Jimmy McGill never went to law school.
No. Our disagreement is over whether he did not recall hearing the one that you say was before his z186 photo. The number of shots he heard is not clear.
It doesn't matter.
Betzner said: "I heard at least two shots fired". And he make reference to just two shots. He's a;;owing the possibility of more than two shots, which is why I think the shot he has lost track of is the first one, which many other witnesses downplayed as a "firecracker" or "backfire".
What matters is whether the first shot was before or after his photo at z186. He said it was after.
No doubt the "first shot" of the "two shots fired" was after his Z186 photo (if he's winding his camera and looking down when he hears that shot, it's probably some time beyond Z207). His second shot has all the signs of being the head shot.
So you were arguing that he heard the first shot before z186 but, because he "dismissed" it as a firecracker, he did not treat it as the first shot when reporting his observations.
The shot he failed to describe would be among the shot(s) that fall outside "at least two shots".
This is transcribed from the statement that Betzner actually gave:
"Hugh William Betzner Jr.: DALLAS SHERIFF'S STATEMENT: November 22 1963. 24 H 200
"I was standing on Houston Street near the intersection of Elm Street. I took a picture of President Kennedy's car as it passed along Houston Street [Comment: Betzner photo no. 1]. I have an old camera. I looked down real quick and rolled the film to take the next picture. I then ran down to the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, this being the southwest corner. I took another picture just as President Kennedy's car rounded the corner [Comment: Betzner no. 2]. It was just about all the way around the corner. I was standing back from the corner and had to take the pictures through some of the crowd. I ran on down Elm a little more and President Kennedy's car was starting to go down the hill to the triple underpass. I was running trying, to keep the President's car in my view and was winding my film as I ran. I was looking down at my camera to see the number of the film as I ran. I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street [Comment: Betzner photo no. 3]. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise [Comment: Betzner loud noise no. 1]. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds [Comment: Betzner loud noise no. 2]. I looked down the street and I could see the President's car an another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so i could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was standing back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. "...
Now what is quite clear from that is that photo no. 3 was taken BEFORE loud noise no. 1. What is less clear, and I would say it is immaterial, is how many he heard after that. I don't see how this is really material to whether the first shot occurred before or after his photo no. 3 (but you apparently do).
Nevertheless, a reasonable case can be made that he was reporting two additional shots after the first shot. He said that after taking his photo no. 3, he started to wind his camera to take another when he says he heard the first shot (which he said sounded like a firecracker). He does not describe where he was looking at the time. Then, later in his statement he says: "when I saw the following" followed by "I heard at least two shots fired" followed by "and I saw" suggests that the two shots he heard occurred when he saw what he was describing (what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car). This is consistent with the many reports that the last two shots were close together. As I say, it is not crystal clear, but that is not an unreasonable interpretation of his statement.
Hold on. You get three shots total by combining his descriptions?
Aren't you missing something?
| Shot 1: | I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise |
| Shot 2: | I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds |
| |
Betzner runs to monument; "saw the following then"... or maybe not
|
| Shot 3: | I heard at least two shots fired [this one and the following one] |
| Shot 4: | I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car.
My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. |
In other words, there's a set of two shots BEFORE he supposedly went to "over the back of a monument" and then a second set of two shots after he gets there. That's the way it has to be if one combines all what Betzner says about shots in the statement.
Now I believe Betzner is only describing the one-and-only set of two shots. Each set has the same description of events associated with the head shot.
| Shot 2: | I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one
and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink
like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. |
| Shot 4: | I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car.
My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. |
Furthermore, it's very clear that he ran to behind the monument after witnessing the cars seeming to be "stopped" and observing "a flash of pink like someone standing up" (Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk?).
"I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one
and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like
someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around
so i could look over the back of a monument ..."
So if Betzner literally saw a second set of two shots post-monument, it would have been after Mrs. Kennedy raised up in the car and went back into the car; I don't what it could be making loud reports in the Z400s or how fragments from the limousine are going up in the air.
Fortunately, Betzner actually says he wasn't sure as to his location when he was witnessing the two shots.
"I either saw the following then or when I was standing back down on the
corner of Elm Street."
It's pretty clear to me that Betzner, in saying "I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following" and "I heard at least two shots", that he's going over the two shots he previously described.
What is an unreasonable interpretation is that he heard the loud noise BEFORE he took his photo no. 3.
Who ever tried to move Betzner's "first shot" to before he took his photo? Semantic desperation typically occurs when a lame-brain pet theory collapses.
On March 18, 2018, post #49, you said: "A three-shot scenario would simply mean Betzner heard a third shot but had no reason to remember it, which in turn argues for an earlier shot (before the shot Betzner heard after taking his Z186 photo) that many witnesses dismissed as a backfire or firecracker."
Perhaps you could enlighten us on the distinction between not recalling because he "had no reason to remember" and "forgot".
Sure. Bretzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" which means he likely heard more. If he lost track of one, it was because he had less or no reason to remember it. Another sign that a bat-s--t-crazy theory has imploded is when the theorist starts mining the Forum.
Yet he reported seeing something that you say he could not see but which we can see in the zfilm. Amazing! And, by the way, it is not recurring. It happens only once where just JFK's hair flies up: z273-z276.
Some flutters just before the sign post (Z273 is after the sign post). Also a few flutters just before Z313. Still another sign that a theory has collapsed is when the theorist becomes visually-challenged.
Well, she did preface that comment by: "Things are a little hazy from this point"
And that's what many say about your theory when they hear your first shot went into Connally's thigh and he didn't sense it, and that he doesn't react to being shot until the Z270s when your second shot gets him in the back. |
