Since none of it appears to be based on first-hand knowledge and none is corroborated by other independent evidence, I am not sure what his account is or what could conceivably validate his account.

HUH? Just HUH? Dr. Young said he saw the bullet. He even gave a detailed description of it. That is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition. Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Martinell found a bullet in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to verify his account. Confirmation from one of the two guys who found the bullet is "first-hand knowledge" by any definition.

When Captain Osborne's HSCA interviewer challenged his account with the argument that the only bullet in evidence was found at Parkland Hospital and sent to Washington, Osborne insisted that he had held the bullet in his hands. By any definition, Captain Osborne's account was based on "first-hand knowledge."

Osborne said the bullet was "copper clad" and "fully intact," adding that it had no blood on it when he handled it. The HSCA interview report admitted that Osborne specified that the missile was not a fragment:

Osborne emphasized that the slug was a fully intact missile and not a fragment. (Outside Contact Report, HSCA, 6/20/1978, p. 3, ARRB MD 66 document)

When Osborne was interviewed shortly after the HSCA volumes were published, it became clear that the HSCA FPP report's claim that Osborne had expressed uncertainty about his account "upon further inquiry" was false. In fact, as mentioned, when the HSCA interviewer, Mark Flanagan, challenged Osborne about his account, Osborne did not back down one bit:

I told them [HSCA investigators] that this was the way I remembered it, and they said, “Well, it must be wrong, because the Secret Service testified that the bullet was found in the hospital at Parkland, and brought back to Washington.”

And so I said, “Well, if that’s true, then they brought it back to the morgue because I had that bullet in my hand, and looked at it." (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis," 2024, p. 351)

The "major discrepancy" exists only in your [Michael Capasse's] own head and nowhere else. "Missile" has a range of meanings, and the fragments exchanged for the receipt falls within that.

Oh, hogwash. I challenge you, just as I've challenged the clueless John Corbett, to find me one FBI document -- or any other official investigative document -- that uses the term "missile" to describe two or more very small fragments that constitute less than 2% of the mass of a bullet. Let's see it.

As I discussed in a previous reply, in their six-page 11/26/1963 report on the autopsy, Sibert and O'Neill themselves used the term "missile" to refer to bullets four times (pp. 3-4). Moreover, they distinguished between "missile/bullet" and bullet fragments:

The largest section of this missile as portrayed on x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus. The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull. . . . (p. 3)

They identified the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm as fragments, not as a "missile":

. . . one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. . . . An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3  millimeters was also removed. . . . (p. 4)

In referring to the back-wound bullet, they described it as a "missile":

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes. . . . the trajectory of the missile entering at this point. . . . the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance. (p. 4)

Not once did Sibert and O'Neill used the term "missile" to refer to bullet fragments. They certainly would not have done so to describe two very small fragments that had a combined weight of only 180 grains, a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet. 

As I also discussed in a previous reply, the word "missile" is commonly used as a synonym for "bullet" in forensic and investigative sources. For example:
 
-- In the HSCA FPP's report, the term "missile" is used to describe bullets 408 times, and the term "missile fragment" is used to describe bullet fragments 35 times (7 HSCA).

Notice that the FPP distinguished between missiles and missile fragments. Gee, why do you suppose they did that? Maybe because they understood that missiles and missile fragments are two different things?! Ya think?!

-- Chapter 3 of the Warren Report uses the term "missile" to refer to bullets 20 times, and never once to describe bullet fragments.

-- During the WC hearing on May 6, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 15 times (14 times by Arlen Specter and one time by ballistics expert Dr. Alfred Olivier) (5 H 62-169).

Not once was the word "missile" used to describe fragments.

-- During the WC hearings from March 21-25, 1964, the term "missile" was used to refer to bullets 158 times, variously by Specter, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Jones, Dr. Akin, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Shires, (6 H 4-143).

Not once did they use the term "missile" as a synonym for bullet fragments.

-- In the JFK autopsy report, the term "missile" is used to refer to bullets six times.

Here, too, not once was the word "missile" used to describe bullet fragments.

Sheesh, this is just so pathetic. You guys can't even admit that no competent, rational person would (willingly) use the term "missile" to refer to two small fragments whose combined weight was only 180 grains, a tiny fraction of the mass of a bullet.

But this is the kind of abject nonsense you must float because your theory of the shooting collapses if you admit that a bullet was found in the limo and/or was seen at the autopsy.

You are correct that  a 1st shot before Z224 to the right of the JFK limo, could strike the manhole cover.
However it would have to be high above JFKs head. So that suggests  an inadvertent unaimed shot fired as the TSBD shooter was in the act of adjusting the rifle on the boxes. It seems plausible enough to me but I’m having trouble dismissing the majority witness hearing the 1….2.3 pattern, and Tague seemly more inclined That it was 2nd or 3rd shot.

