WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Jerry Organ]

I understand. You hypothesize that witnesses heard a loud noise and since they did not at that instant recognize it as a shot, they did not count it as a shot when they later heard more loud noises and realized that they were shots.  So, if they could only recall two shots they were referring to the second and third shots. If that were the case then one would expect those who did hear three shots would have observed that JFK smiled and waved (for three seconds yet) after the first loud noise and that he did not react until the second shot. The problem is that there aren't any such witnesses. So your speculative hypothesis is not supported by evidence.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1283.msg32293.html#msg32293

We have gone down your list of witnesses and found that of those in a position to see clearly the President smiling (the Chisms, Zapruder, Altgens), all could only firmly recall two shots (though some thought there might have been more). Thus to me they're describing JFK reacting by "slumping" due to the Z223 shot. It's the second of my three-shot scenario, but to these witnesses, it the "first" of their two-shot recollections.
Moore, Powers, Hargis, Hill, Linda Willis, Hickey, Kinney, Ault, Norman and Allman couldn't see the President's face nor much of his right hand. You also associate Mary Moorman with witnessing the President slump on the first shot by virture of her statement that she saw the President slump after she took her photo.

I did not say Hickey could not see JFK. Neither did Hickey. He was interested in finding the source of the sound, which appeared to have come from his right rear. So he was just not looking at JFK. He was looking at the crowd for possible threats. That was his job.
 That's a better argument for there having been no second shot at z223.  Besides, Hickey said that the second and third were in rapid succession -almost no element of time between them - hardly a description of a space of 5 seconds.

Err. Doesn't Hickey say "possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last"? Your scenario has over two seconds for the last two shots, so by Hickey's measure, the three shots were roughly even-spaced.

However, if Hickey did recall accurately that "there seemed to be practically no time element between" his Shots 2 and 3 (meaning less than a second and not the more-than-two-seconds of your theory), then he might have heard the report from the rifle and the impact on the President's head as two separate sounds. That would mean that

• he heard and dismissed (or failed to later recall) the first shot in the Z150s (we know Clint Hill did something like that with his two-shot description beginning with the slumping),
• heard the second shot at Z223 which made Hickey then turn his head sharply backward by time of the Altgens photo,
• then heard the fatal shot as "two" sounds.

You're right. 679x was the QM. But the timing of the disturbance in the  QM could be related to JBC's utterance. It caught Jackie's attention. Or it could be related to Clint Hill jumping off the runningboard. In any event, he was still turned rearward at z256. If he was turned forward at the time of the second and third shots, he must have turned around soon after z256.

Or Hickey heard the fatal shot as two separate sounds. If Hickey got turned back around by ca.Z280, then that's about three seconds after hearing the Z223 shot ("Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President.") He now has less than two seconds to observe the President long enough to see that he was slumped forward and to his left, and was trying to straighten up.

[Rob Caprio]

James Tague recalled three distinct shot sounds.  He recalled that he was not hit on the first shot and was not hit on the last shot.  So that means he was hit on the second shot.

That fits with:

1. CE399 being the first shot that struck JFK in the back/neck.
2. The second shot striking JBC in the right armpit exiting his chest and striking the back of the wrist that was pressed against his chest.
3. The evidence is consistent that the bullet striking the radius, a very hard bone, fragmented.  There were many small specks of lead in the wrist wound. The bullet fragments would tend to deflect away from the point of contact with the hard radius.  That would have been up.
4.  Greer said he felt a "concussion" sound on the second shot. He reported no such sound on the first or third shots. His right ear was a foot or so from the point of impact of the bullet fragments that struck the windshield and windshield frame and sun visor.
5. Since a fragment struck and damaged the very top part of the windshield frame, it is not difficult to imagine that a fragment, or several fragments, may have been deflected a bit higher and then gone on to strike the pavement in front of Tague and deflected up to strike the curb and then Tague's cheek.
6. Greer said he turned around immediately after the second shot and saw JBC falling back. He is seen turning back around z278-z280.Again, if the second shot was just before Greer turned around at z280 (i.e z272), there is no need for a second shooter. Oswald could have fired all three shots.

You're making this complicated. You're also making claims that you cannot possibly support. It sounds like you are unable to support your beliefs.

[Rob Caprio]

Other than Tague, can you supply a witness that stated they seen the bullet strike the curb near Tague? The witnesses describing a bullet striking the street account for all the shots fired. What is interesting is their statements always seem to leave just two shots hitting both JFK and JBC.

Would it not be easier to just admit you can't prove there was actually three shots. Nobody else seems to be able to either. You have seen everyone's theory on three shots, is there one of them that seems remotely plausible? Mason's seems to be evolving on a minute by minute basis. The belief there was three shots is faith based, the fact nobody agrees when the extra shot occurred should be the first indication it never happened.

