with the request and volunteered further details of their re-enactment.


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 - 5H,  154




Mr. SPECTER. Could you elaborate just a little further on the observations and reasoning which you have undertaken to come to the conclusion which you have just expressed?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. We are speaking of frame 249, are we?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir, frame 249.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Could I see that exhibit? The photograph in the lower left corner of Commission Exhibit No. 899 is the photograph taken through the scope of the rifle on the sixth floor window when the car was stationed in this frame number position. It is noted from this photograph that the rifle is not quite directly behind the car but very nearly directly behind the car. Governor Connally’s body is turned. We have duplicated the position in the Zapruder photographs of Governor Connally and the President in the reenactment photograph, as nearly as possible, duplicated the same body position, and from the sixth floor window then you can see from the photograph that the Governor’s body is turned to the Governor’s right in such a fashion that an undeflected shot would not go through in the path as described by the Parkland doctors.


Shaneyfelt explicitly stated that they used Zapruder photographs to reproduce the position and the orientation of their stand-in for Connally. So the re-enactment frames are evidence of the orientations of Connally's torso on the Zapruder photographs used by the re-enactment.


John Jay McCloy raised the issue of windowing the time at which a bullet could have inflicted Connally’s torso wounds. He asked could Connally have been shot by frame 237. Shaneyfelt acknowledged the possibility of a shot at frame 238. This question shows that at least one commissioner, J. J. McCloy, viewed a photograph derived from the Zapruder film used by the re-enactment.


McCloy and Allen Dulles then proceeded to define an earlier frame on which the orientation of Connally’s torso was consistent with his wounds.


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 154




Mr. McCloy. I don’t quite follow that yet. The President has been shot at frame 249, according to your theory.


Mr. McCloy. Might he not also have been shot at some earlier frames - in the indications are the reactions are shown considerably ahead of that frame.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. McCloy. So, for example, at frame 237 and at frame 237 Governor Connolly [sic] hasn’t turned to the right.

Mr. DULLES. But a shot has been fired at this time.

Mr. McCloy. But a shot has been fired at that time.


Mr. McCloy. So at that point he could have been hit; Governor Connally could have been hit.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Governor Connally could have been hit by frame 238.

Mr. McCloy. But your point is when he gets farther along, he couldn’t have been hit, let’s say at frame 249 in the same spot where he was hit.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. McCloy. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. He made the turn later than those frames you have been discussing at the time apparently of the first shot at the President.

Mr. McCloy. Yes; the first shot, but according to these frames, the first, shot hit the President considerably before this.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCloy. And at a time again when Governor Connally’s back was square to the window.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Well, not exactly square. I believe he was turned slightly to the right as he went behind the sign.


The public version of the Zapruder film shows that Connally was not turned slightly to his right when his torso sank below the Stemmons sign.




Instead this film shows Connally’s torso was turned to his right by about forty-five degrees, an angle larger than the rightward angle of frame 240 which according to the re-enactment showed the most extreme right turn for which a bullet could have produced the defects of Connally’s coat.




Senator John Sherman Cooper asked when did Connally start turning to the right which eventually precluded a shot through his torso. Shaneyfelt claimed that Connally was turned slightly to his right when he emerged from behind the sign and was turning leftward to be facing forward momentarily. 


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 155




Senator COOPER. Would you identify the frame in which Governor Connally started turning to the right?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as - in the motion picture - as the car comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly to his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in frame 222, he is turned just slightly to his right, and from there on he turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and there is a jerking motion there at one point in the film about there, at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn.

Mr. DULLES. Jerky motion in Connally in the film.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is - it may be merely where he stopped turning and started turning this way. It is hard to analyze.

Mr. DULLES. What I wanted to get at - whether it was Connally who made the jerky motion or there was something in the film that was jerky. You can’t tell.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. You can’t tell that.

Mr. McCloy. Certainly the film is jerky at that point. I mean there is a big blur.


Re-enactment frame 222 shows the stand-in for Connally turned to their right by an approximate 20-degree angle.




