JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Wiebel on August 26, 2026, 09:04:50 PM
-
I'm brand new to this forum. I will try not to be long winded. I'm 52 and I've been reading about the assassination for a long time. I have a question that I have not seen the answer to in any book I've read. If there was another gunman behind the fence who shot the president in the head then why was there no entrance wound mentioned? If the back of his head was blown out by a bullet from the front wouldn't anyone have noticed it at Parkland? There are pictures of doctors showing us where the head wound in the back was but no mention of an entry wound. Also how on earth could a bullet that hit him in the back exit his throat if the bullet was fired from a downward angle? That makes no sense at all. Thanks
-
John - Good to have you here and posting.
There is the wound in the (R) Temple area. If that was an Entrance Wound, it could have blown out the rear of JFK's head. Marilyn Sitzman and Bill Newman were interviewed by Josiah Thompson for his blockbuster book, "Six Seconds In Dallas" (1967). They told him they witnessed JFK being struck by a bullet on the (R) side of his head. Sitzman pinpointed it as being, "Between the eye and the ear". Sitzman was standing on the pedestal with Zapruder, and Bill Newman was standing with his family below Zapruder.
-
I'm brand new to this forum. I will try not to be long winded. I'm 52 and I've been reading about the assassination for a long time. I have a question that I have not seen the answer to in any book I've read. If there was another gunman behind the fence who shot the president in the head then why was there no entrance wound mentioned? If the back of his head was blown out by a bullet from the front wouldn't anyone have noticed it at Parkland? There are pictures of doctors showing us where the head wound in the back was but no mention of an entry wound. Also how on earth could a bullet that hit him in the back exit his throat if the bullet was fired from a downward angle? That makes no sense at all. Thanks
Both are good questions. Especially the first one. The answer to the first one is there was no entrance wound in front of JFK's head. The entrance would was in the back of the head as EVERY qualified medical examiner who has seen the autopsy evidence has concluded. It's only amateur sleuths with no training in forensic medicine who believe otherwise. It is elementary for forensic medical examiners to distinguish an entrance wound in a skull from an entrance wound. For one, when a bullet passes through the wall of a skull, it makes a beveling wound meaning it will make a small hole on the side it enters and a larger hole on the opposite side. The bullet hole in the back of JFK's head was beveled inward which means the bullet entered the back of his head. The other telltale sign is that when a bullet enters a skull, fracture lines radiate out from the point of entry and secondary fracture lines appear roughly parallel to the radiating lines. The fracture lines in JFK's skull radiated from the entrance point in the back of the head. The emergency room team spent little time examining or treating the head wound. As Dr. Carrico explained in a recently posted video, the first order of business was to stabilize the patient's vital signs, respiration, heartbeat, blood pressure, etc. Once that was done, only then could they go on to treat the wound. I'm sure they knew they were fighting a losing battle but they did what they could. It wasn't long after, they declared him dead without anyone actually taking a close look at the head wound. If they had, they would have seen there was a blowout along the entire upper right side of JFK's head.
The answer to your second question is that the base of the neck is higher in a person's back than it is in the front. A look at the recreation done by the Secret Service with Arlen Specter overseeing illustrates this quite well.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/29149/photograph-of-fbi-agents-reenacting-the-kennedy-assassination
As you can see, the rod Specter is holding is at the level of the entry wound in the back, at the level of the knot in JFK's tie in the front where the bullet exited, and continues downward to the entry point on JBC's back. The geometry of the single bullet works perfectly.
-
JW-
I agree.
It is vexing, but LNT and many CT narratives...require some suspension of disbelief.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
They will be as good as anyone else's.
-
Yeah, John W., sometimes in my reverie I would imagine another gunman or three in different locations (take your pick),ready to do the dirty deed as well when suddenly…….. it was Ozzie’s lucky day, and he never played a video game in his life, but his scope worked, it would seem.
-
Yeah, John W., sometimes in my reverie I would imagine another gunman or three in different locations (take your pick),ready to do the dirty deed as well when suddenly…….. it was Ozzie’s lucky day, and he never played a video game in his life, but his scope worked, it would seem.
