The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

According to the evidence, the last shot struck JFK in the head at z313 and the shot pattern was 1........2...3 (the second shot coming after the midpoint between 1 and 3 and 3 following 2 in rapid succession).   So, according to the evidence, there was only one shot by z225 the second coming after z250. 
I am not sure why the FBI thought that JFK was not visible from the SN until z210.  That opinion was based on a reenactment using the wrong car and showing the tree as it appeared in late May 1964 after gaining new growth and foliage that were not there in November 1963.  Mind you, they were not able to figure out that Phil Willis' photo was taken at z202, almost a half second before z210, so I wouldn't put much faith in their expertise in such matters.

It is apparent from the Secret Service film done about 2 weeks after the assassination in early December 1963 that JFK was visible before he reached the Thornton Freeway sign and just after he passed the lamppost that was about 10 feet before the sign:



JFK was halfway between the lamppost and the Thornton sign at z195, as can be seen from this diagram which uses the sightline from Zapruder to JFK at z195:


There would be a change in direction in passing through JFK only if the bullet is subjected to a significant asymmetrical lateral force.  There was nothing in passing through JFK that could have provided that except bone, and it struck no bone. So the bullet would have traveled pretty straight until exiting.  It did nick the left side of JFK's tie knot on exit which would have applied a slight and very brief asymmetrical force to the bullet but that would be to the left, not the right.  All the ballistics experts said that the bullet would not have changed direction after exiting JFK.

There was a change in direction of the bullet in passing through JBC, but you first have to get the bullet to go into JBC's right armpit from JFK's midline exit location.
That's not an insignificant problem!
The Willis photo was taken at z202.  This can easily be determined by aligning one of the Secret Service agents (Clint Hill) with the sightline from Zapruder to Willis.

If, as Willis said, the sound of the first shot caused him to press the shutter, you have to work back from z202.  At that point a bullet would have traveled 175 feet from the SN to JFK. That would have taken 175/2000 = 87 ms.  But the sound would have taken 175/1130 = 155 ms to reach Willis' ears.  The human neuromuscular system takes, on average, about 150 ms to begin a physical response to a stimulus let alone complete the response.  So that would put the shutter click about 155+150 ms after the bullet emerged from the rifle.  That would put the trigger pull 5-6 frames (each frame: 55 ms) before z202.  That is about the latest possible position of JFK when the shot was fired if Willis was right.  At that point, JFK is quite visible.

"According to the evidence, the last shot struck JFK in the head at z313"

Certain evidence supports this view, other evidence does not.
There is overwhelming ear-witness testimony that 3 clearly audible shots were fired.
There is very strong ear-witness testimony that the pattern of these shots was - shot, pause, two shots close together.
There are two possible scenarios - 3 shots that hit or two hit and one miss.
Both scenarios face difficulties and neither can be proven conclusively.

[Andrew Mason]

There are two possible scenarios - 3 shots that hit or two hit and one miss.
Both scenarios face difficulties and neither can be proven conclusively.

The 3 shot-3 hit scenario is the only scenario that anyone said happened. No one described the SBT scenario as having occurred and several said it did not occur. So one could exclude the SBT on the basis of the evidence.  Then that leaves just one possible scenario: the one observed by the Connallys, Dave Powers, Gayle Newman. 3 shots, 3 hits.

There is abundant evidence that all 3 shots were fired from the SN   

[Dan O'meara]

The 3 shot-3 hit scenario is the only scenario that anyone said happened. No one described the SBT scenario as having occurred and several said it did not occur. So one could exclude the SBT on the basis of the evidence.  Then that leaves just one possible scenario: the one observed by the Connallys, Dave Powers, Gayle Newman. 3 shots, 3 hits.

