Bang......Bang, Bang.

[Bob Ness]

16 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

And I am always amazed with the actual JFK head shot.

The shooter had to have been an extremely expert marksman in the least.

JFK's head is an 8 inch to 10 inch wide and 6 to 7 inch high target.

It is 265 feet away from the shooter and constantly moving not just down and away at 11 MPH from the shooter but also sideways left, two to three feet from JFK's original sitting position.

The shooter obviously has to constantly adjust and move his gun and scope in those 4 seconds to match this target movement.

Then the JFK limo slows almost to a stop. The shooter must then adjust his gun site aim to do the same...then fire.

Anything but a bullseye hit could have easily hit Jackie as her own head and face was maybe just 5 to 6 inches away from her husbands? The shooter was willing to risk blowing Jackie away as well?

And this remarkable moving target bullseye shot is made with probably the cheapest and most inaccurate type rifle left over from WWII 20 years previous? 

 

I dunno. I used to own a .30 Cal M-1 Carbine which was the closest thing I ever shot to the MC. I can't imagine ever taking a shot, reacquiring, taking another, reacquiring and taking one more at the distance and movement we're talking and getting even remotely close to a hit. With a semi-auto M1 Carbine. By any standard a better weapon (but maybe not intended for the same purpose - closer fighting etc)  but NOT a bolt action. Lucky once? Sure. Maybe.

This is just another assertion by the WC that gets my antennae up. I'm not saying it's impossible. There's evidence that is what occurred. Can't rule it out. But if I had a kid and he or she came home from school telling me this story, my BS meter would be close to pinned to the right. I'd call the principle to get the real story is what I'm saying.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

22 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

And why would a shooter take a third shot after his second shot successfully hits JFK in the head which he would have clearly seen?---JB

Well, easy, more than one gunman. The additional shot came in rapid succession from a gunman already in the act of shooting. Adrenaline pumping etc. 

I differ a bit from Pat Speer's excellent analysis.

I deduce JBC is shot ~Z295, when he is again in position to receive a shot in the back from the TSBD or Dal-Tex building (after having made a 180-degree turn in his seat to try and catch a glimpse of JFK). Another missile may have (in fact likely) struck the dorsal side of JBC's wrist. 

The shots "on top of each other" would describe a shot at Z295, or a little after, and then another shot at Z313. 

There could have been another subsequent shot, in very rapid succession. 

Sound travels at 1,125 feet per second. If there are truly three rapid gunshots from different locations in Dealey Plaza (after the first JFK back-neck shot), some witnesses might accurately hear three and others might hear two shots. That is, shots that would not actually fired simultaneously would be heard simultaneously, due to the speed of sound. 

Additionally, there could be the use of silencers, or even pneumatic guns.

On top of all that, witness statements are inherently iffy. 

That's my story and I am sticking with it. 

 

 

 

I have shown that Oswald did not fire his supposed shot-3 koz he decided not to.

Some say that Oswald did not fire his shot-3 koz his remaining bullet was jammed or some-such -- NO -- i have shown that it was koz he decided not to. 

I base my assertion (that Oswald decided not to fire his shot-3) on Brennan's statements. Brennan we all know contradicted hizself over the years -- so we have to have a good BS meter -- but Brennan's early info provides good clues. 

Based on Brennan's statements i can see that Oswald had already stood back from the window when he saw Hickey fire his fatal accidental burst of his AR15.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[Guest]

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Benjamin Cole]

47 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

In the echo chamber that was Dealey Plaza, in the midst of a motorcade of cars and motorcycles, with a substantial crowd of people shouting and squealing, earwitness "evidence" has to be almost useless. Yes, many witness believe they heard and saw things that don't match the official story, but this is to be expected. Counting discrepant accounts really has little or no evidential value. If 75% of the people thought they heard 15 shots, that would indeed be a problem. But the difference between 2, 3 or 4 shots, and the timing of them, is too fine a distinction for discrepancies to be meaningful.

I always laugh at my own humble experience. Due to a large police facility and parking lot right behind my house, my neighborhood is a crude approximation of Dealey Plaza when I'm standing on my back deck. For the longest time, I was furious with my neighbors to my right (the Grassy Knoll) for their barking dogs and loud parties. One night, my wife investigated and discovered the offenders were two doors to our left (the TSBD). I would've SWORN the noise came from the Grassy Knoll.

Pat Speer reports that experiments were done with gunshots and people at various locations in Dealey Plaza. Evidently, most people accurately said where the shots came from. 

I stick with my sentiment that if two shots are fired from different locations nearly simultaneously, they might be heard as one shot in some locations. 

Simple example: One shooter at 1125 feet from you, and another 543 feet from you, who fires a half-second later. You will honestly and accurately describe hearing one gunshot. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

In the echo chamber that was Dealey Plaza, in the midst of a motorcade of cars and motorcycles, with a substantial crowd of people shouting and squealing, earwitness "evidence" has to be almost useless. Yes, many witness believe they heard and saw things that don't match the official story, but this is to be expected. Counting discrepant accounts really has little or no evidential value. If 75% of the people thought they heard 15 shots, that would indeed be a problem. But the difference between 2, 3 or 4 shots, and the timing of them, is too fine a distinction for discrepancies to be meaningful.

I always laugh at my own humble experience. Due to a large police facility and parking lot right behind my house, my neighborhood is a crude approximation of Dealey Plaza when I'm standing on my back deck. For the longest time, I was furious with my neighbors to my right (the Grassy Knoll) for their barking dogs and loud parties. One night, my wife investigated and discovered the offenders were two doors to our left (the TSBD). I would've SWORN the noise came from the Grassy Knoll.

While I would agree that people could hear 6 shots fired really close together--and think it was there or four--or hear a shot from their right--and think it came from directly behind them, etc, the JFK shooting is curious in this regard, as so many witnesses near the school book depository thought at least one shot came from west of the building, and even said so after the word was out that shots had come from the building, and from the building only. . 

From patspeer.com, Chapter 9:

 

When one reads a rarely-cited HSCA analysis of the way gunshots are heard in Dealey Plaza, one can see for oneself that it is indeed fairly easy to distinguish shots from echoes in Dealey Plaza. The writer of this report, Harvard Psychoacoustics Professor David Green, makes a point of stating that although his hearing was impaired in his left ear, and he was unable to hear the echoes with the clarity of the trained observers, he was nonetheless able to localize the shots based on their initial blast with a similar degree of accuracy as the experts. In the report, the trained observers state that there is a strong echo from the Post Office Annex on the south side of the plaza that comes a second after a shot fired from the TSBD. They said it was readily distinguishable as an echo, but that someone on the knoll hearing this echo might misinterpret the original source of the sound as coming from an area directly behind himself. OK, so that could be an explanation as to why the witnesses on the knoll were incorrect, but what about those in front of the TSBD? Well, the report goes on to say that it would be difficult for someone standing in front of the TSBD to immediately localize a sound high overhead, and that some of the witnesses may have localized on a subsequent echo coming 8/10 of a second later from the area of the overpass “especially if the rifle had been fired from well within the TSBD.”

This disclaimer indicates that Dr. Green didn’t really believe his offered explanation, as he knew or should have known that the rifle in the TSBD was seen sticking out the window and that the window was not open sufficiently high enough for someone to fire from back inside the building. Similarly, since the theoretical ability of a lone sniper to shoot accurately from this window is based upon his use of the boxes stacked in front of the window for support, this statement argues against a lone gunman’s ability to shoot 3 accurate shots from the sniper’s nest without his giving away his position to a far greater degree than actually occurred. This disclaimer, therefore, can be taken as yet another argument for shots or sounds coming from more than one location, as a lone sniper shooting from the sixth floor window should have been more readily identifiable. Indeed, in his 9-11-78 appearance before the committee, Green made this point abundantly clear.