That is something CTs conveniently ignore. They tell us what a crappy rifle the Carcano was. They tell us how badly the scope was misaligned. They ignore the fact that Oswald's Carcano was positively match to the three spent shells found at the sniper's nest, CE399,
and the fragmented bullet found in the limo the night of the assassination to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That means that SOMEBODY used that rife to kill JFK. We have ample forensic evidence that tells us that somebody was the guy who owned the rifle. The Carcano wasn't the greatest battlefield rifle ever produced but it was good enough to get the job done.
-
That is something CTs conveniently ignore. They tell us what a crappy rifle the Carcano was. They tell us how badly the scope was misaligned. They ignore the fact that Oswald's Carcano was positively match to the three spent shells found at the sniper's nest, CE399,
and the fragmented bullet found in the limo the night of the assassination to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That means that SOMEBODY used that rife to kill JFK. We have ample forensic evidence that tells us that somebody was the guy who owned the rifle. The Carcano wasn't the greatest battlefield rifle ever produced but it was good enough to get the job done.
So we have 2 shots from the same WW 2 Bolt Action Rifle resulting in: (1) A Head Exploding, and (2) The SBT. BS:
-
So we have 2 shots from the same WW 2 Bolt Action Rifle resulting in: (1) A Head Exploding, and (2) The SBT. BS:
Yes, we do.
-
I'm brand new to this forum. I will try not to be long winded. I'm 52 and I've been reading about the assassination for a long time. I have a question that I have not seen the answer to in any book I've read. If there was another gunman behind the fence who shot the president in the head then why was there no entrance wound mentioned? If the back of his head was blown out by a bullet from the front wouldn't anyone have noticed it at Parkland? There are pictures of doctors showing us where the head wound in the back was but no mention of an entry wound. Also how on earth could a bullet that hit him in the back exit his throat if the bullet was fired from a downward angle? That makes no sense at all. Thanks
First off, welcome to the forum.
A few facts in answer to your questions, and I'll provide sources at the end:
-- A number of independent medical experts have identified a frontal entry wound on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
-- Several witnesses said they saw a small wound in JFK's right temple.
-- White House spokesman Malcolm Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to demonstrate the course of the bullet during a press conference at Parkland Hospital shortly after JFK was declared dead, and Kilduff said he got this information from Dr. George Burkley, JFK's physician, who was in the Parkland ER during the efforts to revive the president.
-- We now know for an absolute fact that no bullet exited JFK's throat. JFK's clothing alone proves that no bullet exited the throat.
The first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, and we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact, via repeated probing after the chest organs were removed, that the back wound had no exit point. Indeed, medical technicians and others around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.
-- Scientific evidence in the form optical-density measurements done on the autopsy x-rays at the National Archives has established that the AP skull x-ray indicates missing bone in the back of the head.
-- Literally dozens of witnesses who saw JFK's head wounds said the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head (technically, the right parietal-occipital region), about half in the rear of the parietal bone and half in the right part of the occiput.
These witnesses included the two Parkland nurses who cleaned the large head wound and packed it with gauze, the two Secret Service agents who observed the body in the Bethesda morgue shortly after the autopsy, the two FBI agents who were the FBI's official observers at the autopsy, the three morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy, and the Parkland neurosurgeon who examined JFK's head in the emergency room, among others.
-- The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. Instead, it behaved exactly like high-velocity frangible ammo.
The ammo that hit Kennedy's skull shattered into dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region and also deposited fragments in the rear outer table of the skull and fragments at the opposite end of the skull just behind and above the right orbit. FMJ bullets, the kind of bullets that Oswald allegedly used, will never, ever fragment in this manner when penetrating a skull. Never.
Also, the degree and nature of the fracturing of the skull clearly show that the ammo was moving at a high velocity. Every single expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit the head has said it must have been moving at a high velocity. But, Oswald's alleged rifle was a low-velocity rifle or was at the lower end of the medium-velocity scale, depending on which scale you use. FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Warren Commission that the alleged murder weapon was a rather low-velocity rifle.
-- Scientific acoustical evidence developed by several acoustical scientists for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, based on an analysis of a Dallas police dictabelt recording made in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, established that a gunman was firing from the grassy knoll. The finding was further substantiated by new research on the acoustical evidence conducted by BBN scientists from 2015 to 2018. Dr. Josiah Thompson spends over 100 pages discussing this historic new research in his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas. I discuss it in my article on the acoustical evidence (linked below).
