JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Corbett on June 29, 2026, 03:52:09 PM
-
That would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo but we can safely assume he was not.
CTs like to raise this point to make it seem improbable that the same guy who missed the limo with his first shot could fire the next two with deadly accuracy. The first shot was by far the hardest for reasons I have laid out in previous threads. It seems ironic that some of the same CTs who don't think it is plausible that Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot are perfectly willing to believe the GK shooter completely missed the limo with his one and only shot. That was the conclusion of the HSCA based on their reliance on the acoustical evidence.
Then of course we have the CTs who insist the GK shooter didn't miss the limo. They believe the GK shooter fired the kill shot to the head. This belief is illogical on so many levels. A headshot from the JFK would have resulted in massive trauma to the left hemisphere of JFK's brain. The left hemisphere was intact.
If JFK had been driven back by such a shot, he would have gone back and to the left, toward the center of the back seat. The reality is he went straight back. When his back contacted the rear seatback, he was still on the far right side of the seat. The illusion that he went back and to the left was created by the fact he was already leaning to his left when he went straight back following the headshot.
Lastly, the most compelling reason to dismiss a headshot coming from the GK is there is no medical evidence of such a shot. The medical evidence is conclusive that the headshot was fired from behind JFK. The radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the back of JFK's head establish that fact. So does the inward beveling in the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head. So does the fact that the massive brain trauma was to the right hemisphere of JFK's brain. Even WC critic Cyril Wecht agrees the medical evidence indicates conclusively that the head shot came from behind JFK. So does every qualified medicat examiner who reviewed the photos and x-rays from the autopsy. A shot from the GK simply isn't plausible no matter how you slice it.
-
Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot?
What was the angular velocity of JFK's head from the Sniper's Nest point of view at "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-secound pause?
-
This seems to studiously avoid the more Occam-like and evidence-based possibilities. In my humble and exceedingly uninformed opinion, both the "missed first shot" and any "frontal shot" are fantasies and red herrings. The plausible possibilities are (1) Oswald simply fired two shots and that's all there is to the JFKA, bada-boom bada-bing; or (2) Oswald fired two shots but the SBT is incorrect and a third shot that did not miss its mark was fired on a flatter trajectory from either the Dal-Tex or County Records building. I have no emotional attachment to either possibility, but I increasingly think #2 is far from implausible. (Orr has four shots, with a pro making the head shot and Oswald missing everything with his third shot immediately after that, so there are alternative possibilities within #2.)
The more I dive into the evidence and authorities supporting my views that folks like blowhard Dan O'Meara dismiss as "discredited nonsense," as I have done this morning in regard to the issue of when JFK sustained his throat wound , the more I discover that folks way more qualified than little old me do not regard them as discredited or nonsensical at all - quite the contrary. And the more I am convinced that way too often in JFKA discussions "theory" drives the "evidence" rather than the other way around - i.e., what folks want to believe occurred drives their interpretation of the evidence as to what did occur.
It would interesting to have the photographic, medical and ballistics evidence reviewed by a panel of world-class experts who have absolutely no dog in the fight - experts from Brazil and Sweden and China who care nothing about JFK or the JFKA and who haven't been influenced by 62 years of speculation.
-
Well there is no record of Oswald having practiced shooting at a 12-15mph target at ranges of 60-90 yds from a firing position 72 ft in height.
And since the rifle was stored in the Paines garage while Oswald lived at the boarding house then he probably had not fired the rifle for several months.
And then his plan was hastily conceived and he was probably in high state of anxiety just before he started shooting. So he could have inadvertently squeezed the trigger as he leaned over to position the rifle on the stacked box firing platform.
Who knows if the scope was even zeroed correctly for that 100 yds range and if the reticle had drifted off it’s zero.
Could have been some minor trigger malfunction because Oswald for 15 minutes while on the 6th floor could not have prepped by operating bolt and trigger because of Bonnie Ray Williams on the floor until about 12:23. And then from
12:23-12:30 Norman was on the 5th floor directly beneath the SN and he did not hear any sound of bolt or trigger operation preceding the shooting.
-
Sure, we can hypothesize HOW Oswald might have missed, but the most parsimonious, evidence-based, Occam-friendly explanation is "He didn't." I have just a bit of conceptual difficulty with a shot that misses everything followed by two longer shots that are pretty much right on the money.
-
Sure, we can hypothesize HOW Oswald might have missed, but the most parsimonious, evidence-based, Occam-friendly explanation is "He didn't." I have just a bit of conceptual difficulty with a shot that misses everything followed by two longer shots that are pretty much right on the money.
Dear FPR,
Oswald's first shot (at "Z-124") was the most difficult of the three.
-- Tom
-
Sure, we can hypothesize HOW Oswald might have missed, but the most parsimonious, evidence-based, Occam-friendly explanation is "He didn't." I have just a bit of conceptual difficulty with a shot that misses everything followed by two longer shots that are pretty much right on the money.
You probably have not done much shooting if you can't recognize how much more difficult the early first shot was compared to the to later an longer shots. At 88 yards or less, distance is hardly a factor at all. He was firing almost dead down range with little relative movement of the target to the line of fire. That was not true of the first shot which also required shooting from an awkward stance with nothing to brace the rifle with the window sash likely partially obscuring his view.
I've always wished somebody would do a reenactment of that first shot just to see what challenges it would have presented. I'm not asking for a duplication which is impossible. Just a re-enactment to highlight the difficulties.
-
Like everyone else, I have puzzled over what happened to the three audible shots of 11/22. There may have been inaudible shots (simultaneous shots, or shots from a rifle with a silencer). Some witnesses heard four shots, but the most common account is "bang....bang-bang."
It does seem unlikely the TSBD6 sniper would miss the entire limo, and moreover the shot that hit a concrete curb hard enough to cause a fragment to chip off and cut James Tague's face is usually left unexplained.
The SBT-LNT theories are only theories, after all.
My best guess is first audible shot hit JFK, the second hit JBC, and the third JFK, as recounted by the Connallys, and which, in my layman's view, is seen in the Z-film.
I understand other JFKA buffs have different views.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
You probably have not done much shooting if you can't recognize how much more difficult the early first shot was compared to the to later an longer shots. At 88 yards or less, distance is hardly a factor at all. He was firing almost dead down range with little relative movement of the target to the line of fire. That was not true of the first shot which also required shooting from an awkward stance with nothing to brace the rifle with the window sash likely partially obscuring his view.
I've always wished somebody would do a reenactment of that first shot just to see what challenges it would have presented. I'm not asking for a duplication which is impossible. Just a re-enactment to highlight the difficulties.
In my 20's, I lived on my father-in-law's remote ranch where about the only amusement was shooting. I owned a .30-06, a .308, an old Mauser and virtually every caliber of handgun from .22 to .44 magnum. I had a Rock-Chucker reloading setup and was about as "into" shooting as one could reasonably be. That being said, I see no reason on earth that Oswald would have taken a shot from "an awkward stance with nothing to brace the rifle with the window sash likely partially obscuring his view," would have missed everything if he had, and would have then proceeded to place two shots pretty precisely on target - and I believe the best evidence and explanation is "he didn't." But then, I do have the advantage that I'm not trying to prop up some pet theory.
-
Like everyone else, I have puzzled over what happened to the three audible shots of 11/22. There may have been inaudible shots (simultaneous shots, or shots from a rifle with a silencer). Some witnesses heard four shots, but the most common account is "bang....bang-bang."
It does seem unlikely the TSBD6 sniper would miss the entire limo, and moreover the shot that hit a concrete curb hard enough to cause a fragment to chip off and cut James Tague's face is usually left unexplained.
The SBT-LNT theories are only theories, after all.
My best guess is first audible shot hit JFK, the second hit JBC, and the third JFK, as recounted by the Connallys, and which, in my layman's view, is seen in the Z-film.
I understand other JFKA buffs have different views.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
We see JBC reacting to the first shot at Z164 just as he said he did and JFK is clearly not struck so it stands to reason that the shot didn't hit either of them. Almost immediately after they both reappear from behind the sign they both react by flipping their arms upward, after which JFK leans over to his left and JBC turns and dips to the right. Both have obviously been shot at that point. There is no evidence of any shots fired other than those fired by Oswald's rifle. There is no medical evidence of any shots fire from any direction other than behind the the two victims. There are no eyewitnesses who saw a gunman anywhere except the 6th floor sniper's nest. Why the hell would anyone believe there was a second gunman and why would they reject the SBT which is actually the Single Bullet Fact. It is the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK's torso and all of JBC's wounds. It did not require a magic bullet. It is the only explanation for those wounds ever offered that does not require magic bullet.
-
That would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo but we can safely assume he was not.
Even one of your fellow lone-gunman theorists has pointed out to you that the sixth-floor gunman would have had to miss JFK by 3-4 feet in order to miss the gigantic limousine.
Even the Warren Commission, for all their faults, correctly reasoned that it was unlikely that the gunman would have missed the entire limo with his first and closest shot.
Once again you have put yourself on the amateur fringe of the lone-gunman camp.
CTs like to raise this point to make it seem improbable that the same guy who missed the limo with his first shot could fire the next two with deadly accuracy. The first shot was by far the hardest for reasons I have laid out in previous threads.
And I've personally answered your silly reasons, pointing out why they are nonsensical. Yet, you regurgitate this nonsense and ignore the counterarguments that have been presented to you. A newcomer would never know this unless they bothered to read the threads in which your scenario has been critiqued.
It seems ironic that some of the same CTs who don't think it is plausible that Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot are perfectly willing to believe the GK shooter completely missed the limo with his one and only shot.
What is truly ironic is that someone who knows so little about the JFK case would pretend to be any kind of an authority on the shooting.
Now, just FYI, the grassy knoll gunman could have missed JFK's head by just a fraction of an inch and easily missed the limousine, because he was firing from slightly above and to the right of the limo.
In contrast, as even one of your fellow WC apologists has told you, your sixth-floor gunman would have had to miss JFK by 3-4 feet in order to miss the limousine. As a reminder, the limo was 21.5 feet long and 6.5 feet wide.
I notice you didn't mention your ridiculous theory that "Oswald" fired his first alleged shot before Z133, which would have required him to shoot at a sharply downward angle. The FBI's Robert Frazier told the WC that a pre-Z166 shot would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees.
Yet, at such an angle, the limo would have presented a gigantic target, impossible to miss.
And, I ask you again, where did this fanciful Z132-Z133 miss go? And, even more important, how could this miss have caused a bullet or fragment to hit the curb near James Tague and to send metal or concrete fragments streaking toward him with enough force to cut his cheek?
That was the conclusion of the HSCA based on their reliance on the acoustical evidence.
Once again you repeat misleading information that you have been corrected on in previous exchanges. As I have told you, the HSCA's staff were divided about whether the grassy knoll shot missed, and the syncing with the Zapruder film that made it into the final report omitted the 140.3 impulse pattern on the dictabelt, even though it passed the echo-delay matching test, and even though 8 of its 10 impulses matched the impulses of one of the Dealey Plaza test shots.
