The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

Perhaps you should apply the same standard to your own postings that you advocate for others.   

"Apart from a couple of sketchy interpretations of cherry-picked witnesses there is no evidence for your" assertion.

When you use witnesses like Zapruder and Hickey, and Woodward I have to wonder whether you have read their evidence.  Hickey, for example was quite clear that the second shot did not hit JFK and the third was the head shot.

Zapruder is a two shot witness. Hickey's first statement has the second shot impact the head. Hickey: "The second two shots in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them" Once again trying to incorporate three shots into a two shot narrative.

[Dan O'meara]

Perhaps you should apply the same standard to your own postings that you advocate for others.   

"Apart from a couple of sketchy interpretations of cherry-picked witnesses there is no evidence for your" assertion.

When you use witnesses like Zapruder and Hickey, and Woodward I have to wonder whether you have read their evidence.  Hickey, for example was quite clear that the second shot did not hit JFK and the third was the head shot.

Firstly, there are almost fifty witnesses supporting a third shot miss. It is telling you (cherry) pick just 3 to try and undermine this sheer volume of witness testimony.
Secondly, although many just state outright there was a shot after the head shot, others require an analysis of all their various statements, not just a select few lines. Hickey is a perfect example. This is the relevant part of his first statement:

(11-22-63 report, 18H765)    “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”

It is clear from this statement that he is equating the head shot with Kennedy's hair flying forward - first, "the right side of his head was hit", then "his hair flew forward."

(11-30-63 report, 18H761-764)   “He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound from the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.  It looked to me as if the president was struck in the right upper rear of the head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.  Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last."

Here we have, what appears to be, a different order - hair flying forward, then the head shot. Note that he says there was "practically no time element" between the two final shots. What should also be noted is that the head shot is an absolutely catastrophic event, JFK's head literally explodes shooting skull/brain meters into the air accompanied by a large cloud of debris as his skull explodes open. But all Hickey has to say about the third shot is that there was a noise and JFK fell forward.

(6-15-78 HSCA interview, as reported by Joe Backes in his 1-30-96 article The 12th Batch)     " Hickey then heard two reports sounding like gunfire and saw what he described as a cloud of dust appear from the right rear of President Kennedy's head. Hickey stated that he would guess at about 3 to 4 seconds between the first and second shots. He stated that the second and third shots were almost simultaneous."

It would appear Hickey had a clear view of the head shot, that he describes " a cloud of dust appear from the right rear of President Kennedy's head", seems to confirm this.
So, going back to Hickey's report of the 30th, where he describes Kennedy's hair flying forward. If Hickey did have a clear view of the head shot he must have witnessed the unbelievable devastation. Harry Holmes was watching the President during the head shot and describes it in graphic detail:

"Anyway, about the first or second crack, I wouldn’t know which, there was just a cone of blood and corruption that went up right in the back of his head and neck. I thought it was red paper or a firecracker. It looked like a firecracker lit up which looks like little bits of red paper as it goes up. But in reality it was skull and brains and everything else that went up perhaps as much as six or eight feet. Just like that. Then just a minute later another crack..."

Note, Holmes clearly states there was another shot after the head shot. His description of JFK's head exploding is similar to what we see in the Z-film. If Hickey saw the head shot he must have seen this explosion of scalp/skull/brain matter. Witnesses like John Templin and Charles Brehm (both who specifically state there was a shot after the head shot) describe JFK's hair flying up as a result of the head shot.
The fairest, most sensible interpretation of Hickey's observations, when all his statements are taken into account, is that the second shot, the shot that caused JFK's hair to fly forward, was the head shot. And that he then describes a shot after the head shot.


Someone like Abraham Zapruder is problematic because his recollections change over time. He is certain there were three shots in his earliest recorded statements but is less certain by the time he gets to the Warren Commission. However, his WC testimony still supports a shot after the head shot as he is certain the first shot caused JFK to grab at his throat and that the second shot was the head shot:

"...but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started—I can hardly talk about it. (the witness crying)."  (When asked how many shots he heard) “I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second—I really don’t know…I heard the second—after the first shot—I saw him leaning over and after the second shot—it’s possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, “They killed him, they killed him."

