No useless is accurate. Regurgitating the figures from a report the people who wrote it stated is faulty is pointless. You would think the fact that so many of the eyewitness's early statements changed would be a clue, but time and time again you quote Hickey's and Bennett's later statements not because they are informative but because they somehow in your mind support this whole bizarre shot pattern. A shot pattern that is contradicted by the cycle time of the carcano, the Zapruder Film, eyewitness statements and even the description of the shots in the statement.
The zfilm does not tell you by itself when the first two shots occurred, so the zfilm does not contradict the 1.......2....3 pattern. The shot pattern itself: 1......2....3 does not conflict with the cycle time of the Carcano. The MC was fired 3 times in 4.6 seconds by an FBI agent with aimed shots. Oswald had a strap and boxes to make it easier to keep the gun from moving during reloading. So unless the last two shots were much less than 2.3 seconds there would not be a problem.
Nor does it conflict with the witnesses: there were witnesses who recalled the 1.......2....3 pattern who said there was about 2 seconds between the last two shots e.g. Robert Jackson 2H159; Roger Craig 6H263) or 2-3 seconds (Sweatt 19H531;Decker ) or 3 seconds (A. Rowland 19H494) or 2:1 (Ralph Yarborough 7H439; Earl Cabell 7H478). Emmett Hudson stated to the FBI that the last two were 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' or words that effect (
CD5).
Several others recalled three shots that were evenly spaced (Clifton Carter, Delores Kounas, James Romack, Jack Watson) or "almost/approximately/pretty well" evenly spaced (James Altgens, Marrion Baker, Thomas Dillard, Ronald Fischer, Phil Willis).
What is amazing is you never question the fact that the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their original statements and their statements in no way prove what you are advocating, yet are mindlessly quoting very specific witnesses as if their statements represent all witnesses.
I see that you have not read
my paper. The fact is, very few dramatically altered their original statments on the number or pattern of the shots. The only one I can recall off hand was Emmett Hudson: in his FBI made a few days after the assassination he recalled the 1.....2...3 pattern and said the last two were about as fast as one could fire with a bolt action; in his WC testimony 8 months later he said they were about evenly spaced over a 2 minute period. If you disagree, give us some examples, don't just wave your hands and say "the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their statements". I have given you ALL the witness evidence bearing on the shot pattern ... but you have to
read my paper.
-----------------------------------
" BTW, what is your explanation as to how the "three shot" witness tampering got started? Why did so many witnesses go along with it?"
Maybe that is a question you need to answer for yourself. If you actually took the time to study what the witnesses originally stated happened instead of what they stated later, you would know the answer to that question. The problem will be it contradicts how many years of posting this nonsense?
I have answered it - for myself and for others because I have actually provided a detailed paper and analysis. I have taken the time to study what the witnesses originally stated. Read
my paper.
