The First Shot

[John Corbett]

A seemingly innocuous detail from the testimony of Ronald Fischer gave me a potentially new insight into the mind of the assassin in the moments immediately before the assassination.
Other researchers have the assassin stood up, firing into the street below him, bullets ricocheting off traffic light poles or firing through the oak tree, blasting through branches of the tree and other such nonsense - as if the assassin hadn't already decided exactly what he was going to do beforehand and was instead just taking random potshots as the Presidential limo passed by the TSBD.

This is the relevant passage from Fischer's WC testimony:

"And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds. It was until the first car came around the corner of Houston and Main. And, then, when that car did come around the corner, I took my attention off of the man in the window and started watching the parade. The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he appeared uncomfortable for one, and, secondly, he wasn't watching-uh---he didn't look like he was watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and the triple underpass down at the end-toward the end of Ell Street. And--uh--all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he never-he never moved anything. Just was there transfixed."

Fischer only looks away from the assassin because the motorcade has finally reached the end of Main Street.
In the 10-15 seconds he stares at this man, the assassin never looks to where the motorcade is coming into view. For that whole period of time the assassin stares in the direction of the triple underpass, he never moves his head, never moves his body, just stares towards the triple underpass - "transfixed".
What is it that the assassin is staring at?
Why does he seem uninterested in the motorcade?
What could possibly be of interest to the assassin down towards the triple underpass when his target, in the motorcade, is about to come into view in a matter of seconds?

In my opinion, it is the word "transfixed" that provides the key to understanding what is going on in the mind of the assassin.
He is visualising the kill zone.
He has already decided exactly where he is going to assassinate his target.
As he looks towards the triple underpass he is aware of the oak tree but is more focused on the stretch of open road just beyond the oak tree. He has already decided that once the limo has emerged from behind the oak tree and is out in the open, he will pull the trigger.
The first shot does not occur before the limo has reached the oak tree.
It does not occur while the limo is obscured by the oak tree.
It occurs when the limo has emerged from behind the oak tree and is out in the open stretch of road just beyond the oak tree.
The open stretch of road the assassin has been transfixed on as the motorcade reaches the end of Main Street.
In perfect agreement with the first shot at z222/223 I've been arguing for in the bulk of this thread



Above is the view from the SN window the assassin was staring at, "transfixed".
As far as the assassin is concerned there is only one feature of interest - the open stretch of road beyond the oak tree.
It is at this point the limo will be moving almost directly away from him, with minimal lateral movement.
It makes perfect sense that the assassin has already made up his mind regarding his plan of action.
The idea that he starts taking random potshots as the limo passes the TSBD won't fly. The idea that he is rushing so much he needs to fire through the oak tree won't fly.
Look at the picture above, if you were the assassin, when would you pull the trigger?

Taking the earlier difficult shot gave Oswald an extra chance to hit JFK. He  could still be able to take the easier later shots if he missed which he did. It could be argued that by taking the early first shot, he could have cost himself a chance at the later shots, but that didn't happen. That was a decision Oswald had to make and the fact someone else might have made a different choice proves nothing. Given that Oswald eventually succeeded in what he was trying to do, I see no reason to second guess his choice.

[Andrew Mason]

What a sh3t interpretation of witness testimony.
What a waste of everyone's time.
Why did you even bother with such a crass and childish post?

And this from the Nutter who bases his whole opinion about this issue on a single witness.
#hypocrisy
#stupidity

It is one thing for 44 witnesses not to immediately recognize a sound as a gunshot. It is quite another thing for all 44 to continue failing to realize the first loud noise was a gunshot after realizing that the next two similar loud noises were gunshots. That is absurd. 

[Royell Storing]

It is one thing for 44 witnesses not to immediately recognize a sound as a gunshot. It is quite another thing for all 44 to continue failing to realize the first loud noise was a gunshot after realizing that the next two similar loud noises were gunshots. That is absurd.

   Maybe the shot #1 sounded different than shots #2 and #3? Different guns?

[Dan O'meara]

Taking the earlier difficult shot gave Oswald an extra chance to hit JFK. He  could still be able to take the easier later shots if he missed which he did. It could be argued that by taking the early first shot, he could have cost himself a chance at the later shots, but that didn't happen. That was a decision Oswald had to make and the fact someone else might have made a different choice proves nothing. Given that Oswald eventually succeeded in what he was trying to do, I see no reason to second guess his choice.

This is all just made up nonsense based on nothing.

I am offering a witness report observing the shooter staring "transfixed" for 10 - 15 seconds in the direction of the underpass.
This was seconds before the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza.
I offer an image showing what the shooter was looking at, the area in which we see both men actually reacting to being shot in the Z-film.
It makes complete sense that the shooter is focussed on the 'kill zone'.
The arrangement of boxes, known as the Sniper's Perch, also demonstrates the direction in which the shooter intended to fire. He put these boxes in position with the shooting in mind.

Like all true Nutters, you labour under the delusion that what you think is a fact, just because you think it.
There was no early shot.
Both men were shot through at z222/z223.
This is based solely on the mountain of valid evidence pointing to this conclusion.
Your opinion is based on a single witness.

[Andrew Mason]

Like all true Nutters, you labour under the delusion that what you think is a fact, just because you think it.
There was no early shot.
Both men were shot through at z222/z223.
This is based solely on the mountain of valid evidence pointing to this conclusion.
Your opinion is based on a single witness.

Not all. I certainly agree there was no early missed shot.  So did the Connallys.  The problem with your scenario is that it conflicts with the Connally’s clear recollections that JBC was not struck in the back by the first shot..

[Dan O'meara]

Not all. I certainly agree there was no early missed shot.  So did the Connallys.  The problem with your scenario is that it conflicts with the Connally’s clear recollections that JBC was not struck in the back by the first shot..

Ironically, this is the same single witness Corbett bases the entirety of his opinion on.
A man who went into shock after suffering a life-threatening, massively traumatic gunshot injury through the torso.
There is copious research highlighting the effects such a traumatic injury can have on the memory recall of the victims.
There is ample evidence that Connally is suffering from a number of these effects.
He is possibly the most unreliable witness to the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
Researchers like yourself and Corbett treat him as if he were a bystander recalling what he witnessed. At no point do either of you acknowledge how the trauma and shock of his life-threatening injury may have affected his recall of events.

[John Corbett]

Ironically, this is the same single witness Corbett bases the entirety of his opinion on.
A man who went into shock after suffering a life-threatening, massively traumatic gunshot injury through the torso.
There is copious research highlighting the effects such a traumatic injury can have on the memory recall of the victims.
There is ample evidence that Connally is suffering from a number of these effects.
He is possibly the most unreliable witness to the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
Researchers like yourself and Corbett treat him as if he were a bystander recalling what he witnessed. At no point do either of you acknowledge how the trauma and shock of his life-threatening injury may have affected his recall of events.

Zapruder corroborates Connally. That's what makes him credible.