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

[Charles Collins]

The WR speaks for itself.  What I am saying is that the consensus of all members of the WC was that JFK was hit by the first shot and this was also the general consensus of the media and observers.  It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed.  If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected. This is why Connally kept insisting that he disagreed with the WC on the first shot. His disagreement was not that it hit JFK. His disagreement was that it was not the shot that he felt hit him in the torso

It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed.  If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.


This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:

The First Shot

If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view. The bullet might have struck a portion of the tree and been completely deflected. On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile.

Some support for the contention that the first shot missed is found in the statement of Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, stationed in the right rear seat of the President's follow-up car, who heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. At that moment, Agent Bennett stated:

... I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.337
Substantial weight may be given Bennett's observations. Although his formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.338 It is possible, of course, that Bennett did not observe the hole in the President's back, which might have been there immediately after the first noise.

Page 112

Governor Connally's testimony supports the view that the first shot missed, because he stated that he heard a shot, turned slightly to his right, and, as he started to turn back toward his left, was struck by the second bullet.339 He never saw the President during the shooting sequence, and it is entirely possible that he heard the missed shot and that both men were struck by the second bullet.

[John Corbett]

It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed.  If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.


This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:

The First Shot

If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view. The bullet might have struck a portion of the tree and been completely deflected. On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile.

Some support for the contention that the first shot missed is found in the statement of Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, stationed in the right rear seat of the President's follow-up car, who heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. At that moment, Agent Bennett stated:

... I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.337
Substantial weight may be given Bennett's observations. Although his formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.338 It is possible, of course, that Bennett did not observe the hole in the President's back, which might have been there immediately after the first noise.

Page 112

Governor Connally's testimony supports the view that the first shot missed, because he stated that he heard a shot, turned slightly to his right, and, as he started to turn back toward his left, was struck by the second bullet.339 He never saw the President during the shooting sequence, and it is entirely possible that he heard the missed shot and that both men were struck by the second bullet.

This illustrates what I said earlier. The WC gave pro and con arguments for each of the three shots being the one that missed. They gave no indication they favored any one scenario over the others. They simply laid out the case for and against each scenario and left it to the reader to decide which they thought was more likely to be the correct one. Reading all the arguments the WC laid out and combining it with what we have learned jin the last several decades leaves me with no doubt that the first shot missed and the second was the single bullet.

[Tom Graves]

The WC gave pro and con arguments for each of the three shots being the one that missed. They gave no indication they favored any one scenario over the others. They simply laid out the case for and against each scenario and left it to the reader to decide which they thought was more likely to be the correct one. Reading all the arguments the WC laid out and combining it with what we have learned in the last several decades leaves me with no doubt that the first shot missed and the second was the single bullet.

Correct.

[Andrew Mason]

It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed.  If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.


This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:

Yes.  But there is a difference between what the WC members thought and what they said in the WR.  They said in the WR that the SBT did not matter and was not essential to their conclusion.  But Commission counsel and at least 4 members actually thought it was.  My point was that despite saying that the first, second or third shots may have missed, it was clear from McCloy that he thought the first shot struck both JFK and JBC and was the only shot to strike JBC.  Arlen Specter also thought this because he concluded that Connally was incorrect in thinking he was hit by the second shot.  Here is what he said in Life Magazine in 1966:


All Connally had said is that he was sure he heard the first shot before he felt the impact of the second shot. He never testified that he saw JFK hit by the first shot.  So by saying the Connally was incorrect was saying that Connally was hit by the first shot.  That was the clear impression left by the WC until the HSCA in 1978 suggested that the first shot may have been much earlier and missed, based on the acoustic evidence (which we now know was wrong).

[John Corbett]

Yes.  But there is a difference between what the WC members thought and what they said in the WR.  They said in the WR that the SBT did not matter and was not essential to their conclusion.  But Commission counsel and at least 4 members actually thought it was.  My point was that despite saying that the first, second or third shots may have missed, it was clear from McCloy that he thought the first shot struck both JFK and JBC and was the only shot to strike JBC.  Arlen Specter also thought this because he concluded that Connally was incorrect in thinking he was hit by the second shot.  Here is what he said in Life Magazine in 1966:


All Connally had said is that he was sure he heard the first shot before he felt the impact of the second shot. He never testified that he saw JFK hit by the first shot.  So by saying the Connally was incorrect was saying that Connally was hit by the first shot.  That was the clear impression left by the WC until the HSCA in 1978 suggested that the first shot may have been much earlier and missed, based on the acoustic evidence (which we now know was wrong).

McCloy's opinion was his, not the opinion of the WCR which stated plainly and unambiguously that the missed shot could have been any of the three shots and they did not indicate a preference for any of them. The WCR should be judged on what it said, not on what people think it said.

[Andrew Mason]

McCloy's opinion was his, not the opinion of the WCR which stated plainly and unambiguously that the missed shot could have been any of the three shots and they did not indicate a preference for any of them. The WCR should be judged on what it said, not on what people think it said.

I see.  So that means we can say that the WC did not find the SBT was correct or necessary to their LN conclusion or that any shot missed:



I can agree with that!

[John Corbett]

I see.  So that means we can say that the WC did not find the SBT was correct or necessary to their LN conclusion or that any shot missed:



I can agree with that!

One of the few things I disagree with the WCR about. They put that in due to the Commission members who refused to accept the TSBD, which is their fault. The SBT is what happened and the staff lawyers who did the bulk of the investigating knew it.