The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

"...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.

I'll let Steve Barber speak for himself. But my understanding is that he believes the first shot missed and the head shot was the third and last shot.

As far as your third shot after the head shot is concerned, the Connallys, Hickey, Greer, Altgens, Mary Woodward, Gayle Newman, Dave Powers and Clint Hill disagreed with you. These witnesses had distinct recollections either that the head shot was the last shot (Connallys, Hickey, Altgens, Woodward, Newman, Powers) or that, together with the zfilm, establish the head shot as the last shot (Greer and Hill).  Your arguments to the contrary do not persuade me that there was a shot after the head shot.

I have yet to find any witness other than Emmett Hudson in his July 1964 testimony (which contradicts his earlier statements in several key respects) who made a statement that the head shot was definitely not the last shot. 

You have offered Pat Speer's list of witnesses but none, except Hudson, said that the head shot was not the last shot.  According to Speer, anyone who recalled the headshot but recalled hearing only two shots would be classified as a witness supporting a shot after the head shot. That is simply not true.  The best that you can say is that their evidence does not preclude a third shot after the head shot if, as we both agree,  there were three shots.  But, by the same token, their evidence does not preclude the head shot being the last shot (with a second shot sounding before the head shot, being the shot that they did not recall).

[Dan O'meara]

I'll let Steve Barber speak for himself. But my understanding is that he believes the first shot missed and the head shot was the third and last shot.

As far as your third shot after the head shot is concerned, the Connallys, Hickey, Greer, Altgens, Mary Woodward, Gayle Newman, Dave Powers and Clint Hill disagreed with you. These witnesses had distinct recollections either that the head shot was the last shot (Connallys, Hickey, Altgens, Woodward, Newman, Powers) or that, together with the zfilm, establish the head shot as the last shot (Greer and Hill).  Your arguments to the contrary do not persuade me that there was a shot after the head shot.

John Connally, Altgens and Hill only heard two shots.
The total statements of Hickey, Greer and Woodward support a shot after the head shot. Hickey and Woodward's statements have been dealt with a few posts back which you mustn't have read.

I have yet to find any witness other than Emmett Hudson in his July 1964 testimony (which contradicts his earlier statements in several key respects) who made a statement that the head shot was definitely not the last shot. 

Again, it is clear you've not read the post I am referring to. In it I post a statement from Harry Holmes:

"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..."

He is clearly describing a shot after the head shot

You have offered Pat Speer's list of witnesses but none, except Hudson, said that the head shot was not the last shot.

As demonstrated above, this is not true. Off the top of my head I know Brehm and Templin also state unequivocally there was a shot after the head shot.

According to Speer, anyone who recalled the headshot but recalled hearing only two shots would be classified as a witness supporting a shot after the head shot.

This is absolutely not true so I will not ask you to back this statement up.

Your collection of witnesses have been reduced to Nellie Connally, Dave Powers and Gayle Newman.

[Andrew Mason]

John Connally, Altgens and Hill only heard two shots.

That is true for Connally and Hill, but not Altgens.  In any event not recalling hearing three shots doesn't mean that they did not provide clear evidence that there was no shot after the head shot.

Connally (4H141):
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was  shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.

On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven’t seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.

Altgens: (7H518)
I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot-that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.

Hill recalled hearing only two shots but the last shot he heard was the head shot. This fits with what Greer said and what is shown in the zfilm, that the shot after JBC fell back and as Greer was turned rearward the second time, there was a third and final shot which we can see was the head shot.

The total statements of Hickey, Greer and Woodward support a shot after the head shot. Hickey and Woodward's statements have been dealt with a few posts back which you mustn't have read.

I strongly disagree.  How you can ignore Hickey's clear statement that the second shot did not appear to strike JFK but the third did is a remarkable example of confirmation bias: trying to fit the evidence to a theory.  I have no idea how you think Greer provides evidence of a shot after the head shot. Neither of his statements prior to his WC testimony mention three shots but make it clear that he saw Gov. Connally start to fall when he looked back after the second shot.  We can see him turn to look back from z280 or so to z292 as JBC begins to fall back onto his wife.  Woodward did not describe the head shot in her Dallas Morning News report but that does not mean she did not see it or recall which of the shots it was.  She gave several interviews later. Here is one from 1993 where she describes the headshot being the third and last shot (beginning at 2:00):

Again, it is clear you've not read the post I am referring to. In it I post a statement from Harry Holmes:

"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..."

He is clearly describing a shot after the head shot

Where does this statement come from?  Do you have a cite with a date?  His WC statement is very different (7H291):

I had my binoculars on this car, on the Presidential car all the time. I realized something was wrong, but I thought they were dodging somebody throwing things at the car like firecrackers or something, but I did see dust fly up like a firecracker had burst up in the air.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see the dust?
Mr. HOLMES. Off of President Kennedy and I couldn’t tell you which one of the cracks of the firecracker resulted in this.

As demonstrated above, this is not true. Off the top of my head I know Brehm and Templin also state unequivocally there was a shot after the head shot.

