WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Andrew Mason]

Do you believe that the shots came from the TSBD?

No. They came from Oswald's rifle.  The rifle was in Oswald's hands and Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

So how is it that a statistically very significant proportion of the earwitnesses not only agreed on the number of shots but on the shot pattern? What evidence do you have that these recollections of the shot pattern were not independent?  If they are independent, the likelihood that they agreed by random chance is pretty close to zero.

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.

To whom are you referring? The three witnesses immediately below the SN all said there were three shots. At least one heard three shells drop and heard the bolt action 3 times, the last time being AFTER the third shot. If that is true, there must have been three shells ejected. And, guess what, three shells were found!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett is a two shot witness.

Not in his Nov. 23/63 statement. He refers to three separate shots.

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.

I don't follow you there. If Bennett was a two shot witness and he says (in both statements) that he saw a shot hit JFK in the back before the head shot, he must have been referring JFK being hit on the first shot.

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.

You don't seem to be able to read his first statement. Hickey did not say that the bullet that impacted his head made his hair fly up. In his first statement, he said there were two shots and those two shots resulted in two things. Why do you keep saying that those two things were the result of only one of the bullets? Read his statement!

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.

You cannot see Bennett in the zfilm at all. He is behind SA Jack Ready sitting in the right rear seat. So if you only see him in the two photos, how do you know where he was looking at other times.

[Jack Nessan]

So how is it that a statistically very significant proportion of the earwitnesses not only agreed on the number of shots but on the shot pattern? What evidence do you have that these recollections of the shot pattern were not independent?  If they are independent, the likelihood that they agreed by random chance is pretty close to zero.
To whom are you referring? The three witnesses immediately below the SN all said there were three shots. At least one heard three shells drop and heard the bolt action 3 times, the last time being AFTER the third shot. If that is true, there must have been three shells ejected. And, guess what, three shells were found!
Not in his Nov. 23/63 statement. He refers to three separate shots.
I don't follow you there. If Bennett was a two shot witness and he says (in both statements) that he saw a shot hit JFK in the back before the head shot, he must have been referring JFK being hit on the first shot.
You don't seem to be able to read his first statement. Hickey did not say that the bullet that impacted his head made his hair fly up. In his first statement, he said there were two shots and those two shots resulted in two things. Why do you keep saying that those two things were the result of only one of the bullets? Read his statement!
You cannot see Bennett in the zfilm at all. He is behind SA Jack Ready sitting in the right rear seat. So if you only see him in the two photos, how do you know where he was looking at other times.

Both the WC and HSCA stated the witnesses were influenced by the media. This ever evolving theory proves that is true.

1)Earwitness statements conflict with initial eyewitness statements.
2)Earwitness statements conflict with the known mechanical operation of the carcano.
3)Subsequent statements from eyewitnesses, conflict with initial statements from eyewitnesses.
4)A shot at Z50 conflicts with what is seen on the Zapruder Film
5)A shot at Z250 conflicts with JBC's review of the Zapruder Film.
6)A shot at Z250 does not mean a shot at Z270.
7)A shot at Z250 is an attempt to explain the assassination with the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano.
8)A shot at Z270 is an attempt to explain earwitness statements with their explanation of shots two and three being closer together than shots one and two.

[Walt Cakebread]

No. They came from Oswald's rifle.  The rifle was in Oswald's hands and Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

 Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

If that is true....Then please provide a reasonable explanation for Lee's ability to watch Junior Jarman, and Harold Norman, as they entered the back door of the TSBD at 12:27?

[Rob Caprio]

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."

If you really think that I support the notion that LHO fired two shots then you are really not paying attention.

Can you support the SBT or not? It would seem not.

[Rob Caprio]

No. They came from Oswald's rifle.  The rifle was in Oswald's hands and Oswald was on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Same fantasy belief. It was shown that a shot from the alleged SN could never strike near where Tague was standing. You would have to add a magic ricochet to your fantasy theory.

[Andrew Mason]

Both the WC and HSCA stated the witnesses were influenced by the media. This ever evolving theory proves that is true.

1)Earwitness statements conflict with initial eyewitness statements.
2)Earwitness statements conflict with the known mechanical operation of the carcano.
3)Subsequent statements from eyewitnesses, conflict with initial statements from eyewitnesses.
4)A shot at Z50 conflicts with what is seen on the Zapruder Film
5)A shot at Z250 conflicts with JBC's review of the Zapruder Film.
6)A shot at Z250 does not mean a shot at Z270.

I am not sure you even read what I write, but I'll say it again: there was no shot at z250. I have never said there was a shot then. The second shot was CLOSER to the third shot than to the first. If it was at z250 it would have been equally close to 1 and 3.

7)A shot at Z250 is an attempt to explain the assassination with the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano.
8)A shot at Z270 is an attempt to explain earwitness statements with their explanation of shots two and three being closer together than shots one and two.

You obviously have as much difficulty with arithmetic as you have with reading. The time between z250 and z312 is 3.5 seconds not 2.3 sec.

[Andrew Mason]

Same fantasy belief. It was shown that a shot from the alleged SN could never strike near where Tague was standing. You would have to add a magic ricochet to your fantasy theory.

I agree that the missile that struck the curb near Tague was not a complete bullet. But a fragment did strike the windshield frame and the sun visor above Greer. What evidence excludes as a possibility that another fragment travelling just above the windshield could not have struck Tague?