Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272

[Jack Nessan]

How could it when it occurred half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second pause)?

Just a thought but is there a chance Meyers and Holland and the so-called experts were just luring you in to make you look bad. It is so easy to rule this out as being factual that it is hard to believe anyone could fall for this absurd theory. Yet you and Corbett took it all in hook, line, and sinker.

[John Corbett]

Just a thought but is there a chance Meyers and Holland and the so-called experts were just luring you in to make you look bad. It is so easy to rule this out as being factual that it is hard to believe anyone could fall for this absurd theory. Yet you and Corbett took it all in hook, line, and sinker.

You seem to think you are in the mainstream here. The reality is you are the outlier. You are a one-percenter. That's about how many people think there were only two shots. Far more people think there were more than 3 shots than think there were only 2. From the beginning, the earliest reports said 3 shots were fired at JFK's motorcade. That was the consensus of the people who were in Dealey Plaza. Specific witnesses, JBC, Bennett, Williams, Jarman, and Norman said there where 3 shots. The physical evidence indicates there were 3 shots. For some idiotic reason, you choose to believe Oswald started with an spent shell in the chamber even though there is no evidence of that, only your silly assumption.

[Andrew Mason]

You seem to think you are in the mainstream here. The reality is you are the outlier. You are a one-percenter. That's about how many people think there were only two shots. Far more people think there were more than 3 shots than think there were only 2. From the beginning, the earliest reports said 3 shots were fired at JFK's motorcade. That was the consensus of the people who were in Dealey Plaza. Specific witnesses, JBC, Bennett, Williams, Jarman, and Norman said there where 3 shots. The physical evidence indicates there were 3 shots. For some idiotic reason, you choose to believe Oswald started with an spent shell in the chamber even though there is no evidence of that, only your silly assumption.

I agree that the preponderance of evidence is that there were three shots.  However, according to the HSCA there were at least 17 people who said there were two shots or could recall only two shots and 7 said two or three shots. 6 said four shots, 7 heard 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots.  9 were not sure how many shots there were.

You would like to count all those who said they heard three shots with two rapid shots at the end as having heard only two shots. That may be what Jack is suggesting.

[Jack Nessan]

You seem to think you are in the mainstream here. The reality is you are the outlier. You are a one-percenter. That's about how many people think there were only two shots. Far more people think there were more than 3 shots than think there were only 2. From the beginning, the earliest reports said 3 shots were fired at JFK's motorcade. That was the consensus of the people who were in Dealey Plaza. Specific witnesses, JBC, Bennett, Williams, Jarman, and Norman said there where 3 shots. The physical evidence indicates there were 3 shots. For some idiotic reason, you choose to believe Oswald started with an spent shell in the chamber even though there is no evidence of that, only your silly assumption.

It is so obvious. Maybe don't try so hard to solve a simple problem. Everyone believes there were two shots. Prove there was a third shot. You question the reliability of witnesses but only based on your limited reasoning.

Maybe the answer lies in the practice of dry firing a rifle.

If the witness statements are too much for you to analyze, then how about stop torturing them.

[Jack Nessan]

I agree that the preponderance of evidence is that there were three shots.  However, according to the HSCA there were at least 17 people who said there were two shots or could recall only two shots and 7 said two or three shots. 6 said four shots, 7 heard 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots.  9 were not sure how many shots there were.

You would like to count all those who said they heard three shots with two rapid shots at the end as having heard only two shots. That may be what Jack is suggesting.

There are 50 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots and another 20 eyewitnesses stating the second shot was the headshot followed by a shot after the car accelerated. A study of the rapid double shot at the end would only serve to increase the number of two shot witnesses.

[John Corbett]

It is so obvious.

If it is so obvious, why have you never been able to articulate why you believe there were only two shots? You simply declare it and think that suffices.

Maybe don't try so hard to solve a simple problem. Everyone believes there were two shots.

In 35 years of arguing this case in online forums, that has to be the biggest lie I've ever come across. Everyone does not believe there were only two shots and almost everyone believes there were three or more. How could you say something that freaking stupid.

Prove there was a third shot. You question the reliability of witnesses but only based on your limited reasoning.

Maybe the answer lies in the practice of dry firing a rifle.

If the witness statements are too much for you to analyze, then how about stop torturing them.

By themselves witness statements do not prove there were three shots but we do not have to look at those statements in a vacuum. We can compare those statements to other available evidence to determine their credibility. 3 spent shells do not prove conclusively there were only three shots but they are highly probative, especially when looked at in conjunction with the witness statements and observed reactions seen in the Z-film which occurred well before either JFK or JBC showed any signs of being struck. To believe there weren't three shots we would have to believe JBC only imagined he heard an early missed shot and apparently reacted to a shot that didn't really occur. We would have to believe that Glenn Bennett only imagined he heard a shot, before he turned to JFK and saw two shots strike him. We would have to believe that the three TSBD employees one floor below Oswald and in the best position of anyone to hear the shots couldn't count to three.