There is abundant evidence that all 3 shots were fired from the SN

A reliance on contradictory eye-witness testimony is a recipe for failure (I'm really surprised you're still bringing up the Connallys as they do nothing to support your own theory). Witnesses like Templin and Brehm describe 3 shots with the last one missing, so relying on witness testimony alone is a non-starter.
One problem with the 3 hit scenario is that it doesn't realistically account for Tague's injury and the reported bullet strike at the manhole cover.
This thread is a record of the innumerable and insurmountable problems your own attempts at demonstrating a 3 hit scenario have faced. That said, I have found it virtually impossible to find any convincing evidence demonstrating a 2nd or 3rd shot miss.
What I have found is overwhelming evidence supporting a first shot hit at z223

[Jerry Freeman]

The 3 shot-3 hit scenario is the only scenario ...

That is what the FBI said in Dec 1963.
 

There is abundant evidence that all 3 shots were fired from the SN.

That is what the FBI said in Dec 1963.
Yet here we are.

[Andrew Mason]

Isn't "shot-spanning" about the most unreliable metric you could deceitfully contend is factual? Yes, there is a database of a majority of witnesses that say the shot-spanning pattern was as you say, but how reliable are ear-witnesses to an unexpected event? And how subjective are their reconstructions? You had this explained to you in law school, right?

The distribution of witnesses as to the shot pattern looks like this:

The May 1964 re-enactment positioned each frame so it precisely matched where the President was in the Zapruder film. The greater problems were with the "scope" view; they failed to position the "Kennedy" participant as close to the exterior of the car as the President was in the Zapruder film and the "Connally" participant was not seated lower than "Kennedy" as the Governor was seated relative to Kennedy was in the Zapruder film. Correcting for that goes a long way to improving the feasibility of the Single Bullet Theory.

I am sure the FBI surveyors tried hard.  Unfortunately they did not explain why they thought z210 was the earliest the first shot could have occurred.  It shows the back of the trunk to be clear for 6 feet behind JFK. They were not even aware that this opinion conflicted with the evidence of Phil Willis.  The WC thought that the Willis photo was taken at about z210. It wasn't. It was taken at z202.  Also, the FBI photos do not show where they thought z210 was in relation to the Thornton sign or the lamp post.  So we can either go with that opinion or see for ourselves where JFK was first clear of the tree using the Secret Service film.  He is clear before he passes the Thornton sign.  He passes the Thornton sign at z200.

The Warren Report described the May 1964 re-enactment, and the positioning of the President and Governor:

• "Any differences were taken into account". (p.97, USGPO)
• "The agents ascertained that the foliage of an oak tree that came between the gunman and his target along the motorcade route on Elm Street was approximately the same as on the day of the assassination." (p.97, USGPO)
• "it is apparent that President Kennedy was somewhat to the Governor's right. The President sat on the extreme right, as noted in the films and by eyewitnesses" (p.195, USGPO)

Of course, Mason doesn't want you to know any of that, so rather than make lemonade, he focuses on the "foliage growth" and "wrong car".

They say all the differences were accounted for.  So either there was something else they did wrong or they were not correctly accounted for.  Simply put: the May 1964 reenactment does not accord with the Secret Service film.

The Report didn't blanket-approve Phil Willis' "simultaneous" claim, as you have swallowed so wholeheartedly. The Report said Willis "asserts [his photo] was simultaneous with the first shot ... If Willis accurately recalled."

The President was obscured by tree foliage at Z195.      (The real position for Z195 must drive Mason nuts,      so he's jumping through loops!)

Mason's amateurish attempt to equate a Z210ish position with his Z195 fantasy shot. He even used a faulty map to alter the shot trajectory from the Depository and to "morph" the car further along than it really was at Z195.

Jerry, you do realize that the car used in the Secret Service film was about 6 feet shorter than the President's car.  So if you line up the front of the President's car to the front of the car in the SS film, JFK will be several feet farther back.  That is what you have done.  I am only concerned with the position of JFK.  The corresponding position of the front of the car will be several feet farther along past the Thornton sign in order to have the same position of JFK as seen here:

[Dan O'meara]

"...like believing Arnold Rowland's combed hair/ light scar, rifle make at nearly 300 feet."

