JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Did LHO fire a shot that missed everything? If so, when did he fire it?
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 12, 2026, 06:44:50 PM ---The reenactment film made the same mistake you did with your sketch. It has JFK too far to the left. JFK had his elbow resting on he side of the car. The reenactor has his arm entirely inside the car. There is no question Oswald missed JFK by a significant amount but given he inherent difficulty of he shot, it certainly is not an unreasonable miss.
--- End quote ---
The JFK stand-in is sitting in a regular Lincoln convertible:
so the dimensions, width-wise, should be fairly close. The stand-in does not have his elbow on top of the side of the car, but if he did his right rib-cage could move over another arm-width or about 4 inches. But JFK did not have his rib-cage pressed against the side of the car. His arm extended out from the shoulder to the top of the side of the car on Elm St. This photo from Main St. shows him leaning as far right as possible and that is consistent him being about 4 inches farther right:
A 4 inch difference isn't going to make much difference - still a pretty big miss:
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 12, 2026, 11:05:58 PM ---The ballistic team of Luke and Michael Haag did experiments which showed Oswald's bullet would not have ricocheted off the pavement. It would have created a small crater in the asphalt and the bullet would have been pulverized. The crater in the asphalt would have been smoothed out by environmental forces within days of the bullet striking the pavement.
--- End quote ---
We gotta get some of that pothole-self-correcting asphalt up here in Saskatchewan. I don’t suppose they tried waiting around to actually see how visible it was after say 6 months. The FBI did a thorough investigation of all road and concrete surfaces sometime in May or June of 1964 and found nothing except the lead smear on the curb near Tague.
In any event, you still have no evidence that a shot missed.
--- Quote ---They also tested to see if the oak tree could have caused any deflection of the bullet. Their experiments indicated there would be very little deflection.
--- End quote ---
That looks right. Someone needs to tell Gerald Posner that trees do not deflect rifle bullets. Trees and bushes can, however, destabilize rifled bullets so that they gradually drift off-course.But there was not enough distance between the tree and car to cause a miss of the car.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on June 13, 2026, 02:33:20 AM ---We gotta get some of that pothole-self-correcting asphalt up here in Saskatchewan. I don’t suppose they tried waiting around to actually see how visible it was after say 6 months. The FBI did a thorough investigation of all road and concrete surfaces sometime in May or June of 1964 and found nothing except the lead smear on the curb near Tague.
In any event, you still have no evidence that a shot missed.
--- End quote ---
It is the only explanation that fits the body of evidence. Yours certainly doesn't meet that test.
--- Quote ---
That looks right. Someone needs to tell Gerald Posner that trees do not deflect rifle bullets. Trees and bushes can, however, destabilize rifled bullets so that they gradually drift off-course.But there was not enough distance between the tree and car to cause a miss of the car.
--- End quote ---
I never claimed the bullet hit a tree branch. I simply pointed out that the Haags experiments showed that the tree branches were unlikely to have caused the missed shot. I believe the missed shot was fired while Oswald still had a clear line of sight to JFK.
Kevin Balch:
How could the hundreds (thousands) of people who visited Dealey Plaza in the days between the assassination and the secret service reenactment on November 27 have missed a crater in the pavement?
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 13, 2026, 03:12:14 AM ---It is the only explanation that fits the body of evidence. Yours certainly doesn't meet that test.
--- End quote ---
I must have missed your post containing that body of evidence.
My explanation, based on the body of evidence consisting of statements of 132+ people who said that there were three distinct shots (corroborated by 3 shells in the SN) is that there were three distinct shots. .
My explanation, based on the body of evidence consisting of statements of many witnesses who positively stated that the head shot was the third and last shot, is that the head shot was the third and last shot.
My explanation, based on the body of evidence consisting of statements of 23+ people who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot, is that JFK was hit by the first shot.
My explanation, based on the body of evidence consisting of statements of 45+ people who said that the last two shots were rapid and closer together than the first and second, is that the second shot occurred after the midpoint between the first and third shots.
My explanation, based mainly on the evidence of the Connallys but supported by Greer, Powers and Gayle Newman that JBC was struck in the torso on the second shot, is that JBC was struck in the torso on the second shot.
So that is my explanation: that there were 3 shots; the first struck JFK; the second struck JBC in the torso after the midpoint between shots 1 and 3; and JFK was struck in the head on the third and last shot. If you can explain how that evidence can lead to some other conclusion, I will certainly consider it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version