The First Shot

[Zeon Mason]

If the 1st shot is impacting JFK at Z190, then should not we be able to see some kind indication of movement by JFK at that moment of impact?

If the entrance wound of the 1st bullet is actually at the neck rather than the back of JFK, then the volume of mass thru which the bullet traversed is small, and the resistance to the bullet much less than if the bullet had entered the back.

So maybe it’s possible that a small caliber bullet traveling at 2000 ft/sec could pass thru such small volume (neck) so fast as to impart such minimal transfer of energy that no movement of JFKs head forward would occur?

[Andrew Mason]

If the 1st shot is impacting JFK at Z190, then should not we be able to see some kind indication of movement by JFK at that moment of impact?

If the entrance wound of the 1st bullet is actually at the neck rather than the back of JFK, then the volume of mass thru which the bullet traversed is small, and the resistance to the bullet much less than if the bullet had entered the back.

So maybe it’s possible that a small caliber bullet traveling at 2000 ft/sec could pass thru such small volume (neck) so fast as to impart such minimal transfer of energy that no movement of JFKs head forward would occur?

I would put the first shot passing through JFK a bit later than z190. Unfortunately z193 is the last clear frame before he passes behind the Stemmons sign so it is not possible to compare positions from frame to frame there.

A high speed bullet can transfer a lot of energy with a much smaller momentum transfer. A 2000 fps bullet passing through the neck and exiting at 1400 fps transfers a bit more than half its energy but only 30% of its momentum.  It is momentum transfer that imparts movement. At 2000 fps or 610 m/s a 10g  bullet carries 6.1 kg m/s of momentum so 30% is 1.8 kg m/sec. A transfer of 1.8 kg m/s to a 50 kg torso will impart a speed of v=1.8/50= 3.6 cm/s or about 2 mm per frame. I don't think the resolution of the zfilm is good enough to show that kind of movement.

It is quite different with the head shot because  the momentum is transferred to the head which has a mass of 5 kg. rather than the torso, and since the bullet strikes bone and flattens before passing through the head it imparts virtually all of its energy and momentum to the head. So imparting 5 kg m/s to a 5 kg head results in movement of 1 m/s or about 5 cm or 2 inches per frame. And that can be and is seen between z312-313.

[Dan O'meara]

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:

There are numerous witnesses who support the head-shot as the last shot.
There are also numerous witnesses who support a shot after the head-shot.
When there is contradictory witness testimony, as there is about whether the head-shot was the last shot or not, it is imperative to call on other types of evidence to make the best determination.
But you've not done that.
You have simply accepted the head-shot as the last shot and ignored all other witness testimony to the contrary. And it is this poor methodology that has led to the downfall of your dead theory.
We both agree about the shot pattern as there is plenty of witness testimony to support it.
For you, this means the second shot was 2.3 seconds [how long it takes to operate the MC] before the head-shot, around z271/z272.
Your utterly bizarre attempts to support this notion have been thoroughly destroyed in this thread.
But the main problem for you is that you cannot have a shot around z223 as this would not follow the shot pattern. A shot around z223 would have a pattern of three equally spaced shots.

It is for this reason, and this reason alone, you have to insist on a shot in the mid-z190's - so it can fit the shot pattern.
And that's it.
So you have the assassin shooting through the oak tree just because it fits the shot pattern.
And this is where your cherry-picking kicks in - any witness that even remotely supports a shot in the mid-z190's is cherry-picked at the expense of all other witnesses, which is why Phil Willis is gold dust as far as you're concerned.

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?

At the beginning of your post you ask me to define cherry-picking. There's no need as your cherry-picking is on full view in this post.

Who else said they did things in response to the first shot that I omitted to mention?

