The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

You have never been able to navigate the witness statements. It is a big enough quagmire for you that you felt the need to lie about BRW and James Jarman. Making any headway on why you did this? How about post BRW 11/22 Affidavit and James Jarman's 11/24 affidavit. That would clear it up.

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

The WC thought the likelihood that CE543 was an empty shell so much that it is included in the conclusion along with media influence. But you know this because it has been posted for you numerous times.

Summary from the Warren Commission Report (pages 110-111)
...."It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....

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


The same Joseph Nicol testified he thought CE543 had been dry fired based on evidence of multiple firing operations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.

Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence. Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group. of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its--how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review this testimony, Mr. Nicol, this is a mark which occurs on the base of the cartridge case, is that correct?


Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have anything you would like to add to your testimony on the rifle bullets or the rifle cartridge cases, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I don't think so.


You make a snap cap by pulling the bullet out of the shell with a pair of pliers, pour out the powder, point the rifle in a safe direction and fire the cartridge with the just the primer exploding, similar to a cap gun. Noisy but Bippity Boppety Boop you have a snap cap.

Major Anderson testified about the LHO's Marine Corp training and dryfiring.

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


Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by live firing, sir?
Major ANDERSON - By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?
Major ANDERSON - Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates

Mr. SPECTER - Would you outline the marksmanship training, if any, which a Marine recruit receives in the normal course of Marine training?
Major ANDERSON - He goes through a very intensive 3 weeks training period. During this 3 weeks for the first week he receives a basic training in the care and cleaning of the weapon. He learns sighting and aiming. He learns manipulation of the trigger.
He is exposed to various training aids. He goes through a series of exercises in what we call dry firing in which he assumes all of the positions that he is going to use in the full firing of the rifle over the qualification course

You felt the need to lie about BRW and James Jarman. Making any headway on why you did this? How about post BRW 11/22 Affidavit and James Jarman's 11/24 affidavit. That would clear it up.

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

The WC thought the likelyhood that CE543 was an empty shell so much that it is included in the conclusion along with media influence. But you know this because it has been posted for you numerous times.

Summary from the Warren Comission Report (pages 110-111)
...."It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....

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


The same Joseph Nicol testified he thought CE543 had been dry fired based on evidence of multiple firing operations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.

Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence. Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group. of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its--how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review this testimony, Mr. Nicol, this is a mark which occurs on the base of the cartridge case, is that correct?


Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have anything you would like to add to your testimony on the rifle bullets or the rifle cartridge cases, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I don't think so.


You make a snap cap by pulling the bullet out of the shell with a pair of pliers, pour out the powder, point the rifle in a safe direction and fire the cartridge with the just the primer exploding, similar to a cap gun. Noisy but Bippity Boppety Boop you have a snap cap.

Major Anderson testified about the LHO's Marine Corp training and dryfiring.

Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by live firing, sir?
Major ANDERSON - By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?
Major ANDERSON - Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates

Mr. SPECTER - Would you outline the marksmanship training, if any, which a Marine recruit receives in the normal course of Marine training?
Major ANDERSON - He goes through a very intensive 3 weeks training period. During this 3 weeks for the first week he receives a basic training in the care and cleaning of the weapon. He learns sighting and aiming. He learns manipulation of the trigger.
He is exposed to various training aids. He goes through a series of exercises in what we call dry firing in which he assumes all of the positions that he is going to use in the full firing of the rifle over the qualification course

Dr E Forrest Chapman also states CE543 had been dryfired.

Dr E Forrest Chapman, Michigan Forensic Pathologist,  one of three or four civilians allowed to examine evidence from the National Archives.
However, there is strong evidence that CE 543 was not, and could not have been, fired from Oswald's rifle on the day of the assassination. The only marks linking CE 543 to Oswald's rifle are marks from the rifle's magazine follower. According to Dr. Michael Kurtz and others, the case couldn't have received these marks from the magazine follower on the day of the assassination, because the last bullet in the clip must have been the unfired missile in the rifle's chamber (Kurtz, Crime of the Century, pp. 50-51). Dr. Kurtz also notes that CE 543 "lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle" (Crime of the Century, p. 51). Dr. E. Forrest Chapman studied the shell casings in 1973 and concluded (1) that CE 543 had most likely been dry loaded into a rifle, (2) that it had not been fired from the alleged murder weapon at the time of the shooting, and (3) that the indentation on the base of the case was characteristic only of a case that had been fired empty. Says Dr. Kurtz,
Dr. E. Forrest Chapman, forensic pathologist, who in 1973 was given access to the assassination materials in the National Archives, noted that Case 543 was probably "dry loaded" into a rifle. Since the dent [on the case] was too large for the case to have contained a bullet on November 22, it was never fired from Oswald's rifle. The empty case, however, for some unknown reason could have been loaded into a rifle, the trigger pulled, and the bolt operated. Dr. Chapman discovered this phenomenon through experiments of his own.
Dr. Chapman also noted that Case 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics. The FBI also reproduced this effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the FBI for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543.


Dr E Forrest Chapman also states CE543 had been dryfired.

