Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Andrew Mason]

The biggest clue to  maybe you are wrong is that you feel all these witness statements need your explanation so they can be properly understood. How about re-examine your interpretations first.

?? What explanation or interpretation is needed for:

""The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn?t seem to be any impact against his head."

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. "

"I heard three shots. The last two were in rapid succession."

The "biggest clue to maybe you are wrong" is that you want to draw conclusions that are not only unsupported by the statements you cite but which conflict with other statements by the same people, of which you are either not aware, or deliberately ignore.

[Jack Nessan]

?? What explanation or interpretation is needed for:

""The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn?t seem to be any impact against his head."

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. "

"I heard three shots. The last two were in rapid succession."

The "biggest clue to maybe you are wrong" is that you want to draw conclusions that are not only unsupported by the statements you cite but which conflict with other statements by the same people, of which you are either not aware, or deliberately ignore.

?? What explanation or interpretation is needed for:



Whatever do I mean. Apparently their statements need to be explained to be properly understood. How about develope a set of guidelines to evaluate these statements instead of just randomly quoting whatever fits this strange theory. These witnesses were adding to and altering these statements as time went on.



Kinney:

Kinney identifies shots 1 and 2 by what he saw occur with the President. He said that he heard three shots. That suggests he may not have been looking at the President at the time of the third shot. He may have been distracted by the slowing down of the limo just before the head shot and by Clint Hill running between the two cars.


Huh? Doesn't suggest anything.


Hickey:

Hickey gave a second statement that clarified what he observed.




A bullet impacting the side of his head is the same a one going past? A passing bullet makes his hair move? How does it not hit Kellerman?





Greer:

He clarifies in his WC testimony (2H118):




It is the first time he adds an additional shot and goes from two shots to three. Specter writes a memo to Rankin addressing the addition of a shot by Greer. Still in his statement he states he accelerated after the second shot.




Betzner:


He does not identify a third shot expressly. He said that there were "at least two shots". Saying "at least two shots" indicates that he was not counting the number of shots.  So you cannot use Betzner's statement as evidence that there were only two shots. 





Says you. He describes only two shots. Where does Betzner mention a third shot?




Miller:


Miller says he heard 3 shots. Then he says "a man in the back seat slumped over". Then he says "one shot apparently hit the street past the car" but does not identify which shot that was.



 Two shots account for all the wounds in the car.




Skelton:

Skelton describes 4 shots.  On the first shot he said something hit the pavement to the left rear of the car. Then he said he heard two more shots and saw a woman in the car grab a man.  Then he said he heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement.



Two shots account for all the wounds.




Walters:


I don't see where Walters describes the effects of any of the shots. He described a "first retort" and then "2 succeeding retorts".



Yes he does. Two shots account for all the wounds. Walters description of the last shot: "the last shot went high and above the presidents car"

[Ray Mitcham]

Walters.

"Mr. Decker:

I was standing on Main Street in front of the Criminal Courts Building the morning of November 22, 1963 and observed the Presidential procession pass by. Just after it had turned the corner and a very short time later I heard what was shots, 3 in number."

[Bernd Werner]

Moot? How?

Because you're building up your case solely on witness accounts and not on actual evidence.

If you can provide evidence to explain how all witnesses missed seeing JFK smile and wave after the first shot, let alone for three seconds after the first shot please feel free. Then you would have to explain how 20+ observed him react as if he was hit in the neck on the first shot. That would merely be a start. You would ten have to explain Croft, Betzner, Hughes, Altgens, Greer, Hickey all making consistent observations that excude the second shot SBT. Then you would have to explain the shot pattern evidence.  And the explain Tague being hit on the second shot. Oh, and if you think you can do that, try explaining why the motorcade witnesses put the VP car completing the turn before the first shot. And then explain why the occupants.of the VP security car thought the had almost completed the turn? Why did Mrs Cabell think her car had entered the Intersection. Etc.

Sorry, but I don't have to provide evidence to your claims! It is e.g. your duty to provide evidence for the your claim that Tague was "hit on the second shot"

An individual witness can be wrong. But if multiple independent witnesses report consistent observations, on what basis can that evidence be disregarded?

