The Shot That Missed

[Dan O'meara]

Yes, I agree. I might should have worded my sentence differently. I think I will edit it accordingly.

This raises the other problem for your scenario - the timing of the shots.
In your scenario (assuming a first shot at z133) the gap between the first shot and the headshot is 10 seconds.
There is only one witness (as far as I'm aware) that proposes such a time gap (Connally)
One witness.
Many describe a pattern where the second two shots are quite close together.
You are proposing - first shot then a gap of 5 seconds, second shot then another gap of 5 seconds to the headshot.
I can't find a single witness proposing such a thing.

[Charles Collins]

This raises the other problem for your scenario - the timing of the shots.
In your scenario (assuming a first shot at z133) the gap between the first shot and the headshot is 10 seconds.
There is only one witness (as far as I'm aware) that proposes such a time gap (Connally)
One witness.
Many describe a pattern where the second two shots are quite close together.
You are proposing - first shot then a gap of 5 seconds, second shot then another gap of 5 seconds to the headshot.
I can't find a single witness proposing such a thing.

There are quite a few witnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced. One that I recently came across and took note of (for another reason) was the radio dispatcher for the Sheriff’s office named Watson. He said in his report to the Sheriff dated 11/22/63:

...about that time I heard three loud reports evenly spaced which I presumed to be rifle or shotgun blast. I looked at the time on the radio panel and it was about 40-seconds after 12:30pm...

There are other similar accounts from some of the witnesses.

[Jack Nessan]

That’s probably the reason (NOT) why most witnesses heard three shots.

You were discussing Drain's testimony which is obviously a two shot scenario. Apparently now you are discussing your opinion. Drain tried to explain there was not a missed shot. In fact he explains there was only two shots.

[Jack Nessan]

The overwhelming majority of "ear-witnesses" heard three shots only.
That is a fact.

The overwhelming majority of "eye" witnesses describe two shots or second shot as being headshot. All five people just in JFK's car.

Interesting that you would place more emphasis on the opinions of witnesses who did not know what was happening as opposed to those who did.

[Charles Collins]

You were discussing Drain's testimony which is obviously a two shot scenario. Apparently now you are discussing your opinion. Drain tried to explain there was not a missed shot. In fact he explains there was only two shots.

Read it again. He most certainly does not.

[Dan O'meara]

The overwhelming majority of "eye" witnesses describe two shots or second shot as being headshot. All five people just in JFK's car.

Interesting that you would place more emphasis on the opinions of witnesses who did not know what was happening as opposed to those who did.

What are you talking about?
Are you saying the people in the limo were the only ones who knew the limo was being fired on?
Are you saying people outside the limo didn't see JFK being shot?
Are you saying more than 150 witnesses who heard 3 shots only were wrong?

[Jack Nessan]

Read it again. He most certainly does not.

He most certainly does.   Drain: "He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"


You chose to quote Drain. How do you read it? One empty shell CE 543 on the floor prior to LHO preparing to fire, followed by two shots, one unfired cartridge by Fritz still in the chamber of LHO's rifle. Seems pretty straight forward.