JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on January 08, 2026, 04:10:49 PM
-
Were all three shots fired in 5.6 seconds?
LOL!
-
Were all three shots fired in 5.6 seconds? LOL!
"LOL!" indeed. If one assumes that Oswald was the gunman and that the head shot was the final shot, then the last two shots, both of which were hits, were fired in 5.6 seconds. Yet, not one of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test was able to go two for two with his final two shots.
On their second and third shots, nearly all their shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass.
So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot, and two of them took longer than 5.6 seconds for their final two shots. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots in 5.6 seconds.
BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald went two for two on his final two shots, hitting JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
-
Regardless of the exact timing, I cannot avoid being troubled by how many witnesses emphasized the proximity of the second and third shots. To notice this so definitively, in the space of 5.6 seconds or even 10.2 seconds, is somewhat ... troubling. It's not so much the number of seconds but the number of witnesses who described the shots as being almost simultaneous. The lethal precision of the third shot, in comparison to the other two (or one, if you're a two-shot fan) is likewise somewhat ... troubling. The explosive fragmentation of the head shot bullet vis-a-vis the supposed SBT bullet is likewise somewhat ... troubling. The appearance of the throat wound at Parkland, the alignment of the back and throat wounds ... yep, troubling. It's almost uncanny how literally NOTHING in the JFKA is as neat and tidy as we would like it to be. It's downright ... troubling. Yes, I know all the LN explanations for the mysteries, but in their totality they remain ... troubling.
My UFO buddy Peter Gersten, who believes we live in a simulated reality (not as far-fetched as you might think), has a theory that certain events - including the JFKA - have some sort of larger significance that transcends their historical significance. I'm not a True Believer, but sometimes the JFKA does seem almost as though it had been DESIGNED to be and remain eternally puzzling.
-
Remember that the WC created the SBT precisely because it became clear that O could not have re-chambered and fired 2 shots in as short a space as the Z film indicated that K and C reacted to being hit. However, they attached no importance to the many witnesses who said the 2nd and 3rd shots were almost simultaneous.
-
Were all three shots fired in 5.6 seconds?
LOL!
No. A little over 9 seconds.
-
No. A little over 9 seconds.
There is simply no way the POTUS should be under fire for 9-10-11+ consecutive seconds and the JFK SS literally NOT physically react proactively. 6+ seconds is difficult to believe, but now Max Holland is attempting to almost double that total elapsed time? And somehow he manages to get the cooperation of Nat Geo and the Sixth Floor Museum to push that? Buying into the 9-10-11+ seconds of bullets reigning down, and there being no direct response from the JFK SS Detail, would require the cooperation of key men in the JFK SS Detail. This includes ASAIC Kellerman and Limo Driver Greer. (rolling stop or stop?). There was an SS Agent that jumped off of the (R) running board of the Queen Mary and he was immediately ordered to get his tail back onto the running board. Buying into the 9-10-11+ seconds scenario implicates members of the JFK SS Detail.
-
No. A little over 9 seconds.
Thumb1:
-
Sometimes the JFKA does seem almost as though it had been DESIGNED to be and remain eternally puzzling.
Dear FPR,
It's no mystery that our "innocuous" KGB* has been encouraging the nation-rending bepuzzlement for sixty-six years, now.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-- Tom
-
LP-
Verily.
My take is Gov. JBC struck ~Z-295 and JFK Z-313.
Indicates a second gunsel.
Then, you have the GK smoke-and-bang show.
-
LP-
Verily.
My take is Gov. JBC struck ~Z-295 and JFK Z-313.
Indicates a second gunsel.
Then, you have the GK smoke-and-bang show.
If you're going to keep repeating that mantra ad infinium, the least you could do is change up the vocabulary a bit from time to time.
-
TG-
Wut is a vokabalary?
-
TG-
Wut is a vokabalary?
A strong, potato-based form of alcohol after about 30 minutes.
-
Bring back Ripple, or Thunderbird, the real stuff.
-
If you're going to keep repeating that mantra ad infinium, the least you could do is change up the vocabulary a bit from time to time.
