WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Jack Nessan]

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

You are claiming two shooters and no SBT because of your interpreation of Sen Russell's statements.

Still no evidence there was three shots. Still no explanation of the two shooters. Pure avoidance.

Almost surreal is the fact LNer's are trying to help you with the belief in three shots. Everyone needs there to be three shots for whatever theory. Except no one can prove there was three shots.

[Rob Caprio]

You are claiming two shooters and no SBT because of your interpreation of Sen Russell's statements.

Still no evidence there was three shots. Still no explanation of the two shooters. Pure avoidance.

Almost surreal is the fact LNer's are trying to help you with the belief in three shots. Everyone needs there to be three shots for whatever theory. Except no one can prove there was three shots.

Quote me claiming one thing that *you* have attributed to me. Go ahead.

I have done nothing but tell you what the WC claimed. Why do you misrepresent what others have said?

Pure snow job.

[Jack Nessan]

Quote me claiming one thing that *you* have attributed to me. Go ahead.

I have done nothing but tell you what the WC claimed. Why do you misrepresent what others have said?

Pure snow job.

How could this misconception have occurred? Two shooters with one leaving three shells. Caprio: "The SBT is false"..... OP: "if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."


Brother Rob OP: Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT.  In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.

Brother Rob: "The SBT is false. Without it I don't see how you can say that there was only one shooter."

Brother Rob: "My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter.
"
Brother Rob: "What it means is that you lie about what other people say AND that you cannot support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse."

Bother Rob: "Another LNer that can't support their belief with evidence. The evidence shows that LHO fired NO shots, but we are discussing the fictitious SBT. "

[Andrew Mason]

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.

It is apparent that you do not understand what the term "evidence" means. There are witnesses who recalled three shots. Harold Norman said he heard three shots being fired and heard the bolt action 3 times.  That is all evidence. So when you say there is "no evidence" of three  shots having been fired, you are not speaking the same language that the rest of us are speaking. 

"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.

Perhaps you missed the part on page 111 of the WC Report where the WC concluded:

"Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired".

How does that mean that the WC definitely felt it was likely that there were only two shots?

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.

Why is that?  He not only recalled three shots, he heard three operations of the bolt action and heard three shells drop.

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

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.

Hudson's first statement is very different from his testimony in July/64 to the WC. Why do you prefer his later statement?  As far as Hickey is concerned, he said the second shot appeared to miss JFK because all he saw was his hair flew forward at the time of the second shot and there was no impact.  He saw the impact of the third shot.

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.

That just shows you have not analyzed the trajectory.  The trajectory at z271 was downward from the SN at an angle of 15 degrees.  So over the 24 inches between JFK and JBC the bullet would have dropped 6.3 inches.  So if the bullet had passed  just over JFK's right shoulder and dropped 6 inches by the time it reached JBC, where do you think it would have struck him?

Hudson: Second shot the head shot.

Read his first statement.

[Rob Caprio]

How could this misconception have occurred? Two shooters with one leaving three shells. Caprio: "The SBT is false"..... OP: "if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."


Brother Rob OP: Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT.  In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.

Brother Rob: "The SBT is false. Without it I don't see how you can say that there was only one shooter."

Brother Rob: "My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter.
"
Brother Rob: "What it means is that you lie about what other people say AND that you cannot support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse."

Bother Rob: "Another LNer that can't support their belief with evidence. The evidence shows that LHO fired NO shots, but we are discussing the fictitious SBT. "

Still true. Without the SBT there had to be another shooter. If you disagree then show how ONE bullet caused multiple wounds in TWO people. Go ahead "brother" Hogan.

[Jack Nessan]

It is apparent that you do not understand what the term "evidence" means. There are witnesses who recalled three shots. Harold Norman said he heard three shots being fired and heard the bolt action 3 times.  That is all evidence. So when you say there is "no evidence" of three  shots having been fired, you are not speaking the same language that the rest of us are speaking. 
Perhaps you missed the part on page 111 of the WC Report where the WC concluded:

"Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired".

How does that mean that the WC definitely felt it was likely that there were only two shots?
Why is that?  He not only recalled three shots, he heard three operations of the bolt action and heard three shells drop.

-----------------------------------Hudson's first statement is very different from his testimony in July/64 to the WC. Why do you prefer his later statement?  As far as Hickey is concerned, he said the second shot appeared to miss JFK because all he saw was his hair flew forward at the time of the second shot and there was no impact.  He saw the impact of the third shot.
That just shows you have not analyzed the trajectory.  The trajectory at z271 was downward from the SN at an angle of 15 degrees.  So over the 24 inches between JFK and JBC the bullet would have dropped 6.3 inches.  So if the bullet had passed  just over JFK's right shoulder and dropped 6 inches by the time it reached JBC, where do you think it would have struck him?
Read his first statement.

No, no, and no.
Hudson stated the second shot was the headshot.

According to you, JFK's hair moved not his lapel. Add another 8 inches to the 6 inches.

BRW 2 shots, Jarman 2nd shot head shot, you choose Norman whose was all over the board.

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

Exactly, Particularly the shells.
"in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired".

[Jack Nessan]

Still true. Without the SBT there had to be another shooter. If you disagree then show how ONE bullet caused multiple wounds in TWO people. Go ahead "brother" Hogan.

Brother Rob, we both know there is no convincing you. The bullet exited JFK's throat at 2000fps. Where do you think it went? JBC was directly in front of JFK.

A second shooter fired from where? The trajectories of the wounds tell you somewhere in this theory is an assassin firing two shots with three shells on the floor.