No. That is not at all what I said. I didn’t say anything about 40 witnesses stating two shots other than to ask you to ask you where the other 23 were (in addition to the 17 listed in the research paper of D.M. Green for the HSCA.)
A witness who states what they actually saw or heard or experienced is not giving an opinion. They are giving actual evidence of the existence of a fact. An opinion is given by people who weren’t there who want to tell us what they think happened. I prefer evidence.
Read the report. 132 said 3 shots. 17 said they heard only two.
No. That is not at all what I said. I didn’t say anything about 40 witnesses stating two shots other than to ask you to ask you where the other 23 were (in addition to the 17 listed in the research paper of D.M. Green for the HSCA.)
You should have been stating there are 40+ witnesses who stated there were only two shots. If you are a lemming type of personality, I guess you would care what the HSCA thinks and puts in their report. Having learned how to read, I do not. The HSCA breakdown of witness statements is no better than your own. They completely missed a great deal of early eyewitness statements and like you cherry picked the remaining statements that best fit their beliefs, the result of this is what you are basing this grossly flawed theory on. The whole thing is weak at best.
“A witness who states what they actually saw or heard or experienced is not giving an opinion” Wrong that is all the witnesses are doing, just giving their opinion of what they believed happened. You are using the statements to support a tremendously flawed theory with no evidence at all to support it. Nothing more
Then to follow up this error, you are giving us your opinion that you think they are right. Which given your lack of evidence and inability to provide any, makes you completely wrong.
The vast majority of these witnesses are earwitnesses and could only ask the eyewitnesses what did occur. They are giving their opinion on what they thought they heard. The three shot Merriman Smith report read by Walter Cronkite was an earwitness flash news bulletin. The two shot James Altgens report read by Don Pardo was an eyewitness flash news bulletin.
“Read the report. 132 said 3 shots.” Instead, here is your analysis of the HSCA report. Obviously even you think it is just bunch of nonsense. Is it really a big surprise that Thomas Canning thought the only way to get extricated from the conversation with you about your ridiculous theory was to pretend to be affected by the early stages of Alzheimer or dementia.
There are 40+ two shot witnesses and a large group of witnesses who stated a second shot head shot or two shots so close together they sounded like one shot. Amazingly, you think the statements of what amounts to not even 25% of the witnesses fitting your analysis is a large enough group to constitute evidence. Not only evidence but to supersede the statements of even a larger group.
According to you the number is 47 that actually fit this bizarre theory. Which given your 47 witnesses incorporates the two shot witnesses and there are at least 40+ two shot witnesses and another large group of witnesses stated the second shot was the headshot and witnesses who stated there was no time difference between the last two shots. The 47 made up witnesses you are presenting is actually a smaller number than witnesses who believe there was just two shots. I thought you always pretended to follow the evidence, Andrew.
Isn’t this you? You do not believe this tripe either?
Andrew Mason
2. The relative timing of the shots. The 1……….2….3 pattern
There is a significant body of evidence regarding the relative spacing of the shots. The Warren Commission, in stating its conclusion that there were three shots, observed that most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second.26 The Commission appears to have made little use of this evidence in reaching its conclusions, however.
There were at least 47 witnesses who gave evidence of a later second shot fitting this pattern. As seen from the above review of the evidence,
there are at least 47 witnesses who provided clear evidence of a shorter separation between the last two shots. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 9 (not counting Emmett Hudson) thought the shots were about equally spaced. The distribution of witnesses shows the high significance of the witness recollection that the last two shots were closer together. If the shot pattern was really the opposite,
one would have to explain why only 6 out of 62 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly and how 47 of them randomly made the same mistake. You do not support your own ridiculous analysis? Actually, I do not blame you. 47 witnesses out of the all the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza. Not very many at all. Even the 47 is wrong and an inflated number.