Brehm said he saw hair fly up on the right side of JFK's head on the second shot.  Driver SA Kinney reported seeing the same thing.  This is interesting because this could be used to support Hickey's recollection that the hair on the right side of JFK's head flew up on the second shot but did not appear to hit him.  Now, you might say that would be an odd thing to recall seeing and not describe seeing the head explode.  But that assumes that they were focused on the President at the time of the third shot.  Maybe they weren't.  Unfortunately, they were never questioned.

As far as Templin is concerned, there are no statements taken from him at any time remotely close to the events in question.  Do you have a cite for any statement of his that you think fits the third shot miss scenario?

[Dan O'meara]

That is true for Connally and Hill, but not Altgens.  In any event not recalling hearing three shots doesn't mean that they did not provide clear evidence that there was no shot after the head shot.

Connally (4H141):
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was  shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.

On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven’t seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.

Altgens: (7H518)
I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot-that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.

Hill recalled hearing only two shots but the last shot he heard was the head shot. This fits with what Greer said and what is shown in the zfilm, that the shot after JBC fell back and as Greer was turned rearward the second time, there was a third and final shot which we can see was the head shot.

Anyone who reports only hearing two shots doesn't know when the "missing" shot was fired.
That's obvious.

I strongly disagree.  How you can ignore Hickey's clear statement that the second shot did not appear to strike JFK but the third did is a remarkable example of confirmation bias: trying to fit the evidence to a theory.

The interpretation is based on Speer's work. It has already been dealt with in this thread and, rather than rely on a single, confused statement, it takes all his statements into account.

I have no idea how you think Greer provides evidence of a shot after the head shot. Neither of his statements prior to his WC testimony mention three shots but make it clear that he saw Gov. Connally start to fall when he looked back after the second shot.  We can see him turn to look back from z280 or so to z292 as JBC begins to fall back onto his wife.  Woodward did not describe the head shot in her Dallas Morning News report but that does not mean she did not see it or recall which of the shots it was.  She gave several interviews later. Here is one from 1993 where she describes the headshot being the third and last shot (beginning at 2:10)

Woodward has already been dealt with in this thread.
Greer's many vague statements about the shooting can be interpreted in various ways, Speer's has this to say:

"As Greer, in his original statement, failed to mention how many shots he heard, and as he only told the Warren Commission he heard three shots after being asked a direct question, it seems possible he was trying to skirt the issue. Still, he let what was probably his true impressions sneak into his testimony. He testified that after Kellerman told him to “take off,” he couldn’t remember how many “shots or noises” he heard--when officially there could be but one. He also let it slip that after he turned back around from looking at Connally, which he does not do till frame 318, he heard another shot “right immediately after.” Sounds like the man heard four shots. That he later told an HSCA investigator he could recall hearing but two shots suggests the possibility he realized his predicament, and had convinced himself that he'd heard but two shots and their echoes."

Where does this statement come from?  Do you have a cite with a date?  His WC statement is very different (7H291):

I had my binoculars on this car, on the Presidential car all the time. I realized something was wrong, but I thought they were dodging somebody throwing things at the car like firecrackers or something, but I did see dust fly up like a firecracker had burst up in the air.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see the dust?
Mr. HOLMES. Off of President Kennedy and I couldn’t tell you which one of the cracks of the firecracker resulted in this.

No More Silence, p.351-374, published 1998

Brehm said he saw hair fly up on the right side of JFK's head on the second shot.  Driver SA Kinney reported seeing the same thing.  This is interesting because this could be used to support Hickey's recollection that the hair on the right side of JFK's head flew up on the second shot but did not appear to hit him.  Now, you might say that would be an odd thing to recall seeing and not describe seeing the head explode.  But that assumes that they were focused on the President at the time of the third shot.  Maybe they weren't.  Unfortunately, they were never questioned.

You're now dragging Brehm into the "fringe ruffle" nonsense?
It's a reference to the head shot - when large chunks of scalp flew upwards.

"According to Brehm, the President seemed 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."     [11-24-63 interview with the FBI, 22H837-838]

As far as Templin is concerned, there are no statements taken from him at any time remotely close to the events in question.  Do you have a cite for any statement of his that you think fits the third shot miss scenario?

"...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.
(When asked if he heard a third shot) "Yes sir, I did, but I had already turned my attention to where I thought maybe the shots were coming from—behind us. I didn’t know exactly where"                                                                                     
                                                                                     [7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]

Note that, yet again, Templin is specifically equating the head shot with hair flying up ("I could see his hair depart from his head")


Obviously we are now in the tit-for-tat world of contradictory eye-witness evidence.
The original point being a shot after the head shot is most certainly not ruled out by the eye-witness testimony, far from it, there is just as much, if not more, witness testimony supporting a shot after the head shot than there is for 3 shots, 3 hits.

[Jack Nessan]

Anyone who reports only hearing two shots doesn't know when the "missing" shot was fired.
That's obvious.

The interpretation is based on Speer's work. It has already been dealt with in this thread and, rather than rely on a single, confused statement, it takes all his statements into account.

