WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Andrew Mason]

The SBT is false. Without it I don't see how you can say that there was only one shooter.

If the last two shots were closer together than 1 and 2, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3. That means there were not two shots before z250.  So what you see in z224-z250 has to be the result of one shot.  If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250.  That gives lots of time for Oswald to have fired both shots 1 and 2. No need for a second shooter.

[Rob Caprio]

Physical evidence vs body movement?  It is not really the point Rob. JFK's body movement isn't an indication he was wounded? JBC crying out isn't an indication he was wounded? Your whole thread is based on what JBC said and Sen Russell believed,  but now JBC states he cries out when he was wounded and you don't believe him. Now you are claiming you have physical evidence to refute all this but you don't want to post it?

Here is the statement that started the thread.

"The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) John  B. Connally's (JBC) WC testimony, in which JBC absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty.  I'll never change my mind"), and, (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film."

 The fact there was at least two shots is a given. To believe there was three shots you have to believe there was at least two. Numerous eyewitnesses stated there was just two shots. You stated you are certain there was three distinct shots. Bill Chapman believes there was an early missed shot, which is in direct contradiction to the eyewitness statements. You believe there was a second gunman who, I am guessing,  apparently just shot JBC. Andrew Mason believes-- I am not sure what Andrew believes, but a later shot than you or Bill, or something along those lines.  You have been repeatedly asked to prove there was three shots. Up until now you have not offered the slightest proof of any kind to show there really was three shots, let alone a second gunman as you claim.

If in fact somewhere in your "Statements.....WC" posts you actually offered proof there were three shots it should be easy for you post it again or at least allude to it.

 I want to believe as you do Rob, but I just can't.  There is evidence of two shots but not three.

My thread is about a member of the WC expressing doubts and these being confirmed by the HSCA. You have ignored this.

You have also failed to support your claim.

[Rob Caprio]

If the last two shots were closer together than 1 and 2, then there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3. That means there were not two shots before z250.  So what you see in z224-z250 has to be the result of one shot.  If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250.  That gives lots of time for Oswald to have fired both shots 1 and 2. No need for a second shooter.

Except the SBT is false. So how do you explain seven wounds in two men with one bullet?

[Jack Nessan]

My thread is about a member of the WC expressing doubts and these being confirmed by the HSCA. You have ignored this.

You have also failed to support your claim.

I made no claim. You are certain there was three shots. There is evidence of only two shots. Prove there was three shots. Explain the wound in Gov Connally's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. You have said you have previous posts that prove it. Repost them.

You have offered Sen Russell as proof there was three shots and a jacketed bullet, which is basically designed to not deform like a soft core bullet, did not pass through two targets.

If you truly do not understand the ability of a bullet to pass through multiple targets call any state Fish and Game office and explain to them your theory about a bullet not being able to pass through multiple targets . When they are done laughing I am sure they can provide you with whatever information is required to help you understand how a bullet works, especially a jacketed bullet. If you would like to watch a graphic demonstration of the concept watch "Schindlers List", in the beginning of the movie men are lined up and  single shot is used to kill multiple men. Steven Spielberg had no problem understanding the concept.
----------------------------------------------------
You mentioned the HSCA. Maybe these observations and statements from the HSCA will help. They obviously believed the number of shots reported by the witnesses was "Inflated" due to outside sources and media influence and they even offer the additional explanation of misinterpreting echoes as shots.

"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. 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 concern
ing the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

"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
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137

[Andrew Mason]

Except the SBT is false. So how do you explain seven wounds in two men with one bullet?

Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK.

[Andrew Mason]

I made no claim. You are certain there was three shots. There is evidence of only two shots. Prove there was three shots.

You certainly do make a claim. You claim that there were not three shots and therefore, that the abundant evidence of three shots is false.  You offer no explanation of how it is that so many (40+) not only agreed on the number of shots but also the specific pattern.  You offer no explanation for the fact that of the 178 witnesses whose evidence relating to the number of shots was compiled by the HSCA: 17 recalled hearing two; 7 said they heard two or three shots;132 reported hearing exactly three shots; (6 people said they heard four shots; and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. A further 7 bystanders reported hearing 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots). D. M. Green, ?Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy?, Report No. 4034, 8 HSCA 128 at 142.

Explain the wound in Gov Connally's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. You have said you have previous posts that prove it. Repost them.

JBC's chest wound was caused by the second bullet. If the shot pattern was 1......2...3, the second shot occurred when the angle of the shot from the SN to the car was from almost directly behind.  Since JFK had moved left, JBC's right armpit was not blocked by JFK.