He still entertains the possibility of three shots but it seems that he's been told the last shot was the head shot, which doesn't square with what he remembers. He puts forward the possibility that he didn't hear the third shot as he was yelling "They killed him". The head shot was clearly a traumatic moment for him, what we can say with some degree of certainty is that he saw the first shot hit, the second shot was the head shot and any shot, remembered or not, came after the head shot.

Mary Woodward is another witness whose account changes over time. In her article written about the assassination, the day after it happened, she writes:

"[After the first shot] My first reaction, and also my friends’, was that as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and occupants of the President’s car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt...Then after a moment’s pause there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot."

She mistakenly believes that the first shot missed. After the first shot the limo slowed down "almost to a halt", then there was a second shot, after which JFK slumped over, and a shot after that.
Shot - limo slows - shot - JFK slumps over -  shot. She describes JFK slumping after the second shot, which can reasonably be interpreted as a reference to the head shot and a shot after the head shot.
However, her account has changed over time. Pat Speer makes the following point:

"...she says the President was past her when the first shot rang out, she says the limousine slowed down after the first shot, she said the President slumped down in his seat after the first of two closely grouped together shots. It was only in recent years that she started adding on that the last shot was the head shot."


Pat Speer's analysis of the various statements of each witness is generally reliable, although it is true some witness statements require more interpretation than others and some require no interpretation whatsoever.
Speer puts forward almost 50 witnesses whose statements, taken in their totality, support a third shot after the head shot. This has to be stacked up against the two or three cherry-picked, dubiously interpreted witnesses you put forward to support your (moribund) theory JBC was shot around z272.
The evidence can be contradictory so, when trying to establish the likelihood of any particular theory,  it is the "weight of evidence" that counts.

[Steve Barber]

Everything except the WC and HSCA testimony is hearsay. That just means it is not admissible as evidence in court.  It doesn't mean it is not evidence with some probative value.  Unless Blaine and Hill are lying, the evidence that there was a second shot after Hill stepped off the running board comes from other Secret Service agents who told them that there was a shot just after Hill stepped off and before the shot that hit the President in the head.  This may have been SA Hickey, who said that the last two shots were very close together and the first of those last two appeared to just miss JFK because the hair on the right side of his head flew up at the time the second shot sounded.  The hair flies up at z273-276.  If that was caused by the second bullet, it had to have struck JBC.  So, if Hickey was not hallucinating, he - together with the zfilm - provides non-hearsay evidence of a shot at just before z273.

  Andrew, I've been reading your stuff since you started this theory in the early 2000's at John McAdams newsgroup, and it still makes me shake my head in dismay that you are still arguing about this.   You should know by now that eyewitness accounts aren't always accurate, and this is why police officers do not rely totally on eyewitness accounts.   This seems to be all that you use are eyewitness accounts to attempt making a case.  I stopped relying on the eyewitness accounts years ago when I saw for myself that they're totally unreliable--especially when it comes to the SS agents riding behind the limousine.  One of them actually said he saw a bullet strike "The boss" in the back. IF that were true, why then didnt he say something about it to the other agents or he himself take off running to the limousine so they could run to JFK and cover him-therefore save his life?  Does that make any sense to you?  It doesn't to me. They were all too busy looking around trying to see where the sound of the rifle came from instead of doing their job!   Obviously, the agent was lying through his teeth.  The governor and Mrs. Connally's observations are in error as well.   The Z film proves this.  Mrs. Connally was facing straight ahead when JFK and her husband were struck.  She did not therefore see her husband struck by the bullet, she saw what happened AFTER he was struck.  Clint Hill...you watch him in the Zapruder film.  He may have seen JFK's arms fly upward, but there's no way he saw where JFK put his hands, because at no time does JFK ever go near his throat with his hands.  On top of this, Clint Hill casually turns his  head towards the area where the guy with the umbrella is standing and keeps his head turned in that direction in the film until he disappears from the sprocket area.  I remember reading years and years ago that "An open umbrella to the Secret Service is like a red flag to a bull". So upon reading that and seeing what Clint Hill is doing after the second shot has been fired--and knowing from the Zapruder film the unnatural position JFK was in with both arms splayed outward at the elbows, and Mrs. Kennedy then reaching over and placing both hands on his left arm and holding him--that, alone, should have alerted the SS agents that something was wrong with "The Boss", and since Hill said he saw JFK's hands "at his throat" (which is impossible from his position) after hearing the sound of the shot--even he didn't react as he should have sooner than he did.  The fact is, is that you are going by what these agents said they did here and there (and unfortunately for us, no film footage caught them gawking around instead of running to protect the president when they should have) in their testimony which in my opinion is absolutely worthless because they didn't do their jobs that day, were gawking around the plaza, or just casually sitting in their seats watching the president react to be shot in the back and head when they had nearly 5 seconds to react and rush to the limousine and save JFK's life.  Your frame 276 rifle shot makes zero sense.  There is no reaction by the governor, the occupants of the car, or Zapruder's camera jiggle to support such a bullet striking the governor at that point.