I looked up "pot calling kettle black" in my authoritative Dictionary of Useful Idioms for Useful Idiots. It gave only one example, but it was apt: "For example, for Thomas Graves to accuse anyone else on earth of using repetitive vocabulary and repeating the same points to the extent of near-maddening tediousness would constititute a paradigmatic example of the idom 'pot calling kettle black.' This example is so extreme that it is unilikely ever to occur in the real world, but it does serve to illustrate the idiom in its most extreme form."
-
Bring back Ripple, or Thunderbird, the real stuff.
In college, we got a guy so drunk on Bali Hai that he agreed to eat an unlit cigar. He threw up on the floor about 3/4 of the way through. Well, it seemed funny at the time. Maybe you had to be there.
-
A strong, potato-based form of alcohol after about 30 minutes.
Known as "Bathtub Gin" during Prohibition.
-
Bring back Ripple, or Thunderbird, the real stuff.
The preferred beverages of Fred Sanford.
-
I'm beginning to think the endless speculation as to how long Oswald had to fire the shots is pretty much a red herring. Ben Cole posted somewhere - perhaps here - several YouTube videos of guys firing a Carcano with absolutely jaw-dropping rapidity.
What is NOT a red herring, it seems to me, is the number of really solid witnesses who described the second and third shots as nearly simultaneous. There is an old (2010) thread at the Ed Forum on this subject, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16384-shot-sequence-descriptions/, where Pat Speer summarizes his meticulous research thusly (and I believe accurately):
Chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com are devoted to the eyewitness evidence, and show how the eyewitness statements, when taken as a whole, are quite clear on several points. One is that the first of the three shots heard by most witnesses hit Kennedy. Two is that the last two shots were fired quite close together. Although slightly less clear, a third point was nevertheless surprising – I certainly didn't expect it. The head shot was the FIRST of the last two shots fired closely together, and the second of the three shots heard by most witnesses.
When you examine what those witnesses said, "quite close together" is more like REALLY close together - i.e., "on top of each other," "bang bang," "bunched together," etc. It isn't anything like "three or four seconds." It certainly isn't the 4.8 to 5.6 seconds estimated by the WC. Regardless of whether the total sequence was as "long" as ten seconds or as short as six, numerous witnesses pereived the last two shots being noticeably closer together within that sequence.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see that the WC or HSCA (firearms and acoustics panels) really focused on this issue. The focus seems to have been more on the perceived location and overall timing of the shots but not much on the fact that so many perceived the second and third shots as essentially simultaneous. (I was surprised to be reminded that the WC was actually quite open-minded, conceding the possibility of only two shots and that the three-shot witnesses may have been influenced by media coverage.)
Here’s the famous Lee Bowers interview where he describes the shot sequence beginning at about 5:35, with the second and third being “almost on top of each other.” He’s a good witness because he was physically removed from the immediate reverberations and echoes and whatnot. If he were alone in his description, that would be one thing – but he’s not. As I say … troubling.
The CT community would do itself a big favor if it would focus on these aspects that are genuinely troubling and less on ideologically-driven silliness and supposed plots and cover-ups that are closer to science fiction.
-
The extended firing time for 3 shots from sniper's nest is important for several reasons. For starters, the 11+ seconds elapsed firing time claims that Oswald fired shot #1: (1) STANDING UP, (2) fired almost STRAIGHT DOWN, (3) through a 1/2 open window. This is ridiculous, but it does get bullhorn'd via National Geographic and the Sixth Floor Museum. The extension of the elapsed firing time is being ballyhoo'd in order to get around Oswald's carcano being a WW2 Bolt Action Rifle. There is Zero Evidence to support this extended firing time.
-
The extended firing time for 3 shots from sniper's nest is important for several reasons. For starters, the 11+ seconds elapsed firing time claims that Oswald fired shot #1: (1) STANDING UP, (2) fired almost STRAIGHT DOWN, (3) through a 1/2 open window. This is ridiculous, but it does get bullhorn'd via National Geographic and the Sixth Floor Museum. The extension of the elapsed firing time is being ballyhoo'd in order to get around Oswald's carcano being a WW2 Bolt Action Rifle. There is Zero Evidence to support this extended firing time.
