The First Shot

[John Iacoletti]

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. 

No there isn’t.

[Andrew Mason]

No there isn’t.

Marina Oswald (1 H 54):

Mr. RANKIN. You have described your husband’s practicing 011 the back porch at New Orleans with the telescopic scope and the rifle, saying he did that very regularly there.

Did you ever see him working the bolt. that action that opens the rifle, where you can put a shell in and push it back--during those times?
Mrs. OSWALD. I did not see it, because it was dark, and I would be in the room at that time. But I did hear the noise from it from time to time-not often.

(1 H 65):

Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about llis practicing with the rifle, the telescopic lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, and also his using the bolt
action that you heard from time to time.
Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as best you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. So, he didn’t clean it at that time.
Yes-twice he did clean it.
Mr. RANKIN. And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and sighting the gun on different objects?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t know. The rifle was always with this. I don’t know exactly how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was this during the light of the day or during the darkness?
Mrs. OSWALD. During darkness.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it so dark that neighbors could not see him on the porch there with the gun?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

[John Iacoletti]

Exactly. She didn’t see him do anything. She heard a noise.

[Andrew Mason]

Exactly. She didn’t see him do anything. She heard a noise.

The evidence may not convince you but it is still evidence that tends to support a reasonable inference that the mechanical noise was likely from Oswald practicing with the bolt action. Or do you think it was more likely something else?

[John Iacoletti]

Marina had no knowledge of guns and she was lead in her testimony. She was in the house, it was dark out and she heard a noise.

[Jack Nessan]

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. 
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?

 Actually this explains a lot. You would have to be a complete imbecile to perform some imaginary type of practice by cycling live rounds through a rifle with the bolt cocked and ready to fire, and additionally this is not dryfiring. Nicol was explaining the weight of an empty shell, the extractor marks and dryfiring not cycling the shells through the chamber. That is all you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.

-----------------------------

Ignore whatever you want, but do not ignore the fact the HSCA basically dismissed their own report that you place such great faith in.

This is what the HSCA thought of their own report that you are always referencing as supposedly above reproach. The very report that you place such great emphasis on. They are telling you that over time the witnesses added to their statements information that was taken from media accounts. They thought the witnesses added to the number of shots. Not just once but in two different reports. If the HSCA did not believe their own report why do you?

"'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]

Actually this explains a lot. You would have to be a complete imbecile to perform some imaginary type of practice by cycling live rounds through a rifle with the bolt cocked and ready to fire, and additionally this is not dryfiring. Nicol was explaining the weight of an empty shell, the extractor marks and dryfiring not cycling the shells through the chamber. That is all you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.

Yet Nicol is talking about doing what you say only an imbecile would do:

"And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its-how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.'

How many times can a cartridge be "fired" so that it has two such firings before the "final firing"?

Normally "dry-firing" would be firing the gun without any ammunition in the chamber.  But Eisenberg seems to be using the term 'dry-firing' as 'dry loading and unloading'.  He is suggesting that ejector marks found on the shell could have been produced by "dry-firing" as opposed to "actual firing" (3 H 510):

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.

Now, when a cartridge is actually fired, only the shell is ejected.  So he is suggesting that it was ejected as something other than an empty shell.

This is what the HSCA thought of their own report that you are always referencing as supposedly above reproach. The very report that you place such great emphasis on. They are telling you that over time the witnesses added to their statements information that was taken from media accounts. They thought the witnesses added to the number of shots. Not just once but in two different reports. If the HSCA did not believe their own report why do you?

"'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

The HSCA analysis was seriously flawed.  No one reported having difficulty hearing distinct shots.  Echos will vary with observers who are all over the place.  If ear-witnesses were fooled by echos, they would have over-estimated or "inflated" the number of shots as they suggest. The HSCA was trying to argue that there were more shots than the witnesses recalled hearing. 

Most observers recalled that the last two shots were closer than the first two but still distinct.  Many indicated that the space between 2 and 3 was about half that between 1 and 2. 

If you are arguing that the last two shots were really a shot and an echo, the witness perception of the time between them would vary widely depending on their positions.  That isn't the case.  And if there was more than a second between them, which most said was the case, the reflecting surface providing the echo would have to be more than 565 feet farther away from the source  than the observer was (so that the reflected sound travelled 1130 feet longer to reach the observer).  What large reflecting surfaces in Dealey Plaza were 565 farther away from an observer than the 6th floor TSBD SN? The only one I can think of was the Post Office Building south of Commerce St. 

Also, if the witnesses heard an echo from the shots and there were only two shots, they would have been fooled into reporting 4 shots because there is no reason to believe that they would hear the echo only on the second of two shots.

Finally, most witnesses were within 300 feet of the SN.  So any echo at least 1 second after the shot will have travelled at least an additional 1130 feet or more than 4 times farther (1330/300=4.4) which means it would be much less loud than the initial sound (1/20th at most).  The witnesses did not observe this.  They heard similar shots.

[Zeon Mason]

So Harold Norman , the witness right beneath the gunman is a liar? He really just heard 2 shots?

Was Norman forced to state a sequence where he heard a shot , saw the president slump and then heard 2 more shots?

Why did Norman appear in several videos and even a mock trial to replicate consistently how he heard all 3 shots fired in approx  4 secs. You can verify this by timing his “boom clack clack” phrase  repetition.

To me the only reason the WC imtroduced the idea of an early 1st shot at z170 approx was that they knew it wasn’t plausible that 3 shots could have been fired in a 4.8 sec interval of time as indicated by reactions of JFK and Connally at  Z223  and the obvious hit at Z313 .

Obviously  the WC knew they couldn’t get away with suggesting that only 2 shots were fired, otherwise they WOULD have. They would have  gleefully avoided a 3 shot scenario in favor of a 2 shot in 4.8 sec. The overwhelming majority of witness hearing 3 shots forced the WC to their absurd 1st shot missed at Z170 theory so they could get an 8.3 sec spread to convince the public that  the use of an MC bolt action rifle by a lone gunman was   plausible.