The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

They are not ad hominem remarks. They are labels I've given to the various strategies you use regularly to avoid reasonable debate.
If you'd contradicted yourself I would have pointed that out. But you didn't and the word I've given to what you did is "lying" which is the most accurate word I can find for it.

When you accuse someone of "lying" you are referring to the person, not their argument.  That is because the difference between uttering something that you consider to be false and lying is entirely related to the bona-fides of the person uttering, not the substance of what was uttered.

None of these are "facts", as well you know. We may agree on certain interpretations of the evidence but it doesn't make them facts.

How do you know they are not "facts".  Do you think facts do not exist?

Facts exist.  We just have to determine what they are.  In order to correctly analyze a complicated case it is useful to establish a primary set of facts that are well supported by the evidence.  These are the fundamental facts.  If those facts are correct, then all the other factual details must fit them.  There can be contradictory evidence, but not contradictory facts.

I say that these four statements are facts because there are large bodies of mutually consistent, independent evidence to support these findings and very little evidence that would support a contrary conclusion.  But we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence including any new evidence that emerges. 

Point 4. is nothing more than your own interpretation of very selective scraps of evidence picked specifically to 'confirm' what you already believe about the shots.

I am surprised that you would refer such a fundamental part of the testimony of JBC and Nellie as "selective scraps of evidence".   JBC and Nellie both said he was not hit in the back on the first shot and was not hit on the second. They both said they were so sure of this that they would never change their views.  They never did. Gayle Newman was just a few feet west of the light pole so she was directly opposite JBC at z271 - about 15 feet away. She gave a statement a few hours after the events (DPD statement November 22, 1963. 24H218) in which she said:

• "After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car. Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head."
  

David Powers was directly behind JBC and JFK and he could see JBC until the second shot, after which JBC disappeared.  He said the third shot struck JFK in the head.

These are not scraps of evidence selectively taken out of context. They are fundamental parts of what these witnesses reported observing with their eyes and ears.

These are the few scraps of evidence you hang onto to promote your theory. There is nothing coincidental about any of it. You have looked at the Z-film around the z270's and picked out anything you see and tried to create a narrative out of it.

If they were not coincidental then they are related. 

Really, I was under the impression that LNers thought the single bullet theory was correct. Where have you got your information from?

?? I am surprised by your question.

Every LNer on this board except you thinks that JBC was hit on the second shot.  I happen to differ from their views that the first shot missed and that the shot pattern was 1....2.......3.  You are the lone LNer who now thinks that the SBT occurred on the first shot. 
 

"The bottom line is that there is abundant support for each of those four facts"

There is very little evidence to support the "fact" ( ) that JBC is shot in the back around z271 and irrefutable evidence against it. Your inability to accept that evidence is indicative of your genuine approach to evidence. It should inform your opinions.

I don't think you can say that there is irrefutable evidence against it.  Evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot refutes it.

Besides, JBC being hit at z271 is not one of the four fundamental facts that I referred to.  That JBC is shot in the back around z271 is an inescapable conclusion, however, if those 4 statements of fact are correct.

"It is not a matter of the force applied. It is the net force multiplied by the time over which it is applied that matters. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist."

This is utter  and reveals your desperation to avoid the overwhelming evidence that refutes your model.

You just have to recall your high school physics.  Momentum transferred is the impulse ∫Fdt over the duration of the force.  The duration of the force would be the time the bullet was in contact with the wrist, which is about .01/300 = .000033 sec or .033  ms. (assuming bullet average speed of 300 m/sec and the contact was over a 1 cm distance on the wrist).  The force is the net force applied to the wrist (Bullet force less opposing force pressing wrist to chest). 

"Are you suggesting that the wrist would move if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to absorb any momentum imparted by the bullet?"

I'm suggesting that a bullet fragmenting on contact with his wrist would subject his wrist to the same force it takes to fragment a bullet.
Newton's laws of motion still apply (for most of us anyway)

Again, it is not just the force.  It is the force x time over which the force is applied that determines the transfer of momentum.

The pressure on the bone (force per unit area) determines whether the bone yields to the bullet.  The force on the bone is the yield pressure x the area.  Based on the size of the bullet, the area of the contact between bone and bullet is about  .5 x .5 cm = .25 cm².