So who cares? As I noted, even the WC conceded the possibility of only two shots, the first being the shot in the back (as Pat Speer believes it was, and I tend to agree). The whole "early missed shot" thing is mostly just a red herring. CT wackos are desperate for three shots in an "impossibly short" time because then IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN OSWALD!!! YEE-HA!!! LNers are desperate to expand the time for obvious reasons. But the arguments as to when the mysterious missed first shot was taken just go round and round to nowhere. It is a FACT that a number of credible witnesses heard two shots that were virtually simultaneous - this is far more compelling evidence that Oswald perhaps could not have fired them, because what these witnesses describe is indeed "impossibly short." As Pat Speer notes, typically the head shot is the SECOND shot in this sequence, meaning that if there actually was a missed shot it would have been the THIRD shot, virtually simultaneous with the head shot. This is a far more compelling CT argument than arguing about an early missed shot and whether Oswald could have fired three shots in six seconds (as the videos posted by Ben Cole show that he clearly could have). Add the fact that the head shot was uncannily precise and fragmentary and, voila, you have a Mafia pro in the Dal Tex building or something like that. :D
Here's one video that Ben previously posted:
-
Anytime people resort to Revisionist History, THAT is a big deal. And base it on a Lost Bullet? Seriously?
-
Anytime people resort to Revisionist History, THAT is a big deal. And base it on a Lost Bullet? Seriously?
You certainly have a rather Curious propensity for Capitalizing words in the Middle of sentences without apparent rhyme or Reason. Is this some sort of nervous typing tic?
Does not every early-missed-shot scenario have a missing bullet? Do you have one that doesn't? What I suggested is no more "based on" a missing bullet than any theory except the reasonably plausible one that Oswald fired only two shots, which does not require a missing bullet.
What you call Revisionist History is simply Pat Speer's reasonable, evidence-based assessment of what occurred, with the missed shot coming at the end rather than the beginning: Oswald's first shot being the back wound and his second being the one that missed immediately after the head shot, with the head shot presumably being fired by Someone Else if it and Oswald's second shot were almost simultaneous as witnesses described. In this scenario, Oswald simply fired two shots, which even the WC recognized was a possibility, which Jack Nessan has written a well-reasoned book about, and which eliminates any timing problems. I don't say it's what happened, but it is more plausible and evidence-based than the assorted missed-early-shot scenarios.
"Revisionist History," indeed. CT speculation is virtually nothing but revisionist history. Getaway cars in front of the TSBD, anyone? :D :D :D (As I recall, when I joined here a year ago you were promising to embarrass old-fart researchers with some stunning bombshell that would pretty much wrap up the case. Was the mysterious - indeed, revisionist - getaway car said bombshell, or are we still awaiting it?)
-
Were all three shots fired in 5.6 seconds?
LOL!
Given the fact that former Marine sharpshooter Oswald fired all three shots in 10.2 seconds (with his first shot missing everything at "Z-124") in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, deliberating whether or not he could have done it in 5.6 seconds is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a needle to "Enter Sandman" and/or "Hell's Bells."
Ergo the "LOL!" in my OP.
LOL!
-
LP--
Nice post.
That has always troubled me also, the "bang....bang-bang" cadence.
-
LP--
Nice post.
That has always troubled me also, the "bang....bang-bang" cadence.
Ever heard of echoes?
-
You certainly have a rather Curious propensity for Capitalizing words in the Middle of sentences without apparent rhyme or Reason. Is this some sort of nervous typing tic?
Does not every early-missed-shot scenario have a missing bullet? Do you have one that doesn't? What I suggested is no more "based on" a missing bullet than any theory except the reasonably plausible one that Oswald fired only two shots, which does not require a missing bullet.
What you call Revisionist History is simply Pat Speer's reasonable, evidence-based assessment of what occurred, with the missed shot coming at the end rather than the beginning: Oswald's first shot being the back wound and his second being the one that missed immediately after the head shot, with the head shot presumably being fired by Someone Else if it and Oswald's second shot were almost simultaneous as witnesses described. In this scenario, Oswald simply fired two shots, which even the WC recognized was a possibility, which Jack Nessan has written a well-reasoned book about, and which eliminates any timing problems. I don't say it's what happened, but it is more plausible and evidence-based than the assorted missed-early-shot scenarios.
"Revisionist History," indeed. CT speculation is virtually nothing but revisionist history. Getaway cars in front of the TSBD, anyone? :D :D :D (As I recall, when I joined here a year ago you were promising to embarrass old-fart researchers with some stunning bombshell that would pretty much wrap up the case. Was the mysterious - indeed, revisionist - getaway car said bombshell, or are we still awaiting it?)