Then of course we have the CTs who insist the GK shooter didn't miss the limo. They believe the GK shooter fired the kill shot to the head. This belief is illogical on so many levels. A headshot from the JFK would have resulted in massive trauma to the left hemisphere of JFK's brain. The left hemisphere was intact.
You know this is nonsense because I have personally addressed this very issue with you and cited medical experts to reinforce the points.
And, umm, are you the same John Corbett who has repeatedly said you're "not qualified" to explain the medical evidence? Yet, here you are making sweeping--and erroneous--claims about the medical evidence regarding a shot from the front.
A right-frontal head shot with a high-velocity frangible bullet would not necessarily have caused "massive trauma" to the left side of the brain.
If the left brain was "intact," how did bullet fragments get lodged in it? FYI, there are fragments in the left side of JFK’s brain, and there are also fragments lying below the horizontal plane of the floor of the anterior fossa, on both the left and right sides of the skull, a fact confirmed by Dr. Wecht, Dr. Aguilar, and Dr. Chessar--and Dr. Mantik also confirmed this with optical-density measurements.
You know, you are constantly blundering over the medical evidence because you haven't done your homework. You haven't even read the HSCA FPP's report, the Clark Panel's report, the RC medical panel's report, the released HSCA medical interviews and testimony, and the ARRB medical-related interviews, much less any of the scholarly research on the JFK medical evidence done by private experts over the last 20 years.
If JFK had been driven back by such a shot, he would have gone back and to the left, toward the center of the back seat. The reality is he went straight back. When his back contacted the rear seatback, he was still on the far right side of the seat. The illusion that he went back and to the left was created by the fact he was already leaning to his left when he went straight back following the headshot.
LOL! Oh, so the left-rear head snap is just an "illusion"! You again show that you don't even know what your own side has said on key issues.
Even your side's most qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, acknowledges that back-left head snap occurs in the Zapruder film. He says that the film shows JFK's head moving "rapidly backward" and that the head snap moves "the President’s torso backward into the seat of the car."
FYI, Sturdivan rejects the jet-effect explanation and the neuromuscular-reaction explanation for the head snap; he says the rapid backward motion was caused by a muscle spasm that resulted from spinal damage induced by the head shot (The JFK Myths, pp. 154-167)
Lastly, the most compelling reason to dismiss a headshot coming from the GK is there is no medical evidence of such a shot. The medical evidence is conclusive that the headshot was fired from behind JFK.
One, you know this is false because I have personally cited and linked for you research by Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik that presents medical evidence of a shot from the front, including clear evidence on the skull x-rays.
Two, in other threads you have cried, "I don't have to explain the medical evidence because I'm not qualified to explain it." Then what in the devil are you doing here talking about the medical evidence?! Huh?
IOW, when you're asked to explain the indisputable proof of alteration and fraud in the medical evidence, you beg off with the claim that, gee, you're just not qualified to explain the medical evidence. But, then you turn around in other threads and make adamant declarations about what the medical evidence does and does not show.
The radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the back of JFK's head establish that fact.
Oh?! Well, umm, which "entry point in the back of JFK's head" are you talking about? According to the autopsy doctors, the autopsy radiologist, the autopsy photographer, and two federal agents who attended the autopsy, as well as Dr. Sturdivan, Dr. Riley, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, and others, the entry point was the EOP site described in the autopsy report and reaffirmed by the autopsy doctors after a five-hour review of the autopsy materials in 1966. But, according to the HSCA FPP, the Clark Panel, and the RC medical panel, the entry site was a whopping 4 inches higher, at least 1 cm above the lambda in the parietal bone.
Which entry point are you talking about?
So does the inward beveling in the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head.
LOL! I know you have no clue what a land mine you just stepped on with this comment. I know you have no clue about the severe disagreements over the issue of beveling in the skull and in the skull fragments.
The autopsy doctors specifically cited beveling in the skull at the EOP site as evidence of an entry wound. They even reflected the scalp and examined the wound from both sides. Dr. Boswell dropped the bombshell on the HSCA, and again with the ARRB, that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments from Dallas. Dr. xxxx even had pictures taken of the interior of the EOP entry wound, but they vanished.
Your comment again begs the question: Which entry point are you talking about?
So does the fact that the massive brain trauma was to the right hemisphere of JFK's brain.
WHHAAAAATTT?! So you reject the brain photos after all, since they show no "massive trauma" to the right hemisphere, and since they only show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue from the entire brain?!
I certainly agree that the autopsy skull x-rays show massive trauma to the right brain; they show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing. But we see no such damage in the alleged autopsy brain photos.
The brain photos only show one long laceration starting at the front of the right occipital lobe and running slightly to the right of the midline to the end of the frontal lobe. This narrow laceration does not even touch the occipital lobes--both the right and left occipital lobes are intact, undamaged.
And, again, Baden himself admitted that the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue, yet the skull x-rays show a massive loss of brain tissue in the right brain, about 2/3 of the right cerebrum, a fact first identified by Dr. Fred Hodges of the RC medical panel, and confirmed years later by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, Dr. Humes, Dr. Lattimer, etc.
Even WC critic Cyril Wecht agrees the medical evidence indicates conclusively that the head shot came from behind JFK.
You know this is false. I have personally pointed out to you that even in his HSCA FPP dissent, Wecht argued for a frontal shot, and that after the FPP he became even more convinced there was a frontal shot.
And, just for your education, here's what Wecht said about the kind of ammo that caused JFK's head damage in an interview with Howard Donahue:
It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this, that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They make break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that. And so when you say it behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time." (Mortal Error, p. 231)
As I have pointed out to you several times, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the best forensic pathologists in the 20th and 21st centuries, said the exact same thing: that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments.
If the forensic evidence proves anything, it proves that the ammo that hit JFK's head was not the same kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. Oswald supposedly used full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) ammo, but FMJ ammo will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, much less while also magically leaving several fragments in the rear outer table of the skull and two fragments at the other end of the skull near the right orbit.
So does every qualified medicat [medical] examiner who reviewed the photos and x-rays from the autopsy.
You know this is both false and misleading. And, apparently you don't know that not all medical examiners are forensic pathologists.
Dr. Wecht, Dr. Nichols, and Dr. Fillinger were forensic pathologists, and all three rejected the lone-gunman shooting scenario and argued that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo. A host of other highly qualified medical experts have likewise rejected your version of the shooting and have posited a frontal shot, including Dr. Robert Livingston, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Randy Robertson, Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Art Snyder, Dr. Doug DeSalles, Dr. John Costello, and Dr. Michael Chesser.
I notice you didn't say a word about the evidence of a frontal shot that I've presented to you in other threads.
A shot from the GK simply isn't plausible no matter how you slice it.
It is far more plausible than your impossible scenario of an FMJ bullet not only shattering into dozens of tiny fragments but also magically leaving several fragments in the rear outer table of the skull and leaving two more fragments at the other end of the skull near the right orbit.
Even Dr. Sturdivan has admitted, in writing, that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment at its entry point on the rear outer table of the skull, much less below its entry point while allegedly entering at a 15-degree downward angle. It is a physical impossibility.
-
I notice you didn't mention your ridiculous theory that "Oswald" fired his first alleged shot before Z133, which would have required him to shoot at a sharply downward angle. The FBI's Robert Frazier told the WC that a pre-Z166 shot would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees.
That's not my theory and never has been. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your analytical skills.
Yet, at such an angle, the limo would have presented a gigantic target, impossible to miss.
So you do think the limo was Oswald's target. That's hilarious.
-
If Oswald fired his first alleged shot before Z133, it would have required him to shoot at a sharply downward angle. The FBI's Robert Frazier told the WC that a pre-Z166 shot would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees. Where did this fanciful Z132-Z133 miss go? How could this miss have caused a bullet or fragment to hit the curb near James Tague and to send metal or concrete fragments streaking toward him with enough force to cut his cheek?
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Oswald's missing-everything shot at "Z-124" (half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-second pause) was even more sharply downward-angled, contributing to the hard-to-hit high angular velocity of JFK's head from Oswald's point of view.
D'oh
The Haags showed in "Cold Case JFK" that a round-nosed Carcano bullet's striking asphalt pavement at a sharp downward angle causes it to create a divot and to disintegrate into "nothingness."
Herb Huskr at "JFK Truth Be Told" has shown a divot-like mark in a Secret Service reenactment film that corresponds with the closest point to JFK's head at "Z-124."
He has also shown that's it's possible that James Tague was nicked by a piece of concrete struck off the curb by a largish bullet fragment from the fatal Z-313 head shot.
-- Tom
PS Keep up the good work -- Vladimir Putin really appreciates what you're doing!
-
You probably have not done much shooting if you can't recognize how much more difficult the early first shot was compared to the to later an longer shots. At 88 yards or less, distance is hardly a factor at all. He was firing almost dead down range with little relative movement of the target to the line of fire. That was not true of the first shot which also required shooting from an awkward stance with nothing to brace the rifle with the window sash likely partially obscuring his view.
I've always wished somebody would do a reenactment of that first shot just to see what challenges it would have presented. I'm not asking for a duplication which is impossible. Just a re-enactment to highlight the difficulties.
That argument works against your theory. Since Oswald had done much shooting he would have recognized that an early shot was not only difficult to make but would make quickly getting into position for any later shots much more difficult. So not only do you have zero evidence for an early missed shot, you have just explained why Oswald would not have made it.
-
That argument works against your theory. Since Oswald had done much shooting he would have recognized that an early shot was not only difficult to make but would make quickly getting into position for any later shots much more difficult. So not only do you have zero evidence for an early missed shot, you have just explained why Oswald would not have made it.
You're assuming that the killer of JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a rational person.
-
You're assuming that the killer of JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a rational person.
No. I am saying the argument that Oswald would have knowingly taken a difficult first shot and that’s why it missed isn’t persuasive. If there was evidence of a first missed shot I would have to conclude that, for whatever reason, he made it. But there isn’t.
-
If there was evidence of a first missed shot, I would have to conclude that, for whatever reason, he made it. But there isn’t.
Yes, there is.
As captured in the Zapruder film, at least seven prime witnesses to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot at "Z-124" moved their heads in conscious non-startle ways within half-a-second of each other about a second after said shot, and those witnesses included everyone in the limo except for the hard-to-see driver.
Governor Connally recognized the sounds as coming from a high-powered rifle and turned far to his right starting around Z-164 (after having turned to his left) in order to look towards the rear where he knew the shot had come from.
-
Yes, there is.
As captured in the Zapruder film, at least seven prime witnesses to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot at "Z-124" moved their heads in a conscious, non-startle, way within half-a-second of each other about a second after said shot, and those witnesses included everyone in the limo except for the hard-to-see driver.
Governor Connally recognized the sound as coming from a high-powered rifle and turned far to his right starting around Z-164 (after having turned to his left) in order to look towards the rear where he knew the shot had come.
That is not evidence of a shot. At best that is evidence of something that caused them to turn to the right. The evidence of what that was is provided by Mary Woodward and it was before the first “horrible ear-shattering noise”.
-
I have just a bit of conceptual difficulty with a shot that misses everything followed by two longer shots that are pretty much right on the money.
Here's a possible explanation that you might not have thought of....
