The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

Anyone who reports only hearing two shots doesn't know when the "missing" shot was fired.
That's obvious.

Are you saying that anyone who receives a bullet to the torso and feels it will necessarily recall hearing a muzzle blast arriving at their ears 100 ms. later?  What is it about Connally's testimony that he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot that you find difficult to accept?

The interpretation is based on Speer's work. It has already been dealt with in this thread and, rather than rely on a single, confused statement, it takes all his statements into account.

Woodward has already been dealt with in this thread.
Greer's many vague statements about the shooting can be interpreted in various ways, Speer's has this to say:

"As Greer, in his original statement, failed to mention how many shots he heard, and as he only told the Warren Commission he heard three shots after being asked a direct question, it seems possible he was trying to skirt the issue. Still, he let what was probably his true impressions sneak into his testimony. He testified that after Kellerman told him to “take off,” he couldn’t remember how many “shots or noises” he heard--when officially there could be but one. He also let it slip that after he turned back around from looking at Connally, which he does not do till frame 318, he heard another shot “right immediately after.” Sounds like the man heard four shots. That he later told an HSCA investigator he could recall hearing but two shots suggests the possibility he realized his predicament, and had convinced himself that he'd heard but two shots and their echoes."


No More Silence, p.351-374, published 1998
You're now dragging Brehm into the "fringe ruffle" nonsense?
It's a reference to the head shot - when large chunks of scalp flew upwards.

"According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head.  Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President’s hair fly up and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together."     [11-24-63 interview with the FBI, 22H837-838]

"...the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know. Being human, not knowing that he had been hit. But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually." (When asked to confirm that this was the second shot) "That was the second shot, sir, and some say it was the third shot killed him, but as I recall—and I’ll believe it till my dying day—it was the second shot...was the fatal shot that hit him in the head and killed him.
(When asked if he heard a third shot) "Yes sir, I did, but I had already turned my attention to where I thought maybe the shots were coming from—behind us. I didn’t know exactly where"                                                                                     
                                                                                     [7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]

So Brehm admitted that he was not looking at JFK at the time of the third shot.  Having seen JFK's hair fly up and then seeing him with head damage to the right side of his head after the third shot, it would not be surprising for him to conclude that JFK was hit on the second shot. That is completely consistent with what Hickey observed, which is consistent with the second shot just missing and causing JFK's hair to fly up and the third shot striking him in the head.

Note that, yet again, Templin is specifically equating the head shot with hair flying up ("I could see his hair depart from his head")


Obviously we are now in the tit-for-tat world of contradictory eye-witness evidence.
The original point being a shot after the head shot is most certainly not ruled out by the eye-witness testimony, far from it, there is just as much, if not more, witness testimony supporting a shot after the head shot than there is for 3 shots, 3 hits.

I notice that you did not provide the cite for the Holmes statement that contradicts his WC testimony and you have not provided any cite for any statement by Templin. 

[Andrew Mason]

Three obvious observations. You are ignoring the vast majority of the eyewitness testimony, the shell evidence, bullet evidence, and why would anyone shoot at two men lying down on the seats and then to add insult to injury miss the whole car?

It is a fair point about why the shooter would fire after an obvious hit on the head shot.  But your argument is that there were only two shots, which ignores the eyewitness testimony and the shell evidence showing shell impressions indicating that all three shells had been fired as complete cartridges in Oswald's MC.

Altgens:

"There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

You are conveniently leaving out the part: "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between."

[Dan O'meara]

Are you saying that anyone who receives a bullet to the torso and feels it will necessarily recall hearing a muzzle blast arriving at their ears 100 ms. later?  What is it about Connally's testimony that he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot that you find difficult to accept?

Cite where Connally states, or even hints, that "he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot..."

So Brehm admitted that he was not looking at JFK at the time of the third shot.  Having seen JFK's hair fly up and then seeing him with head damage to the right side of his head after the third shot, it would not be surprising for him to conclude that JFK was hit on the second shot. That is completely consistent with what Hickey observed, which is consistent with the second shot just missing and causing JFK's hair to fly up and the third shot striking him in the head.

 
You funny!
So, when Brehm says Kennedy was hit badly in the head on the second shot causing his hair to fly up (as his scalp blew apart), you're trying to associate this with the slight ruffle of JFK's fringe you believe is a shot whizzing by his head.

Time and time again witnesses describe JFK's hair flying up/forward when they are describing the head shot. It's clear that Hickey is also describing the head shot when he describes JFK's hair flying forward (and a shot after the head shot).
But you can't afford to lose Hickey from your paltry witness list.

I notice that you did not provide the cite for the Holmes statement that contradicts his WC testimony and you have not provided any cite for any statement by Templin.

Both the Holmes and Templin statements are cited.
This proves you never really read the posts you respond to.

[Andrew Mason]

Cite where Connally states, or even hints, that "he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot..."

