WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Andrew Mason]

What other conclusion can be reached except you stating there was a shot at Z250?
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."
---------------------------------------------

No, that is not a conclusion you can draw.  You can only conclude from that statement that the reaction to the second shot was not at or before z250.  You also have to read what I said in context.  I said that, according to the 1......2...3 shot pattern witnesses, the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 (which was around z250). Therefore, "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250".  I also said that the shot was a perceptible amount of time after the midpoint. I pointed out evidence that fits with a second shot at z272-273.

Now you have a shot at Z270 again. This theory lacks continuity from one thought to another.

You have to read what I have written more carefully. There is no lack of continuity.  I have never said that there was a shot at z250. Never. I said it was after z250.  I said that there is evidence of a second shot at z272-273. z272 is after z250.

This theory is in direct contradiction with what is seen on the Zapruder Film and what the eyewitnesses stated occurred.

I have to disagree.  The witnesses overwhelmingly reported 3 shots and of those who recalled a pattern, overwhelmingly reported a 1..........2.....3 shot pattern.

Clint Hill rode on the back of the car to Parkland and was the only SS Agent to react. He stated there was only two shots. Instead of quoting Hill and his statement there was two shots, SA Hickey is quoted to promote the theory of a shot at Z250

Again you are wrong.  I cite Hickey to support a shot when JFK's hair flies up and then drops back at z273-276.,

the  SS Agent with no view of the car is misquoted as proof of something that never occurred.

Again. No misquote at all. Read my last post in response to you.

Hickey has to ask Kinney what happened because Kinney is front and center. Kinney reports the headshot as the second shot. Actually it is nothing short of incredible this is even going on.

What evidence do you have that Hickey asked Kinney what had happened?

You yourself cannot possibly believe this. Paul Landis also states there was two shots as does Glen Bennett. 

Paul Landis recalled only two shots. So did Clint Hill. But Bennett is not clear.  In his Nov 22 notes it is not clear whether he is referring to two or three shots:

"At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

 In his November 23 report he definitely refers to three shots:
"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 limosine 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."

Without the Nov. 23 report one could easily conclude from the Nov. 22 notes that Bennett recalled only two shots, although it is an odd way to say it.  He hears a first loud noise THEN looks at the President and at that time sees a shot "that hit him in the back".  That would be two shots.  Or he could be saying that he looked at the President and saw where the first shot had hit him.

But with the Nov. 23 report, in which he again refers to the head shot as the second shot, it is clear that he means it was the second of the last two shots because he has already referred to the first and second shots. 

It is also possible that he recalled hearing only two shots for sure, the first one striking JFK, not recalling another shot until the head shot, but after writing his notes and hearing people talk about three shots, he convinced himself that there was a second shot struck JFK in the back and the third shot (which he still calls "a second shot") hit JFK in the head.  Unfortunately, Bennett was never questioned by the WC or HSCA.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the witnesses being influenced by media reporting. Both the WC and the HSCA included language in their conclusions  stating it as a problem. The report you are promoting as all encompassing contains 2 shot witnesses listed as three shot witnesses because of the failure of the report to include all the statements these people made early on. The first reports of the assassination were made to the media. The reporters did not run to the earwitnesses and ask what did you hear.  The report is basically flawed and a waste of time and that is what the HSCA is stating in their conclusion.

Jack, you are a Texas Sharpshooter.  You have to look at all the witness statements.  There is no question that over a hundred witnesses reported hearing three shot sounds.  You seem to waver between calling them liars, dupes or honest witnesses who heard an echo.  If they heard an echo on each of your two shots, why did they not report hearing four?

[Rob Caprio]

You asked question. The answer is not complicated. Tague was hit on the second shot. The evidence that supports that conclusion is not complicated. It is just that there is a lot of it.

Do you believe that the shots came from the TSBD?

[Rob Caprio]

Sure, there is only evidence of a total of two bullets and a very large group of witnesses stated there was only two shots.
-------------------------
Your turn. You stated there was three shots. Prove there was three shots.

It should be easy given you did so numerous times in the past.

Caprio: " ....... I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred. "

Explain the trajectory and wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not pass through JFK first.

You have been asked numerous times and no answer. This thread appears to be all talk and no walk.

Saying that there were only two shots is NOT supporting the SBT. Can you support it or not?