Oswald's Carcano rifle, per the FBI's firearms expert Robert Frazier, fired bullets high and to the right when using the 4-power scope. [See Frazier's Warren Commission testimony, at 3 H 404-405 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0206b.htm).]
If this was also the case when Oswald was shooting at JFK on November 22, and Oswald for some reason forgot this quirk about his scope when he squeezed off his first shot that day (if he used the scope at all, which is also debatable, of course), that could be at least a partial explanation as to why his first shot missed and (possibly) struck the nearby oak tree, a tree that would have been to Oswald's RIGHT if he was aiming a little to the tree's left through the scope just as JFK's car was nearing it from LHO's point-of-view (as illustrated in CE888 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0050b.htm) and CE875 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm)).
The Bottom Line (concerning the "missed shot"):
Nobody can know for certain what happened to that bullet. And nobody can know for certain whether the "oak tree" theory is accurate or not.
But, given the overall evidence (which certainly indicates that three shots and only three shots were fired during the assassination, with all three of those shots coming from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the TSBD and from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, with two of those three bullets striking the victims in the limousine), I think the best guess re: the one missed shot is that that bullet did, indeed, hit the oak tree (which is a tree that was located to the RIGHT of Oswald at the time he fired that shot at approx. Z160, which fits in pretty well with a misaligned scope that might very well have been aiming "HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT" during the shooting, although that's another thing we'll never know for sure; it's quite possible that the scope became misaligned when Oswald dropped the gun amongst the boxes after the assassination).
More:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html
-
That is not evidence of a shot. At best that is evidence of something that caused them to turn to the right.
All starting around Z-145, JFK consciously looked to his left, Jackie consciously looked to her left, Connally consciously looked to his left, Nellie consciously looked to her right, and Kellerman consciously looked to his right.
-
Here's a possible explanation that you might not have thought of....
Oswald's Carcano rifle, per the FBI's firearms expert Robert Frazier, fired bullets high and to the right when using the 4-power scope. [See Frazier's Warren Commission testimony, at 3 H 404-405 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0206b.htm).]
If this was also the case when Oswald was shooting at JFK on November 22, and Oswald for some reason forgot this quirk about his scope when he squeezed off his first shot that day (if he used the scope at all, which is also debatable, of course), that could be at least a partial explanation as to why his first shot missed and (possibly) struck the nearby oak tree, a tree that would have been to Oswald's RIGHT if he was aiming a little to the tree's left through the scope just as JFK's car was nearing it from LHO's point-of-view (as illustrated in CE888 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0050b.htm) and CE875 (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm)).
The Bottom Line (concerning the "missed shot"):
Nobody can know for certain what happened to that bullet. And nobody can know for certain whether the "oak tree" theory is accurate or not.
But, given the overall evidence (which certainly indicates that three shots and only three shots were fired during the assassination, with all three of those shots coming from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the TSBD and from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, with two of those three bullets striking the victims in the limousine), I think the best guess re: the one missed shot is that that bullet did, indeed, hit the oak tree (which is a tree that was located to the RIGHT of Oswald at the time he fired that shot at approx. Z160, which fits in pretty well with a misaligned scope that might very well have been aiming "HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT" during the shooting, although that's another thing we'll never know for sure; it's quite possible that the scope became misaligned when Oswald dropped the gun amongst the boxes after the assassination).
More:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html
The Haag ballistics team demonstrated that a Carcano bullet fired directly into asphalt and at the estimated angle Oswald's bullet would have hit the pavement would complete disintegrate and not ricochet. I don't think either a tree branch or the traffic arm would have been in the line of fire when the first shot was fired but because we don't have definitive proof of precisely when that shot was fired, it can't be ruled out.
-
The Haag ballistics team demonstrated that a Carcano bullet fired directly into asphalt and at the estimated angle Oswald's bullet would have hit the pavement would complete disintegrate and not ricochet. I don't think either a tree branch or the traffic arm would have been in the line of fire when the first shot was fired but because we don't have definitive proof of precisely when that shot was fired, it can't be ruled out.
I wasn’t convinced that a Carcano bullet would not ricochet off of Elm Street by the Haag demonstration.
1). I believe that the asphalt surface of Elm Street is much harder than the piece of asphalt that the Haags used.
2). The Haags’ demonstration used a horizontal bullet trajectory from the rifle to the asphalt. The trajectory from the sixth floor window of the TSBD to the Elm Street surface is about 35-degrees downward from horizontal and the surface of the street slopes downward about 3% also. BTW, this angle is close to the ideal angle for skipping stones across water.
3). I believe that the backstop of the Haags’ demonstration was not tall enough to be able to show a ricochet that might have gone over the top of it.
4). Bullets don’t just disintegrate into nothingness. They should have been able to find and recover some fragments of the bullet. But they apparently were not able to find any fragments. In my opinion, that’s reason enough to believe that the ricochet went over the top of the backstop.
-
4). Bullets don’t just disintegrate into nothingness. They should have been able to find and recover some fragments of the bullet. But they apparently were not able to find any fragments. In my opinion, that’s reason enough to believe that the ricochet went over the top of the backstop.
I agree. But I also don’t think that an inch or so of asphalt is enough to stop the bullet. Their superficial examination of the crater wasn’t enough of a search. If the Haags had xrayed the asphalt or probed deeper they may have found the bullet buried in it.
-
I wasn’t convinced that a Carcano bullet would not ricochet off of Elm Street by the Haag demonstration.
1). I believe that the asphalt surface of Elm Street is much harder than the piece of asphalt that the Haags used.
2). The Haags’ demonstration used a horizontal bullet trajectory from the rifle to the asphalt. The trajectory from the sixth floor window of the TSBD to the Elm Street surface is about 35-degrees downward from horizontal and the surface of the street slopes downward about 3% also. BTW, this angle is close to the ideal angle for skipping stones across water.
3). I believe that the backstop of the Haags’ demonstration was not tall enough to be able to show a ricochet that might have gone over the top of it.
4). Bullets don’t just disintegrate into nothingness. They should have been able to find and recover some fragments of the bullet. But they apparently were not able to find any fragments. In my opinion, that’s reason enough to believe that the ricochet went over the top of the backstop.
As I recall, they tilted the asphalt surface to create the angle the bullet would have struck the surface at. I can't speak to the hardness of the surface they had created. You are correct that new asphalt would be a bit softer than older asphalt since the latter would get compressed over time. I think it will forever be a mystery as to what happened to that bullet. Did it disintegrate? Did it strike the tree or the traffic arm? Did it ricochet down Elm St and cross Main St and strike the curb near Tague? None of the above? I think none of these can be ruled in nor ruled out. I think it will remain an open question.
-
I agree. But I also don’t think that an inch or so of asphalt is enough to stop the bullet. Their superficial examination of the crater wasn’t enough of a search. If the Haags had xrayed the asphalt or probed deeper they may have found the bullet buried in it.
If I remember correctly, the crater was about the size of my fist. Yes, I am disappointed that they gave up finding the bullet so easily.
-
As I recall, they tilted the asphalt surface to create the angle the bullet would have struck the surface at. I can't speak to the hardness of the surface they had created. You are correct that new asphalt would be a bit softer than older asphalt since the latter would get compressed over time. I think it will forever be a mystery as to what happened to that bullet. Did it disintegrate? Did it strike the tree or the traffic arm? Did it ricochet down Elm St and cross Main St and strike the curb near Tague? None of the above? I think none of these can be ruled in nor ruled out. I think it will remain an open question.
(https://i.vgy.me/3ieK8q.jpg)
I don’t remember the Haags saying where the piece of asphalt came from. It looks to me like it might have been relatively new. Plus there are many factors that might have played a role on Elm Street. Elm Street is a major artery street in a very busy city. Lots of traffic, including heavy trucks, etc compressing the asphalt. A painted lane marker might be a part of the equation that imparted a relatively slick surface for a bullet to skid on as it ricocheted.
I bolded the idea that you specified that makes the most sense to me. I think that it also might have made the bullet mark on the manhole cover apron. See the thread titled “The Other Single Bullet Theory” that I posted a while back.
-
I don’t remember the Haags saying where the piece of asphalt came from. It looks to me like it might have been relatively new. Plus there are many factors that might have played a role on Elm Street. Elm Street is a major artery street in a very busy city. Lots of traffic, including heavy trucks, etc compressing the asphalt. A painted lane marker might be a part of the equation that imparted a relatively slick surface for a bullet to skid on as it ricocheted.
I witnessed an interesting phenomenon when I used to work in downtown Columbus, Oh. Broad St. is the major east-west street through downtown Columbus and I worked at Broad and 3rd Streets for almost 20 years which was right across from the State Capitol building. The far right lane on eastbound Broad St. is a right turn only lane onto southbound 3rd St which is a one way street. There was a fairly new asphalt surface on Broad St. with the crosswalk paint still very vivid. The cars in the right hand turn lane on eastbound Broad St. that had stopped to make the turn onto southbound 3rd St. had stretched out the crosswalk lines where the tires would typically have crossed. It had formed two distinct points in the crosswalk lines about 18" long. It speaks to the elasticity of asphalt.
-
I witnessed an interesting phenomenon when I used to work in downtown Columbus, Oh. Broad St. is the major east-west street through downtown Columbus and I worked at Broad and 3rd Streets for almost 20 years which was right across from the State Capitol building. The far right lane on eastbound Broad St. is a right turn only lane onto southbound 3rd St which is a one way street. There was a fairly new asphalt surface on Broad St. with the crosswalk paint still very vivid. The cars in the right hand turn lane on eastbound Broad St. that had stopped to make the turn onto southbound 3rd St. had stretched out the crosswalk lines where the tires would typically have crossed. It had formed two distinct points in the crosswalk lines about 18" long. It speaks to the elasticity of asphalt.
Question:
“Does a full metal jacket bullet ricochet off of hard asphalt differently than it would off of softer asphalt?”
Google AI answer:
“Yes, a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullet ricochets differently off hard versus softer asphalt. Hard asphalt behaves like solid concrete, often causing the bullet to skid or skip. Softer asphalt acts as a yielding surface, absorbing energy and altering the bullet's departure angle.
Hard AsphaltBehavior:
Highly rigid and unyielding. The copper or gilding metal jacket of the FMJ remains largely intact upon impact.Trajectory: Because it doesn't break apart, the bullet skids across the surface. It will often ricochet at a very shallow, dangerous angle.
Softer AsphaltBehavior:
Richer in bitumen and softer aggregates, yielding to the force of the bullet.Trajectory: The bullet tends to penetrate slightly, transferring more of its energy to the road. This penetration can create a "ramping" effect, sometimes throwing the deformed bullet or its fragments into a higher, steeper departure angle. The bullet is also more prone to losing stability, tumbling, and breaking apart.”
The image below of the Haags’ demonstration leads me to believe that the asphalt that they used was much softer than what I would expect the surface of Elm Street to be. Plus you can see the asphalt mixture with stones, etc that can vary in many ways.
(https://i.vgy.me/8Ft9Rc.jpg)
-
Question:
“Does a full metal jacket bullet ricochet off of hard asphalt differently than it would off of softer asphalt?”
