You have such poor memory. A legal education might help with fact retention and would also help you understand professional ethics.
You apparently went to the same law school as Jimmy McGill.
You have consistently maintained that Betzner "forgot" about the first loud noise because he thought it was a firecracker
Show us where anybody anywhere has every claimed Betzner "forgot" about the first shot he described.
"I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought
that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."
and was a "two shot" witness recalling only the two subsequent shots, which is why he thought the shots occurred after his z186 photo.
Right. Our disagreement is over the number of shots he could recall. I say he recalled two shots: the head shot and the one before that.
I can't go back very far because of the lost archives on this board but how about this gem from you in January 2018:
"Betzner thinks he heard more than two shots,
Betzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" meaning there could have been more. I thought we agreed that the two-shot witnesses have to have heard all three shots.
but could only recall two shots because they related to things he was doing (winding his camera) or witnessing (the head shot). Some "Bunched" shot advocates claim Betzner missed hearing a shot that occurred between his "winding the camera" shot and the head shot. The "early miss" advocates claim the first shot was more likely to be overlooked or not as distinctively recalled as most thought the first shot was anything but a shot ("firecracker" or "backfire") and were concentrating on seeing the motorcade."
This is an example of "Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?"
Well, I seem to be explaining the divide over how the "two-shot" witnesses are handled. I'm not "insisting" on anything. Is "overlooked or not as distinctively recalled" the same as "forgot"? And where am I saying a witness failed to hear all three shots?
You are certainly an "early miss" advocate. One has to ignore Betzner's statement to conclude that he recalled only two shots. He said: "I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise." (that's the first shot). Then he said he heard two more shots when he was looking down Elm around the time of the head shot: 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. " He is recalling the last two shots after hearing the first.
Is that what they taught you in that law school in the Virgin Islands, Mason? How to falsely parse a document into something that supports a client (ie: your dumb-ass laughing-stock failed pet theory).
Let's get that quote of yours (underlined part below) in context:
"I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill
on Elm Street.
I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. 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. 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 and I either saw the following then or when
I was sitting 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."
Problem is he's describing that last part ("firecracker" and fragments going up in the air") with this prior passage:
"I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter
of a few seconds. 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."
Unless you want us to believe he saw the head shot incidents separately and that he saw Mrs. Kennedy raise up in the seat BEFORE he supposedly walked back to the monument and then saw the "firecracker/fragments in air" incident.
The document in full shows Betzner is describing just two shots (the "winding my camera" shot and the "another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds" shot) by way of relating them to things he witnessed or was doing.
But all is not lost. Here's your Saul Goodman Award.
That does not explain why Betzner would think that the shots occurred after his z186 photo or why Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot before the President had time to react. It does not explain why Hughes who stopped filming at very close to z187 (based on the motorcade car positions and frame timings) stated that he stopped filming before the first shot.
Betzner has always described two shots occurred after he took his photo, not three as you are trying to make out. His "second" shot seems to be the head shot, but his "first" shot (which he relates to himself winding the camera and looking up) moves it outside the Z190s-Z200s. As for Willis, you like to ignore what he said about the first shot causing Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from his side of the street to the opposite. She does this beginning in the Z170s. Hughes stopped filming five frames before Z190, so you are associating a five-second pause in filming, as Hughes claimed, with 1/3 second for a Z191 shot.
No. I have never said that. I have never ever suggested there was another shot that was nearly simultaneous with the head shot. I have always maintained that the second shot occurred just after z271 and before JFK's hair flies up beginning at z273.
There's a recurring hair flutter that Hickey couldn't see during the Z270s.
That is not to say that the reverberation of the second shot could not have overlapped with the sound of the third shot. Mary Woodward recalled that the sound of the second shot had not died out before the third shot sounded.
She also said the President wasn't injured on the first shot and that he only slumped on the second shot.
I have just suggested witnesses who did not recall three shots weren't counting shots. There were not many witnesses who said there were ONLY two shots. A number who said they could recall only two but allowed that there could have been another shot e.g. Altgens 7 H 517 who said "I cannot tell you how many shots were in between" the first and last shots; or the Chisms; or Ewell Cowsert; or SA Clint Hill; or SA Paul Landis etc.
After what you tried with Betzner, we have to wonder how you characterize who is a "two-shot" witness and who isn't.
Hugh Brennan is considered to be a 2 shot witness but recalled one shot in particular and "definitely heard more than one noise" (FBI report 11/22/63 -Comm. Doc. 5). SA Glen Bennett is also considered a two shot witness based on his incomplete hand notes. But in his 11/23/63 written statement Bennett recalled three loud noises. Doris Burns recalled only one shot (she was inside in a hallway on the 3rd floor of the TSBD) but said (6 H 399) "It must have been the last one because I didn’t hear any more."