This is your answer to all the points I presented to you in my two previous replies? No, Canning did not get the pre-Z190 shot from the acoustical evidence. He got it from his own analysis and from most of the HSCA photographic experts. You still have not read his analysis, have you?
You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.
Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.
The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.
Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.
I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier, clearly after he had begun to react to the Z186 shot in Z200-207. WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.
And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view
Looks to be clearly stated. The frame was chosen by the accoustics panel.
Mr. GOLDSMITH, Thank you.
Why was this specific frame used to determine the trajectory of the back neck shot? Mr. CANNING. During the investigation several weeks ago, there were indications that suggested this would be a proper time to consider for a first wound,
in particular the investigations of the acoustics panel led to selection of this for our study at that time.
=========================
You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.
Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.
HUH. Everything you post is based on your personal interpretation of people’s reactions based on the Zapruder film. Now you are questioning the Eyewitnesses explaining what they saw and heard. Is there any doubt why so little importance is placed on your opinion?
==========================
You were asked to post Canning’s explanation of the fragment and the windshield. It appears you cannot.
===============
JFK’s reaction at Z226 is the result of the first shot. Exactly what the eyewitnesses described.
==================================
And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence: There is the problem. Believing in the dictabelt as having value.
============================
You have the right answer with there just having been two shots. It answers all the questions. Why embellish the answer with useless nonsense.