Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew Mason is also a big believer in an imaginary shot. You two should get together and solve the mystery of where that shot took place because there is absolutely no proof that it ever happened and the WC was never sure it happened.

Imaginary shot? It is not correct to say that there is no evidence of a third shot, if that is your point. 

In addition to 130+ witnesses who heard exactly three shots, there are many witnesses who felt or saw the effects of each of the three shots. There are witnesses who were able to say where the President was, or describe the position of their car in the motorcade, at the time of the first shot.  There are witnesses, like Hickey and Kinney, who described where they were looking and what they saw at the time of the second shot. There is Tague who said he felt the effect of the second shot.  There is Greer who said he turned around immediately after the second shot (he turns around between z278-280). 

[Andrew Mason]

As I see it:

As far as the witnesses are concerned. The media had a severe influence on the witnesses and is noted by both the WC and the HSCA and can be seen in their evolving statements. The earliest statements in a lot of cases are made by the eyewitnesses to the media themselves. There is a big difference between the statements of the eyewitnesses and the earwitnesses. In general two shots by the eyewitnesses vs three shots by the earwitnesses. The eyewitnesses explain the location of the limousine and the number of shots and the reaction that was taking place in the car.

A classic example of ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit a preferred theory. 

There is limited physical evidence. Bullet, bullet fragments, shells, and rifle. Each provide a clue as to the answer. The cycle time of the carcano provides a parameter to the assassination based on  2.3 second cycle time. The only scenario that explains wounding JBC with a separate shot is a conspiracy and a second shooter.

??This is because you have convinced yourself that JBC has been shot by z240: you think he looks like he is reacting to being shot in the chest before z240.  But according to the evidence there was only one shot to that point. So what you are really saying is: "If I ignore the evidence and go with what I think I am seeing in the zfilm, if JBC's chest wounds were caused by a separate shot, there must have been a second shooter". 

Three shots by LHO in 5.4 seconds is a stretch, two shots at a distance of 55 yards and 88 yards is no feat of marksmanship. Three shots would require an even shot spacing not a bunched two shots at the end.

How about 3 shots in 6.4 seconds: z195, z271, z313.  That is what the evidence shows.

SBT with a jacketed bullet is common sense. That is exactly what the bullet is designed to do. The bullet will go until it runs out of energy. JBC was in front of JFK and the only way to explain the wound in his back is the bullet must pass through JFK first.

Common sense reasoning applied to the evidence is a good idea. You are forgetting the evidence part.

[Gary Craig]

[Jack Nessan]

Good set of witnesses for proving SBT.

Austin Miller---Proves SBT----Accounts for all the shots in his statement.  One shot hit the street. Two shots hit JFK and JBC. No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.

Royce Skelton----Proves SBT------ Accounts for all the shots in his statement. Two shots hit the street, Two shots hit  JBC and JFK. . No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.

Hugh Betzner----Proves SBT------ Two shot witness.

Buddy Walters ----Proves SBT----Talking about Tague, who thought he was struck by the second bullet which again proves the first shot struck both JFK and JBC. Walters obviously thought the head shot was the second shot because he states "the last shot went high and above the presidents car"

[Andrew Mason]

- statements of witnesses reporting what looked like a missed shot

Miller and Skelton say that they thought a bullet struck the pavement to the left (south) of the limo. Since a bullet is too small and moving too fast to be seen by humans, all we can say is that they saw something hit the pavement to the south side. We know that a piece of JFK's skull was found on the south side of the street.  Reports that something that looked like smoke was coming from trees and police were looking on the ground on the GK for something are not evidence of a missed shot.

[Andrew Mason]

Good set of witnesses for proving SBT.

Austin Miller---Proves SBT----Accounts for all the shots in his statement.  One shot hit the street. Two shots hit JFK and JBC. No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.

Except that he reported one shot and then two more, which suggests a 1 and 2-3 grouping which excludes the second shot SBT.

Royce Skelton----Proves SBT------ Accounts for all the shots in his statement. Two shots hit the street, Two shots hit  JBC and JFK. . No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.

?? That seems to be 4 shots.  In his Dec. 17/63 FBI statement he said that he saw dust spray on the pavement on the driver's side of the limo and then "a few seconds" later heard 3 shots.

Hugh Betzner----Proves SBT------ Two shot witness.

No. He is an "at least two shots" witness. Read his statement.

Buddy Walters ----Proves SBT----Talking about Tague, who thought he was struck by the second bullet which again proves the first shot struck both JFK and JBC. Walters obviously thought the head shot was the second shot because he states "the last shot went high and above the presidents car"

Walters is guessing.  The curb smear was analyzed and no copper was found, just lead and antimony. That indicates that the curb was struck by a lead fragment.

[Matt Grantham]

. We know that a piece of JFK's skull was found on the south side of the street.  Reports that something that looked like smoke was coming from trees and police were looking on the ground on the GK for something are not evidence of a missed shot.

 That is strangely phrased  I suppose I guess I should congratulate you in your formulation of a sort of double dipper of discounting any shots from the front hit JFK Witnesses mean something, where skull pieces end up have meaning as well Apparently evidence is only a fact that lines up with your conclusion

[Andrew Mason]

That is strangely phrased  I suppose I guess I should congratulate you in your formulation of a sort of double dipper of discounting any shots from the front hit JFK Witnesses mean something, where skull pieces end up have meaning as well Apparently evidence is only a fact that lines up with your conclusion

To reach a conclusion that there was a shot from the front, I would need evidence of such a shot. This is not evidence of such a shot.

Not only is there a lack of any evidence of a shot from the front, there is a great deal of evidence of three shots from the rear, that they were fired from the SN, and that there were only three shots heard.  Also, the trajectory required for the wounds on JFK and JBC would preclude a shot from the front.  Without a hole in the windshield, a shot from the front just doesn't work.