JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[Jason Thompson]

Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;

Tell me, prof, have you ever considered how difficult it might be to pin down a number of short sharp 'crack' sounds in a large open space  with buildings on multiple sides, full of people as:

a) rifle shots
b) a precise number of rifle shots
b) a precise number of rifle shots coming from a precise location?

Consider that for a) you must be able to identify a rifle report from a car or motorcycle backfire, or a firecracker, or an impact of some kind, and that for b) you must consider when you realised they were rifle shots (i.e. when you noticed someone had been shot); whether or not all of the sounds you heard were rifle shots; whether you might be hearing sounds reflected from nearby buildings; whether you might in fact also hear the sound of one shot twice: once from the rifle and once from the echo off a nearby building; and so on.

The inability of every witness to say they all heard three shots from the TSBD is not only not anomalous, it is expected. Given the acoustic complexity of the environment it would in fact be more anomalous if every witness did report hearing exactly three shots from the TSBD.

Oh, and your continuing refusal to acknowledge that the shots and their effects have been duplicated is noted yet again.

[Jason Thompson]

there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense

That 'nonsense' is the claim you presented as the title of this entire discussion.

Shot 1:JFK front of neck, out his back, bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.

Where is the evidence of an exit wound in JFK's back? The back wound is most definitely not the result of a bullet exiting after passing through the tissues of his neck.

Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg

Please explain how one shooter on the grassy knoll can have shot JFK in the front of his neck and then, seconds later, hit Connally in the back.

Shot:4 hits the molding around the windscreen and a shard hits the windshield, another hits sidewalk then nicks Tague.

Please explain how a bullet hitting the surround of the windshield can have possibly resulted in a shard travelling in the correct direction to then impact the windshield itself.

Please provide the physical evidence that supports your notion over:

Shot 1: Missed. Bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.

Shot 2: Bullet hits JFK above the scapula, passes through his neck and out his throat, then hits Connally in the back, through his chest, his wrist and finally into his leg.

Shot 3: Bullet hits JFK in back right of head, blowing skull and brain matter out in a spray that forces his head back and to the left, while a skull fragment hits the windshield and cracks it.

Please note, the two human impacts described have been duplicated.

[Chew]

1 shooter, 1 spotter
Shot 1:JFK front of neck, out his back,

If the bullet wound was so low in JFK's back, as you've fought to maintain despite the autopsy report proving otherwise, the bullet would have entered the seat JFK was sitting on.

bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.
Not positive if shot 2 hits JFK or JC, there is significant evidence for either scenario
Anyway.
Limo slows almost to a halt some time in here.
For now I will go with... Shot 2:JFK gets hit on the back right portion of his head, propelling his head back and to the left

JFK's head jerked forward 2 inches between frame 312 and 313.

while disintegrating a round 5 inch portion of his head, splattering Hargis and Martin with body fluids and the exited bullet then burroughed into grass on far side of Elm

Citation needed for where this bullet went.

and is noticed by witnesses and the authorities. This is supported by testimonies and interesting pictures showing authorities had recovered the bullet fragment from the grass.

The alleged men in black who allegedly recovered a bullet from the grass were photographed down by the triple underpass. In other words they would have been directly in front of limo at the time of the head shot.

Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg

Are you seriously suggesting ONE bullet did all that damage to Connally and emerged in "pristine" condition??? Sounds like a magic bullet to me.

If one bullet cold do all that, is it that much of a stretch to say this magic bullet also went through JFK before hitting Connally?

[twik]

Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;

"Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I could not swear to it."

Um, yes. It may be fuzzy, but that sounds to me like someone trying hard to be as accurate as possible about something startling that happened in a few seconds.

[twik]

Would you believe 1 shooter and 4 shots?

Well, it's more believable than 6 shots, 3 locations, but that's not saying that much. Why, then, did you start the discussion with that proposal? Surely you didn't intend to start with a straw man, so after it was agreed such a proposal was silly, you could then say, "Well, then, my suggestion about one shooter, 4 shots, looks pretty good comparatively!"?

I suppose I could start a thread saying "JFK was killed by 10 tribal headhunters equipped with blowguns and RPGs", but it wouldn't advance the discussion significantly.

[BazBear]

there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense

That 'nonsense' is the claim you presented as the title of this entire discussion.

Jason: It is indeed is the claim he started this thread with, but to be fair, in this post he screwed up and deleted the first quote tag from a post by Lunar Orbit.

We can agree on that much. But just to refresh your memory, the "3 shooters and 6 shots" nonsense is your nonsense. And now you're trying to distance yourself from it because it's an unsupportable claim.

So who is the shooter, if not Oswald? And where did the shots come from? No more games... if you are going to make a claim just make it now.