It is more than a hint. In his WC testimony he stated that he had time to realize it was a rifle shot, fear an assassination was occurring and turn around to see JFK and then start turning back to the left before he felt the impact of the bullet. In his HSCA testimony he explained his thinking in that interval between hearing the first shot and feeling the impact of the bullet that hit him in the back.  Here are a few excerpts from his testimonies:

4 H 135
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn’t conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In the first place, I don’t know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far. And after I heard that shot I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.

4 H 144
Senator COOPER. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet?
Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade.

1 HSCA 46
Mr. DEVINE. Did you recognize any of the sound as being a rifle shot or hand gun shot?
Mr. CONNALLY. I thought it was a rifle shot.
Mr. DEVINE. Then you turned around and started to turn back
around to look over your left shoulder to see what?
Mr. CONNALLY. To see if the President was all right, because immediately the thought flashed through my mind that if this was a rifle shot, which I believed it to be, that it was probably an assassination attempt and I was trying to see if anything had happened in the automobile.

So, when Brehm says Kennedy was hit badly in the head on the second shot causing his hair to fly up (as his scalp blew apart), you're trying to associate this with the slight ruffle of JFK's fringe you believe is a shot whizzing by his head.

Time and time again witnesses describe JFK's hair flying up/forward when they are describing the head shot. It's clear that Hickey is also describing the head shot when he describes JFK's hair flying forward (and a shot after the head shot).
But you can't afford to lose Hickey from your paltry witness list.

But you just provided a statement from Brehm saying that he did not see the President's head explode because he was turned away from the President trying to see where the shots originated at the time of the third shot.  So if all he saw was the hair on JFK's head fly up on the second shot, turned away, and then saw the right side of his head only when President fall over with blood coming out of an obvious wound to the right side of his head after the third shot, it is not unreasonable to think that he may have thought that damage occurred on the second shot that he saw lift his hair.  Keep in mind that Brehm was standing to JFK's left and would have seen only the left side of JFK's head until JFK fell over onto his wife.

Both the Holmes and Templin statements are cited.
This proves you never really read the posts you respond to.

You have quoted them but you did not cite them.  The cite provides the source of the quotes.  The source should also provide the date on which the quoted statements were made. This is pretty basic stuff.

[Dan O'meara]

It is more than a hint. In his WC testimony he stated that he had time to realize it was a rifle shot, fear an assassination was occurring and turn around to see JFK and then start turning back to the left before he felt the impact of the bullet. In his HSCA testimony he explained his thinking in that interval between hearing the first shot and feeling the impact of the bullet that hit him in the back.  Here are a few excerpts from his testimonies:

4 H 135
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn’t conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In the first place, I don’t know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far. And after I heard that shot I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.

4 H 144
Senator COOPER. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet?
Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade.

1 HSCA 46
Mr. DEVINE. Did you recognize any of the sound as being a rifle shot or hand gun shot?
Mr. CONNALLY. I thought it was a rifle shot.
Mr. DEVINE. Then you turned around and started to turn back
around to look over your left shoulder to see what?
Mr. CONNALLY. To see if the President was all right, because immediately the thought flashed through my mind that if this was a rifle shot, which I believed it to be, that it was probably an assassination attempt and I was trying to see if anything had happened in the automobile.

JBC is adamant the space of time between hearing the shot and realising he was hit was a "split second":

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.

This is lifted from Pat Speer's website -

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) "When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…"


A very, very brief span of time
Two or three people involved
Automatic rifle
My God it was fast
A split second
Snapped fingers three times rapidly
Unbelievably quick

Two shots, a split second apart or a shot and then the realisation he has been hit a split second later?

But you just provided a statement from Brehm saying that he did not see the President's head explode because he was turned away from the President trying to see where the shots originated at the time of the third shot.  So if all he saw was the hair on JFK's head fly up on the second shot, turned away, and then saw the right side of his head only when President fall over with blood coming out of an obvious wound to the right side of his head after the third shot, it is not unreasonable to think that he may have thought that damage occurred on the second shot that he saw lift his hair.  Keep in mind that Brehm was standing to JFK's left and would have seen only the left side of JFK's head until JFK fell over onto his wife.

"But you just provided a statement from Brehm saying that he did not see the President's head explode..."

??
What are you reading?
Brehm states Kennedy was hit badly in the head on the second shot. The only time JFK was hit badly in the head was the head shot. Brehm is describing the second shot as the head shot. He then turns to see where the shots are coming from and hears a shot after the head shot.

You have quoted them but you did not cite them.  The cite provides the source of the quotes.  The source should also provide the date on which the quoted statements were made. This is pretty basic stuff.

I have cited and dated both statements.
All you have to do is read the post.
Now that really is basic stuff.

[Andrew Mason]

JBC is adamant the space of time between hearing the shot and realising he was hit was a "split second":

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.
This is lifted from Pat Speer's website -

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) "When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…"


A very, very brief span of time
Two or three people involved
Automatic rifle
My God it was fast
A split second
Snapped fingers three times rapidly
Unbelievably quick

Two shots, a split second apart or a shot and then the realisation he has been hit a split second later?

