-
The Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Boom Click Click Guy, AKA Harold Norman
-
It is well known I don't place much faith in uncorroborated eye and ear witness accounts. All such accounts must be weighed against the body of evidence as a whole. Norman's account contradicts those who said the last two shots were close together. He is describing 3 fairly evenly spaced shots. While that alone does not establish that was the case, it does fit with the scenario in which the second shot was the single bullet fired about Z219-220 and the third shot was fired at Z310-311. It does not fit with scenarios in which JBC was struck several seconds after JFK was hit. There were 4.9 seconds between the two shots which struck JFK. To believe JBC was hit by an intervening shot, one would have to believe that Oswald fired his second and third shots in the bare minimum time required to fire an aimed shot with a Carcano rifle. It also requires one to ignore the obvious gyrations JBC exhibited which began simultaneously with JFK's reaction to the bullet which struck him in the back. It is my firm belief that there were almost 4 seconds between the first and second shots and almost 5 seconds between the second and third shots. While not perfectly evenly spaced, it does conform with how Norman described what he heard.
-
If You really believe the POTUS was under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ Seconds, and Not a single member of the SS returned fire or so much as even left their car to try and locate/liquidate the shooter(s), then you are Indicting the SS. This 9 - 10+ seconds of active fire with Zero Proactive Response means the SS was either Totally Incompetent or Complicit. There's no 2 ways about it. Being under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ seconds is an extremely Long Time. And then everybody just drives off? If you saw this in a B Movie you would say, "Never gonna happen".
-
If You really believe the POTUS was under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ Seconds, and Not a single member of the SS returned fire or so much as even left their car to try and locate/liquidate the shooter(s), then you are Indicting the SS. This 9 - 10+ seconds of active fire with Zero Proactive Response means the SS was either Totally Incompetent or Complicit. There's no 2 ways about it. Being under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ seconds is an extremely Long Time. And then everybody just drives off? If you saw this in a B Movie you would say, "Never gonna happen".
Apparently, the Secret Service agents did not recognize the first sound as being a gunshot. We can speculate why that was but it's possible the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the sharp turn onto Elm St. partially muted the sound of the first shot. Clint Hill only remembered hearing 2 shots which tell me he either didn't hear the first shot or could not identify it as a gunshot. When he heard the second shot and saw JFK raise his arms up to his throat level, he started to race toward the limo. Altgens 6 shows us he did not take off until about two seconds after JFK was hit. That seems like a rather slow response time, but it's not surprising he would take that long to figure out what was happening. The photo also shows us the two agents on the other side of the limo were still looking back at the TSBD. Neither of them ever made a move toward the limo even after JFK was shot.
So, yes, the Secret Service response time was slow. I'm sure the agents were trained on what to do in various scenarios, but nothing can prepare one for the actual event when it happens suddenly and unexpectedly. Had the agents immediately recognized what was happening when the first shot was fired and started racing toward the limo immediately, they might have got there in time to prevent the 3rd shot from killing JFK. Had he only been hit in the upper torso, that would have been a serious wound, but he likely would have survived. For many years after the assassination, Clint Hill felt guilty that he did not react sooner than he did. I've always wondered whether the other agents on the running boards had the same feelings of guilt.
-
If You really believe the POTUS was under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ Seconds, and Not a single member of the SS returned fire or so much as even left their car to try and locate/liquidate the shooter(s), then you are Indicting the SS. This 9 - 10+ seconds of active fire with Zero Proactive Response means the SS was either Totally Incompetent or Complicit. There's no 2 ways about it. Being under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ seconds is an extremely Long Time. And then everybody just drives off? If you saw this in a B Movie you would say, "Never gonna happen".
We see here the reactions of some of the SS, after what most researchers believe was the 2nd shot, they look back towards where they heard shot/shots being fired from and I'm guessing they are aware the President has been hit.
For a start they weren't going to fire randomly into the crowd or at the buildings because that's just crazy.
Secondly, this was a sudden unique event, being fired upon while they were in moving cars, did their training include this scenario?
Thirdly, do they abandon the President and leave him potentially vulnerable to further attacks and leave local enforcement to locate the shooter?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn17q1gw/Altgens-6-crop.jpg)
In hindsight, they should have offered better protection, like riding constantly on the Limo.
Clint Hill was at different stages of the Parade riding on the Limo, but should have been there 100% of the time. And if IIRC JFK's side was partially ridden on as well.
And Greer ASAP should have put the pedal to the metal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XY96rRvg/Clint-Hill-on-Limo.jpg)
JohnM
-
Apparently, the Secret Service agents did not recognize the first sound as being a gunshot. We can speculate why that was but it's possible the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the sharp turn onto Elm St. partially muted the sound of the first shot. Clint Hill only remembered hearing 2 shots which tell me he either didn't hear the first shot or could not identify it as a gunshot. When he heard the second shot and saw JFK raise his arms up to his throat level, he started to race toward the limo. Altgens 6 shows us he did not take off until about two seconds after JFK was hit. That seems like a rather slow response time, but it's not surprising he would take that long to figure out what was happening. The photo also shows us the two agents on the other side of the limo were still looking back at the TSBD. Neither of them ever made a move toward the limo even after JFK was shot.
So, yes, the Secret Service response time was slow. I'm sure the agents were trained on what to do in various scenarios, but nothing can prepare one for the actual event when it happens suddenly and unexpectedly. Had the agents immediately recognized what was happening when the first shot was fired and started racing toward the limo immediately, they might have got there in time to prevent the 3rd shot from killing JFK. Had he only been hit in the upper torso, that would have been a serious wound, but he likely would have survived. For many years after the assassination, Clint Hill felt guilty that he did not react sooner than he did. I've always wondered whether the other agents on the running boards had the same feelings of guilt.
The above, "shoulda woulda" scenario is comically uninformed. SA Clint Hill was SPECIFICALLY Assigned to protect Jackie Kennedy. Why do you think he was climbing onto the Limo Trunk DIRECTLY behind Jackie Kennedy? Clint Hill was hitting the "hard stuff" the night previous. Other SS Agents were too. Personally, I believe what you are labeling as a "slow response time", is what Joe 6 Pack calls a "hang over". The SS is held to an exceptionally high standard. Those numerous SS Agents downing the "Who Hit John" the night before, failed miserably at even coming close to this high bar.
-
In hindsight, they should have offered better protection, like riding constantly on the Limo.
Clint Hill was at different stages of the Parade riding on the Limo, but should have been there 100% of the time. And if IIRC JFK's side was partially ridden on as well.
And Greer ASAP should have put the pedal to the metal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XY96rRvg/Clint-Hill-on-Limo.jpg)
JohnM
In defense of the Secret Service, JFK did not like having the agents ride on the back bumper. Apparently, he thought it was a bad visual. He never ordered them to stay off the back bumper, but he expected them to use their discretions when doing so. I'm guessing the photo of Clint Hill on the back bumper was taken somewhere on Main St when the crowds started encroaching onto the street and were getting too close for comfort. There's an overhead photo of Greer opening the car door part way to force the spectators to back up.
-
The above, "shoulda woulda" scenario is comically uninformed. SA Clint Hill was SPECIFICALLY Assigned to protect Jackie Kennedy. Why do you think he was climbing onto the Limo Trunk DIRECTLY behind Jackie Kennedy? Clint Hill was hitting the "hard stuff" the night previous. Other SS Agents were too. Personally, I believe what you are labeling as a "slow response time", is what Joe 6 Pack calls a "hang over". The SS is held to an exceptionally high standard. Those numerous SS Agents downing the "Who Hit John" the night before, failed miserably at even coming close to this high bar.
To have a "hang over" that seriously affects a person requires more than just a few drinks, do you have any proof that they were completely sloshed? In my younger days, I have overindulged and woke up feeling like crap but soldiered on and went to work and could do my job with reasonable efficiency within an hour or two, and by lunch was operating at 100%!
Now, I'm not condoning their actions and if Rowley, Chief of the U.S. Secret Service is correct, a few of them were hardly inebriated.
BTW, this was never a secret and has been known at for least since the Warren report was released, to me it's just an easy target for people who throw stones while living in glass houses.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn in connection with the trip when the assassination occurred that certain of the Secret Service agents had been in the press club and what is called the Cellar, at Fort Worth, the night before?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, that came to my attention through a broadcast that Mr. Pearson made, that the agents were inebriated .the night before at the Fort Worth Press Club. I immediately dispatched Inspector McCann to Fort Worth to investigate the report, and to interview the agents.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you learn?
Mr. ROWLEY. I learned that there were nine agents involved at the Press Club. And I might say this--the agents on duty throughout that day had no opportunity to eat. When they arrived at Fort Worth, they were informed that there was a buffet to be served at the Fort Worth Club. This is what I ascertained in personal interviews. Upon going over there, they leaned there was no buffet, and some of them stayed for a drink. Three, I think, had one scotch, and others had two or three beers. They were in and out--from the time they arrived, I would say roughly around 12:30, until the place closed at 2 o'clock.
Now, after that some of them went to the Cellar. This is a place that does not serve alcoholic beverages. They went there primarily, I think, out of curiosity, because this was some kind of a beatnik place where someone gets up and recites, or plays the guitar.