To estimate the bullet force: The bullet pressure on the radius was sufficient to cause a fracture of the radius and, according to Larry Sturdivan (3 HSCA 396), the yield pressure of bone is 10¹⁰ dynes/cm².  That is the maximum pressure that the bone can apply to the bullet. Assuming a bullet contact area of .25 cm² on the wrist that means the force was about 2.5 x 10⁹ dynes or  2.5 x 10⁴Newtons. That is equivalent to the force of 2.5 tonnes of weight.  But the problem is that it only lasts for a very short time: the time it takes for the bullet travelling at about 300 m/sec to move 1 cm. (.01/300 = .000033 sec. or 3.3 x 10^-5 sec.).  Let's assume a constant force of 2.5 x 10⁴Newtons for 3.3 x 10^-5 seconds:  impulse =  8.25 x 10^-1 N.sec.  That is equivalent to a 82.5 gram weight pulling on the wrist for 1 second.

Now, if the unconstrained wrist had a mass of 825 grams (about 2 lb) the wrist would move at 1 m/sec or about 5 cm or two inches in one frame.  And that is if there is no force pressing on the wrist toward the chest.  If the wrist was pressed into the chest as it appears, there would be very slight movement away from the chest before the wrist stopped.

[Dan O'meara]

When you accuse someone of "lying" you are referring to the person, not their argument.  That is because the difference between uttering something that you consider to be false and lying is entirely related to the bona-fides of the person uttering, not the substance of what was uttered.

As I say, "lying" was just the most accurate label I could think of for that particular strategy. If you'd prefer "deliberate falsification" we can use that instead.
It's got nothing to do with me if the strategies you use to make a mockery of reasoned debate reflect on you as a person.
And if you think I'm not going to point out these strategies in case it hurts your feelings...you must be dreaming.

How do you know they are not "facts".  Do you think facts do not exist?

Facts exist.  We just have to determine what they are.  In order to correctly analyze a complicated case it is useful to establish a primary set of facts that are well supported by the evidence.  These are the fundamental facts.  If those facts are correct, then all the other factual details must fit them.  There can be contradictory evidence, but not contradictory facts.

It's a fact that the majority of witnesses describe three clearly audible shots. From this fact we conclude that, on probability the best interpretation is that did indeed happen. But this interpretation of the evidence doesn't make it a "fact".

I say that these four statements are facts because there are large bodies of mutually consistent, independent evidence to support these findings and very little evidence that would support a contrary conclusion.  But we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence including any new evidence that emerges.

"... we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence..."

Give it a try sometime

I am surprised that you would refer such a fundamental part of the testimony of JBC and Nellie as "selective scraps of evidence".   JBC and Nellie both said he was not hit in the back on the first shot and was not hit on the second. They both said they were so sure of this that they would never change their views.

Strategy - Convenient misremembering
Neliie's reliability as a witness is undermined by the fact she describes the shot that hit JBC at a time when she was looking forward (plus many other inconsistencies). This has been dealt with in this thread but you forget that.
When applying JBC's testimony to the Z-film you dismiss almost every salient point he makes in his testimony except the one that suits you. This has also been dealt with in detail in this thread but you forget.

Gayle Newman was just a few feet west of the light pole so she was directly opposite JBC at z271 - about 15 feet away. She gave a statement a few hours after the events (DPD statement November 22, 1963. 24H218) in which she said:

"After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car. Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head."

Strategy - reliance on contradictory eye witness testimony
Okay, let's play "contradictory witnesses"

Bill Newman, husband of Gayle, stood right next to her, witnessing what she was witnessing:

"... the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot...And then as the car got directly in front of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”

As far as Bill is concerned the second shot was the headshot, contradicting his wife's testimony. Where does this get us?

David Powers was directly behind JBC and JFK and he could see JBC until the second shot, after which JBC disappeared.  He said the third shot struck JFK in the head.

So what?

These are not scraps of evidence selectively taken out of context. They are fundamental parts of what these witnesses reported observing with their eyes and ears.
If they were not coincidental then they are related. 

They are related by the narrative you have woven them into. That's all.

Every LNer on this board except you thinks that JBC was hit on the second shot.  I happen to differ from their views that the first shot missed and that the shot pattern was 1....2.......3.  You are the lone LNer who now thinks that the SBT occurred on the first shot. 
  I don't think you can say that there is irrefutable evidence against it.  Evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot refutes it.

I'm an LNer??

Besides, JBC being hit at z271 is not one of the four fundamental facts that I referred to.  That JBC is shot in the back around z271 is an inescapable conclusion, however, if those 4 statements of fact are correct.

