WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Jack Nessan]

Can you support the SBT or not?

Sure, there is only evidence of a total of two bullets and a very large group of witnesses stated there was only two shots.
-------------------------
Your turn. You stated there was three shots. Prove there was three shots.

It should be easy given you did so numerous times in the past.

Caprio: " ....... I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred. "

Explain the trajectory and wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not pass through JFK first.

You have been asked numerous times and no answer. This thread appears to be all talk and no walk.

[Andrew Mason]

I see the problem, somehow you have managed to convince yourself that your analysis is correct and JBC could view the Zapuder film and not know that he was wounded, or ever question how the HSCA arrived at their conclusions. It is apparent you went through the witness tabulation looking for the words "three shots" and then claimed that meant a shot supporting this theory about a shot at Z250 or Z270 or in a place different than what the Zapruder film shows or the witnesses actually stated.

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

I didn't go through the witness testimony to find the persons who reported 3 shots.  DM Green did that for the HSCA.  He reviewed all the witness evidence and found that there were 178 who reported on the number of shots.  Of those 178 he found 132 who reported hearing exactly 3 shots. 

Those 132 witnesses neither support nor conflict with a shot at z272.  To be clear I never suggested there was a shot at z250.   I am not aware of anyone who suggested such a shot.

The Zfilm unequivocally, by itself, shows the impact of the head shot.  It does not unequivocally by itself show the impact of any other shot. You need additional evidence to determine where those shots occurred.

Unfortunately for this theory, the HSCA dismissed their own report as being faulty due to media influence. They determined the witnesses inflated the number of shots. If the HSCA did not support their own Witness Analysis why would you?

The HSCA made no such conclusion that the witnesses inflated the number of shots.  The HSCA ignored the witnesses who said there were 3 shots and concluded that there was a 4th shot.  That conclusion was subsequently shown by scientists at the NAS to have been based on faulty acoustical data, analysis and theory.  So it is not the witnesses who inflated the number of shots.  It was the HSCA. 

"'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

I agree that many witnesses, particularly those close to reflecting surfaces, were confused as to the direction of the shots.  That is because the human brain determines direction of a sound source by the time difference between the sound reaching the left and right ears.  That difference, which is in the order of a millisecond, is what tells the brain where the sound source is.  If the right ear hears it first, the sound is coming from the right. If the left ear hears it first, the source is to the left.  If the sound is coming from the source and from a reflecting surface, the brain gets confused about the direction it is coming from. 

But I don't agree that one cannot use witnesses to count the number of shots.  While some witnesses may be influenced by news reports of the number of shots, many would not  Besides, many gave their statements regarding the three shots within hours of the events, before hearing any media reports.  There are too many witnesses who heard 3 shots for this to be explained away as influenced by hearing the reports of others.  And it in no way explains the shot pattern 1.......2...3 that many reported.  There was virtually no reporting of the shot pattern at all.

A number of the eyewitnesses changed the number of shots from two to three. Again the HSCA had an opinion about the confusion over the number of shots and why the number would be inflated:

  "The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.

If anyone heard an echo 1.5 seconds later (from the distant Post Office building south of Commerce St.) it would have been so weak and from a completely different direction that no one in Dealey Plaze would have thought it was a shot.   Too many people heard 3 distinct loud, well spaced shots for one of those 3 shots to have been an echo.

[Jack Nessan]

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

I didn't go through the witness testimony to find the persons who reported 3 shots.  DM Green did that for the HSCA.  He reviewed all the witness evidence and found that there were 178 who reported on the number of shots.  Of those 178 he found 132 who reported hearing exactly 3 shots. 

Those 132 witnesses neither support nor conflict with a shot at z272.  To be clear I never suggested there was a shot at z250.   I am not aware of anyone who suggested such a shot.

The Zfilm unequivocally, by itself, shows the impact of the head shot.  It does not unequivocally by itself show the impact of any other shot. You need additional evidence to determine where those shots occurred.

The HSCA made no such conclusion that the witnesses inflated the number of shots.  The HSCA ignored the witnesses who said there were 3 shots and concluded that there was a 4th shot.  That conclusion was subsequently shown by scientists at the NAS to have been based on faulty acoustical data, analysis and theory.  So it is not the witnesses who inflated the number of shots.  It was the HSCA. 
I agree that many witnesses, particularly those close to reflecting surfaces, were confused as to the direction of the shots.  That is because the human brain determines direction of a sound source by the time difference between the sound reaching the left and right ears.  That difference, which is in the order of a millisecond, is what tells the brain where the sound source is.  If the right ear hears it first, the sound is coming from the right. If the left ear hears it first, the source is to the left.  If the sound is coming from the source and from a reflecting surface, the brain gets confused about the direction it is coming from. 

