Video: The Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Guy

[John Corbett]

Why do you insist traumatic incidents turn people into vegetables. By this line of thought everyone would be like fainting goats. More likely it would have been seared into their memories.

 Jackie, Nelly, JBC, corroborated each other's testimonies in addition to the shell info, ballistic info and 70+ eyewitnesses.

An early missed shot is basically a child ran down the side walk.

Eyewitness testimony is a problem but not the earwitnesses? Really? 

You have the two shots right, but like a baby sucking their thumb, you seem to need an unsupported third shot that no one in Dealey Plaza was aware of ever having taken pace including the guy filming the motorcade.

Why do you insist on creating strawman arguments. I never said what you claim I did. Therefore, there is no need to address the rest of your tripe.

[Jack Nessan]

Why do you insist on creating strawman arguments. I never said what you claim I did. Therefore, there is no need to address the rest of your tripe.

No, a strawman argument is not right. You definitely favor the earwitnesses. You argue against two shots making you a three shot proponent. The eyewitnesses are predominantly two shots, basically the first shot struck JFK, the second shot was then headshot with some stating a shot after the headshot. 

The three shot witnesses were predominantly earwitnesses. There is not a single piece of physical evidence; bullets, shells, medical, trajectory, indicating there were three shots. That just leaves earwitnesses as the source of your storyline. If the earwitnesses had stated there were four shots then you would be scouring the Zapruder Film for a fourth shot. Maybe another child running on the sidewalk.

 

[John Corbett]

No, a strawman argument is not right. You definitely favor the earwitnesses.

I favor earwitnesses whose accounts are supported by other evidence. That is a lot different from your bogus claim that I "insist traumatic incidents turn people into vegetables.". I never said anything remotely like that. I do recognize that both eye and earwitness evidence is suspect by nature because it is very common for witnesses to get some things right and some things wrong. That is the norm, not the exception.

You argue against two shots making you a three shot proponent.

Of course I am. That is what the evidence clearly iindicates.

The eyewitnesses are predominantly two shots, basically the first shot struck JFK, the second shot was then headshot with some stating a shot after the headshot.

That is unadulterated BS. There is a clear consensus among the earwitnesses that there were three shots. Some heard two. Some heard four. The vast majority said three and there is forensic evidence to support that. From page 110 of the WCR:

"The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two shots, while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots. The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots.".

   

The three shot witnesses were predominantly earwitnesses. There is not a single piece of physical evidence; bullets, shells, medical, trajectory, indicating there were three shots.

More BS. There were three shells recovered.

That just leaves earwitnesses as the source of your storyline. If the earwitnesses had stated there were four shots then you would be scouring the Zapruder Film for a fourth shot. Maybe another child running on the sidewalk.

You obviously haven't been following what I have said numerous times in numerous threads. I find eye and ear witnesses to be the least compelling form of evidence available to us. I only trust witnesses accounts that can be verified by hard evidence. The three shot scenario is supported by the consensus of earwitnesses AND the three spent shells. If you don't want to buy that, it's your right. But don't tell us that the only evidence of three shots is earwitnesses.

[Lance Payette]

You obviously haven't been following what I have said numerous times in numerous threads. I find eye and ear witnesses to be the least compelling form of evidence available to us. I only trust witnesses accounts that can be verified by hard evidence. The three shot scenario is supported by the consensus of earwitnesses AND the three spent shells. If you don't want to buy that, it's your right. But don't tell us that the only evidence of three shots is earwitnesses.

I'm sure you haven't and won't, but you really should read Phantom Shot. You seem so closed-mindedly dogmatic on almost every issue that attempts at discussion seem pointless. Not only are you a hardcore LN fundamentalist, which is fine, but only your understanding of the LN is allowed. Everyone else's perspective is dismissed as though it were simply unworthy.

The fact is, the WC itself acknowledged the possibility of only two shots. One of the three shells is an outlier, for which its dented condition is explainable either by too-rapid operation of the action or it being a dry-firing dummy; the dry-firing explanation is at least as plausible as the other, particularly since Oswald was known to engage in dry-firing. There just does not seem to me to be any basis for dogmatism or for dismissing the two-shot scenario as though it were impossible.

