Why the first shot missed

[Ray Mitcham]

No, he clearly stated in the statement, it was there for all to read:
 "He said a third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot possibly within/second or two afterward"

You read his statement and understood he was talking about a second shot headshot because you felt the need to quote his WC statement in which he states the exact same thing. The car accelerates after the second shot and before the third. The acceleration takes place after the second shot headshot as evidenced by the Zapruder film.

Jarman WC:  "and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot (three)was fired right behind the second one."

I don't understand your point Jack. He said there were three shots. You only two.

"Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?
Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.
Mr. McCLOY You have had military experience, haven't you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you can recognize rifle shots when you hear them?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - But you didn't hear, you didn't catch the sound of the bolt moving?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Did you see the President actually hit by the bullets?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir. I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit, but after the second shot, I presumed that he was, because I had my eye on his car from the time it came down Houston until the time it started toward the freeway underpass.
Mr. McCLOY - You saw him crumple, you saw him fall, did you?
Mr. JARMAN - I saw him lean his head.
Representative FORD - You actually saw the car lurch forward, did you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD That is a distinct impression?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - And you had followed it as it turned from Main on to Houston and followed it as it turned from Houston on to Elm?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
Representative FORD - Had your eye on the car all the time?
Mr JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot came from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below. That is what I thought.
Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking at the President's car.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether the sound came from your left or from your right?
Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.
Representative FORD - But your first reaction, that is was from below.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - When the second shot came, do you have any different recollection?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, they all sounded just about the same.
Representative FORD - You distinctly recall three shots?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - And at what point did you get up from where you were on your knees in the window?
Mr. JARMAN - When the motorcar picked up speed.
Representative FORD - Was this after what you thought was the third shot?
Mr. JARMAN - The third shot; yes.
Representative FORD - McCloy said you had been in the army 8 years, two 4-year hitches. Was there any doubt in your mind that this was a gunshot, either one of the three?
Mr. JARMAN - Not after the second shot. I didn't have any doubt in my mind then.

[Jack Nessan]

Rosemary's slowing-and-stopping is like the head turns of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy. It is substantiated by the Zapruder film.

I believe she was standing pretty far up on Elm.

Since you brought up Phil Willis:

Liebeler	You couldn’t tell whether he was hit by the first shot? You couldn’t tell whether he had been hit by the first shot or the second shot or the third shot, or by how many shots he had been hit?
Willis	No, sir; except this one thing might be worthy of mention. When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively. It did cause me to wonder.
Liebeler	You say that the President looked toward his left; is that correct? Toward the side of Elm Street that you are standing on, or which way?
Willis	In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street.

When asked for specifics, Willis backed off his cavalier claims that Kennedy was hit by the first shot and that his 05 slide was taken at the instant of the shot.

She certainly doesn't do what you claim she does with that statement.

Could not be more clear. He states he reacts to the first shot by leaning forward. Just like he always stated the reaction to the shot made him take the picture.

Willis: "No, sir; except this one thing might be worthy of mention. When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward,"

-----------------------------------------------------------
Jackie clearly states he reacts to the first shot. She also references Gov Connally crying out to the same shot that hit JFK. She is not going to explain a noise that never occurred because someone comes up with an odd theory someday in the future.

An early missed shot never happened. How that is known is the eyewitnesses state what happened. Why base the understanding of the shot sequence of the assassination off the beliefs of a 10 year old girl and ignore all the adults stating an entirely different story?

[Jack Nessan]

I don't understand your point Jack. He said there were three shots. You only two.

"Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?
Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.
Mr. McCLOY You have had military experience, haven't you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you can recognize rifle shots when you hear them?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - But you didn't hear, you didn't catch the sound of the bolt moving?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Did you see the President actually hit by the bullets?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir. I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit, but after the second shot, I presumed that he was, because I had my eye on his car from the time it came down Houston until the time it started toward the freeway underpass.
Mr. McCLOY - You saw him crumple, you saw him fall, did you?
Mr. JARMAN - I saw him lean his head.
Representative FORD - You actually saw the car lurch forward, did you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD That is a distinct impression?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - And you had followed it as it turned from Main on to Houston and followed it as it turned from Houston on to Elm?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
Representative FORD - Had your eye on the car all the time?
Mr JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot came from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below. That is what I thought.
Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking at the President's car.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether the sound came from your left or from your right?
Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.
Representative FORD - But your first reaction, that is was from below.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - When the second shot came, do you have any different recollection?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, they all sounded just about the same.
Representative FORD - You distinctly recall three shots?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - And at what point did you get up from where you were on your knees in the window?
Mr. JARMAN - When the motorcar picked up speed.
Representative FORD - Was this after what you thought was the third shot?
Mr. JARMAN - The third shot; yes.
Representative FORD - McCloy said you had been in the army 8 years, two 4-year hitches. Was there any doubt in your mind that this was a gunshot, either one of the three?
Mr. JARMAN - Not after the second shot. I didn't have any doubt in my mind then.

I think you do understand perfectly. You are saying there was a shot after the headshot as the car accelerated and was leaving Dealey Plaza. That can only mean the first two shots hit JFK and subsequently JBC. The Zapruder film clearly shows the headshot occurred before the car accelerated.

Altgens only knew of two shots and stated there was no shot after the headshot.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but 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. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.

[Ray Mitcham]

I think you do understand perfectly. You are saying there was a shot after the headshot as the car accelerated and was leaving Dealey Plaza.

Where did i state that Jack?
I'm saying there were three shots. You say two. Jarman says three. You quoted him so you must believe him, otherwise why quote him?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

We know who you think the shooter is. What does this say about your gullibility? Asking me to name the shooter is pretty silly, isn't it? Shouldn't you be more concerned there are no exit wounds on the front of JFK's body? A logical inference from a rear head shot would be that the face would be blown out, right? Instead, there's not a single report from Parkland of an exit wound on the front of the body. The only reports of a rear entry come from Connally's wounds. We also know the SBT is 100% impossible since several witnesses reported Humes' frustration at finding no point of exit for the back wound. If this bullet failed to transit the body, how could it be a threat to Governor Connally? Sorry pal, this annihilates your SBT, but then so does every other shred of evidence in this case. Your turn...

I agree. But think of this. They don't understand logic. That is why they want to talk about  Max Holland's suggestion that a bullet was shot when the car passed under a streetlight post and it was this bullet that missed because  they guess it must of caromed of the interfering streetlight post. Then they try to support Max Holland by trying to suggest that in a couple films where there is evidence of human reaction to gunfire . The problem is  for the idea to be plausible they would have to say a bullet would be moving at 5 mph or the speed of sound is like 5 mph because by the time you see human reaction to gunfire the limo it is like 5 miles from the point that it passed under the post. All this and they can't even prove that any shoots came from the building. i swear next they will say LHO was not seen in the window (we know he wasn't) because he was actually inside one of the boxes. I actually don't believe he was on that floor but even if a person tried to shoot at a passing limo, that limo's passengers would show their a reaction to gunfire way sooner  and not way down the road like they admit

[Charles Collins]

I agree. But think of this. They don't understand logic. That is why they want to talk about  Max Holland's suggestion that a bullet was shot when the car passed under a streetlight post and it was this bullet that missed because  they guess it must of caromed of the interfering streetlight post. Then they try to support Max Holland by trying to suggest that in a couple films where there is evidence of human reaction to gunfire . The problem is  for the idea to be plausible they would have to say a bullet would be moving at 5 mph or the speed of sound is like 5 mph because by the time you see human reaction to gunfire the limo it is like 5 miles from the point that it passed under the post. All this and they can't even prove that any shoots came from the building. i swear next they will say LHO was not seen in the window (we know he wasn't) because he was actually inside one of the boxes. I actually don't believe he was on that floor but even if a person tried to shoot at a passing limo, that limo's passengers would show their a reaction to gunfire way sooner  and not way down the road like they admit