Even the NRC/NAS panel, which was formed to discredit the acoustical evidence, admitted two key facts: (1) that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the Dallas police dictabelt and the Dealey Plaza test firing occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and (2) that there's a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern, identified by the HSCA's acoustical scientists as gunfire from the grassy knoll, is in fact gunfire from the knoll.
usp=sharing]"The Head Shot from the Front" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view?)
"The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of the Brain Photographs" (https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf)
"JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing)
"JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners" (https://www.themantikview.org/pdf/JFK_Assassination_Paradoxes.pdf)
"Forensic Science and President Kennedy’s Head Wounds" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing)
"The Medical Evidence Decoded" (https://www.themantikview.org/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf)
"Where Was President Kennedy's Back Wound?" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fT_tqslENprGmxm18J5zSL9QUNxjh5sH/view?usp=sharing)
"A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence" (http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm)
"The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view?usp=sharing)
You can find more sources on my "JFK Assassination Website" (https://sites.google.com/view/jfkassassinationwebsite/home).
-
Note to John Wiebel. If you are interested in learning more about the myths surrounding the JFK assassination, there is no better source the Michael T. Griffith. From personal experience, I can tell you that he has been spreading these myths for over 35 years across numerous forums. If you are interested in learning about the facts of the assassination, I would advise you not to follow MTG into the weeds.
As I advised you in my first reply, don't trust. Just verify. Don't accept what anyone claims at face value. Not from me. Not from MTG. Not anybody. We all have our beliefs and our biases and those are reflected in what we post. Whatever you read, you should consider the possibility that it might or might not be true. It's easy to find opinions on both sides of any issue and decide for yourself what makes the most sense to you.
-
Note to John Wiebel. If you are interested in learning more about the myths surrounding the JFK assassination, there is no better source the Michael T. Griffith. From personal experience, I can tell you that he has been spreading these myths for over 35 years across numerous forums. If you are interested in learning about the facts of the assassination, I would advise you not to follow MTG into the weeds.
As I advised you in my first reply, don't trust. Just verify. Don't accept what anyone claims at face value. Not from me. Not from MTG. Not anybody. We all have our beliefs and our biases and those are reflected in what we post. Whatever you read, you should consider the possibility that it might or might not be true. It's easy to find opinions on both sides of any issue and decide for yourself what makes the most sense to you.
How about just refuting the "Mountain Of Evidence" that Griffith has posted above vs resorting to "character assassination"?
-
How about just refuting the "Mountain Of Evidence" that Griffith has posted above vs resorting to "character assassination"?
"Mountain of Evidence"? Is that what you call that steaming, stinking pile of crap?
-
So, we have 2 shots from the same WW 2 Bolt Action Rifle resulting in: (1) A Head Exploding, and (2) The SBT.
Dear Storm Trooper Storing,
Given the fact that Oswald was a former Marine sharpshooter, that his Carcano was found to be reasonably accurate, and that he fired all three shots over a span of about ten seconds, why do you have a problem with that?
-- Tom
-
Dear Storm Trooper Storing,
Given the fact that Oswald was a former Marine sharpshooter, that his Carcano was found to be reasonably accurate, and that he fired all three shots over a span of about ten seconds, why do you have a problem with that?
-- Tom
You guys keep moving the goalpost. NOW it's 3 shots 10 seconds total elapsed time. We get the final half of the 1st Generation Copy of the Darnell Film, and it will Not matter. That Bogus DPD Cop strolling across the railroad yard will be proven to Not be Officer Haygood = Conspiracy.
-
You guys keep moving the goalpost. NOW it's 3 shots 10 seconds total elapsed time. We get the final half of the 1st Generation Copy of the Darnell Film, and it will Not matter. That Bogus DPD Cop strolling across the railroad yard will be proven to Not be Officer Haygood = Conspiracy.
Have you ever read the WCR? The goalposts were never moved. The last word on the timespan of the shots is the conclusion at the end of Chapter 3.
"Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."
10 seconds is in excess of 7 seconds. While I believe the 3 shots were fired in just under 9 seconds, a 10+ second scenario was allowed for by the WC. It was the CTs, aided by I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy reporting by the likes of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, who perpetuated the myth that the WC concluded the 3 shots were fired in 5.6 seconds or less.
-
Have you ever read the WCR? The goalposts were never moved. The last word on the timespan of the shots is the conclusion at the end of Chapter 3.
"Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."