Landis and Hickey for a start.
Jack Ready is standing front right of the follow-up car. His job is to scan to the front and right as they travel along. In the Z-film Ready is seen looking to his left after which he resumes looking to the front/right. As he passes out of the Z-film around z207, he is scanning front/right. There is not a hint that he is making a head turn to his right rear, as he said he did after hearing the first shot.
Landis and Hickey also said they immediately turned to their right rear after the first shot and there is absolutely no sign of either agent doing this in the Z-film.
But you neglect to mention them as it doesn't suit your purposes.
You cherry-pick Ready instead, and leave Landis and Hickey out.
Does this define cherry-picking for you? Choosing the action of one person because you can twist an interpretation out of it but leaving out two others who don't fit the bill?
And let's not forget - little Rosemary running alongside the follow-up car has supposedly heard the shot, slowed down and looked around at the TSBD while a car full of Secret Service agents fail to react!!
It shows how desperate you are.

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.

Fact finding is not religion

Then why was your dead theory faith-based?

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).

There is a very simple way to determine whether JFK was reacting before he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign.
You would have JFK's right hand showing his is reacting to being shot as it emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, whereas it is my contention that JFK's right hand is lowering back to it's usual position after waving.
We first see JFK's right hand at z224.
If you are right then his right hand should be moving upwards, towards his throat, in the next frame, z225
If I am right then his right hand should lower in z225 as his hand returns to it's usual position.



Above is evidence that JFK's right hand lowers between z224 and z225, refuting your contention that he is reacting to being shot and supporting my contention that his hand is still in the process of lowering as his reaction to being shot has not begun between these two frames.
It is in the next frame, z226, that JFK's right hand moves towards his throat.

That is likely more than 100 ms.

In Reply#1103 I provided scientific evidence that a reflex reaction can be detected within 2 Z-frames. This evidence was published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):

I asked you if you accepted this scientific evidence but it appears you have not.
You have JFK's reaction occurring about 30 Z-frames after being shot, 15 times longer than the scientific evidence allows for.
It's the equivalent of arguing that Usain Bolt's 100m world record took over two minutes as opposed to 9.58 seconds, which fits in quite nicely with how ridiculous a lot of your arguments are.

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.

Of course his right hand is "materially different".
He is still waving in z193 and has finished waving by Z224 and is lowering his hand.
Of course it's different. When have I refused to acknowledge this obvious fact?

[Andrew Mason]

There are numerous witnesses who support the head-shot as the last shot.
There are also numerous witnesses who support a shot after the head-shot.

And you don't have to accept that the head shot was the last shot.  You can choose your interpretation of Brehm's evidence over the evidence of the Connallys all the Secret Service agents Hill, Greer, Bennett, Hickey, Landis as well as Altgens, Zapruder, Woodward, Powers etc. and imagine, for some reason, that after hitting the bullseye the shooter would try another shot and miss the entire car.  All I am saying is that IF the head shot was the last shot, the shot pattern necessarily puts the first shot at least a second earlier than z222/223 (which also fits the rest of the evidence including Phil Willis etc). 

When there is contradictory witness testimony, as there is about whether the head-shot was the last shot or not, it is imperative to call on other types of evidence to make the best determination.
But you've not done that.
You have simply accepted the head-shot as the last shot and ignored all other witness testimony to the contrary. And it is this poor methodology that has led to the downfall of your dead theory.

I don't ignore Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Jackie Kennedy, possibly Royce Skelton (remind me of the "numerous" other witnesses) whose statements could be interpreted as hearing a shot after the head shot. I am not persuaded that they provide evidence of a third shot after the head shot, let alone reliable evidence.  In any reasonable analysis of all the evidence, the vast preponderance of evidence weighs against a shot after the head shot.  You don't have to agree with that.  That is why we have juries.

We both agree about the shot pattern as there is plenty of witness testimony to support it.
For you, this means the second shot was 2.3 seconds [how long it takes to operate the MC] before the head-shot, around z271/z272.
Your utterly bizarre attempts to support this notion have been thoroughly destroyed in this thread.

It is not rocket science.  There is strong evidence (from those who saw or heard a bolt action rifle in the SN) that all the shots came from a bolt action rifle.  A bolt action rifle was found on the 6th floor. No other rifle was found.  A bullet (CE399) was fired by Oswald's bolt action rifle.  We have abundant evidence that the last two shots were in rapid succession.  I am not saying that this means the last shot was 2.3 seconds after the second.  I am saying that 2.3 seconds is the minimum time between those shots from the bolt action rifle. Therefore the first shot had to be at least a second before z222/223 to fit the pattern. If the second could have been more than 2.3 seconds before the head shot, then the first shot would have to have been somewhat more than a second before z222 to fit the 1..........2....3 shot pattern.

But the main problem for you is that you cannot have a shot around z223 as this would not follow the shot pattern. A shot around z223 would have a pattern of three equally spaced shots.

It is for this reason, and this reason alone, you have to insist on a shot in the mid-z190's - so it can fit the shot pattern.
And that's it.

That is not correct.  The shot pattern evidence supports but does not necessarily put a first shot earlier than z202.  There is a lot of other evidence that does that.   The evidence that a first shot could not have been as late as z223 corroborates the abundant evidence that the first shot was just before z202.

So you have the assassin shooting through the oak tree just because it fits the shot pattern.

The Secret Service film shows that JFK was visible by the time JFK was opposite or just past the lampost and just before the Thornton Freeway sign.  That is between z190 and z200.  Besides, it was easy for the shooter to track JFK while he was passing under those outer branches of the oak tree so firing as soon as he was clear (or maybe even a bit earlier) was certainly doable. 

And this is where your cherry-picking kicks in - any witness that even remotely supports a shot in the mid-z190's is cherry-picked at the expense of all other witnesses, which is why Phil Willis is gold dust as far as you're concerned.

Please let us know what other witnesses I have to expend in order to accept Phil Willis, Rosemary Willis, Linda Willis, Hugh Betzner, etc.

At the beginning of your post you ask me to define cherry-picking. There's no need as your cherry-picking is on full view in this post.

Who else said they did things in response to the first shot that I omitted to mention?

Landis and Hickey for a start.
Jack Ready is standing front right of the follow-up car. His job is to scan to the front and right as they travel along. In the Z-film Ready is seen looking to his left after which he resumes looking to the front/right. As he passes out of the Z-film around z207, he is scanning front/right. There is not a hint that he is making a head turn to his right rear, as he said he did after hearing the first shot.

Ready is standing on the right front running board with both hands on the right handhold. In order to turn right he first has to remove his right hand from the hand hold.  He does that beginning at z199 and starts his turn. We do not see him after z207 in the zfilm but in Altgens 5 at z256 he is completely turned around.

You cherry-pick Ready instead, and leave Landis and Hickey out.


Does this define cherry-picking for you? Choosing the action of one person because you can twist an interpretation out of it but leaving out two others who don't fit the bill?
And let's not forget - little Rosemary running alongside the follow-up car has supposedly heard the shot, slowed down and looked around at the TSBD while a car full of Secret Service agents fail to react!!
It shows how desperate you are.

Landis and Hickey also said they immediately turned to their right rear after the first shot and there is absolutely no sign of either agent doing this in the Z-film.

You might want to reread their statements. 

• Landis said that he first looked at the President as he was looking forward at the time. He said he saw JFK moving and thought the President was turning to look in the direction of the sound.   Then he turned right to look at the TSBD.  But we don't see Landis after z207 and he is still looking forward toward the President.
• Hickey said he was seated and that he stood partially up and then turned to the rear to see if he could observe anything. He does appear to be rising up beginning about z199 to z207.  But we also don't see him after z207.