But I don't agree that one cannot use witnesses to count the number of shots.  While some witnesses may be influenced by news reports of the number of shots, many would not  Besides, many gave their statements regarding the three shots within hours of the events, before hearing any media reports.  There are too many witnesses who heard 3 shots for this to be explained away as influenced by hearing the reports of others.  And it in no way explains the shot pattern 1.......2...3 that many reported.  There was virtually no reporting of the shot pattern at all.
 If anyone heard an echo 1.5 seconds later (from the distant Post Office building south of Commerce St.) it would have been so weak and from a completely different direction that no one in Dealey Plaze would have thought it was a shot.   Too many people heard 3 distinct loud, well spaced shots for one of those 3 shots to have been an echo.

What other conclusion can be reached except you stating there was a shot at Z250?
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."
---------------------------------------------
Now you have a shot at Z270 again. This theory lacks continuity from one thought to another. This theory is in direct contradiction with what is seen on the Zapruder Film and what the eyewitnesses stated occurred.

Clint Hill rode on the back of the car to Parkland and was the only SS Agent to react. He stated there was only two shots. Instead of quoting Hill and his statement there was two shots, SA Hickey is quoted to promote the theory of a shot at Z250, the  SS Agent with no view of the car is misquoted as proof of something that never occurred. Hickey has to ask Kinney what happened because Kinney is front and center. Kinney reports the headshot as the second shot. Actually it is nothing short of incredible this is even going on. You yourself cannot possibly believe this. Paul Landis also states there was two shots as does Glen Bennett. 

It doesn't matter if you agree with the witnesses being influenced by media reporting. Both the WC and the HSCA included language in their conclusions  stating it as a problem. The report you are promoting as all encompassing contains 2 shot witnesses listed as three shot witnesses because of the failure of the report to include all the statements these people made early on. The first reports of the assassination were made to the media. The reporters did not run to the earwitnesses and ask what did you hear.  The report is basically flawed and a waste of time and thatis what the HSCA is stating in their conclusion.

[Andrew Mason]

What other conclusion can be reached except you stating there was a shot at Z250?
A Mason: "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250."
---------------------------------------------

No, that is not a conclusion you can draw.  You can only conclude from that statement that the reaction to the second shot was not at or before z250.  You also have to read what I said in context.  I said that, according to the 1......2...3 shot pattern witnesses, the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 (which was around z250). Therefore, "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250".  I also said that the shot was a perceptible amount of time after the midpoint. I pointed out evidence that fits with a second shot at z272-273.

Now you have a shot at Z270 again. This theory lacks continuity from one thought to another.

You have to read what I have written more carefully. There is no lack of continuity.  I have never said that there was a shot at z250. Never. I said it was after z250.  I said that there is evidence of a second shot at z272-273. z272 is after z250.

This theory is in direct contradiction with what is seen on the Zapruder Film and what the eyewitnesses stated occurred.

I have to disagree.  The witnesses overwhelmingly reported 3 shots and of those who recalled a pattern, overwhelmingly reported a 1..........2.....3 shot pattern.

Clint Hill rode on the back of the car to Parkland and was the only SS Agent to react. He stated there was only two shots. Instead of quoting Hill and his statement there was two shots, SA Hickey is quoted to promote the theory of a shot at Z250

Again you are wrong.  I cite Hickey to support a shot when JFK's hair flies up and then drops back at z273-276.,

the  SS Agent with no view of the car is misquoted as proof of something that never occurred.

Again. No misquote at all. Read my last post in response to you.

Hickey has to ask Kinney what happened because Kinney is front and center. Kinney reports the headshot as the second shot. Actually it is nothing short of incredible this is even going on.

What evidence do you have that Hickey asked Kinney what had happened?

You yourself cannot possibly believe this. Paul Landis also states there was two shots as does Glen Bennett. 

Paul Landis recalled only two shots. So did Clint Hill. But Bennett is not clear.  In his Nov 22 notes it is not clear whether he is referring to two or three shots:

"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.

 In his November 23 report he definitely refers to three shots:
"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 limosine 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."

Without the Nov. 23 report one could easily conclude from the Nov. 22 notes that Bennett recalled only two shots, although it is an odd way to say it.  He hears a first loud noise THEN looks at the President and at that time sees a shot "that hit him in the back".  That would be two shots.  Or he could be saying that he looked at the President and saw where the first shot had hit him.

But with the Nov. 23 report, in which he again refers to the head shot as the second shot, it is clear that he means it was the second of the last two shots because he has already referred to the first and second shots. 

It is also possible that he recalled hearing only two shots for sure, the first one striking JFK, not recalling another shot until the head shot, but after writing his notes and hearing people talk about three shots, he convinced himself that there was a second shot struck JFK in the back and the third shot (which he still calls "a second shot") hit JFK in the head.  Unfortunately, Bennett was never questioned by the WC or HSCA.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the witnesses being influenced by media reporting. Both the WC and the HSCA included language in their conclusions  stating it as a problem. The report you are promoting as all encompassing contains 2 shot witnesses listed as three shot witnesses because of the failure of the report to include all the statements these people made early on. The first reports of the assassination were made to the media. The reporters did not run to the earwitnesses and ask what did you hear.  The report is basically flawed and a waste of time and that is what the HSCA is stating in their conclusion.

