The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

Mr. Frazier: These three cartridge cases [CE-543, CE-544, and CE-545] were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon [Oswald's Carcano].

The firing pin did strike the primer on CE 543 but the shell casing was being used as a snap cap to protect the firing pin. No bullet or powder is present in the shell casing.

This is what the WC was postulating in their conclusion when it was suggested one shell casing was used for dryfiring. The firing pin would have struck the primer and left a mark. It was common knowledge to use a shell casing to protect the firing pin from overextending in the bolt and breaking the firing pin at the base. CE 543 is the only shell casing lacking the chambering mark on its side out of the 30+ viewed by Josiah Thompson.

 Dr E Forest Chapman after having viewed the shells in the Archives wrote an article published in the New American detailing the use of CE 543 for just the purpose of dryfiring. Dr Joseph Nicols gave testimony to the WC on the very subject of dryfiring.

[Andrew Mason]

Why was she looking back towards the TSBD in Z-145?

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z145.jpg

She wasn't. She was looking at the motorcade:

[Andrew Mason]

Two shots are all there ever were. Just like the eyewitnesses stated and the physical evidence has shown.

A bit of an overstatement.  Out of 178 witnesses tallied by the HSCA, there were about 17 witnesses who said they recalled only two shots. 7 said they heard two or three shots. 132 said there were exactly three distinct shots.  The physical evidence shows 3 shells on the floor. Harold Norman said he heard three bolt action reloads and three shells hit the floor.

[Tom Graves]

She wasn't. She was looking at the motorcade:

Since she isn't looking at JFK or Jackie, which other charismatic person farther back in the motorcade is she looking at?

LBJ?

[Zeon Mason]

The Max Holland theory of a 1st shot fired from the TSBD 6th floor SE window just before Zapruder restarted his  camera at Z133, is a theory which is not supported by the vast majority of the ear witnesses , nor by the examination of the traffic light pole.

The closest ear witness right under the 6th floor TSBD shooter , Harold Norman, NEVER demonstrated that he heard 4 shots fired over 10-11 secs. At best , an LN may be able to claim that Norman’s  “boom click click” sequence is close enough to 6 secs in duration ( although it’s actually only about 4 secs).

It is ludicrous to suggest that Norman heard 3 shots spread over a 10-11 sec duration.

Earth to Major Tom. Your Max Holland theory is off by about 6 secs so please stop repeating that Rosemary Willis is looking back at TSBD at Z145 , because as your own posted link shows, SHE IS NOT looking back.

How about instead, try to demonstrate via scientific physics study, what the degree of probability that a 6.5 mm ball nosed fired from the TSBD SN window , striking the round surface of the traffic pole , would deflect to hit the manhole cover on Elm st.

Then prove the bullet shed its copper jacket after deflecting off the manhole cover , uprooted some grass without burying into the dirt, and that only a lead fragment traveled across the grass lawn of Dealey plaza to strike the curb near James Tague.

An actual physics study  of a  6.5mm ball nose bullet striking the round horizontal part of the traffic pole at the angle (whatever it actually is) , plus the velocity of the bullet , rotation of the bullet , and deflection probability angle, would be a more objective way of determining what the degree of probability is for Max Hollands theory.

Even if this hypothetical trajectory could be demonstrated  to be plausible by physics study, it still would not match with James Tague recollection that it was either the 2nd shot or the 3rd shot hitting the curb which caused his facial wound.

Perhaps you can discard that part of Hollands theory and stick with the other unsubstantiated LN theory that a lead fragment from the Z 313 head, hit the curb near Tague.

One last criticism of Max Hollands imaginative Traffic light pole obstruction theory is that it requires believing that a reasonably trained shooter like Oswald ( or conspirator shooter) would not notice the light pole in advance as an obstacle. It’s even more inconceivable that when the shooter lined up the iron sights ( or the reticle of scope) with JFKs body that he would not have noticed the light pole obstructing his LOS. It’s highly doubtful he would have squeezed the trigger at this intersection of pole and JFKs body as he observed it thru the irons sights or using the scope reticle.

[Tom Graves]

The Max Holland theory of a 1st shot fired from the TSBD 6th floor SE window just before Zapruder restarted his  camera at Z133, is a theory which is not supported by the vast majority of the ear witnesses , nor by the examination of the traffic light pole.

The closest ear witness right under the 6th floor TSBD shooter , Harold Norman, NEVER demonstrated that he heard 4 shots fired over 10-11 secs. At best , an LN may be able to claim that Norman’s  “boom click click” sequence is close enough to 6 secs in duration ( although it’s actually only about 4 secs).

It is ludicrous to suggest that Norman heard 3 shots spread over a 10-11 sec duration.

Earth to Major Tom. Your Max Holland theory is off by about 6 secs so please stop repeating that Rosemary Willis is looking back at TSBD at Z145 , because as your own posted link shows, SHE IS NOT looking back.

How about instead, try to demonstrate via scientific physics study, what the degree of probability that a 6.5 mm ball nosed fired from the TSBD SN window , striking the round surface of the traffic pole , would deflect to hit the manhole cover on Elm st.

Then prove the bullet shed its copper jacket after deflecting off the manhole cover , uprooted some grass without burying into the dirt, and that only a lead fragment traveled across the grass lawn of Dealey plaza to strike the curb near James Tague.

An actual physics study  of a  6.5mm ball nose bullet striking the round horizontal part of the traffic pole at the angle (whatever it actually is) , plus the velocity of the bullet , rotation of the bullet , and deflection probability angle, would be a more objective way of determining what the degree of probability is for Max Hollands theory.

Even if this hypothetical trajectory could be demonstrated  to be plausible by physics study, it still would not match with James Tague recollection that it was either the 2nd shot or the 3rd shot hitting the curb which caused his facial wound.

Perhaps you can discard that part of Hollands theory and stick with the other unsubstantiated LN theory that a lead fragment from the Z 313 head, hit the curb near Tague.

One last criticism of Max Hollands imaginative Traffic light pole obstruction theory is that it requires believing that a reasonably trained shooter like Oswald ( or conspirator shooter) would not notice the light pole in advance as an obstacle. It’s even more inconceivable that when the shooter lined up the iron sights ( or the reticle of scope) with JFKs body that he would not have noticed the light pole obstructing his LOS. It’s highly doubtful he would have squeezed the trigger at this intersection of pole and JFKs body as he observed it thru the irons sights or using the scope reticle.

Why are you obsessed with Max Holland's probably incorrect 2007 theory?

[Andrew Mason]

Since she isn't looking at JFK or Jackie, which other charismatic person farther back in the motorcade is she looking at?

LBJ?

Her hood opening is facing the President’s car.  What are you looking at?

[Tom Graves]

Her hood opening is facing the President’s car.

In Z-145, her hood opening is indeed "facing" a large area (and it's even kinda "facing" the limo), she's tilting her head upwards a bit, and she's twisting her upper torso far to her to her right -- which she wouldn't be doing if she was looking at the limo.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z145.jpg

Why not?

Because the limo is farther down the street than she is, as evidenced by simply looking at their relative positions in Z-145 and by watching the Elsie Dorman film and realizing that she starts fading out of the frame to the left after the 19-second mark.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=491702108350376