Early in his testimony, he offered: "when you are situated immediately under the Texas School Book Depository, which was our general location for the second sequence of shots, two things are rather confusing. First of all, the N wave comes right over your head so you tend to localize the source directly over your head or on occasion you directly localize the source in whatever direction you were facing. You could, for example, move your head into different directions. I once looked down Elm Street in this direction fairly well convinced that the sound came from this direction, and the other observers did likewise, pointed their heads in different directions and said that that influenced their judgments. Also when you are in this location the sound sweeps down the building and the apparent source of the sound is rather large, probably because it scattered off the regular surface of the building. That was caused by the blast wave." He was then asked if this confusion caused his observers to incorrectly identify the source of any of the shots, and responded "They certainly made some inaccurate responses. I would say in the order of 10 percent."

Well, this suggests it really wasn't that confusing. And sure enough, Dr. Green summed up his tests as follows: “there are certain locations that are best for observing certain shots and in the general region of the book depository, right on the street beneath it, in our opinion it was extremely easy to tell it came from the book. There was a massive sound to the right and rear that sort of crawled down the building, presumably due to scatter on the regular surface of the building and it was quite evident.”

Unstated but implied in Green’s report is his knowledge that 11 of the 14 witnesses in this “general region” in front of the depository, including those on its front steps, nevertheless believed the shots came from somewhere else, with 9 pointing west, the direction of the railroad yards and the knoll. Green’s attempts to account for this anomaly by suggesting that the rifle was fired from well within the building, as opposed to the more logical possibility that the bullets were undercharged in order to create less noise—which was believed to have been beyond the “lone nut” Oswald’s capabilities-- or that the witnesses were simply responding to the last sound they heard, which came from the west, is nevertheless informative, as it indicates a second rifle firing from well within either the Dal-Tex or County Records buildings would not necessarily have been interpreted as coming from those locations, even if the weapon were not equipped with a silencer.

But that is not all the report has to offer. Although, strangely, no rapid fire sequences with shots alternating between the grassy knoll and the TSBD were attempted for the study, the witnesses were able to distinguish isolated shots between the locations with relative ease, with over 85% accuracy, including pistol shots from the knoll and rifle shots from well within the TSBD. When one looks only at the results of the rifle shots fired from the window and any shot fired from the knoll, one sees that the observers correctly identified the source 73 out of 80 times, no matter where they stood in Dealey Plaza. When one looks only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood near the knoll, one sees they correctly identified the source of the shots 26 out of 26 times, claiming that the un-silenced shots fired were readily identifiable as coming from the stockade fence, which argues against a shot coming from that location, as most the witnesses nearby, including Abraham Zapruder, believed the shots came from somewhere further back. (Why they failed to perform tests using silenced weapons is never explained.) When one looks only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood on the street in front of the Depository, in addition, it reveals they correctly identified the source 18 of 20 times.

These actual results reveal that the report’s musings about people being confused by echoes on the knoll and shock waves in front of the TSBD was so much hooey, offered most likely so that the HSCA would have the option of defending the Warren Commission’s conclusions. Instead, the results reveal it’s fairly easy to identify the source of a shot fired in Dealey Plaza under normal circumstances. And yet the single-assassin theorists maintain that the 7 out of 9 witnesses between the knoll and the limousine who heard shots from behind them were wrong, in a location where the observers were right 26 out of 26 times, and also that the 5 out of 6 witnesses on the North side of Elm who said shots came from the west, were wrong, in a location where the observers were right 18 of 20 times. These results then indicate that it is the single-assassin theorists who are wrong, yet again. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

In the echo chamber that was Dealey Plaza, in the midst of a motorcade of cars and motorcycles, with a substantial crowd of people shouting and squealing, earwitness "evidence" has to be almost useless. Yes, many witness believe they heard and saw things that don't match the official story, but this is to be expected. Counting discrepant accounts really has little or no evidential value. If 75% of the people thought they heard 15 shots, that would indeed be a problem. But the difference between 2, 3 or 4 shots, and the timing of them, is too fine a distinction for discrepancies to be meaningful.

I always laugh at my own humble experience. Due to a large police facility and parking lot right behind my house, my neighborhood is a crude approximation of Dealey Plaza when I'm standing on my back deck. For the longest time, I was furious with my neighbors to my right (the Grassy Knoll) for their barking dogs and loud parties. One night, my wife investigated and discovered the offenders were two doors to our left (the TSBD). I would've SWORN the noise came from the Grassy Knoll.