Dr E Forrest Chapman, Michigan Forensic Pathologist,  one of three or four civilians allowed to examine evidence from the National Archives.
However, there is strong evidence that CE 543 was not, and could not have been, fired from Oswald's rifle on the day of the assassination. The only marks linking CE 543 to Oswald's rifle are marks from the rifle's magazine follower. According to Dr. Michael Kurtz and others, the case couldn't have received these marks from the magazine follower on the day of the assassination, because the last bullet in the clip must have been the unfired missile in the rifle's chamber (Kurtz, Crime of the Century, pp. 50-51). Dr. Kurtz also notes that CE 543 "lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle" (Crime of the Century, p. 51). Dr. E. Forrest Chapman studied the shell casings in 1973 and concluded (1) that CE 543 had most likely been dry loaded into a rifle, (2) that it had not been fired from the alleged murder weapon at the time of the shooting, and (3) that the indentation on the base of the case was characteristic only of a case that had been fired empty. Says Dr. Kurtz,
Dr. E. Forrest Chapman, forensic pathologist, who in 1973 was given access to the assassination materials in the National Archives, noted that Case 543 was probably "dry loaded" into a rifle. Since the dent [on the case] was too large for the case to have contained a bullet on November 22, it was never fired from Oswald's rifle. The empty case, however, for some unknown reason could have been loaded into a rifle, the trigger pulled, and the bolt operated. Dr. Chapman discovered this phenomenon through experiments of his own.
Dr. Chapman also noted that Case 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics. The FBI also reproduced this effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the FBI for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543.

You might have already mentioned this but how many shell casings do you think were found on the 6th floor?

[Jack Nessan]

You might have already mentioned this but how many shell casings do you think were found on the 6th floor?

Summary from the Warren Commission Report (pages 110-111)
...."It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot.

The same as the WC. Two that had been fired in the assassination, plus one shell that had been used for dryfiring, which had been ejected before the assassination. The chamber mark from the carcano on CE544 and CE545 and absent on C543 the shows they had this right.

The indentation on CE544 being somewhat more pronounced than CE545 indicates CE545 was fired first.

[Andrew Mason]

You have never been able to navigate the witness statements. It is a big enough quagmire for you that you felt the need to lie about BRW and James Jarman. Making any headway on why you did this? How about post BRW 11/22 Affidavit and James Jarman's 11/24 affidavit. That would clear it up.

Bonnie Ray Williams initially said that he heard 2 shots but later said he heard 3. He also testified to the WC that he heard 3 shots. So the best you can do with Williams is say that he wasn't sure whether there were two shots or three shots.

I wasn't aware that Jarman gave a statement on November 24/63.  He gave one on November 23/63 and did not deal with the shots.  In his WC testimony he said there were three shots, "and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one".

Just curious: how do you think I lied about Williams and Jarman?

The WC thought the likelihood that CE543 was an empty shell so much that it is included in the conclusion along with media influence. But you know this because it has been posted for you numerous times.

Summary from the Warren Commission Report (pages 110-111)
...."It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....

They were not suggesting that CE543 was not fired as a full cartridge (shell+bullet+powder) in Oswald's rifle C2766.  That is all we are talking about. You were suggesting it had never been fired in the MC with a bullet and gunpowder.  Frazier and Nicol based their conclusion that the three shells had been fired in the MC on the bolt-face impressions as well as the firing pin impression.  That can only occur if the shell contained a bullet and gunpowder when fired.

The same Joseph Nicol testified he thought CE543 had been dry fired based on evidence of multiple firing operations.

Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.

Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence. Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group. of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its--how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.

They are talking about loading and unloading the full cartridge with the bolt action and the marks made on the shell from those actions.  They are not talking about the bolt-face impression when the shell recoils back against the bolt-face which only occurs upon firing.

Dry firing to me means pulling the trigger with no ammunition in the chamber.  I think they are talking about dry-firing as operating the gun's bolt-action to load and eject full cartridges without firing them.

You make a snap cap by pulling the bullet out of the shell with a pair of pliers, pour out the powder, point the rifle in a safe direction and fire the cartridge with the just the primer exploding, similar to a cap gun. Noisy but Bippity Boppety Boop you have a snap cap.

Yes. But a snap cap does not have a bolt-face impression because there is no recoil back against the bolt-face.

[Jack Nessan]

Bonnie Ray Williams initially said that he heard 2 shots but later said he heard 3. He also testified to the WC that he heard 3 shots. So the best you can do with Williams is say that he wasn't sure whether there were two shots or three shots.

I wasn't aware that Jarman gave a statement on November 24/63.  He gave one on November 23/63 and did not deal with the shots.  In his WC testimony he said there were three shots, "and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one".

Just curious: how do you think I lied about Williams and Jarman?
They were not suggesting that CE543 was not fired as a full cartridge (shell+bullet+powder) in Oswald's rifle C2766.  That is all we are talking about. You were suggesting it had never been fired in the MC with a bullet and gunpowder.  Frazier and Nicol based their conclusion that the three shells had been fired in the MC on the bolt-face impressions as well as the firing pin impression.  That can only occur if the shell contained a bullet and gunpowder when fired.
They are talking about loading and unloading the full cartridge with the bolt action and the marks made on the shell from those actions.  They are not talking about the bolt-face impression when the shell recoils back against the bolt-face which only occurs upon firing.