10 seconds is in excess of 7 seconds. While I believe the 3 shots were fired in just under 9 seconds, a 10+ second scenario was allowed for by the WC. It was the CTs, aided by I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy reporting by the likes of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, who perpetuated the myth that the WC concluded the 3 shots were fired in 5.6 seconds or less.
:D Twisted BS
The WC never said anything about 10+ sec. You just made that up
According to the WC any excess of 7 sec was if the 2nd shot missed.
They didn't report an early shot. Certainly no where near your fantasy Z-145
-
:D Twisted BS
The WC never said anything about 10+ sec. You just made that up
Damn, your reading comprehension is piss poor. Is 10+ seconds in excess of 7 seconds? The WC put no upper limit on the total time span of the 3 shots if the second shot was not the missed shot, which it wasn't.
According to the WC any excess of 7 sec was if the 2nd shot missed.
They didn't report an early shot. Certainly no where near your fantasy Z-145
No, I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. If the second shot missed, the maximum time span was 5.6 seconds. There was no maximum time span stated if the second shot did not miss. Only that it would have been in excess of 7 seconds. (8.9 by my calculation)
-
Damn, your reading comprehension is piss poor. Is 10+ seconds in excess of 7 seconds? The WC put no upper limit on the total time span of the 3 shots if the second shot was not the missed shot, which it wasn't.
No, I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. If the second shot missed, the maximum time span was 5.6 seconds. There was no maximum time span stated if the second shot did not miss. Only that it would have been in excess of 7 seconds. (8.9 by my calculation)
"The Commission stated that if either the first or the third shot missed, the total time span for all three shots by Lee Harvey Oswald was roughly 5 to 5.5 seconds."
"Depending on which specific shot missed, the absolute outer limits calculated by the Commission ranged from 4.8 seconds up to 7.9 seconds total "
There was no maximum time span stated if the second shot did not miss. Only that it would have been in excess of 7 seconds. (8.9 by my calculation)
More BS and your personal insults add nothing to your claims
"If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots."
-
Have you ever read the WCR? The goalposts were never moved. The last word on the timespan of the shots is the conclusion at the end of Chapter 3.
"Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."
10 seconds is in excess of 7 seconds. While I believe the 3 shots were fired in just under 9 seconds, a 10+ second scenario was allowed for by the WC. It was the CTs, aided by I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy reporting by the likes of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, who perpetuated the myth that the WC concluded the 3 shots were fired in 5.6 seconds or less.
So an elapsed firing time for the 3 Shots of 1 minute is also OK with the WC? And NOW You wantta throw Cronkite and Rather under the bus too? They WERE your biggest cheer leaders. Never thought I would see an LN turn on Cronkite, but here You are. Pure scramble mode.
-
"The Commission stated that if either the first or the third shot missed, the total time span for all three shots by Lee Harvey Oswald was roughly 5 to 5.5 seconds."
You are either lying. The WC never wrote that. You made it up. The entire WCR is online for all to see. Their final conclusion regarding the time span of the shots can be found here:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#conclusion
"roughly 5 to 5.5 seconds" is nowhere to be found. Why do you have to resort to lying in order to make your points?
"Depending on which specific shot missed, the absolute outer limits calculated by the Commission ranged from 4.8 seconds up to 7.9 seconds total "
More lies. The WC never put an upper limit on the total time span in the even of either a first or third shot miss. The passage I cited above states the following":
"Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."
in excess of 7 seconds does not put an upper limit on the time span of the shots.
More BS and your personal insults add nothing to your claims
"If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots."
A MINIMUM TIME!!! No mention of a maximum amount of time. Do you understand the difference between minimum and maximum?
-
You are either lying. The WC never wrote that. You made it up. The entire WCR is online for all to see. Their final conclusion regarding the time span of the shots can be found here:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#conclusion
"roughly 5 to 5.5 seconds" is nowhere to be found. Why do you have to resort to lying in order to make your points?
A MINIMUM TIME!!! No mention of a maximum amount of time. Do you understand the difference between minimum and maximum?
I don't respond to half-fast formatted replies.
What I posted is from The National Archives
-
So an elapsed firing time for the 3 Shots of 1 minute is also OK with the WC? And NOW You wantta throw Cronkite and Rather under the bus too? They WERE your biggest cheer leaders. Never thought I would see an LN turn on Cronkite, but here You are. Pure scramble mode.
