Cracked windshield and ballistics experts...

[Jake Maxwell]

Yes, it seems to me that any fragments from a single bullet would have been travelling so fast they would not have been perceived even a second or two later as a "flurry of shots” coming into the car...

And I wonder how fast... and how large would a fragment have to be... to do the damage they supposedly did to the windshield (and chrome)... which leads me back to the question, “From which direction did the windshield crack originate?”
It still appears to me to be a glancing blow from the outside right... leaving a pock-mark on the inside of the car windshield...
I saw a YouTube video recently of a ballistics expert saying that they are trained to be able to detect the direction of bullets shot into glass...
A ballistics expert analysis would likely answer a lot of questions...

[Dan O'meara]

Yes, it seems to me that any fragments from a single bullet would have been travelling so fast they would not have been perceived even a second or two later as a "flurry of shots” coming into the car...

And I wonder how fast... and how large would a fragment have to be... to do the damage they supposedly did to the windshield (and chrome)... which leads me back to the question, “From which direction did the windshield crack originate?”
It still appears to me to be a glancing blow from the outside right... leaving a pock-mark on the inside of the car windshield...
I saw a YouTube video recently of a ballistics expert saying that they are trained to be able to detect the direction of bullets shot into glass...
A ballistics expert analysis would likely answer a lot of questions...

Robert Frazier of the FBI testified that he examined the limo. He said this about the windshield (this is from his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial).

Q: Did you find anything unusual about the windshield and if so, please describe that condition?
A: The windshield was partially broken in a star-shaped fashion, that is there was a crack in the windshield. I made a specific examination of it to determine what caused the crack. I found on the inside surface of the windshield a deposit of lead which had been forced against the glass and had splattered and as a result determined the glass had been broken by the impact of a projectile striking the inside surface of the glass and fracturing the windshield in the outer layer.
Q: Upon what did you base your determination that the glass had been hit by a projectile hitting the inside rather than the outside?
A: As a result of having examined hundreds of pieces of glass which have been broken in a known fashion, that is by a blow delivered in a known way, it is possible by studying the radial cracks or fractures emanating from the point of force to determine the side of the glass on which the force was applied.
Using the stress lines left on this glass at the time the glass was broken and caused by the object which broke the glass it is possible to determine the direction the force was applied. This examination of the cracks showed that the pressure had been applied on the inside surface.
Q: Now the opinion which you formed as to which side of the windshield had been hit, Mr. Frazier, was that a definite opinion or was there any doubt in your mind as an expert?
A: It is a definite conclusion.

[Jake Maxwell]

That addresses the point straight up...
That is basically the same line of questioning I would have wanted to ask an expert...

[Richard Smith]

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.

"Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter."  It's entirely reasonable for Kellerman to have used this phrase to describe a situation in which one shooter (Oswald) fired three shots in a matter of seconds striking two individuals in the car.   

[Dan O'meara]

"Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter."  It's entirely reasonable for Kellerman to have used this phrase to describe a situation in which one shooter (Oswald) fired three shots in a matter of seconds striking two individuals in the car.

This would be a reasonable interpretation if you hadn't read Kellerman's testimony.
If you have read his testimony, not only is it an unreasonable interpretation of his words, it is beyond reason.
In reality Kellerman had already described JFK hit by the first shot and states that while he was talking into the radio to get the out of there the "flurry of shells" came into the limo. He is describing a very intense moment that occurred while he was talking into the radio.
Kellerman's words have to be interpreted in the context of the rest of his testimony and any physical evidence relating to those words. Doing this really limits the amount of reasonable ways there are to interpret his words.

[Jake Maxwell]

How about: How many laminated windshields have you inspected, Mr. Frazier?

I like that one too!

There is such controversy over this event... and past testimony from every source thought to be reliable has been questioned...
The windshield could still undergo another examination, today...
I say," Pull it out of storage...!"
This one thing would settle quite a bit...