A Closer Look…

[Dan O'meara]

An interesting analysis of the following document - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Decker_Ex_5323.pdf
The majority of these statements/reports were written on the day, some the day after.
I've broke it down into 2 shot, 3 shot and 4+ shot categories.
The list can also be broken down into Civilian and Law Enforcement.

Totals:
2 shot - 10
3 shot - 25
4+ shot - 5

There is nothing conclusive to be drawn from these totals. 25 say 3 shots but 15 say otherwise. Hardly conclusive.
What's weird is when we look at Civilian and Law Enforcement totals:

Civilian Totals:
2 shot - 9
3 shot - 7
4+ - 5

The majority of civilians reported 2 shots but it is quite an equal spread

Law Enforcement Totals
2 shot - 1
3 shot - 17
4+ shot - 0

Apart from Bill Decker, who was actually in the motorcade (unlike all the other law enforcement officers), every single law enforcement officer heard 3 shots.

[Jack Nessan]

An interesting analysis of the following document - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Decker_Ex_5323.pdf
The majority of these statements/reports were written on the day, some the day after.
I've broke it down into 2 shot, 3 shot and 4+ shot categories.
The list can also be broken down into Civilian and Law Enforcement.

Totals:
2 shot - 10
3 shot - 25
4+ shot - 5

There is nothing conclusive to be drawn from these totals. 25 say 3 shots but 15 say otherwise. Hardly conclusive.
What's weird is when we look at Civilian and Law Enforcement totals:

Civilian Totals:
2 shot - 9
3 shot - 7
4+ - 5

The majority of civilians reported 2 shots but it is quite an equal spread

Law Enforcement Totals
2 shot - 1
3 shot - 17
4+ shot - 0

Apart from Bill Decker, who was actually in the motorcade (unlike all the other law enforcement officers), every single law enforcement officer heard 3 shots.

Motorcycle Officers James Chaney and Bobby Hargis, who were escorting JFK's limo and were both immediately next to his car are both two shot witnesses.

Try separating the eyewitness early statements from the earwitness statements. DPD Chaney was an interview by media immediately after the shooting.

There are many earwitnesses and only a few eyewitnesses so any compilation becomes tilted to what people thought they heard and then happened. Eyewitnesses have a completely different understanding of what occurred. Eyewitnesses not only heard but saw what took place and had a better understanding. Similar to locating first shot by the eyewitness statements.

[Jack Nessan]

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

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.

Still can’t support your theory? So, you think this is a good time to fabricate your own proof and have absolutely no evidence to support it. 

You mean the shell they thought was used for dryfiring and mentioned it was a distinct possibility it was brought into the SN and ejected before the shooting started? That shell? Three shells with only two bullets and numerous eyewitnesses to support just two shots. One shell shows no evidence of having been fired in the gun. You know real evidence.
 
The HSCA concluded there were only two shots? I thought they found four shots.

Yes, and interesting enough but bad for this odd theory. The debunked and discredited dictabelt led them to believe there were four shots, the medias influence led them to believe there were two shots but apparently nowhere did they think there was three. Sucks to be you.

As a huge believer in the HSCA and their findings, Thomas Canning stating the SBT is the only answer sure erased your whole theory.  Ouch, again, sucks to be you.

I guess you are back to claiming Clint Hill heard a shot at Z310?

So according to you, the HSCA believes there were four shots, but in reality they concluded the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots which you believe indicates they thought there were two. The one thing they did not state was there were three verified shots. So why do you keep pushing this tripe? 

So, you do believe there were four shots. Is the shot you claim Clint Hill never heard at Z310 the fourth shot? There were a lot of people who missed hearing the sound of a supposed shot.

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.

“The people near or on the receiving end of those shots reported the effects of exactly three shots”


Existence of what? An overacting imagination. There is no evidence being presented. Show the hard physical evidence, how hard is that for you to do? Apparently impossible because you have yet to ever to it. Just endless yammering on about a shot pattern that you have never proven even existed.

100 hundred witness all stating something completely different. That is all you done and then and then called it evidence. 
 

[Richard Smith]

An interesting analysis of the following document - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Decker_Ex_5323.pdf
The majority of these statements/reports were written on the day, some the day after.
I've broke it down into 2 shot, 3 shot and 4+ shot categories.
The list can also be broken down into Civilian and Law Enforcement.