There is a very simple way to determine whether JFK was reacting before he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign.
You would have JFK's right hand showing his is reacting to being shot as it emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, whereas it is my contention that JFK's right hand is lowering back to it's usual position after waving.
We first see JFK's right hand at z224.
If you are right then his right hand should be moving upwards, towards his throat, in the next frame, z225
If I am right then his right hand should lower in z225 as his hand returns to it's usual position.

Above is evidence that JFK's right hand lowers between z224 and z225, refuting your contention that he is reacting to being shot and supporting my contention that his hand is still in the process of lowering as his reaction to being shot has not begun between these two frames.

I might agree with you if I thought you were correct.  But you appear to assume that, if he is reacting prior to z227 to being shot, his reaction prior to z227 would have to be the same as the reaction from 227 and after. Why? I see a preliminary reaction which looks like he is sensing something is wrong (up to z226) then a panic kind of reaction where he brings his hands up to his throat and slides down and forward on his seat and as if he is struggling to breathe (z227 to about z255) and then a third reaction which is a steady leftward and forward lean as Jackie reaches out to hold his left arm.

It is in the next frame, z226, that JFK's right hand moves towards his throat.

That is likely more than 100 ms.

In Reply#1103 I provided scientific evidence that a reflex reaction can be detected within 2 Z-frames. This evidence was published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):

I asked you if you accepted this scientific evidence but it appears you have not.

I don't say it is not possible.  I just say that he is already reacting behind the sign so it doesn't apply here.

You have JFK's reaction occurring about 30 Z-frames after being shot, 15 times longer than the scientific evidence allows for.

But you are assuming, again for some unknown reason, that he is not already reacting behind the Stemmons sign! (Also, you are assuming that a shot in that location would trigger a reflex response. There is no evidence that it touched any nerves, but that is a minor point perhaps).

[Dan O'meara]

And you don't have to accept that the head shot was the last shot.  You can choose your interpretation of Brehm's evidence over the evidence of the Connallys all the Secret Service agents Hill, Greer, Bennett, Hickey, Landis as well as Altgens, Zapruder, Woodward, Powers etc. and imagine, for some reason, that after hitting the bullseye the shooter would try another shot and miss the entire car.  All I am saying is that IF the head shot was the last shot, the shot pattern necessarily puts the first shot at least a second earlier than z222/223 (which also fits the rest of the evidence including Phil Willis etc). 
I don't ignore Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Jackie Kennedy, possibly Royce Skelton (remind me of the "numerous" other witnesses) whose statements could be interpreted as hearing a shot after the head shot. I am not persuaded that they provide evidence of a third shot after the head shot, let alone reliable evidence.  In any reasonable analysis of all the evidence, the vast preponderance of evidence weighs against a shot after the head shot.  You don't have to agree with that.  That is why we have juries.
It is not rocket science.  There is strong evidence (from those who saw or heard a bolt action rifle in the SN) that all the shots came from a bolt action rifle.  A bolt action rifle was found on the 6th floor. No other rifle was found.  A bullet (CE399) was fired by Oswald's bolt action rifle.  We have abundant evidence that the last two shots were in rapid succession.  I am not saying that this means the last shot was 2.3 seconds after the second.  I am saying that 2.3 seconds is the minimum time between those shots from the bolt action rifle. Therefore the first shot had to be at least a second before z222/223 to fit the pattern. If the second could have been more than 2.3 seconds before the head shot, then the first shot would have to have been somewhat more than a second before z222 to fit the 1..........2....3 shot pattern.
That is not correct.  The shot pattern evidence supports but does not necessarily put a first shot earlier than z202.  There is a lot of other evidence that does that.   The evidence that a first shot could not have been as late as z223 corroborates the abundant evidence that the first shot was just before z202.
The Secret Service film shows that JFK was visible by the time JFK was opposite or just past the lampost and just before the Thornton Freeway sign.  That is between z190 and z200.  Besides, it was easy for the shooter to track JFK while he was passing under those outer branches of the oak tree so firing as soon as he was clear (or maybe even a bit earlier) was certainly doable. 
Please let us know what other witnesses I have to expend in order to accept Phil Willis, Rosemary Willis, Linda Willis, Hugh Betzner, etc.
Ready is standing on the right front running board with both hands on the right handhold. In order to turn right he first has to remove his right hand from the hand hold.  He does that beginning at z199 and starts his turn. We do not see him after z207 in the zfilm but in Altgens 5 at z256 he is completely turned around.
You might want to reread their statements. 

• Landis said that he first looked at the President as he was looking forward at the time. He said he saw JFK moving and thought the President was turning to look in the direction of the sound.   Then he turned right to look at the TSBD.  But we don't see Landis after z207 and he is still looking forward toward the President.
• Hickey said he was seated and that he stood partially up and then turned to the rear to see if he could observe anything. He does appear to be rising up beginning about z199 to z207.  But we also don't see him after z207.

I might agree with you if I thought you were correct.  But you appear to assume that, if he is reacting prior to z227 to being shot, his reaction prior to z227 would have to be the same as the reaction from 227 and after. Why? I see a preliminary reaction which looks like he is sensing something is wrong (up to z226) then a panic kind of reaction where he brings his hands up to his throat and slides down and forward on his seat and as if he is struggling to breathe (z227 to about z255) and then a third reaction which is a steady leftward and forward lean as Jackie reaches out to hold his left arm.

I don't say it is not possible.  I just say that he is already reacting behind the sign so it doesn't apply here. But you are assuming, again for some unknown reason, that he is not already reacting behind the Stemmons sign! (Also, you are assuming that a shot in that location would trigger a reflex response. There is no evidence that it touched any nerves, but that is a minor point perhaps).

The usual twisting and turning, misrepresentation and waffle.
At least you admit that your basis for a first shot in the mid-z190's is that you started off by accepting the head-shot was the last shot and worked backwards using the shot pattern.
Start off with a conclusion then find the evidence to back it up - an incredibly poor methodology IMO.

I don't ignore Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Jackie Kennedy, possibly Royce Skelton (remind me of the "numerous" other witnesses)

More witnesses who report hearing a shot after the head-shot?
Off the top of my head:
Jean hill, Mary Moorman, Ernest Brandt, J W Foster and Harry Holmes.
Then there are witnesses like S M Holland who heard a shot after Jackie had got onto the trunk of the limo, or D.V. Harkness who reported a shot after the limo had slowed to almost a stop or Cecil Ault who describes JFK raising up after the first shot (throat shot), slumping down after the second shot (head-shot) and a shot after that.
On his website Pat Speer lists dozens of witnesses who directly state, or whose testimony can reasonably be interpreted as, a shot after the head-shot.

And let's not forget, the majority of witnesses you list to support the last shot as the head-shot only heard two shots!
By definition, they don't know when the other shot was as they didn't hear it.

The point is this - there is plenty of witness testimony to support both positions.
Unlike you, I have examined every piece of evidence I can find relating to when the first shot occurred and concluded it was around z222/z223.
I have not started with a conclusion and found the evidence to fit. I've started with the evidence and let that determine my conclusion.
Because I accept the shot pattern we both accept, this rules out the head-shot as the last shot.
Obviously there is witness evidence that contradicts this but I have had to choose what the preponderance of evidence suggests [and I'm not just talking about witness testimony].
Your constant gripe has been that, because I don't accept the witness testimony of the Willis clan then I'm ignoring it. This is simply not the case. I am swayed by the incredible amount of evidence - eye-witness, scientific studies, expert analysis and a forensic analysis of the Z-film - that points to the first shot at Z222/z223.
You have spent nearly all your time on this thread trying to make bogus arguments against the evidence I have presented because it shows your own theory up for what it is - dead.

You have the Willis clan to support your argument for a shot in the mid-z190's and that's it!
You keep dragging up Betzner but he doesn't support a shot in the mid-z190's over a shot around z222/z223.
You've got the Willis clan who all sat around and agreed on the same story.