[Jack Nessan]

No, that is not a conclusion you can draw.  You can only conclude from that statement that the reaction to the second shot was not at or before z250.  You also have to read what I said in context.  I said that, according to the 1......2...3 shot pattern witnesses, the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 (which was around z250). Therefore, "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250".  I also said that the shot was a perceptible amount of time after the midpoint. I pointed out evidence that fits with a second shot at z272-273.You have to read what I have written more carefully. There is no lack of continuity.  I have never said that there was a shot at z250. Never. I said it was after z250.  I said that there is evidence of a second shot at z272-273. z272 is after z250.
I have to disagree.  The witnesses overwhelmingly reported 3 shots and of those who recalled a pattern, overwhelmingly reported a 1..........2.....3 shot pattern.
Again you are wrong.  I cite Hickey to support a shot when JFK's hair flies up and then drops back at z273-276., Again. No misquote at all. Read my last post in response to you.
What evidence do you have that Hickey asked Kinney what had happened?Paul Landis recalled only two shots. So did Clint Hill. But Bennett is not clear.  In his Nov 22 notes it is not clear whether he is referring to two or three shots:

"At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

 In his November 23 report he definitely refers to three shots:
"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 limosine 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."

Without the Nov. 23 report one could easily conclude from the Nov. 22 notes that Bennett recalled only two shots, although it is an odd way to say it.  He hears a first loud noise THEN looks at the President and at that time sees a shot "that hit him in the back".  That would be two shots.  Or he could be saying that he looked at the President and saw where the first shot had hit him.

But with the Nov. 23 report, in which he again refers to the head shot as the second shot, it is clear that he means it was the second of the last two shots because he has already referred to the first and second shots. 

It is also possible that he recalled hearing only two shots for sure, the first one striking JFK, not recalling another shot until the head shot, but after writing his notes and hearing people talk about three shots, he convinced himself that there was a second shot struck JFK in the back and the third shot (which he still calls "a second shot") hit JFK in the head.  Unfortunately, Bennett was never questioned by the WC or HSCA.
Jack, you are a Texas Sharpshooter.  You have to look at all the witness statements.  There is no question that over a hundred witnesses reported hearing three shot sounds.  You seem to waver between calling them liars, dupes or honest witnesses who heard an echo.  If they heard an echo on each of your two shots, why did they not report hearing four?

Earwitness testimony is a waste of time. Recalling sounds that someone else has to explain to them what they heard and in a sequence that isn't within in the capabilities of the carcano or what is visually seen on the Zapuder Film negates their statement unless it is looked at in the context of echoes. Which is what the HSCA attempted to do.

LHO fired the first shot with the rifle retracted inside the building, unless you want to believe he hoped he would be seen. Several witnesses inside the building stated there was only one shot. The only witnesses to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett is a two shot witness. Bennett was looking to the right at Z210 and was still looking to the right at Z255, He has the only distinction of being the only eyewitness to not see JFK react to the first shot. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.

First quoting only the second statement of Hickey and ignoring his statement that the bullet impacted his head to claim the bullet made his hair wave, and now Bennett.

The only problem with Bennet is he never looks at JFK. That Bennett supposedly saw a bullet hit JFK in the back is nonsense. If you look at him in the Willis (Z210) and Altgens (Z255) photos, it is clear how obstructed his view of JFK was from the back seat of the follow up car, sitting behind both Dave Powers and Emory Roberts. In both photos, Bennett is looking to his right and not at JFK. He has the distinction of being the only eyewitness not to see JFK react to the first shot obviously he wasn?t looking at JFK. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.


The hole in Kennedy's jacket was extremely tiny, and to believe that Bennett could have seen such a small hole, in a dark suit, looking over the heads of both Dave Powers and Emory Roberts, at a time when the President was beginning his slump to the left, strains the imagination.

Ignoring the witnesses who had an unobstructed view of JFK to focus on the SA's with no view seems odd.

[Jack Nessan]

Saying that there were only two shots is NOT supporting the SBT. Can you support it or not?

You believe LHO only fired two shots. So do I.

 R Caprio: "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."

[Andrew Mason]

Do you believe that the shots came from the TSBD?