This angle is half of the 40-degree turn seen on the public copy of the Zapruder frames Z-222 and Z-223.






The clearness of these two frames make it impossible for a viewer to mistake the sharp for a slight right turn of the torso. 


Representative Gerald Ford asked whether the turning of Connally was sharp. This question gave Shaneyfelt another opportunity to claim that Connally emerged from behind the sign with a slight turn to his right.


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 156




Representative FORD. Whereas Governor Connally actually turns his body rather sharply?


Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; he turns as they go behind the signboard, he turns this way and he is turning a little bit this way and as he comes out of the signboard he is facing slightly to the right, comes around straight on and then he turns to his left straight on, and then he turns to his right, continues to turn around and falls over in Mrs. Connally’s lap. But in the motion picture it is a continuous movement as he goes around and falls.


The failure of McCloy, Dulles, Cooper or Ford, to object to Zapruder photographs, which show Connally with a sharp right turn as he vanished beneath and then emerged from behind the Stemmons sign is strong evidence that the commissioners were viewing Zapruder photographs made from a version of the film that differs from the public version of the Zapruder film. 


Finally Shaneyfelt disclosed that a collective effort by the FBI and the Secret Service placed a later limit on the frame at which Connally could have been wounded. 


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 158




Mr. SPECTER. And was frame 235 selected as a basis of analysis because that was one point at which a number of the viewers, including staff and agents of the FBI and Secret Service thought that might be the last frame at which Governor Connally had turned enough to the right to still take a shot and have the bullet pass through his body from the sixth floor window at the angle described in the medical reports and by his doctors.




Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct on the basis of an undeflected path. That is the frame that the doctors selected as the frame beyond which he could not have received this shot and have it travel in the path that it reportedly traveled.

Mr. SPECTER. Was frame 240 selected for analysis as being the absolutely last time, based on the observations of those whom you have described as seeing the films, that the Governor could have conceivably taken a shot from the sixth floor window and have it pass through the body of the Governor in the way described in the medical reports and by the Governor’s doctors?




Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the analysis, made on the ability of the Governor to take the shot at each of the positions, based on the position he had at that particular frame in accordance with the amount of turn to the right which he had made at that particular time?



This collective effort excluded the testimony of Governor Connally who on April 21, 1964 told Specter that he was turned a little bit to the left of center (1) or forward (2) when he got hit and selected Z-231 to about Z-234 (3) as  showing this posture.



Act Two



The questioning of special agent Frazier by Specter sought corroboration of key points in the testimony of Shaneyfelt. Arlen began by asking if Connally was in position and lined up at frames 207 and 210 for a bullet from the sniper's nest to pass through his body as indicated by his wounds. Frazier conditioned his affirmative answer on the absence of deflection by the transiting bullet. This condition meant that a slight rightward rotation of Connally's torso permitted the defects of his coat to align with the trajectory of the incoming and the outgoing bullet.


Frazier’s affirmation raises a serious question because the public version of Zapruder frame Z-204 shows that Connally was turned sharply to his right when he sank beneath the Stemmons sign a few frames earlier than Z-207.




By contrast, frames  207and 210 of the re-enactment show the stand-in for Connally turned slightly to his right.






Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 167




Mr. SPECTER - Could Governor Connally have taken a shot in the range of frames 207 to 210 which would have traversed his body with the entry and exit points being approximately what they were shown to be through the medical records? Preliminarily, let me ask you if, for the record, you had seen or had made available to you the contents of the medical records showing the point of entry on the back of the Governor and the point of exit on the front side of his chest?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don’t recall having seen the medical testimony. However, information has been furnished to me by Commission members as to the relative positions on the back and the front of the Governor.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you in addition had an opportunity to examine personally the clothing worn by the Governor consisting of his jacket and shirt?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER - Based on the Governor’s position then in frames 207 and 210, was he lined up so that a bullet fired from the sixth floor would have passed through his body in about the way that the entry and exit holes were described to you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I would say that this could have happened at these two frames. However, this would assume that the path of the bullet through the Governor’s body was the same as the path of the bullet before it struck, that is, there was no appreciable deflection in the body itself. Since I have no actual technical evidence available to me that there was no deflection, I can only say that it is a possibility under the circumstances as set up in these photographs.