Since it's clear the dented shell is not dispositive, the question then becomes what the witnesses saw and heard. Phantom Shot deals with this quite persuasively. I am also struck by how many earwitnesses seemed to think the supposed first shot sounded distinctly different and how many eyewitnesses - notably the women along Elm - placed the first shot just about exactly where the three-shot scenario places the second shot.

The three-shot scenario may be correct, but I see no basis for any sort of dogmatism - particularly since there seems to be nothing like a consensus as to when the supposed first shot occurred.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

......................You are likely thinking of the 2013 nonfiction book, Phantom Shot: Eyewitnesses Solve The JFK Assassination by Mike Majerus and Jack Nessan.
The book claims that only two shots were fired that day (both by Lee Harvey Oswald), meticulously analyzing ignored eyewitness statements to argue that a "third shot" or a second gunman is a phantom created by early media errors................

Synopsis
For more than half a century, the JFK assassination has been shrouded in mystery. Many have been blamed, including the CIA, the Secret Service, Fidel Castro, the Russians, the mafia, right-wing extremists, and Lyndon Johnson. The true facts have been buried for decades beneath layers of distortions and misinformation. The solution to the assassination has always been right under our noses, hidden in plain sight. The key lies in the number of shots fired. The two official U.S. government investigations came to different conclusions on this issue, and both got it wrong. In the fog of war, the press got it wrong too, beginning with the first bulletin sent out over the wires just minutes after the shooting. A consensus groupthink soon emerged that did not reflect what really happened in Dallas. Nonstop reporting of inaccurate information actually caused witnesses to change their stories about what they really saw and heard that day. Phantom Shot analyzes the statements of key eyewitnesses, some of which were recorded just minutes after the shooting, before groupthink set in. Many of these witnesses were ignored by the government investigations. Their statements unravel the mystery of the assassination once and for all. Phantom Shot answers these questions and many more: How many shots were really fired? Was there a shot from the grassy knoll? Was Oswald the sole assassin? Was he part of a conspiracy? Was Jack Ruby sent by the mob to silence him? Did J. Edgar Hoover and others in the FBI know the solution to the assassination in 1964 and cover it up? Why did the Warren Commission ignore the statements of key eyewitnesses?, For more than half a century, the JFK assassination has been shrouded in mystery. Many have been blamed, including the CIA, the Secret Service, Fidel Castro, the Russians, the mafia, right-wing extremists, and Lyndon Johnson. The true facts have been buried for decades beneath layers of distortions and misinformation.The solution to the assassination has always been right under our noses, hidden in plain sight. The key lies in the number of shots fired. The two official U.S. government investigations came to different conclusions on this issue, and both got it wrong. In the fog of war, the press got it wrong too, beginning with the first bulletin sent out over the wires just minutes after the shooting. A consensus groupthink soon emerged that did not reflect what really happened in Dallas. Nonstop reporting of inaccurate information actually caused witnesses to change their stories about what they really saw and heard that day.Phantom Shot analyzes the statements of key eyewitnesses, some of which were recorded just minutes after the shooting, before groupthink set in. Many of these witnesses were ignored by the government investigations. Their statements unravel the mystery of the assassination once and for all.Phantom Shot answers these questions and many more: How many shots were really fired? Was there a shot from the grassy knoll? Was Oswald the sole assassin? Was he part of a conspiracy? Was Jack Ruby sent by the mob to silence him? Did J. Edgar Hoover and others in the FBI know the solution to the assassination in 1964 and cover it up? Why did the Warren Commission ignore the statements of key eyewitnesses?..............

[John Corbett]

I'm sure you haven't and won't, but you really should read Phantom Shot. You seem so closed-mindedly dogmatic on almost every issue that attempts at discussion seem pointless. Not only are you a hardcore LN fundamentalist, which is fine, but only your understanding of the LN is allowed. Everyone else's perspective is dismissed as though it were simply unworthy.

I am closed minded and I say that with pride. What reason is there to be open minded about whether Oswald fired the shots or that he acted alone. I'm not going to give CTs who dispute Oswald's guilt the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt that he was the assassin. The opinion of anyone who doubts that is unworthy because it is ridiculous in light of the evidence that he was the shooter. If anyone wants to argue he had accomplices, the onus is on them to provide such evidence. After 62 years, I see little chance of any such evidence emerging.