Google AI answer:
“Yes, a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullet ricochets differently off hard versus softer asphalt. Hard asphalt behaves like solid concrete, often causing the bullet to skid or skip. Softer asphalt acts as a yielding surface, absorbing energy and altering the bullet's departure angle.
Hard AsphaltBehavior:
Highly rigid and unyielding. The copper or gilding metal jacket of the FMJ remains largely intact upon impact.Trajectory: Because it doesn't break apart, the bullet skids across the surface. It will often ricochet at a very shallow, dangerous angle.
Softer Asphalt Behavior:
Richer in bitumen and softer aggregates, yielding to the force of the bullet.Trajectory: The bullet tends to penetrate slightly, transferring more of its energy to the road. This penetration can create a "ramping" effect, sometimes throwing the deformed bullet or its fragments into a higher, steeper departure angle. The bullet is also more prone to losing stability, tumbling, and breaking apart.”
The image below of the Haags’ demonstration leads me to believe that the asphalt that they used was much softer than what I would expect the surface of Elm Street to be. Plus you can see the asphalt mixture with stones, etc that can vary in many ways.
Regarding James Tague's nicked cheek, what happened to the largish fragment(s) from the Z-313 head-shot bullet that were never found?
-
A possibility: The first two shots were misses because Oswald had to sight-in his rifle. The first shot missed completely, and the second hit JFK in the back, but those 2 shots let Oswald sight-in the rifle. With the third, he hit his target, Kennedy's head. He needed to sight-in the rifle because he had broken it down to carry it into the TSBD.
-
Regarding James Tague's nicked cheek, what happened to the largish fragment(s) from the Z-313 head-shot bullet that were never found?
Some very knowledgeable folks believe one of those fragments might have been involved in Tague’s incident. But I find it interesting that the possible trajectory of an early missed first shot hitting Elm Street to the right of the limo also could have conceivably been involved in Tague’s incident. I think that this speaks volumes about the direction (almost directly away from the sniper’s nest) of travel of the limo during those 8 to 10 seconds.
-
Some very knowledgeable folks believe one of those fragments might have been involved in Tague’s incident. But I find it interesting that the possible trajectory of an early missed first shot hitting Elm Street to the right of the limo also could have conceivably been involved in Tague’s incident. I think that this speaks volumes about the direction (almost directly away from the sniper’s nest) of travel of the limo during those 8 to 10 seconds.
So we ignore the only evidence as to the shot on which Tague was struck…
-
So we ignore the only evidence as to the shot on which Tague was struck…
There is no definitive evidence as to which shot caused Tague's injury.
-
There is no definitive evidence as to which shot caused Tague's injury.
I said “the only evidence”.
-
So we ignore the only evidence as to the shot on which Tague was struck…
I think ignore might be the wrong word. But it is very easy for me to discount it enough to allow the possibility of an early first shot being the culprit.
Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, "You have blood there on your cheek." That is when we walked back down there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?
Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was about the time that you felt yourself struck?
Mr. TAGUE. I just glanced. I mean I just stopped, got out of my car, and here came the motorcade. I just happened upon the scene.
-
I think ignore might be the wrong word. But it is very easy for me to discount it enough to allow the possibility of an early first shot being the culprit.
Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, "You have blood there on your cheek." That is when we walked back down there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?
Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was about the time that you felt yourself struck?
Mr. TAGUE. I just glanced. I mean I just stopped, got out of my car, and here came the motorcade. I just happened upon the scene.
I think we can safely rule out the single bullet as the cause of Tague's minor injury. I've gone back and forth on whether it was a ricochet from the first shot or a fragment from the headshot. There are arguments for and against both. To me it's a jump ball. We'll never really know nor do we need to.
For a while, I theorized that it might not have been caused by a shot at all but maybe a pebble tossed up by the traffic on Main St. but when I read there was a chip in the curb with a lead smear, that kind of ruled that out.
-
I think we can safely rule out the single bullet as the cause of Tague's minor injury.
The scientist would use the evidence to test the theory. In this case you are using the theory to test the evidence. If the evidence doesn’t fit the theory you reject the evidence. And it is not just Tague’s evidence. What is remarkable is that no one thinks this is a problem except me (and most of the CTers, except when it applies to their own theories).
For a while, I theorized that it might not have been caused by a shot at all but maybe a pebble tossed up by the traffic on Main St. but when I read there was a chip in the curb with a lead smear, that kind of ruled that out.
So if the road had deflected the fragment leaving nothing that anyone observed you would be arguing that theory... hmm.
-
The scientist would use the evidence to test the theory. In this case you are using the theory to test the evidence. If the evidence doesn’t fit the theory you reject the evidence. And it is not just Tague’s evidence. What is remarkable is that no one thinks this is a problem except me (and most of the CTers, except when it applies to their own theories).
So if the road had deflected the fragment leaving nothing that anyone observed you would be arguing that theory... hmm.
I love being lectured on the scientific method by a guy who has arrived at one of the goofiest scenarios ever concocted.
-
IS IT PLAUSIBLE OSWALD COULD HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE LIMO WITH HIS FIRST SHOT?
NO
-
IS IT PLAUSIBLE OSWALD COULD HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE LIMO WITH HIS FIRST SHOT?
NO
There were 3 shots fired and only 2 struck inside the limo so no matter who you think fired it or where you think they fired it from, somebody missed the entire limo. Not surprising because there is no reason to think anyone was trying to shoot the limo. The forensic evidence tells us unmistakably the person who missed the limo was Oswald.
-
There were 3 shots fired and only 2 struck inside the limo so no matter who you think fired it or where you think they fired it from, somebody missed the entire limo.
That's correct.
Wow. We're agreeing
Not surprising because there is no reason to think anyone was trying to shoot the limo.
Obvious. No-one has ever suggested that the limo was the target so you're on safe ground. So I have to agree but I am concerned you might be talking sh£t.
# The forensic evidence tells us unmistakably the person who missed the limo was Oswald.
Knobhead.
-
That's correct.
Wow. We're agreeing
Obvious. No-one has ever suggested that the limo was the target so you're on safe ground. So I have to agree but I am concerned you might be talking sh£t.[/auote]
You must have missed MTG's take on it from a few days ago. He referred to the limo as a large target.
Knobhead.
This from somebody who is dumb enough to believe Oswald didn't fire the shots that killed JFK.
-
I love being lectured on the scientific method by a guy who has arrived at one of the goofiest scenarios ever concocted.
It wasn’t a lecture. It was an observation. You are free to believe that the Connallys were goofy in maintaining that all three shots struck in the car.
-
It wasn’t a lecture. It was an observation. You are free to believe that the Connallys were goofy in maintaining that all three shots struck in the car.
It doesn't require one to think that two people who suddenly found themselves under fire, one of whom was actually hit, would not perceive the situation 100% accurately.
You continue to operate under the preposterous premise that people perfectly remember events. In reality, people remember bits and pieces of events and their minds try to fill in the blanks and not always accurately. JBC had no way of knowing whether the first shot hit inside the limo or not. Nellie would have had no indication of that either. Later, when they were led to believe erroneously that JFK had been hit by the first shot, they came to believe that. Of course we can see that didn't happen because we see JBC reacting to the first shot at about Z-164, just as he described. You would have us believe he only imagined that he heard a shot and the first shot wasn't fired for another 3.5 seconds. You then add to your silliness with the ridiculous conclusion that JBC was only hit in the thigh by that shot and didn't feel it. Instead, for some inexplicable reason, just two frames after his jacket bulged out, his right arm suddenly flipped upward and back down in the span of 9 frames, 0.5 seconds, and immediately went into severe gyrations when he twisted and dipped to his right. You claim it was at this point that he was turning to see JFK and wasn't struck in the back until Z270.
There is no nice way to say this. That is an incredibly stupid interpretation of what the Z-film shows. That is one thing most of the CTs and LNs on this forum can agree on. The only one with a dumber interpretation is Benjamin Cole who doesn't think JBC was hit until Z295. Thanks to him, you only get the silver medal for silliness. Benjamin snatched the gold medal from you.
-
I think ignore might be the wrong word. But it is very easy for me to discount it enough to allow the possibility of an early first shot being the culprit.
Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?
Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on, and I recall this. We got to talking, and I recall that something had stinged me, and then the deputy sheriff looked up and said, "You have blood there on your cheek." That is when we walked back down there.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?
Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was about the time that you felt yourself struck?
Mr. TAGUE. I just glanced. I mean I just stopped, got out of my car, and here came the motorcade. I just happened upon the scene.
It appears from his testimony that he hadn't really thought about which shot hit him, other than recalling that it wasn't the first. When asked about it whether he heard a shot afterward, he thought and said he did recall hearing a shot after the shot that hit him. Since he heard only three shots, he said it must have been the second that hit him.
But I agree, by itself it is not reliable. What makes it much more reliable is the rest of the evidence.
According to the shot pattern observed by over 40 witnesses, the last two shots were close together and after the midpoint between the first and third shots. That means that JFK was struck by the first shot (as about 25 witnesses reported) and the second was after z255. The second shot struck JBC in the wrist and sent numerous flecks of lead into the wrist and made a long jagged hole in the french cuff but a non-jagged hole in the jacket pocket and jacket cuff. That is not only consistent with a fragmenting bullet, but also with the fragments deflecting away from the point of contact with the radius. The orientation of the wrist up near his chest exit wound after z240 means the fragments would have deflected up.
Greer said that he sensed a "concussion" from something impacting in the car on the second shot. The damage to the windshield frame was just above his right ear. He reported no impact sound from the other shots. Greer said the second shot was almost simultaneous with his first turn to the rear (z281) when he saw JBC falling back. We know that on one of the shots fragments struck the windshield and windshield frame. It is at least interesting that the left sun visor appears to move forward between z271 and z272:
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5CFf0J8/z271-272-visor.gif)
A fragment striking the windshield and frame and at least one fragment going a bit higher and striking the road and curb near Tague is consistent with the second shot fragmenting and deflecting upward off the wrist.
It is not impossible that Tague was wrong in thinking he heard a shot after he was hit, but that would mean that he was hit by a fragment from the head shot. The only problem with the head shot causing the damage to the windshield and a fragment going up over the windshield is that I don't see that it struck anything hard that could have deflected it. It likely fragmented upon striking the back of the head but that did not change its direction. The bullet or bullet fragments passed through the head and exited on a downward trajectory from the SN. So I don't see what hard impact would have caused a fragment to deflect upward after that.
-
It doesn't require one to think that two people who suddenly found themselves under fire, one of whom was actually hit, would not perceive the situation 100% accurately.
You continue to operate under the preposterous premise that people perfectly remember events. In reality, people remember bits and pieces of events and their minds try to fill in the blanks and not always accurately. JBC had no way of knowing whether the first shot hit inside the limo or not. Nellie would have had no indication of that either.
No. I labour under the premise that cases are solved by evidence. People remember important salient details of an event with generally good accuracy. All studies show this. Sometimes a fact is difficult to observe by humans and in those cases:
a. they generally don't mention it unless specifically asked (which means it has low salience) and
b. when asked indicate that they are not sure and/or provide answers that are best guesses and
c. their answers are spread over the range of possible answers.
