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

[John Corbett]

The first shot at 175 feet would be around z208 according to the FBI survey (CE884. It also does not have the oak tree or the street curve.  But it does show how similar all three shots are in terms of rifle position and aim if the first shot was around z208 from a downward angle starting at 21.8 degrees and ending at 15.4 degrees.  The lateral angle isn’t given but it doesn’t change much. 

According to CE883, position A is in the middle of Elm St. intersecting with the extension of the west side of Houston St. just east of the TSBD. At that point the downward angle is 40.2 degrees according to CE884.  A shot at z124 would be close to that 40 degrees making a next shot at z222 a difference of close to 20 degrees. I can’t see even an inexperienced shooter choosing to fire two shots that would require such quick and significant repositioning.

Nonsense.

[Andrew Mason]

Nonsense.

At least the producers at CBS agreed with me that the first shot didn’t miss.

[John Corbett]

At least the producers at CBS agreed with me that the first shot didn’t miss.

Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.

Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.

[Andrew Mason]

Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.

Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.

They were testing a shot sequence that does not conflict with the evidence. That’s all I was saying.  They were just trying to see if three shots beginning about z208 and ending at z313 could be made. The found that it was possible. And, in at least one case, none missed.

You seem to think that I somehow invented the three shot no miss scenario.  Anyone looking at the evidence can see that there is evidence that each of the three shots struck in the limo.  If that wasn’t the case the WC would not have had a section explaining why they could not determine which shot missed.

[Ted Sager]

No bullet wounds on either men could have come from SBD window. No wounds line up with O being the shooter.

[John Corbett]

They were testing a shot sequence that does not conflict with the evidence. That’s all I was saying.  They were just trying to see if three shots beginning about z208 and ending at z313 could be made. The found that it was possible. And, in at least one case, none missed.

You seem to think that I somehow invented the three shot no miss scenario.  Anyone looking at the evidence can see that there is evidence that each of the three shots struck in the limo.  If that wasn’t the case the WC would not have had a section explaining why they could not determine which shot missed.

The shot sequence they chose to test was the least plausible one of those proposed by the WC. Why CBS chose that one is a head scratcher. To make matters worse, Cronkite made a blatantly false statement when he claimed the WC said the first shot was fired at Z210 which is how the 5.6 second time limit was arrived at. It had to be a low point in Cronkite's career to make a mistake that bad. All he had to do was read the conclusions paragraph at the end of the chapter dealing with the shots Oswald fired. Instead, he relied on myths that had been created, most notably by Josiah Thompson's silly title Six Seconds in Dallas. a fictitious examination of the JFKA. The WC never concluded that the all 3 shots were fired in under 6 seconds and anyone who believes they did has either neither read the WCR or has a very serious reading comprehension problem.

[Andrew Mason]

The shot sequence they chose to test was the least plausible one of those proposed by the WC. Why CBS chose that one is a head scratcher. To make matters worse, Cronkite made a blatantly false statement when he claimed the WC said the first shot was fired at Z210 which is how the 5.6 second time limit was arrived at. It had to be a low point in Cronkite's career to make a mistake that bad. All he had to do was read the conclusions paragraph at the end of the chapter dealing with the shots Oswald fired. Instead, he relied on myths that had been created, most notably by Josiah Thompson's silly title Six Seconds in Dallas. a fictitious examination of the JFKA. The WC never concluded that the all 3 shots were fired in under 6 seconds and anyone who believes they did has either neither read the WCR or has a very serious reading comprehension problem.

They read the report and read between the lines. They also understood that the WC members all thought the first shot struck JFK.  The four members who supported the SBT thought JBC was hit on the first shot but did not feel it right away.  This is why JBC could not agree because he knew he felt the bullet that hit him in the back and that it was after the first.  This prompted him on the third anniversary of the assassination to issue a statement stating that he was not hit on the first shot. He said that he disagreed with the WC on that point but agreed with their conclusion.  Here is the full NYT article containing the statement:

“ AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 23--Following is a statement made by Gov. John B. Connally Jr. today in discussing the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas three years ago:

I want to make it abundantly clear that I have no desire to prolong or perpetuate the stark memories of the tragedy of three years ago. This conference has been arranged solely as a result of the widespread request of newsmen. I will take just a moment to reiterate and to clarify once again the events of that day. Let me point out that this information is not new. It is precisely the information I recalled and related in a television interview from a hospital bed in Dallas on Nov. 27, just a few days following the assassination. It is precisely the way I related it in testimony to the Warren Commission. It also is precisely the way it had been recalled by me in interviews since that time.

I am convinced, beyond any doubt, that I was not struck by the first bullet. I know that I heard the first shot, that I turned to see what happened and that I was struck by a second shot. The third shot struck the President and not me.

As I said earlier, this testimony was presented to the Warren Commission. They chose to disagree, which is their privilege. I maintain my original view, and always, shall. I want to make it very clear, however, that simply because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one detail does not mean that I disagree with the substance of their over-all findings. I think the commission did an outstanding job under difficult circumstances. Each of the members of that commission, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senator Richard B. Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald Ford, Mr. Allen Dulles and Mr. John J. McCloy, are men of unquestioned integrity, of long and devoted service to their nation, men whose dedication to the task of seeking truth in these circumstances I would never question, and men whose patriotism has been manifested so many times in so many ways over such a long period that it now is somewhat shocking to me that in the backlash of tragedy, journalistic scavengers such as Mark Lane, attempting to impugn the motives of these members individually, cast doubts upon the commission as a whole and question the credibility of the Government itself. I think it is time that we pause and reflect on who these individuals are and rather than calling for a further investigation of the assassination, which in my judgment is neither warranted, justified or desirable, we should turn our attention to doing a little research on and evaluation of the credentials of the self-appointed experts who, with no evidence, no new facts, nevertheless use distortion, inference, innuendo, in order to cast doubts and create confusion. I suspect that a searching investigation into their own credentials will divulge that their motives have political overtones and that their views have been given prominence out of proportion to their value.”