The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

Every compiled witness list has a completely different outcome. The one presented here by Andrew is especially suspect.

No, actual physical evidence there really was a third shot. This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements. An example would be Thomas Cannings testimony about SBT. How about explaining why there is not a shred of evidence of a third bullet. 

 

This is nothing but endless banter over witness statements that leads nowhere. Especially, giving credibility to a child’s statement over the statements of all the adult eyewitnesses along the street, has to be a take all.

 A group of people in an echo chamber claiming to hear something has very limited value as compared to what people heard and saw. Most eyewitnesses are two shots or an added shot sound after the second shot headshot. 

SA Samuel Kinney , driver of the Secret Service car, is a good example. He could not have been closer.

“I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about four minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass . The first shot was fired, I glanced 'At the taillight of SS-100-X, , *I glanced at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left . Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head . With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.”

There is no doubt he thinks the first shot was the throat shot and the second shot was the headshot and then claims a shot with absolutely no reference or description to the shot sequence. Two shots and guess what, physical evidence of two bullets.

 

[Dan O'meara]

Every compiled witness list has a completely different outcome. The one presented here by Andrew is especially suspect.

No, actual physical evidence there really was a third shot. This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements. An example would be Thomas Cannings testimony about SBT. How about explaining why there is not a shred of evidence of a third bullet. 

 

This is nothing but endless banter over witness statements that leads nowhere. Especially, giving credibility to a child’s statement over the statements of all the adult eyewitnesses along the street, has to be a take all.

 A group of people in an echo chamber claiming to hear something has very limited value as compared to what people heard and saw. Most eyewitnesses are two shots or an added shot sound after the second shot headshot. 

SA Samuel Kinney , driver of the Secret Service car, is a good example. He could not have been closer.

“I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about four minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass . The first shot was fired, I glanced 'At the taillight of SS-100-X, , *I glanced at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left . Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head . With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.”

There is no doubt he thinks the first shot was the throat shot and the second shot was the headshot and then claims a shot with absolutely no reference or description to the shot sequence. Two shots and guess what, physical evidence of two bullets.

This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements.

I couldn't agree more.
Eye or ear-witness testimony must be corroborated by other evidence.
That's what I've done throughout this thread.
The film/photographic record (in particular the Z-film), expert analysis, scientific studies, medical reports and on and on. All used to either corroborate, refute or simply clarify witness testimony.
The counter-arguments have consisted of cherry-picked and often contradictory eye-witness testimony treated as if it were absolute fact, not requiring corroborating evidence from any other source (other than further dubious, cherry-picked eye-witness testimony). Phil Willis is the perfect example of this.

The irony is that, after bemoaning what people read into eye-witness testimony, you do exactly that!
Your analysis of Kinney's statement is a classic example of reading into eye-witness testimony to support a self-serving interpretation.
In order to bolster your 2-shot theory you select a witness who testifies to hearing 3 shots!!
Kinney's testimony is contradictory but you have "no doubt" as to what he was actually saying. Your self-serving interpretation of Kinney's statement could hardly be a more classic example of reading into witness testimony.

The strength of your argument, as I understand it, is that there are many witnesses who alter their various statements from 2 shots to 3. This cannot be denied. Also, there is the amount of bullet remains recovered from the crime scene (Dealey Plaza and the limo). There does, indeed, appear to be a bullet missing which is mysterious, to say the least.
As far as my own theory is concerned, there is a missing shot that I can't account for and a 2-shot scenario would have no impact as to the evidence I have presented for a first shot at z222/z223.
I have come across hints and possibilities of evidence for a missing shot, but nothing compelling.

[Andrew Mason]

This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements.

I couldn't agree more.
Eye or ear-witness testimony must be corroborated by other evidence.

There is no legal requirement for corroboration of any kind. In any event, witness evidence can be corroborated by independent evidence of any kind, including other witness evidence.  Witness evidence as to salient facts is generally reliable to begin with.  (If the witness has a personal interest in a particular fact that may not be the case, but that is not the case here.)   But when 80% of a large number of witnesses independently report having made the same observation, it would be highly unlikely for the witnesses to be wrong in the same way.  If they are not independent, that is another matter.  So, whether the vast majority of witnesses were wrong one just has to determine whether most of them were independent.

The strength of your argument, as I understand it, is that there are many witnesses who alter their various statements from 2 shots to 3. This cannot be denied. Also, there is the amount of bullet remains recovered from the crime scene (Dealey Plaza and the limo). There does, indeed, appear to be a bullet missing which is mysterious, to say the least.

