JFK Assassination Forum

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

Why would I run away from a position I never took. There is no conclusive evidence as to where that first shot hit and where it ended up. It isn't necessary to establish that because we have proof positive of where the second and third shots hit.

I have no obligation to defend Max Holland's hypothesis. I've never been a proponent of his theories. I don't have a weak hand because I'm not even in that game.

As for the hunting shows, it is an observable fact that can be replicated. Cameramen on these shows invariably jiggled their handheld cameras upon hearing the sound of a high powered rifle, even though they knew the shot was coming and it didn't startle them. It isn't just gunshots which cause camera jiggle. Many other sounds can cause it. A handheld camera will almost always have some slight movement but that movement is accentuated when there is a loud noise such as a rifle shot.

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

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.