[Dan O'meara]

  Andrew, I've been reading your stuff since you started this theory in the early 2000's at John McAdams newsgroup, and it still makes me shake my head in dismay that you are still arguing about this.   You should know by now that eyewitness accounts aren't always accurate, and this is why police officers do not rely totally on eyewitness accounts.   This seems to be all that you use are eyewitness accounts to attempt making a case.  I stopped relying on the eyewitness accounts years ago when I saw for myself that they're totally unreliable--especially when it comes to the SS agents riding behind the limousine.  One of them actually said he saw a bullet strike "The boss" in the back. IF that were true, why then didnt he say something about it to the other agents or he himself take off running to the limousine so they could run to JFK and cover him-therefore save his life?  Does that make any sense to you?  It doesn't to me. They were all too busy looking around trying to see where the sound of the rifle came from instead of doing their job!   Obviously, the agent was lying through his teeth.  The governor and Mrs. Connally's observations are in error as well.   The Z film proves this.  Mrs. Connally was facing straight ahead when JFK and her husband were struck.  She did not therefore see her husband struck by the bullet, she saw what happened AFTER he was struck.  Clint Hill...you watch him in the Zapruder film.  He may have seen JFK's arms fly upward, but there's no way he saw where JFK put his hands, because at no time does JFK ever go near his throat with his hands.  On top of this, Clint Hill casually turns his  head towards the area where the guy with the umbrella is standing and keeps his head turned in that direction in the film until he disappears from the sprocket area.  I remember reading years and years ago that "An open umbrella to the Secret Service is like a red flag to a bull". So upon reading that and seeing what Clint Hill is doing after the second shot has been fired--and knowing from the Zapruder film the unnatural position JFK was in with both arms splayed outward at the elbows, and Mrs. Kennedy then reaching over and placing both hands on his left arm and holding him--that, alone, should have alerted the SS agents that something was wrong with "The Boss", and since Hill said he saw JFK's hands "at his throat" (which is impossible from his position) after hearing the sound of the shot--even he didn't react as he should have sooner than he did.  The fact is, is that you are going by what these agents said they did here and there (and unfortunately for us, no film footage caught them gawking around instead of running to protect the president when they should have) in their testimony which in my opinion is absolutely worthless because they didn't do their jobs that day, were gawking around the plaza, or just casually sitting in their seats watching the president react to be shot in the back and head when they had nearly 5 seconds to react and rush to the limousine and save JFK's life.  Your frame 276 rifle shot makes zero sense.  There is no reaction by the governor, the occupants of the car, or Zapruder's camera jiggle to support such a bullet striking the governor at that point.

