A Closer Look…

[Andrew Mason]

So it appears that your answer is that you can 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.

This is Major Jack to ground control.
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way….

[Jack Nessan]

So it appears that your answer is that you can 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.

This is Major Jack to ground control.
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way….

So just be sure on one hand you are saying 40 eyewitnesses stating two shots is just an opinion not evidence. Right?

I guess you live and die off the HSCA witness analysis. But to you your 47 witnesses (roughly 25%) out of the HSCA's total of178 which you state said three shots is a fact and in itself is evidence. Nice reasoning. It simply shows how weak this analysis of yours really is. The sad part is in your 47 a number of them are really two shot witnesses.

It is not hard to understand why Thomas Canning would fake Alzheimer's or dementia to get away from you and your ridiculous reasoning and theory.

[Andrew Mason]

So just be sure on one hand you are saying 40 eyewitnesses stating two shots is just an opinion not evidence. Right?

No. That is not at all what I said. I didn’t say anything about 40 witnesses stating two shots other than to ask you to ask you where the other 23 were (in addition to the 17 listed in the research paper of D.M. Green for the HSCA.)

A witness who states what they actually saw or heard or experienced is not giving an opinion.  They are giving actual evidence of the existence of a fact. An opinion is given by people who weren’t there who want to tell us what they think happened.  I prefer evidence.

I guess you live and die off the HSCA witness analysis. But to you your 47 witnesses (roughly 25%) out of the HSCA's total of178 which you state said three shots is a fact and in itself is evidence. Nice reasoning. It simply shows how weak this analysis of yours really is. The sad part is in your 47 a number of them are really two shot witnesses.

Read the report. 132 said 3 shots. 17 said they heard only two.

[Jack Nessan]

No. That is not at all what I said. I didn’t say anything about 40 witnesses stating two shots other than to ask you to ask you where the other 23 were (in addition to the 17 listed in the research paper of D.M. Green for the HSCA.)

A witness who states what they actually saw or heard or experienced is not giving an opinion.  They are giving actual evidence of the existence of a fact. An opinion is given by people who weren’t there who want to tell us what they think happened.  I prefer evidence.

Read the report. 132 said 3 shots. 17 said they heard only two.

No. That is not at all what I said. I didn’t say anything about 40 witnesses stating two shots other than to ask you to ask you where the other 23 were (in addition to the 17 listed in the research paper of D.M. Green for the HSCA.)
 

You should have been stating there are 40+ witnesses who stated there were only two shots. If you are a lemming type of personality, I guess you would care what the HSCA thinks and puts in their report.  Having learned how to read, I do not. The HSCA breakdown of witness statements is no better than your own. They completely missed a great deal of early eyewitness statements and like you cherry picked the remaining statements that best fit their beliefs, the result of this is what you are basing this grossly flawed theory on. The whole thing is weak at best.

“A witness who states what they actually saw or heard or experienced is not giving an opinion”


Wrong that is all the witnesses are doing, just giving their opinion of what they believed happened. You are using the statements to support a tremendously flawed theory with no evidence at all to support it. Nothing more

Then to follow up this error, you are giving us your opinion that you think they are right. Which given your lack of evidence and inability to provide any, makes you completely wrong.

The vast majority of these witnesses are earwitnesses and could only ask the eyewitnesses what did occur. They are giving their opinion on what they thought they heard. The three shot Merriman Smith report read by Walter Cronkite was an earwitness flash news bulletin. The two shot James Altgens report read by Don Pardo was an eyewitness flash news bulletin.


“Read the report. 132 said 3 shots.”

Instead, here is your analysis of the HSCA report. Obviously even you think it is just bunch of nonsense. Is it really a big surprise that Thomas Canning thought the only way to get extricated from the conversation with you about your ridiculous theory was to pretend to be affected by the early stages of Alzheimer or dementia.

There are 40+ two shot witnesses and a large group of witnesses who stated a second shot head shot or two shots so close together they sounded like one shot. Amazingly, you think the statements of what amounts to not even 25% of the witnesses fitting your analysis is a large enough group to constitute evidence. Not only evidence but to supersede the statements of even a larger group.

According to you the number is 47 that actually fit this bizarre theory. Which given your 47 witnesses incorporates the two shot witnesses and there are at least 40+ two shot witnesses and another large group of witnesses stated the second shot was the headshot and witnesses who stated there was no time difference between the last two shots. The 47 made up witnesses you are presenting is actually a smaller number than witnesses who believe there was just two shots. I thought you always pretended to follow the evidence, Andrew. 

 

Isn’t this you? You do not believe this tripe either?

Andrew Mason

2. The relative timing of the shots. The 1……….2….3 pattern 

There is a significant body of evidence regarding the relative spacing of the shots. The Warren Commission, in stating its conclusion that there were three shots, observed that most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second.26 The Commission appears to have made little use of this evidence in reaching its conclusions, however. There were at least 47 witnesses who gave evidence of a later second shot fitting this pattern.

