The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

A lot of people on this forum have explained to Jack over numerous years and in numerous ways the folly of this theory that there were only two shots, yet here it still is. This is all about shots at Z223 and z313 but no shots in between.

No one has ever explained why there was more than two shots. Prove there was three shots.

The reason you don't understand there was only two shots is because you have a limited grasp of the evidence. All the evidence points to two shots. Shooting time, bullets, shells, witness testimony, wounds. The WC conclusion includes the phrase about two shots and witness testimony as does the HSCA sound analysis. It is the only answer there is and ever will be. You can either accept it or not, makes no difference to me.

[Jack Nessan]

Dan, If you are going to wrestle with a pig in the mud, always remember the pig likes it.

 
Thanks Jack, for the strangest advice I've ever been given, but well put.

Andrew's theory, as I understand it, is a first shot at z195, a second shot at z271(ish) and a third shot at z312/3.
We both agree the first shot hits JFK but a shot as early as z195 has to be taken through the oak tree, which is a non-starter. There is no evidence from JFK's reactions that he is hit before he passes behind the Stemmons sign at z207. The idea that JFK would "wait" for over a second and a half before the incredibly rapid movement of his arms into the extreme position we see in the Z-film is also a non-starter.
A shot as early as z195 is also refuted by the witness testimony of the 10 occupants of the VP and VP follow-up cars who unanimously agree the first shot took place after both cars had completed the turn off Houston onto Elm Street. It is also notable that none of the Secret Service agents reacts to the very loud, "explosive" sound of the first shot before z207, yet three of them testify that they turned to their right rear immediately after hearing the shot (as seen in Altgens 6).

As for the shot around z271, that has been blown out of the water in a multitude of different ways in this thread.

You seemed like you had become a little exasperated. The strange advice will become even more crystal clear as your discussion with Andrew progresses.

Andrew's theory will change and morph in an attempt to accommodate your new information. The Z270ish includes all the way down to Z250 where JBC's wounds are somehow the result of being shot while he was laying on Nellie's lap or something like that.

Sorry to say, but it doesn't matter how many times you blow it out of the water it will be back in a new form. The previous crashed forum was loaded with different ways it was proven wrong.

[Andrew Mason]

No one has ever explained why there was more than two shots. Prove there was three shots.

The reason you don't understand there was only two shots is because you have a limited grasp of the evidence. All the evidence points to two shots. Shooting time, bullets, shells, witness testimony, wounds. The WC conclusion includes the phrase about two shots and witness testimony as does the HSCA sound analysis. It is the only answer there is and ever will be. You can either accept it or not, makes no difference to me.

Are you asking me to prove to you that there were three shots?  That is obviously not going to be possible.  If you want to conclude that this distribution means only two shots:


you are welcome to do that.  But don't expect others to agree with you.

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew's theory will change and morph in an attempt to accommodate your new information. The Z270ish includes all the way down to Z250 where JBC's wounds are somehow the result of being shot while he was laying on Nellie's lap or something like that.

?? You obviously do not understand what I have been saying.  I am saying:

1. there were three shots (you don't agree with that, so the notion that you might accept where the three shots occurred is fatuous).
2. the first shot did not miss. It struck JFK in the neck. You agree with that.
3. the last shot did not miss. It struck JFK in the head. You agree with that.
4. the middle shot was closer to the last than the first.  You obviously don't accept the 1......2...3 shot pattern because you think there was no middle shot..

All I am doing is pointing out the abundant evidence that supports 4.  That, together with the overwhelming evidence that Oswald was the only shooter, tells you where the middle shot occurred.  It occurred perceptibly after the midpoint between first and last shots ie. a perceptible time after z250 but enough before z313 for Oswald to have fired it.  And there is abundant evidence that this is where it occurred.

[Bill Chapman]

Swearing could be a natural form of pain relief:

"Research into the hypoalgesic effect of swearing has shown that the use of profanity can help reduce the sensation of pain. This phenomenon is particularly strong in people who do not use such words on a regular basis.
...
The effect has been described as being a form of stress-induced analgesia, with swearing due to a painful stimulus being a form of emotional response.[2][3] However, it is as yet unclear how swearing achieves the physical effects that have been described in the research. Swearing in response to pain may activate the amygdala which in turn triggers a fight-or-flight response. This then leads to a surge in adrenaline, a natural form of pain relief"

Wikipedia: Hypoalgesic Effect of Swearing

But, you first have to experience pain and then you have to be able to swear.  Neither may have applied to JFK experiencing his neck wound.

He didn't know the bullet was coming
I know the pain is coming as soon as I stub my toe
There's a definite delay before the pain is felt

[Jack Nessan]

Are you asking me to prove to you that there were three shots?  That is obviously not going to be possible.  If you want to conclude that this distribution means only two shots:


you are welcome to do that.  But don't expect others to agree with you.

It does not matter what the others think. It is like a 3D picture, once you understand it, the answer is every where. There were only two shots and this can be shown many different ways. People will believe what they want but they cannot change the answer.

I already know you cannot prove there was three shots. Nobody can because there was never three shots fired.  I am asking you to think for yourself and not be such a lemming.

It is not complicated, the answer to how many shots were fired is in the shell evidence and the WC testimonies about the shells.

[Andrew Mason]

It does not matter what the others think. It is like a 3D picture, once you understand it, the answer is every where. There were only two shots and this can be shown many different ways. People will believe what they want but they cannot change the answer.

I already know you cannot prove there was three shots. Nobody can because there was never three shots fired.  I am asking you to think for yourself and not be such a lemming.

If there were only two shots, it is difficult to understand how all three men immediately below the SN on the fifth floor could not only hear three loud explosions from the floor above, but Harold Norman could hear the bolt action reload and a shell hit the floor three times, each time after a loud explosion sound.  And even more difficult to understand how so many not only recalled hearing 3 distinct shots, recalled the same distinct pattern to the three shots. How is that even possible?

It is not complicated, the answer to how many shots were fired is in the shell evidence and the WC testimonies about the shells.

So you think that Oswald was so unprepared that he forgot to remove an empty shell from the MC before setting up the SN?  I am sure you have an explanation.  By the way, it was noted by the FBI in operating the MC that occasionally a shell would get pinched when being ejected.