Prof: You might want to proof read better to avoid such confusion.

[BazBear]

Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg

JC was seated in front of JFK, but slightly lower and slightly to the left. How could the round that struck JC in the back not have passed through JFK? And if that is the case, why couldn't the fatal head shot have come from the same shooter? There is, after all, solid physical evidence of a shooter in the TSBD building. As for any other possible shooting locations, all you've presented so far is speculation based on cherry picked eye/ear witness testimony.

[Echnaton]

Using Warren Commission testimonies, virtually every witness testimony I have studied so far overwhelmingly supports a consensus that all of the shots came from the grassy knoll....

But you are entirely unable to reconcile this interpretation with any plausible trajectory of a bullet.  A bullet that hit John Connally could simply not have been fired from above on the front right side.  The position of the GK when he was hit.  The head shot to Kennedy could not have been shot from above and to the right without passing through his skull and hitting Jackie or the limo.

Since your conclusions contradict physical possibilities, there is no option but to believe that your interpretation of the testimony you have read is flawed.

[Echnaton]

Would you believe 1 shooter and 4 shots?

That is my limit when drinking alone.  Now when there are two shooters......

[profmunkin]

Interesting stuff from reading the WC, it's loads of fun

"Mr. SPECTER - Did you tell the police officials at the time you made this statement that there was a Negro gentleman in the window on the southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building which you have marked with a circle "A"--pardon me, southeast?
Mr. ROWLAND - At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Reporter, will you please repeat that last answer for us?"

Mr Specter accepted this testimony. If not true why would Spectre not have brought in the FBI agents insinuated to be responsible to testify and impeach Rowland.

Interesting isn't it, sees man with high powered rifle, on 6th floor of the TSBD, but on the wrong side of building, surprise. Surprise, he also sees another man hanging out of the the "snipers nest" window at the same time.
He says the FBI told him "it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now"

Oh by the way Rowland also thought that the 3 shots came from the railyard area, or commonly known as the grassy knoll in front of him, not the TSBD on his right. Bham......Bham..Bham, 1 shot followed by 2 more in quick succession.


Should I continue to post these FBI told me to stories, or can we agree that there is testimonies or evidence the FBI tried to manipulate witnesses so their testimonies would conform to a predetermined fictional story line?

Also I posted that Bowers testified that at least 50 police converged on rr yard immediately after the assassination

here is Rowland testimony

"Mr. SPECTER - How many officers were converging on that area, to the best of your ability to recollect and estimate?
Mr. ROWLAND - I think it would be a very good estimation of 50, maybe more."

Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.
 

[gillianren]

Prof: You might want to proof read better to avoid such confusion.

Any proofreading would be a good start.

[profmunkin]

But you are entirely unable to reconcile this interpretation with any plausible trajectory of a bullet.  A bullet that hit John Connally could simply not have been fired from above on the front right side.  The position of the GK when he was hit.  The head shot to Kennedy could not have been shot from above and to the right without passing through his skull and hitting Jackie or the limo.

Since your conclusions contradict physical possibilities, there is no option but to believe that your interpretation of the testimony you have read is flawed.

Possibly...possibly not
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.

[twik]

No, we can't agree to that "50 or so police officers" based on one person's testimony. People under stress do not necessarily count carefully, or remember details precisely.

Now, if you could provide a photo with a picture of those 50 policemen gathering in one area, it would help. In such cases, physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony.

(Oh, but I'm sure that the Men In Black managed to make off with all those pictures, I suppose.)

By the way, is it your proposal that (1) the Dallas police were in on it or (2) the Dallas police were not part of the conspiracy. Because you cannot posit both positions at once. If you believe they were honestly trying to catch the shooter on the knoll, you can't then claim that they were simulateously hiding evidence, etc.

[Chew]

Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.

There weren't even 50 police officers in the motorcade so no. But I will give you 50 people eventually converged on it. It's called sheep following the other sheep.

I know what you are trying to do with the 50 police officers on the knoll but you have to first ask yourself before jumping to the inevitable patented conspiracy-theorist-conclusion-before-thoroughly-thinking-through-the-implications is if there were so many cops on the knoll how did the assassin get away?

[Echnaton]

Mr. ROWLAND - I think it would be a very good estimation of 50, maybe more."

Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.
 

Assuming your transcript is accurate, we certainly can agree that Rowland thought that was the case.  That is really all that can be rung out of this passage, without placing it in context of the entire investigation.

Possibly...possibly not
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.

All this time and 31 pages of posts proclaiming a conspiracy and you don't have a hypothesis about what actually happened?  Much less a defensible hypothesis that  includes an explanation of where the shooter(s) were.