WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Jack Nessan]

It takes two to make a useless discussion.  In any event, your theory that the overwhelming evidence of three shots and a 1......2...3 shot pattern being wrong is no less goofy than my "theory" that the evidence is not wrong.

The HSCA did a lot of useful things. But their comment about the supposed general unreliability of witnesses was a poor attempt to justify why none of the witnesses heard a phantom 4th shot that they concluded was fired.  In fact, there was no such shot. 

You have a long way to go to show that the witnesses, all 132 of them, thought they heard a phantom 3rd shot that did not exist.  BTW, what is your explanation as to how the "three shot" witness tampering got started? Why did so many witnesses go along with it?

No useless is accurate. Regurgitating the figures from a report the people who wrote it stated is faulty is pointless. You would think the fact that so many of the eyewitness's early statements changed would be a clue, but time and time again you quote Hickey's and Bennett's later statements not because they are informative but because they somehow in your mind support this whole bizarre shot pattern. A shot pattern that is contradicted by the cycle time of the carcano, the Zapruder Film, eyewitness statements and even the description of the shots in the statement. What is amazing is you never question the fact that the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their original statements and their statements in no way prove what you are advocating, yet are mindlessly quoting very specific witnesses as if their statements represent all witnesses.
-----------------------------------
" BTW, what is your explanation as to how the "three shot" witness tampering got started? Why did so many witnesses go along with it?"

Maybe that is a question you need to answer for yourself. If you actually took the time to study what the witnesses originally stated happened instead of what they stated later, you would know the answer to that question. The problem will be it contradicts how many years of posting this nonsense?

[Jack Nessan]

Another LNer that can't support their belief with evidence. The evidence shows that LHO fired NO shots, but we are discussing the fictitious SBT.

It is clear that you just believe whatever the authorities tell you to believe.

What evidence? Who fired the two shots you are alluding to from the TSBD if not LHO?
-----------------------------------
Brother Rob, as you know, at the core of SBT is the number of shots. Obviously two shots automatically indicates one of the bullets accounts for all seven wounds. You have already stated LHO -excuse me- someone fired two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD and another unknown assassin fired another shot from somewhere else. The two shots fired from the TSBD account for which wounds? 1-3? 1-4?, 1-6? Why do you think the third shell found on the 6th floor wasn't fired that day?

Will this be another "Statements that Sinks the WC" topic? That series was so informative. If the authorities are wrong what is right? You were going to post the proof there was three shots? That also would be very interesting because two shots does prove SBT. You have to wonder did Sen Russell really believe there was only two shot. Was he responsible for the language in the WC conclusion about there only being two shots and the medias influence of the witnesses?

[Andrew Mason]

No useless is accurate. Regurgitating the figures from a report the people who wrote it stated is faulty is pointless. You would think the fact that so many of the eyewitness's early statements changed would be a clue, but time and time again you quote Hickey's and Bennett's later statements not because they are informative but because they somehow in your mind support this whole bizarre shot pattern. A shot pattern that is contradicted by the cycle time of the carcano, the Zapruder Film, eyewitness statements and even the description of the shots in the statement.

The zfilm does not tell you by itself when the first two shots occurred, so the zfilm does not contradict the 1.......2....3 pattern.   The shot pattern itself: 1......2....3 does not conflict with the cycle time of the Carcano.  The MC was fired 3 times in 4.6 seconds by an FBI agent with aimed shots.  Oswald had a strap and boxes to make it easier to keep the gun from moving during reloading.  So unless the last two shots were much less than 2.3 seconds there would not be a problem.   
Nor does it conflict with the witnesses: there were witnesses who recalled the 1.......2....3 pattern who said there was about 2 seconds between the last two shots e.g. Robert Jackson 2H159; Roger Craig 6H263) or 2-3 seconds (Sweatt 19H531;Decker ) or 3 seconds (A. Rowland 19H494) or 2:1 (Ralph Yarborough 7H439;  Earl Cabell 7H478).  Emmett Hudson stated to the FBI that the last two were 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' or words that effect (CD5).   

