WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Bill Chapman]

A decent-quality/size version frame-by-frame* shows JFK reacting just as he emerges from behind the sign. I'd say the twofer hit him a fraction of a second before he emerged.

*I have the pertinent frames, I'll post those soon enough.

[Andrew Mason]

A decent-quality/size version frame-by-frame* shows JFK reacting just as he emerges from behind the sign.

No question that JFK is reacting when he emerges from behind the sign. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us when he starts reacting. It does not tell us that he is not reacting before he emerges.

I'd say the twofer hit him a fraction of a second before he emerged.

I agree completely. We just disagree on the fraction and what part of JBC it hit. I would say the fraction is 30/18ths of a second and it struck JBC on the left thigh.

[Jack Nessan]

I don't want to critcise your reading skills if it is a language problem, so if English is not your first language I apologize: Jack, you need to improve your reading comprehension..

The significance of z250 is that it marks the earliest possible midpoint between shots 1 and 3 so if the second shot was closer to the last shot than to the first, it was after z250.Again, a bullet at z272 is after z250.

"Again, a bullet at z272 is after z250."

So is a bullet at Z251 and Z313 and everything in between. This is bar none the most ridiculous explanation that could have been offered. You are just trying to cover all the options because even you realize the implausibility of this theory.

All in all this appears to be the same useless discussion that it always is. Start with a goofy theory about a shot at Z270 and now an added "after" Z250 shot coupled with an inability to support either shot. Then add in the usual tortured witness analysis and use the HSCA report to support the analysis. Ignore the fact that the people who wrote the HSCA report stated it was wrong and why.

[Rob Caprio]

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?

Where did the fragment come from? Explain how a bullet that has a metal jacket can fragment.

[Rob Caprio]

Broheim,  Brother Rob, welcome to reality. You have managed to stumble around in the dark until you accidently became correct about LHO firing just two shots. Relax and take a deep breath. You have never been right about any aspect of the JFK Assassination before and it is probably making you light headed. Loose the second shooter, you have been unable to prove there was three shots anyway, and you are there.
-----------------------------------------------
The WC, including SEN Russell, concluded with reservations about there having been two maybe three shots and no more.
It is just basic math. Three shots and two shooters. Someone fired two shots and someone fired one shot.

Caprio: "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."

Rob Caprio OP
"The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) John  B. Connally's (JBC) WC testimony, in which JBC absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty.  I'll never change my mind"), and, (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film.  (Two other of the seven members of Commission shared Russell's doubts about the SBT; thus, nearly half the Commission questioned the theory.) These same reasons have been mentioned for 54 plus years in regards to why the SBT is not valid by researchers."

"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."

WC Report Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired

You have made a big leap forward with your understanding LHO only fired two shots. I look forward to further posts on your journey of discovery Brother 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.

It is clear that you just believe whatever the authorities tell you to believe.

[Walt Cakebread]

Where did the fragment come from? Explain how a bullet that has a metal jacket can fragment.

a fragment did strike the windshield frame and the sun visor above Greer.

Where did the fragment come from? Explain how a bullet that has a metal jacket can fragment.

The dent in the chrome molding does NOT appear to have been made by a fragment....  I've seen a few bullet strikes and that dent appears to have been made by a large, heavy, low velocity, soft lead, projectile.....My guess would be; that the dent was created by a 45 caliber bullet....  The 45 ACP travels at subsonic velocity and has very poor penetrating ability....When it strikes a man or animal it packs a hell of a wallop ( like a baseball bat ) but usually doesn't penetrate very deeply.

And Rob seems to be on the right track....  A FMJ bullet fired from a carcano traveling at about 2000 fps, probably would have penetrated that chrome molding.  ( I have one of those molding from a Lincoln convertible and it is not heavy sheet metal)
I seriously doubt that an FMJ carcano bullet would have fragmented on impact with that sheet metal molding.

[John Iacoletti]

No question that JFK is reacting when he emerges from behind the sign. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us when he starts reacting. It does not tell us that he is not reacting before he emerges.

It also tells us nothing about Chapman?s alleged ?twofer?.

[Andrew Mason]

"Again, a bullet at z272 is after z250."

So is a bullet at Z251 and Z313 and everything in between. This is bar none the most ridiculous explanation that could have been offered. You are just trying to cover all the options because even you realize the implausibility of this theory.

All in all this appears to be the same useless discussion that it always is. Start with a goofy theory about a shot at Z270 and now an added "after" Z250 shot coupled with an inability to support either shot. Then add in the usual tortured witness analysis and use the HSCA report to support the analysis. Ignore the fact that the people who wrote the HSCA report stated it was wrong and why.

It takes two to make a useless discussion.  In any event, your theory that the overwhelming evidence of three shots and a 1......2...3 shot pattern being wrong is no less goofy than my "theory" that the evidence is not wrong.

The HSCA did a lot of useful things. But their comment about the supposed general unreliability of witnesses was a poor attempt to justify why none of the witnesses heard a phantom 4th shot that they concluded was fired.  In fact, there was no such shot. 

You have a long way to go to show that the witnesses, all 132 of them, thought they heard a phantom 3rd shot that did not exist.  BTW, what is your explanation as to how the "three shot" witness tampering got started? Why did so many witnesses go along with it?