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

[Andrew Mason]

ME: Is it true that the statements of 80-plus witnesses to the JFK assassination are inconsistent with the idea the first shot missed everything?

GROK: No, that claim is not accurate or well-supported. It appears to be a misrepresentation or exaggeration often circulated in conspiracy-oriented discussions, but it does not align with the body of witness statements, physical evidence, or official investigations.

This is why you shouldn't rely on AI. You need to look at the evidence from the original sources.

Last time it was 40 witnesses. Did 40 more come forward?

I gave you 46 witnesses whose evidence was that there was only one shot before the midpoint between the three shots and the last two were in "rapid succession", "real close" or words to that effect. They are:


Then there are at least 21 witnesses who said that JFK reacted right away to the first shot:


Then there are the people along Elm St. who put the first shot occurring at a point that is inconsistent with a first shot before about z186:


Cites to all of their evidence is provided in my paper that no one seems to want to read, so I have listed them so you can easily count them and see that 46+21+16=83 which is greater than 80.

The point is that the shot pattern evidence with the last two close together puts the second was after JFK starts reacting, which necessarily means the first shot did not miss, which fits with the 21 (there may be more) who saw JFK react to the first shot. This fits with first shot after z186 placed in different ways by the motorcade witnesses, those along Elm and photographers like Willis and Betzner, which also means the first shot did not miss. There are others I could have included. For example, I did not include Croft but he said that his z161 photo was before the first shot and that he had enough time to wind his camera before the first shot occurred.

[Tom Graves]

There was only one shot before the midpoint between the three shots.

Is English your second language?

[Andrew Mason]

Is English your second language?

.
Sorry about that. I meant the midpoint between the first and last of the three.

[Tom Graves]

.
Sorry about that. I meant the midpoint between the first and last of the three.

You seem to be saying that since there were lots of witnesses who said there were three unevenly spaced shots and the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second ones, JFK must have been hit by the first shot because he started reacting before the "late" second shot had been fired.

Is that what you're saying?

[Andrew Mason]

You seem to be saying that since there were lots of witnesses who said there were three unevenly spaced shots and the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second ones, JFK must have been hit by the first shot because he started reacting before the "late" second shot had been fired.

Is that what you're saying?

It is not just that they were closer. They were described as being in “rapid succession”, “not more than two seconds. It was - they were real rapid”, “real close”, “about one and one-half seconds after the second shot”, “just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle”. That doesn’t fit with 91 frames of the zfilm.

[John Corbett]

It is not just that they were closer. They were described as being in “rapid succession”, “not more than two seconds. It was - they were real rapid”, “real close”, “about one and one-half seconds after the second shot”, “just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle”. That doesn’t fit with 91 frames of the zfilm.

The flaw in your approach is that you put absolute faith in witnesses' ability to accurately remember a bewildering event that popped up out of nowhere and took place over a period of about 9 seconds. Do you think any of those witnesses at the time was trying to discern the spacing of the shots. For starters, many people did not even realize the first shot was a gunshot. Some didn't seem to hear it or if they did, thought it might have been a firecracker or a motorcycle backfire. So how could those people accurately describe the spacing? Then you have the witnesses saying there wasn't more than 2 seconds between the second and third shots. If those people are correct, there were two gunman. Oswald could not have accurately fired his rifle that rapidly.

In stressful situations, events seem to speed up. After the first shot which missed, a lot of people weren't even aware there was an assassination attempt going on. JBC was one of the few exceptions. Once they saw, JFK's reaction to being hit by the second shot, suddenly the gravity of the situation would have become apparent to those people. It's not surprising that those people thought it SEEMED like the third shot came much more rapidly than it actually did. Things aren't always what they seem. People's ability to perceive and accurately remember an event like that is going to be compromised. That's why I have far more faith in one witness, Zapruder's camera, than all the other DP witnesses combined. That witness was not surprised by what happened. That witness was not experiencing stress. That witness viewed and recorded the event as calmly and accurately as it would a child's birthday party.

Keep putting total faith in your witnesses. It wii prevent you from ever learning the truth of the assassination.