WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[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.

[Walt Cakebread]

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

 Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

If that is true....Then please provide a reasonable explanation for Lee's ability to watch Junior Jarman, and Harold Norman, as they entered the back door of the TSBD at 12:27?

[Rob Caprio]

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."

If you really think that I support the notion that LHO fired two shots then you are really not paying attention.

Can you support the SBT or not? It would seem not.

[Rob Caprio]

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

Same fantasy belief. It was shown that a shot from the alleged SN could never strike near where Tague was standing. You would have to add a magic ricochet to your fantasy theory.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

I am not sure you even read what I write, but I'll say it again: there was no shot at z250. I have never said there was a shot then. The second shot was CLOSER to the third shot than to the first. If it was at z250 it would have been equally close to 1 and 3.

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.

You obviously have as much difficulty with arithmetic as you have with reading. The time between z250 and z312 is 3.5 seconds not 2.3 sec.

[Andrew Mason]

Same fantasy belief. It was shown that a shot from the alleged SN could never strike near where Tague was standing. You would have to add a magic ricochet to your fantasy theory.

I agree that the missile that struck the curb near Tague was not a complete bullet. But a fragment did strike the windshield frame and the sun visor above Greer. What evidence excludes as a possibility that another fragment travelling just above the windshield could not have struck Tague?

[Jack Nessan]

I am not sure you even read what I write, but I'll say it again: there was no shot at z250. I have never said there was a shot then. The second shot was CLOSER to the third shot than to the first. If it was at z250 it would have been equally close to 1 and 3.You obviously have as much difficulty with arithmetic as you have with reading. The time between z250 and z312 is 3.5 seconds not 2.3 sec.

There is no reasoning out how you could come up with this thought, but nothing else can be concluded but you advocating a shot at Z250 in an attempt to have an evenly spaced shot pattern to coincide with the carcano cycle time. Force fitting a theory to match the earwitness statements or the cycle time of the carcano seems to be the goal. Maybe you need to explain the significance of 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."
-----------------------------------------------
Quote from: Rob Caprio on December 08, 2018, 05:17:31 AM
"Except the SBT is false. So how do you explain seven wounds in two men with one bullet?"

A Mason Replied:
"Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK."