The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

One would  think that Charles Brehm, a combat veteran, would not still be clapping hands at a 2nd shot at Z224-226 shot is there had been a 1st shot 3 seconds prior .

Yet another reason, albeit a rather minor one, to conclude that there was only one shot to that point, as the 1........2...3 pattern necessarily requires. As couple of dozen witnesses, including Brehm, observed, JFK reacted to the first shot. 

[Jack Nessan]

Yet another reason, albeit a rather minor one, to conclude that there was only one shot to that point, as the 1........2...3 pattern necessarily requires. As couple of dozen witnesses, including Brehm, observed, JFK reacted to the first shot.

Interesting choice of a witness to bolster this theory. Brehm is originally a two shot witness. Brehm is a perfect example of “the medias influence inflating the number of shots” that the Warren Commission and HSCA both state in their conclusions.

Even when Charles Brehm later adds a third shot to the narrative. The second shot he mentions is the head shot.


DALLAS TIMES HERALD: November 22, 1963 

The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.


FBI REPORT: November 24, 1963. 22H837 
 
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. ... He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.

[Dan O'meara]

Interesting choice of a witness to bolster this theory. Brehm is originally a two shot witness. Brehm is a perfect example of “the medias influence inflating the number of shots” that the Warren Commission and HSCA both state in their conclusions.

Even when Charles Brehm later adds a third shot to the narrative. The second shot he mentions is the head shot.


DALLAS TIMES HERALD: November 22, 1963 

The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.


FBI REPORT: November 24, 1963. 22H837 
 
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. ... He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.

Yeah Jack,
You never did explain - Why did the conspirators fake three shots? Why not just leave it at two shots? Why go to the extra trouble of faking an extra shot when it would have no bearing on anything?
I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.

[Jack Nessan]

Yeah Jack,
You never did explain - Why did the conspirators fake three shots? Why not just leave it at two shots? Why go to the extra trouble of faking an extra shot when it would have no bearing on anything?
I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.

I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.

Conspirators faked a shot? You are the first to think of that. Maybe start by explaining who were the conspirators. The Warren Commission and HSCA both referenced “the media’s influence into inflating the number of shots” when talking about the shots. We will call the media the conspirators, to fill the need to have a conspiracy.

According to a large number of the eyewitnesses there were only two shots. How can someone fake a shot not heard by all? By this reasoning the fake shot was just for the benefit of the earwitnesses except there are earwitnesses who only heard two shots. Maybe the fake shot was a misinterpretation by some witnesses of an echo as an actual shot. The HSCA sound analysis report called Dealey Plaza an echo chamber.

[Dan O'meara]

I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.

Conspirators faked a shot? You are the first to think of that. Maybe start by explaining who were the conspirators. The Warren Commission and HSCA both referenced “the media’s influence into inflating the number of shots” when talking about the shots. We will call the media the conspirators, to fill the need to have a conspiracy.

According to a large number of the eyewitnesses there were only two shots. How can someone fake a shot not heard by all? By this reasoning the fake shot was just for the benefit of the earwitnesses except there are earwitnesses who only heard two shots. Maybe the fake shot was a misinterpretation by some witnesses of an echo as an actual shot. The HSCA sound analysis report called Dealey Plaza an echo chamber.

Are you saying it's just some massive mistake that so many people concluded three shots were fired or are you saying it was a deliberate ploy to make people think three shots were fired when there was only two?
Three empty shells were found by the first officers at the SN indicating three shots. If only two shots were fired then one of the shells was planted there to give the impression three shots had been fired.
Why would anyone want to give the impression three shots were fired if only two were fired?

[Jack Nessan]

Are you saying it's just some massive mistake that so many people concluded three shots were fired or are you saying it was a deliberate ploy to make people think three shots were fired when there was only two?
Three empty shells were found by the first officers at the SN indicating three shots. If only two shots were fired then one of the shells was planted there to give the impression three shots had been fired.
Why would anyone want to give the impression three shots were fired if only two were fired?

Obviously both the WC and the HSCA felt it was the “medias influence” caused the “massive mistake” but apparently mainly among the earwitnesses. It is obvious in comparing multiple statements and the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative.

 

The third shell CE 543 shows signs of having been dryfired and this issue was the subject of the testimony of Major Anderson and Joseph Nicol. Additionally, CE 543 lacks the indentation on the side of the shell that is present on all the other shells fired in the rifle, as noted by Josiah Thompson in his book “Six Seconds in Dallas”. 