But when a large proportion voluntarily report an observation of a fact without prompting (high salience) their observations are correct over 90% of the time.
Even without knowing this, the fact that witnesses independently report on and agree on a detail tells you that it is highly improbable that they all mistakenly observed the same event in the same mistaken way. That only happens if the source of the error is not independent of the witnesses (eg. street lighting affecting the colour of something all in the same way).
Later, when they were led to believe erroneously that JFK had been hit by the first shot, they came to believe that.
?? What evidence do you have that these witnesses did not provide their own observation that JFK reacted to the first shot until someone led them to believe it:
Pierce Allman
James Altgens
Cecil Ault
Ernest Brandt
Charles Brehm
Faye Chism
John Chism
Nellie Connally
Bobby Hargis
George Hickey
Clint Hill
Sam Kinney
Paul Landis
T.E. Moore
Mary Moorman
Jean Newman
Gayle Newman
William Newman
Harold Norman
Ken O'Donnell
David Powers
Malcolm Summers
John Templin
Linda Willis
Abraham Zapruder
Of course we can see that didn't happen because we see JBC reacting to the first shot at about Z-164, just as he described.
You keep coming back to this as some irrefutable fact that JBC is turning in response to a shot. We actually have evidence that contradicts that the turn was in response to a shot - Mary Woodward said that JFK's last turn and wave was after she and others in her group shouted and waved to the President and that this turn (which is the last turn, smiling and waving he ever makes) was BEFORE that first "horrible ear-shattering noise". Witnesses reported the first shot occurring when JFK was smiling and waving to his right. We also have at least 25 people who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot and it wasn't by continuing to smile and wave. Furthermore, JBC does not even turn his head to his right to look at JFK, which he said he did after the first shot because he immediately thought that JFK was being targeted by an assassin. He does not look like he believes that JFK is being assassinated but I am not a face reader.
You would have us believe he only imagined that he heard a shot and the first shot wasn't fired for another 3.5 seconds.
That comment would only make sense to someone who thinks that JBC's turn to the right at the same time where JFK turns right and starts smiling and waving could only have occurred because they both heard a rifle shot and thinks that anyone who questions that is nuts.
You then add to your silliness with the ridiculous conclusion that JBC was only hit in the thigh by that shot and didn't feel it.
I am not the only one who thinks JBC didn't feel the thigh wound.
Instead, for some inexplicable reason, just two frames after his jacket bulged out, his right arm suddenly flipped upward and back down in the span of 9 frames, 0.5 seconds, and immediately went into severe gyrations when he twisted and dipped to his right. You claim it was at this point that he was turning to see JFK and wasn't struck in the back until Z270.
Whether the jacket bulges out or the front right lapel simply moves sideways as his right arm moves is not something that can be resolved with the image quality of the zfilm.
-
No. I labour under the premise that cases are solved by evidence.
It would help your cause tremendously if you had the ability to weigh evidence. That doesn't seem to be in your toolbox.
People remember important salient details of an event with generally good accuracy. All studies show this. Sometimes a fact is difficult to observe by humans and in those cases:
a. they generally don't mention it unless specifically asked (which means it has low salience) and
b. when asked indicate that they are not sure and/or provide answers that are best guesses and
c. their answers are spread over the range of possible answers.
But when a large proportion voluntarily report an observation of a fact without prompting (high salience) their observations are correct over 90% of the time.
A large proportion of earwitnesses reported two mutually exclusive versions of where the shots came from which pretty much shoots down this claim.
Even without knowing this, the fact that witnesses independently report on and agree on a detail tells you that it is highly improbable that they all mistakenly observed the same event in the same mistaken way.
See above
That only happens if the source of the error is not independent of the witnesses (eg. street lighting affecting the colour of something all in the same way).
?? What evidence do you have that these witnesses did not provide their own observation that JFK reacted to the first shot until someone led them to believe it:
Pierce Allman
James Altgens
Cecil Ault
Ernest Brandt
Charles Brehm
Faye Chism
John Chism
Nellie Connally
Bobby Hargis
George Hickey
Clint Hill
Sam Kinney
Paul Landis
T.E. Moore
Mary Moorman
Jean Newman
Gayle Newman
William Newman
Harold Norman
Ken O'Donnell
David Powers
Malcolm Summers
John Templin
Linda Willis
Abraham Zapruder
You are providing ample evidence to support my opening statement in this post
You keep coming back to this as some irrefutable fact that JBC is turning in response to a shot.
Because it is. He told us what he did. We can see him doing what he said he did. It's amazing how you put absolute faith in uncorroborated witness accounts but will dismiss a corroborated witness' account simply because it doesn't jibe with your goofball theory of what happened. One more example of how bad you are at weighing evidence.
We actually have evidence that contradicts that the turn was in response to a shot - Mary Woodward said that JFK's last turn and wave was after she and others in her group shouted and waved to the President and that this turn (which is the last turn, smiling and waving he ever makes) was BEFORE that first "horrible ear-shattering noise". Witnesses reported the first shot occurring when JFK was smiling and waving to his right. We also have at least 25 people who said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot and it wasn't by continuing to smile and wave. Furthermore, JBC does not even turn his head to his right to look at JFK, which he said he did after the first shot because he immediately thought that JFK was being targeted by an assassin. He does not look like he believes that JFK is being assassinated but I am not a face reader.
Andrew follows another uncorroborated witness down a rabbit hole.
That comment would only make sense to someone who thinks that JBC's turn to the right at the same time where JFK turns right and starts smiling and waving could only have occurred because they both heard a rifle shot and thinks that anyone who questions that is nuts.
I am not the only one who thinks JBC didn't feel the thigh wound.
I don't think JBC felt the thigh wound either because it happened about a millisecond after his chest wound and his wrist wound. It's called sensory overload. The brain can only process so much information at one time. JBC didn't even know his wrist had been shattered until he came out of surgery. His brain didn't process either the wrist wound or the thigh wound. It didn't process the sound of that gunshot either. He only remembered the blow to his back which he said felt like someone had punched him.
Whether the jacket bulges out or the front right lapel simply moves sideways as his right arm moves is not something that can be resolved with the image quality of the zfilm.
You also need to be able to apply common sense to that visual. That's another thing that seems to be missing from your toolbox.
-
It would help your cause tremendously if you had the ability to weigh evidence. That doesn't seem to be in your toolbox.
Understanding corroboration is important in assessing reliability. You seem to think that witnesses cannot independently corroborate other witnesses. That understanding seems to be lacking in your toolbox.
A large proportion of earwitnesses reported two mutually exclusive versions of where the shots came from which pretty much shoots down this claim.
Witnesses reported their perceptions. Sound direction perception depends on location of the witness relative to various reflecting surfaces. Many of the witnesses expressed confusion and could not discern a direction. Most people in the motorcade correctly identified the general location being behind and right. Just hearing a shot and seeing something doesn’t depend on location. One cannot compare determining the direction of the sound to their ability to hear the first shot and see what happened afterward.
You are providing ample evidence to support my opening statement in this post
Because it is. He told us what he did. We can see him doing what he said he did. It's amazing how you put absolute faith in uncorroborated witness accounts but will dismiss a corroborated witness' account simply because it doesn't jibe with your goofball theory of what happened. One more example of how bad you are at weighing evidence.
Andrew follows another uncorroborated witness down a rabbit hole.
You also need to be able to apply common sense to that visual. That's another thing that seems to be missing from your toolbox.
Witnesses can corroborate each other if they are independent. If you rolled two dice 25 times and it came up snake eyes each time you would suggest that means nothing. I would look for a reason and say it means they were loaded dice.
-
Understanding corroboration is important in assessing reliability. You seem to think that witnesses cannot independently corroborate other witnesses. That understanding seems to be lacking in your toolbox.
Witnesses reported their perceptions. Sound direction perception depends on location of the witness relative to various reflecting surfaces. Many of the witnesses expressed confusion and could not discern a direction. Most people in the motorcade correctly identified the general location being behind and right. Just hearing a shot and seeing something doesn’t depend on location. One cannot compare determining the direction of the sound to their ability to hear the first shot and see what happened afterward.
Witnesses can corroborate each other if they are independent. If you rolled two dice 25 times and it came up snake eyes each time you would suggest that means nothing. I would look for a reason and say it means they were loaded dice.
BS
It's not even good BS
-
BS
It's not even good BS
I am not sure what “good BS” is but if you think independent witnesses can’t corroborate each other you should do a bit of research. Why not ask your AI friends?
-
I am not sure what “good BS” is but if you think independent witnesses can’t corroborate each other you should do a bit of research. Why not ask your AI friends?
Did the independent witness who thought all the shots came from the GK corroborate the other independent witnesses who thought all the shots came from the GK.
-
It appears from his testimony that he hadn't really thought about which shot hit him, other than recalling that it wasn't the first. When asked about it whether he heard a shot afterward, he thought and said he did recall hearing a shot after the shot that hit him. Since he heard only three shots, he said it must have been the second that hit him.
But I agree, by itself it is not reliable. What makes it much more reliable is the rest of the evidence.
According to the shot pattern observed by over 40 witnesses, the last two shots were close together and after the midpoint between the first and third shots. That means that JFK was struck by the first shot (as about 25 witnesses reported) and the second was after z255. The second shot struck JBC in the wrist and sent numerous flecks of lead into the wrist and made a long jagged hole in the french cuff but a non-jagged hole in the jacket pocket and jacket cuff. That is not only consistent with a fragmenting bullet, but also with the fragments deflecting away from the point of contact with the radius. The orientation of the wrist up near his chest exit wound after z240 means the fragments would have deflected up.
Greer said that he sensed a "concussion" from something impacting in the car on the second shot. The damage to the windshield frame was just above his right ear. He reported no impact sound from the other shots. Greer said the second shot was almost simultaneous with his first turn to the rear (z281) when he saw JBC falling back. We know that on one of the shots fragments struck the windshield and windshield frame. It is at least interesting that the left sun visor appears to move forward between z271 and z272:
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5CFf0J8/z271-272-visor.gif)
A fragment striking the windshield and frame and at least one fragment going a bit higher and striking the road and curb near Tague is consistent with the second shot fragmenting and deflecting upward off the wrist.
It is not impossible that Tague was wrong in thinking he heard a shot after he was hit, but that would mean that he was hit by a fragment from the head shot. The only problem with the head shot causing the damage to the windshield and a fragment going up over the windshield is that I don't see that it struck anything hard that could have deflected it. It likely fragmented upon striking the back of the head but that did not change its direction. The bullet or bullet fragments passed through the head and exited on a downward trajectory from the SN. So I don't see what hard impact would have caused a fragment to deflect upward after that.
Tague seems pretty clueless to me. He is all over the place. In his book he is adamant that the third shot missed. I personally have no problem discounting his ideas enough to believe that an early first shot could have been the one that missed.
BTW, here is what DPD motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis told Larry Sneed as shown on page 144 of his book “No More Silence”:
“We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.”
(https://i.vgy.me/K3WQz0.jpg)
I drew a yellow circle around the location of the manhole cover apron (where it is believed that a bullet ricocheted) on the south side of Elm Street. I also drew a dashed yellow line to show that Curry’s car would have been close to the line of sight of Ellis trying to look back at the area of the limo where Cheney was. This is around the time that I believe an early first shot might have occurred. Stavis Ellis (-5 character in the animation) is just approaching the entrance to the triple overpass.