Strategy - shifting the goalposts

You just have to recall your high school physics.  Momentum transferred is the impulse ∫Fdt over the duration of the force.  The duration of the force would be the time the bullet was in contact with the wrist, which is about .01/300 = .000033 sec or .033  ms. (assuming bullet average speed of 300 m/sec and the contact was over a 1 cm distance on the wrist).  The force is the net force applied to the wrist (Bullet force less opposing force pressing wrist to chest). 
Again, it is not just the force.  It is the force x time over which the force is applied that determines the transfer of momentum.

The pressure on the bone (force per unit area) determines whether the bone yields to the bullet.  The force on the bone is the yield pressure x the area.  Based on the size of the bullet, the area of the contact between bone and bullet is about  .5 x .5 cm = .25 cm².

To estimate the bullet force: The bullet pressure on the radius was sufficient to cause a fracture of the radius and, according to Larry Sturdivan (3 HSCA 396), the yield pressure of bone is 10¹⁰ dynes/cm².  That is the maximum pressure that the bone can apply to the bullet. Assuming a bullet contact area of .25 cm² on the wrist that means the force was about 2.5 x 10⁹ dynes or  2.5 x 10⁴Newtons. That is equivalent to the force of 2.5 tonnes of weight.  But the problem is that it only lasts for a very short time: the time it takes for the bullet travelling at about 300 m/sec to move 1 cm. (.01/300 = .000033 sec. or 3.3 x 10^-5 sec.).  Let's assume a constant force of 2.5 x 10⁴Newtons for 3.3 x 10^-5 seconds:  impulse =  8.25 x 10^-1 N.sec.  That is equivalent to a 82.5 gram weight pulling on the wrist for 1 second.

Now, if the unconstrained wrist had a mass of 825 grams (about 2 lb) the wrist would move at 1 m/sec or about 5 cm or two inches in one frame.  And that is if there is no force pressing on the wrist toward the chest.  If the wrist was pressed into the chest as it appears, there would be very slight movement away from the chest before the wrist stopped.

So the momentum transferred to JBC's wrist only applies to one Z-frame, after which it miraculously disappears?
So the force that shattered the bullet is not equally applied to JBC's wrist?

[Andrew Mason]

As I say, "lying" was just the most accurate label I could think of for that particular strategy. If you'd prefer "deliberate falsification" we can use that instead.
It's got nothing to do with me if the strategies you use to make a mockery of reasoned debate reflect on you as a person.
And if you think I'm not going to point out these strategies in case it hurts your feelings...you must be dreaming.

I guess I missed something somewhere.  What "falsification" are you suggesting that I have done? Or is that just something you throw out as a smokescreen to cover up a lack of reasoned argument?  You have not identified one item that I have put forward as evidence that is false.  Not a single one. You just make a general statement that I somehow lied.  It doesn't bother me.  I am just trying to improve your rhetorical skills.

It's a fact that the majority of witnesses describe three clearly audible shots. From this fact we conclude that, on probability the best interpretation is that did indeed happen. But this interpretation of the evidence doesn't make it a "fact".

"... we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence..."

Give it a try sometime

So.... you don't think there are facts at all, just evidence?  Is it not a fact that JFK was hit in the head by a bullet?  Or do you think that is debateable too?  Some posters actually have questioned that, by the way.

Strategy - Convenient misremembering
Nellie's reliability as a witness is undermined by the fact she describes the shot that hit JBC at a time when she was looking forward (plus many other inconsistencies). This has been dealt with in this thread but you forget that.

That, of course, is premised on your view that JBC was hit in the back at z223 when she was looking forward.  If you conclude, as I have, that JBC was not hit there but was hit at z271 when she was looking right at him, then she was truthful.  Conversely, if you use her evidence to determine when he was hit, one would have to conclude that he was not hit until z270 when she turned and looked at him.

When applying JBC's testimony to the Z-film you dismiss almost every salient point he makes in his testimony except the one that suits you. This has also been dealt with in detail in this thread but you forget.

No I don't.  I accept most of the things that he very confidently recalled before he was hit in the back.  I am less accepting of small details he recalled at the time of or after he was hit. That's all. 

Strategy - reliance on contradictory eye witness testimony
Okay, let's play "contradictory witnesses"

Bill Newman, husband of Gayle, stood right next to her, witnessing what she was witnessing:

"... the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot...And then as the car got directly in front of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”

As far as Bill is concerned the second shot was the headshot, contradicting his wife's testimony. Where does this get us?

