JFK Assassination Forum

More reliance on unreliable sources, aka earwitnesses. There are other earwitnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced. We know all the earwitnesses cannot be right because their recollections are mutually exclusive. Of course you gravitate to the ones that support your narrative rather looking for more credible forms of evidence. I don't rely on earwitnesses for much of anything. Earwitnesses are even less reliable than eyewitnesses who are notoriously unreliable. Yet you choose to take the recollections of Witt and Euins as if they are gospel. Furthermore, you put your faith in Euins recollections years after the event.

3 hulls is not proof positive of 3 shots. Even the WC allowed for the possibility that Oswald could have started with a spent hull in the chamber and ejected it prior to firing. However, that possibility seems quite remote given the clear consensus that there were 3 shots and JBC's clear recollection and his observable reaction to a missed shot prior to the one which struck him in the back.

You demonstrate a trait that I've noticed is common among conspiracy hobbyists over the decades I've engaged with them. You judge the credibility of witness accounts based on whether it fits with your preferred narrative, not on how it fits with the body of evidence as a whole. Nothing any witness tells, eye or ear witness, should be accepted as fact unless it can be corroborated by other forms of evidence. That doesn't mean witnesses are always wrong but it does mean they aren't always right. They get things wrong, sometimes very important details wrong. I don't find any argument compelling that begins with "So-and-so said..." unless it can be established by the body of evidence that so-and-so remembered the event correctly.

    There's a radical conflict between the HSCA Testimony of Witt/Umbrella Man and the Bronson Film. Which do you believe is true? 

Cronkite was full of xxxx. The WC never said the first shot was fired at Z210. They said the shot that hit JFK in the back was fired between Z210 and Z225. They were correct about that. They reached no conclusion as to whether that was the first or second of Oswald's shots. Given the advantage of decades to look at the Z-film and technologies not available to the WC at time, we can safely conclude that the first shot missed and it was the second shot that hit JFK in the back and went on to wound JBC.

It's amazing how many myths have arisen about the WC's conclusions regarding the timing of the shots, given the WC's clearly stated summary at the conclusion of the chapter that dealt with that issue. For many years there was a widely held belief that the WC concluded Oswald fired all three shots in 5.6 seconds or less. Perhaps Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas cemented that erroneous conclusion in people's minds. Nowhere was this myth more evident than in the scene from Oliver Stone's shitass movie in which Garrison and his assistant were in the sniper's nest with a Carcano rifle and his assistant started off with two lies. First he claimed the WC said the first shot missed. False. That is what happened but that was not a conclusion of the WC. Then he says the WC claimed the three shots were fired in under 6 seconds. That's false both regarding what the WC concluded and what actually happened. What made that especially deceitful is the two claims are mutually exclusive. The WC did allow for a first shot miss and they allowed for a 5.6 second time for all three shots but not both. The 5.6 second time frame is only compatible with a SECOND shot miss. Then to top it all off, the assistant tells Garrison, "I'm Oswald. Time me.". He then dry fires the rifle three times and Garrison tells him it was over 7 seconds. If you actually time that yourself with a stopwatch, it is under 6 seconds. And from that the assistant says that Oswald couldn't have done the shooting. All he did was prove that when one starts with invalid premises, one will likely reach invalid conclusions.  What is truly remarkable is how many whoppers Oliver Stone was able to cram into one short scene.

It's not about Brehm or Reynolds. It's about Mark Lane and his intellectual dishonesty.

Mark Lane was a charlatan. He milked the JFK assassination for all it was worthwhile never contributing anything to body of knowledge.

It's not about Brehm or Reynolds. It's about Mark Lane and his intellectual dishonesty.

   "The DIRECTION of the TSBD...." takes in a lot of territory. This description would include: (1) in front of, (2) to the sides, and (3) behind the TSBD. You guys continually treat this very general description like it pinpoints the TSBD. It does Not.

Only a fool thinks sound is a reliable way of determining where a gunshot was fired from. If it were reliable, there would be a consensus. But there is no consensus. My reason for bringing up those who thought the shots came from the direction of the TSBD was to show there was no such consensus. The forensic evidence and an EYEwitness tell us where the shots were fired from. Conspiracy hobbyists don't want to believe that all the shots were fired from the TSBD but since they have no credible evidence of shots from any other locations, they turn to unreliable forms of evidence, like the impressions of earwitnesses.