Why would that be mysterious?  We have evidence that bullet fragments hit the windshield and frame and at least one fragment happened to strike James Tague.  So we know that not all fragments ended up in the car.  There were two jacket fragments found in the car, one in the front compartment and one in the back.  They were not necessarily from the same bullet - we really don't know whether the fragments are from 2 or 3 bullets. 

[Jack Nessan]

This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements.

I couldn't agree more.
Eye or ear-witness testimony must be corroborated by other evidence.
That's what I've done throughout this thread.
The film/photographic record (in particular the Z-film), expert analysis, scientific studies, medical reports and on and on. All used to either corroborate, refute or simply clarify witness testimony.
The counter-arguments have consisted of cherry-picked and often contradictory eye-witness testimony treated as if it were absolute fact, not requiring corroborating evidence from any other source (other than further dubious, cherry-picked eye-witness testimony). Phil Willis is the perfect example of this.

The irony is that, after bemoaning what people read into eye-witness testimony, you do exactly that!
Your analysis of Kinney's statement is a classic example of reading into eye-witness testimony to support a self-serving interpretation.
In order to bolster your 2-shot theory you select a witness who testifies to hearing 3 shots!!
Kinney's testimony is contradictory but you have "no doubt" as to what he was actually saying. Your self-serving interpretation of Kinney's statement could hardly be a more classic example of reading into witness testimony.

The strength of your argument, as I understand it, is that there are many witnesses who alter their various statements from 2 shots to 3. This cannot be denied. Also, there is the amount of bullet remains recovered from the crime scene (Dealey Plaza and the limo). There does, indeed, appear to be a bullet missing which is mysterious, to say the least.
As far as my own theory is concerned, there is a missing shot that I can't account for and a 2-shot scenario would have no impact as to the evidence I have presented for a first shot at z222/z223.
I have come across hints and possibilities of evidence for a missing shot, but nothing compelling.

So with all the analysis what is the answer? More analysis of witness statements? There is not one thing written about defining the number of shots. It is all about where the shots occurred. SA Kinney’s statement was chosen based on yours and Andrew’s beliefs. Three shots with one undefined. The same could be said of Marilyn Willis’s statement.  Are SA Kinney and Marilyn Willis right or wrong? If all the analysis was performed an answer should be possible.

Maybe you need to look farther, the shells are where the answer lies. All the rest of this seems to be a fool's game of pretending to try and confirm what can’t be confirmed.
 

 

[Dan O'meara]

So with all the analysis what is the answer? More analysis of witness statements? There is not one thing written about defining the number of shots. It is all about where the shots occurred. SA Kinney’s statement was chosen based on yours and Andrew’s beliefs. Three shots with one undefined. The same could be said of Marilyn Willis’s statement.  Are SA Kinney and Marilyn Willis right or wrong? If all the analysis was performed an answer should be possible.

Maybe you need to look farther, the shells are where the answer lies. All the rest of this seems to be a fool's game of pretending to try and confirm what can’t be confirmed.

This thread is about when the first shot occurred.
That's it.
If you have a contribution to make towards that, go for it.
I have presented a very strong case for this happening at z222/z223 using all kinds of evidence to support it.
If you want a discussion about how many shots there were, start your own thread.
I can't recall a single contribution you've made regarding the topic of this thread.

[Andrew Mason]

This thread is about when the first shot occurred.
That's it.
If you have a contribution to make towards that, go for it.
I have presented a very strong case for this happening at z222/z223 using all kinds of evidence to sup5port it.
If you want a discussion about how many shots there were, start your own thread.
I can't recall a single contribution you've made regarding the topic of this thread.

It is a mistake to exclude evidence of the other shots in determining when the shots occurred. For example, based on the following evidence:

1. that there were exactly three shots and the third and last shot struck JFK in the head;
2. that the shot pattern was  1..........2.... .3 with the last two in rapid succession
3. from the three men on the 5th floor below the SN that all three shots came from the SN using a bolt action rifle.
4. that the rifle that was used to fire those shots was found on the 6th floor and found to belong to Oswald;
5. from the FBI tests, that 2.3 seconds is about that fastest time a shooter using Oswald's rifle could reload aim and shoot

leads to the conlusion that the first shot had to be at least a second before z222/223. A first shot at z222/223 would leave 90 frames for all 3 shots leaving at least 2.3 seconds between shots 2 and 3 (42 frames) and only 2.6 seconds (48 frames) between 1 and 2, which does not fit the 1........ 2...3 shot pattern.

I am not saying you have to accept all that evidence. I am just using that body of evidence to illustrate how evidence not relating directly to the time of the first shot affects the conclusion as to when the first shot occurred.