Dry firing to me means pulling the trigger with no ammunition in the chamber.  I think they are talking about dry-firing as operating the gun's bolt-action to load and eject full cartridges without firing them.
Yes. But a snap cap does not have a bolt-face impression because there is no recoil back against the bolt-face.

Excellent choice for witnesses. Both witnesses completely prove a shot there was only two shots and a shot at Z250+ is fantasy.

BRW proves the WC and HSCA's contention that the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. BRW originally states there was only two shots and then he later adds a third shot.

WC: "Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....

HSCA: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

No doubt you don't want to post James Jarman's statement from 11/24. He repeatedly states in it and his WC statement that the second shot is the headshot and then a shot after the car accelerates to leave.

11/24 James Jarman:

"He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building."

WC: Mr. Jarman.
A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.

It is obvious why you lied about these witnesses and what they stated. The odd thing is that you would have chosen them in the first place.

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

Wrong


The rest of this is nothing more than your opinion. Given the fluid nature of your facts, discussing your opinion seems pointless.

[Andrew Mason]

Excellent choice for witnesses. Both witnesses completely prove a shot there was only two shots and a shot at Z250+ is fantasy.

BRW proves the WC and HSCA's contention that the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. BRW originally states there was only two shots and then he later adds a third shot.

No.  It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were.  Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots.  How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3? 

WC: "Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....

HSCA: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots?  Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination. 

No doubt you don't want to post James Jarman's statement from 11/24. He repeatedly states in it and his WC statement that the second shot is the headshot and then a shot after the car accelerates to leave.

11/24 James Jarman:

"He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building."

WC: Mr. Jarman.
A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.

It is obvious why you lied about these witnesses and what they stated. The odd thing is that you would have chosen them in the first place.

First of all, it helps when you provide a cite.  The cite is WCD 5, 334-335.  For some reason it is not included in the WC index or in Stuart Galanor's list of witnesses and their statements.

In this statement, James Jarman does not say that the second shot was the head shot.  Where do you get that?  And he clearly states that there were three shots.  Again, why do you think he is saying there were only two?

The vehicle started to speed up about a second after the head shot (about 3 seconds after the second shot, if the second shot was around z271 or 2.3 seconds before the last shot).  He never describes the head shot.  He did not say that the car speeded up between the second and third shots.   We know that the car did not speed up before the head shot. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and Jarman does not say that it wasn't. 

[Dan O'meara]

No.  It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were.  Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots.  How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3? 
What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots?  Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination. 

First of all, it helps when you provide a cite.  The cite is WCD 5, 334-335.  For some reason it is not included in the WC index or in Stuart Galanor's list of witnesses and their statements.

In this statement, James Jarman does not say that the second shot was the head shot.  Where do you get that?  And he clearly states that there were three shots.  Again, why do you think he is saying there were only two?

The vehicle started to speed up about a second after the head shot (about 3 seconds after the second shot, if the second shot was around z271 or 2.3 seconds before the last shot).  He never describes the head shot.  He did not say that the car speeded up between the second and third shots.   We know that the car did not speed up before the head shot. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and Jarman does not say that it wasn't.

"There is abundant evidence that the head shot"

There is conflicting evidence that the head-shot was the last shot.

[Jack Nessan]

No.  It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were.  Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots.  How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3? 
What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots?  Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination. 

First of all, it helps when you provide a cite.  The cite is WCD 5, 334-335.  For some reason it is not included in the WC index or in Stuart Galanor's list of witnesses and their statements.

In this statement, James Jarman does not say that the second shot was the head shot.  Where do you get that?  And he clearly states that there were three shots.  Again, why do you think he is saying there were only two?

The vehicle started to speed up about a second after the head shot (about 3 seconds after the second shot, if the second shot was around z271 or 2.3 seconds before the last shot).  He never describes the head shot.  He did not say that the car speeded up between the second and third shots.   We know that the car did not speed up before the head shot. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and Jarman does not say that it wasn't.

The witness statements stand on their own merit and do not require your explanation. The only explanation for the adding a shot to their original statements, that makes sense at all, is the WC's and HSCA's explanation about media influence. Keep telling yourself media influence. It was media influence creating the phantom third shot. Media influence.

 There is a 5.3 second spacing between BRW's first and second shot. He specifically states he heard two shots. There is a 5.3 second spacing between Jarman's first and second shot. Jarman adds a shot as the car accelerates to leave. He states there was a shot as the car accelerates to leave. "Speeded up" like in accelerating to leave. I have no idea what you are referring to.

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

Thanks again for referencing to these two witnesses, they resolve the issue for you about a shot at Z250+.  There wasn't one.

Just curious, your whole identity seems to revolve around this fantasy shot. What theory will you be proposing now? How about there was an echo. You would actually be correct, new territory.  LHO took the first shot with the rifle barrel retracted inside the building and the second shot was taken with the barrel outside the window.