The Shot That Missed

[Jack Nessan]

I think that you might want to consider learning to use the English language more precisely.

I cannot provide either.

I can cite much evidence which was developed by the authorities during the investigation.

Why don’t you just go ahead and tell us all about why you believe all this evidence is wrong.

Feel free to start citing, proving, and/or providing the evidence of three shots. Maybe admit you can not because with all the evasive answers that is what it really looks like.

"The shot that missed" and you can't provide any information that there even was a third shot at all. Drain only had a total of three live cartridges in his statement.

[Dan O'meara]

Feel free to start citing, proving, and/or providing the evidence of three shots. Maybe admit you can not because with all the evasive answers that is what it really looks like.

"The shot that missed" and you can't provide any information that there even was a third shot at all. Drain only had a total of three live cartridges in his statement.

160 ear-witnesses is "information that there even was a third shot at all".
What are you not not understanding about that?
And where are you getting your information from that most eye-witnesses recall two shots? Please cite.

[Charles Collins]

Feel free to start citing, proving, and/or providing the evidence of three shots. Maybe admit you can not because with all the evasive answers that is what it really looks like.

"The shot that missed" and you can't provide any information that there even was a third shot at all. Drain only had a total of three live cartridges in his statement.

Drain’s statement did not include the live cartridge found in the rifle after the shooting.

[Jack Nessan]

160 ear-witnesses is "information that there even was a third shot at all".
What are you not not understanding about that?
And where are you getting your information from that most eye-witnesses recall two shots? Please cite.

What is not understood is why you place more value on an earwitness statement than an eyewitness statement. Sheer numbers? That is it? The earwitnesses were told what took place by the eyewitnesses.

HSCA Sound Analysis determined the echo was almost as loud as the initial shot and reverberated 0.9 seconds later. Sounds like shots two and three and the description of so many three shot witnesses of the second and third as being so close as to almost be one.

If you are interested in knowing look up the eyewitness statements. If you have never actually read through Pat Speer's site you should do so. The accounts are in television interviews, newspaper accounts, affidavits, WC statements, virtually all mediums. The WC and HSCA conclusions clearly state the confusion as to how many shots and why. They could never prove the existence of a third shot either. The HSCA ultimately concluded four shots but also concluded the witnesses were influenced by the news media and inflated the number of shots. It only shows you the last minute addition of the dictabelt info altered the HSCA basic conception of the assassination.

[Jack Nessan]

Drain’s statement did not include the live cartridge found in the rifle after the shooting.

Drain is talking about only three live cartridges total. There is no way to misinterpret his meaning.

Drain: "He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"


The fact you cannot cite, prove, or provide evidence or proof of a third shot should give you pause to consider that there never was one. Hoover within 14 minutes of the assassination stated there was only two shots.

[Charles Collins]

Drain is talking about only three live cartridges total. There is no way to misinterpret his meaning.

Drain: "He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"


The fact you cannot cite, prove, or provide evidence or proof of a third shot should give you pause to consider that there never was one. Hoover within 14 minutes of the assassination stated there was only two shots.

There is no way to misinterpret his meaning.


One of us has, and it is obviously you. You are taking one sentence out of context and trying to twist it to mean something that is doesn’t. If you read the statement in full the true meaning is apparent. Despite your lame attempt to claim otherwise.

[Brian Roselle]

Here’s a different independent take supporting an early first shot that missed. Bullet trajectory is not part of the analysis (but I would guess it disintegrated in the pavement as a near miss as there was nothing between the rifle and limo at the time).

Background:  Recently there have been two common LN estimates debated for the first shot timing (in the three shot scenario). The more recent one by Holland/DeRonja and an older one by HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi.  Both are influenced heavily on testimony and especially on Win Lawson’s testimony for Holland/DeRonja and John Connally’s testimony for HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. In addition at times they both have been fueled by theorizing something deflected the bullet (a traffic mast or tree branches). Besides an obstruction, the choice in testimonies that have been chosen to focus on gives two clearly different answers. Is the testimony problem just too much natural variation in witness memories, or the interpretations that researchers try to assign to those memories/testimonies, or both, or some witnesses being misled or even worse lying? (I don’t believe in dishonesty and deceit though)

I wondered what the result would be if no testimony at all was used, but rather a technique using only reactions on film.
The referenced manuscript below did that, and formalizes the work done via a forensic technique based on the science of human reaction times that is applied to the evaluation of surprise gunshot sounds in silent films. It’s an analytical tool that doesn’t rely on any eyewitness testimony, and as such is a good candidate to independently estimate the JFK first shot timing on Elm Street using early reactions identified in the Zapruder film.
https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Estimating-Occult-Timing-of-Surprise-Gunshot-Sounds-in-Silent-Film-via-Observed-Start-of-Human-Voluntary-Reactions-of-Concern-Roselle.pdf

Applied to the JFK case, the analysis technique indicated that the first shot was triggered half a second before z133. In a 3 shot scenario where shot 2 struck around z222 and shot 3 struck just before z313, this would give approximately three equally spaced shots with the duration of the three shot shooting sequence ~10.2 seconds.

How does this compare to those other two completely different based analysis?  Well, although notably different, interestingly enough it positions the first shot happening at a very specific point in time which occurred in-between the timing estimates of Holland/DeRonja and that of HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi and a point in time where the limo was at least temporarily essentially in the clear.

[Charles Collins]

Here’s a different independent take supporting an early first shot that missed. Bullet trajectory is not part of the analysis (but I would guess it disintegrated in the pavement as a near miss as there was nothing between the rifle and limo at the time).

Background:  Recently there have been two common LN estimates debated for the first shot timing (in the three shot scenario). The more recent one by Holland/DeRonja and an older one by HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi.  Both are influenced heavily on testimony and especially on Win Lawson’s testimony for Holland/DeRonja and John Connally’s testimony for HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. In addition at times they both have been fueled by theorizing something deflected the bullet (a traffic mast or tree branches). Besides an obstruction, the choice in testimonies that have been chosen to focus on gives two clearly different answers. Is the testimony problem just too much natural variation in witness memories, or the interpretations that researchers try to assign to those memories/testimonies, or both, or some witnesses being misled or even worse lying? (I don’t believe in dishonesty and deceit though)

I wondered what the result would be if no testimony at all was used, but rather a technique using only reactions on film.
The referenced manuscript below did that, and formalizes the work done via a forensic technique based on the science of human reaction times that is applied to the evaluation of surprise gunshot sounds in silent films. It’s an analytical tool that doesn’t rely on any eyewitness testimony, and as such is a good candidate to independently estimate the JFK first shot timing on Elm Street using early reactions identified in the Zapruder film.
https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Estimating-Occult-Timing-of-Surprise-Gunshot-Sounds-in-Silent-Film-via-Observed-Start-of-Human-Voluntary-Reactions-of-Concern-Roselle.pdf

Applied to the JFK case, the analysis technique indicated that the first shot was triggered half a second before z133. In a 3 shot scenario where shot 2 struck around z222 and shot 3 struck just before z313, this would give approximately three equally spaced shots with the duration of the three shot shooting sequence ~10.2 seconds.

How does this compare to those other two completely different based analysis?  Well, although notably different, interestingly enough it positions the first shot happening at a very specific point in time which occurred in-between the timing estimates of Holland/DeRonja and that of HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi and a point in time where the limo was at least temporarily essentially in the clear.

Thanks, the results of this study appear to be in harmony with what I believe is the most likely timing. I will read it and see what I think about it.