Jack, you are a Texas Sharpshooter.  You have to look at all the witness statements.  There is no question that over a hundred witnesses reported hearing three shot sounds.  You seem to waver between calling them liars, dupes or honest witnesses who heard an echo.  If they heard an echo on each of your two shots, why did they not report hearing four?

[Rob Caprio]

You asked question. The answer is not complicated. Tague was hit on the second shot. The evidence that supports that conclusion is not complicated. It is just that there is a lot of it.

Do you believe that the shots came from the TSBD?

[Rob Caprio]

Sure, there is only evidence of a total of two bullets and a very large group of witnesses stated there was only two shots.
-------------------------
Your turn. You stated there was three shots. Prove there was three shots.

It should be easy given you did so numerous times in the past.

Caprio: " ....... I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred. "

Explain the trajectory and wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not pass through JFK first.

You have been asked numerous times and no answer. This thread appears to be all talk and no walk.

Saying that there were only two shots is NOT supporting the SBT. Can you support it or not?

[Jack Nessan]

No, that is not a conclusion you can draw.  You can only conclude from that statement that the reaction to the second shot was not at or before z250.  You also have to read what I said in context.  I said that, according to the 1......2...3 shot pattern witnesses, the second shot was after the midpoint between 1 and 3 (which was around z250). Therefore, "If JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, that means he was not reacting to being shot until after z250".  I also said that the shot was a perceptible amount of time after the midpoint. I pointed out evidence that fits with a second shot at z272-273.You have to read what I have written more carefully. There is no lack of continuity.  I have never said that there was a shot at z250. Never. I said it was after z250.  I said that there is evidence of a second shot at z272-273. z272 is after z250.
I have to disagree.  The witnesses overwhelmingly reported 3 shots and of those who recalled a pattern, overwhelmingly reported a 1..........2.....3 shot pattern.
Again you are wrong.  I cite Hickey to support a shot when JFK's hair flies up and then drops back at z273-276., Again. No misquote at all. Read my last post in response to you.
What evidence do you have that Hickey asked Kinney what had happened?Paul Landis recalled only two shots. So did Clint Hill. But Bennett is not clear.  In his Nov 22 notes it is not clear whether he is referring to two or three shots:

"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.

 In his November 23 report he definitely refers to three shots:
"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 limosine 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."

Without the Nov. 23 report one could easily conclude from the Nov. 22 notes that Bennett recalled only two shots, although it is an odd way to say it.  He hears a first loud noise THEN looks at the President and at that time sees a shot "that hit him in the back".  That would be two shots.  Or he could be saying that he looked at the President and saw where the first shot had hit him.

But with the Nov. 23 report, in which he again refers to the head shot as the second shot, it is clear that he means it was the second of the last two shots because he has already referred to the first and second shots. 

It is also possible that he recalled hearing only two shots for sure, the first one striking JFK, not recalling another shot until the head shot, but after writing his notes and hearing people talk about three shots, he convinced himself that there was a second shot struck JFK in the back and the third shot (which he still calls "a second shot") hit JFK in the head.  Unfortunately, Bennett was never questioned by the WC or HSCA.
Jack, you are a Texas Sharpshooter.  You have to look at all the witness statements.  There is no question that over a hundred witnesses reported hearing three shot sounds.  You seem to waver between calling them liars, dupes or honest witnesses who heard an echo.  If they heard an echo on each of your two shots, why did they not report hearing four?

Earwitness testimony is a waste of time. Recalling sounds that someone else has to explain to them what they heard and in a sequence that isn't within in the capabilities of the carcano or what is visually seen on the Zapuder Film negates their statement unless it is looked at in the context of echoes. Which is what the HSCA attempted to do.

LHO fired the first shot with the rifle retracted inside the building, unless you want to believe he hoped he would be seen. Several witnesses inside the building stated there was only one shot. The only witnesses to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett is a two shot witness. Bennett was looking to the right at Z210 and was still looking to the right at Z255, He has the only distinction of being the only eyewitness to not see JFK react to the first shot. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.

First quoting only the second statement of Hickey and ignoring his statement that the bullet impacted his head to claim the bullet made his hair wave, and now Bennett.

The only problem with Bennet is he never looks at JFK. That Bennett supposedly saw a bullet hit JFK in the back is nonsense. If you look at him in the Willis (Z210) and Altgens (Z255) photos, it is clear how obstructed his view of JFK was from the back seat of the follow up car, sitting behind both Dave Powers and Emory Roberts. In both photos, Bennett is looking to his right and not at JFK. He has the distinction of being the only eyewitness not to see JFK react to the first shot obviously he wasn?t looking at JFK. If Bennett knew about the wound in JFK?s back it is only someone told him.


The hole in Kennedy's jacket was extremely tiny, and to believe that Bennett could have seen such a small hole, in a dark suit, looking over the heads of both Dave Powers and Emory Roberts, at a time when the President was beginning his slump to the left, strains the imagination.

Ignoring the witnesses who had an unobstructed view of JFK to focus on the SA's with no view seems odd.

[Jack Nessan]

Saying that there were only two shots is NOT supporting the SBT. Can you support it or not?

You believe LHO only fired two shots. So do I.

 R Caprio: "Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT.  In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."