There was no contradiction at all. In his first statement (19H490) he mentioned two shots but he did not say that there were only two shots.  In his November 24/63 FBI statement (22H842) he said that the shot that struck the President in the head and the previous shot were about 2 seconds apart and he said that the head shot was the third and last shot.

Not seeing exactly what his wife saw does not mean he contradicts what she said.  Different witnesses focus on different things. Obviously Gayle Newman was looking at JBC.  Bill Newman said he was looking right at JFK as the car passed.  In fact, their statements as a whole are quite consistent and they are consistent with 3 shots, 3 hits and a second shot about 2 seconds before the head shot.

I'm an LNer??

You are not?  Who do you think was shooting?

So the momentum transferred to JBC's wrist only applies to one Z-frame, after which it miraculously disappears?

That depends on the opposing force.  The momentum transfer, according to that calculation, was .825 N. sec. or .825 kg m/sec.  That means that a force equivalent to the weight 1.65 kg (16.5 Newtons) for 1/20th of a second or one frame would stop it.  So a force of less than 4 lb (weight) applied to the wrist would completely stop any motion of the wrist caused by the bullet impact within one frame. The wrist going from 1 m/sec to 0 in 1/20th of a second would move but only about 2.5 cm or an inch.

So the force that shattered the bullet is not equally applied to JBC's wrist?

The force is not equally applied to the wrist but I am assuming that the force for the entire duration of contact was the maximum force. The maximum force would be the force applied to bone that causes bone to break.  The force is greatest where it impacts bone and less where it impacts soft tissue. 

[Andrew Mason]

Just following up on my earlier comments about William Newman, I had a look at his Shaw trial testimony (STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW, 198-059, February 17, 1969) which is available here in which he said:

• "Q: What did you see?
  A: I saw the President of the United States shot in the head.
  Q: How many shots did you hear?
  A: I heard at least three. I often thought of four, but I can't clearly say there were four shots; I can clearly say there were three. "

...

• Q: Would you tell us in as much detail as you can recall about the impact which you may have observed from the shots.
  A: Yes, sir. you want me to start with the first two shots?
  Q: Start right from the beginning and just tell us as you recall.
  A: Okay. My wife and myself were watching the parade come toward us. We had to more or less step off the curb to look up the street, and as the car was approaching I heard two shots -- BOOM, BOOM -- and when the first shot was fired the President throwed his hands up like this (demonstrating), and at the time what we thought had happened, somebody throwed firecrackers or something under the automobile and he was protecting his face. At the time of the first shot Governor Connally turned in his seat in this manner (demonstrating), to look back at the President I suppose, and then the second shot was fired, and then as the car approached us to where we were standing, I could see Governor Connally leaning back in his seat holding his hands down like this (demonstrating), and at that time I could see blood on his shirt, and that is when I actually realized that it appeared, you know, he had been shot. The President all the time was staying in an upright position in his seat and it looked like he was looking into the crowd of people as if he was trying to see someone. I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off.

[Andrew Mason]

Here is part of the testimony of Gayle Newman at the Shaw trial (STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW, February 15, 1969) which is available here in which she said

• Q: Mrs. Newman, while you were in Dealey Plaza did anything unusual occur?
  A: Yes, sir, the President was shot.
  Q: Did you hear any unusual noises?
  A: I heard three of what I thought at first were firecrackers -- three shots.
  Q: Did you hear the first of these noises?
  A: Yes, sir. Now, do you want me to tell you where the President's car was when I first heard the noises?
  Q: If you can.
  A: The President's car was maybe 100 or 150 feet from us when I first heard the noise and the first two noises were close together, just seconds apart.
  Q: Were you looking at the President at the time you heard the first report?
  A: Yes, sir, I was.
  Q: Were you able to observe any reaction on his part?
  A: Yes, sir, at the time of the first noise he threw his hands up.
  Q: Could you simulate what you observed?
  A: He threw his hands up like this and sort of turned his head.
  Q: Did you have occasion to hear a second report?
  A: Yes, sir, I did.
  Q: Before I go into that, were you able to observe Governor Connally after the first report?
  A: Yes, sir, I saw Governor Connally with the first shot seemed to turn a little bit like this. (Indicating.)
  Q: You said you then heard a second report?
  A: Yes, sir.
  Q: Were you able to observe any reaction on the part of Governor Connally then?
  A: Yes, sir, at the time of the second shot Governor Connally grabbed his stomach.
  Q: Did he do anything else?
  A: Well, his eyes just got real big and he sort of slumped down in the seat.
  Q: Were you able to hear a third report?
  A: Yes, sir, we heard a third report, it was a short time, not maybe 10 or 12 seconds after the first two shots.
  Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then?
  A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear.
  Q: Did you have your eyes upon the President at the time of these shots?
  A: Yes, sir, I did. "

