The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

No, it is a complex issue. You have approached it with simple mindedness. You have been unable to understand the shooting sequence, maybe it would be best to concentrate on that.

It is complex to design an acoustically pleasant auditorium, but it is not complex to determine the spacing between distinct echos. 

Since you think, despite the overwhelming evidence of 3 shots, that there were only two shots I would prefer to take advice on how to understand the shot sequence from the witnesses who were there.

[Jack Nessan]

It is complex to design an acoustically pleasant auditorium, but it is not complex to determine the spacing between distinct echos. 

Since you think, despite the overwhelming evidence of 3 shots, that there were only two shots I would prefer to take advice on how to understand the shot sequence from the witnesses who were there.

No, understanding the echos is complex. The only thing that is simple is your approach.

What is the overwhelming evidence? The WC and HSCA believed the witnesses inflated the number of shots due to media influence. If three shots are considered inflated by the two investigative bodies, then go ahead, you like math, and due the calculation. That is right two shots are the answer.

[Andrew Mason]

No, understanding the echos is complex. The only thing that is simple is your approach.

I agree that any explanation as to how an echo would cause people to perceive an extra shot at least a second after the actual shot would be difficult to explain.  But difficultly in explaining, which you seem to be experiencing, is not the same as complexity.

What is the overwhelming evidence?

[Jack Nessan]

I agree that any explanation as to how an echo would cause people to perceive an extra shot at least a second after the actual shot would be difficult to explain.  But difficultly in explaining, which you seem to be experiencing, is not the same as complexity.

Is the wait for your overwhelming evidence of three shots going to be a long one?

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

You don't believe the HSCA Sound analysis conclusion. Instead, have advanced your own personal analysis of one lone echo. Absolutely brilliant.

  "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

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


You don't believe the HSCA witness statement assessment and subsequent conclusion, but you do believe what was compiled in the report. Any real reason why?


HSCA Conclusion


"'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



It looks like you have it all figured out anyway despite these shortcomings. Go get em Tiger, make them believe.

[Andrew Mason]

Is the wait for your overwhelming evidence of three shots going to be a long one?
----------------

You don't believe the HSCA Sound analysis conclusion. Instead, have advanced your own personal analysis of one lone echo. Absolutely brilliant.

  "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

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


You don't believe the HSCA witness statement assessment and subsequent conclusion, but you do believe what was compiled in the report. Any real reason why?


HSCA Conclusion


"'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



It looks like you have it all figured out anyway despite these shortcomings. Go get em Tiger, make them believe.

The evidence for three shots is the witness evidence.  Your position is that the evidence is wrong. That's not evidence. If you don't accept that evidence of exactly three shots then you are left trying to figure out how many shots from the other witnesses I guess.

The fact is that doubts raised about the accuracy of the "three shot witnesses" does not allow you to conclude that there were only two shots. You still need evidence that there were only two shots.  And the problem is that there are many witnesses whose recollection of the second shot was not dependent upon sound such as the Connallys who experienced the three impact events.  There were also witnesses who heard, saw or felt the effects of the second shot (Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman, Connallys) after the first and before the headshot.

Besides, there are many problems with just eliminating all these witnesses because of some question raised about echos.  They were spread out over the entire area from the triple underpass to the corners of Houston/Elm and Commerce/Houston.  When you have witnesses at all three locations reporting the same number of shots: three, then the suggestion that they may have been fooled by echos is difficult to understand.  And if they were fooled by echos, why were they not fooled into reporting 4 shots (if there were only two)? 

We are still waiting for the evidence of only two shots. Is it going to be a long wait?

[Jack Nessan]

The evidence for three shots is the witness evidence.  Your position is that the evidence is wrong. That's not evidence. If you don't accept that evidence of exactly three shots then you are left trying to figure out how many shots from the other witnesses I guess.

The fact is that doubts raised about the accuracy of the "three shot witnesses" does not allow you to conclude that there were only two shots. You still need evidence that there were only two shots.  And the problem is that there are many witnesses whose recollection of the second shot was not dependent upon sound such as the Connallys who experienced the three impact events.  There were also witnesses who heard, saw or felt the effects of the second shot (Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman, Connallys) after the first and before the headshot.

Besides, there are many problems with just eliminating all these witnesses because of some question raised about echos.  They were spread out over the entire area from the triple underpass to the corners of Houston/Elm and Commerce/Houston.  When you have witnesses at all three locations reporting the same number of shots: three, then the suggestion that they may have been fooled by echos is difficult to understand.  And if they were fooled by echos, why were they not fooled into reporting 4 shots (if there were only two)? 

We are still waiting for the evidence of only two shots. Is it going to be a long wait?

You made the statement of overwhelming evidence now it is time to provide it. There is evidence of two shots. Just not three like you claimed. I am sure of you think back you will remember your claim of "overwhelming evidence of three shots." It was a big proclamation on your part.