The FBI report presented to Rankin by Hoover refers to the indentation on the side of the shell  as a “Chamber Mark” which is caused by the rifle itself. The chamber mark is even present on the unfired shell CE 141, indicating the chambering mark was left on the unfiired shell casing due to expansion of the chamber due to the heat generated by firing the other two shells. 

I don’t know who “anyone” is.  Feel free to identify the conspiracy you are referring to. I am surprised you are having such a difficult time with understanding the media’s influence. The whole concept of it is well documented.

[Dan O'meara]

Obviously both the WC and the HSCA felt it was the “medias influence” caused the “massive mistake” but apparently mainly among the earwitnesses. It is obvious in comparing multiple statements and the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative.

 

The third shell CE 543 shows signs of having been dryfired and this issue was the subject of the testimony of Major Anderson and Joseph Nicol. Additionally, CE 543 lacks the indentation on the side of the shell that is present on all the other shells fired in the rifle, as noted by Josiah Thompson in his book “Six Seconds in Dallas”. 

The FBI report presented to Rankin by Hoover refers to the indentation on the side of the shell  as a “Chamber Mark” which is caused by the rifle itself. The chamber mark is even present on the unfired shell CE 141, indicating the chambering mark was left on the unfiired shell casing due to expansion of the chamber due to the heat generated by firing the other two shells. 

I don’t know who “anyone” is.  Feel free to identify the conspiracy you are referring to. I am surprised you are having such a difficult time with understanding the media’s influence. The whole concept of it is well documented.

I understand what you mean by the influence of the media.
For some, as yet unspecified reason, the media felt there were three shots and many people went along with that.
Even the WC and The HSCA went along with it.
So, in this sense there is no conspiracy. It's some kind of 'mass hallucination'.

But then you start to detail how shell CE 543 doesn't belong there. Are you saying CE 543 was deliberately planted to give the impression there were three shots?

As you say, "the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative", but I'm still not really sure if you're saying the three shot scenario that is espoused as the official narrative is the result of a misunderstanding or the result of a deliberate attempt to give the impression three shots were fired.
Which is it?

[Andrew Mason]

I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.

Conspirators faked a shot? You are the first to think of that. Maybe start by explaining who were the conspirators. The Warren Commission and HSCA both referenced “the media’s influence into inflating the number of shots” when talking about the shots. We will call the media the conspirators, to fill the need to have a conspiracy.

According to a large number of the eyewitnesses there were only two shots. How can someone fake a shot not heard by all? By this reasoning the fake shot was just for the benefit of the earwitnesses except there are earwitnesses who only heard two shots. Maybe the fake shot was a misinterpretation by some witnesses of an echo as an actual shot. The HSCA sound analysis report called Dealey Plaza an echo chamber.

The human brain cannot distinguish a discrete echo if the time difference between the direct sound wave front and the reflected sound wave is less than 1/10th of a second.  [That's why a 1" difference between the record and play heads on a tape recorder will give nice feedback reverberation at 15 inches/sec but distracting echo at 7 1/2 or 3 3/4 ips]

In order for someone to perceive discrete echo and not just indistinct reverberation a distinct reflected wave has to travel 113 feet farther to the listener's ear than the other sound waves (i.e. sound waves directly from the SN and from other nearby reflecting surfaces). If the direct sound travels only 100 feet to the listener, a sound wave that travels twice as far before arriving at their ears will be 1/4 the intensity of the original, so it will not be nearly as loud.

People near the corner of Houston and Elm were within 100 feet of the SN and nearby reflecting surfaces.  So none of these reflecting surfaces would produce a distinct echo.  Someone standing farther down Elm St. might hear sound from the SN and reflecting surfaces near the corner of Elm and Houston and then hear reflections from the pergola structure west of the TSBD. But the reflected path difference will be, at best, the distance from their ears to the reflecting structure, which will be less than 100 feet. This may cause confusion as to the direction of the sound source, but that is all.

There are many people in these areas (near the corner of Houston and Elm and down Elm Street) who heard exactly three shots.  They were not confused by echos. They would have heard a sustained reverberation from the many reflecting surfaces around the TSBD.

People in the middle of Dealey Plaza between the TSBD and the Post Office building might have heard a distinct echo from the large Post Office building south of Dealey Plaza. But I expect that it would have been obvious that it was an echo.