WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Richard Smith]

Trying to match the testimony of individuals who are being shot or shot at to fractions of seconds on the Z film is largely futile.  I don't see any way that the first bullet that struck JFK would not have hit JC given the known factors and recreations.  It is simply a mathematical problem with a few variables. 

[Andrew Mason]

What other conclusion can be reached except a shot at Z250?
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."

132 witnesses all describing 3 shots with the last two being closer together is not a description of the Zapruder film or a shot at Z250 with LHO's carcano and its 2.3 second cycle time. So much for 132  witnesses. A very large number of eyewitnesses stated they heard just two shots. The sae eyewitnesses who state JFK reacted to the first shot and where that shot took place.

Just to be clear, 132 witnesses (as compiled for the HSCA) said there were 3 shots.  A total of 17 said there were only two shots. That is not "a very large number".  Not all of them commented on the shot pattern.  About 60 commented on the shot pattern. 

Here is the distribution of witness recollections as to the number of shots:


Here is the distribution of those shot pattern recollections:

-----------------------------
Hickey
Wrong --- There is a huge difference in Hickey's Statements, in what universe is stating the passing bullet makes JFK's hair wave and a bullet impacting his head and making the hair detach the same event ?

He is talking about the effect of TWO shots, not one. TWO shots is TWO events, not the same event. He was able to discern TWO separate shots.

There is little difference between Kinney and Hickey when it comes to their statements. Kinney has the head shot as being the second shot, the same as Kellerman and Greer. Hickey states the final two shots were so close together they sounded like one. That is not a description of a shot at Z250 or Z270.

Greer not only described two distinct late shots but he said he turned back, forward and back again between those last two shots. You can see these turns at z277-280 (back), z290-292 (forward) and 302-05 (back).

Mary Woodward also commented on the closeness of the last two shot sounds. In a 1988 interview by Nigel Turner for the film "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Mary Woodward stated: ?The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.? ? ?and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one?.

So, it may be that overlapping of sounds that Hickey was describing: the sound of the third shot was heard while the reverberation of the second continued.

So the evidence not inconsistent with a shot at z272-273. In fact, the evidence excludes a second shot much later than that. JFK's hair does not fly up between z276 and z312. Greer would not have time to react by z277 or 278 if the second shot was as late as z276.

Hickey 11/30 statement about rooming with Kinney. The only two witnesses to state the hair flew from his head. They obviously talked about what occurred and that is reflected in their statements.

Or the similarity between their statements is the result of them both having observed what they said they observed.

"No time element between" the shots but yet he is describing two distinct shots as if they he could tell them apart. Originally he had just a bullet impacting and causing the hair to fly forward. The same as Kinney.

You need to read the statements again.  Originally Hickey said there were two shots and described two things that occurred.  He never said that both things (impact to the head and hair flying forward) occurred on one shot while nothing occurred on the other, which is the way you seem to be interpreting it.  He said there were two shots and two things happened.  He did not clarify what happened on each shot until he gave submitted his report Nov. 30/63. In that report he said that hair flew forward on the second shot but there was NO IMPACT evident: it appeared to miss. He said that he saw that the third shot impacted the President.

[Andrew Mason]

Trying to match the testimony of individuals who are being shot or shot at to fractions of seconds on the Z film is largely futile.  I don't see any way that the first bullet that struck JFK would not have hit JC given the known factors and recreations.  It is simply a mathematical problem with a few variables.

I don't disagree that it would be difficult for those being shot at to measure shot spacings/timings and locations.

As far as the bullet through JFK going on to strike JBC, I agree.  If you want to reduce it to a mathematical problem, you have to look at all possible scenarios over the range of time and range of possible positions of JBC and JFK when the shot through JFK may have occurred.  One of those scenarios is that at the moment of the shot through JFK (which, as I point out, the evidence says occurred on the first shot) JBC was turned to his right and had his left thigh exposed to a trajectory from the SN through JFK.   In such a scenario, the bullet through JFK, tumbling end over end after exiting JFK, stuck JBC's left thigh at an angle causing his thigh wound. One would also have to look at all possible ways in which such a bullet was stopped. It may or may not have stopped in his thigh. Strange things happen with bullets, as people familiar with such things will tell you.  JBC never felt that thigh wound so he was not able to say on which shot he received it.