JohnM
-
Apparently, the Secret Service agents did not recognize the first sound as being a gunshot. We can speculate why that was but it's possible the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the sharp turn onto Elm St. partially muted the sound of the first shot. Clint Hill only remembered hearing 2 shots which tell me he either didn't hear the first shot or could not identify it as a gunshot. When he heard the second shot and saw JFK raise his arms up to his throat level, he started to race toward the limo. Altgens 6 shows us he did not take off until about two seconds after JFK was hit. That seems like a rather slow response time, but it's not surprising he would take that long to figure out what was happening. The photo also shows us the two agents on the other side of the limo were still looking back at the TSBD. Neither of them ever made a move toward the limo even after JFK was shot.
So, yes, the Secret Service response time was slow. I'm sure the agents were trained on what to do in various scenarios, but nothing can prepare one for the actual event when it happens suddenly and unexpectedly. Had the agents immediately recognized what was happening when the first shot was fired and started racing toward the limo immediately, they might have got there in time to prevent the 3rd shot from killing JFK. Had he only been hit in the upper torso, that would have been a serious wound, but he likely would have survived. For many years after the assassination, Clint Hill felt guilty that he did not react sooner than he did. I've always wondered whether the other agents on the running boards had the same feelings of guilt.
Not only did the Secret Service miss this early shot, so did everyone else standing in Dealey Plaza. Maybe that should be a clue.
-
The above, "shoulda woulda" scenario is comically uninformed. SA Clint Hill was SPECIFICALLY Assigned to protect Jackie Kennedy. Why do you think he was climbing onto the Limo Trunk DIRECTLY behind Jackie Kennedy?
Because that was the closest hand hold.
Clint Hill was hitting the "hard stuff" the night previous. Other SS Agents were too. Personally, I believe what you are labeling as a "slow response time", is what Joe 6 Pack calls a "hang over". The SS is held to an exceptionally high standard. Those numerous SS Agents downing the "Who Hit John" the night before, failed miserably at even coming close to this high bar.
No evdence the agents were hungover. That is speculation but that is SOP for you.
-
Not only did the Secret Service miss this early shot, so did everyone else standing in Dealey Plaza. Maybe that should be a clue.
Some did. Some didn't. JBC heard the first shot and recognized it for it was. So did Agent Bennett. Strictly speaking, neither of these men were "standing in Dealey Plaza" but it shows that others likely heard what they did. I'm not going to go look up what the various witnesses had to say about what they heard. I do know that some of them said they thought the first sound was fireworks or a motorcycle backfire. I don't pretend to know why some people recognized the first sound as a gunshot and some didn't. It's clear that was the case.
-
Some did. Some didn't. JBC heard the first shot and recognized it for it was. So did Agent Bennett. Strictly speaking, neither of these men were "standing in Dealey Plaza" but it shows that others likely heard what they did. I'm not going to go look up what the various witnesses had to say about what they heard. I do know that some of them said they thought the first sound was fireworks or a motorcycle backfire. I don't pretend to know why some people recognized the first sound as a gunshot and some didn't. It's clear that was the case.
No. JBC did not think it was a miss. Bennet is a two shot witness.
-
Not only did the Secret Service miss this early shot, so did everyone else standing in Dealey Plaza. Maybe that should be a clue.
Speaking off the top of my head here, but as I recall several of the women along Elm near the Stemmons sign were consistent in saying that the first shot occurred when JFK was pretty much right in front of them. I was impressed by how many times this leaped out of the FBI statements when I was looking into the Gloria Calvery issue. Isn't that pretty close to where most three-shot fans think the second shot occurred? I don't have Phantom Shot handy at the moment to see how this is dealt with there.
-
Not only did the Secret Service miss this early shot, so did everyone else standing in Dealey Plaza. Maybe that should be a clue.
So "EVERYBODY" in Dealey Plaza "missed" the Early Shot? What's THAT tell you? There was NO "early shot"!
Please Stop talking about an "early shot" like it is a Fact. It ain't. This is exactly why we have numerous JFK "Urban Legends". People endlessly repeat what they think "might" have happened to the point of it getting accepted as being a Fact.
And this "early shot" stuff also ties in with: (1) the "early shot" hitting the traffic signal support beam, and (2) Oswald firing his weapon Downward through a 1/2 open window while in a Standing Position. Know it or not, You guys are building a snowball of JFK Urban Legends.
-
Speaking off the top of my head here, but as I recall several of the women along Elm near the Stemmons sign were consistent in saying that the first shot occurred when JFK was pretty much right in front of them. I was impressed by how many times this leaped out of the FBI statements when I was looking into the Gloria Calvery issue. Isn't that pretty close to where most three-shot fans think the second shot occurred? I don't have Phantom Shot handy at the moment to see how this is dealt with there.
It didn’t, the book Phantom Shot was basically about LHO and also the evidence that were only two shots not three. Media reporting influenced eyewitnesses. The page count restraints of the book also limited its scope.
An early missed shot is no different than an earlier than early missed shot, a shot after the headshot or a missed second shot or four shots. Clint Hill supposedly not hearing a shot because he was running is a prime example. He doesn’t start running until the headshot. He heard the headshot. What exactly did he miss hearing?
Only because this Early missed shot issue seems to be the go-to theory, more research since the book was published has revealed that there are no eyewitnesses to an early missed shot. That in itself is telling. Especially when the HSCA Sound Analysis stated there is no mistaking how loud a rifle shot is in Dealey Plaza.
What is the need for a third shot that is never fully explained, nor is there any proof of its occurrence when two shots sum up the whole event?
-
So "EVERYBODY" in Dealey Plaza "missed" the Early Shot? What's THAT tell you? There was NO "early shot"!
Please Stop talking about an "early shot" like it is a Fact. It ain't. This is exactly why we have numerous JFK "Urban Legends". People endlessly repeat what they think "might" have happened to the point of it getting accepted as being a Fact.
And this "early shot" stuff also ties in with: (1) the "early shot" hitting the traffic signal support beam, and (2) Oswald firing his weapon Downward through a 1/2 open window while in a Standing Position. Know it or not, You guys are building a snowball of JFK Urban Legends.
HUH?
-
Another video of Norman completing his boom click click description in only 4 secs.
It might be plausible to suggest Norman heard it in 6 secs but it’s stretch to suggest it was an 8 or 10.2 duration.
The WC presumption was that the TSBD 6th floor shooter MUST have used the MC rifle because one was found on the 6th floor even though no statements of finding gunpowder residue in the breech, chamber, or the barrel grooves or of the smell of gunpowder residue.
There was some controversy about finding a layer of oxidation in the barrel which should NOT have been there if 3 shots had been fired 50 minutes before the rifle was found. Generally this is the “rusty barrel” CT factoid.
LNs explain it was a mistaken factoid about a
“Corroded barrel” which was referring to finding that the barrel had some pitting which was preexisting and which would not been removed by firing rounds.
The shells found in the SN are questionable from the CT perspective because Will Fritz picked up 3 shells that Luke Mooney saw ( 1st one there) on the SN floor BEFORE they were photographed laying there. Fritz left for a while with the shells in his pocket and then returned later to place 3 MC shells on the floor to be photographed. ( or even “threw” them down according to Tom Aleya)
Norman described how he heard the FIRST shot fired and only AFTER he saw JFK slump did Norman hear the last 2 shots fired which he said only took about 2 secs. That doesn’t support a Z224 shot being the 2nd shot. It’s actually supporting Z224 was the 1st shot.
There are some WC statements from Norman which he seems to deny he heard the sound of a bolt operating. He tries to explain that what he had originally said in the first interview with SS agent, that he had only said he head the “ejection” of shells and the sound of them hitting the floor.
The boom “click click” and Norman saying he heard the bolt operation comes later, after there’s was more emphasis placed on convincing Norman he heard the operation of the MC bolt action, via an experiment.
So if Norman’s 4 sec boom click click sequence ( or not longer than 6 secs) his accurate recollection, and he was not originally saying specifically hearing “bolt action” but rather just “ejection of shells” then it’s plausible to consider the TSBD shooter used a semi auto rifle instead of the MC rifle.
The fact of absence of reactions by any SS agents looking BACK at TSBD from Z133-Z207 and the fact of 3/4ths witness hearing last 2 shots “back to bsck” or in some cases only about 1 sec apart ( such as Lee Bowers) suggests Dans Z224 /Z313/ Z335ish 3 shots theory is plausible as firing the last 2 shots rapidly with a semi auto could have caused the last shot 1 sec after Z313 to go slightly high due to the Muzzle rise effect. That round hits the curb near Tague.
It semi auto would explain 4 witness who observed a “pointed” bullet” which was found on the stretcher and which 4 witness were unwilling to confirm 399 was the bullet they had originally seen.
-
HUH?
You obviously are not up-to-speed on the alleged "early" 1st shot fairy tale.
-
Royell, do you realize Jack is the author of Phantom Shot, which argues pretty persuasively that there were only two shots and thus no early shot? Aren't you the whiz kid who constantly tells people they need to do their research and get up to speed?