[Andrew Mason]

The usual twisting and turning, misrepresentation and waffle.
At least you admit that your basis for a first shot in the mid-z190's is that you started off by accepting the head-shot was the last shot and worked backwards using the shot pattern.
Start off with a conclusion then find the evidence to back it up - an incredibly poor methodology IMO.

Fact finding is an iterative process. One has to examine all the evidence and try to fit it all together, set preliminary findings, go back and compare the evidence to those findings, make revised findings, go back and examine again etc until you reach firm conclusions of fact or conclude that firm conclusions cannot be reached.

So, after showing you why the preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that the head shot was the third and last shot, I am puzzled why you suggest that I just arbitrarily assumed that was the case and that I worked backward with the shot pattern to determine when the first shot occurred. 

I don't ignore Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Jackie Kennedy, possibly Royce Skelton (remind me of the "numerous" other witnesses)

More witnesses who report hearing a shot after the head-shot?
Off the top of my head:
Jean hill, Mary Moorman, Ernest Brandt, J W Foster and Harry Holmes.

You're kidding, right? Ernest Brandt who heard 8 shots over 5 minutes? Jean Hill who heard 4 to 6 shots?  Doesn't really fit the shot pattern that we both agree on.  .

And let's not forget, the majority of witnesses you list to support the last shot as the head-shot only heard two shots!
By definition, they don't know when the other shot was as they didn't hear it.

2 shot witnesses only if you buy Jerry's notion that the first horrible ear shattering noise did not register as a shot.

Altgens, for example is not a 2 shot witness at all. He simply wasn't sure how many shots there were between the first and last but he was sure about two things: his #5 photo was after the first and before any other shots and the headshot was the last shot.

And apart front Altgens, they are all 3 shot witnesses.

The point is this - there is plenty of witness testimony to support both positions.
Unlike you, I have examined every piece of evidence I can find relating to when the first shot occurred and concluded it was around z222/z223.

I don't know why you would say that, especially when you acknowledge there is plenty of evidence to support my position. What evidence have I not examined?

Because I accept the shot pattern we both accept, this rules out the head-shot as the last shot.

I hope you realize that you just admitted doing the very thing you accused me, wrongly, of doing.

You have spent nearly all your time on this thread trying to make bogus arguments against the evidence I have presented because it shows your own theory up for what it is - dead.

Just because you are not persuaded doesn't mean an argument is bogus. It is, as you acknowledge, based on real evidence. A bogus argument is an argument based on a complete falsehood, like the argument that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

[Dan O'meara]

Fact finding is an iterative process. One has to examine all the evidence and try to fit it all together, set preliminary findings, go back and compare the evidence to those findings, make revised findings, go back and examine again etc until you reach firm conclusions of fact or conclude that firm conclusions cannot be reached.

So, after showing you why the preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that the head shot was the third and last shot, I am puzzled why you suggest that I just arbitrarily assumed that was the case and that I worked backward with the shot pattern to determine when the first shot occurred. 

I know you're puzzled, Andrew.
So let me clarify - as I stated, there is plenty of witness testimony for both positions. You have arbitrarily chosen to accept the witness testimony of those who support the head-shot as the last shot. There is no evidence, other than witness testimony, that supports the head-shot as the last shot.
Unless I'm mistaken.
Am I mistaken?
What evidence for the head-shot being the last shot, other than witness testimony, have you used?
What evidence have you used to determine between the two groups of contradictory witness testimony?

You're kidding, right? Ernest Brandt who heard 8 shots over 5 minutes? Jean Hill who heard 4 to 6 shots?  Doesn't really fit the shot pattern that we both agree on.

