Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

[Andrew Mason]

I love being lectured on the scientific method by a guy who has arrived at one of the goofiest scenarios ever concocted.

It wasn’t a lecture. It was an observation. You are free to believe that the Connallys were goofy in maintaining that all three shots struck in the car. 

[John Corbett]

It wasn’t a lecture. It was an observation. You are free to believe that the Connallys were goofy in maintaining that all three shots struck in the car.

It doesn't require one to think that two people who suddenly found themselves under fire, one of whom was actually hit, would not perceive the situation 100% accurately.

You continue to operate under the preposterous premise that people perfectly remember events. In reality, people remember bits and pieces of events and their minds try to fill in the blanks and not always accurately. JBC had no way of knowing whether the first shot hit inside the limo or not. Nellie would have had no indication of that either. Later, when they were led to believe erroneously that JFK had been hit by the first shot, they came to believe that. Of course we can see that didn't happen because we see JBC reacting to the first shot at about Z-164, just as he described. You would have us believe he only imagined that he heard a shot and the first shot wasn't fired for another 3.5 seconds. You then add to your silliness with the ridiculous conclusion that JBC was only hit in the thigh by that shot and didn't feel it. Instead, for some inexplicable reason, just two frames after his jacket bulged out, his right arm suddenly flipped upward and back down in the span of 9 frames, 0.5 seconds, and immediately went into severe gyrations when he twisted and dipped to his right. You claim it was at this point that he was turning to see JFK and wasn't struck in the back until Z270.

There is no nice way to say this. That is an incredibly stupid interpretation of what the Z-film shows. That is one thing most of the CTs and LNs on this forum can agree on. The only one with a dumber interpretation is Benjamin Cole who doesn't think JBC was hit until Z295. Thanks to him, you only get the silver medal for silliness. Benjamin snatched the gold medal from you.

[Andrew Mason]

I think ignore might be the wrong word. But it is very easy for me to discount it enough to allow the possibility of an early first shot being the culprit.


Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, "You have blood there on your cheek." That is when we walked back down there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?
Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was about the time that you felt yourself struck?
Mr. TAGUE. I just glanced. I mean I just stopped, got out of my car, and here came the motorcade. I just happened upon the scene.

It appears from his testimony that he hadn't really thought about which shot hit him, other than recalling that it wasn't the first.  When asked about it whether he heard a shot afterward, he thought and said he did recall hearing a shot after the shot that hit him. Since he heard only three shots, he said it must have been the second that hit him. 

But I agree, by itself it is not reliable.  What makes it much more reliable is the rest of the evidence. 

According to the shot pattern observed by over 40 witnesses, the last two shots were close together and after the midpoint between the first and third shots.  That means that JFK was struck by the first shot (as about 25 witnesses reported) and the second was after z255. The second shot struck JBC in the wrist and sent numerous flecks of lead into the wrist and made a long jagged hole in the french cuff but a non-jagged hole in the jacket pocket and jacket cuff.  That is not only consistent with a fragmenting bullet, but also with the fragments deflecting away from the point of contact with the radius.  The orientation of the wrist up near his chest exit wound after z240 means the fragments would have deflected up.

Greer said that he sensed a "concussion" from something impacting in the car on the second shot. The damage to the windshield frame was just above his right ear. He reported no impact sound from the other shots.  Greer said the second shot was almost simultaneous with his first turn to the rear (z281) when he saw JBC falling back.  We know that on one of the shots fragments struck the windshield and windshield frame. It is at least interesting that the left sun visor appears to move forward between z271 and z272:



A fragment striking the windshield and frame and at least one fragment going a bit higher and striking the road and curb near Tague is consistent with the second shot fragmenting and deflecting upward off the wrist. 

It is not impossible that Tague was wrong in thinking he heard a shot after he was hit, but that would mean that he was hit by a fragment from the head shot. The only problem with the head shot causing the damage to the windshield and a fragment going up over the windshield is that I don't see that it struck anything hard that could have deflected it.  It likely fragmented upon striking the back of the head but that did not change its direction. The bullet or bullet fragments passed through the head and exited on a downward trajectory from the SN.  So I don't see what hard impact would have caused a fragment to deflect upward after that.