Woodward has already been dealt with in this thread.
Greer's many vague statements about the shooting can be interpreted in various ways, Speer's has this to say:

"As Greer, in his original statement, failed to mention how many shots he heard, and as he only told the Warren Commission he heard three shots after being asked a direct question, it seems possible he was trying to skirt the issue. Still, he let what was probably his true impressions sneak into his testimony. He testified that after Kellerman told him to “take off,” he couldn’t remember how many “shots or noises” he heard--when officially there could be but one. He also let it slip that after he turned back around from looking at Connally, which he does not do till frame 318, he heard another shot “right immediately after.” Sounds like the man heard four shots. That he later told an HSCA investigator he could recall hearing but two shots suggests the possibility he realized his predicament, and had convinced himself that he'd heard but two shots and their echoes."


No More Silence, p.351-374, published 1998
You're now dragging Brehm into the "fringe ruffle" nonsense?
It's a reference to the head shot - when large chunks of scalp flew upwards.

"According to Brehm, the President seemed 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."     [11-24-63 interview with the FBI, 22H837-838]

"...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.
(When asked if he heard a third shot) "Yes sir, I did, but I had already turned my attention to where I thought maybe the shots were coming from—behind us. I didn’t know exactly where"                                                                                     
                                                                                     [7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]

Note that, yet again, Templin is specifically equating the head shot with hair flying up ("I could see his hair depart from his head")


Obviously we are now in the tit-for-tat world of contradictory eye-witness evidence.
The original point being a shot after the head shot is most certainly not ruled out by the eye-witness testimony, far from it, there is just as much, if not more, witness testimony supporting a shot after the head shot than there is for 3 shots, 3 hits.

Three obvious observations. You are ignoring the vast majority of the eyewitness testimony, the shell evidence, bullet evidence, and why would anyone shoot at two men lying down on the seats and then to add insult to injury miss the whole car?

A number of these witnesses started out as two shot witnesses and then added the third shot to what they already had witnessed. The only place that made sense to them, based on what they knew, was to add a shot after the headshot. Two shots only is supported by all the evidence. This scenario is not supported by any evidence.

Altgens:

"There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

[Andrew Mason]

Anyone who reports only hearing two shots doesn't know when the "missing" shot was fired.
That's obvious.

Are you saying that anyone who receives a bullet to the torso and feels it will necessarily recall hearing a muzzle blast arriving at their ears 100 ms. later?  What is it about Connally's testimony that he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot that you find difficult to accept?

The interpretation is based on Speer's work. It has already been dealt with in this thread and, rather than rely on a single, confused statement, it takes all his statements into account.

Woodward has already been dealt with in this thread.
Greer's many vague statements about the shooting can be interpreted in various ways, Speer's has this to say:

"As Greer, in his original statement, failed to mention how many shots he heard, and as he only told the Warren Commission he heard three shots after being asked a direct question, it seems possible he was trying to skirt the issue. Still, he let what was probably his true impressions sneak into his testimony. He testified that after Kellerman told him to “take off,” he couldn’t remember how many “shots or noises” he heard--when officially there could be but one. He also let it slip that after he turned back around from looking at Connally, which he does not do till frame 318, he heard another shot “right immediately after.” Sounds like the man heard four shots. That he later told an HSCA investigator he could recall hearing but two shots suggests the possibility he realized his predicament, and had convinced himself that he'd heard but two shots and their echoes."


No More Silence, p.351-374, published 1998
You're now dragging Brehm into the "fringe ruffle" nonsense?
It's a reference to the head shot - when large chunks of scalp flew upwards.

"According to Brehm, the President seemed 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."     [11-24-63 interview with the FBI, 22H837-838]

"...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.
(When asked if he heard a third shot) "Yes sir, I did, but I had already turned my attention to where I thought maybe the shots were coming from—behind us. I didn’t know exactly where"                                                                                     
                                                                                     [7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]

So Brehm admitted that he was not looking at JFK at the time of the third shot.  Having seen JFK's hair fly up and then seeing him with head damage to the right side of his head after the third shot, it would not be surprising for him to conclude that JFK was hit on the second shot. That is completely consistent with what Hickey observed, which is consistent with the second shot just missing and causing JFK's hair to fly up and the third shot striking him in the head.

Note that, yet again, Templin is specifically equating the head shot with hair flying up ("I could see his hair depart from his head")


Obviously we are now in the tit-for-tat world of contradictory eye-witness evidence.
The original point being a shot after the head shot is most certainly not ruled out by the eye-witness testimony, far from it, there is just as much, if not more, witness testimony supporting a shot after the head shot than there is for 3 shots, 3 hits.

I notice that you did not provide the cite for the Holmes statement that contradicts his WC testimony and you have not provided any cite for any statement by Templin. 

[Andrew Mason]

Three obvious observations. You are ignoring the vast majority of the eyewitness testimony, the shell evidence, bullet evidence, and why would anyone shoot at two men lying down on the seats and then to add insult to injury miss the whole car?

It is a fair point about why the shooter would fire after an obvious hit on the head shot.  But your argument is that there were only two shots, which ignores the eyewitness testimony and the shell evidence showing shell impressions indicating that all three shells had been fired as complete cartridges in Oswald's MC.

Altgens:

"There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

You are conveniently leaving out the part: "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between."