Have YOU an explanation for the "getaway" car being absent from the Wiegman Film and roughly 15 seconds later being on the Couch/Darnell Films? Nobody caught this over the last 62+ years. This all began with my proving that the Huge Gates were "wide open" and therefore provided clandestine entry/exit from the TSBD. Those "wide open" Huge Gates are within a stone's throw of this "getaway" car. And, there is more to this. We know extremely little about the Elm St Ext. We also know extremely little about the train yard, which the Elm St Ext provides the only means of entry/exit. (Hint, Hint).
-
Given the fact that former Marine sharpshooter Oswald fired all three shots in 10.2 seconds (with his first shot missing everything at "Z-124") in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, deliberating whether or not he could have done it in 5.6 seconds is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a needle to "Enter Sandman" and/or "Hell's Bells."
Ergo the "LOL!" in my OP.
LOL!
"Former Marine sharpshooter" ... "missing everything" at Z-124. Do we see a troubling disconnect here?
There seems to me scant evidentiary basis for thinking the back shot was not, in fact, the first shot. Tree limbs, traffic poles, dud bullets, whatever - all rather tortured and, well, troubling attempts to manufacture a missed shot. LNers push the missed shot back to give the LN more time, while the CT folks want to keep things manageable so we don't have two shots too close together.
Two shots by Oswald seems to me the most plausible scenario. Those could have been the back shot and the head shot, as the WC suggested was possible, and all is well in LN Land.
But if there were two shots after the back shot, and if those shots were virtually simultaneous, then there is an obvious LN problem. Hence the mania for an early missed shot. One plausible CT scenario is what Ben seems to favor - the second shot being the one that hit JBC.
For this to be plausible, the second shot would have to be sufficiently long after the back shot for Oswald to have fired it. Otherwise, the second shooter is no better shot than Oswald. The head shot would then be Mafia Guy.
A theory that seems at least reasonably plausible to me is: (1) Oswald's first shot hits JFK in the back and does its SBT thing (with the possibilty, suggested by Orr, that some of JBC's wounds were from a head shot fragment); (2) as Oswald is preparing to fire a second time, Mafia Guy in the Dal-Tex or County Records building gets the job done; and (3) JFK's head explodes in Oswald's scope (or sight) just as he's about to pull the trigger, causing him to - yep - miss everything.
I haven't really analyzed the extent to which this might be plausible in terms of bullet fragments and whatnot (Orr favors Mafia Guy with a 6.5 sabot, although in my Mafia scenario it wouldn't really matter if Mafia Guy was using a 30.06 or .308 or whatever).
At least as worth thinking about, it seems to me, as efforts to keep trying to give our "former Marine sharpshooter" ever more time to ... "miss everything." If we insisit on eliminating Mafia Guy from the scenario, then I think two shots are more plausible than any "missed everything" scenario.
-
"Former Marine sharpshooter" ... "missing everything" at Z-124. Do we see a troubling disconnect here?
Dear FPL,
Ever heard of angular velocity?
ChatGPT:
While the traffic mast hypothesis is indeed often tied to "Z-107" in specific forensic models (such as Dale Myers'), your focus on "Z-124" highlights the peak tracking difficulty for the sniper. At "Z-124," the angular velocity was actually at its highest for the entire sequence, making it physically the most difficult shot for the shooter to coordinate.
1. Angular Velocity Peak
As the limousine moved away from the Depository, the required tracking motion for the sniper did not decrease linearly; it started fast and then "slowed down" as the distance increased:
At "Z-124": The pivoting required to track the target was approximately 8 degrees per second. While this seems slow on paper, for a sniper using a 4x scope with a limited field of view, this represents a significant and complex anatomical motion involving both horizontal and vertical adjustment.
At Z-224 and Z-313: By the time of the second and third shots, the required tracking movement had decreased by half. The target was moving more directly away from the sniper’s line of sight, meaning the rifle barely had to pivot at all to keep the crosshairs on JFK.
2. Why the Miss is "Strange" at "Z-124"
If the traffic mast was no longer an obstruction by "Z-124," the miss becomes more attributable to the dynamic geometry of the shot:
The "Lead" Problem: Although the car was moving nearly [straight] away [from Oswald], it still had a slight horizontal drift. At "Z-124," the target was at its closest point (approx. 100 feet), where any slight error in tracking speed is magnified.
