Re: Missing the first shot

Andrew Mason wrote:
> claviger wrote:
>> On May 12, 3:11 pm, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Jas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew wrote: "The first shot did not miss, according to the
evidence.
>>>> So there is no reason to speculate on how Oswald could have missed."
>>>
>>>> Disinformation, plain and simple.
>>>
>>> Now you can argue that 16 witnesses got it all wrong the same way. But
>>> you can't accuse me, fairly, of spreading disinformation. It is real
>>> information - 16 witnesses described in great detail how JFK reacted
to
>>> the first shot. I am just pointing it out.
>>>
>>> Andrew Mason
>>
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> You will notice several witnesses describe a firecracker sound, then 
>> two shots. They refer to the "first shot" that wounded the President, 
>> meaning the actual 2nd shot. In other words, they don't tell us the 
>> President was wounded by the firecracker. Six credible witnesses saw 
>> the first shot bounce off the street. Two other witnesses saw debris 
>> or fragments flying out of the limousine on the first shot. Obviously 
>> the first shot, the "firecracker", missed all passengers and smashed 
>> into the pavement disintegrating into fragments that sprayed the 
>> Limousine and caused superficial wounds to the President. Agent 
>> Kellerman claims he heard the President exclaim "My God I'm hit!". 
>> Pathologists advise the President would be unable to speak after the 
>> throat wound, so if JFK did verbalize to being injured, it must be 
>> from shrapnel produced by the ricochet of the first shot.
>>
>>
> 
> You have to distinguish betweein 1. a single witness who claims to have 
> observed an event and 2. multiple independent witnesses who 
> independently say they observed an event. A single witness can be wrong.

> But if their recollection is shared by others independently 
> (independence is the key), the likelihood of error becomes vani****ngly 
> small.
> 

Wrong. You are cherry picking witnesses. Selection bias.

> With 16 witnesses independently saying something occurred it is 
> virtually impossible that they could be wrong (unless, of course their 
> recollections were not really independent). When you have no evidence 
> that contradicts it and no evidence to sup****t that the alternate event 
> occurred (ie. JFK turning, smiling and waving after the first shot) it 
> is difficult to understand why the evidence should not be accepted.
> 
> Kellerman's claim to have heard JFK say "My God I'm hit", which is a 
> recollection that no one else had, is not reliable. That does not mean 
> it was wrong. It just means that it cannot be relied on.
> 
> The witnesses who described a "firecracker" noise and then heard shots 
> said there were three shots. They were simply saying that at the time 
> they did not recognize the first noise as a gunshot. Mary Woodward did 
> not recognize the "first horrible ear-shattering noise" as a shot 
> either. Is there any doubt that she did not think that she had heard a 
> shot?
> 
> 
> Your contention that 6 witnesses saw a shot hit the ground is not 
> sup****ted by the evidence. None saw a bullet and no evidence of a bullet

> striking outside the car exists. A few people, such as Virgie Rachley 
> and Royce Skelton thought they saw something hit the pavement but none 
> said it occurred early (VR put it with the limo well past the Stemmons 
> sign). see: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/EFSM.pdf
> 
> Andrew Mason