JFK Assassination Forum

The Secret Service and the Connallys said the SBT was wrong but the WC conclusion was right. That’s all I “figured out”.  I am just showing where that places the shots according to all the evidence.

And you screwed that part up. BADLY!

JBC reacted. Glen Bennett reacted. Most people reported hearing 3 shots. Because that shot didn't hit anybody (except maybe Tague), many people did not realize it was a gunshot. At first some said they thought it was a firecracker or a motorcycle backfire. Charles Brehm can be seen in the Z-film clapping his hands even after JFK had been hit by the second shot, apparently oblivious to the fact JFK had just been shot. There is a wide disparity how people perceived that first shot. Some didn't even remember hearing the first shot and only remember hearing two, but the consensus of witnesses is that there were three which matches the number of spent shells found in the sniper's nest. Jarman, Norman, and Williams who were directly below Oswald when the shots were fired all testified to hearing three shots. Jarman and Williams both said they thought the first shot was a motorcycle backfire or a cop saluting the President.

No. JBC did not react until JFK has been hit and only heard two shots. Bennett is a two shot witness. Brehm is a two shot witness. Williams is a two shot witness, Jarman is a second shot was the headshot witness. Norman does not make a statement for four days. Eventually he even states he was only aware of two shots.
 
Seriously, does it not bother you that no one in Dealey Plaza heard this supposed early shot? Your only witness is a young girl on the sidewalk. Weren't there pigeons?

That’s interesting Jack, thanks.

What seems preposterous to me about the dry-firing theory is that: if an empty cartridge were to be used for dry fire and the firing pin struck the primer for a second time, I believe that the initial impressions stamped into the primer by the firing pin when the live bullet was fired would be obliterated such that an identification would not be feasible.

Have you taken any of the test cartridges that you dry-fired to a firearms expert and asked if they could be identified as being fired from the rifle you used?

No. I have not and won't. I don't question whether Frazier or Dr. Chapman are being dishonest. How many times it could be erased and replaced would be totally hypothetical if it even can be. Obviously from what I have seen, how hard the firing pin strikes the primer varies dramatically from rifle to rifle.

The firing pin impression is the best way they used to place the shell in Oswald’s carcano. It is like a fingerprint.

Oswald did not have to actually fire CE 543 to have a snap cap. Just pull the bullet out and pour the powder out and touch off the primer in the gun with the firing pin. The remaining powder residue flares out of the rifle barrel when the primer is ignited.

Important to remember is CE 543 does not have the chamber mark on the side of the shell casing that all the other shells associated with the rifle, as noted by the FBI in their analysis of the assassination shells and also noted by Josiah Thompson in his book, have exhibited on the side of the shell casing. 

   When they jimmy the elapsed firing time from 6+ Seconds to 10+ Seconds, you KNOW there is a problem with the 1 shooter scenario. The trailing team always wants to change the rules.

Who is "they" other than the KGB-obsessed He Who Shall Not Be Named? Sure, anything even a second longer improves the three-shot narrative. The two-shot (by Oswald anyway) scenario eliminates all problems even for the LN narrative. But what does this have to do with logic and critical thinking? On this question, the issue is simply where the best evidence points. If the best evidence points to Oswald firing two shots but three or more shots having been fired, then this would suggest a conspiracy. The effort to move back the supposed first shot is nothing more than an attempt to improve the scenario of Oswald firing three shots, which generates its own implausibilities and isn't even necessary to the LN narrative. When there is no real evidence of this early first shot, the estimates are all over the map, and many witnesses described the first shot as sounding distinctly different, logic and critical thinking suggest to me that the early first shot is mostly a convenient invention to preserve the scenario of Oswald firing three shots. When we factor in the problematical SBT and all the issues surrounding it, as well as the witnesses who insisted two shots were extremely close together, then it seems to me that a conspiracy along the lines of what I have suggested has to at least be taken seriously.

GD--

Even Max Holland admitted that Shaw lied in court, regarding his role as a CIA asset.

I doubt Shaw was knowingly involved in the JFKA.

Was Shaw monitoring LHO in 1963, on behalf of Solie or someone else in the CIA? That seems like a legit question.

J. Kenneth McDonnald, the chief of the CIA's History Staff, said Shaw was a "contract source," which is more than just being a "domestic contact."

Anyway, FWIW, Lou Ivon, Garrison's chief investigator, said Ferrie told him that he had worked for the CIA, that Clay Shaw had used the alias Clay Betrand, that Shaw had been involved with the CIA, that Oswald had been in Guy Banister’s office many times, and that Oswald had been to the CIA-sponsored training camp near New Orleans where anti-Castro Cubans were trained. I have a hard time believing that Ivin simply fabricated all of this.

I am essentially agnostic about Clay Shaw's role in the assassination. I don't see how he fits into it, except just maybe as one of the funding sources. Fred Litwin's research has caused me to be skeptical about much of Garrison's case against Shaw.

I think David Ferrie probably knew some of the anti-Castro Cubans who were part of the plot, and I think he may have been aware of the basics of how the shooting would be carried out. It is not hard to imagine Ferrie blustering about how to kill JFK at a Clay Shaw party, given that Ferrie once publicly said JFK should be shot following the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Certainly, Ferrie's late-night trip to Houston on 11/22/63 through a severe rain storm smells to high heaven and has no credible innocent explanation. Ferrie said the trip was just for rest and relaxation to go goose hunting and roller skating. However, while at the skating rink in Houston, Ferrie spent his time on the telephone, according to rink owner Chuck Rolland. 

At 11 p.m. on Saturday, Ferrie and his two young male companions arrived at the Driftwood Motel in Galveston, room 117. Phone records show that someone in Ferrie's room placed a collect call to the Town and Country Motel in New Orleans, which "just happened" to be Carlos Marcello's HQ in the city. My, my! Figure the odds!

None of these actions agree with Ferrie's tale that the trip was just for rest and relaxation to go goose hunting and roller skating.

According to Carlos Quiroga, a Cuban who had been involved with the CRC, Ferrie often provided Arcacha Smith with funds, stating, "Ferrie lent him (Arcacha Smith) money when he needed it for his family. . . . He (Ferrie) had $100 bills around all the time" (1 HSCA 112). Where did Ferrie get the money for all those loans, and how did he have $100 bills around "all the time"? In fact, Ferrie continued to loan and flash money even after he had lost his job with the airlines (1 HSCA 112).

The HSCA report noted,

An FBI report of April 1961 indicated Marcello offered Arcacha Smith a deal whereby Marcello would make a substantial donation to the movement in return for concessions in Cuba after Castro's overthrow. One explanation of Ferrie's ability to provide funds to Arcacha Smith may be that he acted as Marcello's financial conduit. (1 HSCA 112)

BTW, Oswald's former landlady in New Orleans, Mrs. Jesse Garner, told HSCA investigators that Ferrie visited her home shortly after the assassination and asked about Oswald's library card. Of course, the answer from WC defenders is that Mrs. Garner must have been "mistaken" or "fabricating."