Scope Parallax/Alignment:
Oswald’s 4x scope was notoriously misaligned, striking high and to the left. At the close range of "Z-124," this mechanical error is more pronounced than at 80 yards, where the bullet’s trajectory has more time to "settle" relative to the point of aim.
Trigger Jerk: Many marksmen suggest that the first shot of a high-stress event is the most likely to be "jerked." Given that this shot had the highest angular velocity of the three, a jerked trigger combined with the need to pivot the rifle at 8°/s makes a complete miss more plausible.
Summary of Difficulty
Shot Location Distance (approx.) Angular Velocity (Tracking) Tracking Difficulty
"Z-124" 100–105 feet ~8 degrees/sec Highest
Z-224 190 feet ~4 degrees/sec Medium
Z-313 265 feet ~2 degrees/sec Lowest
By "Z-124," JFK’s head was moving faster relative to the sniper's field of view than it would be for the rest of the motorcade route, which likely contributed to the total miss.
. . . . . . .
-- Tom
-
Dear FPL,
Ever heard of angular velocity?
ChatGPT:
While the traffic mast hypothesis is indeed often tied to "Z-107" in specific forensic models (such as Dale Myers'), your focus on "Z-124" highlights the peak tracking difficulty for the sniper. At "Z-124," the angular velocity was actually at its highest for the entire sequence, making it physically the most difficult shot for the shooter to coordinate.
1. Angular Velocity Peak
As the limousine moved away from the Depository, the required tracking motion for the sniper did not decrease linearly; it started fast and then "slowed down" as the distance increased:
At "Z-124": The pivoting required to track the target was approximately 8 degrees per second. While this seems slow on paper, for a sniper using a 4x scope with a limited field of view, this represents a significant and complex anatomical motion involving both horizontal and vertical adjustment.
At Z-224 and Z-313: By the time of the second and third shots, the required tracking movement had decreased by half. The target was moving more directly away from the sniper’s line of sight, meaning the rifle barely had to pivot at all to keep the crosshairs on JFK.
2. Why the Miss is "Strange" at "Z-124"
If the traffic mast was no longer an obstruction by "Z-124," the miss becomes more attributable to the dynamic geometry of the shot:
The "Lead" Problem: Although the car was moving nearly away, it still had a slight horizontal drift. At "Z-124," the target was at its closest point (approx. 100 feet), where any slight error in tracking speed is magnified.
Scope Parallax/Alignment:
Oswald’s 4x scope was notoriously misaligned, striking high and to the left. At the close range of "Z-124," this mechanical error is more pronounced than at 80 yards, where the bullet’s trajectory has more time to "settle" relative to the point of aim.
Trigger Jerk: Many marksmen suggest that the first shot of a high-stress event is the most likely to be "jerked." Given that this shot had the highest angular velocity of the three, a jerked trigger combined with the need to pivot the rifle at 8°/s makes a complete miss more plausible.
Summary of Difficulty
Shot Location Distance (approx.) Angular Velocity (Tracking) Tracking Difficulty
"Z-124" 100–105 feet ~8 degrees/sec Highest
Z-224 190 feet ~4 degrees/sec Medium
Z-313 265 feet ~2 degrees/sec Lowest
By "Z-124," JFK’s head was moving faster relative to the sniper's field of view than it would be for the rest of the motorcade route, which likely contributed to the total miss.
. . . . . . .
-- Tom
The issue remains: Why does our "former Marine sharpshooter" TAKE this "highest difficulty" shot that requires him to contort himself and exposes him to the greatest risk of being seen? Is this because he is a "stupid former Marine sharpshooter," sort of the Wile E. Coyote of former Marine sharpshooters? Yes, we understand a Z-124 shot would have had obvious difficulties. That's why I don't think Oswald took it. Surely he had time and brains enough to know that being comfortably in place and waiting for the limo to emerge from the tree would be an easy shot and the way a prudent former Marine sharpshooter would do it.
-
The issue remains: Why does our "former Marine sharpshooter" TAKE this "highest difficulty" shot that requires him to contort himself and exposes him to the greatest risk of being seen? Is this because he is a "stupid former Marine sharpshooter," sort of the Wile E. Coyote of former Marine sharpshooters? Yes, we understand a Z-124 shot would have had obvious difficulties. That's why I don't think Oswald took it. Surely he had time and brains enough to know that being comfortably in place and waiting for the limo to emerge from the tree would be an easy shot and the way a prudent former Marine sharpshooter would do it.