There is no evidence of a bullet strike on or near the manhole cover. That is a separate issue from the Tague injury. That could have been caused by a bullet hitting just to the right of the limo, ricocheting off the pavement, and continuing down range to strike the curb near Tague.

Seems to me improbable that an MC bullet would break apart after hitting the manhole cover such that a fragment of lead  completely separated from the copper jacket and flew across to the curb, while the remainder of the bullet still in the copper  jacket buried into the grass. Maybe an experiment  is necessary to see if it could happen this way.

There is no evidence of a bullet strike in the grass. One assumptions and rumors. There isn't a single witness who said he/she saw a bullet taken out of the grass.

Similarly, if no copper trace element was found in the curb and only lead then does not that rule out a 1st missed shot before Z224? Unless…Maybe it hit the road and ricocheting?    Hmm…possible but It would be almost the same result:a portion of lead separated completely from the copper jacket and flew to the curb, while the Rest of the bullet with copper went into the grass ( or where?)

Why are you hung up on a bullet in the grass. There is no evidence a bullet ever hit the grass. It's all hearsay. 

But if it was the TSBD shooters MC bullet surely they should have found the builet if it buried in the grass. There is no reason not to document that if it was found (unless it was Not an MC bullet?)

There is no documented evidence of a bullet being recovered from the grass. It's a myth.

So this  leaves the Z313 shot breaking up such that a lead fragment separated  completely and flew to  hit the curb. However if it got over the windshield  then as Andrew Mason noted ( if his math is correct)that the fragment would only be traveling approx 200 ft/ sec ( the parabolic arc physics equation).

I haven't done the calculation so I can't say whether his is correct or not. To eliminate a fragment from the head shot as a possible cause of Tague's injury, you not only have to calculate what the exit velocity of the fragment from the head would have to be for it to arc down and strike the curb near Tague, you would have to determine what the minimum velocity would needed for it to chip the concrete and cause the chips to hit Tague. If the latter is greater than the former, that would eliminate a fragment from the headshot as the cause of Tague's injury.

So… the only  other possibility is a Z313 a fragment that went just to the left side of Greers head such that the parabolic arc is flattened by not having to go over the windshield, thus the fragment velocity could be much greater, say more like 1000 ft/ sec which with be enough  force of  impact on the curb to explode some  particles of concrete.

I haven't looked at the geometry for that possibility but just trying to visualize it from what I remember when there was a video camera on the 6th floor looking down Elm St., that seems unlikely to me. Going from JFK's head to the left of Greer seems like that would be too much of a diagonal to get anywhere near Tague.

I've read through the arguments for a first shot strike and I don't find them the least bit compelling. You can make an argument for just about any scenario you want depending on the witnesses you choose to believe. I choose to believe the witnesses who are corroborated by the best witness available, Zapruder's camera.
44 witnesses? Out of how many? There are many different versions of the shooting but there is only one correct one. I've weighed the evidence which convinces me there was a missed first shot. I find it far more likely that 44 people didn't recognize the first shot for what it was than that JBC and Bennett imagined hearing a shot that never happened, especially when we can see JBC doing exactly what he said he did in reaction to the first shot and that was several seconds before JFK and JBC were hit.
Your assumption and suspicion were the only arguments you gave for a missed 3rd shot. Where is your evidence of that?
If you don't want me to respond to your half-assed posts, don't make any.

I've read through the arguments for a first shot strike

Outline a single one of these arguments.
It's not that I totally don't believe you when you say you've read through the arguments...

I find it far more likely that 44 people didn't recognize the first shot for what it was than that JBC and Bennett imagined hearing a shot that never happened

It seems that every time you post something there is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation that needs to be cleared up.
It's not that I'm saying you're totally doing it on purpose...
Just to clarify - the 44 witnesses Pat Speer compiled were not referencing whether or not they recognised the first shot for what it was. They were describing JFK's reaction. I made this clear when I posted "Pat Speer compiled a list of 44 witnesses who report JFK reacting to the first shot as we see in the Z-film - hands flying up towards his throat, slumping to his left etc.

You make the point that you "choose to believe the witnesses who are corroborated by the best witness available, Zapruder's camera."
The reactions these witnesses describe are corroborated by the Z-film!

Unbelievably you say you find it far more likely these witnesses were mistaken "than that JBC and Bennett imagined hearing a shot that never happened".
According to JBC he never even heard the shot that hit him!
Are you not aware of this?
JBC reports that there was a "split second" between him hearing the first shot and feeling that he had been hit. He is reporting that there was a split second between the first two shots - do you accept this? Of course you do.
Do you believe the traumatised memory of a man who suffered a life-threatening injury and whose body went instantly into shock, is more reliable than 44 witnesses whose observations are corroborated by the Z-film? Of course you do.
 

I told you he was a jerk.