-
Did the independent witness who thought all the shots came from the GK corroborate the other independent witnesses who thought all the shots came from the GK.
You need to provide a specific example to determine if there is a common observation. From what I have seen there was no clear observation by anyone who reported the knoll as the source of the shots. They reported confusion as to the direction of the source of the shots. For example Mary Woodward and Austin Miller are often listed as GK ear-witnesses, but here is what they actually said:
Mary Woodward (24 H 520):
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncD2wVFR/IMG-2850.jpg)
Austin Miller s(6 H 225):
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrwyFfXV/IMG-2851.jpg)
Are you seriously asking if Miller corroborates Woodward or vice-versa?
-
Are you seriously asking if Miller corroborates Woodward or vice-versa?
No, I am saying neither corroborates the other because both could be wrong. There is no physical evidence that corroborates either.
-
Tague seems pretty clueless to me. He is all over the place. In his book he is adamant that the third shot missed. I personally have no problem discounting his ideas enough to believe that an early first shot could have been the one that missed.
I would agree that Tague’s later writings are not worth much as evidence and should be ignored.
BTW, here is what DPD motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis told Larry Sneed as shown on page 144 of his book “No More Silence”:
“We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.”
(https://i.vgy.me/K3WQz0.jpg)
I drew a yellow circle around the location of the manhole cover apron (where it is believed that a bullet ricocheted) on the south side of Elm Street. I also drew a dashed yellow line to show that Curry’s car would have been close to the line of sight of Ellis trying to look back at the area of the limo where Cheney was. This is around the time that I believe an early first shot might have occurred. Stavis Ellis (-5 character in the animation) is just approaching the entrance to the triple overpass.
I find it difficult to believe that Ellis really saw what he described for the first time in a book published in 1998 and did not mention it in any statement to the WC or HSCA or to anyone else in the preceding 35 years.
And as far as his reliability as a witness, do you think his reported observation of a hole in the limo windshield was accurate? Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield…You could put a pencil through it…you could take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.”
-
No, I am saying neither corroborates the other because both could be wrong. There is no physical evidence that corroborates either.
Both couldbe wrong? How could either be right if they couldn’t tell where the shot came from?
Physical evidence is not the only way to corroborate a witness. Since you seem to be afraid of using AI I asked this question:
In researching the witness statements in the JFK assassination, I have found 25 witnesses who independently reported that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot. What is the probability that these 25 witnesses independently made similar incorrect observations and, in fact, JFK continued to smile and wave for 3 or 4 seconds after the first shot?
and Chat GPT gave this answer:
The short answer is: you can’t calculate a meaningful probability from the witness count alone, and any numerical answer would require assumptions that cannot be justified from the available evidence.
Here’s why.
If you have 25 genuinely independent witnesses who all reported that President John F. Kennedy visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and no witnesses reported that he continued smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after that first shot, then that is strong evidence against the “continued smiling and waving” scenario.
However, to compute an actual probability, you’d need to know things like:
* how accurate each witness typically is,
* whether their errors are independent,
* whether they influenced one another,
* what each person’s vantage point was,
* what prior probability you assign to each hypothesis.
Without those inputs, there is no defensible way to produce a number like “1 in a million.”
A simple illustration
Suppose (purely hypothetically) each witness had a 90% chance of correctly identifying whether JFK visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and suppose their observations were completely independent.
Then the probability that all 25 independently made the same incorrect observation would be:
(0.10)^{25} = 10^{-25}
That is astronomically small.
But that calculation depends entirely on assumptions that are almost certainly false:
* eyewitnesses are not statistically independent;
* they viewed the event from different angles and distances;
* memory can be influenced by subsequent discussion and media coverage;
* some witnesses are more reliable than others.
What historians actually do
Rather than trying to assign a numerical probability, historians and forensic investigators look for convergence of evidence.
If:
* 25 independent witnesses describe an immediate visible reaction,
* the contemporaneous films show an immediate change in JFK’s posture,
* the medical evidence is consistent with a shot having already occurred,
then the combined evidence strongly favors the conclusion that JFK reacted at or very shortly after the first shot.
Conversely, if a theory requires JFK to have remained smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after the first shot, that theory would need to explain why:
* none of those 25 witnesses reported that,
* multiple independent observations instead describe an immediate reaction,
* and the visual record would have to be interpreted in a way consistent with that claim.
One caution
The key question is whether those 25 witnesses are truly independent. If they gave statements before being exposed to media accounts, were located at different positions, and had no opportunity to influence one another, then the agreement among them is much stronger than if they all learned details from a common source afterward.
So, while it is not possible to assign a rigorous probability to your question, the existence of 25 independent witnesses all describing an immediate reaction—and none describing several more seconds of smiling and waving—would generally be considered strong evidentiary support for the immediate-reaction account.
-
Both couldbe wrong? How could either be right if they couldn’t tell where the shot came from?
Physical evidence is not the only way to corroborate a witness. Since you seem to be afraid of using AI I asked this question:
In researching the witness statements in the JFK assassination, I have found 25 witnesses who independently reported that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot. What is the probability that these 25 witnesses independently made similar incorrect observations and, in fact, JFK continued to smile and wave for 3 or 4 seconds after the first shot?
and Chat GPT gave this answer:
The short answer is: you can’t calculate a meaningful probability from the witness count alone, and any numerical answer would require assumptions that cannot be justified from the available evidence.
Here’s why.
If you have 25 genuinely independent witnesses who all reported that President John F. Kennedy visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and no witnesses reported that he continued smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after that first shot, then that is strong evidence against the “continued smiling and waving” scenario.
However, to compute an actual probability, you’d need to know things like:
* how accurate each witness typically is,
* whether their errors are independent,
* whether they influenced one another,
* what each person’s vantage point was,
* what prior probability you assign to each hypothesis.
Without those inputs, there is no defensible way to produce a number like “1 in a million.”
A simple illustration
Suppose (purely hypothetically) each witness had a 90% chance of correctly identifying whether JFK visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and suppose their observations were completely independent.
Then the probability that all 25 independently made the same incorrect observation would be:
(0.10)^{25} = 10^{-25}
That is astronomically small.
But that calculation depends entirely on assumptions that are almost certainly false:
* eyewitnesses are not statistically independent;
* they viewed the event from different angles and distances;
* memory can be influenced by subsequent discussion and media coverage;
* some witnesses are more reliable than others.
What historians actually do
Rather than trying to assign a numerical probability, historians and forensic investigators look for convergence of evidence.
If:
* 25 independent witnesses describe an immediate visible reaction,
* the contemporaneous films show an immediate change in JFK’s posture,
* the medical evidence is consistent with a shot having already occurred,
then the combined evidence strongly favors the conclusion that JFK reacted at or very shortly after the first shot.
Conversely, if a theory requires JFK to have remained smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after the first shot, that theory would need to explain why:
* none of those 25 witnesses reported that,
* multiple independent observations instead describe an immediate reaction,
* and the visual record would have to be interpreted in a way consistent with that claim.
One caution
The key question is whether those 25 witnesses are truly independent. If they gave statements before being exposed to media accounts, were located at different positions, and had no opportunity to influence one another, then the agreement among them is much stronger than if they all learned details from a common source afterward.
So, while it is not possible to assign a rigorous probability to your question, the existence of 25 independent witnesses all describing an immediate reaction—and none describing several more seconds of smiling and waving—would generally be considered strong evidentiary support for the immediate-reaction account.
AI has no special powers of discernment. It can only regurgitate what it gathers from other sources. It can be used as a source but its answers should be taken with a grain of salt. Garbage in. Garbage out.
What I suspect is that what some people perceived to be the first shot was actually the second. We know a number of people didn't recognize the first shot as the sound of a gunshot. We can only guess as to why that was. Maybe they thought the first shot was a firecracker. Maybe that thought it was a motorcycle backfire. Maybe it was the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the turn onto Elm. Maybe they were so intent on seeing a President and a First Lady for the first time in their lives that the sound of the first shot didn't register with them. Maybe it was a combination of these factors. Whatever the reason, if their focus was 100% on JFK and Jackie, that focus would have been broken when they saw JFK unmistakably react to the second shot by suddenly raising both arms to the level of his throat and then slump over to his left. That was the time I believe most people began to realize what was happening. I'm sure the sound of that first shot reached those people's ears but not their brains. If they didn't perceive what was happening at the time it was happening, there's no reason to believe they would piece it together correctly later one.
-
AI has no special powers of discernment. It can only regurgitate what it gathers from other sources. It can be used as a source but its answers should be taken with a grain of salt. Garbage in. Garbage out.
What I suspect is that what some people perceived to be the first shot was actually the second. We know a number of people didn't recognize the first shot as the sound of a gunshot. We can only guess as to why that was. Maybe they thought the first shot was a firecracker. Maybe that thought it was a motorcycle backfire. Maybe it was the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the turn onto Elm. Maybe they were so intent on seeing a President and a First Lady for the first time in their lives that the sound of the first shot didn't register with them. Maybe it was a combination of these factors. Whatever the reason, if their focus was 100% on JFK and Jackie, that focus would have been broken when they saw JFK unmistakably react to the second shot by suddenly raising both arms to the level of his throat and then slump over to his left. That was the time I believe most people began to realize what was happening. I'm sure the sound of that first shot reached those people's ears but not their brains. If they didn't perceive what was happening at the time it was happening, there's no reason to believe they would piece it together correctly later one.
Nice try. But the chance that in a group of 25 people all would independently make an error that caused them to make the same false report is the same regardless of the kind of error.
Besides, why would anyone have failed to hear the first “horrible ear-shattering noise”? And if they initially thought it was a firecracker or a backfire, why would they not realize later that it was a shot. And if they were so abysmally dull as to not think the first noise was the first shot why would they all decide not to even mention that another loud sound preceded the first shot? The source of the error would have to be common to all the witnesses. And the fact that most of them (but not all) reported hearing three shots means that they did not miss hearing the first shot.
Any way you look at it, any scenario in which these witnesses independently reported the same false observation is so highly improbable that one can conclude with the highest degree of certainty that it did not happen. The possibility that the witnesses were not independent and either colluded with each other or were strongly influenced by others to say they saw something they were told but did not see is still more likely than the chance they all independently made the same error.
-
I've always wished somebody would do a reenactment of that first shot just to see what challenges it would have presented. I'm not asking for a duplication which is impossible. Just a re-enactment to highlight the difficulties.
-
That’s an interesting video, thanks Duncan. I don’t think it addresses an early first shot though. (One that would have occurred a few seconds before any of the first shots taken by these participants.) And it also would be nice for a replica sniper’s nest (with the window boxes, etc in their proper places) to be incorporated into the demonstration.
-
Nice try. But the chance that in a group of 25 people all would independently make an error that caused them to make the same false report is the same regardless of the kind of error.
So you concede that the type of error has no bearing on the probability of 25 people being wrong in the same manner. Like all those people who thought the gunshots were fired from the GK.