It might be easier to admit you have absolutely no evidence at all of a third shot, unless an overactive imagination is considered evidence. Fairly safe to assume you never will produce any evidence of a third shot. Really weak to make an all encompassing claim and then pretend you did not.


A Mason:

"Since you think, despite the overwhelming evidence of 3 shots, that there were only two shots I would prefer to take advice on how to understand the shot sequence from the witnesses who were there."

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

If you have a problem with the HSCA assessment of their own reports, how about proving that what they clearly stated and obviously believed was wrong. Remember every three shot statement has two shots in it. A very large number of eyewitnesses only reported two shots. The witnesses you mentioned Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman, Connally's all are two shot witnesses. Maybe you were unaware of this. Maybe post less a little less and do a little more research.


Just a side note but there can't be three shots without there having been at least two shots. As soon as you prove there was three shots you will have already proven two shots. It is starting to appear your claim is all bluster and no substance. Even the witnesses you cite don't support your narrative.

[Andrew Mason]

You made the statement of overwhelming evidence now it is time to provide it. There is evidence of two shots. Just not three like you claimed. I am sure of you think back you will remember your claim of "overwhelming evidence of three shots." It was a big proclamation on your part.

I am not sure what you consider evidence.  132 witnesses saying that they heard three distinct shots is the evidence. There were 3 shells found.  Amos Euins looked up at the 6th floor window and saw the rifle fire the last two shots. Harold Norman heard three "bang, click"s.  He heard three shells hit the floor. Those who reported only two shots are 17 in number.  Hmmm. Let's see.... That is why the WC concluded there were exactly three shots.  You disagree with the 132, the three shells, the three bang,clicks.  You disagree with the many who recalled the same 1.....2..3 pattern to the shots.  But disagreement isn't enough. Disagreement with evidence does not provide evidence for a contrary view. If it were, you could say there is evidence of 6 shots or any number because there is "no evidence" of only three shots. There isn't.

It might be easier to admit you have absolutely no evidence at all of a third shot, unless an overactive imagination is considered evidence. Fairly safe to assume you never will produce any evidence of a third shot. Really weak to make an all encompassing claim and then pretend you did not.

I am not sure what universe you are in.  Is this a parallel universe where there were no shots and JFK was not assassinated?

A Mason:

"Since you think, despite the overwhelming evidence of 3 shots, that there were only two shots I would prefer to take advice on how to understand the shot sequence from the witnesses who were there."

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

If you have a problem with the HSCA assessment of their own reports, how about proving that what they clearly stated and obviously believed was wrong. Remember every three shot statement has two shots in it. A very large number of eyewitnesses only reported two shots. The witnesses you mentioned Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman, Connally's all are two shot witnesses. Maybe you were unaware of this. Maybe post less a little less and do a little more research.

They are all three shot witnesses in this universe, which is the one I am operating in.  They all provided evidence of exactly three shots.

Just a side note but there can't be three shots without there having been at least two shots. As soon as you prove there was three shots you will have already proven two shots. It is starting to appear your claim is all bluster and no substance. Even the witnesses you cite don't support your narrative.

I don't quite grasp your logic. Perhaps it is the universe thing.

[Jack Nessan]

I am not sure what you consider evidence.  132 witnesses saying that they heard three distinct shots is the evidence. There were 3 shells found.  Amos Euins looked up at the 6th floor window and saw the rifle fire the last two shots. Harold Norman heard three "bang, click"s.  He heard three shells hit the floor. Those who reported only two shots are 17 in number.  Hmmm. Let's see.... That is why the WC concluded there were exactly three shots.  You disagree with the 132, the three shells, the three bang,clicks.  You disagree with the many who recalled the same 1.....2..3 pattern to the shots.  But disagreement isn't enough. Disagreement with evidence does not provide evidence for a contrary view. If it were, you could say there is evidence of 6 shots or any number because there is "no evidence" of only three shots. There isn't.
I am not sure what universe you are in.  Is this a parallel universe where there were no shots and JFK was not assassinated?
They are all three shot witnesses in this universe, which is the one I am operating in.  They all provided evidence of exactly three shots.
I don't quite grasp your logic. Perhaps it is the universe thing.

So to summarize your post there is no proof. Nothing new there.

It turns out overwhelming evidence is really no evidence at all, just your opinion. No evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. The video of the assassination only exhibits evidence of two shots. You have not proven otherwise or even created a question about the possible existence of a third shot. A shot at Z270+ is just a pipe dream. Belief in a third shot at all is just fantasy.


Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the report you believe to be overwhelming evidence was compiled by the HSCA who then dismissed it by stating the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. The WC gave the same assessment of the witness statements.

The question of the possibility of there being a third shot totally relies on the statements of earwitnesses, influenced by the media, into inflating the number of shots. The large majority of eye witnesses stated there was just two shots.

The fact you cannot prove otherwise should be a clue, but with your history of promoting this nonsense, I am sure you will not come to reality.