Some great points here Steve.
As far as the testimonies of the SS are concerned, if there is some kind of evidence (film/photo/independent eye-witness testimony) to back it up then fair enough. The OP of this thread has Hickey, Landis and Ready, in Altgens 6, turned to their right rear, something each man testified to. However, when looking at everyone else in the follow up car, I get the strong impression they are all just staring at JFK. By anyone's measure it is at least the best part of two two seconds after JFK has been shot, his arms are up in the air, he is clearly in distress, they have all heard a rifle shot or something similar), yet no-one, including Hill, is reacting in the slightest.
I'm not saying there's anything sinister about it, it's more like they've built this massive reputation as these elite men who can react accordingly in a high pressure situation but when it comes to the crunch it turns out they were just a bunch of blokes who didn't really know what to do. I think a lot of their statements about the shooting reflect them covering for their incompetence.

That said, I do find Greer slowing the limo to walking pace while he never takes his eyes off JFK until the head shot a little unsettling. It does whiff of something beyond incompetence.

[Jack Nessan]

  Andrew, I've been reading your stuff since you started this theory in the early 2000's at John McAdams newsgroup, and it still makes me shake my head in dismay that you are still arguing about this.   You should know by now that eyewitness accounts aren't always accurate, and this is why police officers do not rely totally on eyewitness accounts.   This seems to be all that you use are eyewitness accounts to attempt making a case.  I stopped relying on the eyewitness accounts years ago when I saw for myself that they're totally unreliable--especially when it comes to the SS agents riding behind the limousine.  One of them actually said he saw a bullet strike "The boss" in the back. IF that were true, why then didnt he say something about it to the other agents or he himself take off running to the limousine so they could run to JFK and cover him-therefore save his life?  Does that make any sense to you?  It doesn't to me. They were all too busy looking around trying to see where the sound of the rifle came from instead of doing their job!   Obviously, the agent was lying through his teeth.  The governor and Mrs. Connally's observations are in error as well.   The Z film proves this.  Mrs. Connally was facing straight ahead when JFK and her husband were struck.  She did not therefore see her husband struck by the bullet, she saw what happened AFTER he was struck.  Clint Hill...you watch him in the Zapruder film.  He may have seen JFK's arms fly upward, but there's no way he saw where JFK put his hands, because at no time does JFK ever go near his throat with his hands.  On top of this, Clint Hill casually turns his  head towards the area where the guy with the umbrella is standing and keeps his head turned in that direction in the film until he disappears from the sprocket area.  I remember reading years and years ago that "An open umbrella to the Secret Service is like a red flag to a bull". So upon reading that and seeing what Clint Hill is doing after the second shot has been fired--and knowing from the Zapruder film the unnatural position JFK was in with both arms splayed outward at the elbows, and Mrs. Kennedy then reaching over and placing both hands on his left arm and holding him--that, alone, should have alerted the SS agents that something was wrong with "The Boss", and since Hill said he saw JFK's hands "at his throat" (which is impossible from his position) after hearing the sound of the shot--even he didn't react as he should have sooner than he did.  The fact is, is that you are going by what these agents said they did here and there (and unfortunately for us, no film footage caught them gawking around instead of running to protect the president when they should have) in their testimony which in my opinion is absolutely worthless because they didn't do their jobs that day, were gawking around the plaza, or just casually sitting in their seats watching the president react to be shot in the back and head when they had nearly 5 seconds to react and rush to the limousine and save JFK's life.  Your frame 276 rifle shot makes zero sense.  There is no reaction by the governor, the occupants of the car, or Zapruder's camera jiggle to support such a bullet striking the governor at that point.

The understanding of the assassination is completely different if there is not the assumption there was three shots. The SS heard the first shot looked around and 5 seconds later it was all over with the second shot being the headshot. It is entirely possible, LHO having the rifle retracted inside the window to evade detection, caused the "firecracker sound" vs the loud sound of the second shot.

Glenn Bennett: From his original hand written notes that were written on AF1 on the way back to Washington DC. He  describes  two shots not three. There are two statements less than 24 hours apart. This first one is from Bennet's handwritten statement.