Mr. SPECTER - You would state that as a possibility based upon the observations you made and the facts provided to you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.


The positions of the victims gives them the direction of the inshoot. While the locations of the chest and the thigh wounds wound give them the direction of the outshoot since the wounds of the wrist indicated transit by a bullet without deflection. By definition the deflection angle equals the angle between the outshoot and the inshoot directions. So Frazier’s claim of having no technical evidence to exclude deflection by the bullet which transited Connally’s torso shows that he was intellectually unprepared to design or analyze the re-enactment.


Specter sought confirmation of Shaneyfelt’s claim that Connally emerged from behind the Stemmons sign with an orientation consistent with his torso wounds. Frazier claimed that frames 222 and 225 of the re-enactment were consistent with Connally being struck. However, the orientation of the stand-in for Connally on  frame 222 shows a slight rightward turn of about twenty degrees while frame 225 pictures the stand-in nearly facing forward. 






Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 169




Mr. SPECTER. Based on the position of Governor Connally as depicted in the Zapruder slides at frames 222 and 225, could he have taken a shot, assuming the firing point to have been the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which entered and exited from his body in accordance with the known medical evidence?

Mr. FRAZIER I have not made a very thorough study of the Zapruder film which I understand you mentioned in this particular question with reference to the Zapruder film itself.

Mr. SPECTER - We will take it with reference to the reconstructed positions of Governor Connally in frames 222 and 225, which you have testified you did observe at the time the measurements and photographs were taken.

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say, yes, under the conditions that I mentioned previously, that the reconstruction would represent the Governor as it was in November, then he could have been struck anywhere in that frame area of from 207 to 225.


If Frazier studied slides made from the public version of the Zapruder film then an honest answer would have excluded the wounding of Connally at Z-222 and Z-225.






Instead Frazier evaded the question by claiming ignorance of the Zapruder film then contradicted himself by asserting that the reconstruction was representative of the Governor in November. This assertion required a study of the Zapruder film which he denied in his previous statement. 


Arlen Specter asked Frazier whether the stand-in for Connally could have been struck on frame 231 according the defects on the coat. Frazier answered negatively and explained that the stand-in was turned to the front to an extent which excluded being hit. A comparison of frame 231 with frame 225 shows nearly identical orientations which differ substantially from the orientation on frame 222.








The magnitudes of these discrepancies challenge the authenticity of the re-enactment frames published by the Warren Commission or the accuracy of Frazier’s testimony.


Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170




Mr. SPECTER - How about the same question in frames 231, 235, 240 and thereafter?

Mr. FRAZIER - There is only one position beyond frame 225 at which the Governor could have been struck according to the information furnished to me and from my examination of his clothing that he was struck near the right sleeve seam and that the bullet came out through the inside pocket of his jacket. At frame 231 the Governor is, as I saw it from the window on that date, turned to the front to such an extent that he could not have been hit at that particular frame.

Mr. SPECTER - Why not, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - The angle through his body, as I measured it on the coat is approximately 20º from the right toward the left. On May 24 in our reconstruction I found that the Governor had turned farther to the front from a position slightly facing the right than he was in at frame 225. He had turned back to the front so that a shot which struck him in this shoulder in the back ---- 

Mr. SPECTER - Indicating the right shoulder?

Mr. FRAZIER - Indicating the right shoulder near the seam would have come out much further to his right than the actual exit hole described to me as being just under the right nipple.


Frazier was mistaken by requiring a twenty-degree rightward rotation of Connally’s coat for an undeflected bullet to have made the defects. This conclusion assumed that the direction of the inshoot coincided with the long axis of the limousine. However, a bullet from the sniper’s nest had a considerable right-to-left lateral angle which reduced the required rightward rotation angle of the torso. For frame 231 this lateral angle was eight degrees and increased to nine degrees for frame 225. These errors of 40 to 45percent in the orientation angle of Connally were secondary to the error caused by neglect of the medical evidence which gave an 11-degree sagittal angle between the sagittal plane of Connally’s body and a straight line joining his torso wounds. So the correct rightward rotation angle for an undeflected bullet to have inflicted Connally’s torso wounds would have been the 11-degree sagittal angle reduced by the lateral angle. For these frames Connally had to have been two or three degrees to the right of facing forward for wounding by an undeflected bullet.