You are cherry picking statements and ignoring the totality of what he said.  He also estimated that the shots took place over 10-12 seconds.  He also said that there was enough time for him to realize it was a shot and turn around an try to see JFK and then decide to turn the other way before he felt the actual impact of the bullet.

Are you suggesting that there was less than a second between the first and last shots just because he said that is what it "seemed"?  We know that was not the case. Besides, he did not say that he determined when he was shot by a realisation that he had been shot after the bullet struck. He determined when he was shot from the impact of the bullet itself.  Since he always maintained that he heard the first shot a perceptible amount of time (ie. the time to process the sound and turn his body around) before he felt the impact of the bullet in his back, his evidence is inconsistent with the SBT.  You can try to rationalize this conflict (as did the WC and the HSCA) but you cannot say that his evidence supports the SBT.

"But you just provided a statement from Brehm saying that he did not see the President's head explode..."

??
What are you reading?
Brehm states Kennedy was hit badly in the head on the second shot. The only time JFK was hit badly in the head was the head shot. Brehm is describing the second shot as the head shot. He then turns to see where the shots are coming from and hears a shot after the head shot.

You seem to be overlooking his statement that after the second shot he had diverted his attention to looking for the source of the shots: 

"(When asked if he heard a third shot) "Yes sir, I did, but I had already turned my attention to where I thought maybe the shots were coming from—behind us. I didn’t know exactly where"     

You provided the quote. 

Brehm was on the south side of Elm so he would not have seen the right side of JFK's head until he fell over onto his wife after the head shot. But he could see the hair on the right side fly up over the top of JFK's head as he leaned to his left (as we see in the zfilm from z273-276).  So after hearing the third shot but not seeing JFK at the time of that shot but only seeing the damage (or possibly just hearing about it later) he may well have concluded that the second shot that he saw lifting JFK's hair was the one that struck him in the head.  We don't know.  The fact that he describes the second shot only by describing the hair flying up seems rather odd if he was describing the head explode.  The fact that Hickey describes two separate shots, the first of which just caused JFK's hair to fly up, provides an explanation for Brehm's description. 

I have cited and dated both statements.
All you have to do is read the post.

All you have to do is provide a proper cite.  A reference to a book or website in which the alleged statement appears does not provide any details of when how, when and to whom the statement was made.  And we can't get that information when those resources are not readily available.  For all we know, the alleged statements could have been triple hearsay made at some undetermined time eg. that someone said they heard that he had said at one time.

[Jack Nessan]

It is a fair point about why the shooter would fire after an obvious hit on the head shot.  But your argument is that there were only two shots, which ignores the eyewitness testimony and the shell evidence showing shell impressions indicating that all three shells had been fired as complete cartridges in Oswald's MC.
You are conveniently leaving out the part: "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between."

Go ahead and again quote Joseph Nicol on the subject of ryfiring the rifle. He seems to be suddenly missing from your posts now. Interesting how that always happens after these people's testimonies are read to you.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a large number of eyewitness accounts, shell and bullet evidence, cylce time of the rifle, unbelievably, it appears you are still certain about there having been three shots. Here is your chance again to prove there even was a third shot. If nothing else, make up your own evidence and torture a few witness statements and you can then, if nothing else, prove it in your own mind.

You must not know this but Altgen's two shot news flash was read by Don Pardo on NBC shortly after Walter Cronkite read Merriman's Smith's three shots. In fact Cronkite then read Altgen's news flash minutes later, he read everything but stopped when he was going to read two shots. Even Walter understood the implications. There was an argument on Air Force One back to Washington between the news people, SS, and passengers as to whether there was two shots or three.

[Andrew Mason]

Go ahead and again quote Joseph Nicol on the subject of ryfiring the rifle. He seems to be suddenly missing from your posts now. Interesting how that always happens after these people's testimonies are read to you.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a large number of eyewitness accounts, shell and bullet evidence, cylce time of the rifle, unbelievably, it appears you are still certain about there having been three shots. Here is your chance again to prove there even was a third shot. If nothing else, make up your own evidence and torture a few witness statements and you can then, if nothing else, prove it in your own mind.

Your understanding of "dry firing" and Nicol's are different. Nicol explained that dry firing is simply working the bullets from the clip through the chamber and unloading without pressing the trigger.  There is evidence that Oswald did this.  That was Nicol's explanation of why there appeared to be markings on the shell indicating that it had been put through the load/unload process at least 3 times.  But he also said that it had been fired in the chamber based on the bolt-face impression on CE543. 

You must not know this but Altgen's two shot news flash was read by Don Pardo on NBC shortly after Walter Cronkite read Merriman's Smith's three shots. In fact Cronkite then read Altgen's news flash minutes later, he read everything but stopped when he was going to read two shots. Even Walter understood the implications. There was an argument on Air Force One back to Washington between the news people, SS, and passengers as to whether there was two shots or three.

So we are supposed to ignore the 130+ witnesses who maintained there were 3 shots? Why? Just because some people weren't counting the shots? There are too many who independently reported hearing 3 shots.  Are we also supposed to speculate that the 45+ who recalled the last two shots closer together were independently imagining the same thing?