The performance of Cronkite and Rather was abysmal, whether they were defending the WC or not. Both are on record as making horrendous misstatements of fact regarding the shooting. Nowhere did the WC conclude the second shot missed nor that the total time frame of the shots was 5.6 seconds. They perpetrated this lie over decades. They did so in their 1967 documentary and again in 1988.
Cronkite went so far as to say the WC concluded that the first shot was fired at Z210. Never did the WC say anything like that. They said the earliest the single bullet could have been fired was Z210 because that is when JFK first cleared the tree. They also never said that was the first shot. Cronkite stepped down as anchor of the CBS nightly news report in 1981 when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 65. They brought him out of mothballs for the 1988 documentary. By then, poor Walter seemed to have lost his fastball. How else to explain how such an esteemed journalist could make a mistake that would embarrass a cub reporter.
-
I don't respond to half-fast formatted replies.
What I posted is from The National Archives
I guess my formatting error gave you the excuse you needed to dodge the issue of your obvious lie.
If what you posted is from the National Archives, you should have no trouble posting a link to that. On the other hand, if you made it up, no such link exists. I know which one I am betting on.
-
WC section on the shots:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13748660373/Keyc08267ibyymf/WC time span.jpg)
-
WC section on the shots:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13748660373/Keyc08267ibyymf/WC time span.jpg)
There it is. I missed it by 0.1 sec. a typo.
" If the second shot missed, then 4.8 to 5.6 seconds was the total time span of the shots."
Thumb1: ...but not a word about as much as 10 sec.
-
...and not a word as much as 10 sec.
I guess they expected readers to be able to do basic arithmetic. I guess that left you out.
-
I guess my formatting error gave you the excuse you needed to dodge the issue of your obvious lie.
:D "formatting error"? That's funny. You do it all over this forum.
No one should respond to anything you post if you can't take the time to properly format a reply. I won't.
-
You do it all over this forum.
No one should respond if you can't take the time to properly format a response. I won't.
But you do respond. You respond with blatant lies.
-
I guess they expected readers to be able to do basic arithmetic. I guess that left you out.
You can count to ten. Good to know.
But your fantasy shot at Z-145 is not part of the WC conclusions.
Thumb1: Draw it like a cartoon and soon we'll be up to 20, maybe even 30 seconds.
-
But you do respond.
...to your intentional and careless slop around here? One time, yea.
So I did.
-
But you do respond. You respond with blatant lies.
Whatever side a person is on, Nobody is gonna let your BS: go without setting the record straight.
-
You can count to ten. Good to know.
But your fantasy shot at Z-145 is not part of the WC conclusions.
Nobody said it was, but a shot at Z147 does fall within the parameters set by the WC.
-
First off, welcome to the forum.
A few facts in answer to your questions, and I'll provide sources at the end:
-- A number of independent medical experts have identified an entry wound on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
As you might have guessed, I meant to say that some independent medical experts have identified a "frontal entry wound" -- not just an entry wound -- on the autopsy x-rays. I've corrected the reply accordingly.
-
As you might have guessed, I meant to say that some independent medical experts have identified a "frontal entry wound" -- not just an entry wound -- on the autopsy x-rays. I've corrected the reply accordingly.
Word of warning. None of the experts MTG cites are experts in forensic pathology. You might find an ophthalmologist among them
-
Well I think Harold Norman , on the 5th floor right beneath the 6th floor TSBD shooter, is the closest witness who heard 3 shots fired in less than 5 seconds. His “boom click click “ Sequence is no where near 10 secs or even 7 secs. It’s completed in less than 5 secs in every film of Norman doing it,including in the Bugliosi v Spence Mock trial.
So Houston ( er Dallas).. we got a problem .. ???
-
Well I think Harold Norman , on the 5th floor right beneath the 6th floor TSBD shooter, is the closest witness who heard 3 shots fired in less than 5 seconds. His “boom click click “ Sequence is no where near 10 secs or even 7 secs. It’s completed in less than 5 secs in every film of Norman doing it,including in the Bugliosi v Spence Mock trial.
So Houston ( er Dallas).. we got a problem .. ???
Seriously? You think that is an accurate way to determine the timespan of the shots?
-
Just to follow up on Norman's estimation of the timespan of the shots. He didn't give one. In his testimony to the WC he said:
"And I don't remember saying I heard several seconds later. I merely told him that I heard three shots because I didn't have any idea what time it was."