Several others recalled three shots that were evenly spaced (Clifton Carter, Delores Kounas, James Romack, Jack Watson) or "almost/approximately/pretty well" evenly spaced (James Altgens, Marrion Baker, Thomas Dillard, Ronald Fischer, Phil Willis).

What is amazing is you never question the fact that the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their original statements and their statements in no way prove what you are advocating, yet are mindlessly quoting very specific witnesses as if their statements represent all witnesses.

I see that you have not read my paper.   The fact is, very few dramatically altered their original statments on the number or pattern of the shots.  The only one I can recall off hand was Emmett Hudson:  in his FBI made a few days after the assassination he recalled the 1.....2...3 pattern and said the last two were about as fast as one could fire with a bolt action; in his WC testimony 8 months later he said they were about evenly spaced over a 2 minute period.  If you disagree, give us some examples, don't just wave your hands and say "the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their statements". I have given you ALL the witness evidence bearing on the shot pattern ... but you have to read my paper.

-----------------------------------
" BTW, what is your explanation as to how the "three shot" witness tampering got started? Why did so many witnesses go along with it?"

Maybe that is a question you need to answer for yourself. If you actually took the time to study what the witnesses originally stated happened instead of what they stated later, you would know the answer to that question. The problem will be it contradicts how many years of posting this nonsense?

I have answered it - for myself and for others because I have actually provided a detailed paper and analysis.   I have taken the time to study what the witnesses originally stated. Read my paper.

[Jack Nessan]

The zfilm does not tell you by itself when the first two shots occurred, so the zfilm does not contradict the 1.......2....3 pattern.   The shot pattern itself: 1......2....3 does not conflict with the cycle time of the Carcano.  The MC was fired 3 times in 4.6 seconds by an FBI agent with aimed shots.  Oswald had a strap and boxes to make it easier to keep the gun from moving during reloading.  So unless the last two shots were much less than 2.3 seconds there would not be a problem.   
Nor does it conflict with the witnesses: there were witnesses who recalled the 1.......2....3 pattern who said there was about 2 seconds between the last two shots e.g. Robert Jackson 2H159; Roger Craig 6H263) or 2-3 seconds (Sweatt 19H531;Decker ) or 3 seconds (A. Rowland 19H494) or 2:1 (Ralph Yarborough 7H439;  Earl Cabell 7H478).  Emmett Hudson stated to the FBI that the last two were 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' or words that effect (CD5).   

Several others recalled three shots that were evenly spaced (Clifton Carter, Delores Kounas, James Romack, Jack Watson) or "almost/approximately/pretty well" evenly spaced (James Altgens, Marrion Baker, Thomas Dillard, Ronald Fischer, Phil Willis).
I see that you have not read my paper.   The fact is, very few dramatically altered their original statments on the number or pattern of the shots.  The only one I can recall off hand was Emmett Hudson:  in his FBI made a few days after the assassination he recalled the 1.....2...3 pattern and said the last two were about as fast as one could fire with a bolt action; in his WC testimony 8 months later he said they were about evenly spaced over a 2 minute period.  If you disagree, give us some examples, don't just wave your hands and say "the eyewitnesses dramatically altered their statements". I have given you ALL the witness evidence bearing on the shot pattern ... but you have to read my paper.I have answered it - for myself and for others because I have actually provided a detailed paper and analysis.   I have taken the time to study what the witnesses originally stated. Read my paper.

This is exactly the point. You have no idea what these people first stated.

Altgens is a two shot witness as is Decker.

Altgens stated there was no more shots after the head shot.
Altgens:"There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

Kounas and Hudson are both witnesses who state the head shot as the second shot.

Willis defers to his wife's statement as to what happened because he could not see the car and she could. Marilyn Willis described a"red halo" after the second shot.
Marilyn Willis (FBI Report on 6-19-64) "...when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds later she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy's head "blow off and ringed by a red halo." She stated she believes she heard another shot following this."

