The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

Yes, but you are basing JBC's reaction time on the same bullet striking him at z222/223. And that is based on JFK beginning his reaction at z226 and not before. I am simply pointing out that JFK is already reacting at z223 so the shot was earlier.

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?

Right. We can all see that. His reaction is developing as JBC realizes what he has just witnessed hearing.   JFK changes his reaction as well a few frames earlier.  He experiences the effects of not being able to breathe. That does not tell you when the bullet hit. A person breathes about once every 4 seconds. We know this wound interfered with his breathing

The bullet that passed through JFK passed through a collection of nerves called the Brachial Plexus, nerves that control the motor functions of the arms and hands. Evidence has been presented in this thread that damage to these nerves, by the bullet directly or the effect of cavitation, would cause an immediate reflex reaction involving the arms and hands. Exactly as we see JFK experience.
The notion that these reactions are an effect of JFK having breathing difficulties is something you've completely made up.
Your notion that JBC's incredibly rapid and extreme movements are due to him being upset that the day is being spoiled is up to your usual level of made up nonsense.

Unlike JFK who is not calm and composed in z224. There is a dramatic change in his expression and body.  JBC is still processing what he has just heard.
That is where JBC begins to show a reaction.  Mind you, he has already turned forward and may have been looking around.  But to suggest that he starts reacting at z228 to being hit in the back is where we strongly disagree.
I say that you cannot conclude that JFK has not started his reaction well before z224. You say he looks the same in z193 and z224. We'll have to simply say we don't agree.

Just to clear up a couple of your usual unintentional "senior" misunderstandings:

I've never said JBC begins reacting at z228

I've never said JFK looks the same in z193 and z224. I've said that JFK's LEFT ARM is down by his side in z193 and z224, that is to say, JFK's LEFT ARM is down by his side as he passes behind the Stemmons sign and as he emerges from behind the sign. In a fraction of a second his LEFT ARM suddenly rockets up into an extreme position.
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILM EVIDENCE THAT JFK'S LEFT ARM IS DOWN BY HIS SIDE IN Z193 AND Z224?

I have been saying forever that he was NOT shot in the back there. I am saying it is likely that the bullet through JFK struck his thigh. He said he never felt the thigh wound. It should not surprise you to learn that people often do not feel being shot.
Such as JBC not feeling the thigh wound?  Not only would that not be unusual, that is exactly what the evidence says: he did not feel the thigh wound.

Choose between one of these two possibilities:
1) JBC is shot in the leg and he simply doesn't notice it.

2) JBC doesn't notice his thigh wound because, at the very same moment, he has suffered a hugely traumatic, life-threatening abdominal injury sending his body into shock.

I choose option 2), you choose option 1)

That is what the evidence says. All the evidence says that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot. The second shot has not yet occurred when JBC starts his reaction at z228.  Nellie said he uttered "oh, no, no" before the second shot that she saw him recoil from.  JBC admitted that he said it not because he was hit but because of the tragedy that he realized was unfolding.

"All the evidence says that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot."

 
You funny.
is that what ALL the evidence says, is it?

[Dan O'meara]

Blah, Blah, Blah, same old wore out information that absolutely leads nowhere.

Quite a discussion. Neither of you can even provide any evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. Let alone when this phantom shot occurred.   

All the evidence indicates there were only two shots. Eyewitness testimony is all about just two shots. The physical evidence is all about two shots. Both the WC and HSCA state the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. You can't place the bullet wound in JBC's back unless the bullet first passes through JFK's neck.

It does not take much imagination to understand the assassination when you realize the answer is there were only two shots fired.                                             

Neither of you can even provide any evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. Let alone when this phantom shot occurred.  

Over 160 witnesses reported hearing three clearly audible shots. That's over three quarters of the 200+ witnesses asked about the shots.
Clearly this doesn't constitute evidence to you Jack.
We just have you're usual blah blah blah about how all these people got it wrong.

All the evidence indicates there were only two shots.

 

Again with what ALL the evidence says, you're as bad as Andrew.

[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.