Dear FPL,
1. Maybe Oswald didn't realize how difficult a shot it would be.
2) Since the Secret Service follow-up car had just turned onto Elm Street at "Z-124," the agents in said car, "hung over" or not, would have had to break their necks to look up at Oswald's sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window.
-- Tom
-
Have YOU an explanation for the "getaway" car being absent from the Wiegman Film and roughly 15 seconds later being on the Couch/Darnell Films? Nobody caught this over the last 62+ years. This all began with my proving that the Huge Gates were "wide open" and therefore provided clandestine entry/exit from the TSBD. Those "wide open" Huge Gates are within a stone's throw of this "getaway" car. And, there is more to this. We know extremely little about the Elm St Ext. We also know extremely little about the train yard, which the Elm St Ext provides the only means of entry/exit. (Hint, Hint).
Well, yes, I do have an explanation: There is no reason to think it's a getaway car. If the conspiracy required a getaway car, then "in front of the TSBD on Elm Street" strikes me as about the least likely place within a 1.5 mile radius of the TSBD for said getaway car to be. One would think the vast open area behind the TSBD or down the block on Houston might be at least somewhat less Stooge-like. Have you perhaps seen "Bonnie & Clyde" one too many times?
One problem with the CT community is this absolute mania to be someone who Discovers Something New That No One Has Ever Noticed Before!!! This goes back to the earliest days of CT theorizing, with the scenarios becoming ever-more Three Stooges-like. Now we've reached the nadir of CT luminary Bart Kamp supposedly faking photos for reasons that don't help his Prayer Man theory at all but throw a monkey wrench into someone else's even wackier CT theory! The Huge Gates! The Getaway Car! The Fake Shelley and Fake Lovelady! Yee-ha! :D
How the JFKA went down, more or less ...
-
The issue remains: Why does our "former Marine sharpshooter" TAKE this "highest difficulty" shot that requires him to contort himself and exposes him to the greatest risk of being seen? Is this because he is a "stupid former Marine sharpshooter," sort of the Wile E. Coyote of former Marine sharpshooters? Yes, we understand a Z-124 shot would have had obvious difficulties. That's why I don't think Oswald took it. Surely he had time and brains enough to know that being comfortably in place and waiting for the limo to emerge from the tree would be an easy shot and the way a prudent former Marine sharpshooter would do it.
Dear FPL,
From your previous post:
"'Former Marine sharpshooter' ... 'missing everything' at Z-124. Do we see a troubling disconnect here?"
Compare that lame statement with what you said, above, regarding the now-obvious difficulty of the shot.
Do we see a disconnect, here, Counselor?
-- Tom
-
Dear FPL,
1. Maybe Oswald didn't realize how difficult a shot it would be.
2) Since the Secret Service follow-up car had just turned onto Elm Street at "Z-124," the "hung over' agents in said car would have had to break their necks to look up at Oswald's sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window.
-- Tom
Oh, dear, now we're getting desperate.
1. So if he didn't recognize the difficulty he was in fact not the sharpest "former Marine sharpshooter" tool in the shed? Even if this is true, he surely knew he'd have to contort himself and get in position for any subsequent shots. Why would he go through this exercise - perhaps he assumed he'd need only the Z-124 shot (which doesn't seem consistent with the way the boxes were stacked)? I realize you're absolutely enamored of the Z-124 theory, but as far as I can tell it's based entirely on supposed "witness reactions," which seems like thin gruel at best.
2. The risk of being seen was scarcely limited to the SS agents. At Z-124 pretty much everyone in the vicinity would have been looking more in the direction of Oswald than after the limo was well past and moving away from his position.
(Is your new avatar someone famous, because I have no clue? I thought we had agreed you were going to give QAnon Shaman a tryout.)
-
Dear FPL,
From your previous post:
"'Former Marine sharpshooter' ... 'missing everything' at Z-124. Do we see a troubling disconnect here?"
Compare that lame statement with what you said, above, regarding the now-obvious difficulty of the shot.
Do we see a disconnect, here, Counselor?