Totals:
2 shot - 10
3 shot - 25
4+ shot - 5

There is nothing conclusive to be drawn from these totals. 25 say 3 shots but 15 say otherwise. Hardly conclusive.
What's weird is when we look at Civilian and Law Enforcement totals:

Civilian Totals:
2 shot - 9
3 shot - 7
4+ - 5

The majority of civilians reported 2 shots but it is quite an equal spread

Law Enforcement Totals
2 shot - 1
3 shot - 17
4+ shot - 0

Apart from Bill Decker, who was actually in the motorcade (unlike all the other law enforcement officers), every single law enforcement officer heard 3 shots.

The graph on DVP's forum indicates that approximately 77% of witnesses heard three shots.  4% heard two or three.  And 10% heard two or one.  That's pretty compelling for three shots when there are three shell casings found at the crime scene.  Whether two or three shots, that torpedoes the claims of many CTers that there were more than three shots.

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-788.html

[Andrew Mason]

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.

Still can’t support your theory? So, you think this is a good time to fabricate your own proof and have absolutely no evidence to support it. 

I am puzzled by your contention that statements from 132 people does not constitute evidence but statements from 17 to the contrary do.

As a huge believer in the HSCA and their findings, Thomas Canning stating the SBT is the only answer sure erased your whole theory. 

Interesting you should mention Canning.  Canning of course put JBC's left cheek over the driveshaft:

I corresponded and spoke with Thomas Canning about this in 2003 and questioned his assumption that the absence of JBC's right shoulder in Betzner meant his shoulder was farther to the left. I referenced the Altgens' #5 photo showing that it was below the sight line from the rear.  He actually agreed, saying that he found this explanation "quite persuasive".  He sent me an email stating:

"The explanation for the eclipse of Conally's shoulder by the limo body or by
the back of the jump seat is quite persuasive; I am moved to suggest that my
testimony could well be revised to refer to the right side of Connaly's head
and not his shoulder would be appropriate." 

He said that would move JBC farther right by about 7-8 inches. However, he was reluctant to change his conclusion that the trajectory still fit:
"The resulting shift would not destroy the conclusion I drew."

The complete correspondence is found here.

“The people near or on the receiving end of those shots reported the effects of exactly three shots”


Existence of what? An overacting imagination. There is no evidence being presented. Show the hard physical evidence, how hard is that for you to do? Apparently impossible because you have yet to ever to it. Just endless yammering on about a shot pattern that you have never proven even existed.

100 hundred witness all stating something completely different. That is all you done and then and then called it evidence.

Again, you need to give us your definition of evidence. Either that, or tell us what universe you are operating in and give us the principles of logic that apply there.

[Jack Nessan]

I am puzzled by your contention that statements from 132 people does not constitute evidence but statements from 17 to the contrary do.
Interesting you should mention Canning.  Canning of course put JBC's left cheek over the driveshaft:

I corresponded and spoke with Thomas Canning about this in 2003 and questioned his assumption that the absence of JBC's right shoulder in Betzner meant his shoulder was farther to the left. I referenced the Altgens' #5 photo showing that it was below the sight line from the rear.  He actually agreed, saying that he found this explanation "quite persuasive".  He sent me an email stating:

"The explanation for the eclipse of Conally's shoulder by the limo body or by
the back of the jump seat is quite persuasive; I am moved to suggest that my
testimony could well be revised to refer to the right side of Connaly's head
and not his shoulder would be appropriate." 

He said that would move JBC farther right by about 7-8 inches. However, he was reluctant to change his conclusion that the trajectory still fit:
"The resulting shift would not destroy the conclusion I drew."

The complete correspondence is found here.
Again, you need to give us your definition of evidence. Either that, or tell us what universe you are operating in and give us the principles of logic that apply there.

I am puzzled by your contention that statements from 132 people does not constitute evidence but statements from 17 to the contrary do

Puzzled? The whole assassination is a complete puzzle to you. 17 and 132 are just made up unsubstantiated numbers posted to represent a failed theory. Using the HSCA report to pretend to support this goofy nonsense when in reality the HSCA conclusions lead to the exact opposite. Get to the point and provide some evidence of this oddball theory. Wildly claiming the witness statements alone present evidence only serves to show how weak the whole theory is.