If you truly do not understand the ability of a bullet to pass through multiple targets call any state Fish and Game office and explain to them your theory about a bullet not being able to pass through multiple targets . When they are done laughing I am sure they can provide you with whatever information is required to help you understand how a bullet works, especially a jacketed bullet. If you would like to watch a graphic demonstration of the concept watch "Schindlers List", in the beginning of the movie men are lined up and  single shot is used to kill multiple men. Steven Spielberg had no problem understanding the concept.

No one is saying that a 10 gram 6.5 mm. jacketed bullet fired at 2000 fps is not capable of passing through a person and into another. The question is whether this bullet did pass through JBC's right armpit, chest, wrist and thigh after passing through JFK. The condition of CE399 does not help you in making that case. But that is a minor problem. The real problem is the evidence that JFK was struck by the first and JBC by the second and the fact that JBC's right armpit is right of JFK's neck exit wound.

[Oscar Navarro]

Two bullets. The second bullet (after z250) caused JBC's chest and wrist wounds. It did not strike JFK.

This just appears weird to me. If the first bullet hit JFK in the back and the second bullet hit JBC in the chest and wrist then the third bullet hit JFK in the head. That's three bullets! Consider this too. JBC's had his back facing Nellie between frames 250 and z278. That's the only time JBC could have received a hypothetical shot from left of the vehicle to his back without hitting Nellie. Are you saying there were shots from different directions?

[Jack Nessan]

You certainly do make a claim. You claim that there were not three shots and therefore, that the abundant evidence of three shots is false.  You offer no explanation of how it is that so many (40+) not only agreed on the number of shots but also the specific pattern.  You offer no explanation for the fact that of the 178 witnesses whose evidence relating to the number of shots was compiled by the HSCA: 17 recalled hearing two; 7 said they heard two or three shots;132 reported hearing exactly three shots; (6 people said they heard four shots; and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. A further 7 bystanders reported hearing 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots). D. M. Green, ?Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy?, Report No. 4034, 8 HSCA 128 at 142.
JBC's chest wound was caused by the second bullet. If the shot pattern was 1......2...3, the second shot occurred when the angle of the shot from the SN to the car was from almost directly behind.  Since JFK had moved left, JBC's right armpit was not blocked by JFK.
No one is saying that a 10 gram 6.5 mm. jacketed bullet fired at 2000 fps is not capable of passing through a person and into another. The question is whether this bullet did pass through JBC's right armpit, chest, wrist and thigh after passing through JFK. The condition of CE399 does not help you in making that case. But that is a minor problem. The real problem is the evidence that JFK was struck by the first and JBC by the second and the fact that JBC's right armpit is right of JFK's neck exit wound.

No, Rob thinks Sen Russell's statement somehow proves there is three shots and a second shooter------ there is evidence of two shots, prove there was three. Rob obviously can't, instead of insinuating there was three shots why don't you prove there was three shots? If there was in fact three shots it should be evident and easily shown.

No matter how many variations of this same theory evolve there is still some basic problems. Apparently the shot has now moved to Z250 from Z270 and it is now a shot that hit him in the back instead of just the leg? It appears you have abandoned the two shots closer together at the end to an even shot spacing? At least the cycle time of the carcano registered and you are trying to incorporate it in this new variation.

1) After viewing the Zapuder Film, Connally actually states he felt he was wounded by Z235.
2) Where is the bullet that hit JFK but supposedly missed JBC
3) Connally cries out after being wounded and Jackie always felt if her attention had not been diverted from JFK by JBC screaming she would have pulled JFK over on her lap. Remember JBC cries out after being wounded and both Nelly and Jackie reference that as having been after the first shot. Nelly even specifically states before the second.
4) If you are going to quote the witnesses at least state when they made there statements and how they changed over time. This appears to be the same seriously flawed logic that is always presented.
5) A large number of the eyewitnesses state there was two shots and where the first shot occurred and JFK reacts to it. Maybe stop regurgitating McAdam's witness compilation it is basically flawed, using latter statements not the earliest and heavily weighted to earwitnesses and not eyewitnesses.
6) The witness compilation you are quoting refers to the last two shots as being very close, "almost as one", or statements similar to this. Speer's analysis of them was that they were really talking about one shot.
7) There is still the same problem of few witnesses describe the assassination as taking place the way you are describing. Specifically the Zapruder Film does not.