Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Royell Storing]

  Have you watched "The Lost Bullet"?  Have you watched the SS Re-Creation Filming that was done shortly after the assassination? I'm not gonna permit you to turn this into name calling. Please do your research.   

[Tom Graves]

The room is very limited. The boxes are quite small (the ones on top are not much bigger than a shoe box), and space available is less than the photos make it appear to be. I am doubtful that there is enough room for a sniper to stand and then kneel quickly without interference from the seat box and/or the conduit. Do I think it is possible? I don’t know. I might decide to test it if I can find a place to set my model back up. The room where I had it before is a home theater now, so it is not available anymore. Plus my wife dislikes clutter. I have to think about it before making this decision.

Other reasons to doubt the idea of standing for a first shot include:

• A sniper concealed from view is very unlikely to stand up and expose himself to shoot.
• An offhand standing position is much less stable than a sitting position with a support.
• The sniper’s nest was obviously set up for shots in the “kill zone” where the target moves almost directly away from the sniper.
• The standing first shot is an idea that Max Holland came up with to support his theory. It makes no sense otherwise.
• Despite the Howlett photo, one does not need to sit half on/half off the box to shoot comfortably. I can say this for certain based on my experience with my model.
• An offhand standing shot is likely to be less accurate than a seated & supported shot. But I doubt that it would be likely to miss the entire limo.
• On the other hand, an inadvertent shot that fired before it was fully aimed could easily miss the entire limo.
• The potential for interference while positioning the rifle is certainly there in the form of the conduit and the window box.

As I said earlier, you can believe what you want to believe. It makes no difference to me. I advise folks to do their own research. However, the answers to the questions we are looking at here were only known for certain by LHO. We can only form our own opinions based on the best information we can find.

It's strange that there was evidently enough room for Oswald to place his feet on the floor while sitting on the "sit box" but not enough room for him leave his feet there and stand up for his sharply-downward-angled shot at "Z-124" and then sit back down for his second and third shots.

[Charles Collins]

It's strange that there was evidently enough room for Oswald to place his feet on the floor while sitting on the "sit box" but not enough room for him leave his feet there and stand up for his sharply-downward-angled shot at "Z-124" and then sit back down for his second and third shots.

If there was, I think Max Holland should have done it that way.

[Royell Storing]

 The Max Holland stuff on "The Lost Bullet" was a joke. The upgrading of those JFK Assassination Films was what made that Nat Geo presentation worth the time. I also thought they wasted the time spent with a grown Amos Euins. I would prefer they spent that time nailing down the Euins timeline with respect to Officer Harkness delivering him on that 3 Wheeled Motorcycle to the front of the TSBD and then Euins being loaded into Inspector Sawyer's car. The Euins timeline there is very important regarding the security of the TSBD. There is film footage of Euins being loaded into that car along with a view Back into the railroad yard.

[Andrew Mason]

  Exactly! The only reason we are even talking about a shot being fired almost straight down through a half open window is due to Max Holland and his cockamamie theory of a bullet striking that signal light support beam. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a shot striking that signal light support beam. No physical evidence, no eyewitness evidence, no earwitness evidence, Nothing. ALL of this being the intro to the biggest fish story of them all, the SBT. What we have is nothing more than 1 preposterous fairy tale piled on top of another. One lie leading to another. We have "stories" about the assassination being faked, 2 and 3 different Oswald's, Ruby himself never having shot Oswald, and these stories rightfully get laughed at and ridiculed. Yet, here we have a planned assassination with a shooter using a WW2 bolt action rifle, posed inna standing position and firing down into a signal light support beam? This Max Holland stuff should have been shirt canned right outta the gate. Laughable, yet megaphoned by National Geographic.

I agree with everything you have said. But not only do we not have evidence of a first missed shot, there is abundant evidence that JFK was struck by the first shot.  The problem is that the first shot was not the shot that JBC felt strike him in the back.  The real issue is: when did that second shot strike JBC?

The LN crowd for the most part (myself, the original FBI analysis, the Connallys and the Secret Service excluded) have bought into the premise that JBC was not struck anywhere on the first shot and that all his wounds were caused by one bullet: CE399 (despite the difficulty in explaining the condition of CE399).  Whether one subscribes to the multiple shooter or single shooter scenario, acceptance of that premise means either:

1. that the first shot went through JFK's neck and caused no further damage to any person or the car; or
2. the Connallys, the "last two shots close together" witnesses, "first shot hit JFK" witnesses, and the "first shot after z186" witnesses were all hallucinating.

Neither of these is plausible, in my view.  Although, of the two, the first conflicts with less evidence. 

I simply suggest that there is a third alternative that is not only plausible but conflicts with no evidence at all. It is also a better fit with the physical evidence and with the evidence of Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman and Hickey:  the premise that CE399 caused all of JBC's wounds is incorrect.

[Royell Storing]

I agree with everything you have said. But not only do we not have evidence of a first missed shot, there is abundant evidence that JFK was struck by the first shot.  The problem is that the first shot was not the shot that JBC felt strike him in the back.  The real issue is: when did that second shot strike JBC?

The LN crowd for the most part (myself, the original FBI analysis, the Connallys and the Secret Service excluded) have bought into the premise that JBC was not struck anywhere on the first shot and that all his wounds were caused by one bullet: CE399 (despite the difficulty in explaining the condition of CE399).  Whether one subscribes to the multiple shooter or single shooter scenario, acceptance of that premise means either:

1. that the first shot went through JFK's neck and caused no further damage to any person or the car; or
2. the Connallys, the "last two shots close together" witnesses, "first shot hit JFK" witnesses, and the "first shot after z186" witnesses were all hallucinating.

Neither of these is plausible, in my view.  Although, of the two, the first conflicts with less evidence. 

I simply suggest that there is a third alternative that is not only plausible but conflicts with no evidence at all. It is also a better fit with the physical evidence and with the evidence of Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman and Hickey:  the premise that CE399 caused all of JBC's wounds is incorrect.

 I keep coming back to,  "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" BBC Special (1988). In that Special it was said that 3 total shooters were used to assassinate JFK.  (2) Behind JFK, "1 ALMOST on the horizontal". That 2nd rear shooter, "Almost on the horizontal" could explain the Connally wounds. The Pristine Bullet CE399 was "Planted". It never entered/traversed the body of Connally.

[Andrew Mason]

Weren't the shots at Z-222 -224 and Z-313 in the general direction of the Triple Underpass?

Well, I disagree that there was a shot at z222-224. The first shot was earlier and the second was later:
 
First shot before z222: Phil Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot.  Hugh Betzner said that his z186 photo was taken before the first shot.  Occupants of the VP car said that their car had completed the turn and going down Elm St. when the first shot occurred. It is still turning at z181 when last seen in the zfilm. Linda Willis said that the first shot occurred when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign, which puts it between about z192 and z202. 

Second shot after z222: Ike Altgens said his z255 #6 photo was made after the first shot but before any other shot and that the head shot was the last shot. George Hickey said he had turned around from looking rearward and was watching JFK at the moment of the second and third shots. He is seen in Altgens' photo #6 at z255 still turned rearward.  Driver Wm. Greer said he turned around "almost simultaneously" with the second shot and saw JBC falling back onto his wife.  We can see his is already turning at z280 and completes his turn by z283. Dozens of witnesses like Robert MacNeil, observed the last two shots close together, which means that the second shot was a perceptible time after the midpoint between shots 1 and 3:

-------

which puts the second shot a perceptible time after z255.

Do you think Oswald should have shot at JFK when the limo was on Houston Street, instead?

I don't think he should have shot JFK at all.