Another Missed Shot That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain

[Michael T. Griffith]

There is an “X” and a note on the 63 map of Dealey Plaza denoting the manhole cover and uprooted grass location and it has “missed shot” Z285 written there. Somebody originally thought that Z285 was a missed shot that struck the manhole cover and then went into the grass.

That is a very good point. I had forgotten about that map.

Yes, initially federal investigators acknowledged the bullet strike that Foster had observed and that Dallas police sources had initially confirmed, and they tried to determine when it was fired.

Of course, the main problem was that they were already chained down by the three-shot scenario. They soon realized that none of their supposed three shots, nor a fragment from those shots, could have hit the grass near the manhole cover. And that's why the WC ended up lamely dismissing the bullet strike.

The WC's lone-gunman theory would have been much more credible and defensible if the Commission had posited that the supposed single shooter fired four shots, one shot before the Z133 break in the Zapruder film, one shot while the limo was passing beneath the oak tree at (the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage), one shot at around Z234-236 (which would have aligned with Connally's choice of impact frame), and one shot at Z312. This would have given the alleged lone assassin a plausible amount of time between shots (4 shots in 379 frames or 20.7 seconds), and would have given the WC one more missed shot. Ah, but the three shell casings conveniently and suspiciously left behind in the sixth-floor sniper's nest prevented the positing of such a scenario.

That is certainly wrong if it’s the TSBD shooter because it would  be an even MORE absurd shot missing the limo To the left side and at Z285, it’s only 1.5 sec preceding Z313. Highly improbable if the rifle used was the MC rifle.

Yes, and federal investigators and WC staffers soon realized this, which is one of the reasons the bullet strike had to be denied, even though it was well documented.

Other than Corbett dismissing witnesses, then it’s either a 2nd gunman or it’s the TSBD shooter who fired a 1st shot that for some reason missed far LEFT of the limo.

The argument that every single one of the witnesses was mistaken and that this was all just a giant misunderstanding is unserious and discrediting. Anyone who peddles this line needs to explain what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster believe that a bullet had hit the grass.

Would a 2nd gunman have missed  the entire limo that far left even if it was a shot intended to hit Greer the driver or the left front tire to cause the limo to come to a stop. (could it be that far off due to malfunction caused by a suppressor device on the rifle IDK).

Cannot explain the manhole cover strike / grass uprooted with the Andrew Mason
Z190-Z270-Z313 sequence.

The Tom Graves early Z124 standing up shot from TSBD is highly unlikely to have hit the manhole cover as it’s too downward an angle, and the shot supposedly buries into the asphalt.

The other LN proposed missed 1st shots somewhere from Z140-z170 are predicated on the shot missing just RIGHT of JFK and maybe struck the street to the RIGHT side of the limo. So that does not explain a manhole cover on the left side of the limo ever being struck by any of 3 shots fired by a TSBD 6th floor shooter.

Charles idea of an unintentional accidental firing the 1st shot AS the shooter was adjusting /placing the rifle on the box platform is therefore the best LN alternative because it’s an unaimed shot. However Tague thought it was either the 2nd shot OR 3rd shot that hit curb. Opps!

One other alternative is the Dan the Man’s Z224 1st shot theory where the 3rd shot  is fired approx 2.5 sec AFTER Z313. However this one seems a little strange that the shooter was not still aiming after Z313 and just took a final unaimed no shot fired as rapidly as an MC rifle  can be operated.

The only way ANY of the above alternatives would explain the curb being hit by the bullet hitting the manhole cover requires the bullet broke up into pieces after striking the manhole cover, where some lead fragment separated completely from the copper jacket and flew across the green almost nearly horizontal to the ground, while the rest of the bullet with lead and copper jacket still joined together as a 2nd fragment that buried into the grass just a few feet away from the manhole cover.

Yes, the theories that WC apologists have offered to explain the bullet strike in the grass require wildly implausible scenarios. Their attempts to explain the bullet strike are even worse and zanier than their attempts to explain the Tague wounding -- and that's saying a lot.

[John Corbett]

That is a very good point. I had forgotten about that map.

Yes, initially federal investigators acknowledged the bullet strike that Foster had observed and that Dallas police sources had initially confirmed, and they tried to determine when it was fired.

How could they confirm that was a bullet strike when no bullet was found at that location?

Of course, the main problem was that they were already chained down by the three-shot scenario. They soon realized that none of their supposed three shots, nor a fragment from those shots, could have hit the grass near the manhole cover. And that's why the WC ended up lamely dismissing the bullet strike.