[Andrew Mason]

It doesn't require one to think that two people who suddenly found themselves under fire, one of whom was actually hit, would not perceive the situation 100% accurately.

You continue to operate under the preposterous premise that people perfectly remember events. In reality, people remember bits and pieces of events and their minds try to fill in the blanks and not always accurately. JBC had no way of knowing whether the first shot hit inside the limo or not. Nellie would have had no indication of that either.

No.  I labour under the premise that cases are solved by evidence.  People remember important salient details of an event with generally good accuracy.  All studies show this.  Sometimes a fact is difficult to observe by humans and in those cases:
 a. they generally don't mention it unless specifically asked (which means it has low salience) and
 b. when asked indicate that they are not sure and/or provide answers that are best guesses and
 c. their answers are spread over the range of possible answers. 

But when a large proportion voluntarily report an observation of a fact without prompting (high salience) their observations are correct over 90% of the time. 

Even without knowing this, the fact that witnesses independently report on and agree on a detail tells you that it is highly improbable that they all mistakenly observed the same event in the same mistaken way.  That only happens if the source of the error is not independent of the witnesses (eg. street lighting affecting the colour of something all in the same way).

Later, when they were led to believe erroneously that JFK had been hit by the first shot, they came to believe that.

?? What evidence do you have that these witnesses did not provide their own observation that JFK reacted to the first shot until someone led them to believe it:
Pierce Allman
James Altgens
Cecil Ault
Ernest Brandt
Charles Brehm

Faye Chism
John Chism
Nellie Connally
Bobby Hargis
George Hickey

Clint Hill
Sam Kinney
Paul Landis
T.E. Moore
Mary Moorman

Jean Newman
Gayle Newman
William Newman
Harold Norman
Ken O'Donnell

David Powers
Malcolm Summers
John Templin
Linda Willis
Abraham Zapruder

Of course we can see that didn't happen because we see JBC reacting to the first shot at about Z-164, just as he described.

You keep coming back to this as some irrefutable fact that JBC is turning in response to a shot.  We actually have evidence that contradicts that the turn was in response to a shot - Mary Woodward said that JFK's last turn and wave was after she and others in her group shouted and waved to the President and that this turn (which is the last turn, smiling and waving he ever makes) was BEFORE that first "horrible ear-shattering noise".  Witnesses reported the first shot occurring when JFK was smiling and waving to his right.  We also have at least 25 people who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot and it wasn't by continuing to smile and wave.  Furthermore, JBC does not even turn his head to his right to look at JFK, which he said he did after the first shot because he immediately thought that JFK was being targeted by an assassin.  He does not look like he believes that JFK is being assassinated but I am not a face reader.

You would have us believe he only imagined that he heard a shot and the first shot wasn't fired for another 3.5 seconds.

That comment would only make sense to someone who thinks that JBC's turn to the right at the same time where JFK turns right and starts smiling and waving could only have occurred because they both heard a rifle shot and thinks that anyone who questions that is nuts.

You then add to your silliness with the ridiculous conclusion that JBC was only hit in the thigh by that shot and didn't feel it.

I am not the only one who thinks JBC didn't feel the thigh wound. 

Instead, for some inexplicable reason, just two frames after his jacket bulged out, his right arm suddenly flipped upward and back down in the span of 9 frames, 0.5 seconds, and immediately went into severe gyrations when he twisted and dipped to his right. You claim it was at this point that he was turning to see JFK and wasn't struck in the back until Z270.

Whether the jacket bulges out or the front right lapel simply moves sideways as his right arm moves is not something that can be resolved with the image quality of the zfilm.

[John Corbett]

No.  I labour under the premise that cases are solved by evidence.

It would help your cause tremendously if you had the ability to weigh evidence. That doesn't seem to be in your toolbox.

People remember important salient details of an event with generally good accuracy.  All studies show this.  Sometimes a fact is difficult to observe by humans and in those cases:
 a. they generally don't mention it unless specifically asked (which means it has low salience) and
 b. when asked indicate that they are not sure and/or provide answers that are best guesses and
 c. their answers are spread over the range of possible answers. 

But when a large proportion voluntarily report an observation of a fact without prompting (high salience) their observations are correct over 90% of the time.