If you believe there was a separate shooter then you obviously do not believe the three shells found in the snipers nest were all fired that day.

Can you support the SBT or not?

[Andrew Mason]

You're making this complicated. You're also making claims that you cannot possibly support. It sounds like you are unable to support your beliefs.

You asked question. The answer is not complicated. Tague was hit on the second shot. The evidence that supports that conclusion is not complicated. It is just that there is a lot of it.

[Jack Nessan]

Just to be clear, 132 witnesses (as compiled for the HSCA) said there were 3 shots.  A total of 17 said there were only two shots. That is not "a very large number".  Not all of them commented on the shot pattern.  About 60 commented on the shot pattern. 

Here is the distribution of witness recollections as to the number of shots:


Here is the distribution of those shot pattern recollections:
He is talking about the effect of TWO shots, not one. TWO shots is TWO events, not the same event. He was able to discern TWO separate shots.
Greer not only described two distinct late shots but he said he turned back, forward and back again between those last two shots. You can see these turns at z277-280 (back), z290-292 (forward) and 302-05 (back).

Mary Woodward also commented on the closeness of the last two shot sounds. In a 1988 interview by Nigel Turner for the film "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Mary Woodward stated: ?The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.? ? ?and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one?.

So, it may be that overlapping of sounds that Hickey was describing: the sound of the third shot was heard while the reverberation of the second continued.

So the evidence not inconsistent with a shot at z272-273. In fact, the evidence excludes a second shot much later than that. JFK's hair does not fly up between z276 and z312. Greer would not have time to react by z277 or 278 if the second shot was as late as z276.

Or the similarity between their statements is the result of them both having observed what they said they observed.
You need to read the statements again.  Originally Hickey said there were two shots and described two things that occurred.  He never said that both things (impact to the head and hair flying forward) occurred on one shot while nothing occurred on the other, which is the way you seem to be interpreting it.  He said there were two shots and two things happened.  He did not clarify what happened on each shot until he gave submitted his report Nov. 30/63. In that report he said that hair flew forward on the second shot but there was NO IMPACT evident: it appeared to miss. He said that he saw that the third shot impacted the President.

I see the problem, somehow you have managed to convince yourself that your analysis is correct and JBC could view the Zapuder film and not know that he was wounded, or ever question how the HSCA arrived at their conclusions. It is apparent you went through the witness tabulation looking for the words "three shots" and then claimed that meant a shot supporting this theory about a shot at Z250 or Z270 or in a place different than what the Zapruder film shows or the witnesses actually stated.

Unfortunately for this theory, the HSCA dismissed their own report as being faulty due to media influence. They determined the witnesses inflated the number of shots. If the HSCA did not support their own Witness Analysis why would you?

"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87

A number of the eyewitnesses changed the number of shots from two to three. Again the HSCA had an opinion about the confusion over the number of shots and why the number would be inflated:

  "The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.

[Jack Nessan]

Can you support the SBT or not?

Sure, there is only evidence of a total of two bullets and a very large group of witnesses stated there was only two shots.
-------------------------
Your turn. You stated there was three shots. Prove there was three shots.

It should be easy given you did so numerous times in the past.

Caprio: " ....... I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred. "

Explain the trajectory and wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not pass through JFK first.

You have been asked numerous times and no answer. This thread appears to be all talk and no walk.

[Andrew Mason]

I see the problem, somehow you have managed to convince yourself that your analysis is correct and JBC could view the Zapuder film and not know that he was wounded, or ever question how the HSCA arrived at their conclusions. It is apparent you went through the witness tabulation looking for the words "three shots" and then claimed that meant a shot supporting this theory about a shot at Z250 or Z270 or in a place different than what the Zapruder film shows or the witnesses actually stated.

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

I didn't go through the witness testimony to find the persons who reported 3 shots.  DM Green did that for the HSCA.  He reviewed all the witness evidence and found that there were 178 who reported on the number of shots.  Of those 178 he found 132 who reported hearing exactly 3 shots. 

Those 132 witnesses neither support nor conflict with a shot at z272.  To be clear I never suggested there was a shot at z250.   I am not aware of anyone who suggested such a shot.

The Zfilm unequivocally, by itself, shows the impact of the head shot.  It does not unequivocally by itself show the impact of any other shot. You need additional evidence to determine where those shots occurred.

Unfortunately for this theory, the HSCA dismissed their own report as being faulty due to media influence. They determined the witnesses inflated the number of shots. If the HSCA did not support their own Witness Analysis why would you?

The HSCA made no such conclusion that the witnesses inflated the number of shots.  The HSCA ignored the witnesses who said there were 3 shots and concluded that there was a 4th shot.  That conclusion was subsequently shown by scientists at the NAS to have been based on faulty acoustical data, analysis and theory.  So it is not the witnesses who inflated the number of shots.  It was the HSCA. 

