A Closer Look…

[Jack Nessan]

It is set out here. The evidence relating to shot pattern starts on page 7.

Unbelievable, three shots really were your only parameter and nothing else mattered. Early statements completely ignored.

You turned your twisted and tortured interpretations of witness statements into a graph? Are you sure you want people to read it and know what you did?  It is full of the inconsistencies mentioned. Still no proof there was even a third shot except for your opinion.


A small sampling of the people that are part of your three shot graph.

Hickey: last two shots were so close together they sounded like one shot. 

BR Williams; Two shot witness

James Jarmin: second shot is the head shot. 

Mary Woodward; First shot missed. All shots took place after Z207.

Seriously Andrew, give it up. Your belief Clint Hill missed hearing a shot while running to JFK's limo at Z310, is it in the graph anywhere?

[Andrew Mason]

Unbelievable, three shots really were your only parameter and nothing else mattered. Early statements completely ignored.

Are you saying that it would be more reasonable to conclude, on all the evidence, that there were only two shots?  How did so many people not only hear three, but recognized a particular pattern?  It is hard to have a pattern with only two shots.  Or are you saying we shouldn't look at all the evidence, particularly the evidence of those who said there were exactly three shots.

You turned your twisted and tortured interpretations of witness statements into a graph? Are you sure you want people to read it and know what you did?  It is full of the inconsistencies mentioned. Still no proof there was even a third shot except for your opinion.

An opinion shared by at least 132 people who were actually there and heard the shots... But, they must be wrong because the 17 who heard two shots were obviously better witnesses?  How about the 7 or so who heard 2 or 3 shots but weren't sure?

A small sampling of the people that are part of your three shot graph.

Hickey: last two shots were so close together they sounded like one shot. 

He said "they were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them" .... "The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again." CE1024, 18H762.  If he thought they sounded like one shot then how was he able to discern two shots?

BR Williams; Two shot witness

He did say he heard two shots in his first statement.  But he also said in his WC testimony that he did not pay any attention to the first:

"Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded it even shook the building, the side we were on. Cement fell on my head." 3H175.  But he not only recalled three shots, he said he noticed a pattern to the three shots: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember." 3H175?   

James Jarmin: second shot is the head shot.

Are you referring to Jarman's 22Nov63  "I definitely heard three shots" statement, his 18Mar64 statement in which he does not mention the shots at all or his WC testimony in which he says "I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit"?

Mary Woodward; First shot missed. All shots took place after Z207.

Do you mean the Mary Woodward who said there were three shots and the last two were so close together that the third shot overlapped the echo of the second and that the third shot was the head shot? We can see JFK reacting 5 seconds before the head shot so that observation eliminates the first shot as a missed shot (see below starting at the 0:47 mark):

Perhaps you are referring to Mary Woodward's Dallas Morning News article in which she wrote that after the first shot "things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet"? 

Which one should I accept as being correct?  The "hazy" impression that conflicts with at least 16 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as we see him doing as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, or the recollection of three shots, 1.......2...3, that fits with at least 40 other witnesses (re: pattern) and over 130 others as to the number and which she absolutely swears was correct?  Both can't be. Is it dishonest to choose the recollection that fits the rest of the evidence?

Seriously Andrew, give it up. Your belief Clint Hill missed hearing a shot while running to JFK's limo at Z310, is it in the graph anywhere?

Hill is one of the 17 who recalled only two shots.  I have already explained why he had to have jumped off the running board much earlier than z310.

[Jack Nessan]

Are you saying that it would be more reasonable to conclude, on all the evidence, that there were only two shots?  How did so many people not only hear three, but recognized a particular pattern?  It is hard to have a pattern with only two shots.  Or are you saying we shouldn't look at all the evidence, particularly the evidence of those who said there were exactly three shots.
An opinion shared by at least 132 people who were actually there and heard the shots... But, they must be wrong because the 17 who heard two shots were obviously better witnesses?  How about the 7 or so who heard 2 or 3 shots but weren't sure?