[Dan O'meara]

It is a mistake to exclude evidence of the other shots in determining when the shots occurred. For example, based on the following evidence:

1. that there were exactly three shots and the third and last shot struck JFK in the head;
2. that the shot pattern was  1..........2.... .3 with the last two in rapid succession
3. from the three men on the 5th floor below the SN that all three shots came from the SN using a bolt action rifle.
4. that the rifle that was used to fire those shots was found on the 6th floor and found to belong to Oswald;
5. from the FBI tests, that 2.3 seconds is about that fastest time a shooter using Oswald's rifle could reload aim and shoot

leads to the conlusion that the first shot had to be at least a second before z222/223. A first shot at z222/223 would leave 90 frames for all 3 shots leaving at least 2.3 seconds between shots 2 and 3 (42 frames) and only 2.6 seconds (48 frames) between 1 and 2, which does not fit the 1........ 2...3 shot pattern.

I am not saying you have to accept all that evidence. I am just using that body of evidence to illustrate how evidence not relating directly to the time of the first shot affects the conclusion as to when the first shot occurred.

I am not saying you have to accept all that evidence.

I know - you're saying I have to accept the cherry-picked, self-serving, tiny sliver of evidence you misinterpret to prop up your dead theory whilst ignoring the vast majority of evidence relating to when the first shot occurred.

Previously you posted:

"I am simply pointing out that JFK is already reacting at z223 so the shot was earlier."

And I asked this question, which you've ignored:

JFK's obvious reaction to being shot through the throat is for his hands to fly up towards the area of his throat, which is completely understandable.
IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT JFK'S RIGHT HAND IS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF THIS REACTION AT Z223?

I also asked this question, which you ignored:

DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILM EVIDENCE THAT JFK'S LEFT ARM IS DOWN BY HIS SIDE IN Z193 AND Z224?

[Andrew Mason]

I am not saying you have to accept all that evidence.

I know - you're saying I have to accept the cherry-picked, self-serving, tiny sliver of evidence you misinterpret to prop up your dead theory whilst ignoring the vast majority of evidence relating to when the first shot occurred.

There is abundant evidence to support each of the points. You will have to define what you mean by "cherry-picked".  Are you saying that the evidence relating to the head shot being the last shot is "cherry picked" or that the evidence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern is cherry-picked?  What is the standard you are using to dismiss evidence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern that has the following distribution:


You seem to think I cherry-picked the evidence that puts the shot after z186 and before z202. Perhaps you can list the photographers other than Betzner and Willis whose evidence brackets the first shot (Betzner's taken before and Willis' just after) and whose evidence I ignored.

You think I "cherry-picked" Rosemary Willis (who turns her head toward the TSBD on hearing the loud noise and said she saw birds fly from the TSBD) or Jack Ready (who said he turned immediately on hearing the first shot). Who else said they did things in response to the first shot that I omitted to mention?

Rather, it is you who insists that the only evidence that matters is your interpretation of what you think you are seeing after z222. You dismiss all the other evidence. That is not even cherry-picking.  That is simply ignoring all the evidence because all of the evidence conflicts with some subjective impression you have.  Fact finding is not religion. Facts have to be based on evidence. They rarely, if ever, conflict starkly with large independent bodies of evidence.

Previously you posted:

"I am simply pointing out that JFK is already reacting at z223 so the shot was earlier."

And I asked this question, which you've ignored:

JFK's obvious reaction to being shot through the throat is for his hands to fly up towards the area of his throat, which is completely understandable.
IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT JFK'S RIGHT HAND IS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF THIS REACTION AT Z223?

I thought I had answered this question, many times.  At z223 JFK's right hand can't be seen.  But it can be seen in z224 and z225 and it is part of what appears to be a significant change in facial expression, arm position, and hand posture compared to z193-z197. That has to be related to having received a bullet in the neck.  So this tells us that the reaction to the bullet that traversed the neck started enough before z225 for the human body to react that way. That is likely more than 100 ms. which is the minimum time for the arms to move from their positions seen around z193 to that seen in z224 and for the facial expression to change from smiling to what is seen in z225. There is no basis on which anyone can conclude that JFK is not reacting in z225 or that his facial expression changed materially between z224 (when we see only his arms) and z225 (when we first see his face after emerging from being the sign).

I also asked this question, which you ignored:

DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILM EVIDENCE THAT JFK'S LEFT ARM IS DOWN BY HIS SIDE IN Z193 AND Z224?

Yes. But the reaction to the first bullet consisted of more than just the position of the right arm.  You are not acknowledging that his right hand is materially different in z224 and z225 than it was in z193.