-
If You really believe the POTUS was under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ Seconds, and Not a single member of the SS returned fire or so much as even left their car to try and locate/liquidate the shooter(s), then you are Indicting the SS. This 9 - 10+ seconds of active fire with Zero Proactive Response means the SS was either Totally Incompetent or Complicit. There's no 2 ways about it. Being under fire for a continuous 9 - 10+ seconds is an extremely Long Time. And then everybody just drives off? If you saw this in a B Movie you would say, "Never gonna happen".
A different time with very little resources devoted to security in comparison to today. Fewer agents who were older and not as well trained. Even so look at how the modern SS bungled Butler. They spend their careers with nothing ever happening and they get complacent. The fundamental flaw that Oswald exploited was that almost no one believed such a thing possible in America at that time. Presidents had been riding around in open cars for many decades. This was a security vulnerability that was finally exploited. You could get on airplanes at that time without going through a metal detector. People were allowed to carry firearms on planes. Hard to imagine that mindset now. The sound distortions of an open area like DP including the element of surprise meant the SS response was delayed. They only had seconds. In retrospect, it is easy to second guess but the entire event was over in a blink of an eye.
-
Royell, do you realize Jack is the author of Phantom Shot, which argues pretty persuasively that there were only two shots and thus no early shot? Aren't you the whiz kid who constantly tells people they need to do their research and get up to speed?
While the WC allowed for the possibility of only two shots, it seems pretty far fetched to me. JBC said he heard a shot before the one that hit him in the back. The clear consensus of witnesses is there 3 shots. Most compelling, three spent shell casings in the snipers nest. That dog won't hunt.
-
While the WC allowed for the possibility of only two shots, it seems pretty far fetched to me. JBC said he heard a shot before the one that hit him in the back. The clear consensus of witnesses is there 3 shots. Most compelling, three spent shell casings in the snipers nest. That dog won't hunt.
The two-shot theory nicely deals with the dented shell. Yes, the dented shell can be duplicated by clumsy ejection, as might well have occurred in Oswald's haste to operate the action as quickly as possible. However, Oswald was reported as frequently dry-firing his rifle, and a dented shell (which cannot be reloaded) is often used for dry-firing (because the firing pin may be damaged if there is no shell in the chamber). I, who used to reload ammo, did this myself (i.e., used dented shells for dry-firing). The theory, which I like, is that the dry-firing shell was still in the disassembled rifle in the Paine garage and was ejected by Oswald before he fired the two live rounds. I don't insist on this, but the theory that there was no early shot does seem to accord with the earwitness testimony and makes the timing issue less problematical. Phantom Shot, which I read 3-4 years ago, shows that a number of witnesses changed from "two" to "three" when this became the "accepted" version. Given the controversy as to when an early missed shot was fired - which itself calls into question the earwitness accounts - I'm surprised the two-shot scenario doesn't receive more attention since it seems to make the LN narrative even more plausible.
The biggest problem might seem to be the the Jarman-Norman-Williams trio. Even in the two-shot scenario, they might have heard the action being operated three times and three shells hitting the floor. Jarman and Williams didn't recognize the first one as a shot and Norman thought JFK had slumped after the first shot - so they may not be deal-killers for the two-shot theory.
-
The two-shot theory nicely deals with the dented shell. Yes, the dented shell can be duplicated by clumsy ejection, as might well have occurred in Oswald's haste to operate the action as quickly as possible. However, Oswald was reported as frequently dry-firing his rifle, and a dented shell (which cannot be reloaded) is often used for dry-firing (because the firing pin may be damaged if there is no shell in the chamber). I, who used to reload ammo, did this myself (i.e., used dented shells for dry-firing). The theory, which I like, is that the dry-firing shell was still in the disassembled rifle in the Paine garage and was ejected by Oswald before he fired the two live rounds. I don't insist on this, but the theory that there was no early shot does seem to accord with the earwitness testimony and makes the timing issue less problematical. Phantom Shot, which I read 3-4 years ago, shows that a number of witnesses changed from "two" to "three" when this became the "accepted" version. Given the controversy as to when an early missed shot was fired - which itself calls into question the earwitness accounts - I'm surprised the two-shot scenario doesn't receive more attention since it seems to make the LN narrative even more plausible.
The biggest problem might seem to be the the Jarman-Norman-Williams trio. Even in the two-shot scenario, they might have heard the action being operated three times and three shells hitting the floor. Jarman and Williams didn't recognize the first one as a shot and Norman thought JFK had slumped after the first shot - so they may not be deal-killers for the two-shot theory.
They described 3 boom-click-click sounds. That doesn't fit a two shot scenario. It does fit a 3 shot scenario with a fourth round being chambered but not fired. You also have the problem explaining JBC hearing a shot before the one that hit him in the back. You also have the problem of explaining why most ear witnesses heard 3 shots.
-
They described 3 boom-click-click sounds. That doesn't fit a two shot scenario. It does fit a 3 shot scenario with a fourth round being chambered but not fired. You also have the problem explaining JBC hearing a shot before the one that hit him in the back. You also have the problem of explaining why most ear witnesses heard 3 shots.
You say "THEY". Specifically, what "THEY" described the Boom-click-click? Hearing shots fired is Not the sane as hearing click-click.
-
If Norman heard Oswald eject a casing 3 times in fairly quick succession then that suggests that Oswald ejected the first casing at about the same time as the jfklimo started to turn from Houston into Elm.
We know that Oswald's shot-1 was at latest at pseudo Z113 -- this was when the jfklimo had passed by his window & had just passed the overhead signals -- shot-1 ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm.
I have always wondered whether Oswald pulled the trigger when the jfklimo was starting its turn into Elm -- ie a dry fire -- koz he forgot to eject the old empty casing.
If he hadnt forgotten to eject the old casing then he would have ejected it well before the jfklimo came into view in Houston.
Anyhow, now i come to what i really wanted to mention -- Oswald might not have known what the jfklimo looked like -- did he know that it might have the plastic bubble rain cover on -- did he know that the bubble was not bullet proof -- did he know that there was a divider/roll'bar that partly hid jfk from the SN until the limo was almost starting its turn into Elm -- did he know that jfk would be in the rear right seat.
If he fired a dry shot early on then he would have been flustered & likely to forget about or misjudge the problem of the overhead signal arm blocking a shot hence the ricochet at Z113.
Then in any case he fired shot-2 ok at Z216, hitting jfk & Connally at Z218-219.
Then he stood up & stepped back & saw Hickey blow jfk's brain out at Z313 -- anyhow i wonder why didnt Oswald fire his shot-3, albeit a long shot.
-
Bonnie Rae Williams said at the WC that he "really didn't pay any attention" to the first shot (?) but the second (and third) "sounded like it was right in the building." Harold Norman said that when JFK got past the window "I know I heard a shot" and JFK "slumped or something," then there was another shot, then he "couldn't see at all" but "I know I heard a third shot." Junior Jarman said that after the limousine turned onto Elm he heard "what I thought was a backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President." He "didn't think too much about it." Then a second shot was fired, "people started falling on the ground," and the third shot was fired "right behind the second one."
Considering that these guys were immediately below a high-powered rifle being fired, separated by a ceiling so thin they could hear shells being ejected, their testimony sounds surprisingly less than definitive to me. I think a pretty good case could be made that the first loud noise many people heard - but described as sounding different from the two known shots - was in fact a backfire or something other than a shot being fired by Oswald.
Oswald had enough training and skill that I have an easier time picturing him waiting for two accurate shots than contorting himself for an early shot, missing everything, and then having to assume the position for the two accurate shots.
-
Harold Norman
"He stated that about the time the car in which the president was riding turned on to Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the window.”………..
“Just after the President passed by I heard a shot and several seconds later, I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle………..
………..“About the time that he got past the window where I was, well, it seems as though he was, I mean you know, brushing his hair. Maybe he was looking at the public…I can’t remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard a shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said “I believe someone is shooting at the President,” and I think I made a statement “it is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us. Well, I couldn’t see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle.” ……..
And I said “I know I’m right” because I could hear something sound as though the shells were hitting the floor and I could hear the ejection of the rifle, clicks like that, you know.”………
…..(Later in the same broadcast) “Well, I was looking out the window and the first shot was fired. Well, y'know, I didn't think much of it, because it, shook the building a little bit. Really, it was just that powerful. Then after the second shot was fired, well, I saw the people. They were all falling on the ground. And I told one of the fellows. I say, “That shot came from this building.” And then by that time I heard the third shot. And one of the guys told me, he said, “I believe you’re right.” And I say “I know it did." And then I could, you know, also hear the hulls, empty hulls, the cartridges, hitting the floor, and I could hear the ejection of the rifle, whatever it was……..
………….."When the President came around, he was waving, seemed to be happy. About that time I heard a shot, and one of the guys said "Somebody's shooting at the President." ……
…………..And I could even now hear the empty cartridge hit the floor I mean after the shots had been fired. …..
…………(When asked how many shots he heard) “Three. I’d say just about like this BOOM…click click…BOOM…click clickBOOM. Something similar to that.”
…………..(On the shooting) "just as the motorcade came around...3 shots was fired...Boom, clack-clack, boom, clack-clack, boom. One at a time……….