He said "they were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them" .... "The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again." CE1024, 18H762.  If he thought they sounded like one shot then how was he able to discern two shots?
He did say he heard two shots in his first statement.  But he also said in his WC testimony that he did not pay any attention to the first:

"Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded it even shook the building, the side we were on. Cement fell on my head." 3H175.  But he not only recalled three shots, he said he noticed a pattern to the three shots: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember." 3H175?   
Are you referring to Jarman's 22Nov63  "I definitely heard three shots" statement, his 18Mar64 statement in which he does not mention the shots at all or his WC testimony in which he says "I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit"?
Do you mean the Mary Woodward who said there were three shots and the last two were so close together that the third shot overlapped the echo of the second and that the third shot was the head shot? We can see JFK reacting 5 seconds before the head shot so that observation eliminates the first shot as a missed shot (see below starting at the 0:47 mark):

Perhaps you are referring to Mary Woodward's Dallas Morning News article in which she wrote that after the first shot "things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet"? 

Which one should I accept as being correct?  The "hazy" impression that conflicts with at least 16 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as we see him doing as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, or the recollection of three shots, 1.......2...3, that fits with at least 40 other witnesses (re: pattern) and over 130 others as to the number and which she absolutely swears was correct?  Both can't be. Is it dishonest to choose the recollection that fits the rest of the evidence?
Hill is one of the 17 who recalled only two shots.  I have already explained why he had to have jumped off the running board much earlier than z310.

You have searched and compiled a set of witness statements with no parameters outside of the word “three” to create a narrative that is not even possible. The WC and HSCA reference media as influencing witnesses into inflating the number of shots. 

WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"
 
HSCA Conclusion:  The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations, or echoes, that followed the initial sound by from 0 .5 to 1 .5 sec . While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners, who were prepared and expected to hear them, they may well have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination .  HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
 
HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87
 

------------------------

It is hard to give any credibility to an analysis of witnesses with someone with a three-shot scenario where two of the shots are just pure made-up fantasy based solely on fabricated contrived witness analysis and there are actually four shots comprising the theory and a primary indisputable shot ignored.

Really a shot at Z190 where the two people shot have no reaction at all and keep waving. A bullet bounced out of JBC’s leg? Is that for real, do you really think that is even a possibility. But wait it gets better- there is not as shot at Z218 that strikes both men. They are reacting to actually having been shot but that does not make it into this theory’s narrative at all. According to this theory, now there is a shot at Z270 that strikes JBC a second time and then followed by another shot at Z310 that Clint Hill does not hear. Finally, and mercifully this theory ends with the head shot at Z313.

What is wrong with this theory. Where to start. No witnesses of any kind, place a shot at Z190 or Z270. The witnesses do say there was a shot after Z207 and before Z218. JBC and JFK are reacting to a shot when emerging from behind the sign. They have no reaction but waving and smiling to a fantasy shot at Z190. A shot at Z270 is just made-up nonsense totally lacking any evidence of any kind just like the shot at Z190. 

Here is where this theory really goes off the rails and gets really perverse, I mean interesting. Clint Hill leaps off the SS at about Z310 and takes five steps and reaches the back of JFK’s limo at approximately Z336. It is proposed that he supposedly does not hear a shot while running. That is only possible if there is an additional shot 3 frames or .15 seconds before the headshot.  Four shots for a three-shot theory how could this theory ever be doubted.

Hill is one of the 17 who recalled only two shots.

Here it is. The tortured and twisted statement analysis. Clint Hill is a two shot witness. There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots. This does not include the large number of eyewitnesses who stated the second shot was the headshot or the last "two shots" were so close together they sounded like one shot.  Clint Hill is told he did not hear a shot. It is not in his narrative when recounting the shots.

[Andrew Mason]

Here is where this theory really goes off the rails and gets really perverse, I mean interesting.

Ok.  So you do agree that the three shot, three hit scenario has substantial evidence to support it - it was the working scenario for the FBI for the first several months of their investigation, after all. It is just that you believe that the evidence is false having been influenced by the media reports and echos.  That’s fine. We just disagree on whether the evidence that we both recognize exists, is reliable.

Hill is one of the 17 who recalled only two shots.

Here it is. The tortured and twisted statement analysis. Clint Hill is a two shot witness. There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots. This does not include the large number of eyewitnesses who stated the second shot was the headshot or the last "two shots" were so close together they sounded like one shot.  Clint Hill is told he did not hear a shot. It is not in his narrative when recounting the shots.