Your continued insistence that there were only two shots leads me to believe you are just a troll. You make statements you know to be untrue just to solicit an argument. It's pathetic that people resort to that just to get their jollies. One thing I have learned about trolls over the years is they should not be fed. They are best left ignored to deprive them of the attention they seem to desperately crave.

Go away troll.

PS. It would not surprise me at all if you and Martin Wiedeman are one and the same. You both seem to enjoy trolling to get your jollies.

[Jack Nessan]

If it is so obvious, why have you never been able to articulate why you believe there were only two shots? You simply declare it and think that suffices.
In 35 years of arguing this case in online forums, that has to be the biggest lie I've ever come across. Everyone does not believe there were only two shots and almost everyone believes there were three or more. How could you say something that freaking stupid.
By themselves witness statements do not prove there were three shots but we do not have to look at those statements in a vacuum. We can compare those statements to other available evidence to determine their credibility. 3 spent shells do not prove conclusively there were only three shots but they are highly probative, especially when looked at in conjunction with the witness statements and observed reactions seen in the Z-film which occurred well before either JFK or JBC showed any signs of being struck. To believe there weren't three shots we would have to believe JBC only imagined he heard an early missed shot and apparently reacted to a shot that didn't really occur. We would have to believe that Glenn Bennett only imagined he heard a shot, before he turned to JFK and saw two shots strike him. We would have to believe that the three TSBD employees one floor below Oswald and in the best position of anyone to hear the shots couldn't count to three.

Your continued insistence that there were only two shots leads me to believe you are just a troll. You make statements you know to be untrue just to solicit an argument. It's pathetic that people resort to that just to get their jollies. One thing I have learned about trolls over the years is they should not be fed. They are best left ignored to deprive them of the attention they seem to desperately crave.

Go away troll.

PS. It would not surprise me at all if you and Martin Wiedeman are one and the same. You both seem to enjoy trolling to get your jollies.

If it is so obvious, why have you never been able to articulate why you believe there were only two shots? You simply declare it and think that suffices.


It has been done to death. Prove there was three.

In 35 years of arguing this case in online forums, that has to be the biggest lie I've ever come across. Everyone does not believe there were only two shots and almost everyone believes there were three or more. How could you say something that freaking stupid.

In 35 years, you have never produced a valid scenario of the assassination, that is your problem not mine. The whole concept of a third shot that cannot be explained in any scenario is completely idiotic, and then to repeat the same nonsense for 35 years is beyond comprehension.


By themselves witness statements do not prove there were three shots but we do not have to look at those statements in a vacuum. We can compare those statements to other available evidence to determine their credibility. 3 spent shells do not prove conclusively there were only three shots but they are highly probative, especially when looked at in conjunction with the witness statements and observed reactions seen in the Z-film which occurred well before either JFK or JBC showed any signs of being struck. To believe there weren't three shots we would have to believe JBC only imagined he heard an early missed shot and apparently reacted to a shot that didn't really occur. We would have to believe that Glenn Bennett only imagined he heard a shot, before he turned to JFK and saw two shots strike him. We would have to believe that the three TSBD employees one floor below Oswald and in the best position of anyone to hear the shots couldn't count to three.

What a load of crap. You distort the statements and that somehow is supposed to be believable. If you aren't able to understand the statements, how about stop embarrassing yourself.

This is the problem. Two shots comes before three shots, or in Corbett land is it backwards. No one has yet to prove there were three shots. One bullet, several fragments from a second bullet recovered, two shells that were fired in the rifle, eyewitnesses stating JFK reacted to the first shot and only heard two shots total, medical testimony, trajectory analysis.

Your continued insistence that there were only two shots leads me to believe you are just a troll. You make statements you know to be untrue just to solicit an argument. It's pathetic that people resort to that just to get their jollies. One thing I have learned about trolls over the years is they should not be fed. They are best left ignored to deprive them of the attention they seem to desperately crave.


According to your reasoning, the rest of us are trolls for the simple reason we are rejecting your idiot story because you have presented a completely ridiculous theory, totally lacking credibility of any kind and we are the trolls?  There is not enough substance in any of your nonsense posts to make the effort to be a troll.

PS. It would not surprise me at all if you and Martin Wiedeman are one and the same. You both seem to enjoy trolling to get your jollies.



You have a problem with Wiedeman now?  Is there anybody here you don't have a problem with?