What I have presented is a possible alternative to the bullet missing because it hit the traffic signal. I have cited several additional reasons, that Holland didn't include, in my first post as evidence of an early first shot. The Scearce article explains the reactions of the limo occupants much better than I could. Here is the last paragraph from that article:

The single bullet theory and the rear head shot are settled issues, the forests and terabytes that continue to be consumed debating these subjects notwithstanding. The only remaining major forensic questions concern the missed 1st shot. As to those questions, the Z155–Z157 consensus timing is a millstone. The torch has been passed to original thinkers like Holland and Rush. They are helping uncover what has been “hidden in plain view” for over four decades. The open-minded among us owe them a fair hearing in their journey through the heretofore undiscovered country of the Kennedy assassination towards the final truth.

Do you consider yourself open-minded?

[Jack Nessan]

"he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward" (see above)

"In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead ...  when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward" (see above)

Jackie turns from looking to her left to looking to her right in the early Z170s. Willis was very close to Jackie by then and could see this clearly.


    "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead,
     and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the
     first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less
     faced the other side of the street and leaned forward"     (WC testimony)

    "Well, after having photographed the President on Main Street and on Houston Street and
     then in front of the Depository Building on Elm Street I cocked my camera for another
     picture and this loud shot went off and the first reaction was that could it be a crank or a
     firecracker but it was so loud and of such a sound it had to be rifle so I became alarmed.
     I was trying to take a picture at the moment and the reflex from the shot caused me to
     take one of these pictures."     (Shaw trial)

Where does she say that?

Not with this:

    "They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that;
     I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connelly grabbing his arms and saying `no no no nonono,'
     with his fist beating--then Jack turned and I turned--all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead;
     then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a
     piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--he was holding out his hand--and I can see
     this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap"

Everything specific Rosemary Willis and her parents say is substantiated by the Zapruder film. Phil Willis made a generalization about his most important slide being "instantaneous" with the first shot (or having captured Kennedy's reaction to the first shot which means the first shot occurred before he took his 05 slide). Willis was selling a slide set at the time.

Willis's memory like everyone else did not improve with time and is proven by how much more vague he becomes as time went by. I know you try to pinpoint the first shot by the coordinated movements of the Jackie, JFK, and JBC. The memory recall of these movements and that anyone would note them is sketchy at best. Few people make any statement as to the wounding of JBC at all let alone what he was doing. It is easier to use the statements of the eyewitness and coordinate their common observations. Basically they state they hear the first shot and see JFK react. They also state where this occured on the street by relating it to where they were standing. No one states there was an early missed shot. They all place it in the same general location as Willis with his photo.

Hugh Betzner took a photo slightly before Willis (Z186) and completely corroborates Willis's statement that it was the first shot. Betzner also stated and describes that there were two shots.

Hugh  Betzner 11/22
 "....I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following:
I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. ...."

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

Jackie hears, what is to her a loud backfire, different than the others. I assume Jackie did not have a great deal of experience with the sound of rifles discharging but she does her best by noting the difference. JBC is wounded at exactly the same time, I am unaware of him having any issues with Tourette's Syndrome and just cries out for no reason. JFK having a piece of his skull separate from his head which would definitely be an indicator of a bullet impact. Her WC statement is definitely more detailed.

[Jack Nessan]

Where did i state that Jack?
I'm saying there were three shots. You say two. Jarman says three. You quoted him so you must believe him, otherwise why quote him?

Jarman was not lying, he added a shot like so many others. In general it is believed there was not a shot after the headshot. So what is Jarman describing?  Both the WC and the HSCA made statements about the media heavily influencing the witnesses resulting in the inflating of the number of shots.

WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"

HSCA Conclusion: "they may well inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137

HSCA Conclusion: "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 concerning the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87


Your turn. You think Jarman was lying about a second shot headshot and a first shot that wounded both JFK and JBC but you thought it was alright to quote him anyway to make some strange point? Apparently the content of the statement does not matter.  It is just a matter of whether they stated three shots or not.