The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

Are you asking me to prove to you that there were three shots?  That is obviously not going to be possible.  If you want to conclude that this distribution means only two shots:


you are welcome to do that.  But don't expect others to agree with you.

It does not matter what the others think. It is like a 3D picture, once you understand it, the answer is every where. There were only two shots and this can be shown many different ways. People will believe what they want but they cannot change the answer.

I already know you cannot prove there was three shots. Nobody can because there was never three shots fired.  I am asking you to think for yourself and not be such a lemming.

It is not complicated, the answer to how many shots were fired is in the shell evidence and the WC testimonies about the shells.

[Andrew Mason]

It does not matter what the others think. It is like a 3D picture, once you understand it, the answer is every where. There were only two shots and this can be shown many different ways. People will believe what they want but they cannot change the answer.

I already know you cannot prove there was three shots. Nobody can because there was never three shots fired.  I am asking you to think for yourself and not be such a lemming.

If there were only two shots, it is difficult to understand how all three men immediately below the SN on the fifth floor could not only hear three loud explosions from the floor above, but Harold Norman could hear the bolt action reload and a shell hit the floor three times, each time after a loud explosion sound.  And even more difficult to understand how so many not only recalled hearing 3 distinct shots, recalled the same distinct pattern to the three shots. How is that even possible?

It is not complicated, the answer to how many shots were fired is in the shell evidence and the WC testimonies about the shells.

So you think that Oswald was so unprepared that he forgot to remove an empty shell from the MC before setting up the SN?  I am sure you have an explanation.  By the way, it was noted by the FBI in operating the MC that occasionally a shell would get pinched when being ejected.

[Dan O'meara]

It does not matter what the others think. It is like a 3D picture, once you understand it, the answer is every where. There were only two shots and this can be shown many different ways. People will believe what they want but they cannot change the answer.

I already know you cannot prove there was three shots. Nobody can because there was never three shots fired.  I am asking you to think for yourself and not be such a lemming.

It is not complicated, the answer to how many shots were fired is in the shell evidence and the WC testimonies about the shells.

Sorry Jack, over 160 ear-witnesses heard three clearly audible shots.
That simply cannot be ignored.

[Jack Nessan]

If there were only two shots, it is difficult to understand how all three men immediately below the SN on the fifth floor could not only hear three loud explosions from the floor above, but Harold Norman could hear the bolt action reload and a shell hit the floor three times, each time after a loud explosion sound.  And even more difficult to understand how so many not only recalled hearing 3 distinct shots, recalled the same distinct pattern to the three shots. How is that even possible?
So you think that Oswald was so unprepared that he forgot to remove an empty shell from the MC before setting up the SN?  I am sure you have an explanation.  By the way, it was noted by the FBI in operating the MC that occasionally a shell would get pinched when being ejected.

No, this is wrong and you know it. The big question is why would you deliberately lie about this?

Did you read what I told you to read?

[Jack Nessan]

Sorry Jack, over 160 ear-witnesses heard three clearly audible shots.
That simply cannot be ignored.

Thanks for the intelligent response. The number of shots defines the assassination. See what I mean about Mason. He knows better than what he posted.

The sheer number of earwitnesses as compared to eyewitnesses skews the analysis. The earwitnesses were standing in an echo chamber. The eyewitnesses were able to relate what they saw to what they heard.

I think Nellie, JBC, Jackie, SA Greer, and SA Kellerman, would be in a better position to know. All five of the occupants of JFK's limo reference just two shots. Six if you count Clint Hill riding on the trunk.

[Dan O'meara]

Thanks for the intelligent response. The number of shots defines the assassination. See what I mean about Mason. He knows better than what he posted.

The number of shots defines the assassination.

I couldn't agree more. The number of shots and the direction they came from are of fundamental importance. It's amazing how little consensus there is over something so fundamental.

The sheer number of earwitnesses as compared to eyewitnesses skews the analysis. The earwitnesses were standing in an echo chamber. The eyewitnesses were able to relate what they saw to what they heard.

I think Nellie, JBC, Jackie, SA Greer, and SA Kellerman, would be in a better position to know. All five of the occupants of JFK's limo reference just two shots. Six if you count Clint Hill riding on the trunk.

I don't agree that those in the limo were any more "eye-witnesses" that those in the follow-up cars or the dozens of people stood on Elm Street who were specifically focused on JFK.
In my opinion, the six people you name in no way stacks up against the 160+ witnesses who heard three shots. I don't think it makes any difference whether you were in the limo or not.
If people were confused by echoes they would have heard an even number of shots, not an odd number.
There are plenty of people who heard more or less than three shots but the number pales into insignificance compared to those who reported hearing three shots.
I'm not sure how the injury to Tague occurs in a realistic way with just two shots, but that's just my opinion.

It's clearly something we'll have to agree to disagree on but I hope you can see where I'm coming from in accepting there were three, clearly audible shots.

[Jack Nessan]

The number of shots defines the assassination.

I couldn't agree more. The number of shots and the direction they came from are of fundamental importance. It's amazing how little consensus there is over something so fundamental.

I don't agree that those in the limo were any more "eye-witnesses" that those in the follow-up cars or the dozens of people stood on Elm Street who were specifically focused on JFK.
In my opinion, the six people you name in no way stacks up against the 160+ witnesses who heard three shots. I don't think it makes any difference whether you were in the limo or not.
If people were confused by echoes they would have heard an even number of shots, not an odd number.
There are plenty of people who heard more or less than three shots but the number pales into insignificance compared to those who reported hearing three shots.
I'm not sure how the injury to Tague occurs in a realistic way with just two shots, but that's just my opinion.