The HSCA lists 17 two shot witnesses. Who are the other 23?

[Jack Nessan]

Ok.  So you do agree that the three shot, three hit scenario has substantial evidence to support it - it was the working scenario for the FBI for the first several months of their investigation, after all. It is just that you believe that the evidence is false having been influenced by the media reports and echos.  That’s fine. We just disagree on whether the evidence that we both recognize exists, is reliable.
The HSCA lists 17 two shot witnesses. Who are the other 23?

Ok.  So you do agree that the three shot, three hit scenario has substantial evidence to support it - it was the working scenario for the FBI for the first several months of their investigation, after all. It is just that you believe that the evidence is false having been influenced by the media reports and echos.  That’s fine. We just disagree on whether the evidence that we both recognize exists, is reliable.
 

No, nice try though. I don’t agree at all with it. It is completely and utterly ridiculous. There is no evidence at all that there was a third shot let alone substantial. Let us not mistake your confused conclusion for an FBI investigation.

You have four shots. Three of which are a complete fantasy straight out of your imagination. Z190, Z270, and Clint Hill missed hearing a shot while running to the car, really

 

The HSCA lists 17 two shot witnesses. Who are the other 23?


The fact that you do not know after all this time says it all. The HSCA Panel thought the number of shots had been inflated.  I will repost it. In all the excitement you must have missed it.

WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"
 
HSCA Conclusion:  The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations, or echoes, that followed the initial sound by from 0 .5 to 1 .5 sec . While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners, who were prepared and expected to hear them, they may well have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination .  HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
 
HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

[Andrew Mason]

Ok.  So you do agree that the three shot, three hit scenario has substantial evidence to support it - it was the working scenario for the FBI for the first several months of their investigation, after all. It is just that you believe that the evidence is false having been influenced by the media reports and echos.  That’s fine. We just disagree on whether the evidence that we both recognize exists, is reliable.

No, nice try though. I don’t agree at all with it. It is completely and utterly ridiculous. There is no evidence at all that there was a third shot let alone substantial. Let us not mistake your confused conclusion for an FBI investigation.

So is it that you don't think that there are upwards of 132 witness statements from actual people who claim to have heard 3 shots?  Or you don't think that 132 witnesses saying they heard three shots is evidence of three shots?  Either way you are not making much sense.
 

You have four shots. Three of which are a complete fantasy straight out of your imagination. Z190, Z270, and Clint Hill missed hearing a shot while running to the car, really.

I don't have four shots.  There were three shots. I have pointed out all the evidence for 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.  It is the scenario that the FBI was working for the first 5 months of their investigation because it is based on the evidence. Here is a model they were using:

The SBT was invented to explain problems identified by "experts", not the evidence.

 

The HSCA lists 17 two shot witnesses. Who are the other 23?


The fact that you do not know after all this time says it all. The HSCA Panel thought the number of shots had been inflated.  I will repost it. In all the excitement you must have missed it.

Oh. I see. The 40 witnesses to exactly 2 shots was just a number you pulled out of your.....

[Jack Nessan]

So is it that you don't think that there are upwards of 132 witness statements from actual people who claim to have heard 3 shots?  Or you don't think that 132 witnesses saying they heard three shots is evidence of three shots?  Either way you are not making much sense.
 I don't have four shots.  There were three shots. I have pointed out all the evidence for 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.  It is the scenario that the FBI was working for the first 5 months of their investigation because it is based on the evidence. Here is a model they were using:

The SBT was invented to explain problems identified by "experts", not the evidence.

 Oh. I see. The 40 witnesses to exactly 2 shots was just a number you pulled out of your.....

“So is it that you don't think that there are upwards of 132 witness statements from actual people who claim to have heard 3 shots?  Or you don't think that 132 witnesses saying they heard three shots is evidence of three shots?  Either way you are not making much sense.”

It is not evidence to anyone but you. It certainly was not evidence to the WC and the HSCA. How that is known is both investigative panels questioned and dismissed it.

The HSCA references 132 witnesses and then in conclusion HSCA stated the witnesses inflated the number of shots and the witnesses were influenced by the media. This is the whole basis of your theory and evidence. Once again, the simple fact that you do not know this after all this time says it all. The HSCA Panel thought the number of shots had been inflated, but here you are quoting them as if they had not.  I will repost it and once again, in all the excitement, again you must have missed it.
 
WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"
 
HSCA Conclusion:  The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations, or echoes, that followed the initial sound by from 0 .5 to 1 .5 sec . While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners, who were prepared and expected to hear them, they may well have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination .  HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
 
HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

 

“I don't have four shots.  There were three shots. I have pointed out all the evidence for 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.  It is the scenario that the FBI was working for the first 5 months of their investigation because it is based on the evidence. Here is a model they were using:” ,

You have never pointed out any evidence. That is the problem. If you actually have evidence of a third shot, evidence that has not been dismissed by the very people who you are quoting, and who you also claimed to have provided the evidence, by all means post it for all to see. To date you have never done anything but continually propose and post a farcical shot sequence.
 

The FBI looked at a lot of things, but it does not mean they believed it. It is called investigating. They certainly did not confirm it, in fact abandoned it. Maybe you did not get the memo to move on.

You do have four shots; it started the minute you thought you would incorporate this nonsense about Clint Hill having missed hearing a shot while running. He never left the car until a split second before the head shot. It doesn’t support your theory like you thought, instead it makes the theory appear even goofier.

 

“The SBT was invented to explain problems identified by "experts", not the evidence."

It wasn’t invented. It is the only answer. The bullet passing through JFK and striking JBC is part of this goofy theory and you do not seem to know it. Just because you appear to know nothing about firearms doesn’t mean everyone else is just as ignorant.

“Oh. I see. The 40 witnesses to exactly 2 shots was just a number you pulled out of your.....”

Anybody who takes the time to study the witness statements arrives at the same conclusion. There honestly is no way to determine how you evaluate witness statements other than by the number three. I am sure you are unable to face the reality of it. It would mean this whole ridiculous three to four shot theory of yours has been dead on arrival since day one decades ago.

 

[Andrew Mason]

“So is it that you don't think that there are upwards of 132 witness statements from actual people who claim to have heard 3 shots?  Or you don't think that 132 witnesses saying they heard three shots is evidence of three shots?  Either way you are not making much sense.”

It is not evidence to anyone but you. It certainly was not evidence to the WC and the HSCA. How that is known is both investigative panels questioned and dismissed it.

So, what is your definition of evidence. It is obviously unique to you.  And, where exactly does the WC dismiss the evidence of three shots?  They find the three shells to corroborate the witnesses. By finding three shots, they find that the evidence of the witnesses who heard three shots was correct.

The HSCA references 132 witnesses and then in conclusion HSCA stated the witnesses inflated the number of shots and the witnesses were influenced by the media. This is the whole basis of your theory and evidence. Once again, the simple fact that you do not know this after all this time says it all. The HSCA Panel thought the number of shots had been inflated, but here you are quoting them as if they had not.  I will repost it and once again, in all the excitement, again you must have missed it.
 
 
HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

The HSCA concluded there were only two shots? I thought they found four shots.
 

“I don't have four shots.  There were three shots. I have pointed out all the evidence for 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.  It is the scenario that the FBI was working for the first 5 months of their investigation because it is based on the evidence. Here is a model they were using:” ,

You have never pointed out any evidence. That is the problem.

Again, what is your definition of evidence?  Over a hundred witnesses, including the three men directly below the 6th floor window, reported hearing exactly three shots.  One of those three heard three bolt-action reloads. There were three shells found on the floor. The people near or on the receiving end of those shots reported the effects of exactly three shots. Yet you persist in this nonsense that there is "no evidence of three shots".  That is just silly.  You may not accept that evidence but you can't deny its existence.

“Oh. I see. The 40 witnesses to exactly 2 shots was just a number you pulled out of your.....”

Anybody who takes the time to study the witness statements arrives at the same conclusion. There honestly is no way to determine how you evaluate witness statements other than by the number three. I am sure you are unable to face the reality of it. It would mean this whole ridiculous three to four shot theory of yours has been dead on arrival since day one decades ago.

Simple question.  You said: "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots. ".  I listed 17. My question was: who are the other 23?  Your answer: "uh, blah, blah" (paraphrased).