Cracked windshield and ballistics experts...

[Dan O'meara]

Kellerman actually says "a flurry of rounds CAME INTO the car."
The fact their ducking at the time of the shot is more likely due to the shot/shots than reacting to fragments. Why jump to the conjecture about them reacting to fragments when a round just entered the car? Kellerman said he heard the gross sound of the round hitting JFK's head. I think he described it as a melon being dropped. I am sure that is enough to make anyone duck all by itself. No need to theorize about reacting to fragments.
 But the biggest problem for me is those fragments would hit the windshield a fraction of a second after the head shot.
 The debris that flew up can be measured to over 100mph. The debris that hit the windshield would have been traveling about the same speed. Traveling the 7 feet from JFK to the windshield would take about 1/20th of a second. The debris and fragments would hit the windshield far too quickly for it to be perceived as two separate shots.
 The fact that Greer was looking at JFK when his head exploded and Kellerman said he heard it hit gives us more than enough reason to explain their ducking without invoking the fragments. Or you could say the reacted to both the head shot and the fragments as a single event. But there is no reason to assume they took the fragments to be a separate shot.

It guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
I was simply saying that, although it is conjecture to assume Kellerman was describing the front of the limo being sprayed by bullet fragments as a "flurry of shells", it's not "unsupported" conjecture:

It is clear from Kellerman's testimony that the moment he refers to the "flurry" is the same moment as the head-shot.
We know the bullet fragmented at the head-shot.
We know these fragments sprayed the front of the limo.
We know this spray of fragments caused damage to the reinforced windshield and chrome trim.
We know from the Z-film this is the same moment Greer and Kellerman ducked.
It maybe a coincidence Kellerman describes a "flurry of shells" coming into the car at the same moment the front of the limo is sprayed with bullet fragments but I doubt it.

"The fact their ducking at the time of the shot is more likely due to the shot/shots than reacting to fragments. Why jump to the conjecture about them reacting to fragments when a round just entered the car?"

Kellerman is clearly describing multiple objects entering the front of the limo and not "a round". How can a single round be described as a "flurry". Furthermore, it's my opinion that when Kellerman says the flurry "came into the car" he is describing the front of the limo, not what is going on behind him. JFK had already been shot through the neck but Kellerman doesn't describe that as a "flurry of shells".
It is pure conjecture to assume Kellerman is describing a single shot as a "flurry".

"Kellerman said he heard the gross sound of the round hitting JFK's head. I think he described it as a melon being dropped. I am sure that is enough to make anyone duck all by itself. No need to theorize about reacting to fragments."

To imagine both special agents ducked for cover because they heard something that sounded like a melon being dropped can only be described as wild conjecture. We know that the front of the limo was sprayed with bullet fragments, this would seem like an ideal moment to duck for cover and it can be no coincidence that they duck for cover a split second after the head-shot.
Which seems more plausible - duck for cover because a) the front of the limo is sprayed with bullet fragments, or b) it sounded like a melon being dropped.

Like I say, this is a point we will have to agree to disagree on.

[Richard Smith]

Of all the futile efforts, trying to match up witness recollections of events down to fractions of seconds in the Z-film probably tops the list.  They have undergone a sudden and traumatic event that played out in a handful of seconds.  They then use imprecise language to describe these recollections that can then be interpreted in multiple ways. 

[Dan O'meara]

Of all the futile efforts, trying to match up witness recollections of events down to fractions of seconds in the Z-film probably tops the list.  They have undergone a sudden and traumatic event that played out in a handful of seconds.  They then use imprecise language to describe these recollections that can then be interpreted in multiple ways.

We all know you're not one for details Richard.
Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter. This may be a trivial detail for you as you are safe in the narrative that's been handed to you but, in trying to genuinely understand what happened that day, it's vital to have an understanding of such details.
You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence -
Shots were fired
The head-shot bullet fragmented
These fragments sprayed the front of the limo causing damage to the windshield and chrome trim
Greer and Kellerman reflexively duck for cover within a split-second of the head-shot, as shown in the Z-film

Is it because a flurry of shots came into the limo - contradicting the lone assassin narrative
Is it because a single fragmenting bullet sprayed the inside of the limo - supporting the lone assassin narrative

[Richard Smith]

We all know you're not one for details Richard.
Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter. This may be a trivial detail for you as you are safe in the narrative that's been handed to you but, in trying to genuinely understand what happened that day, it's vital to have an understanding of such details.
You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence -
Shots were fired
The head-shot bullet fragmented
These fragments sprayed the front of the limo causing damage to the windshield and chrome trim
Greer and Kellerman reflexively duck for cover within a split-second of the head-shot, as shown in the Z-film

Is it because a flurry of shots came into the limo - contradicting the lone assassin narrative
Is it because a single fragmenting bullet sprayed the inside of the limo - supporting the lone assassin narrative

LOL. 

[Dan O'meara]

LOL.

 
How very Otto of you.

Great response, with your usual keen eye for detail.

[Richard Smith]

How very Otto of you.

Great response, with your usual keen eye for detail.

There is not much more to say.  Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again.  Someone in a car being shot at indicates that there was a "flurry of shots" and you interpret this to mean there was more than one shooter.  A "flurry of shots" is an example of an imprecise use of language that allows someone like yourself to graft onto it a desired interpretation.  We know, for example, that almost no witness to this incident heard more than three shots.  Someone did a breakdown of the various witness statments, and it was something like 95% that indicated that they heard three or fewer shots.  Of those, I believe only one or maybe none said the shots they heard originated from two different locations.  There was disagreement on the location of the shooter due to sound distortions but almost unanimous in conclusion of the one shooter, firing two or three shots.  A rare example in this case of witnesses all agreeing on a fact.  Kellerman is just characterizing the traumatic experience of being in a car in which multiple people are being shot.

[Dan O'meara]

There is not much more to say.  Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again.  Someone in a car being shot at indicates that there was a "flurry of shots" and you interpret this to mean there was more than one shooter.  A "flurry of shots" is an example of an imprecise use of language that allows someone like yourself to graft onto it a desired interpretation.  We know, for example, that almost no witness to this incident heard more than three shots.  Someone did a breakdown of the various witness statments, and it was something like 95% that indicated that they heard three or fewer shots.  Of those, I believe only one or maybe none said the shots they heard originated from two different locations.  There was disagreement on the location of the shooter due to sound distortions but almost unanimous in conclusion of the one shooter, firing two or three shots.  A rare example in this case of witnesses all agreeing on a fact.  Kellerman is just characterizing the traumatic experience of being in a car in which multiple people are being shot.

It's my opinion that only three shots were fired and that they were fired from the SN.
I've agreed about how imprecise witness testimony can be. In the post you are responding to I wrote:

"You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence."

For me, whenever possible, it's about interpreting witness statements against any physical evidence that relates to that witness testimony. That was the point I was making in the post.

"Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again."

What "fact" do you think I substituted my subjective opinion for.