WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Andrew Mason]

Hickey can't be referring to the hair flutter in the Z270s because he can't see it. Furthermore, per your theory, Hickey has to turn his head completely around and locate the President then and observe some incidental thing as a hair flutter, all in one second.

He said he saw it. He was there. Unless you were in his position in the QM you really have no idea what he could see.  He has a second to turn to see the President after the Altgens #6 photo.  There is his evidence that he made that turn and nothing to contradict it.  The fact that the hair on JFK flies forward from z273-276 at exactly the time that JBC's cuff changes appearance and the visor over Greer moves and Greer begins his turn (immediately after the second shot), all fits together very well with what Hickey said he saw. How could he make that up without studying the zfilm? Or are you suggesting he studied the zfilm prior to Nov. 30/63?

The sailing forward began in the Z260s. It could have increased in intensity simply because his center of gravity is more upright. Doesn't have to be from a bullet impact.

JBC appears to raise his head and shoulders but I don't see any increase in separation between JFK's face and JBC's face prior to z272.  After z272 the increase in separation is rather dramatic (see below).

Your animation adds forward momentum to Connally's body that isn't there.

Watch from z271-279 the relative positions of Jackie, Nellie and Kellerman and then look at JBC's position to all three. If I was adding momentum to JBC I would be adding it to all four.  But JBC's position relative to the other three changes noticeably but the relative positions of the other three does not change:

And the "change in appearance of the wrist" seems downgraded to "amount of visible cuff increases".

The cuff of the jacket was penetrated by a bullet, as was the shirt.  One might expect the jacket cuff to move more than the french cuff because it would not be as tight. z271-273 is the only place such relative motion is seen.  That is not light and shadow.  It may be that hand motion could cause that kind of relative motion, but we don't really see the wrist move much, although if you watch the lower part of the hand there appears to be a slight change there with the fingers:

Was that visor struck by a bullet fragment.

There is nothing that I have found that comments on damage to the sunvisor.  But looking at the damage to the windshield frame and the glass indicating several fragments struck inside, plus the fragment that struck Tague.  It would be surprising if the visors were missed.  There does appear to be small hole-like marks in the left visor in the only photo I have found of the visors:


There is also a mark that appears on the front side of the left visor in z272 although that may be a film artifact. The resolution is not good enough to see the windshield frame clearly but it looks like there is a change from z271-272 in the top of the windshield frame.

Too bad the particular visor you choose to indicate a fragment strike happens to be the same one that's rocking back-and-forth as the car approaches the Z270s. Obviously the air pressure.

It doesn't move afterward. It only moves from z271-272 and then goes back to its z271 position.  How can that be by air pressure? It wasn't flopping around. Sun visors are designed to stay where they are set.

[Rob Caprio]

No I think you are a little like a squid and you want to ink the waters and escape in the murk. This as a thread you started about three shots and two shooters and you are being asked to defend your theory and you cannot. Making claims and assertions about me doesn't change that fact. I think it is safe to say that this whole idea that the SBT isn't possible is just so much fluff and nothing more. You can't even prove there was three shots. You said you have but as it turns out that was what was not true.

You're the one muddying the waters as the OP was about how the HSCA found the WC, SS, CIA and the FBI deficient in their "investigation" of the assassination, but you have turned this thread into a discussion about the ridiculous SBT.

Why are you trying to distract from the HSCA's findings?

[Rob Caprio]

Even members of the WC didn't believe in the ridiculous SBT.

[Jack Nessan]

Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there. To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?

 It is all about a five second interval and what really happened. In that period you stated there was two shooters. Three shells were discovered in one location. The WC, which Sen Russell was a member, believed there was only two maybe three shots. Unless the shooters were shoulder to shoulder there is a big flaw in this two shooter theory. Does there really need to be a second shooter to explain what happened?
----------------------------------------
Sen Russell had a reserved front row seat to history and a chance to make a difference in the investigation. He chose to leave that seat vacant and instead critque and criticize the effort that was made to resolve the question as to what happened that day. Maybe the level of respect for his opinion should be comparable to his level of participation, which was virtually non existant. 6%  attendance, why bother attending at all. Why care what he thinks. When it was time to matter Sen Russell went missing.

[Andrew Mason]

Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there.

Harold Norman not only stated that he heard three shots fired but he heard  -  and demonstrated - that he heard the bolt action operate three times, once after each shot, and heard a shell hit the floor each time. See this clip beginning at about 3:45:

To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?

One cannot hope to prove to YOU that there were three shots. But that does not mean that it cannot be proven to a rational trier of fact, such as the WC, that there were, in fact, three shots fired. There is certainly abundant evidence that three shots were fired.

[Rob Caprio]

Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there. To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?

 It is all about a five second interval and what really happened. In that period you stated there was two shooters. Three shells were discovered in one location. The WC, which Sen Russell was a member, believed there was only two maybe three shots. Unless the shooters were shoulder to shoulder there is a big flaw in this two shooter theory. Does there really need to be a second shooter to explain what happened?
----------------------------------------
Sen Russell had a reserved front row seat to history and a chance to make a difference in the investigation. He chose to leave that seat vacant and instead critque and criticize the effort that was made to resolve the question as to what happened that day. Maybe the level of respect for his opinion should be comparable to his level of participation, which was virtually non existant. 6%  attendance, why bother attending at all. Why care what he thinks. When it was time to matter Sen Russell went missing.

Still no evidence showing that the SBT occurred. Pure distraction.

[Jack Nessan]

Harold Norman not only stated that he heard three shots fired but he heard  -  and demonstrated - that he heard the bolt action operate three times, once after each shot, and heard a shell hit the floor each time. See this clip beginning at about 3:45:

One cannot hope to prove to YOU that there were three shots. But that does not mean that it cannot be proven to a rational trier of fact, such as the WC, that there were, in fact, three shots fired. There is certainly abundant evidence that three shots were fired.

There is no evidence that there was three shots having been fired. Giving up on the Z250+ shot theory? If it ever was a theory.

"One"--- whose "One?"  Are you "One?" Just prove there was three shots "One" and stop claiming evidence that does not exist. Obviously the WC wasn't convinced. The WC stated the only reason they concluded there was three shots was the discovery of three shells in the SN. That is it. They definitely felt it was likely there was only two shots. Probably because that is all the evidence shows there was ever fired. Evidence of two bullets and numerous eyewitness accounts. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean the WC members didn't.

Maybe evaluating witness statements isn't really your strong suit. You obviously should not be quoting Norman when there was two others  beside him that give a more detailed explanation immediately following the assassination not four days later. Nor would you be quoting him if you really had read his testimony.

-----------------------------------

Norman? Giving up on Hickey and Hudson? BRW stated there was two shots and Jarman stated the headshot was the second shot. Norman makes no statement until four days later. You apparently do not know anymore about the statements of Norman than you did the other witnesses you have quoted. What to Hudson and the second shot being a headshot, or what happened to Hickey and the hair waving? Seems that is where you disappeared earlier.

Hickey's statement: A passing cartoon like bullet making JFK's hair wave, followed up with the idea that the  bullet would then have had to nosedive to inflict a wound near JBC's armpit instead of hitting JBC in the head.

Hudson: Second shot the head shot.