Shots in sound proof rooms make very little noise. Echoes of shots can make 100 times the original noise if u are located near a focus.

[Gerry Down]

Does anyone have a list of witnesses who described a "bang.........bang, bang" sequence? (i.e. with the last two bunched so close together it would have been impossible to pull off using a bolt action rifle). I've studied Tink Thompsons list at the end of his book "Six Seconds In Dallas" but i've found his analysis of what the witnesses said at odds with my own interpretation of what the witnesses said based on their statements as contained in the WCR and its 26 volumes. 

Ones that come to mind include Lee Bowers, George Hickey Linda Willis. However does anyone have a list already made out of these witnesses who bunch the last two shots together?

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Does anyone have a list of witnesses who described a "bang.........bang, bang" sequence? (i.e. with the last two bunched so close together it would have been impossible to pull off using a bolt action rifle). I've studied Tink Thompsons list at the end of his book "Six Seconds In Dallas" but i've found his analysis of what the witnesses said at odds with my own interpretation of what the witnesses said based on their statements as contained in the WCR and its 26 volumes. 

Ones that come to mind include Lee Bowers, George Hickey Linda Willis. However does anyone have a list already made out of these witnesses who bunch the last two shots together?

Closest I've seen, Gerry.

www2 - chapter5:thejigsawpuzzle (patspeer.com)

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Closest I've seen, Gerry.

www2 - chapter5:thejigsawpuzzle (patspeer.com)

Thanks. And I agree. The first third of that chapter I discuss the eyewitness evidence demonstrating that Kennedy was hit by the first shot. I then move onto the earwitness evidence. Starting with The Jigsaw Puzzle, I begin my multi-chapter discussion of the witnesses. But the witnesses in this chapter are the most convincing in part because very few of them saw the shooting. Most just heard it. And it defies probability that so many would claim the last two shots were closely bunched together if in fact the second shot was five seconds before the third and actually closer to the first shot. Adding to the credibility of these witnesses, moreover, is that many of them were Sheriff's Deputies, and wrote down their recollections of the shots before the single-assassin solution could be written in cement. 

[Bob Ness]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks. And I agree. The first third of that chapter I discuss the eyewitness evidence demonstrating that Kennedy was hit by the first shot. I then move onto the earwitness evidence. Starting with The Jigsaw Puzzle, I begin my multi-chapter discussion of the witnesses. But the witnesses in this chapter are the most convincing in part because very few of them saw the shooting. Most just heard it. And it defies probability that so many would claim the last two shots were closely bunched together if in fact the second shot was five seconds before the third and actually closer to the first shot. Adding to the credibility of these witnesses, moreover, is that many of them were Sheriff's Deputies, and wrote down their recollections of the shots before the single-assassin solution could be written in cement. 

Yup. Makes for good reading Pat. Kudos.

[Gerry Down]

Interesting video showing how different people can hear the same thing in different ways. Something to bear in mind in the shooting sequence in Dealey Plaza. One person might hear a gunshot while another person might interpret it as a motorcycle backfiring. 

and

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Gerry Down

[Gerry Down]

On 1/17/2023 at 3:13 AM, Bob Ness said:

Closest I've seen, Gerry.

www2 - chapter5:thejigsawpuzzle (patspeer.com)

Thanks, good page. 

[Michaleen Kilroy]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:10 PM, Gerry Down said:

Does anyone have a list of witnesses who described a "bang.........bang, bang" sequence? (i.e. with the last two bunched so close together it would have been impossible to pull off using a bolt action rifle). I've studied Tink Thompsons list at the end of his book "Six Seconds In Dallas" but i've found his analysis of what the witnesses said at odds with my own interpretation of what the witnesses said based on their statements as contained in the WCR and its 26 volumes. 

Ones that come to mind include Lee Bowers, George Hickey Linda Willis. However does anyone have a list already made out of these witnesses who bunch the last two shots together?

Heard Buell Frazier and Mary Moorman affirm this sequence in person at JFK conference.  Robert MacNeil as we’ve seen. That’s enough for me - covers people of different vantage points with no aligned agendas.