The fact is, the WC itself acknowledged the possibility of only two shots. One of the three shells is an outlier, for which its dented condition is explainable either by too-rapid operation of the action or it being a dry-firing dummy; the dry-firing explanation is at least as plausible as the other, particularly since Oswald was known to engage in dry-firing. There just does not seem to me to be any basis for dogmatism or for dismissing the two-shot scenario as though it were impossible.

The WC followed the practice of the FBI in that they would not speculate on things that could not be proven conclusively. Based on the available evidence, there is a theoretical possibility that Oswald started with an empty shell in the chamber and ejected it before firing two live rounds. It order to believe that, I would have to believe JBC did not really hear a shot about 4 seconds before he was shot and that the consensus of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza wrong. I could believe the latter but the former is hard to swallow. JBC explained what he did when he heard the first shot and we see him doing that beginning at Z164.

Since it's clear the dented shell is not dispositive, the question then becomes what the witnesses saw and heard. Phantom Shot deals with this quite persuasively. I am also struck by how many earwitnesses seemed to think the supposed first shot sounded distinctly different and how many eyewitnesses - notably the women along Elm - placed the first shot just about exactly where the three-shot scenario places the second shot.

The three-shot scenario may be correct, but I see no basis for any sort of dogmatism - particularly since there seems to be nothing like a consensus as to when the supposed first shot occurred.

The two shot scenario is nonsense. He requires absurd mental gymnastics to believe it.

[Jack Nessan]

I favor earwitnesses whose accounts are supported by other evidence. That is a lot different from your bogus claim that I "insist traumatic incidents turn people into vegetables.". I never said anything remotely like that. I do recognize that both eye and earwitness evidence is suspect by nature because it is very common for witnesses to get some things right and some things wrong. That is the norm, not the exception.
Of course I am. That is what the evidence clearly iindicates.
That is unadulterated BS. There is a clear consensus among the earwitnesses that there were three shots. Some heard two. Some heard four. The vast majority said three and there is forensic evidence to support that. From page 110 of the WCR:

"The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired. However, some heard only two shots, while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots. The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots.".
More BS. There were three shells recovered.
You obviously haven't been following what I have said numerous times in numerous threads. I find eye and ear witnesses to be the least compelling form of evidence available to us. I only trust witnesses accounts that can be verified by hard evidence. The three shot scenario is supported by the consensus of earwitnesses AND the three spent shells. If you don't want to buy that, it's your right. But don't tell us that the only evidence of three shots is earwitnesses.

JC  “The three shot scenario is supported by the consensus of earwitnesses AND the three spent shells.”

The three shot narrative does not work at all in any scenario. That is why Holland and Meyers created a shot with absolutely no evidence associated with it and still decided it was better than the alternative. You know Andrew Mason. Didn't they ever inform you of this important piece of information?

Amazing though, this post sounds so profound and professional, unfortunately the reality is it is all about you advancing an early missed shot narrative that does not work and a complete lack of evidence supporting it.

No three shells does not mean three shots. All the evidence points to two shots. Even the shells.  Not one of your witnesses stated there was an early missed shot. Max Hollandand and Dale Meyers both knew this when the theory was first proposed. Why do you think it became necessary to have a child running down a sidewalk as proof, with not a single adult anywhere supporting the early missed shot.

There is no difference between you and Andrew. He was supposedly just following the evidence too. You both followed it into a dead end alley. At least Andrew is trying to make sense of the information as opposed to an early missed shot. No evidence supports it. Holland and Meyers knew that why don't you?

You have predetermined that the early missed shot was correct without any evidence. Everything else is just pretending you are somehow unbiased but in reality, you are looking for anything that supports your personal belief. Just like Holland and Meyers. Holland eventually proved to himself that he was wrong and Meyers focused on SBT.

You have decided the earwitnesses are correct and in turn somehow bolster this early missed shot nonsense. They do not. The eyewitnesses state where the first shot took place in relationship to where they were standing and what JFK’s reaction was to the shot. That is real life evidence. But go ahead and go with a child's actions, so much better.