Oswald's shot-1 ricochet was at Z113 or Z105.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This theory makes no sense to me.

One, the theory assumes that the sixth-floor gunman fired at a moment when the signal arm was near or in his aiming point. Even a rank amateur gunman would not have fired with a metal pole near or in his aiming point.

Yet, this is the supposedly the same world-class riflemen who went 2 for 2 in 5.6 seconds, a shooting feat that the WC's three Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary target boards, and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot.

Two, the gunman would have been firing virtually straight down when firing at Z113. The FBI's Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 48 frames after Z113, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees.

Three, a bullet hitting a metal pole, even if the strike were a glancing hit, would have made a very loud noise.

Four, Tague said the bullet that struck the curb near him was the second shot.

Five, no even halfway rational scenario can get a Z113 fragment all the way to the Tague curb.

Six, you make no effort to account for the manhole-cover-grass bullet hole and the Aldredge curb bullet scar.

Seven, you make no effort to account for the misshapen bullet that Chief Mills and Chief Martinell found in the JFK limo in DC and gave to Dr. James Young at the autopsy. See https://www.med.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2608993/what-price-a-rose-a-navy-physician-remembers-nov-22-1963/ for more info on this historic disclosure.

[Lance Payette]

I won't wade far into this because I am neither qualified nor particularly interested.

To borrow a phrase from Max Holland, the shot that missed has become a Rorschach test. Guesses range from shortly after the turn onto Elm up to sometime after the head shot. I don't see what purpose the continual guessing serves except to try to prop up a particular theory.

Here is Holland's seminal article: https://www.hnn.us/article/1963-11-seconds-in-dallas. Whatever one thinks of his theory, he does nicely review the evidence. (Michael is quite wrong that a shot hitting the traffic arm would have made a clang perceptible in the noise of Dealey Plaza. He apparently has no familiarity with guns. I have shot everything from high-powered rifles to every caliber of handgun at old vehicles and whatnot, and there is no loud clang.)

Linked to the article is a lengthy discussion of it at McAdams' old Google discussion group: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/TZu9d34GJWY#585af65793199715.

I read all of the responses, which are considerably more intelligent and civil than one sees these days, and the participants make some very solid points as to why an early first shot is unlikely, convenient as it may be for the LN narrative. As I recall, DVP himself noted that Oswald seems to have pretty carefully arranged the sniper's nest for the shots to be fired as the limo was moving down Elm. Someone else pointed out that this would have made sure the SS agents were all facing away from the sniper's nest. Another person pointed out that an early first shot would have meant the SS agents' reactions were extremely (suspiciously?) slow.

I am frankly surprised that Phantom Shot, the book co-authored by Jack Nessan of this forum, never received much attention. I wonder how many people have actually read it? The two-shot theory strikes me as quite plausible. It explains the dented shell casing, eliminates the Rorschach-test quest for the shot that missed, and is entirely consistent with the LN narrative. One of the compelling arguments, as I recall, is how many three-shot earwitnesses were originally two-shot earwitnesses but changed their tune when three shots became the accepted narrative. (We see the same thing in the UFO field today: If the aliens you encountered weren't bug-eyed Grays, you need to get with the program because we all know that's what aliens look like.)

[Royell Storing]

  "Rorschach Test"? At least with that "test" there is something to look at, something to examine. There is Zero Evidence, None, Nada, with respect to the Max Holland stuff about a shot from the sniper's nest striking the signal light/support beam. It's also a travesty that the Fake News'ers provided Holland with a world wide platform to bullhorn this  .

[Tom Graves]

I won't wade far into this because I am neither qualified nor particularly interested.

To borrow a phrase from Max Holland, the shot that missed has become a Rorschach test. Guesses range from shortly after the turn onto Elm up to sometime after the head shot. I don't see what purpose the continual guessing serves except to try to prop up a particular theory.

Here is Holland's seminal article: https://www.hnn.us/article/1963-11-seconds-in-dallas. Whatever one thinks of his theory, he does nicely review the evidence. (Michael is quite wrong that a shot hitting the traffic arm would have made a clang perceptible in the noise of Dealey Plaza. He apparently has no familiarity with guns. I have shot everything from high-powered rifles to every caliber of handgun at old vehicles and whatnot, and there is no loud clang.)

Linked to the article is a lengthy discussion of it at McAdams' old Google discussion group: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/TZu9d34GJWY#585af65793199715.