[Dan O'meara]

Here is part of the testimony of Gayle Newman at the Shaw trial (STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW, February 15, 1969) which is available here in which she said

• Q: Mrs. Newman, while you were in Dealey Plaza did anything unusual occur?
  A: Yes, sir, the President was shot.
  Q: Did you hear any unusual noises?
  A: I heard three of what I thought at first were firecrackers -- three shots.
  Q: Did you hear the first of these noises?
  A: Yes, sir. Now, do you want me to tell you where the President's car was when I first heard the noises?
  Q: If you can.
  A: The President's car was maybe 100 or 150 feet from us when I first heard the noise and the first two noises were close together, just seconds apart.
  Q: Were you looking at the President at the time you heard the first report?
  A: Yes, sir, I was.
  Q: Were you able to observe any reaction on his part?
  A: Yes, sir, at the time of the first noise he threw his hands up.
  Q: Could you simulate what you observed?
  A: He threw his hands up like this and sort of turned his head.
  Q: Did you have occasion to hear a second report?
  A: Yes, sir, I did.
  Q: Before I go into that, were you able to observe Governor Connally after the first report?
  A: Yes, sir, I saw Governor Connally with the first shot seemed to turn a little bit like this. (Indicating.)
  Q: You said you then heard a second report?
  A: Yes, sir.
  Q: Were you able to observe any reaction on the part of Governor Connally then?
  A: Yes, sir, at the time of the second shot Governor Connally grabbed his stomach.
  Q: Did he do anything else?
  A: Well, his eyes just got real big and he sort of slumped down in the seat.
  Q: Were you able to hear a third report?
  A: Yes, sir, we heard a third report, it was a short time, not maybe 10 or 12 seconds after the first two shots.
  Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then?
  A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear.
  Q: Did you have your eyes upon the President at the time of these shots?
  A: Yes, sir, I did. "

The following is lifted from patspeer.com

John Templin
(7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum)

"Well, as the limo drew even with us, well, the president was waving and, of course, grinning. He had just a great big smile on his face, and he drew even with us, and I thought, “Well, this ‘ole country boy finally saw a president.” You know, it’s not like you see a president every day. And especially a kid from the country like I was, it was a big deal for me. And just about, I would say, thirty feet past us, we heard what I personally thought was a motorcycle backfire, and I... the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know. Being human, not knowing that he had been hit. But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually." (When asked to confirm that this was the second shot) "That was the second shot, sir, and some say it was the third shot killed him, but as I recall—and I’ll believe it till my dying day—it was the second shot...was the fatal shot that hit him in the head and killed him."

Where does that get us?

[Andrew Mason]

The following is lifted from patspeer.com

John Templin
(7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum)

"Well, as the limo drew even with us, well, the president was waving and, of course, grinning. He had just a great big smile on his face, and he drew even with us, and I thought, “Well, this ‘ole country boy finally saw a president.” You know, it’s not like you see a president every day. And especially a kid from the country like I was, it was a big deal for me. And just about, I would say, thirty feet past us, we heard what I personally thought was a motorcycle backfire, and I... the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know. Being human, not knowing that he had been hit. But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually." (When asked to confirm that this was the second shot) "That was the second shot, sir, and some say it was the third shot killed him, but as I recall—and I’ll believe it till my dying day—it was the second shot...was the fatal shot that hit him in the head and killed him."

Where does that get us?

Not very far. It is unfortunate that Templin never gave a statement until over 30 years later.  He does not say there were three shots or that there was a shot after the headshot so maybe he did not distinguish the second and third shots. The Newman's gave their statements within two hours and two days and both said the third shot hit JFK in the head.

[Dan O'meara]

Not very far. It is unfortunate that Templin never gave a statement until over 30 years later.  He does not say there were three shots or that there was a shot after the headshot so maybe he did not distinguish the second and third shots. The Newman's gave their statements within two hours and two days and both said the third shot hit JFK in the head.

Is Charles Brehm's FBI report given two days after the assassination any better:

"When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots."

And round and round we go