-- Tom
Alas, no we do not see a disconnect. I was playing on your turf, as we retired former lawyers are inclined to do when we are confident of our client's position. Many the happy motion for summary judgment have I filed that began "Assuming arguendo, for purposes of this motion only, that what the plaintiff claims is in fact true, we are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment because ... blah, blah, blah." My point was simply that since Oswald was in fact a former Marine sharpshooter, why would he not have recognized what your ChatGPT friends deem the obvious difficulty of the shot and why would he have taken it despite the obvious difficulty and greater risks of being seen, blah, blah, blah?
-
Dear FPL,
1. Maybe Oswald didn't realize how difficult a shot it would be.
2) Since the Secret Service follow-up car had just turned onto Elm Street at "Z-124," the agents in said car, "hung over" or not, would have had to break their necks to look up at Oswald's sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window.
-- Tom
SS Agents being unable to, "...look up at Oswald's sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window". Because they were, "hung over"? You do know that this claim of yours also justifies SA Hickey allegedly firing the AR-15 inside Dealey Plaza? Think about it.
-
Alas, no we do not see a disconnect. I was playing on your turf, as we retired former lawyers are inclined to do when we are confident of our client's position. Many the happy motion for summary judgment have I filed that began "Assuming arguendo, for purposes of this motion only, that what the plaintiff claims is in fact true, we are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment because ... blah, blah, blah." My point was simply that since Oswald was in fact a former Marine sharpshooter, why would he not have recognized what your ChatGPT friends deem the obvious difficulty of the shot and why would he have taken it despite the obvious difficulty and greater risks of being seen, blah, blah, blah?
Dear Lance "The Gaslighting Human Pivot" Payette,
Are Marines trained during boot camp how to shoot a bolt-action short-rifle with-or-without a 4X scope at someone who's riding in a car that's accelerating diagonally away from them and at a sharp downward angle from their six-floor window?
-- Tom
-
SS Agents being unable to, "...look up at Oswald's sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window" ...because they were, "hung over"?
Dear Sonderführer Storing,
I said, "'hungover' or not."
Perhaps you missed that part.
-- Tom
-
Oh, dear, now we're getting desperate.
Dear FPL,
The "oh dear" from you I can understand, but I never realized that you were schizophrenic, too.
Thoughts and prayers.
-- Tom
-
Good posts Lance. The answer as to the number of shots plays a huge role in understanding the assassination.
You are absolutely right about the early missed shot being nothing more than a bunch of made-up crap trying to prop up a three-shot scenario. ABC Television supported that made up nonsense of Max Holland’s with a one-hour special, absolutely unbelievable. ABC should have fired everyone involved. The whole theory is totally lacking any evidence and relies on sketchy photos and suspect body movement interpretations. The amazing thing is that it completely ignores all of the witness statements. 100% of the eyewitness's state JFK reacted to the first shot, but they never let that fact get in the way of their BS storyline. Apparently, it is much better to interpret the actions of a child. As if she is aware of a shot that no one else can hear.
The final nail in the coffin of how many shots there were fired was supplied by Josiah Thompson’s observation, as noted in his book Six Seconds In Dallas, about the indentation occurring on the sides of all of the shells except CE 543. The FBI analysis of the shells states that the indentation is from the chamber of the rifle. No indentation on the side of CE 543 proves CE 543 was never fired in the rifle. The CE 141 cartridge only had to be present in the heat expanded chamber to produce an indention on the side of the cartridge.
Pat Speer did an excellent job of compiling witness statements. Below is a list of witnesses and some of Pat’s analysis of their statements from Pat’s site. One thing to remember is that a number of the two shot witnesses would change their stories and add a shot. A number of the first statement were made to the press not a government agency.
A number of the witnesses are the second shot was the headshot followed by another shot (Marilyn Willis for one example), or a second and third shot with no time element between them or words to that effect. I believe SA Hickey is a good example of a changing statement as was SA Bennett. On the plane back to Washington there was an argument between the passengers as to the number of shots having been fired, according to Newsweek's Charles Roberts. Roberts and Merriman Smith were the only news people that were on the flight.