Earlier work by Frazier gave him cause to question use of the coat to determine the right-to-left angle of an undeflected bullet through the torso. On May 13, 1964, he told the Warren Commission of his  35-degree (4) measurement of the upper-rear to lower-front transverse angle on the coat. This 35-degree transverse angle implies that Connally was leaning backward by the 16-degree difference between this transverse angle measured on the coat and the 19-degree declination angle for frame 231 measured during the re-enactment.


Arlen Specter had additional cause to reject use of the coat since on April 21, 1964 he took the testimony of Doctor Shaw who measured a  25-degree (5) transverse angle on the torso of Connally. For this case the 19-degree declination angle implied a more reasonable 6-degree angle of lean.


Specter asked how would the bullet have passed through the body on frame 235  and Frazier's answer reaffirmed use of the Zapruder film to orientate their stand-in for Connally.




The implication of this statement being that the re-enactment also used a derivative of the Zapruder film to orientate their stand-in on frame 210 or frame 222.


Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170




Mr. SPECTER - How would the bullet have passed through his body based on his position as shown in frame 235?

Mr. FRAZIER - In frame 235 which is Commission Exhibit No. 897, the Governor in our reconstruction, according to the Zapruder film was also facing too far, too much towards the front. The angle of the bullet through his body, assuming no deflection, would not have corresponded to the angle through his clothing or according to the information furnished from the medical examiners.


Frazier ignored the trajectory from the wound below the right nipple to the wound of the thigh had a right-to-left angle of about thirty degrees. This terminal portion of the overall trajectory required a leftward deflection of the bullet while transiting the torso. However, the required leftward rotation angle of the torso would have been substantially less this thirty degrees since the bullet had to deflect gradually and in doing so would have emerged at a sharper right-to-left angle than the leftward rotation angle. If the deflecting bullet followed a parabolic trajectory then a 16-degree leftward rotation angle would have placed the exiting bullet on the correct right-to-left course for entry into the thigh. This 16-degree angle agrees well with the  20-degree (6) figure which Connally placed on the angle of his left turn when struck by the bullet.


Arlen Specter led his witness to bound a second window of feasibility.


Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170 




Mr. SPECTER - How about the Governor’s position in frame 240?

Mr. FRAZIER - In frame 240 the Governor again could not have been shot, assuming no deflection of the bullet prior to its striking his body, from the window on the sixth floor because he is turned in this case too far to the right.




Now, this obviously indicates that the Governor in between frame 235 and frame 240 has turned from facing completely forward in the car around to the right to the point that a bullet entering his back on the right shoulder area would have exited in my opinion somewhere from his left chest area rather than from his right chest area.


Frazier implicitly placed this window of feasibility between frames 235 where Connally was facing too much toward the front and frame 240 where the victim had turned too far to the right. If the re-enactment used the 11-degree sagittal angle determined from locations of Connally’s torso wounds and considered the right-to-left lateral angle of the incoming bullet then the window of feasibility would have been much wider and would have encompassed frames 225 through 235. In fact these corrections of the faulty re-enactment analysis surround the Z-231 to about Z-234 (3) span identified by Connally as showing his posture when wounded.


Specter went on to establish the second window as the latest window of opportunity by asking if the posture of Connally permitted wounding by an undeflected bullet on frame 249 or frame 255.






Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 170




Mr. SPECTER - How about the Governor’s position at frame 249?      

Mr. FRAZIER - In frame 249 a similar situation exists in that the Governor, as represented by his stand-in in our reconstruction, has turned too far to the right, even further than frame 240, so that in frame 249 represented by Commission Exhibit No. 899, he again could not have been hit by a bullet which came from the window on the sixth floor and struck him in an undeflected fashion and passed through his body undeflected.      