"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87

I agree that many witnesses, particularly those close to reflecting surfaces, were confused as to the direction of the shots.  That is because the human brain determines direction of a sound source by the time difference between the sound reaching the left and right ears.  That difference, which is in the order of a millisecond, is what tells the brain where the sound source is.  If the right ear hears it first, the sound is coming from the right. If the left ear hears it first, the source is to the left.  If the sound is coming from the source and from a reflecting surface, the brain gets confused about the direction it is coming from. 

But I don't agree that one cannot use witnesses to count the number of shots.  While some witnesses may be influenced by news reports of the number of shots, many would not  Besides, many gave their statements regarding the three shots within hours of the events, before hearing any media reports.  There are too many witnesses who heard 3 shots for this to be explained away as influenced by hearing the reports of others.  And it in no way explains the shot pattern 1.......2...3 that many reported.  There was virtually no reporting of the shot pattern at all.

A number of the eyewitnesses changed the number of shots from two to three. Again the HSCA had an opinion about the confusion over the number of shots and why the number would be inflated:

  "The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.

If anyone heard an echo 1.5 seconds later (from the distant Post Office building south of Commerce St.) it would have been so weak and from a completely different direction that no one in Dealey Plaze would have thought it was a shot.   Too many people heard 3 distinct loud, well spaced shots for one of those 3 shots to have been an echo.

[Jack Nessan]

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

I didn't go through the witness testimony to find the persons who reported 3 shots.  DM Green did that for the HSCA.  He reviewed all the witness evidence and found that there were 178 who reported on the number of shots.  Of those 178 he found 132 who reported hearing exactly 3 shots. 

Those 132 witnesses neither support nor conflict with a shot at z272.  To be clear I never suggested there was a shot at z250.   I am not aware of anyone who suggested such a shot.

The Zfilm unequivocally, by itself, shows the impact of the head shot.  It does not unequivocally by itself show the impact of any other shot. You need additional evidence to determine where those shots occurred.

The HSCA made no such conclusion that the witnesses inflated the number of shots.  The HSCA ignored the witnesses who said there were 3 shots and concluded that there was a 4th shot.  That conclusion was subsequently shown by scientists at the NAS to have been based on faulty acoustical data, analysis and theory.  So it is not the witnesses who inflated the number of shots.  It was the HSCA. 
I agree that many witnesses, particularly those close to reflecting surfaces, were confused as to the direction of the shots.  That is because the human brain determines direction of a sound source by the time difference between the sound reaching the left and right ears.  That difference, which is in the order of a millisecond, is what tells the brain where the sound source is.  If the right ear hears it first, the sound is coming from the right. If the left ear hears it first, the source is to the left.  If the sound is coming from the source and from a reflecting surface, the brain gets confused about the direction it is coming from. 

But I don't agree that one cannot use witnesses to count the number of shots.  While some witnesses may be influenced by news reports of the number of shots, many would not  Besides, many gave their statements regarding the three shots within hours of the events, before hearing any media reports.  There are too many witnesses who heard 3 shots for this to be explained away as influenced by hearing the reports of others.  And it in no way explains the shot pattern 1.......2...3 that many reported.  There was virtually no reporting of the shot pattern at all.
 If anyone heard an echo 1.5 seconds later (from the distant Post Office building south of Commerce St.) it would have been so weak and from a completely different direction that no one in Dealey Plaze would have thought it was a shot.   Too many people heard 3 distinct loud, well spaced shots for one of those 3 shots to have been an echo.

What other conclusion can be reached except you stating there was a shot at Z250?
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."
---------------------------------------------
Now you have a shot at Z270 again. This theory lacks continuity from one thought to another. This theory is in direct contradiction with what is seen on the Zapruder Film and what the eyewitnesses stated occurred.

Clint Hill rode on the back of the car to Parkland and was the only SS Agent to react. He stated there was only two shots. Instead of quoting Hill and his statement there was two shots, SA Hickey is quoted to promote the theory of a shot at Z250, the  SS Agent with no view of the car is misquoted as proof of something that never occurred. Hickey has to ask Kinney what happened because Kinney is front and center. Kinney reports the headshot as the second shot. Actually it is nothing short of incredible this is even going on. You yourself cannot possibly believe this. Paul Landis also states there was two shots as does Glen Bennett. 

It doesn't matter if you agree with the witnesses being influenced by media reporting. Both the WC and the HSCA included language in their conclusions  stating it as a problem. The report you are promoting as all encompassing contains 2 shot witnesses listed as three shot witnesses because of the failure of the report to include all the statements these people made early on. The first reports of the assassination were made to the media. The reporters did not run to the earwitnesses and ask what did you hear.  The report is basically flawed and a waste of time and thatis what the HSCA is stating in their conclusion.