No. They came from Oswald's rifle.  The rifle was in Oswald's hands and Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

[Andrew Mason]

Earwitness testimony is a waste of time. Recalling sounds that someone else has to explain to them what they heard and in a sequence that isn't within in the capabilities of the carcano or what is visually seen on the Zapuder Film negates their statement unless it is looked at in the context of echoes. Which is what the HSCA attempted to do.

So how is it that a statistically very significant proportion of the earwitnesses not only agreed on the number of shots but on the shot pattern? What evidence do you have that these recollections of the shot pattern were not independent?  If they are independent, the likelihood that they agreed by random chance is pretty close to zero.

LHO fired the first shot with the rifle retracted inside the building, unless you want to believe he hoped he would be seen. Several witnesses inside the building stated there was only one shot. The only witnesses to do so.

To whom are you referring? The three witnesses immediately below the SN all said there were three shots. At least one heard three shells drop and heard the bolt action 3 times, the last time being AFTER the third shot. If that is true, there must have been three shells ejected. And, guess what, three shells were found!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett is a two shot witness.

Not in his Nov. 23/63 statement. He refers to three separate shots.

Bennett was looking to the right at Z210 and was still looking to the right at Z255, He has the only distinction of being the only eyewitness to not see JFK react to the first shot. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.

I don't follow you there. If Bennett was a two shot witness and he says (in both statements) that he saw a shot hit JFK in the back before the head shot, he must have been referring JFK being hit on the first shot.

First quoting only the second statement of Hickey and ignoring his statement that the bullet impacted his head to claim the bullet made his hair wave, and now Bennett.

You don't seem to be able to read his first statement. Hickey did not say that the bullet that impacted his head made his hair fly up. In his first statement, he said there were two shots and those two shots resulted in two things. Why do you keep saying that those two things were the result of only one of the bullets? Read his statement!

The only problem with Bennet is he never looks at JFK. That Bennett supposedly saw a bullet hit JFK in the back is nonsense. If you look at him in the Willis (Z210) and Altgens (Z255) photos, it is clear how obstructed his view of JFK was from the back seat of the follow up car, sitting behind both Dave Powers and Emory Roberts. In both photos, Bennett is looking to his right and not at JFK. He has the distinction of being the only eyewitness not to see JFK react to the first shot obviously he wasn?t looking at JFK. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.

You cannot see Bennett in the zfilm at all. He is behind SA Jack Ready sitting in the right rear seat. So if you only see him in the two photos, how do you know where he was looking at other times.

[Jack Nessan]

So how is it that a statistically very significant proportion of the earwitnesses not only agreed on the number of shots but on the shot pattern? What evidence do you have that these recollections of the shot pattern were not independent?  If they are independent, the likelihood that they agreed by random chance is pretty close to zero.
To whom are you referring? The three witnesses immediately below the SN all said there were three shots. At least one heard three shells drop and heard the bolt action 3 times, the last time being AFTER the third shot. If that is true, there must have been three shells ejected. And, guess what, three shells were found!
Not in his Nov. 23/63 statement. He refers to three separate shots.
I don't follow you there. If Bennett was a two shot witness and he says (in both statements) that he saw a shot hit JFK in the back before the head shot, he must have been referring JFK being hit on the first shot.
You don't seem to be able to read his first statement. Hickey did not say that the bullet that impacted his head made his hair fly up. In his first statement, he said there were two shots and those two shots resulted in two things. Why do you keep saying that those two things were the result of only one of the bullets? Read his statement!
You cannot see Bennett in the zfilm at all. He is behind SA Jack Ready sitting in the right rear seat. So if you only see him in the two photos, how do you know where he was looking at other times.

Both the WC and HSCA stated the witnesses were influenced by the media. This ever evolving theory proves that is true.

1)Earwitness statements conflict with initial eyewitness statements.
2)Earwitness statements conflict with the known mechanical operation of the carcano.
3)Subsequent statements from eyewitnesses, conflict with initial statements from eyewitnesses.
4)A shot at Z50 conflicts with what is seen on the Zapruder Film
5)A shot at Z250 conflicts with JBC's review of the Zapruder Film.
6)A shot at Z250 does not mean a shot at Z270.
7)A shot at Z250 is an attempt to explain the assassination with the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano.
8)A shot at Z270 is an attempt to explain earwitness statements with their explanation of shots two and three being closer together than shots one and two.