Mr. SPECTER - How about frame 255?      

Mr. FRAZIER - On frame 255 which is in Commission Exhibit No. 901 the Governor is turned again too far to the right, and the same situation would hold true as to what we saw in frame 249. The bullet would have exited too far on his left side, provided there was no deflection between the window and the point of exit from the Governor’s body.


At this point Shaneyfelt and Frazier presented two windows of opportunity for a bullet to have caused the defects of Connally’s coat. These spans were frames 207 through 225 and frames bounded exclusively by 235 and 240.


McCloy asked a question perhaps designed to have Frazier give a summary of their main point.


Source: Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 171 




Mr. McCloy - As I get it, Mr. Frazier, what you are saying is there is only a certain point at which the bullet could pass through the President, could have hit Mr. Connally, and that is at a point when he is not sitting full face forward and at a point when he is not too far turned around.      

Mr. FRAZIER - That is exactly right.      

Mr. McCloy - Somewhere when he is turning to the right.      

Mr. FRAZIER - He was placed approximately 20º to the right.      

Mr. McCloy - To the right.      

Mr. FRAZIER - That is 20º according to my examination of his clothing but I don’t know the exact figures of the angle through his body.      


Frazier’s answer further discredited the re-enactment by explicitly stating that Connally’s had to turn to the right by approximately twenty degrees, a threshold that ignored the considerable lateral angle of the inshoot, and then acknowledged his ignorance of the different 11-degree sagittal angle for the wounds of the body. 



Act Three



During the afternoon of May 24, 1964, Shaneyfelt participated in further testing in the garage of the Railway Express Agency near Dealey Plaza. This test placed the stand-ins for the victims in the follow-up car with a string with a measured declination angle to represent the trajectory of the single bullet. Arlen Specter began his examination of this testing by asking Shaneyfelt to repeat the declination angles for frames 210 and 222 as measured by the surveyor.


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964  - 5H, 162 




Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat, even though you have heretofore mentioned them, the angles between the spot on the back of President Kennedy’s neck which was marked with a white chalk mark and the muzzle of the rifle when the car was positioned at frame 210?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle, based on the horizontal at frame 210, to the rifle in the window was 21º 34'.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the comparable angle at frame 225?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. 20º11'.

Mr. SPECTER. So what would be the average angle then between those two points?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The average angle, allowing for the 3º 9' street grade results in an average angle between frame 210 and frame 225 of 17º 43' 30".


Although Specter asked an awkward question by relating the trajectory direction between the muzzle and the chalk mark on the back of the neck to an angle, Shaneyfelt understood that Specter intended to ask for the declination angle between trajectory direction and the horizontal. When asked for the average of two declination angles, Shaneyfelt reduced the average 20º 52' 30'' declination angle by the 3º 9' declination angle of Elm Street.


Perhaps Arlen was uncomfortable with this procedure and twice asked Shaneyfelt to interpret this reduced angle.


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964  - 5H,162




Mr. SPECTER. And that is the average angle from the muzzle to President Kennedy as he sat in the car or President Kennedy’s stand-in as he sat in the car?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. To the wound entrance.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the average angle of 17º 43' 30" measured from the muzzle to the President’s body as the President would be seated in the car?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is out on the street in those frame positions, yes. It is measured to the point of the wound on the back of the President.


Shaneyfelt’s claim that the reduced angle of 17º 43' 30'' pertained to the stand-in for the President is wrong. Instead in the garage this reduced angle represented the declination angle of a straight line between the tie mark on the stand-in for Kennedy and the defect on the back of Connally's coat worn by his stand-in. The declination angle through Kennedy’s stand-in was unchanged. This situation arose since the 3º  9' declination angle of Elm Street lowered Governor Connally with respect to President Kennedy without changing the distance of their separation or their postures. 


Commission Exhibit 903 shows the torso of the Connally stand-in turned slightly to his right.