………..(When asked if heard any cartridges fall) "I heard three." …….
…………."Well, I heard a shot when the motorcade came by. The first shot, it made the President slump. Then I heard two more shots." (When asked if he heard a total of three shots) "Yes, sir." (When asked how he could tell the shots came from above) "Yes, sir...Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call them--hit the floor and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle being pushed back and forward." (When asked how many hulls he heard hit the floor) "Three." (When asked by the defense to describe the rhythm of the sounds) "As I recall, the rhythm of the sounds of the shots was Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click."
(1-19-92 interview with Gerald Posner, reported in Case Closed, 1993) "When the first shot came, I heard boom, then click-click, boom, click-click, boom. I could hear the sound of the click. I could hear the sound of the shells hitting the floor. I could hear everything. Three shots. No doubt in my mind."
………..The shots came from above and there was a gun and the shots were sounding, "Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click." So there was three shots fired right up over us when we were sitting on the fifth floor.”……….
……….. And all of a sudden, we hear something. 'Boom, ack, ack, boom, ack, ack, boom.' …………
……….And that was three of the shells I heard on the floor. And when the police officer asked about it, we told them about it and they went up there and that is what they found up there on the sixth floor. Three empty cartridge shells up there."
………..He laughed and walked away.' A few minutes later, Norman said, he heard three shots fired from the sixth floor window directly above the one he was using to view the parade."
Edited April 14, 2012 by Pat Speer.
Norman in places supports an early shot.
Brennan's statements support that Oswald stood up & back from the window before the headshot.
-
Norman says …… Boom-click-click……. Boom-click-click…… Boom-click-click.
Norman says …… Boom-click-click……. Boom-click-click…… Boom.
Norman contradicts hizself – he said he heard 2 empty shells – he said he heard 3 empty shells.
I don’t know whether Norman's above click-click is (1) the bolt being pushed back and then forward, or whether the click-click is (2) the bolt being pushed back & forward & then the sound of the empty shell hitting the floor.
Anyhow, i had a look at a Carcano on youtube.
The bolt is forward & down. The Carcano is empty – no bullet – no clip.
Loading a clip (5 bullets).
click (bolt lift) – clack (bolt back) -- now ready to load clip down into Carcano.
clip-clip-clip-clip -- there were a few soft clips & 1 loud clip in the middle when loading the clip.
Loading the first bullet. The bolt is initially up & back.
clock (bolt forward) – clock (bolt down) – now ready to shoot.
Shooting & reloading.
Bang (the shot) …… click (bolt lift) – clack (bolt back)(eject) – clockk (bolt forward)(& then bolt down)(combined) – klunk (hull hitting ground).
Clockk – this was a combined bolt forward & bolt down – making one combined sound.
Klunk – this was more of a thud here when hitting ground, or it was a klink if hitting another shell on the ground -- or of course it would be a klunk if hitting a wooden floor (or a klunketyklunketyklunk).
The clockk & the klunk were at the same time, or the klunk was sometimes slightly after (difficult to tell).
So, what sounds could Oswald have made?
[ a ] In a simple case he is ready to pull the trigger, & fires 2 shots, in which case Norman might hear….
Bang …… click-clack-clockk-klunketyklunketyklunk.………. (Oswald then takes aim).
Bang …… click-clack-clockk- klunketyklunketyklunk.
Oswald then duznt pull the trigger to fire his last bullet.
[ b ] If for some reason Oswald was not ready to pull the trigger then Norman might have heard….
click-clack-clockk-klunketyklunketyklunk (very old empty shell ejected)(& bullet loaded) ……… (Oswald then takes aim).
Bang …… click-clack-clockk- klunketyklunketyklunk ………. (Oswald then takes aim).
Bang …… click-clack-clockk- klunketyklunketyklunk.
Oswald then duznt pull the trigger to fire his last bullet.
In [ a ] Norman hears 2 shells hit the floor. In [ b ] Norman hears 3 shells hit the floor.
In both [ a ]&[ b ] Norman would have heard the Baaannggg of Hickey's auto burst say 6 seconds after Oswald's 2 Bangs.
-
While the WC allowed for the possibility of only two shots, it seems pretty far fetched to me. JBC said he heard a shot before the one that hit him in the back. The clear consensus of witnesses is there 3 shots. Most compelling, three spent shell casings in the snipers nest. That dog won't hunt.
Norman was correct there were 3 shots from the TSBD, but also one from the GK. For whatever reason many did not hear the first, but Connally did.
BREHM said when the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded, and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction. BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.
Brehm missed hearing the first shot that missed, but heard three shots with the first being Z-223. See how frustrating this case is.
-
Norman was correct there were 3 shots from the TSBD, but also one from the GK. For whatever reason many did not hear the first, but Connally did.
Brehm missed hearing the first shot that missed, but heard three shots with the first being Z-223. See how frustrating this case is.
There is zero forensic, medical, or eyewitness evidence of a gunman on the GK. Nothing but a bunch of people who thought the shots sounded like they came from that direction. Another bunch of people said the shots sounded like they came from the direction of the TSBD. There is forensic evidence and eyewitnesses who corroborate the latter group. There is zero corroboration to support the former.
-
There is zero forensic, medical, or eyewitness evidence of a gunman on the GK. Nothing but a bunch of people who thought the shots sounded like they came from that direction. Another bunch of people said the shots sounded like they came from the direction of the TSBD. There is forensic evidence and eyewitnesses who corroborate the latter group. There is zero corroboration to support the former.
John, nobody can place Oswald in the window at 12:30 but I believe he was there and fired 3 shots. The assassination happened so fast any shooter could have disappeared quickly standing behind the fence. Here's what we know:
1. Lee Bowers saw men standing behind the fence, Bowers described the shots as bang.....bang bang
2. S.M. Holland heard the shot and found fresh footprints and cigarette butts.
3. Joe Marshall Smith encountered a man flashing SS credentials, there were no agents assigned to the GK
4. Clint Hill said the head shot sounded different than the Z-223 shot, saw wound to back of head
5. Jiggle analyses show the two largest episodes during the Z-313 and Z-327 time frame
-
Norman was correct there were 3 shots from the TSBD, but also one from the GK. For whatever reason many did not hear the first, but Connally did.
Brehm missed hearing the first shot that missed, but heard three shots with the first being Z-223. See how frustrating this case is.
To reiterate:
1. Norman testified the first shot was when JFK got past the window, and JFK "slumped or something." So the shot that missed caused JFK to "slump or something?" Does this not sound more like the supposed second shot?
2. Williams testified he "really didn't pay any attention" to the first shot (from right above his head?) but the second shot "sounded like it was right in the building" (meaning the first didn't?).
3. Jarman testified he thought the first shot was a backfire or a policeman saluting JFK and "didn't think too much about it" (even though it was actually a high-powered rifle being fired from inside the building right above his head?).
Consistent with the two-shot scenario, this sounds to me like the folks directly below Oswald may have been descrbing a sound that many earwitnesses seem to have heard that was in fact not Oswald firing an early missed shot.
-
There is zero forensic, medical, or eyewitness evidence of a gunman on the GK. Nothing but a bunch of people who thought the shots sounded like they came from that direction. Another bunch of people said the shots sounded like they came from the direction of the TSBD. There is forensic evidence and eyewitnesses who corroborate the latter group. There is zero corroboration to support the former.
John, you are once again absolutely correct. Cute that people here are still using Lee Bowers to support the notion of a shot from the front..
-
It's remarkable how candid the WC was about the possibility of only two shots:
"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 physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. ... It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. ... The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired."
Of course, as previously stated this was not the WC going out on any limb because, if anything, the two-shot scenario makes the LN narrative even less problematical.
-
It's remarkable how candid the WC was about the possibility of only two shots:
"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 physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. ... It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. ... The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired."
Of course, as previously stated this was not the WC going out on any limb because, if anything, the two-shot scenario makes the LN narrative even less problematical.
Here is a fine example two witnesses heard the frontal shot and were convinced to change their story.
-
Here is a fine example two witnesses heard the frontal shot and were convinced to change their story.
Both Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers said that O'Neil's claims that they were convinced to change their account were not true.
O'Donnell: "The story [that he changed his story] is an absolute lie…whoever gave that story is lying. It’s an absolute, outright lie." – Kenneth O’Donnell, Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13490317134/Keykw08es0rvv6i/Screenshot 2026-05-16 195215.jpg)
And here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lQhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1934%2C3948488&hl=en
-
Both Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers said that O'Neil's claims that they were convinced to change their account were not true.
O'Donnell: "The story [that he changed his story] is an absolute lie…whoever gave that story is lying. It’s an absolute, outright lie." – Kenneth O’Donnell, Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13490317134/Keykw08es0rvv6i/Screenshot 2026-05-16 195215.jpg)
And here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lQhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1934%2C3948488&hl=en
(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/ODonnell_0001a.gif)
I believe Tip O'Neil. Powers and O'Donnell were loyal to the family I understand why they denied it.
-
(https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/ODonnell_0001a.gif)
I believe Tip O'Neil. Powers and O'Donnell were loyal to the family I understand why they denied it.