I read all of the responses, which are considerably more intelligent and civil than one sees these days, and the participants make some very solid points as to why an early first shot is unlikely, convenient as it may be for the LN narrative. As I recall, DVP himself noted that Oswald seems to have pretty carefully arranged the sniper's nest for the shots to be fired as the limo was moving down Elm. Someone else pointed out that this would have made sure the SS agents were all facing away from the sniper's nest. Another person pointed out that an early first shot would have meant the SS agents' reactions were extremely (suspiciously?) slow.

I am frankly surprised that Phantom Shot, the book co-authored by Jack Nessan of this forum, never received much attention. I wonder how many people have actually read it? The two-shot theory strikes me as quite plausible. It explains the dented shell casing, eliminates the Rorschach-test quest for the shot that missed, and is entirely consistent with the LN narrative. One of the compelling arguments, as I recall, is how many three-shot earwitnesses were originally two-shot earwitnesses but changed their tune when three shots became the accepted narrative. (We see the same thing in the UFO field today: If the aliens you encountered weren't bug-eyed Grays, you need to get with the program because we all know that's what aliens look like.)

Just curious:

Was CE-543 (the shell with the dented lip) one of the two shells that were found near the Sniper's Nest window, or was it the one that ended up far to Oswald's right?

[Tom Graves]

This theory makes no sense to me.

One, the theory assumes that the sixth-floor gunman fired at a moment when the signal arm was near or in his aiming point. Even a rank amateur gunman would not have fired with a metal pole near or in his aiming point.

Yet, this is the supposedly the same world-class riflemen who went 2 for 2 in 5.6 seconds, a shooting feat that the WC's three Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary target boards, and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot.

Two, the gunman would have been firing virtually straight down when firing at Z113. The FBI's Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 48 frames after Z113, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees.

Three, a bullet hitting a metal pole, even if the strike were a glancing hit, would have made a very loud noise.

Four, Tague said the bullet that struck the curb near him was the second shot.

Five, no even halfway rational scenario can get a Z113 fragment all the way to the Tague curb.

Six, you make no effort to account for the manhole-cover-grass bullet hole and the Aldredge curb bullet scar.

Seven, you make no effort to account for the misshapen bullet that Chief Mills and Chief Martinell found in the JFK limo in DC and gave to Dr. James Young at the autopsy. See https://www.med.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2608993/what-price-a-rose-a-navy-physician-remembers-nov-22-1963/ for more info on this historic disclosure.

Dear comrade Griffith,

Why don't you and Fancy Pants Lance stop obsessing on Max Holland's putative missing-everything shot at "Z-107" and start concentrating on Roselle's and Scearce's probable missing everything shot at "Z-124" and, while you're at it, accept the fact that it's very probable that a bullet fragment from the fatal headshot nicked James Tague down by the Triple Underpass?

-- Tom

[Tom Graves]

The two-shot theory strikes me as quite plausible. It explains the dented shell casing, eliminates the Rorschach-test quest for the shot that missed, and is entirely consistent with the LN narrative. One of the compelling arguments, as I recall, is how many three-shot earwitnesses were originally two-shot earwitnesses but changed their tune when three shots became the accepted narrative.

Dear Lance,

Just curious:

1) Were there oodles and gobs of "two shots" earwitnesses who switched to "three shots"?

2) How many of them changed their minds because "the media" and/or "social pressure" convinced them that what they had originally assumed was a motorcycle backfire, a firecracker, a tire blowout, or a/an [fill in the blank] was actually a shot?

-- Tom

[Lance Payette]

Dear Lance,

Just curious:

1) Were there oodles and gobs of "two shots" earwitnesses who switched to "three shots"?

2) How many of them changed their minds because "the media" and/or "social pressure" convinced them that what they had originally assumed was a motorcycle backfire, a firecracker, a tire blowout, or a/an [fill in the blank] was actually a shot?

-- Tom

That would be for Jack Nessan to answer. I periodically purge my Kindle library and no longer have Phantom Shot.

I have no problem with a fragment of the head shot striking Tague. That's presumably what Phantom Shot concludes as well, although I don't recall.

As far as Rozelle and Searce - it's not "Roselle," Mr. Grammar Police - I will defer to the response of Dale Myers and his co-authors: https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/. Their salient points are that this is just another Rorschach-test interpretation, no more compelling than any other, less compelling than some, and agenda-driven like all of them. (They refer to the analysis of the Z film as "horribly flawed.") I find it and any early shot unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely - for the reasons pointed out by others on the McAdams' site I linked.

Let me guess: Your enthusiasm for Rozelle/Searce has something to do with Bagley, Solie and the KGB - yes? Did old Bagley slap his forehead and screech "It had to be an early shot!" to Blunt, spewing oatmeal all over the latter's yellow note pad?