--------------------------------------------
Why choose Jackson instead of Darnell, who stated there was two shots, Darnell was in the same car as Jackson?

None of the remaining witnesses are eyewitnesses. Why not choose Hargis,Chaney, Greer, Kellerman, Hill, Jackie, Nelly, Landis, Kinney, Brehm, Hesters, Chisms, Newmans, Jean Newman, BRW, Jarman, Donaldson, Birney, etc--- were they to close? They could not only hear but SEE what was happening. Simply put the earwitnesses had to ask the eyewitnesses to relate the sounds they thought they heard. The HSCA sound analysis concluded the echoes were nearly as loud as the original shot and could have confused the earwitnesses. You are referencing the report but not the qualifiers.

Hargis, Newman, Jackie and Nelly are the only people to mention JBC's reactions and they all have him reacting after the first shot. If you want to see the medias influence, watch Jay Watson interview Bill and Gayle Newman. Gayle is actually reading the news bulletin in Watson's hand. Bill twice states to Watson he "does not know about a third shot." Nelly through Jullian Read tells the news reporters the same thing. Gayle in he 50th anniversary interview actually states she never really heard a third shot.

You are arbitrarily interpreting the earwitness statements to mean 2.3 seconds between the last two shots. Not because that is what they stated but that is what you want them to have stated.

Brehm and Bill Newman are excellent examples of medias influence. Jackie actually refers the media reports.

[Andrew Mason]

This is exactly the point. You have no idea what these people first stated.

Altgens is a two shot witness as is Decker.

In his Nov 22/63 dispatch Altgens twice referred to the "second burst of noise" but never said the burst contained a single shot.  Other witnesses said that the sound of the last two overlapped. In his WC testimony he said (7H518):

"I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell
you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after
the President was struck in the head."

Sorry about including Decker.  I didn't intend to suggest Decker commented on shot spacing.  I was copying the cite from my paper and intended to erase the reference to the Decker exhibit for the Sweatt cite and I guess I got sidetracked.  But while we are on the subject of Decker (who as far as I can tell never mentioned shot spacing) was in the lead car and in an undated report done at least several days after the event said "I distinctly remember hearing two shots".  He did not say there were only two shots.  He just distinctly remembered hearing two. Decker was a very busy fellow and recalling the number of shots may not have been the most important detail on his mind. He also did not get much sleep in those days after the assassination.

Kounas and Hudson are both witnesses who state the head shot as the second shot.

In her first statement Nov. 24/63 she stated 3 shots and did not comment on which one hit the President in the head.  In her March 23/64 statement she mentioned people reacting after the second shot.  Of course the third shot is after the second shot.  Aren't you going against your own principles in preferring her much later statement over her earlier one?  As far as Hudson is concerned, in his signed Nov 22/63 statement he said "I definitely heard 3 shots" (19H481).  In neither of his FBI statements did he state that the head shot was the second shot. It was only in his July/64 deposition that he said for the first time that he thought the second shot was the head shot.  He also said in that deposition, contrary to his earlier recollection, that the shots were evenly spaced over 2 minutes, that he did not see the president did not react to any other shots.  So at that time he did not remember what he said in his FBI statement: that he saw JFK's head slump to one side in reaction to the first shot.

Willis defers to his wife's statement as to what happened because he could not see the car and she could. Marilyn Willis described a"red halo" after the second shot.
Marilyn Willis (FBI Report on 6-19-64) "...when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds later she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy's head "blow off and ringed by a red halo." She stated she believes she heard another shot following this."

She doesn't exactly help your "only two shot" theory, does she?

--------------------------------------------
Why choose Jackson instead of Darnell, who stated there was two shots, Darnell was in the same car as Jackson?

I am not "choosing" Jackson.  I listed all the witnesses who commented on the shot pattern or shot spacing. Jackson was one of those witnesses. Darnell gave a statement on Nov 29/63 in which he states that after the second shot he left the press car and ran toward the president's car. He noted a lot of confusion.  He doesn't say what he did after the third shot - presumably still running toward the scene.  He did not say there were only two shots.