Obviously, either Powers or O'Neill lied about the conversation. I can believe Powers thought shots came from the GK because a lot of other people made that same mistake. If he did believe that, he should have testified that way even if the FBI told him he was wrong.
-
While the WC allowed for the possibility of only two shots, it seems pretty far fetched to me. JBC said he heard a shot before the one that hit him in the back. The clear consensus of witnesses is there 3 shots. Most compelling, three spent shell casings in the snipers nest. That dog won't hunt.
Not quite, the WC not only allowed for only two shots they also postulated one of the shells was ejected before the shooting. CE 543 shows no signs of having been fired during the assassination. Maybe that is the one they referred to. Three shells does not automatically mean three shots.
With all these three shot witnesses , which witness actually stated the first shot missed. The one certainty it was not JBC.
JBC stated he did not hear the shot that hit him, but he also said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Both Nellie and Jackie stated that was after the first shot. Nellie added before the second shot. Jackie stated there were only the two shots.
Ultimately, where is the eyewitness to JFK not reacting to the first shot.
Nellie is definite the first shot struck JFK not just vanished into thin air. She also referenced JBC's own words as to when he was struck by the first shot. AS did Jackie.
Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, on there was the second shot that hit John.
The theory there was an early missed shot is ridiculous. No evidence of one at all.
A Zapruder clearly states when the first shot took place.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Here is the best part. A handful of clowns decided to do jiggle analysis a guy who states he only heard two shots. Probably the same group of clowns who invented the early missed shot because there was not other way of rectifying three shots and a 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano. They should have just paid attention to what the eyewitnesses told them.
-
Not quite, the WC not only allowed for only two shots they also postulated one of the shells was ejected before the shooting. CE 543 shows no signs of having been fired during the assassination. Maybe that is the one they referred to. Three shells does not automatically mean three shots.
Yes, the WC did recognize the possibility Oswald started with an empty shell in the chamber but as I already said, that seems far-fetched. JBC insisted until the day he died he was not hit by the first shot but was hit by the second shot. If true and there were only two shots, which shot hit JFK in the head?
With all these three shot witnesses , which witness actually stated the first shot missed. The one certainty it was not JBC.
The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK and JBC reacted at the same instant when both flipped their arms upward at Z226. That is the strongest evidence that the SBT was correct. If both were hit by the same shot and JBC heard a shot before the one that struck him, it stands to reason that the first shot missed.
JBC stated he did not hear the shot that hit him, but he also said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Both Nellie and Jackie stated that was after the first shot. Nellie added before the second shot. Jackie stated there were only the two shots.
Neither of the wives gave accounts that were compatible with the body of evidence. I'll give them a pass for getting it wrong under the circumstances.
Ultimately, where is the eyewitness to JFK not reacting to the first shot.
The best witness we have. The Z-film.
Nellie is definite the first shot struck JFK not just vanished into thin air. She also referenced JBC's own words as to when he was struck by the first shot. AS did Jackie.
They were both clearly wrong.
Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, on there was the second shot that hit John.
Any theory that rests solely on the recollection of human witnesses is suspect from the start.
The theory there was an early missed shot is ridiculous. No evidence of one at all.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
A Zapruder clearly states when the first shot took place.
I have far more faith in Zapruder's camera than I do in Zapruder.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Here is the best part. A handful of clowns decided to do jiggle analysis a guy who states he only heard two shots. Probably the same group of clowns who invented the early missed shot because there was not other way of rectifying three shots and a 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano. They should have just paid attention to what the eyewitnesses told them.
Why would anyone put their faith in eyewitnesses? It is the most unreliable form of evidence we have. The Innocence Project as gotten hundreds of convictions reverse, most of them convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitnesses who were proven wrong. If I ever serve on a jury again, I would never vote to convict somebody if the best evidence a prosecutor offered was an eyewitness' account.
-
Yes, the WC did recognize the possibility Oswald started with an empty shell in the chamber but as I already said, that seems far-fetched. JBC insisted until the day he died he was not hit by the first shot but was hit by the second shot. If true and there were only two shots, which shot hit JFK in the head?
The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK and JBC reacted at the same instant when both flipped their arms upward at Z226. That is the strongest evidence that the SBT was correct. If both were hit by the same shot and JBC heard a shot before the one that struck him, it stands to reason that the first shot missed.
Neither of the wives gave accounts that were compatible with the body of evidence. I'll give them a pass for getting it wrong under the circumstances.
The best witness we have. The Z-film.
They were both clearly wrong.
Any theory that rests solely on the recollection of human witnesses is suspect from the start.
I have far more faith in Zapruder's camera than I do in Zapruder.
Why would anyone put their faith in eyewitnesses? It is the most unreliable form of evidence we have. The Innocence Project as gotten hundreds of convictions reverse, most of them convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitnesses who were proven wrong. If I ever serve on a jury again, I would never vote to convict somebody if the best evidence a prosecutor offered was an eyewitness' account.
Lance, you were wondering why the two shot narrative does not seem to gain popularity. John has provided a perfect example. Here you go. Here is a LNers rational at its zenith.
John believes all peoples' memories are suspect. A person is not able to recall what took place 15 minutes ago, except earwitness. An earwitness is beyond reproach.
Not one witness was provided who stated they saw a missed shot. It is all interpreting the supposed actions seen in the Zapruder film, but not before completely dismissing Zapruders own repeated statements.
If there is not an early missed shot, then the only alternative is Gov Connally has to have been struck by a second shot. Even though John believes in SBT.
John believes a bullet is SBT and then cannot understand the next shot was the headshot. Yet that is the exact premise of his early missed shot theory.
John only believes the three shot statements of just the earwitnesses or Gov Connally, but numerous two shot eyewitness cannot remember what happened and are not to be believed.
John believes in his own personal interpretation of the Zapruder Film but not Zapruder himself.
John believes in the statement of JBC and no one else. The people all around him are just unaware. Unless a three shot earwitness made the statement.
The earwitnesses can state they heard three shots and they are above scrutiny. The eyewitnesses, who not only heard what happened but were able to relate it to what they saw, are not to be trusted.
The LNer’s telling an impossible faith based story that does not fit any of the known evidence is why there is no real resolution to the JFKA. There is only proof of two shots and it is in every facet of the assassination. Two shots are the answer. Three shots can never be rectified to the evidence and will never be believed. Any conspiracy is infinitely more believable than this early missed shot nonsense. Mason’s goofy theory is way better than the Early missed shot. Mason at least tried to acknowledge some of the evidence. A second shot wounding cannot be explained in the context of a 2.3 second cycle time of the Oswald’s carcano.
-
Lance, you were wondering why the two shot narrative does not seem to gain popularity. John has provided a perfect example. Here you go. Here is a LNers rational at its zenith.
John believes all peoples' memories are suspect. A person is not able to recall what took place 15 minutes ago, except earwitness. An earwitness is beyond reproach.
You completely misrepresent what I have said repeatedly. I have never said a person is not able to recall events. I have said that witnesses don't remember things perfectly. The do remember some things but they also get some things wrong. The task is to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong by comparing their recollections to the body of evidence as a whole. In this case, we have a witness far more credible than all the other witnesses combined, and that is Zapruder's camera. Any eyewitness account that conflicts with the Z-film should be rejected.
As for my accepting earwitnesses as gospel, you obviously have not read what I have said about the earwitnesses who said the shots came from the GK. They were dead wrong. I know they were dead wrong because it conflicts with the body of evidence, starting with other earwitnesses who said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. We know they were right because EYEwtinesses saw a shooter firing from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor, 3 shell were found at the location the eyewitnesses pointed to, and a rifle was found elsewhere on the 6th floor. That rifle was possitively matched to the shells found in the sniper's nest and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting.
As for believing JBC, he said he turned to his right after he heard the shot that did not hit him. The Z-film shows him start that turn at frame Z164. 6= frames later, we see his jacket suddenly bulge outward and two frames later he reacts by flipping his right arm upward followed immediately by him doubling over and twisting to his right, obviously in reaction to having been shot through the torso. I think JBC would know he heard a shot and then several seconds later he was hit by a follow up shot. The Z-film shows us that he did.
Not one witness was provided who stated they saw a missed shot. It is all interpreting the supposed actions seen in the Zapruder film, but not before completely dismissing Zapruders own repeated statements.
Your fallacy is believing eyewitnesses are needed to establish what happened. Many crimes are solved without eyewitnesses. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock left no witnesses when they murdered the Clutter family yet the investigators were able to convict them on the forensic evidence.
If there is not an early missed shot, then the only alternative is Gov Connally has to have been struck by a second shot. Even though John believes in SBT.
I have no idea what your point here is. The SBT is perfectly compatible with a first shot miss and second shot strike.
John believes a bullet is SBT and then cannot understand the next shot was the headshot. Yet that is the exact premise of his early missed shot theory.
Yes it is. Now explain why that is wrong.
John only believes the three shot statements of just the earwitnesses or Gov Connally, but numerous two shot eyewitness cannot remember what happened and are not to be believed.
That is how you resolve cases where the eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts. They can't all be correct. That's why you turn to what other evidence is available to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
John believes in his own personal interpretation of the Zapruder Film but not Zapruder himself.