Besides, why would anyone have failed to hear the first “horrible ear-shattering noise”?
I offered several possible reasons. None are provable but the fact remains that a number of people who offered an opinion on the number of shots only remembered hearing two shots.
Jackie only remembered two shots.
Clint Hill only remembered two shots.
How do you explain that? [quote
And if they initially thought it was a firecracker or a backfire, why would they not realize later that it was a shot. And if they were so abysmally dull as to not think the first noise was the first shot why would they all decide not to even mention that another loud sound preceded the first shot? The source of the error would have to be common to all the witnesses. And the fact that most of them (but not all) reported hearing three shots means that they did not miss hearing the first shot. [/quote]
I've already told you that it is impossible to say why some people did not remember hearing three shots but we know there were people who only remembered hearing two. Some remembered hearing four. We can only speculate why that is even though they all witnesses the same event. This speaks to the unreliability of witness recollections and simply assuming the plurality of witnesses got it right is simply illogical.
Any way you look at it, any scenario in which these witnesses independently reported the same false observation is so highly improbable that one can conclude with the highest degree of certainty that it did not happen. The possibility that the witnesses were not independent and either colluded with each other or were strongly influenced by others to say they saw something they were told but did not see is still more likely than the chance they all independently made the same error.
It's not at all improbable. That is your assumption based on your false belief that witnesses will remember details of an event reliably. That's not how it works in the real world. That's why the Innocence Project has used DNA to overturn hundreds of convictions that were the result of erroneous witness accounts. It leaves us to wonder how many people have been wrongfully convicted based on erroneous eyewitness testimony where DNA was not available to exonerate them.
-
I was aware of those CBS tests when I made my proposal and I knew they didn't meet the conditions I laid out. They didn't test the problems I pointed out for an early first shot.
The problem with those CBS recreations is they were based on the erroneous premises that the WC concluded the 3 shots were fired in 5.6 seconds and that the WC determined when the first shot was fired. Neither of those premises were correct. In fact, of the scenarios the WC offered, CBS chose to test only the least probable and the most difficult one. They only tested the scenario in which Oswald fired his first shot after JFK cleared the tree, making all three shots being fired down range. A very sloppy piece of journalism by the man once considered the Most Trusted Man in America in collaboration with Dan Rather who I doubt was trusted by many people at all.
A proper test would have tested all the scenarios the WC offered and would have tested several points in time the first shot could have missed. There is no clear consensus among LNs as to how early that missed shot was fired but a sampling of several would have given us an idea as to how plausible some of those scenarios were. Testing an earlier first shot would have demonstrated how difficult an early first shot would have been but only if they also simulated the sash that was only open about a foot. Such a test could have revealed how much Oswald's view would have been obscured by the bottom of the sash, how much he would have had to raise up to fire at a severely veridical angle, and whether the boxes he stacked by the window would have been of any help steadying the rifle for that shot.
-
That’s an interesting video, thanks Duncan. I don’t think it addresses an early first shot though. (One that would have occurred a few seconds before any of the first shots taken by these participants.) And it also would be nice for a replica sniper’s nest (with the window boxes, etc in their proper places) to be incorporated into the demonstration.
The first shot at 175 feet would be around z208 according to the FBI survey (CE884). (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm).
The CBS reenactment also does not have the oak tree or the street curve. But it does show how similar all three shots are in terms of rifle position and aim if the first shot was around z208 from a downward angle starting at 21.8 degrees and the third shot at 15.4 degrees. The lateral angle isn’t given but it doesn’t change much.
According to CE883, position A that is referred to in CE884 is in the middle of Elm St. intersecting with the extension of the west side of Houston St. just east of the TSBD. At that point the downward angle is 40.2 degrees according to CE884. A shot at z124 would be close to that 40 degrees making a next shot at z222 a difference of close to 20 degrees. The change in lateral angle from a shot at z124 to a shot at Z222 would be even greater. I can’t see even an inexperienced shooter choosing to fire two shots that would require such quick and significant repositioning.
-
The first shot at 175 feet would be around z208 according to the FBI survey (CE884 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm). It also does not have the oak tree or the street curve. But it does show how similar all three shots are in terms of rifle position and aim if the first shot was around z208 from a downward angle starting at 21.8 degrees and ending at 15.4 degrees. The lateral angle isn’t given but it doesn’t change much.
According to CE883, position A is in the middle of Elm St. intersecting with the extension of the west side of Houston St. just east of the TSBD. At that point the downward angle is 40.2 degrees according to CE884. A shot at z124 would be close to that 40 degrees making a next shot at z222 a difference of close to 20 degrees. I can’t see even an inexperienced shooter choosing to fire two shots that would require such quick and significant repositioning.
Nonsense.
-
Nonsense.
At least the producers at CBS agreed with me that the first shot didn’t miss.
-
At least the producers at CBS agreed with me that the first shot didn’t miss.
Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.
Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.
-
Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.
Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.
They were testing a shot sequence that does not conflict with the evidence. That’s all I was saying. They were just trying to see if three shots beginning about z208 and ending at z313 could be made. The found that it was possible. And, in at least one case, none missed.
You seem to think that I somehow invented the three shot no miss scenario. Anyone looking at the evidence can see that there is evidence that each of the three shots struck in the limo. If that wasn’t the case the WC would not have had a section explaining why they could not determine which shot missed.
-
No bullet wounds on either men could have come from SBD window. No wounds line up with O being the shooter.
-
They were testing a shot sequence that does not conflict with the evidence. That’s all I was saying. They were just trying to see if three shots beginning about z208 and ending at z313 could be made. The found that it was possible. And, in at least one case, none missed.
You seem to think that I somehow invented the three shot no miss scenario. Anyone looking at the evidence can see that there is evidence that each of the three shots struck in the limo. If that wasn’t the case the WC would not have had a section explaining why they could not determine which shot missed.
The shot sequence they chose to test was the least plausible one of those proposed by the WC. Why CBS chose that one is a head scratcher. To make matters worse, Cronkite made a blatantly false statement when he claimed the WC said the first shot was fired at Z210 which is how the 5.6 second time limit was arrived at. It had to be a low point in Cronkite's career to make a mistake that bad. All he had to do was read the conclusions paragraph at the end of the chapter dealing with the shots Oswald fired. Instead, he relied on myths that had been created, most notably by Josiah Thompson's silly title Six Seconds in Dallas. a fictitious examination of the JFKA. The WC never concluded that the all 3 shots were fired in under 6 seconds and anyone who believes they did has either neither read the WCR or has a very serious reading comprehension problem.
-
The shot sequence they chose to test was the least plausible one of those proposed by the WC. Why CBS chose that one is a head scratcher. To make matters worse, Cronkite made a blatantly false statement when he claimed the WC said the first shot was fired at Z210 which is how the 5.6 second time limit was arrived at. It had to be a low point in Cronkite's career to make a mistake that bad. All he had to do was read the conclusions paragraph at the end of the chapter dealing with the shots Oswald fired. Instead, he relied on myths that had been created, most notably by Josiah Thompson's silly title Six Seconds in Dallas. a fictitious examination of the JFKA. The WC never concluded that the all 3 shots were fired in under 6 seconds and anyone who believes they did has either neither read the WCR or has a very serious reading comprehension problem.
They read the report and read between the lines. They also understood that the WC members all thought the first shot struck JFK. The four members who supported the SBT thought JBC was hit on the first shot but did not feel it right away. This is why JBC could not agree because he knew he felt the bullet that hit him in the back and that it was after the first. This prompted him on the third anniversary of the assassination to issue a statement stating that he was not hit on the first shot. He said that he disagreed with the WC on that point but agreed with their conclusion. Here is the full NYT article (https://i.postimg.cc/2S3Sy2zp/IMG-2853.jpg) containing the statement:
“ AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 23--Following is a statement made by Gov. John B. Connally Jr. today in discussing the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas three years ago:
I want to make it abundantly clear that I have no desire to prolong or perpetuate the stark memories of the tragedy of three years ago. This conference has been arranged solely as a result of the widespread request of newsmen. I will take just a moment to reiterate and to clarify once again the events of that day. Let me point out that this information is not new. It is precisely the information I recalled and related in a television interview from a hospital bed in Dallas on Nov. 27, just a few days following the assassination. It is precisely the way I related it in testimony to the Warren Commission. It also is precisely the way it had been recalled by me in interviews since that time.
I am convinced, beyond any doubt, that I was not struck by the first bullet. I know that I heard the first shot, that I turned to see what happened and that I was struck by a second shot. The third shot struck the President and not me.
As I said earlier, this testimony was presented to the Warren Commission. They chose to disagree, which is their privilege. I maintain my original view, and always, shall. I want to make it very clear, however, that simply because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one detail does not mean that I disagree with the substance of their over-all findings. I think the commission did an outstanding job under difficult circumstances. Each of the members of that commission, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senator Richard B. Russell, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald Ford, Mr. Allen Dulles and Mr. John J. McCloy, are men of unquestioned integrity, of long and devoted service to their nation, men whose dedication to the task of seeking truth in these circumstances I would never question, and men whose patriotism has been manifested so many times in so many ways over such a long period that it now is somewhat shocking to me that in the backlash of tragedy, journalistic scavengers such as Mark Lane, attempting to impugn the motives of these members individually, cast doubts upon the commission as a whole and question the credibility of the Government itself. I think it is time that we pause and reflect on who these individuals are and rather than calling for a further investigation of the assassination, which in my judgment is neither warranted, justified or desirable, we should turn our attention to doing a little research on and evaluation of the credentials of the self-appointed experts who, with no evidence, no new facts, nevertheless use distortion, inference, innuendo, in order to cast doubts and create confusion. I suspect that a searching investigation into their own credentials will divulge that their motives have political overtones and that their views have been given prominence out of proportion to their value.”
-
They read the report and read between the lines. They also understood that the WC members all thought the first shot struck JFK.
Now you're just making sxxt up. There is no need to read between the lines. The WC said what they meant and they meant what they said. The could not determine which of Oswald's three shots were the missed shot. They gave pros and cons for each scenario without showing favoritism to any. They adopted the FBI approach which was that if they could not determine something conclusively, they would not speculate on probabilities.
The CTs created the myth that the WC favored a second shot miss because that was the easiest one to attack. It was the one that made Oswald's shooting feat the most difficult. Josiah Thompson may have been largely responsible for creating the myth with his book title Six Seconds in Dallas. That was probably largely responsible for cementing the myth in the minds of the public that Oswald fired 3 shots in under 6 seconds. The CTs jumped on board by pointing out how improbable it would be for Oswald to score 2 hits with 3 shots in under 6 seconds which it was. Even some LNs got duped into believing the 6 second myth. It's understandable how the average person could have been taken in by the myth but it was inexcusable for a journalist the stature of Walter Cronkite to make such a fundamental mistake. All he would have had to do was read the conclusion paragraph in the chapter on the shots to know the WC never concluded which shot missed, how long Oswald took to fire his 3 shots, or when the first shot was fired. The WC reached no conclusion on those points and said so clearly.