It's clearly something we'll have to agree to disagree on but I hope you can see where I'm coming from in accepting there were three, clearly audible shots.

I understand, three shots is an accepted fact but should it be. Studying witness statements is a quagmire because of witnesses with multiple statements. But consider this:

The earwitnesses statements include all sorts of descriptions of how the shots sounded. Basically if their statements do not fit the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano, and a lot of them do not, then what exactly are they describing. The description of a double shot at the end and that the two are so close together they sound as if they are one, is a description of what? The second shot being described as the head shot and then another shot following is what? Altgens stated assuredly that there were no shots after the head shot.

The eyewitness vs earwitness comparison becomes a tedious argument, but there is physical evidence that helps explain what happened.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0243a.htm

The shell casings actually provide physical evidence of how many shots were fired. Who noted the evidence was Josiah Thompson. In his book "Six Seconds in Dallas" he states he viewed over thirty shells that had been fired in the carcano (chapter VII footnote 4 of Six Seconds in Dallas). All the shells had an indentation in the side of the shell casing except for CE543. In the book is a photo of the shells together and notation showing the position of the indentation on CE544, CE545, and CE141 (the unfired cartridge), but not on CE543.

Of the three shells and cartridge shown, the most telling is CE141 for the reason that indentation is there but the cartridge was never fired. Why that is important is in the FBI memo from Hoover to Rankin, the indentation in the side of the shell casings is referred to as a "chamber mark." It is a mark that is produced by the rifle itself due to a manufacturing defect. The "chamber mark" is only produced by the rifle when it is fired and expanding the shell or in the case of CE141 when the chamber of the rifle is expanded due to the heat generated from the rifle having been fired. CE543 does not have the "chamber mark" and among other things exhibit evidence of having been dry fired or basically was being used as a snap cap.

[Andrew Mason]

I understand, three shots is an accepted fact but should it be. Studying witness statements is a quagmire because of witnesses with multiple statements.

Yeah. An incomprehensible quagmire.  Just look at this and try to figure out how many shots there were:

The eyewitness vs earwitness comparison becomes a tedious argument, but there is physical evidence that helps explain what happened.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0243a.htm

The shell casings actually provide physical evidence of how many shots were fired. Who noted the evidence was Josiah Thompson. In his book "Six Seconds in Dallas" he states he viewed over thirty shells that had been fired in the carcano (chapter VII footnote 4 of Six Seconds in Dallas). All the shells had an indentation in the side of the shell casing except for CE543. In the book is a photo of the shells together and notation showing the position of the indentation on CE544, CE545, and CE141 (the unfired cartridge), but not on CE543.

Of the three shells and cartridge shown, the most telling is CE141 for the reason that indentation is there but the cartridge was never fired. Why that is important is in the FBI memo from Hoover to Rankin, the indentation in the side of the shell casings is referred to as a "chamber mark." It is a mark that is produced by the rifle itself due to a manufacturing defect. The "chamber mark" is only produced by the rifle when it is fired and expanding the shell or in the case of CE141 when the chamber of the rifle is expanded due to the heat generated from the rifle having been fired. CE543 does not have the "chamber mark" and among other things exhibit evidence of having been dry fired or basically was being used as a snap cap.

I am not sure what evidence you are referring to.  It was determined by the FBI that all three shells had been fired by the C2766 rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. This was determined by matching the bolt-face and firing pin impressions on the shells with the bolt face and firing pin of C2766 (per: Frazier, 3H416-417).  (A snap cap does not recoil back against the bolt face). All three shells are shown to have bolt-face impressions matching C2766. This cannot happen if the shells are from unfired cartridges.  Here is an excerpt from the WC testimony of Supt. Nicol's of the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (3H505):

Mr. NICOL. Based upon the similarity of the firing-pin impressions and the breech-block markings, as well as ejector and extractor marks, it is my opinion that all three of the exhibits, 545, 543, and 544, were fired in the same weapon as fired Exhibit 557.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you take photographs of the various shells under the microscope?
Mr. NICOL. I took photographs of the specimen which I referred to, or was referred to, as Q-48, which would be this.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. That is Commission Exhibit 545.
Mr. NICOL. These were also taken under the comparison microscope in the same fashion as the other specimens.
Mr. EISENBERG. And these were taken by you?
Mr. NICOL. These were taken by me.

(3H508):
Mr. DULLES. What is 543?
Mr. EISENBERG. 543 is a shell found in the TSBD building.
Mr. NICOL. This is a photograph I took of the head-a portion of the head of Q-6, or Commission Exhibit 543.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 619, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 619.
(The photograph described was marked Commission Exhibit NO. 619 and received in evidence.)
Mr. NICOL. It might be well to introduce these, too. These are the same as the ones which are mounted, except that I have cut them for the purpose of matching them.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to introduce these two photographs-also taken by you, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which are similar, or taken from this photograph. That will be 620 and 621, Mr. Reporter.
Mr. DULLES. Exhibits 620 and 621 as described will be admitted.
(The photographs described were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 620 and 621 and were received in evidence.)

The microscope photos showing these markings on CE543 provided by Nicol (CE619-621) show conclusively that CE543 had been fired.

AND, since there was no empty shell in the rifle when it was found, this means the all three must have been ejected from the rifle chamber.

Nicol also found that the shells had several markings that indicated that, as full cartridges, each had been loaded and ejected at least 2 times before firing and CE543 had been loaded and ejected at least 3 times.  This was determined that CE543 had a magazine follower impression made by the Mannlicher magazine on the last bullet in the clip.  So this means that CE543 had, at one time, been inserted as the last bullet in the magazine at some time.  Since it was not the last bullet in the clip on 22Nov63, this means that at some time it had been part of a clip of bullets in the magazine and then had been removed without firing.