A large proportion of earwitnesses reported two mutually exclusive versions of where the shots came from which pretty much shoots down this claim.

Even without knowing this, the fact that witnesses independently report on and agree on a detail tells you that it is highly improbable that they all mistakenly observed the same event in the same mistaken way.

See above

That only happens if the source of the error is not independent of the witnesses (eg. street lighting affecting the colour of something all in the same way).
?? What evidence do you have that these witnesses did not provide their own observation that JFK reacted to the first shot until someone led them to believe it:
Pierce Allman
James Altgens
Cecil Ault
Ernest Brandt
Charles Brehm

Faye Chism
John Chism
Nellie Connally
Bobby Hargis
George Hickey

Clint Hill
Sam Kinney
Paul Landis
T.E. Moore
Mary Moorman

Jean Newman
Gayle Newman
William Newman
Harold Norman
Ken O'Donnell

David Powers
Malcolm Summers
John Templin
Linda Willis
Abraham Zapruder

You are providing ample evidence to support my opening statement in this post

You keep coming back to this as some irrefutable fact that JBC is turning in response to a shot.

Because it is. He told us what he did. We can see him doing what he said he did. It's amazing how you put absolute faith in uncorroborated witness accounts but will dismiss a corroborated witness' account simply because it doesn't jibe with your goofball theory of what happened. One more example of how bad you are at weighing evidence.

We actually have evidence that contradicts that the turn was in response to a shot - Mary Woodward said that JFK's last turn and wave was after she and others in her group shouted and waved to the President and that this turn (which is the last turn, smiling and waving he ever makes) was BEFORE that first "horrible ear-shattering noise".  Witnesses reported the first shot occurring when JFK was smiling and waving to his right.  We also have at least 25 people who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot and it wasn't by continuing to smile and wave.  Furthermore, JBC does not even turn his head to his right to look at JFK, which he said he did after the first shot because he immediately thought that JFK was being targeted by an assassin.  He does not look like he believes that JFK is being assassinated but I am not a face reader.

Andrew follows another uncorroborated witness down a rabbit hole.

That comment would only make sense to someone who thinks that JBC's turn to the right at the same time where JFK turns right and starts smiling and waving could only have occurred because they both heard a rifle shot and thinks that anyone who questions that is nuts.
I am not the only one who thinks JBC didn't feel the thigh wound. 

I don't think JBC felt the thigh wound either because it happened about a millisecond after his chest wound and his wrist wound. It's called sensory overload. The brain can only process so much information at one time. JBC didn't even know his wrist had been shattered until he came out of surgery. His brain didn't process either the wrist wound or the thigh wound. It didn't process the sound of that gunshot either. He only remembered the blow to his back which he said felt like someone had punched him.

Whether the jacket bulges out or the front right lapel simply moves sideways as his right arm moves is not something that can be resolved with the image quality of the zfilm.

You also need to be able to apply common sense to that visual. That's another thing that seems to be missing from your toolbox.

[Andrew Mason]

It would help your cause tremendously if you had the ability to weigh evidence. That doesn't seem to be in your toolbox.

You seem to think that witnesses cannot independently corroborate other witnesses. That understanding seems to be lacking in your toolbox.

A large proportion of earwitnesses reported two mutually exclusive versions of where the shots came from which pretty much shoots down this claim.

Witnesses reported their perceptions. Sound direction perception depends on location of the witness relative to various reflecting surfaces.  Many of the witnesses expressed confusion and could not discern a direction.  One cannot compare that to their ability to hear the first shot and see what happened afterward.

You are providing ample evidence to support my opening statement in this post
Because it is. He told us what he did. We can see him doing what he said he did. It's amazing how you put absolute faith in uncorroborated witness accounts but will dismiss a corroborated witness' account simply because it doesn't jibe with your goofball theory of what happened. One more example of how bad you are at weighing evidence. 

Andrew follows another uncorroborated witness down a rabbit hole.
You also need to be able to apply common sense to that visual. That's another thing that seems to be missing from your toolbox.

Witnesses can corroborate each other if they are independent.  If you rolled two dice 25 times and it came up snake eyes each time you would suggest that means nothing.  I would look for a reason and say it means they were loaded dice.