Nobody is interested in your pillow talk Comrade Jerkov

                                                                          YOU TUBE

                  "Did The Umbrella Man Signal The Shot That Killed JFK?"    By - WW2 Mememto  (17:19)

            From 10:38 - 11:31  =  a panning sequence showing the Uncropped Bothun Photo. On the (L) it shows Motorcycle Officer Hargis riding away on his motorcycle. On the (R) it shows Motorcycle Officer Haygood just entering the photo. In between these 2 bookends, it shows the Newman family on the ground, Altgens walking DOWN the knoll toward Elm St, Wiegman filming Officer Haygood as he rides down Elm St, The Cuban and Umbrella Man sitting on the retaining wall, the Chism family beginning their sprint across the knoll, etc. This crystal clear image will assist you in your time stamping. Our Forum "photo gallery" also includes this Bothun Photo, but it is nowhere near as clear as this photo is displayed on YOU TUBE. And remember, the earlier a time stamp you apply to the Wiegman footage, the earlier you are also placing this Man walking down the sidewalk that runs from the Shelter to Elm St on the (E) side/TSBD side of the RL Thornton sign.
          The image of Wiegman running toward Zapruder is on the Bell Film BEFORE the still frame you posted.
          For the record, I do not believe that Wiegman was laying on the ground when he filmed the Hester's. Why would he lay down when filming? Do you know of any other time he laid down when filming that day? I also do Not believe that Wiegman ever climbed atop those steps. I believe Wiegman was Standing on the grass just in front of those steps when he filmed the Hester's. After filming the Hester's, Wiegman started moving (W) on the grass in the direction of Zapruder above and in front of him. What we are seeing on the Bell Film is Wiegman is FALLING. The Bell Film shows the Wiegman figure to be in the position of falling toward the ground. Who gets UP from the ground like we see Wiegman on the Bell Film? Nobody does. There are only 2 explanations for Wiegman's body position on the Bell Film still frame you posted. Either Wiegman is: (1) FALLING to the ground, (maybe he tripped?), or, (2) he is willfully DIVING to the ground. Wiegman did say he felt the "compression" of a bullet on his face during his segment on, "Unsolved History JFK, Death in Dealey Plaza" (2003).
          With respect to the Wiegman Film being deemed "filmed continuously" for 30 yrs, we really have no idea what was being viewed on the Wiegman Film during that time period. Dating back, on this Forum, there was a letter posted from Gary Mack directly addressing this "filmed continuously" issue. And remember, NBC has steadfastly REFUSED to release their Original Wiegman Film. Same goes for NBC and their Original Darnell Film.

                                                                      Your Questions

      (1) The Bell Film DOES SHOW Wiegman moving (W) toward Zapruder. Your posted Bell Film still frame is too late to show this.

      (2) As to estimating the time passage between the 2 images due to the "cut/jump", this is why I mentioned Wiegman being in the process of falling to the ground on the Bell Still Frame you posted. How long was Wiegman on the ground, before he got up and then ran down the Knoll to film the Newman Family? This is yet another variable that is Unknown.

     (3) Yes, I agree that Wiegman did move from filming the Hester's to filming the Newman's.

            That Uncropped Bothun Photo shows Officer Hargis riding away as we see Wiegman filming Officer Haygood entering the Bothun photo on the (R). Hargis gave WC Testimony that he left his motorcycle, crossed Elm St, went up to that "little wall", eyeballed the top of the Triple Underpass where he thought a shot came from,  moved to the light pole, eyeballed the TSBD, and then returned to his motorcycle on the other side of Elm St. How long do you believe it took Officer Hargis to do ALL of this? And, I thought we were seeing Officer Hargis still near his motorcycle on the early frames of the Wiegman Film that show the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass?

                                                           Thanks again for tackling this timeline issue.
                                 

   

The guy I've labelled Weigman in the Bell frames I posted is 100% Dave Weigman just after he has finished filming the Hesters. Below is a frame from Weigman's footage.The first thing to notice is how low down this shot is taken from. He is virtually on the same level as the grass. At the bottom of the frame is the concrete of the steps he is laying on.
Further proof it is Weigman is the angle of the shot in respect to the concrete pergola. The pergola structure has six columns at the front. At the time of the shooting the outward faces of two of the columns were in darkness and four of them in sunlight. In the Weigman frame below, the outward face of column A is in darkness and column B in light. Mrs Hesters head is in direct alignment with column A.



In the frame from Bell below I have labelled the same columns A and B. When we draw a line from Weigman to column A it passes through Mrs Hesters head. It is exactly the correct alignment.



I have proven that the figure in Bell is Weigman.
I have proven it with photographic evidence that cannot be disputed.
Can you post the timestamp from the Bell film you pointed me towards (JFK Theorist version) so I can see who you believe Weigman is because there is no-one running towards Zapruder in the Bell film and I can't figure out what you mean.