You are arbitrarily interpreting the earwitness statements to mean 2.3 seconds between the last two shots. Not because that is what they stated but that is what you want them to have stated.

I am not "arbitrarily" interpreting their statements to mean 2.3 seconds.  I am presenting their recollections of the last two shots fired in rapid succession.  That gives us the general timing of the second shot. I am using specific evidence to more accurately place the second shot.  A key observation was Hickey seeing JFK's hair fly forward on the second shot but missing his head.  That occurs in only one place:  z273-276.  This also corresponds to Greer's first turn (z278-280) which he said he did immediatly after the second shot.  It also fits with the change in appearance of JBC's wrist (z271-72) and the movement of the sun visor (z271-72).  It just so happens that a shot at z271-72 is 2.3 seconds from z313.

Brehm and Bill Newman are excellent examples of medias influence. Jackie actually refers the media reports.

Hudson is a better example. There was no media influence on his first statement taken a few hours after the assassination.

[Rob Caprio]

What evidence? Who fired the two shots you are alluding to from the TSBD if not LHO?
-----------------------------------
Brother Rob, as you know, at the core of SBT is the number of shots. Obviously two shots automatically indicates one of the bullets accounts for all seven wounds. You have already stated LHO -excuse me- someone fired two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD and another unknown assassin fired another shot from somewhere else. The two shots fired from the TSBD account for which wounds? 1-3? 1-4?, 1-6? Why do you think the third shell found on the 6th floor wasn't fired that day?

Will this be another "Statements that Sinks the WC" topic? That series was so informative. If the authorities are wrong what is right? You were going to post the proof there was three shots? That also would be very interesting because two shots does prove SBT. You have to wonder did Sen Russell really believe there was only two shot. Was he responsible for the language in the WC conclusion about there only being two shots and the medias influence of the witnesses?

Putting words into other peoples' mouths is a dishonest thing. I have NEVER said that only two shots were fired or that they came from the TSBD. Why do you lie about what I have said?

This is a distraction since you CANNOT support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse.

[Jack Nessan]

In his Nov 22/63 dispatch Altgens twice referred to the "second burst of noise" but never said the burst contained a single shot.  Other witnesses said that the sound of the last two overlapped. In his WC testimony he said (7H518):

"I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell
you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after
the President was struck in the head."

Sorry about including Decker.  I didn't intend to suggest Decker commented on shot spacing.  I was copying the cite from my paper and intended to erase the reference to the Decker exhibit for the Sweatt cite and I guess I got sidetracked.  But while we are on the subject of Decker (who as far as I can tell never mentioned shot spacing) was in the lead car and in an undated report done at least several days after the event said "I distinctly remember hearing two shots".  He did not say there were only two shots.  He just distinctly remembered hearing two. Decker was a very busy fellow and recalling the number of shots may not have been the most important detail on his mind. He also did not get much sleep in those days after the assassination.
In her first statement Nov. 24/63 she stated 3 shots and did not comment on which one hit the President in the head.  In her March 23/64 statement she mentioned people reacting after the second shot.  Of course the third shot is after the second shot.  Aren't you going against your own principles in preferring her much later statement over her earlier one?  As far as Hudson is concerned, in his signed Nov 22/63 statement he said "I definitely heard 3 shots" (19H481).  In neither of his FBI statements did he state that the head shot was the second shot. It was only in his July/64 deposition that he said for the first time that he thought the second shot was the head shot.  He also said in that deposition, contrary to his earlier recollection, that the shots were evenly spaced over 2 minutes, that he did not see the president did not react to any other shots.  So at that time he did not remember what he said in his FBI statement: that he saw JFK's head slump to one side in reaction to the first shot.
She doesn't exactly help your "only two shot" theory, does she?
I am not "choosing" Jackson.  I listed all the witnesses who commented on the shot pattern or shot spacing. Jackson was one of those witnesses. Darnell gave a statement on Nov 29/63 in which he states that after the second shot he left the press car and ran toward the president's car. He noted a lot of confusion.  He doesn't say what he did after the third shot - presumably still running toward the scene.  He did not say there were only two shots.
I am not "arbitrarily" interpreting their statements to mean 2.3 seconds.  I am presenting their recollections of the last two shots fired in rapid succession.  That gives us the general timing of the second shot. I am using specific evidence to more accurately place the second shot.  A key observation was Hickey seeing JFK's hair fly forward on the second shot but missing his head.  That occurs in only one place:  z273-276.  This also corresponds to Greer's first turn (z278-280) which he said he did immediatly after the second shot.  It also fits with the change in appearance of JBC's wrist (z271-72) and the movement of the sun visor (z271-72).  It just so happens that a shot at z271-72 is 2.3 seconds from z313.Hudson is a better example. There was no media influence on his first statement taken a few hours after the assassination.