It is not an interpretation that JBC turned to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164 and 60 frames later his jacket bulged out and 2 frames after that he suddenly flipped his right arm upward. Do you dispute that is what happened.
John believes in the statement of JBC and no one else. The people all around him are just unaware. Unless a three shot earwitness made the statement.
Unlike you, I do not rely solely on witnesses to tell me what happened. I evaluate what they have said in the context of all the available evidence. That allows me to determine who got what right and who got things wrong.
The earwitnesses can state they heard three shots and they are above scrutiny. The eyewitnesses, who not only heard what happened but were able to relate it to what they saw, are not to be trusted.
Since you foolishly rely solely on witnesses, I'm not surprised you can't understand the concept of corroboration.
The LNer’s telling an impossible faith based story that does not fit any of the known evidence is why there is no real resolution to the JFKA. There is only proof of two shots and it is in every facet of the assassination. Two shots are the answer. Three shots can never be rectified to the evidence and will never be believed. Any conspiracy is infinitely more believable than this early missed shot nonsense. Mason’s goofy theory is way better than the Early missed shot. Mason at least tried to acknowledge some of the evidence. A second shot wounding cannot be explained in the context of a 2.3 second cycle time of the Oswald’s carcano.
That might be the dumbest thing you have written.......so far.
-
You completely misrepresent what I have said repeatedly. I have never said a person is not able to recall events. I have said that witnesses don't remember things perfectly. The do remember some things but they also get some things wrong. The task is to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong by comparing their recollections to the body of evidence as a whole. In this case, we have a witness far more credible than all the other witnesses combined, and that is Zapruder's camera. Any eyewitness account that conflicts with the Z-film should be rejected.
As for my accepting earwitnesses as gospel, you obviously have not read what I have said about the earwitnesses who said the shots came from the GK. They were dead wrong. I know they were dead wrong because it conflicts with the body of evidence, starting with other earwitnesses who said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. We know they were right because EYEwtinesses saw a shooter firing from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor, 3 shell were found at the location the eyewitnesses pointed to, and a rifle was found elsewhere on the 6th floor. That rifle was possitively matched to the shells found in the sniper's nest and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting.
As for believing JBC, he said he turned to his right after he heard the shot that did not hit him. The Z-film shows him start that turn at frame Z164. 6= frames later, we see his jacket suddenly bulge outward and two frames later he reacts by flipping his right arm upward followed immediately by him doubling over and twisting to his right, obviously in reaction to having been shot through the torso. I think JBC would know he heard a shot and then several seconds later he was hit by a follow up shot. The Z-film shows us that he did.
Your fallacy is believing eyewitnesses are needed to establish what happened. Many crimes are solved without eyewitnesses. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock left no witnesses when they murdered the Clutter family yet the investigators were able to convict them on the forensic evidence.
I have no idea what your point here is. The SBT is perfectly compatible with a first shot miss and second shot strike.
Yes it is. Now explain why that is wrong.
That is how you resolve cases where the eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts. They can't all be correct. That's why you turn to what other evidence is available to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
It is not an interpretation that JBC turned to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164 and 60 frames later his jacket bulged out and 2 frames after that he suddenly flipped his right arm upward. Do you dispute that is what happened.
Unlike you, I do not rely solely on witnesses to tell me what happened. I evaluate what they have said in the context of all the available evidence. That allows me to determine who got what right and who got things wrong.
Since you foolishly rely solely on witnesses, I'm not surprised you can't understand the concept of corroboration.
That might be the dumbest thing you have written.......so far.
Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You have decided your opinion has taken on the status of fact. You were given corroborating evidence. Lots and lots of corroborating evidence. Nelly, Jackie, JBC and JBC crying out after the first shot is clearly corroborating evidence. You responded with a strange post about the Clutter Family murder? Something that is not even remotely relevant.
There was not a shot at Z14, Z150, or Z160 or whatever. The corroborating eyewitnesses explained that JFK reacts to the first shot. Just the way JBC describes in the Hospital Room interview.
After the first shot strikes JFK and JBC, JBC turns and looks directly at JFK, and JFK is slumped just like he describes and so many eyewitnesses described as having taken place after the first shot. There is no doubt he saw JFK after he was hit behind the sign.
This whole Early Missed Shot is pure tripe. Not one shred of evidence to it at all. Apparently, you are not going to provide any. Nothing but trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.
-
Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You have decided your opinion has taken on the status of fact.
On the contrary, my opinions are based on facts. The CTs prefer to believe the myths, of which there are a great many.
You were given corroborating evidence. Lots and lots of corroborating evidence. Nelly, Jackie, JBC and JBC crying out after the first shot is clearly corroborating evidence.
One confused witness isn't much corroboration for another confused witness. I prefer to use hard evidence as corroboration for witness statements, such as the Z-film. CTs prefer to put full faith in witness accounts because there is no hard evidence to support what they want to believe.
Interesting that you cite JBC since he was adamant from the start until he died that he was hit by the second shot.
Do you have any hard evidence that supports the other witnesses you have named?
I didn't thinks so.
You responded with a strange post about the Clutter Family murder? Something that is not even remotely relevant.
I cited that murder as an indication that it if Oswald had lived, it is highly unlikely he would have been executed due to the courts halting executions after 1967. Try reading for context next time.
There was not a shot at Z14, Z150, or Z160 or whatever. The corroborating eyewitnesses explained that JFK reacts to the first shot. Just the way JBC describes in the Hospital Room interview.
Still no real corroboration for your witnesses.
The witnesses you have named were all people who suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves under fire. It is quite understandable that they wouldn't perfectly recall the event.
After the first shot strikes JFK and JBC, JBC turns and looks directly at JFK, and JFK is slumped just like he describes and so many eyewitnesses described as having taken place after the first shot. There is no doubt he saw JFK after he was hit behind the sign.
The first shot did not hit either man. JBC was quite clear about that and the Z-film corroborates that recollection. He also said that upon hearing the first shot he turned to see JFK but could not because he did not turn far enough. We see that turn beginning at Z164. He was turning back toward the front when he felt the second shot strike him in the back.
This whole Early Missed Shot is pure tripe. Not one shred of evidence to it at all. Apparently, you are not going to provide any. Nothing but trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.
The Z-film, coupled with JBC's account, clearly shows us there was a missed shot before the two that hit the target. We can debate as to when that first shot was fired, but there is compelling evidence for that missed shot. We see the reactions of two people to that missed shot, JBC and Rosemary Willis. There is a clear consensus there were three shots and we can see when the second shot struck both JFK and JBC. By itself, the consensus is probative if not proof positive that there were three shots. Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.
-
On the contrary, my opinions are based on facts. The CTs prefer to believe the myths, of which there are a great many.
One confused witness isn't much corroboration for another confused witness. I prefer to use hard evidence as corroboration for witness statements, such as the Z-film. CTs prefer to put full faith in witness accounts because there is no hard evidence to support what they want to believe.
Interesting that you cite JBC since he was adamant from the start until he died that he was hit by the second shot.
Do you have any hard evidence that supports the other witnesses you have named?
I didn't thinks so.
I cited that murder as an indication that it if Oswald had lived, it is highly unlikely he would have been executed due to the courts halting executions after 1967. Try reading for context next time.
Still no real corroboration for your witnesses.
The witnesses you have named were all people who suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves under fire. It is quite understandable that they wouldn't perfectly recall the event.
The first shot did not hit either man. JBC was quite clear about that and the Z-film corroborates that recollection. He also said that upon hearing the first shot he turned to see JFK but could not because he did not turn far enough. We see that turn beginning at Z164. He was turning back toward the front when he felt the second shot strike him in the back.
The Z-film, coupled with JBC's account, clearly shows us there was a missed shot before the two that hit the target. We can debate as to when that first shot was fired, but there is compelling evidence for that missed shot. We see the reactions of two people to that missed shot, JBC and Rosemary Willis. There is a clear consensus there were three shots and we can see when the second shot struck both JFK and JBC. By itself, the consensus is probative if not proof positive that there were three shots. Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.
J Corbett---” Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.”
No, it does not.
You mean the first statement from JBC. The Hospital statement.
”we had just turned the corner, we heard a shot; I turned to my left—I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat—the President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly.”
He actually turned to his right not his left. Does that make him a “confused witness”, doesn’t matter he was staring right at a slumping JFK. Just as said and just as described by the eyewitnesses. Then there is corroboration of witnesses of Nellie, Jackie, and JBC with what is seen on the Zapruder Film over JBC yelling OH No No No.
Really a child running down a sidewalk and you interpreting her movements is your proof? Doesn’t take much to convince you. You just need to ignore the real evidence and pretend.
-
J Corbett---” Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.”
No, it does not.
You mean the first statement from JBC. The Hospital statement.
”we had just turned the corner, we heard a shot; I turned to my left—I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat—the President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly.”
He actually turned to his right not his left. Does that make him a “confused witness”, doesn’t matter he was staring right at a slumping JFK. Just as said and just as described by the eyewitnesses. Then there is corroboration of witnesses of Nellie, Jackie, and JBC with what is seen on the Zapruder Film over JBC yelling OH No No No.
