The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?

[John Mytton]

                                                                                                         
http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/bp1QdGQL/1967-cbs-special-a-cbs-news-inquiry-the-warren-report

                                                                                                       Zeon's conclusions:

1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper                                                 = missed head shot
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue

2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper                                                   = missed all 3
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right

3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper                                                 = no comfirmed hits
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"

4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer                                                   = missed all 3
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)

5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder                                              = missed all 3
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border               
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported

6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman                                                             = missed head shot
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low

7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician                                                    = no hits in orange
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left                     

8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)                                       = no hits
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up

9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot                                                        = no hits
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right

10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)

11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee                                                       = no hits
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target

Hey Zeon, did they use Oswald's actual rifle? and if not then all problems with the actual rifle mechanism is not applicable, sorry about that.
So all we are left with is average riflemen who were as mostly as accurate as Oswald. Nice!

Btw the CBS doco was using the 4.6 second timespan.



JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

5+ seconds is the correct time to use. The idea there was an early missed shot is unsupported complete nonsense. JFK reacted to the first shot which is exactly what the eyewitnesses stated happened. An early missed shot is nothing more than an attempt to try to explain away the 2.3 second cycle time of LHO's carcano.

[John Iacoletti]

Skeptics don?t trust witnesses,

Then why do LN "skeptics" trust Howard Brennan?

And it appears that Oswald got two out of three hits. And he was lucky with one, the neck shot, that missed the most likely target, the center of the head, by about 8 inches, which will probably cause a total miss, except he happened to miss downward.

There you go again, taking your unsupported opinion and calling it "likely".

[John Iacoletti]

Our best ?witness?, whose ?memory? never changes over the years, whose ?memory? is not influenced by what it hears from other people, shows:

** A probable shot at z153

**** strong camera jiggle at frames z158-z159
**** Kennedy, Connally and Rosemary Willis seemingly reacting to something by the z160?s

** Almost certainly a shot at z222

**** strong camera jiggle at frame 227
**** Connally?s coat movement at frame z224
**** Connally and Kennedy both jerking their right arm up at z226
**** The other reactions Connally and Kennedy make during the z220?s

** An absolutely certain shot at z312

**** strong camera jiggle at frame 318
**** Obvious explosive head wound that is first visible in frame z313

No, the film shows what it shows.  What you are describing is what you as somebody witnessing the film thinks he is seeing.  And as you said, skeptics don't trust witnesses.

[Joe Elliott]

and the 2 military combat vet snipers:

Craig Roberts was a former Marine sniper who later wrote a book on the JFK assassination called ?Kill Zone.? Roberts visited the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and instantly realized that Oswald could not have performed the shooting feat because he knew that he himself could not. And he was a professional.

Roberts interviewed Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor at the Marines Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. Roberts asked Hathcock if he thought Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did. Hathcock said no.
Hathcock reconstructed the assassination at Quantico: the angle, moving target, time limit etc. he told Roberts, ?I don?t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn?t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.

http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html

No. The CTers do not have two former Marines who claim Oswald could not have made those shots. Instead, they have:

1.   Craig Roberts

and:

2.   Craig Roberts claiming that Carlos Hathcock said that those shots could not be made.


I am skeptical that Carlos Hathcock said that those shots could not be made. And that Carlos Hathcock said that he and other top Marines tried to recreate those shots and couldn?t. I am skeptical because it doesn?t make since that no one could make those shots, all at under 100 yards.

And I saw a Discover Channel program where a CTer, Michael Yardley, using a Carcano, shot 16 times at a melon size target, moving at 10 mph, at the similar speeds and angles as the LN alleged shots, and hit the melon 16 times in all 16 hots. He talks about these subjects the following video:

Now, which is the more logical conclusion:

1.   Michael Yardley, basically an expert with shotguns, was a better shot with a rifle than Carlos Hathcock or any Marine that Hathcock knew.

Or:

2.   Craig Roberts is lying.

I find the second possibility; Craig Roberts is simply a liar much more plausible. I believe that Craig Roberts claims first surfaced after Carlos Hathcock became seriously ill and not in a good condition to refute Roberts claims. And Carlos Hathcock passed away shortly after these claims were first made.

[Joe Elliott]

No, the film shows what it shows.  What you are describing is what you as somebody witnessing the film thinks he is seeing.  And as you said, skeptics don't trust witnesses.

Scientific knowledge, it could be said, is based on eyewitness observation. But these are observations that can be made repeatedly, over and over. If one scientist makes an observation, he could repeat the experiment. And other scientists can repeat the experiment. Under these circumstances, eyewitness observation is reliable.



If we had a time machine where witnesses could travel back in time, to confirmed their observations, I would be a lot more confident in witnesses. Particularly if I and anyone else could also travel back in time over and over again to confirm and reconfirm what happened.

But witnesses only witness something once. And their impressions can be false. Or change over time. Or be influenced by what others tell them, possibly within a few minutes of the event. That makes them unreliable.


But we do have a time machine, of sorts. It is the Zapruder film. We can observe it over and over again. We can see the movements of Rosemary Willis, Connally and JFK. We can see the film over and over again to confirm when they move and how they move. And conclude the forward spray seen in frame 313 implies a shot from behind and is not the result of me misremembering what I saw, that the spray when backwards or there was no spray at all.

[Joe Elliott]

5+ seconds is the correct time to use. The idea there was an early missed shot is unsupported complete nonsense. JFK reacted to the first shot which is exactly what the eyewitnesses stated happened. An early missed shot is nothing more than an attempt to try to explain away the 2.3 second cycle time of LHO's carcano.

CTers expound the 5 second scenario to argue the shots were impossible (they still would not be).

The Zapruder film does not prove the shots were all over 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 9 seconds or 14 seconds. So to prove the shots are impossible, one would have to prove they are impossible over a period of time of 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 9 seconds or 14 seconds. Although I would be satisfied if it could be showed they were impossible over a 9 second interval.

The best support for the 5 seconds scenario is to assume that the same set of witnesses who were wrong about the limousine stopping or almost stopping, were not wrong about the shots covering a span of about 5 seconds.

[Walt Cakebread]

CTers expound the 5 second scenario to argue the shots were impossible (they still would not be).

The Zapruder film does not prove the shots were all over 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 9 seconds or 14 seconds. So to prove the shots are impossible, one would have to prove they are impossible over a period of time of 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 9 seconds or 14 seconds. Although I would be satisfied if it could be showed they were impossible over a 9 second interval.

The best support for the 5 seconds scenario is to assume that the same set of witnesses who were wrong about the limousine stopping or almost stopping, were not wrong about the shots covering a span of about 5 seconds.

Is the Z film authentic?