Were all three shots fired in 5.6 seconds?

[Royell Storing]

Bring back Ripple, or Thunderbird, the real stuff.

  The preferred beverages of Fred Sanford.

[Lance Payette]

I'm beginning to think the endless speculation as to how long Oswald had to fire the shots is pretty much a red herring. Ben Cole posted somewhere - perhaps here - several YouTube videos of guys firing a Carcano with absolutely jaw-dropping rapidity.

What is NOT a red herring, it seems to me, is the number of really solid witnesses who described the second and third shots as nearly simultaneous. There is an old (2010) thread at the Ed Forum on this subject, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16384-shot-sequence-descriptions/, where Pat Speer summarizes his meticulous research thusly (and I believe accurately):

Chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com are devoted to the eyewitness evidence, and show how the eyewitness statements, when taken as a whole, are quite clear on several points. One is that the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses hit Kennedy. Two is that the last two shots were fired quite close together. Although slightly less clear, a third point was nevertheless surprising – I certainly didn't expect it. The head shot was the FIRST of the last two shots fired closely together, and the second of the three shots heard by most witnesses.

When you examine what those witnesses said, "quite close together" is more like REALLY close together - i.e., "on top of each other," "bang bang," "bunched together," etc. It isn't anything like "three or four seconds." It certainly isn't the 4.8 to 5.6 seconds estimated by the WC. Regardless of whether the total sequence was as "long" as ten seconds or as short as six, numerous witnesses pereived the last two shots being noticeably closer together within that sequence.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see that the WC or HSCA (firearms and acoustics panels) really focused on this issue. The focus seems to have been more on the perceived location and overall timing of the shots but not much on the fact that so many perceived the second and third shots as essentially simultaneous. (I was surprised to be reminded that the WC was actually quite open-minded, conceding the possibility of only two shots and that the three-shot witnesses may have been influenced by media coverage.)

Here’s the famous Lee Bowers interview where he describes the shot sequence beginning at about 5:35, with the second and third being “almost on top of each other.” He’s a good witness because he was physically removed from the immediate reverberations and echoes and whatnot. If he were alone in his description, that would be one thing – but he’s not. As I say … troubling.

The CT community would do itself a big favor if it would focus on these aspects that are genuinely troubling and less on ideologically-driven silliness and supposed plots and cover-ups that are closer to science fiction.

[Royell Storing]

  The extended firing time for 3 shots from sniper's nest is important for several reasons. For starters, the 11+ seconds elapsed firing time claims that Oswald fired shot #1: (1) STANDING UP, (2) fired almost STRAIGHT DOWN, (3) through a 1/2 open window. This is ridiculous, but it does get bullhorn'd via National Geographic and the Sixth Floor Museum. The extension of the elapsed firing time is being ballyhoo'd in order to get around Oswald's carcano being a WW2 Bolt Action Rifle.  There is Zero Evidence to support this extended firing time.   

[Lance Payette]

  The extended firing time for 3 shots from sniper's nest is important for several reasons. For starters, the 11+ seconds elapsed firing time claims that Oswald fired shot #1: (1) STANDING UP, (2) fired almost STRAIGHT DOWN, (3) through a 1/2 open window. This is ridiculous, but it does get bullhorn'd via National Geographic and the Sixth Floor Museum. The extension of the elapsed firing time is being ballyhoo'd in order to get around Oswald's carcano being a WW2 Bolt Action Rifle.  There is Zero Evidence to support this extended firing time.   

So who cares? As I noted, even the WC conceded the possibility of only two shots, the first being the shot in the back (as Pat Speer believes it was, and I tend to agree). The whole "early missed shot" thing is mostly just a red herring. CT wackos are desperate for three shots in an "impossibly short" time because then IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN OSWALD!!! YEE-HA!!! LNers are desperate to expand the time for obvious reasons. But the arguments as to when the mysterious missed first shot was taken just go round and round to nowhere. It is a FACT that a number of credible witnesses heard two shots that were virtually simultaneous - this is far more compelling evidence that Oswald perhaps could not have fired them, because what these witnesses describe is indeed "impossibly short." As Pat Speer notes, typically the head shot is the SECOND shot in this sequence, meaning that if there actually was a missed shot it would have been the THIRD shot, virtually simultaneous with the head shot. This is a far more compelling CT argument than arguing about an early missed shot and whether Oswald could have fired three shots in six seconds (as the videos posted by Ben Cole show that he clearly could have). Add the fact that the head shot was uncannily precise and fragmentary and, voila, you have a Mafia pro in the Dal Tex building or something like that. 

Here's one video that Ben previously posted:

[Royell Storing]

  Anytime people resort to Revisionist History, THAT is a big deal. And base it on a Lost Bullet? Seriously?

[Lance Payette]

  Anytime people resort to Revisionist History, THAT is a big deal. And base it on a Lost Bullet? Seriously?

You certainly have a rather Curious propensity for Capitalizing words in the Middle of sentences without apparent rhyme or Reason. Is this some sort of nervous typing tic?

Does not every early-missed-shot scenario have a missing bullet? Do you have one that doesn't? What I suggested is no more "based on" a missing bullet than any theory except the reasonably plausible one that Oswald fired only two shots, which does not require a missing bullet.

What you call Revisionist History is simply Pat Speer's reasonable, evidence-based assessment of what occurred, with the missed shot coming at the end rather than the beginning: Oswald's first shot being the back wound and his second being the one that missed immediately after the head shot, with the head shot presumably being fired by Someone Else if it and Oswald's second shot were almost simultaneous as witnesses described. In this scenario, Oswald simply fired two shots, which even the WC recognized was a possibility, which Jack Nessan has written a well-reasoned book about, and which eliminates any timing problems. I don't say it's what happened, but it is more plausible and evidence-based than the assorted missed-early-shot scenarios.

"Revisionist History," indeed. CT speculation is virtually nothing but revisionist history. Getaway cars in front of the TSBD, anyone?  (As I recall, when I joined here a year ago you were promising to embarrass old-fart researchers with some stunning bombshell that would pretty much wrap up the case. Was the mysterious - indeed, revisionist - getaway car said bombshell, or are we still awaiting it?)

[Tom Graves]

Were all three shots fired in 5.6 seconds?

LOL!

Given the fact that former Marine sharpshooter Oswald fired all three shots in 10.2 seconds (with his first shot missing everything at "Z-124") in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, deliberating whether or not he could have done it in 5.6 seconds is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a needle to "Enter Sandman" and/or "Hell's Bells."

Ergo the "LOL!" in my OP.

LOL!

[Benjamin Cole]

LP--

Nice post.

That has always troubled me also, the "bang....bang-bang" cadence.