As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 47 witnesses who provided clear evidence of a shorter separation between the last two shots. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 9 (not counting Emmett Hudson) thought the shots were about equally spaced. The distribution of witnesses shows the high significance of the witness recollection that the last two shots were closer together. If the shot pattern was really the opposite, one would have to explain why only 6 out of 62 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly and how 47 of them randomly made the same mistake.

You do not support your own ridiculous analysis? Actually, I do not blame you. 47 witnesses out of the all the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza. Not very many at all. Even the 47 is wrong and an inflated number.

[Charles Collins]

Here’s yet another apparent reaction to an early missed shot. SS Agent Glen Bennett turned around looking back and upwards towards the TSBD in Betzner’s photo taken at approximately Z186.

[Andrew Mason]

Here’s yet another apparent reaction to an early missed shot. SS Agent Glen Bennett turned around looking back and upwards towards the TSBD in Betzner’s photo taken at approximately Z186.

Bennett was cited by the WC as a witness for the first shot missing JFK.  But he was never called by the WC and this is unfortunate  because he gave a statement on 23Nov63 that is different from his original notes taken at the time on 22Nov63. His original notes (CE1024 at 18H542) state:

• "At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."

That would appear to be a reference to two shots only but it is not entirely clear.  He heard a firecracker and saw a shot "that hit" JFK about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.

However, in his later statement he did say that he looked to the right at the crowd after the first shot and then looked at the President:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/ and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."

Of course Jerry is already on record saying that Hickey standing up could not see JFK so he will have say that Bennett couldn't see JFK either.  But I disagree. Both said they saw JFK on the second and third shots and I see no reason for them to make that up.  Hickey said the first of the last two occurred while JFK was leaning to the left and appeared to miss JFK.  Bennett in his statement said that the second shot struck JFK in the back.

[Charles Collins]

Bennett was cited by the WC as a witness for the first shot missing JFK.  But he was never called by the WC and this is unfortunate  because he gave a statement on 23Nov63 that is different from his original notes taken at the time on 22Nov63. His original notes (CE1024 at 18H542) state:

• "At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."

That would appear to be a reference to two shots only but it is not entirely clear.  He heard a firecracker and saw a shot "that hit" JFK about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.

However, in his later statement he did say that he looked to the right at the crowd after the first shot and then looked at the President:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/ and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."

Of course Jerry is already on record saying that Hickey standing up could not see JFK so he will have say that Bennett couldn't see JFK either.  But I disagree. Both said they saw JFK on the second and third shots and I see no reason for them to make that up.  Hickey said the first of the last two occurred while JFK was leaning to the left and appeared to miss JFK.  Bennett in his statement said that the second shot struck JFK in the back.

Human memories typically do not account for all of the little details. I prefer the photographic record so that I can see with my own eyes that Glen Bennett was looking back and up towards the TSBD around the Z186 time frame. Bennett wrote his notes on the plane back to DC. That was before the details of JFK’s wounds were known. So it seems to me that he must have seen JFK at the time that he was shot. I haven’t tested his lines of sight. However, if you look at the photos that show Glen Bennett before and after the Betzner photo, you will see that he was typically looking out to the side and up. He would have had restricted views due to the agents on the running boards. However, it appears he was looking between, ahead of, and behind them and doing the best he could. I would think that he could have found a similar space between the passengers in front of him to view JFK. But, again, I haven’t tested that idea. At any rate I believe it is significant that Glen Bennett appears to be looking back toward the TSBD at that point in time. That (along with all the other apparent reactions already indicated in this thread) certainly seems to me to support the idea of an early missed first shot. I haven’t noticed any photos indicating the agents looking back behind them (other than the photos taken during the time frame of the shots). I believe that they were trained to scan the crowds, etc that they were approaching looking for threats and unusual activities, etc.

[Andrew Mason]

Cite. Please.

Nope. I have never thought anyone in the Queen Mary couldn't see JFK.

You seem to think I'm pretty nefarious, using a, per you, 6.86º angle on the limo overhead when it's really, again per you, 9.5º.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your previous views such as:
"Hickey isn't "standing"; he's propped against the back seat. Even if "several feet" above the top of Kennedy's head, Hickey could barely see Kennedy over the QM's sun visor."

If you are saying that he couldn't see the hair, how could he see the rest of him?  As I say, I see no reason to believe that Hickey or Bennett could not see JFK. At z271, JFK is leaning quite far to the left and forward.  If Hickey could see the top of JFK's head, I don't see why he could not see this:

The fact is that Hickey reported seeing JFK's hair fly up on the second shot but cause no damage. He said it was a very short time before the third shot.  Only the hair on his right side moves. No hair on anyone else moves at all. This is not a gust of wind because it lasts for about one fifth of a second.  No gust of wind could be that short. There is nowhere else that JFK's hair flies up like that.