That scenario is not only at least as probable as the SBT scenario (in which the first bullet misses the car and provides no evidence of having struck anything and the second does all the damage, including fracturing a radius bone and sending metal flecks through JBC's wrist, and deflecting around rather than away from the point of contact on the radius to deflect far to the left and end up completely intact after sticking in his thigh), but it actually fits with all the evidence including the overwhelming evidence that the last two shots were in rapid succession.

[Andrew Mason]

But when one investigates your witness pool, we find a few "two-shot" witnesses who place the "president slumping" as the first of the two shots they discuss (the second is usually the head shot). You interpret the "first" shot among those two shots as the first of your three-shot scenario with two to follow (although those witnesses don't support that), whereas I see their "slumping shot" as the second in a three-shot scenario and the one shot before the head shot. I only suggest they've failed to remember or place the first shot (which I believe missed), which was unexpected and which many witnesses took to be something that was not a gunshot.
But the photographic evidence shows Hickey turned rearward near-to-or-just-after the moment of the "slumping" shot in the Z220s in which both Kennedy and Connally appear to react simultaneously. We don't see him in the Z220s but he is facing forward in Z206 (and appears to be similarly positions in Z213) so it's likely to me that he turned rearward only after the second shot at Z223.

I understand. You hypothesize that witnesses heard a loud noise and since they did not at that instant recognize it as a shot, they did not count it as a shot when they later heard more loud noises and realized that they were shots.  So, if they could only recall two shots they were referring to the second and third shots. If that were the case then one would expect those who did hear three shots would have observed that JFK smiled and waved (for three seconds yet) after the first loud noise and that he did not react until the second shot. The problem is that there aren't any such witnesses. So your speculative hypothesis is not supported by evidence.

So it's more likely to you that Hickey cannot see the President in Z206 but can detect a hair flutter that's out of his line-of-sight in Z276 a second after he is photographed in Altgens facing rearward.

I did not say Hickey could not see JFK. Neither did Hickey. He was interested in finding the source of the sound, which appeared to have come from his right rear. So he was just not looking at JFK. He was looking at the crowd for possible threats. That was his job.

The second shot which you place near the early-Z270s. You also claim that the Governor yelled those words as well as "My God, they're going to kill us all" between the Z270s and the head shot.
I doubt Hickey would have admitted to be being turned around from the President after he had heard the sound of the second shot (at Z223) and saw the President lurch forward in response to it ("the hair on the right side of his head flew forward"). I think he shifted the time he was turned around from after the second shot to before the second shot.

That's a better argument for there having been no second shot at z223.  Besides, Hickey said that the second and third were in rapid succession -almost no element of time between them - hardly a description of a space of 5 seconds.

Hickey meant a disturbance in the Queen Mary followup car (679X) which he was riding in. Agent Landis claimed that after the first shot: "I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, 'What was it? A Fire Cracker?' I remarked, 'I don't know; I don't see any smoke.' So far the lapsed period of time could not have been over two or three seconds.

You're right. 679x was the QM. But the timing of the disturbance in the  QM could be related to JBC's utterance. It caught Jackie's attention. Or it could be related to Clint Hill jumping off the runningboard. In any event, he was still turned rearward at z256. If he was turned forward at the time of the second and third shots, he must have turned around soon after z256.

[Rob Caprio]

James Tague recalled three distinct shot sounds.  He recalled that he was not hit on the first shot and was not hit on the last shot.  So that means he was hit on the second shot.