Two shot witnesses
Jackie, Nelly, Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, John Chism, Faye Chism, Jean Newman, Charles Brehm, Clint Hill, DPD Chaney, DPD Hargis, Sheriff Decker, Garland Slack, James Altgens, Malcolm Summers, Charles Roberts, BR Williams, Howard Brennan, SA Greer, A Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Charles Hester, Beatrice Hester, SA Glenn Bennet, Ann Donaldson, Peggy Burney, Dolores Kounas, Dave Powers, Kenneth O’Donnell, SA Landis, Ernest Brandt, James Powell, James Darnell, Hugh Betzner, Seth Kantor, Lupe Whitaker, F Lee Mudd, Ernest Brandt, Milton Wright, James Perry, JW foster, Clemon Johnson, Jack Franzen, Mrs Jack Franzen, Jeff Franzen, Ann Ruth Moore, Mary Hall, Toni Glover
Second shot was the headshot
James Jarmin, Harold Norman, SA Kellerman, Marilyn Willis, SA Kinney, SA Hickey, Mary Woodward, John Templin, Gov Connally, Mary Moorman, SA Emory Roberts, Hugh Aynesworth, Ruby Henderson, DPD Douglas Jackson, Jerry Kivett, Cliff Carter, Thomas Johns, June Dishong, Aurelia Alonzo, Margaret Brown, Georgia Ruth Hendrix
James Altgens was a two shot witness who stated the one thing he could guarantee was there was no shot after the headshot. Altgens was within 20 to 30 feet of the car.
James Altgens " ......There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
-
Dear Sonderführer Storing,
I said, "'hungover' or not."
Perhaps you missed that part.
-- Tom
Did NOT miss anything you posted. You raised the issue of the SS possibly being hung over to the point of Not being able to look back/up at the 6th Floor sniper's nest. That's ALL You. If you now want to run away from that, just say so.
-
My theory was always that CE 543 was Oswald's dry-firing round. You want a shell in the chamber for dry-firing so you don't damage the firing pin, and shells with damaged rims are commonly used since they aren't suitable for reloading. I did exactly this. CE 543 may have been in the rifle when he picked it up at Ruth Paine's and then ejected when he loaded the first live round in the sniper's nest. The frugal Oswald may have never owned more than one box of 20 rounds and used up during practice everything but the three live rounds he had on 11-22-63 (two fired at JFK and one remaining in the chamber). He may have retained the three rounds in the clip for practice in working the bolt (not ideal from a safety standpoint but commonly done), so he would have been equipped to practice both dry-firing and working the bolt.
This is one large problem for my Mafia theory: what sort of conspiracy has him going to Ruth's the night before to retrieve his rifle and three live rounds? Perhaps it all came together at the last minute when JFK's motorcade route was announced, but that strikes me as unlikely. Once you start down the path of theorizing that Oswald was "planted" in the TSBD and JFK's motorcade route was "manipulated" to take him in front of the TSBD, you've expanded the conspiracy way beyond a Marcello hit and are too far into the ozone for me.
-
Good summation Lance. There is only one answer to the JFK assassination, and the first paragraph sums it up.
Additionally, the WC had two different experts testifying about dry firing. You may have already read this article but, Dr E Forest Chapaman wrote a good article on the CE 543 dry firing subject and published it in the New American magazine decades ago. I am not sure why you want to cycle the action with ammo but to dry fire the carcano, the bolt is a cock on opening type, and it is only required to raise and lower the bolt handle to recock it.
The trajectory analysis, wound analysis, and recovered bullet and fragments only support one shooter armed with a carcano. The final sentence summing up the assassination only need be “the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of reported shots.” That is a fact that was stated in the conclusions of the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the HSCA Sound Analysis Report.
WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"
HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
HSCA Sound Analysis Conclusion: The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations, or echoes, that followed the initial sound by from 0 .5 to 1 .5 sec . While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners, who were prepared and expected to hear them, they may well have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination . HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
Simply put it can be proven that LHO fired just two shots, and that was the end of the story. The rest is just interesting minutia.
-
The only problem is Governor Connally heard a shot before Z-223 that missed. Connally was an avid hunter and knew it was a rifle shot.
-
The only problem is Governor Connally heard a shot before Z-223 that missed. Connally was an avid hunter and knew it was a rifle shot.
Correct, and that missing-everything shot was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald at "Z-124," i.e., about five seconds earlier.
-
Correct, and that missing-everything shot was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald at "Z-124," i.e., about five seconds earlier.
Or his Russian double Alek James Hidell
-
Or his Russian double Alek James Hidell
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!