Interesting how you cherry pick which parts of JBC's testimony you want to give credence to. Yes, Connally did make some misstatements of fact in his first interview. As you pointed out, he said left when he actually turned right. He also did not turn far enough to see JFK on his first turn. He didn't do that until his second turn, after he had been shot. By about Z265, he had turned almost completely around and it was only then that he could have seen JFK. Connoly's confusion in his initial interview with Martin Agronsky from his hospital be is understandable given he was in surgery a long time the day before and been heavily anesthetized. In every other telling of the event, JBC was remarkably consistent that he did not see JFK on his initial turn and in every telling, including the one from his hospital bed, he said he was not hit by the first shot. That's the part you always choose to ignore.
Really a child running down a sidewalk and you interpreting her movements is your proof? Doesn’t take much to convince you. You just need to ignore the real evidence and pretend.
That isn't the most compelling proof of the first shot but it does support the other evidence of the early missed shot, most notably JBC's insistence that the second shot is the one that hit him and the Z-film which shows him turning as he described in his WC testimony.
-
Interesting how you cherry pick which parts of JBC's testimony you want to give credence to. Yes, Connally did make some misstatements of fact in his first interview. As you pointed out, he said left when he actually turned right. He also did not turn far enough to see JFK on his first turn. He didn't do that until his second turn, after he had been shot. By about Z265, he had turned almost completely around and it was only then that he could have seen JFK. Connoly's confusion in his initial interview with Martin Agronsky from his hospital be is understandable given he was in surgery a long time the day before and been heavily anesthetized. In every other telling of the event, JBC was remarkably consistent that he did not see JFK on his initial turn and in every telling, including the one from his hospital bed, he said he was not hit by the first shot. That's the part you always choose to ignore.
That isn't the most compelling proof of the first shot but it does support the other evidence of the early missed shot, most notably JBC's insistence that the second shot is the one that hit him and the Z-film which shows him turning as he described in his WC testimony.
No, no one needs your opinion on JBC’s state of mind. Nellie and Jackie state what occurred, as did all the other eyewitnesses. What did not take place was an early missed shot. That is why you are unable to prove it.
Rosemary Willis, seriously, a child and none of the adults surrounding her knew what was happening. Just her. That is your answer?
-
No, no one needs your opinion on JBC’s state of mind. Nellie and Jackie state what occurred, as did all the other eyewitnesses. What did not take place was an early missed shot. That is why you are unable to prove it.
Rosemary Willis, seriously, a child and none of the adults surrounding her knew what was happening. Just her. That is your answer?
So you base your beliefs on two women who saw their husbands shot right before their eyes and you think they are going to remember the details of the event clearly. That's actually funny.
-
So you base your beliefs on two women who saw their husbands shot right before their eyes and you think they are going to remember the details of the event clearly. That's actually funny.
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
......................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?..............
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
So you believe witnesses can accurately say where the limo was when they heard the first shot but can't count to three. Amazing.
The three shot scenario conforms perfectly with the Z-film, the consensus of the witnesses in Dealy Plaza, the 3 spent shells in the sniper's nest, and JBC's recollection that he heard a shot before the one which hit him in the back. If you want to believe JBC just imagined he heard an early shot before the one which struck him, that's your privilege. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe that nonsense.
-
......................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?..............
There is no mystery to the JFK assassination. The facts have not been buried. They have been available to the public since the publication of the WCR. Those who choose not to believe it are only creating confusion rather than accept clarity.
-
So you believe witnesses can accurately say where the limo was when they heard the first shot but can't count to three. Amazing.
The three shot scenario conforms perfectly with the Z-film, the consensus of the witnesses in Dealy Plaza, the 3 spent shells in the sniper's nest, and JBC's recollection that he heard a shot before the one which hit him in the back. If you want to believe JBC just imagined he heard an early shot before the one which struck him, that's your privilege. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe that nonsense.
So you believe witnesses can accurately say where the limo was when they heard the first shot but can't count to three. Amazing.
Your stating the eyewitnesses heard just two shots and they are supposed to state they heard three? Good point, that would indicate your proposing “medias influence.”
The three shot scenario conforms perfectly with the Z-film, the consensus of the witnesses in Dealy Plaza, the 3 spent shells in the sniper's nest, and JBC's recollection that he heard a shot before the one which hit him in the back. If you want to believe JBC just imagined he heard an early shot before the one which struck him, that's your privilege. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe that nonsense.
Actually, it doesn't. This is not just a three shot scenario. You have been proposing a three shot scenario with an early missed shot at Z160. You have not provided a single witness to this fantasy shot. So much for evidence supporting what only you see in the Zapruder Film. JBC is not twisting and turning and straining to see behind him at that point in time. JBC continues to engage the crowd the same as JFK.
Holland and Meyers understood there was no evidence of a shot. Unless you are thinking a small child running on the side walk and reacting to an imaginary shot that no adult heard is all the evidence you need.
The consensus of the “earwitnesses” was stating there were three shots but that is not what the eyewitnesses stated. The consensus of the eyewitnesses was there was only two shots. The belief that JBC heard an earlier shot is your fantasy. He never stated that. He saw JFK slumped after the first shot.
There is other three shot narratives, maybe try one of those out and see if it makes more sense. A theory without a single witness to support it is not much of a theory. Ask Andrew maybe he has a spare one he has not used in a while.
-
So you believe witnesses can accurately say where the limo was when they heard the first shot but can't count to three. Amazing.
Your stating the eyewitnesses heard just two shots and they are supposed to state they heard three? Good point, that would indicate your proposing “medias influence.”
The three shot scenario conforms perfectly with the Z-film, the consensus of the witnesses in Dealy Plaza, the 3 spent shells in the sniper's nest, and JBC's recollection that he heard a shot before the one which hit him in the back. If you want to believe JBC just imagined he heard an early shot before the one which struck him, that's your privilege. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe that nonsense.
Actually, it doesn't. This is not just a three shot scenario. You have been proposing a three shot scenario with an early missed shot at Z160. You have not provided a single witness to this fantasy shot.
JBC is a witness. Agent Bennet is a witness. Bonnie Ray Williams is a witness. Harold Norman is a witness. Junior Jarman is a witness. I guess you're right. I haven't provided a SINGLE witness to an early shot.
So much for evidence supporting what only you see in the Zapruder Film.
Do you really think I am the only proponent of a three shot, first shot miss scenario. I have news for you. You are the outlier here.
JBC is not twisting and turning and straining to see behind him at that point in time. JBC continues to engage the crowd the same as JFK.
You seem to be addressing a comment I made in an earlier post so I have no idea what the context is for what you are talking about.
Holland and Meyers understood there was no evidence of a shot. Unless you are thinking a small child running on the side walk and reacting to an imaginary shot that no adult heard is all the evidence you need.
The consensus of the “earwitnesses” was stating there were three shots but that is not what the eyewitnesses stated. The consensus of the eyewitnesses was there was only two shots. The belief that JBC heard an earlier shot is your fantasy. He never stated that. He saw JFK slumped after the first shot.
There is other three shot narratives, maybe try one of those out and see if it makes more sense. A theory without a single witness to support it is not much of a theory. Ask Andrew maybe he has a spare one he has not used in a while.
Now you are just resorting to BS. There was a clear consensus of the witnesses that there were 3 shots. The WC said so in their report.
-
JBC is a witness. Agent Bennet is a witness. Bonnie Ray Williams is a witness. Harold Norman is a witness. Junior Jarman is a witness. I guess you're right. I haven't provided a SINGLE witness to an early shot.
Do you really think I am the only proponent of a three shot, first shot miss scenario. I have news for you. You are the outlier here.
You seem to be addressing a comment I made in an earlier post so I have no idea what the context is for what you are talking about.
Now you are just resorting to BS. There was a clear consensus of the witnesses that there were 3 shots. The WC said so in their report.
And you still haven't provided a witness in support.
Have you actually spent any time researching any aspect of the assassination? My guess is when you were on the McAdams site all of this was explained to you, but your explanation then like now was to pretend the witnesses were unreliable. It is hard to believe this is the first time it was explained to you that an Early Missed Shot has no witness support.
Barnett and Williams are two shot witnesses, stated immediately after the assassination, Jarman a shot after the headshot stated 2 days after the assassination, and Norman gave a no reference three shots statement four days after the assassination, then states a year later he only really heard two shots.
JBC was struck by the first shot, get over it.
---------
There can be a million proponents of an early missed shot. It only means a million of you are wrong.
-------
It is a synopsis of JBC’s statements and compared to what is seen at Z160. I am not surprised you did not recognize it. So much for the Zapruder Film being used as hard evidence of an early missed shot.
---------------
You seem to have missed the point. Here it is again.
Holland and Meyers understood there was no evidence of a shot. Unless you are thinking a small child running on the side walk and reacting to an imaginary shot that no adult heard is all the evidence you need.
The consensus of the “earwitnesses” was stating there were three shots but that is not what the eyewitnesses stated. The consensus of the eyewitnesses was there was only two shots. The belief that JBC heard an earlier shot is your fantasy. He never stated that. He saw JFK slumped after the first shot.