This posture differs from Zapruder frame Z-225 that shows Governor Connally with his torso facing forward. Further the Kennedy stand-in did not have his right wrist in front and slightly below the top of his shirt collar as President Kennedy did upon emergence from behind the Stemmons sign.




On these points alone the garage re-enactment of the single bullet event was a  double deception.   


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 162




Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer was?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph.

Mr. SPECTER. When was that photograph taken?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24,1964.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there a white string which is apparent in the background of that photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle of declination of that string?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor at an angle of 17º 43' 30".

Mr. SPECTER. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?


Mr. SPECTER. Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; these positions were approximately the position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from the signboard.     


An honest re-enactment would have used two strings to connect the positions of the three marks on the two stand-ins. One string with a 20º 52' 30'' declination angle would have connected the marks on Kennedy’s stand-in and the other string with a 17º 43' 30'' declination angle would have joined the throat mark on Kennedy’s stand-in to the defect on the back of the coat worn by the Connally stand-in. The slope discontinuity of these strings would have coincided with the mark on the throat of the Kennedy stand-in.


Source: Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt on June 4, 1964 - 5H, 163




Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be positioned?     

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.     

Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass?     

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally’s coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally.     

Mr. SPECTER. And was Governor Connally’s stand-in seated in the position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?     

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.     


The enactment in the garage reported that one string declined at the wrong angle hit the marks upon the two stand-ins who were sitting with the wrong postures. In the real world this outcome would be sufficient to conclude that the testers cheated.






1. Source: WC testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 - 4H, 133




Governor CONNALLY. . . . So I looked, failing to see him. I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.


2. Source: WC testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 - 4H, 138




Mr. DULLES. How did you happen to turn then to the left, do you remember why that was?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, sir; I know exactly. I turned to the right both to see, because it was an instinctive movement, because that is where the sound came from, but even more important, I immediately thought it was a rifleshot, I  immediately thought of an assassination attempt, and I turned to see if I could see the President, to see if he was all right. Failing to see him over my right shoulder, I turned to look over my left shoulder.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Governor CONNALLY. Into the back seat, and I never completed that turn. I got no more than substantially looking forward, a little bit to the left of forward, when I got hit.



3. Source: WC testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 - 4H, 145




Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?

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?


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.


4. Source: - Warren Commission  Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13, 1964 - 5H, 72




Mr. SPECTER. Referring back for just a moment to the coat identified as that worn by Governor Connally, Mr. Frazier, was there any observable angle of elevation or declination from the back side of the Governor’s coat to the front side of the Governor’s coat?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir ; there was, approximately a 35-degree downward angle.

Mr. SPECTER. Measuring from -

Mr. FRAZIER. That is -

Mr. SPECTER. Back to front or front to back?

Mr. FRAZIER. From back towards the front.

Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question as to the Governor’s shirt?

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was approximately the same angle or slightly less. I think we measured approximately 30 degrees.

Mr. SPECTER. Was that from the front to back or from the back to front of the Governor’s shirt?

Mr. FRAZIER. That would be from the back towards the front. Downward from back towards the front.


5. Source: WC testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 - 4H, 137




Mr. SPECTER. Can you estimate that angle for us, Doctor?

Dr. SHAW. We are talking about the angle now, of course, with the horizontal, and I would say - you don’t have a caliper there, do you?


Dr. SHAW. I was going to guess somewhere between 25º and 30º.

Mr. DULLES Sorry to ask these questions.

Governor CONNALLY. That is fine. I think it is an excellent question.

Dr. SHAW. Well, this puts it right at 25º.

Mr. SPECTER. That is the angle then of elevation as you are measuring it?

Dr. SHAW. Measuring from back to front, it is the elevation of the posterior wound over the anterior wound.


6. Source: WC testimony of Governor John Bowden Connally, Jr. on April 21, 1964 - 4H, 138




Mr. DULLES. Were you seated in about that way, Governor?

Governor CONNALLY. Mr. Dulles, I would say I was in about this position when I was hit, with my face approximately looking you 20º off of center.

  • DosephOr likes this

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Web Work by: XmasZen.com