That fits with:

1. CE399 being the first shot that struck JFK in the back/neck.
2. The second shot striking JBC in the right armpit exiting his chest and striking the back of the wrist that was pressed against his chest.
3. The evidence is consistent that the bullet striking the radius, a very hard bone, fragmented.  There were many small specks of lead in the wrist wound. The bullet fragments would tend to deflect away from the point of contact with the hard radius.  That would have been up.
4.  Greer said he felt a "concussion" sound on the second shot. He reported no such sound on the first or third shots. His right ear was a foot or so from the point of impact of the bullet fragments that struck the windshield and windshield frame and sun visor.
5. Since a fragment struck and damaged the very top part of the windshield frame, it is not difficult to imagine that a fragment, or several fragments, may have been deflected a bit higher and then gone on to strike the pavement in front of Tague and deflected up to strike the curb and then Tague's cheek.
6. Greer said he turned around immediately after the second shot and saw JBC falling back. He is seen turning back around z278-z280.Again, if the second shot was just before Greer turned around at z280 (i.e z272), there is no need for a second shooter. Oswald could have fired all three shots.

You're making this complicated. You're also making claims that you cannot possibly support. It sounds like you are unable to support your beliefs.

[Rob Caprio]

Other than Tague, can you supply a witness that stated they seen the bullet strike the curb near Tague? The witnesses describing a bullet striking the street account for all the shots fired. What is interesting is their statements always seem to leave just two shots hitting both JFK and JBC.

Would it not be easier to just admit you can't prove there was actually three shots. Nobody else seems to be able to either. You have seen everyone's theory on three shots, is there one of them that seems remotely plausible? Mason's seems to be evolving on a minute by minute basis. The belief there was three shots is faith based, the fact nobody agrees when the extra shot occurred should be the first indication it never happened.

If you believe there was a separate shooter then you obviously do not believe the three shells found in the snipers nest were all fired that day.

Can you support the SBT or not?

[Andrew Mason]

You're making this complicated. You're also making claims that you cannot possibly support. It sounds like you are unable to support your beliefs.

You asked question. The answer is not complicated. Tague was hit on the second shot. The evidence that supports that conclusion is not complicated. It is just that there is a lot of it.

[Jack Nessan]

Just to be clear, 132 witnesses (as compiled for the HSCA) said there were 3 shots.  A total of 17 said there were only two shots. That is not "a very large number".  Not all of them commented on the shot pattern.  About 60 commented on the shot pattern. 

Here is the distribution of witness recollections as to the number of shots:


Here is the distribution of those shot pattern recollections:
He is talking about the effect of TWO shots, not one. TWO shots is TWO events, not the same event. He was able to discern TWO separate shots.
Greer not only described two distinct late shots but he said he turned back, forward and back again between those last two shots. You can see these turns at z277-280 (back), z290-292 (forward) and 302-05 (back).

Mary Woodward also commented on the closeness of the last two shot sounds. In a 1988 interview by Nigel Turner for the film "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Mary Woodward stated: ?The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.? ? ?and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one?.

So, it may be that overlapping of sounds that Hickey was describing: the sound of the third shot was heard while the reverberation of the second continued.

So the evidence not inconsistent with a shot at z272-273. In fact, the evidence excludes a second shot much later than that. JFK's hair does not fly up between z276 and z312. Greer would not have time to react by z277 or 278 if the second shot was as late as z276.

Or the similarity between their statements is the result of them both having observed what they said they observed.
You need to read the statements again.  Originally Hickey said there were two shots and described two things that occurred.  He never said that both things (impact to the head and hair flying forward) occurred on one shot while nothing occurred on the other, which is the way you seem to be interpreting it.  He said there were two shots and two things happened.  He did not clarify what happened on each shot until he gave submitted his report Nov. 30/63. In that report he said that hair flew forward on the second shot but there was NO IMPACT evident: it appeared to miss. He said that he saw that the third shot impacted the President.

I see the problem, somehow you have managed to convince yourself that your analysis is correct and JBC could view the Zapuder film and not know that he was wounded, or ever question how the HSCA arrived at their conclusions. It is apparent you went through the witness tabulation looking for the words "three shots" and then claimed that meant a shot supporting this theory about a shot at Z250 or Z270 or in a place different than what the Zapruder film shows or the witnesses actually stated.

Unfortunately for this theory, the HSCA dismissed their own report as being faulty due to media influence. They determined the witnesses inflated the number of shots. If the HSCA did not support their own Witness Analysis why would you?

"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87

A number of the eyewitnesses changed the number of shots from two to three. Again the HSCA had an opinion about the confusion over the number of shots and why the number would be inflated:

  "The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.