It can be disregarded on the basis that witness accounts are prone to be inaccurrate. It can be disregarded on the basis that the witnesses you quote are actually not independent, because they all were in the same place - Dealey Plaza. It can be disregarded, because it seems, that you never tried to approve the witness accounts by actual evidence.

There is no missing bullet. They all struck JFK and/or JBC. The first is CE399. The second fragmented and deflected up off the radius and sent metal flakes into the wrist. Other fragments hit the windshield, windshield frame and at least one left the car and struck the curb near Tague. Likely others cleared the windshield. The third was obvious

To the best of my knowlegde the only bullets that were proven to hit was the fatal shot and the bullet recovered at Parkland Hospital. When and where did the second bullet, you claimed to hit, fragment? And what happened to the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back and exited at his neck?

As far as the head shot goes, the following trajectory from the overpass works without going thru the windshield. The same applies for the throat wound.

Really? Then please explain, why your picture doesn't include the windshield!

Otherwise, we can only speculate which direction the bullet came from that passed thru the windshield. Daltex building?

There was no such bullet, especially no bullet that hit the windshield from the front!

[Andrew Mason]

Because you're building up your case solely on witness accounts and not on actual evidence.

Witness testimony is evidence. Courts use witnesss all the time. 20+ witnesses independently reporting consistent observations of an event is pretty reliable. The most unreliable conclusions are those based on expert testimony that conflicts with actual witnesses.

Sorry, but I don't have to provide evidence to your claims! It is e.g. your duty to provide evidence for the your claim that Tague was "hit on the second shot"

I did.  Tague and Greer and the zfilm.
 

[Jack Trojan]

To the best of my knowlegde the only bullets that were proven to hit was the fatal shot and the bullet recovered at Parkland Hospital. When and where did the second bullet, you claimed to hit, fragment? And what happened to the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back and exited at his neck?

First off, no bullets have been proven to be anything except maybe that the Magic Bullet wasn't so magic. But if you believe the Magic Bullet smashed thru bones and caused 7 wounds then showed up on the wrong gurney with no trace of blood, bone or tissue in swimming pool condition, then you truly believe in magic.

Greer slowed the limo down to the Turkey Shoot Point where 3 shots would sound like one providing the shooters timed it right. And at least one of the bullets was frangible.

Really? Then please explain, why your picture doesn't include the windshield!

You'll have to ask Zapruder why he didn't include the windshield in the shot. The downward angle (yaw) from the overpass would have cleared the windshield giving the sniper unobstructed access to JFK's head at Z313 to blow out a fist sized hole in the right occipital region of JFK's skull as witnessed by many of the medical staff at Parkland.

There was no such bullet, especially no bullet that hit the windshield from the front!

It is unknown which direction the shot went thru the windshield because the windshield was inexplicably removed from the limo and promptly displayed in a museum as authentic. Right. The limo was then scrubbed clean of evidence and recommissioned into service for another 13 years, instead of preserved as crucial evidence in the most infamous crime of the century.

The shot thru the windshield might have been the throat shot which was clearly an entrance wound that a Parkland doctor altered via a tracheotomy to portray it as an exit wound, which he performed on a dead person. At what point does any of this stink to you?

[Jack Nessan]

Walters.

"Mr. Decker:

I was standing on Main Street in front of the Criminal Courts Building the morning of November 22, 1963 and observed the Presidential procession pass by. Just after it had turned the corner and a very short time later I heard what was shots, 3 in number."

Sheriff Decker CE Exhibit 5323

"As the Motorcade was proceeding down Elm Strcet, I distinctly remember hearing 2 shots. As I heard the first retort, I looked back over my shoulder and new what appeared to me to bo a spray of water come out of the rear seat of the President's car."

[Ray Mitcham]

Sheriff Decker CE Exhibit 5323

"As the Motorcade was proceeding down Elm Strcet, I distinctly remember hearing 2 shots. As I heard the first retort, I looked back over my shoulder and new what appeared to me to bo a spray of water come out of the rear seat of the President's car."

Decker.

?At about that time of the conversation there were two shots that I heard. There were three shots fired but I do not recall hearing one of them.?

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460464

Seems Decker knew there were at least three shots.