I'm not sure when the Z-film became widely available to the public but I'm guessing it coincided with the internet becoming widely available to the public, some time in the late 1980s. The film had aired on TV several times but unless people recorded the program, they wouldn't have had the capability of reviewing it over and over again. Once the internet made multiple viewings possible as well as enhancements to the film, people started to figure out just what happened. It wasn't long after that a consensus started to build among the LNs that it was the first shot that missed. With millions of eyeballs able to look at the film over and over, in slow motion, freeze frame, and enlargements that people began to pick up on clues the WC had missed. They were able to see the bulge in JBC's jacket at Z224. They could see that JFK's arms did not start to be raised until one frame after he reappeared from behind the sign. They could see JBC's earlier reaction when he began to turn to his right in reaction to the first shot miss. While LNs might quibble about exactly when the first and second shots were fired, most LNs now believe the scenario was a first shot miss, the single bullet on the second shot, and the fatal third shot to the head. When you accept that, all the pieces fall neatly together. When you reject that, nothing fits together and one is forced to make ridiculous arguments to try to make their pet theory seem plausible. Unfortunately for them, that can't be done.
-
Now you're just making sxxt up. There is no need to read between the lines. The WC said what they meant and they meant what they said. The could not determine which of Oswald's three shots were the missed shot. They gave pros and cons for each scenario without showing favoritism to any. They adopted the FBI approach which was that if they could not determine something conclusively, they would not speculate on probabilities.
I can assure you that I didn’t make Connally hold a press conference and make a statement saying he disagreed with the WC over whether he was hit in the back on the second shot. I didn’t make him think that the WC found that he was hit in the back on the first shot. It wasn’t until the HSCA that anyone seriously proposed that the first shot missed.
-
I can assure you that I didn’t make Connally hold a press conference and make a statement saying he disagreed with the WC over whether he was hit in the back on the second shot. I didn’t make him think that the WC found that he was hit in the back on the first shot. It wasn’t until the HSCA that anyone seriously proposed that the first shot missed.
That's a lie. A first shot miss was one of the four scenarios the WC offered in its report. Those four scenarios were a first shot miss, a second shot miss, a third shot miss, and a two shot scenario with no misses. The WC didn't play favorites with those scenarios. It left it up to the reader to decide which one they found to be most plausible.
I originally read the WC when it first came out and I was in 8th grade. I read a good chunk of it although I didn't get much into the appendices. I didn't give a lot of thought to the possibilities when I first read it and by the time I got interested again in the subject sometime in the 1980s, I had forgotten many of the details. By that time, I had bought into the myth that the WC had concluded the second shot missed and the 3 shots had been fired in no more than 5.6 seconds. I was flabbergasted and a little pissed off when I re-read the WC for the first time in 25 years and saw that they had never concluded that, only that it was a possibility. I was pissed because I realized I had been duped, by Walter Cronkite of all people. He ceased being the Most Trusted Man in America in my eyes when I made that discovery. Now I don't trust any of the network anchors. I've ceased even watching the nightly network news programs.
-
I was pissed because I realized I had been duped, by Walter Cronkite of all people. He ceased being the Most Trusted Man in America in my eyes when I made that discovery. Now I don't trust any of the network anchors. I've ceased even watching the nightly network news programs.
Greg "Blowhard" Gutfeld and Fox "News" is all you need!
-
Greg "Blowhard" Gutfeld and Fox "News" is all you need!
I watch Gutfeld for entertainment. I do learn somethings from his show, but it's not my primary source of information. I don't have a primary source because that runs the risk of getting duped like I was by Cronkite. I gather my information from a multitude of sources, televised and online. I even check in on CNN and MSNOW just to see what they are up to. Like with Gutfeld, they provide me with laughs with occasional bits of information. I used to read newspapers but I find them to be obsolete. I don't know why companies still bother to print them. By the time their fish wrappers reach the reader, it's no longer news.
-
That's a lie. A first shot miss was one of the four scenarios the WC offered in its report. Those four scenarios were a first shot miss, a second shot miss, a third shot miss, and a two shot scenario with no misses. The WC didn't play favorites with those scenarios. It left it up to the reader to decide which one they found to be most plausible.
I originally read the WC when it first came out and I was in 8th grade. I read a good chunk of it although I didn't get much into the appendices. I didn't give a lot of thought to the possibilities when I first read it and by the time I got interested again in the subject sometime in the 1980s, I had forgotten many of the details. By that time, I had bought into the myth that the WC had concluded the second shot missed and the 3 shots had been fired in no more than 5.6 seconds. I was flabbergasted and a little pissed off when I re-read the WC for the first time in 25 years and saw that they had never concluded that, only that it was a possibility. I was pissed because I realized I had been duped, by Walter Cronkite of all people. He ceased being the Most Trusted Man in America in my eyes when I made that discovery. Now I don't trust any of the network anchors. I've ceased even watching the nightly network news programs.
The WR speaks for itself. What I am saying is that the consensus of all members of the WC was that JFK was hit by the first shot and this was also the general consensus of the media and observers. It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed. If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected. This is why Connally kept insisting that he disagreed with the WC on the first shot. His disagreement was not that it hit JFK. His disagreement was that it was not the shot that he felt hit him in the torso
-
The WR speaks for itself. What I am saying is that the consensus of all members of the WC was that JFK was hit by the first shot and this was also the general consensus of the media and observers.
Can you document that claim or did you just pull it out of your Bahookie?
It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed.
You keep piling one lie on top of another.
If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.
You are the one that made the claim the second shot miss was the only one taken seriously. The burden is on you to support that. I have no burden to disprove your unsubstantiated claims.
This is why Connally kept insisting that he disagreed with the WC on the first shot. His disagreement was not that it hit JFK. His disagreement was that it was not the shot that he felt hit him in the torso
The fact that Connally accepted a myth is no evidence that is the only one people considered. If people got the idea the WC favored the second shot miss scenario, that is an indictment of them. It certainly wasn't a conclusion of the WC.
-
The WR speaks for itself. What I am saying is that the consensus of all members of the WC was that JFK was hit by the first shot and this was also the general consensus of the media and observers. It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed. If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected. This is why Connally kept insisting that he disagreed with the WC on the first shot. His disagreement was not that it hit JFK. His disagreement was that it was not the shot that he felt hit him in the torso
It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed. If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.
This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:
The First Shot
If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view. The bullet might have struck a portion of the tree and been completely deflected. On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile.
Some support for the contention that the first shot missed is found in the statement of Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, stationed in the right rear seat of the President's follow-up car, who heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. At that moment, Agent Bennett stated:
... I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.337
Substantial weight may be given Bennett's observations. Although his formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.338 It is possible, of course, that Bennett did not observe the hole in the President's back, which might have been there immediately after the first noise.
Page 112
Governor Connally's testimony supports the view that the first shot missed, because he stated that he heard a shot, turned slightly to his right, and, as he started to turn back toward his left, was struck by the second bullet.339 He never saw the President during the shooting sequence, and it is entirely possible that he heard the missed shot and that both men were struck by the second bullet.
-
It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed. If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.
This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:
The First Shot
If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view. The bullet might have struck a portion of the tree and been completely deflected. On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile.
Some support for the contention that the first shot missed is found in the statement of Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, stationed in the right rear seat of the President's follow-up car, who heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. At that moment, Agent Bennett stated:
... I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.337
Substantial weight may be given Bennett's observations. Although his formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.338 It is possible, of course, that Bennett did not observe the hole in the President's back, which might have been there immediately after the first noise.
Page 112
Governor Connally's testimony supports the view that the first shot missed, because he stated that he heard a shot, turned slightly to his right, and, as he started to turn back toward his left, was struck by the second bullet.339 He never saw the President during the shooting sequence, and it is entirely possible that he heard the missed shot and that both men were struck by the second bullet.
This illustrates what I said earlier. The WC gave pro and con arguments for each of the three shots being the one that missed. They gave no indication they favored any one scenario over the others. They simply laid out the case for and against each scenario and left it to the reader to decide which they thought was more likely to be the correct one. Reading all the arguments the WC laid out and combining it with what we have learned jin the last several decades leaves me with no doubt that the first shot missed and the second was the single bullet.
-
The WC gave pro and con arguments for each of the three shots being the one that missed. They gave no indication they favored any one scenario over the others. They simply laid out the case for and against each scenario and left it to the reader to decide which they thought was more likely to be the correct one. Reading all the arguments the WC laid out and combining it with what we have learned in the last several decades leaves me with no doubt that the first shot missed and the second was the single bullet.
Correct.
-
It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed. If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.
This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:
Yes. But there is a difference between what the WC members thought and what they said in the WR. They said in the WR that the SBT did not matter and was not essential to their conclusion. But Commission counsel and at least 4 members actually thought it was. My point was that despite saying that the first, second or third shots may have missed, it was clear from McCloy that he thought the first shot struck both JFK and JBC and was the only shot to strike JBC. Arlen Specter also thought this because he concluded that Connally was incorrect in thinking he was hit by the second shot. Here is what he said in Life Magazine in 1966:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5WcGLfr/image.png)
All Connally had said is that he was sure he heard the first shot before he felt the impact of the second shot. He never testified that he saw JFK hit by the first shot. So by saying the Connally was incorrect was saying that Connally was hit by the first shot. That was the clear impression left by the WC until the HSCA in 1978 suggested that the first shot may have been much earlier and missed, based on the acoustic evidence (which we now know was wrong).
-
Yes. But there is a difference between what the WC members thought and what they said in the WR. They said in the WR that the SBT did not matter and was not essential to their conclusion. But Commission counsel and at least 4 members actually thought it was. My point was that despite saying that the first, second or third shots may have missed, it was clear from McCloy that he thought the first shot struck both JFK and JBC and was the only shot to strike JBC. Arlen Specter also thought this because he concluded that Connally was incorrect in thinking he was hit by the second shot. Here is what he said in Life Magazine in 1966:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5WcGLfr/image.png)
All Connally had said is that he was sure he heard the first shot before he felt the impact of the second shot. He never testified that he saw JFK hit by the first shot. So by saying the Connally was incorrect was saying that Connally was hit by the first shot. That was the clear impression left by the WC until the HSCA in 1978 suggested that the first shot may have been much earlier and missed, based on the acoustic evidence (which we now know was wrong).
McCloy's opinion was his, not the opinion of the WCR which stated plainly and unambiguously that the missed shot could have been any of the three shots and they did not indicate a preference for any of them. The WCR should be judged on what it said, not on what people think it said.
-
McCloy's opinion was his, not the opinion of the WCR which stated plainly and unambiguously that the missed shot could have been any of the three shots and they did not indicate a preference for any of them. The WCR should be judged on what it said, not on what people think it said.
I see. So that means we can say that the WC did not find the SBT was correct or necessary to their LN conclusion or that any shot missed:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYYkFZVd/IMG-2859.jpg)
I can agree with that!
-
I see. So that means we can say that the WC did not find the SBT was correct or necessary to their LN conclusion or that any shot missed:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYYkFZVd/IMG-2859.jpg)
I can agree with that!
One of the few things I disagree with the WCR about. They put that in due to the Commission members who refused to accept the TSBD, which is their fault. The SBT is what happened and the staff lawyers who did the bulk of the investigating knew it.