Oh dear, you really are puzzled, aren't you Andrew.
Ernest Brandt is, by far, one of the best witnesses for a 3-shot scenario with a shot after the head-shot.
His incredibly precise recollections of the shooting are compelling, to say the least.
I believe you're talking about A J Millican.
And so what If Jean Hill was confused by echoes. The shot and echoes she heard came after the head-shot.

So, Jean Hill's slightly confused memory of shots and echoes after the head-shot is the only point you can raise in your counter-argument against the partial list of witnesses I have provided who directly testify there was a shot after the head-shot.
That's it.
You're kidding, right?
You think the collective witness testimony regarding a shot after the head-shot can be dismissed by making such a piss-weak point?

Of course you do.

2 shot witnesses only if you buy Jerry's notion that the first horrible ear shattering noise did not register as a shot.

Altgens, for example is not a 2 shot witness at all. He simply wasn't sure how many shots there were between the first and last but he was sure about two things: his #5 photo was after the first and before any other shots and the headshot was the last shot.

And apart front Altgens, they are all 3 shot witnesses.

How many shots did Clint Hill hear?

I don't know why you would say that, especially when you acknowledge there is plenty of evidence to support my position. What evidence have I not examined?

How can I know what evidence you haven't examined.
But, to take an educated guess based on the bogus arguments you come up with, I would say you haven't examined any evidence beyond the witness testimony. And looking at your complete lack of knowledge concerning Ernest Brandt, you haven't examined the witness testimony too thoroughly either.

I hope you realize that you just admitted doing the very thing you accused me, wrongly, of doing.

 
You really are puzzled Andrew.
I think you should go back and read the post again, maybe a couple of times.

Just because you are not persuaded doesn't mean an argument is bogus. It is, as you acknowledge, based on real evidence. A bogus argument is an argument based on a complete falsehood, like the argument that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

Just because you are not persuaded doesn't mean an argument is bogus.

That's very true Andrew.
Very obvious and very true.
What is also true is that the above point doesn't mean you're arguments aren't bogus.
What is also true is that I'm not persuaded by your arguments because they are bogus.

It is, as you acknowledge, based on real evidence.

The word "it" in the above sentence refers to 'a bogus argument'.
So you are saying - "A bogus argument is, as you acknowledge, based on real evidence."
This sentence is, in a mind-bending piece of breaking-the-fourth-wall irony, a bogus argument.
Nowhere have I ever acknowledged, or even thought to acknowledge, that a bogus argument is based on real evidence.
You then follow up your point about a bogus argument being based on real evidence with this beauty:

A bogus argument is an argument based on a complete falsehood...

Wow.
If I didn't know this stupendous nonsense was just a product of your puzzlement I'd be inclined to think you were some kind of Ironical genius.
"A bogus argument is based on a complete falsehood" - there could be no better way to sum up your approach to dealing with the mass of evidence I have presented for a first shot at z222/z223.

[Andrew Mason]

I know you're puzzled, Andrew.
So let me clarify - as I stated, there is plenty of witness testimony for both positions. You have arbitrarily chosen to accept the witness testimony of those who support the head-shot as the last shot. There is no evidence, other than witness testimony, that supports the head-shot as the last shot.
Unless I'm mistaken.
Am I mistaken?

Yes.

There is visual evidence that Connally was hit before the head shot because he has fallen back onto his wife before the head shot. There is also trajectory evidence that shows that the bullet passing straight through JFK's neck without deflection could not possibly have hit JBC in the right armpit at any time.  That is not based on anything other than a 3D recreation of the car position and relative position of the two men. There is also physical evidence that the bullet did not strike anything capable of causing a perceptible deflection in passing through JFK's neck and striking the tie know on the left side, let alone a significant deflection to the right.  All that together means that Connally must have been hit on a shot that was after JFK's neck shot (#1) and before the headshot (#3) ie. #2.

There is also the absence of any kind of explanation why a shooter, after clearly hitting the bullseye would keep shooting and an absence of any bullet evidence or impact evidence of a shot that missed.  But I digress.