Interesting you should mention Canning.  Canning of course put JBC's left cheek over the driveshaft:

It is not too interesting. Canning could not have done more to urinate and defecate on your theory. It is obvious to everyone but you that he was trying to humor you and get away from the whole subject. Whatever the real reason for the interaction was, it appeared he did not want to upset it by informing you were way off the rails. Canning studied SBT in depth for the HSCA and you somehow think you will change his mind with this childish attempt to provide obscure information you pulled out of your dreamland. When you are talking to someone learn to read the room. What he really was saying was please dear God make this stop. 


Again, you need to give us your definition of evidence. Either that, or tell us what universe you are operating in and give us the principles of logic that apply there.

I do not need to do anything. You have been proposing this theory for a long time and it is woefully lacking any evidence at all. That is your problem not mine. Misrepresenting the statements of witnesses is not evidence. Especially given what they originally stated and the subsequent changes to their statements that occurred over time. The very changes you are clinging to and trying to use to support this nonsense. It is painfully apparent you do not have any evidence to support this theory, or this discussion Q and A about evidence instead of you providing evidence would not be continually going on.

[Andrew Mason]

I am puzzled by your contention that statements from 132 people does not constitute evidence but statements from 17 to the contrary do

Puzzled? The whole assassination is a complete puzzle to you. 17 and 132 are just made up unsubstantiated numbers posted to represent a failed theory.

So is it that the numbers are made up and don't refer to actual people?  Can we just make up evidence like "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots." and not have to explain where it came from?  If so, why not just say "There was a recording of ____ shots and it got accidentally erased". Then we can have absolute proof of as many shots as we would like to prove a favourite theory, because what could be better evidence than an actual recording?   

Using the HSCA report to pretend to support this goofy nonsense when in reality the HSCA conclusions lead to the exact opposite. Get to the point and provide some evidence of this oddball theory. Wildly claiming the witness statements alone present evidence only serves to show how weak the whole theory is.

Again, you need to give us your definition of evidence. Either that, or tell us what universe you are operating in and give us the principles of logic that apply there.

I do not need to do anything. You have been proposing this theory for a long time and it is woefully lacking any evidence at all. That is your problem not mine. Misrepresenting the statements of witnesses is not evidence. Especially given what they originally stated and the subsequent changes to their statements that occurred over time. The very changes you are clinging to and trying to use to support this nonsense. It is painfully apparent you do not have any evidence to support this theory, or this discussion Q and A about evidence instead of you providing evidence would not be continually going on.

Ground control to Major Jack.   Your circuit's dead, .....

[Jack Nessan]

So is it that the numbers are made up and don't refer to actual people?  Can we just make up evidence like "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots." and not have to explain where it came from?  If so, why not just say "There was a recording of ____ shots and it got accidentally erased". Then we can have absolute proof of as many shots as we would like to prove a favourite theory, because what could be better evidence than an actual recording?   
Ground control to Major Jack.   Your circuit's dead, .....

So is it that the numbers are made up and don't refer to actual people?  Can we just make up evidence like "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots." and not have to explain where it came from?  If so, why not just say "There was a recording of ____ shots and it got accidentally erased". Then we can have absolute proof of as many shots as we would like to prove a favourite theory, because what could be better evidence than an actual recording?

Unknown as to why, but this is one major incoherent rant. It actually fits nicely with the incoherent three shots three hits nonsense.  Most likely because you have run out of pretend evidence to offer as real evidence. Would it not be easier to admit that the sum total of your whole evidence for the bizarre theory is just pure nonsense and crap? How about have a witness that actually supports your theory. Thomas Canning sure did not. 

I would have thought you would have known this but, there really are recordings of witnesses stating there were only two shots. DPD James Chaney, DPD Bobby Hargis, and Bill Newman come to mind. DPD Chaney and DPD Hargis were on the left and right fender of JFK’s car but that would probably be a little too close for you. I know look all over the HSCA Report and see if they are in the report.

I would have thought you would know all of this as you pretended you were some kind of expert on witness statements. I must be thinking of someone else.

 

Ground control to Major Jack.   Your circuit's dead, .....

I guess providing pure crap and then calling it valuable evidence would lead to an odd post like this.

Who knew it would be this easy though? In an attempt to get rid of you and the ridiculous theory of yours, Thomas Canning even tried pretending he had early stages of Alzheimer or dementia. All Mr. Canning really needed to do was ask you for evidence or proof of your incoherent three shots and you would disappear like a fart in the wind.