"I heard a noise that minded me of a firecracker. Immediately hearing the supposed firecracker I looked at the bosses car. At this time I saw a shot that hit the bosses back about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.  A second shot followed immediately that hit right rear high of the bosses head. "

Protective Assignment of S/A Bennett on 11122/63
at Dallas, Texas
Air Force Two landed at Love Field, Dallas, Texas at 11:35 A.M. Upon deplaning, I covered the fence and press areas. The President's plane arrived at approximately 11 :38 A.M. I stayed with the President and First Lady during the time they greeted the crowd on the apron and along the fence. The greeting lasted for about 10 minutes and the President/First Lady entered their car and the motorcade planned to depart. I asked while moving towards the follow-up car what position I should take, Mr. Roberts informed me that I should take the right rear seat of the follow-up. I took this position and held it during the entire motorcade. I left this rear seat position at one point in the trip to assist in getting well-wishers away from the President's auto. About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. 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 limousine 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. I immediately hollered "he's hit'' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed.
The President's auto and the follow-up proceeded to the Parkland Hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital's parking lot, I was instructed by ASAIC Roberts to stay with the Vice-President who had followed us into the parking lot. I immediately went to the Vice-President's auto and accompanied him to a room on the ground floor of the hospital. I then continued with the Vice-President back to Washington, D.C. where I was relieved.
[signature]
Glen A. Bennett
Special Agent
11-23-63



-------------------------

Clint Hill was Jackies SS not JFK's. He was reacting to protect her not JFK.

Clint Hill -------two shots

Clint Hill heard the first shot and reacted to reach the car. The second shot or headshot took place while he was trying to reach the car.

On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left.

I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off;" then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy. SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward. I heard ASAIC Kellerman call SA Lawson on the two-way radio and say, "To the nearest hospital, quick." I shouted as loud as I could at the Lead car, "To the hospital, to the hospital."


The confusion with any of these people testimonies starts when a third shot is added to their testimonies. The point is in their original statements they only are aware of two shots and are then put into a position of inventing and then describing a shot that never happened so they are not aware of it and obviously never heard it.

[Andrew Mason]

  Andrew, I've been reading your stuff since you started this theory in the early 2000's at John McAdams newsgroup, and it still makes me shake my head in dismay that you are still arguing about this.   You should know by now that eyewitness accounts aren't always accurate, and this is why police officers do not rely totally on eyewitness accounts.   

Well, at least you acknowledge that the witness evidence supports the 3 shot 3 hit, 1........2...3 shot pattern scenario.  We just differ on the importance and usefulness of that witness evidence.

Since you have concluded there were three shots, why do you think the witnesses were overwhelmingly right on the number of shots but overwhelmingly wrong on their recall of what the shots struck,  and overwhelmingly wrong on the pattern of the shots?

Unlike others who agree with the WC's ultimate conclusion, I don't think that I am better able to determine what the witnesses observed than the vast majority of the witnesses themselves.

[Dan O'meara]

Well, at least you acknowledge that the witness evidence supports the 3 shot 3 hit, 1........2...3 shot pattern scenario.  We just differ on the importance and usefulness of that witness evidence.

Since you have concluded there were three shots, why do you think the witnesses were overwhelmingly right on the number of shots but overwhelmingly wrong on their recall of what the shots struck,  and overwhelmingly wrong on the pattern of the shots?

Unlike others who agree with the WC's ultimate conclusion, I don't think that I am better able to determine what the witnesses observed than the vast majority of the witnesses themselves.

"...the witness evidence supports the 3 shot 3 hit..."

No, it doesn't.
A few posts prior I provided a list of almost 50 witnesses whose various statements support a shot after the head shot.
There is no evidence that either JFK or JBC were hit after the head shot, meaning only the first two shots caused the injuries.
We are both aware that there is contradictory witness testimony regarding this aspect of the shooting but you don't seem prepared to acknowledge this fact.