Re: Missing the first shot

Andrew wrote: "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."

You mean, kind of like when dozens of people saw the "Phoenix lights" in 
1997 and swore it was a UFO?

Hmmmmm.

James

"Andrew Mason" <a.mason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:D5GdncKYzclGgrTVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
> 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