There oare ther three shot narratives, maybe try one of those out and see if it makes more sense. A theory without a single witness to support it is not much of a theory. Ask Andrew maybe he has a spare one he has not used in a while.
-
And you still haven't provided a witness in support.{/
Now you are just outright lying. I just gave you five.
Have you actually spent any time researching any aspect of the assassination? My guess is when you were on the McAdams site all of this was explained to you, but your explanation then like now was to pretend the witnesses were unreliable.
I'm hardly the first person to recognize the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Not just in the JFKA, but in criminal cases in general.
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
It is hard to believe this is the first time it was explained to you that an Early Missed Shot has no witness support.
Keep lying. It's what you do best.
Barnett and Williams are two shot witnesses, stated immediately after the assassination, Jarman a shot after the headshot stated 2 days after the assassination, and Norman gave a no reference three shots statement four days after the assassination, then states a year later he only really heard two shots.
I don't know what the forum record is for most lies told in a single post but you have to be close to breaking it if you haven't already. Bennett and Williams accounts most definitely support 3 shots. Bennett said he was scanning the crowd to his right when he heard the first shot. He immediately turn to look at JFK and then saw the shot that struck him in the upper back. He then saw the third shot strike him in the head.
I could only find Willaims testimony in PDF format which doesn't allow copy and paste but you can go to page 175 of his testimony and in the first paragraph he describes the three shots.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Williams.pdf
You question my knowledge about the JFK assassination and then show how little you know.
JBC was struck by the first shot, get over it.
DING! DING! DING! I think you just broke the forum record.
---------
There can be a million proponents of an early missed shot. It only means a million of you are wrong.
or the far more likely explanation that you are wrong given how many misstatements of fact you have made in just one post.
-------
It is a synopsis of JBC’s statements and compared to what is seen at Z160. I am not surprised you did not recognize it. So much for the Zapruder Film being used as hard evidence of an early missed shot.
So now you question the validity of the Z-film. Why am I not surprised. Over the past 35 years I have debated this case online, it's pretty much a given that when somebody with a goofy theory (like you) comes across a piece of hard evidence that conflicts with their theory, they will question the evidence rather than their pet theory. The Z-film shows JBC turning to his right beginning at Z164 just as he said he did in reaction to the first shot which he was adamant did not hit him. I think that is something he would know better than anybody else.
---------------
You seem to have missed the point. Here it is again.
Holland and Meyers understood there was no evidence of a shot. Unless you are thinking a small child running on the side walk and reacting to an imaginary shot that no adult heard is all the evidence you need.
More BS. Throw out Rosemary Willis' reaction. It is the least compelling evidence of a first shot miss. JBC's recollection is only compatible with him being hit by the SECOND shot. Agent Bennett clearly describes a first shot miss followed by two strikes on JFK. Williams, Jarman, and Norman all testified to three shots.
There are 2 shot earwitnesses and 3 shot earwitnesses. Which do you think is more probable. The 2 shot witnesses didn't recognize one of the shots or the 3 shot witness imagined hearing a shot that didn't happen.
The consensus of the “earwitnesses” was stating there were three shots but that is not what the eyewitnesses stated. The consensus of the eyewitnesses was there was only two shots.
I'd love to see your source for that but I'm betting you can't produce such a source.
The belief that JBC heard an earlier shot is your fantasy. He never stated that. He saw JFK slumped after the first shot.
This has to be your biggest whopper of all. JBC was adamant every time he told the story that he was hit by the second shot. It is not my fantasy. It is his statement of fact. You are the one who seems to be out of touch with reality.
There oare ther three shot narratives, maybe try one of those out and see if it makes more sense.
They all make more sense than you. Even Andrew Mason's goofy theory is closer to the truth than what you are trying to sell.
A theory without a single witness to support it is not much of a theory. Ask Andrew maybe he has a spare one he has not used in a while.
I can't decide if you are being deliberately dishonest or are really as ignorant of the facts as you seem to be.
-
Now you are just outright lying. I just gave you five.
I'm hardly the first person to recognize the unreliability of eyewitness accounts. Not just in the JFKA, but in criminal cases in general.
https://legalclarity.org/what-percent-of-eyewitness-testimony-is-accurate/
Keep lying. It's what you do best.
I don't know what the forum record is for most lies told in a single post but you have to be close to breaking it if you haven't already. Bennett and Williams accounts most definitely support 3 shots. Bennett said he was scanning the crowd to his right when he heard the first shot. He immediately turn to look at JFK and then saw the shot that struck him in the upper back. He then saw the third shot strike him in the head.
I could only find Willaims testimony in PDF format which doesn't allow copy and paste but you can go to page 175 of his testimony and in the first paragraph he describes the three shots.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Williams.pdf
You question my knowledge about the JFK assassination and then show how little you know.
DING! DING! DING! I think you just broke the forum record.
or the far more likely explanation that you are wrong given how many misstatements of fact you have made in just one post.
So now you question the validity of the Z-film. Why am I not surprised. Over the past 35 years I have debated this case online, it's pretty much a given that when somebody with a goofy theory (like you) comes across a piece of hard evidence that conflicts with their theory, they will question the evidence rather than their pet theory. The Z-film shows JBC turning to his right beginning at Z164 just as he said he did in reaction to the first shot which he was adamant did not hit him. I think that is something he would know better than anybody else.
More BS. Throw out Rosemary Willis' reaction. It is the least compelling evidence of a first shot miss. JBC's recollection is only compatible with him being hit by the SECOND shot. Agent Bennett clearly describes a first shot miss followed by two strikes on JFK. Williams, Jarman, and Norman all testified to three shots.
There are 2 shot earwitnesses and 3 shot earwitnesses. Which do you think is more probable. The 2 shot witnesses didn't recognize one of the shots or the 3 shot witness imagined hearing a shot that didn't happen.
I'd love to see your source for that but I'm betting you can't produce such a source.
This has to be your biggest whopper of all. JBC was adamant every time he told the story that he was hit by the second shot. It is not my fantasy. It is his statement of fact. You are the one who seems to be out of touch with reality.
They all make more sense than you. Even Andrew Mason's goofy theory is closer to the truth than what you are trying to sell.
I can't decide if you are being deliberately dishonest or are really as ignorant of the facts as you seem to be.
Interesting that you would pick two shot witnesses to make your point about a shot that never happened.
What is obvious is that you have chosen a theory with zero witnesses that support the theory. You also have a very limited understanding of what the witnesses stated, let alone eyewitnesses vs earwitnesses. Your way of dealing with the fact this shot never happened is to pretend what the witnesses stated has no value, other than the one or two that you believe somehow support this early missed shot theory.
Andrew's theory makes more sense than this early missed shot. It makes no sense at all. Nobody heard this shot. Nobody at all. Seriously, that is something you can believe?
-
Interesting that you would pick two shot witnesses to make your point about a shot that never happened.
What is obvious is that you have chosen a theory with zero witnesses that support the theory. You also have a very limited understanding of what the witnesses stated, let alone eyewitnesses vs earwitnesses. Your way of dealing with the fact this shot never happened is to pretend what the witnesses stated has no value, other than the one or two that you believe somehow support this early missed shot theory.
Andrew's theory makes more sense than this early missed shot. It makes no sense at all. Nobody heard this shot. Nobody at all. Seriously, that is something you can believe?
After seeing how many blatant misstatements of facts you have made recently, I have concluded you are nothing but a troll, someone who deliberately tells falsehoods just to get a response from someone. I learned about this pathetic tactic soon after I began engaging with people online on a variety of subjects including politics and sports. Such people get their jollies out of trying to get a rise out of someone by telling obvious lies. They have no interest in legitimate discourse and want only to argue for the sake of arguing. I called out Martin Wiedman about a month ago and since I did, he has hardly posted anything since. It would not surprise me at all if you and he were one and the same. In any case, people like you are not worth the time of day. Find someone else to play your silly games with. I am through dealing with the likes of you. Go away, troll.
-
After seeing how many blatant misstatements of facts you have made recently, I have concluded you are nothing but a troll, someone who deliberately tells falsehoods just to get a response from someone. I learned about this pathetic tactic soon after I began engaging with people online on a variety of subjects including politics and sports. Such people get their jollies out of trying to get a rise out of someone by telling obvious lies. They have no interest in legitimate discourse and want only to argue for the sake of arguing. I called out Martin Wiedman about a month ago and since I did, he has hardly posted anything since. It would not surprise me at all if you and he were one and the same. In any case, people like you are not worth the time of day. Find someone else to play your silly games with. I am through dealing with the likes of you. Go away, troll.
I am not going anywhere. You don't like the fact you are facing what it is you have been proposing and it is seriously flawed. It is easy to see how screwed up this early missed hot truly is.
How about at least think about what you are proposing. Your whole theory is nothing more than there were two shots and supposedly a shot that no one heard. Nobody at all. Holland and Meyers knew that, why don’t you. Not even the guys directly below the rifle. None of the SS heard anything. That is what you want the world to believe. You really cannot see the folly in the whole logic of it? Especially when the HSCA Sound Analysis explained there was no mistaking the sound of a rifle shot.