As opposed to a thread talking about a shot that there is absolutely no proof of ever having even been fired? A shot that cannot be explained or defined? A shot that is purely faith based with no substance?
In their conclusions both the Warren Commission and HSCA postulated there was only two shots having been fired and the witnesses stated by the witnesses were influenced by the media coverage.
Now would be a good time to provide all your proof there ever was a third shot
Can you provide either?
For what it is worth, evidence is something - a memory or recollection of an event or fact provided by a person's testimony or statement, something physical, an expert opinion - that is probative of the existence of a fact. Proof relates to the sufficiency of evidence to satisfy a trier of fact ie. whether a judge or jury is satisfied that a fact or set of facts has been established to the requisite standard of proof.
To suggest that there is no evidence of a third shot is simply wrong. There are over a hundred witnesses who recalled exactly three shots and many of those also recalled a specific pattern to the shots. There is also physical corroborating evidence of three shots in the shells in the TSBD. All of that is evidence.
Whether this amounts to "proof" of three shots depends on how this evidence is treated by the trier of fact.
In my view, not only does the evidence prove to my satisfaction that there were three and only three shots but that it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was any other number of shots. While there is evidence that there were only two shots, the fact that so many heard three shots is difficult to reconcile with only two shots having been fired. So it is not possible - if one is being reasonable - to reach a firm conclusion that there were actually only two shots and that three is not reasonably possible.
