Cracked windshield and ballistics experts...

[Richard Smith]

We all know you're not one for details Richard.
Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter. This may be a trivial detail for you as you are safe in the narrative that's been handed to you but, in trying to genuinely understand what happened that day, it's vital to have an understanding of such details.
You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence -
Shots were fired
The head-shot bullet fragmented
These fragments sprayed the front of the limo causing damage to the windshield and chrome trim
Greer and Kellerman reflexively duck for cover within a split-second of the head-shot, as shown in the Z-film

Is it because a flurry of shots came into the limo - contradicting the lone assassin narrative
Is it because a single fragmenting bullet sprayed the inside of the limo - supporting the lone assassin narrative

LOL. 

[Dan O'meara]

LOL.

 
How very Otto of you.

Great response, with your usual keen eye for detail.

[Richard Smith]

How very Otto of you.

Great response, with your usual keen eye for detail.

There is not much more to say.  Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again.  Someone in a car being shot at indicates that there was a "flurry of shots" and you interpret this to mean there was more than one shooter.  A "flurry of shots" is an example of an imprecise use of language that allows someone like yourself to graft onto it a desired interpretation.  We know, for example, that almost no witness to this incident heard more than three shots.  Someone did a breakdown of the various witness statments, and it was something like 95% that indicated that they heard three or fewer shots.  Of those, I believe only one or maybe none said the shots they heard originated from two different locations.  There was disagreement on the location of the shooter due to sound distortions but almost unanimous in conclusion of the one shooter, firing two or three shots.  A rare example in this case of witnesses all agreeing on a fact.  Kellerman is just characterizing the traumatic experience of being in a car in which multiple people are being shot.

[Dan O'meara]

There is not much more to say.  Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again.  Someone in a car being shot at indicates that there was a "flurry of shots" and you interpret this to mean there was more than one shooter.  A "flurry of shots" is an example of an imprecise use of language that allows someone like yourself to graft onto it a desired interpretation.  We know, for example, that almost no witness to this incident heard more than three shots.  Someone did a breakdown of the various witness statments, and it was something like 95% that indicated that they heard three or fewer shots.  Of those, I believe only one or maybe none said the shots they heard originated from two different locations.  There was disagreement on the location of the shooter due to sound distortions but almost unanimous in conclusion of the one shooter, firing two or three shots.  A rare example in this case of witnesses all agreeing on a fact.  Kellerman is just characterizing the traumatic experience of being in a car in which multiple people are being shot.

It's my opinion that only three shots were fired and that they were fired from the SN.
I've agreed about how imprecise witness testimony can be. In the post you are responding to I wrote:

"You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence."

For me, whenever possible, it's about interpreting witness statements against any physical evidence that relates to that witness testimony. That was the point I was making in the post.

"Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again."

What "fact" do you think I substituted my subjective opinion for.

[Jake Maxwell]

Yes, it seems to me that any fragments from a single bullet would have been travelling so fast they would not have been perceived even a second or two later as a "flurry of shots” coming into the car...

And I wonder how fast... and how large would a fragment have to be... to do the damage they supposedly did to the windshield (and chrome)... which leads me back to the question, “From which direction did the windshield crack originate?”
It still appears to me to be a glancing blow from the outside right... leaving a pock-mark on the inside of the car windshield...
I saw a YouTube video recently of a ballistics expert saying that they are trained to be able to detect the direction of bullets shot into glass...
A ballistics expert analysis would likely answer a lot of questions...

[Dan O'meara]

Yes, it seems to me that any fragments from a single bullet would have been travelling so fast they would not have been perceived even a second or two later as a "flurry of shots” coming into the car...

And I wonder how fast... and how large would a fragment have to be... to do the damage they supposedly did to the windshield (and chrome)... which leads me back to the question, “From which direction did the windshield crack originate?”
It still appears to me to be a glancing blow from the outside right... leaving a pock-mark on the inside of the car windshield...
I saw a YouTube video recently of a ballistics expert saying that they are trained to be able to detect the direction of bullets shot into glass...
A ballistics expert analysis would likely answer a lot of questions...

Robert Frazier of the FBI testified that he examined the limo. He said this about the windshield (this is from his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial).

Q: Did you find anything unusual about the windshield and if so, please describe that condition?
A: The windshield was partially broken in a star-shaped fashion, that is there was a crack in the windshield. I made a specific examination of it to determine what caused the crack. I found on the inside surface of the windshield a deposit of lead which had been forced against the glass and had splattered and as a result determined the glass had been broken by the impact of a projectile striking the inside surface of the glass and fracturing the windshield in the outer layer.
Q: Upon what did you base your determination that the glass had been hit by a projectile hitting the inside rather than the outside?
A: As a result of having examined hundreds of pieces of glass which have been broken in a known fashion, that is by a blow delivered in a known way, it is possible by studying the radial cracks or fractures emanating from the point of force to determine the side of the glass on which the force was applied.
Using the stress lines left on this glass at the time the glass was broken and caused by the object which broke the glass it is possible to determine the direction the force was applied. This examination of the cracks showed that the pressure had been applied on the inside surface.
Q: Now the opinion which you formed as to which side of the windshield had been hit, Mr. Frazier, was that a definite opinion or was there any doubt in your mind as an expert?
A: It is a definite conclusion.

[Jake Maxwell]

That addresses the point straight up...
That is basically the same line of questioning I would have wanted to ask an expert...

[Richard Smith]

It's my opinion that only three shots were fired and that they were fired from the SN.
I've agreed about how imprecise witness testimony can be. In the post you are responding to I wrote:

"You are correct, witnesses use imprecise language to describe these recollections so they must be tested against the physical evidence."

For me, whenever possible, it's about interpreting witness statements against any physical evidence that relates to that witness testimony. That was the point I was making in the post.

"Here you are simply substituting your subjective opinion for a fact again."

What "fact" do you think I substituted my subjective opinion for.

"Interpreting Kellerman's words as a flurry of shots coming into the limo indicates more than one shooter."  It's entirely reasonable for Kellerman to have used this phrase to describe a situation in which one shooter (Oswald) fired three shots in a matter of seconds striking two individuals in the car.