The first statement from Altgens was read by Don Pardo. You are referencing the second bulletin he wrote 7 hours later. He went from stating two shots to two "bursts of noise."
----------------------------------------------
If Decker had heard three shots he would have remembered and stated three shots. A policeman would understand the importance of getting it right.
-------------------------------------
Kounas-- It is against what I believe. She is actually making a statement against common belief which is rare. Does the third shot make any sense to the statement but there it is. Even you do not advocate a shot after the head shot.

Hudson sounds definite and never made a contradictory statement to it. Why would you who claim the head shot to be the last shot and yet quote Hudson?

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
-------------
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
---------------------------------------
You chose Jackson. Two shots is a pattern with a time interval. Since when does "rapid succession" and all the other ways witnesses refer to how close the last two were equate to 2.3 seconds?

Hickey seen the bullet impact his head and the hair flew forward. Completely different.
-----------------


Marilyn proves it. Once again the third shot does not make any sense to the statement but there it is. Over and over again a shot is added to the statements that makes no sense to the narrative.

Altgens states it best. You yourself believe the headshot is the final shot.
Altgens:"There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
-----------------------------------
The influence was immediate. Within minutes, while on the way to Parkland, Merriman Smith issued a bulletin stating "three shots fired at the motorcade" and was that message was broadcast over the airwaves eight minutes later. Before the hour was up Jay Watson was already correcting Bill Newman that there was three shots. Altgens stated there was two. But like the WC stated:

WC: "....Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press.

The press had already been reporting three shots long before the shells were found. They had been reporting it within minutes of the assassination and anybody with a radio or within earshot of a radio heard it.

[Jack Nessan]

Putting words into other peoples' mouths is a dishonest thing. I have NEVER said that only two shots were fired or that they came from the TSBD. Why do you lie about what I have said?

This is a distraction since you CANNOT support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse.

Appears to be a lot of drama and indignation. That must mean you see the flawed logic too. Apparently you have never thought this theory through. Unless the shooters were standing shoulder to shoulder, the problem is the logic about the number of shooters, number of shots, and the number of shells does not work. Three shots fired, two shooters. with three shells matched to the carcano but being found in just one location. Were they passing the rifle between them?

Brother Rob, you made this statement about Sen Russell. It seems fairly straight forward. Sen Russell believed JBC was struck by a seperate shot and then you added that meant a second shooter. There is nothing in the wording to indicate Sen Russell believed there was four shots. Given the WC conclusion and your belief that there was two shooters, it would mean one assassin fired two shots and the other fired just one. The fragments and one bullet were matched to the Carcano found on the 6th floor and the carcano was matched to the three shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

R Caprio: "Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT.  In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."

It appears there is a very serious logic problem. In fact there is nothing logical about it. If there was three shots and a seperate  shot from a seperate assassin and then three shells being found on the 6th floor. In the end you are right, LHO--excuse me-- someone only fired twice. A long way around the issue but you stumbled onto the truth.

------------------------------

Prove there was three shots instead of just state there was. Did you ever call a state Fish and Game office? They will help you understand one bullet going through multiple targets. Seems no one on the forum can help you.