Just to clear up something I've noticed Jerry doing recently regarding the testimony of Arnold Rowland.
Jerry has repeatedly made the claim Rowland could make out details about the man with the rifle on the 6th floor that would be impossible to make out from the distance between the two men. The quote above refers to Rowland being able to make out the make of the rifle, that the man had combed hair and that he had a light scar. I believe Jerry is trying his best to discredit Rowland's testimony.
The fact is, none of this is true. Rowland never made any of these claims.

Could Rowland tell what make the rifle was?
This is what he has to say about the rifle:

"He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know..."

He goes on to state that the rifle looked "similar" to a 30:06 deer-hunting rifle, a rifle he was familiar with.
Although Rowland describes the type of rifle the man was holding, at no point does he say what make it was.

Could Rowland tell that the man had combed hair?
This is what Rowland says about his hair:

"It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut."

Rowland is clearly not definite about the man's hair. He uses phrases like "it didn't appear", "probably" and "it appeared to me". He believes it was short and that it could have been "well-combed or close cut".
At no point does he definitively state his hair is well-combed, he merely offers it up as a possibility.

Could Rowland tell that the man had a light scar on his face?
Here's what he has to say about it:

"There was nothing dark on his face, no mustache. There could have. been a scar if it hadn't been a dark scar. If it was, you know, a blotch or such as this, there was nothing very dark about the color of his face."

Here Rowland is saying there was nothing dark on his face, no mustache and no scar. He offers up the possibility that if the man had a scar it would have to be a light scar because it didn't show on his face. It can be said with certainty that Rowland is not describing a light scar on the man's face and to suggest this is what he was saying seems to reveal a desperation to undermine Rowland's testimony.

[Dan O'meara]

In my quote referred to, I did not say Rowland saw combed hair and a light scar. In his testimony he seems to claim the ability to discern such detail-level (although I should have said dark scar).

While it is true that you did not say Rowland saw these things in the post I was responding to, I make it clear that this is something I've noticed you claiming in other posts, such as this one from the "Credible Witnesses" thread:

"By the time his testimony came, Rowland had the make of the rifle, was seeing comb hair and a light scar..."

Here you are explicitly stating Rowland could see these things, when the truth is that Rowland never claimed any of this.
 

You think Rowland is somehow credible? His same-day affidavit is one thing but the detail added months later.

I think Rowland is a very credible witness and for you to expect the same level of detail in an affidavit as there is in his WC testimony is the only thing that lacks credibility. Rowland is grilled at length during his testimony, providing as much detail as he was capable of giving.

So when Rowland says something "appears to be", he offering up a possibility. Keep that in mind when discussing the "rifle" he "appears" to have seen. He appeared to have seen women on the Underpass bridge.

Rowland is certain he sees a man with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor just before the assassination. He does not "appear" to see it. His wife testifies that he tells her this before the assassination. Multiple officers state he tells them about this man with the rifle in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
And guess what?
There was indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle!
What are the odds he was making some lucky guess?
Do you believe in the "The Miracle on Elm Street"?

[Dan O'meara]

And you didn't notice I had stopped doing that? Aren't you glad?

 
I'm over the moon

Well he certainly improved on his affidavit:

    "saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the
     windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a high-powered
     rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it."

Now remember when Rowland says "appears to be" or "I thought"' he's merely offering up a possibility.

Rowland said he "saw what I thought was a man ... holding what appeared to be a high-powered rifle."

This is from the testimony of Roger Craig:

"Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it. This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever arrived."

There is no doubt Rowland saw a man on the 6th floor who had a scoped rifle.

His wife testifies that he tells her this before the assassination. Multiple officers state he tells them about this man with the rifle in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
And guess what?
There was indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle!
What are the odds he was making some lucky guess?
Do you believe in the "The Miracle on Elm Street"?


Rowland probably saw a man at the SW window but the "rifle" may have been a tool from the reflooring project or even someone raising a pop bottle that caused a sun glint, making Rowland think the man was holding some shiny object, like a "rifle".

 
A pop bottle with a telescopic sight on it!!
That was being held in the "port arms" position!!

Mr. Specter: You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of the rifle?
Mr. Rowland: Yes.

It's clearly something we'll have to agree to disagree on.