The WC's lone-gunman theory would have been much more credible and defensible if the Commission had posited that the supposed single shooter fired four shots, one shot before the Z133 break in the Zapruder film, one shot while the limo was passing beneath the oak tree at (the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage), one shot at around Z234-236 (which would have aligned with Connally's choice of impact frame), and one shot at Z312. This would have given the alleged lone assassin a plausible amount of time between shots (4 shots in 379 frames or 20.7 seconds), and would have given the WC one more missed shot. Ah, but the three shell casings conveniently and suspiciously left behind in the sixth-floor sniper's nest prevented the positing of such a scenario.

As bad as you are at making your own arguments, the LNs would be crazy to let you make our arguments for us.

Yes, and federal investigators and WC staffers soon realized this, which is one of the reasons the bullet strike had to be denied, even though it was well documented.

Just how was that documented? By a photo of a hole in the turf with no bullet in the hole? Compelling stuff

The argument that every single one of the witnesses was mistaken and that this was all just a giant misunderstanding is unserious and discrediting. Anyone who peddles this line needs to explain what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster believe that a bullet had hit the grass.

I've never claimed the witnesses were mistaken. They probably did see a hole in the turf. None of them saw a bullet in the hole in the turf.

Yes, the theories that WC apologists have offered to explain the bullet strike in the grass require wildly implausible scenarios. Their attempts to explain the bullet strike are even worse and zanier than their attempts to explain the Tague wounding -- and that's saying a lot.

It has never been established that there was a bullet strike in the grass at that location. Only assumptions based on the flimsiest of evidence.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The argument that every single one of the witnesses was mistaken and that this was all just a giant misunderstanding is unserious and discrediting. Anyone who peddles this line needs to explain what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster believe that a bullet had hit the grass.

I should add that people who peddle this argument also need to explain why Lt. Day confirmed that a bullet hit the grass near the manhole cover, why Dudman reported that a police inspector told him that a bullet was found in the grass, why Walthers told his wife that they found a bullet in the grass, and what the suited man picked up from the hole in the grass and put in his pocket.

Also, I may have been wrong in saying the bullet was removed from the hole before the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo was taken. As I look at the enlargement of the photo in "Michael Capasse's first reply", there appears to be what looks like the bottom of a bullet in the upper part of the hole, as if the bullet hit the grass, created the dug-out hole, and then lodged in the top part of the hole just under the mound it created.

Yes, the object could just be another rock, but the object seems to have a visible ring inside the circular outside edge.

It's possible that the reporter was allowed to take that photograph before the suited man removed the bullet from the hole. I assumed the photo must have been taken after the bullet was removed because other photos show bystanders being kept at a distance from the hole in the grass.

[John Corbett]

I should add that people who peddle this argument also need to explain why Lt. Day confirmed that a bullet hit the grass near the manhole cover, why Dudman reported that a police inspector told him that a bullet was found in the grass, why Walthers told his wife that they found a bullet in the grass, and what the suited man picked up from the hole in the grass and put in his pocket.

These people are reporting what they heard, not what they saw. You don't care. Rumors are all you have, not real evidence.

Also, I may have been wrong in saying the bullet was removed from the hole before the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo was taken. As I look at the enlargement of the photo in "Michael Capasse's first reply", there appears to be what looks like the bottom of a bullet in the upper part of the hole, as if the bullet hit the grass, created the dug-out hole, and then lodged in the top part of the hole just under the mound it created.

The photo shows no bullet, just a hole. It was investigated and no bullet was found in the hole. But that didn't stop the rumor that a bullet was found there from spreading. 62+ years later, you are still believing the rumor.

Yes, the object could just be another rock, but the object seems to have a visible ring inside the circular outside edge.

Seems? IOW, it's in the eye of the beholder. There is no bullet in the photo.

It's possible that the reporter was allowed to take that photograph before the suited man removed the bullet from the hole.

"The suited man"? IOW, you can't name anyone who actually found a bullet in that hole.

I assumed the photo must have been taken after the bullet was removed because other photos show bystanders being kept at a distance from the hole in the grass.

You assume a lot. Rumors and assumptions are the building blocks of your beliefs. It certainly isn't evidence.

[Michael Capasse]

These people are reporting what they heard, not what they saw. You don't care. Rumors are all you have, not real evidence.
The photo shows no bullet, just a hole. It was investigated and no bullet was found in the hole. But that didn't stop the rumor that a bullet was found there from spreading. 62+ years later, you are still believing the rumor.
Seems? IOW, it's in the eye of the beholder. There is no bullet in the photo.

"The suited man"? IOW, you can't name anyone who actually found a bullet in that hole.
You assume a lot. Rumors and assumptions are the building blocks of your beliefs. It certainly isn't evidence.

  rinse & repeat