What evidence have you used to determine between the two groups of contradictory witness testimony?

I do what juries and judges do when asked to determine facts from evidence.  I weighed the evidence and applied reasoning to conclude that it is far more likely that the head shot was the last shot.

Oh dear, you really are puzzled, aren't you Andrew.

Ernest Brandt is, by far, one of the best witnesses for a 3-shot scenario with a shot after the head-shot.His incredibly precise recollections of the shooting are compelling, to say the least. I believe you're talking about A J Millican. 

It was a late night....you are right. I confused Brandt with Millican.  Brandt, of course, is the other witness along the north side of Elm wearing a hat (a fedora, not the hard hat).  He did not give any statements to the WC.  But he did give interviews much later.  He says that he was 15 feet away from JFK when the first shot occurred and that JFK reacted as we see him reacting to the neck shot. This certainly conflicts with an early first shot miss.  But he said he never saw the head shot so I am not sure what "incredibly precise recollections of the shooting" with "a shot after the head shot" you are referring to.  At least in this interview given in November 2012, he said he did not see the head shot:
    "But John stayed right there on the curb and he saw that 3rd shot hit Kennedy’s head and he saw Kennedy’s head explode. But I didn’t see that."

And so what If Jean Hill was confused by echoes. The shot and echoes she heard came after the head-shot.

So, Jean Hill's slightly confused memory of shots and echoes after the head-shot is the only point you can raise in your counter-argument against the partial list of witnesses I have provided who directly testify there was a shot after the head-shot.
That's it.

No one was confused by echos. There was reverberation caused by reflection of sound from many different surfaces in Dealey Plaza.  Jean Hill was obviously not counting the shots.  She was simply saying that she had the impression there were more than 3 but fewer than 7 shots.

You're kidding, right?
You think the collective witness testimony regarding a shot after the head-shot can be dismissed by making such a piss-weak point?

Of course you do.

No. I base my conclusion on an assessment of all the evidence as I have explained many times. Besides, my urine flow is rather strong, actually. 

How many shots did Clint Hill hear?

How many did he recall hearing or how many shots did he accept had occurred? He recalled hearing only two but he accepts, based on what other agents told him, that there was a shot just after he stepped off the car.  At that point he was highly focused on trying to reach the President's car.  He was also lower down and between motorcycles and the QM engine. See: Gerald Blaine, The Kennedy Detail, ch. 12 "Six Seconds in Dallas":

    "He leapt off the running board of Halfback, as he’d done countless times
    before, his body reacting as it had been trained. In that terrible, unforgettable
    moment, Clint Hill had but one purpose: he had to reach Mrs. Kennedy and the
    president, and shield them. His powerful legs propelled him toward the pink hat
    that seemed to be moving farther and farther away each time his foot landed on
    the pavement. If only he could reach the back of the car, his legs knew the exact
    height of the rear step; his hands knew exactly where to grasp the hand grip. As
    he bounded toward the limousine, which had slowed to about seven miles an
    hour around the corner but was starting to pick up speed, he had to run at the
    breakneck speed of nearly fifteen miles an hour to adjust for the speed and the
    distance between the two cars. As his feet propelled him toward the moving car,
    Clint Hill was so focused on reaching his target that he didn’t even hear the
    second shot. "

Clint Hill agreed with this scenario:  See this youtube interview/discussion with Clint Hill and Gerald Blaine conducted by the late Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum (beginning at 32:45):

How can I know what evidence you haven't examined.

Exactly.

But, to take an educated guess based on the bogus arguments you come up with, I would say you haven't examined any evidence beyond the witness testimony. And looking at your complete lack of knowledge concerning Ernest Brandt, you haven't examined the witness testimony too thoroughly either.

You got me there on Brandt. But, if I were you, I wouldn't hang my conclusion that there was a shot after the head shot on a guy who admits he was ducking for cover and never saw the head shot at all.