Enduring Mystery

[Ben Holmes]

Found in the censored forum:


In article <6ea005e5-1dbb-4281...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...
>
>Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting ambush in
>Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority of
>eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film?


The more *obvious* question is not limited to just "auricular perception"... but
what eyewitnesses in general heard and *saw*.

Why do so many of the eyewitnesses report things that contradict the extant Z-
film?

Such as the dozens of eyewitnesses who reported the dramatic slowdown and/or
brief stop of the limo.

Or the incredible silence coming from Dealey Plaza about the "back and to the
left" that's so dramatically seen in the extant Z-film.

There *is*, of course, a credible and reasonable explanation... it's just not
non-conspiratorial.



>A number of eyewitnesses
>heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the passengers in the
>Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud sound as a gunshot
>but most did not, and thought it was either a firecracker, motorcycle
>backfire, or tire blowout.
>
>Many witnesses did notice the physical reaction of the President to the
>next two loud sounds. A majority of those witnesses heard three loud
>sounds. We know there was a shot at z224

Actually, no we don't.

It was, undoubtedly, somewhere in that vicinity - but an *honest* person will
state that there's no *unmistakable* showing of shots other than frame 313.

Indeed, different LNT'ers will put that "Z224" shot at other times.

You are, of course, presuming that the shot (or more likely, shots) that wounded
Connally are to be included in these two shots that killed Kennedy.

Intelligent people will *reject* such a presumption... as did the doctors who
worked on Connally, for example.


>and z313 as recorded on the
>Zapruders film. The gap between those two shots is approximately 4.86 -
>5.56 seconds according to the measured speed of Zapruder's Model 414 PD
>Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera. That is plenty of time to
>re-chamber and fire the M38 Carcano SR purchased by LHO and found on the
>6th floor of the TSBD. Several witnesses heard and a few even saw
>something hit the street, at the first loud sound. Therefore all three
>shots are accounted for: a first shot miss, a second shot back wound on
>the President, and a third shot head wound on the President.


Some major speculation going on there... and *NOT* able to explain *all* the
evidence.

You *PRESUME* that there were three shots, then pretend that all three have been
"accounted" for... despite expert opinion to the contrary.


>For the last two sounds to be so close together one of the following
>must be true:
>
>1. There were 3 shots :
>
>The 1st loud sound is not perceived as a gunshot, the 2nd loud sound is
>recognized as a gunshot, and a 3rd loud double sound, a gunshot- echo
>perceived as two gunshots. The first loud sound is disconnected as a
>confirmed gunshot in the startled memory of several witnesses. Problem:
>How can that many witnesses be wrong? If there were 3 shots plus echo why
>didn't a majority of witnesses hear 4 loud sounds?


Some did.

You realize, of course, that the difference in sound of the shots can *EASILY*
be explained by different shooters firing different rifles.



>2. There were 3 shots :
>
>The 1st loud sound was a gunshot that struck the President in the back.
>The 2nd shot missed and hit the street and several witnesses confused it
>as the first shot. LHO quickly re-chambered and got off a 3rd shot that
>struck the President in the head. This is possible because the Carcano
>M38 has been recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds. Problem: Several well
>placed witnesses are quite sure they saw and/or heard a first shot miss.


You're lying. This sequence is *IMPOSSIBLE* based on the cycle time of the
actual rifle.

I find it amusing that the kooks will simply label the WCR wrong whenever it's
inconvenient for their theory.

The Warren Commission, with EVERY POSSIBLE BIAS in favor of getting the fastest
time they could, were unable to produce a time faster than 2.3 seconds to
recycle the MC.

You do so simply by lying. "This is possible because the Carcano M38 has been
recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds." - you carefully omit that you're speaking of
ANOTHER rifle. One that has undoubtedly been far better cared for than the MC in
question.

Of course, pointing out that you're lying, and you *KNOW* that you're lying,
isn't possible in the censored forum.


>3. There were 3 shots :
>
>1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
>(GKS).
>
>Problem: No person was seen behind the fence or anywhere else on the
>Grassy Knoll with a weapon, and several witnesses heard 3 shots from
>the same direction as the TSBD.


You're again making claims not supported by the evidence. There were
eyewitnesses to a weapon in the GK... Ed Hoffman and Julia Ann Mercer come to
mind. Since you certainly know about these witnesses, you're simply lying again.

As for someone hearing three shots being proof that no other shots were fired...
well, that's just too silly to respond to.


>4. There were 3 shots :
>
>1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
>from behind the Limousine (not LHO): Take your pick, the Dal-Tex
>Sniper theory or the Donahue theory.
>
>Problem: No witness specifically saw or heard a shooter behind the
>Limousine other than LHO.


Problem, the trajectory evidence can't be explained by you.



>5. There were 4 shots :
>
>A 1st shot miss (LHO), a 2nd shot hit (LHO), a 3rd shot miss (GKS),
>and a 4th shot hit (LHO). This is the HSCA conclusion.
>
>Problem: No sniper was seen or heard on the GK


You're *LYING* again... Why do you think you can lie and get away with it?

Oh yeah... you're posting in a censored forum where lies can't be pointed out.



>by elevated witnesses on
>the Triple Underpass, the pedestal in front of the North Pergola, or in
>the Union Terminal Co north tower. No witness on the GK reported hearing
>4 shots. Sitzman, the Hesters, and Clint Hill only heard 2 shots.


And on the *same* basis as you just used previously to declare that because
someone heard three shots from the TSBD, that there couldn't have been any shots
from the GK, you now must admit that you couldn't have had three shots from the
TSBD, because you mention an eyewitness who only heard *two* shots.

But that's kook logic for you...


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[timstter]

TOP POST

You look the complete clown, posting this swamp posting nonsense here,
Holmes.

BTW, got that cite yet, Holmes?

I didn't think so.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

On Aug 11, 7:55 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Found in the censored forum:
>

> In article <6ea005e5-1dbb-4281-9be7-0f5c1bf58...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

[Ben Holmes]

(Interesting to note - Johnny is so afraid of posts like this that he censors
even the *MENTION* that there's a reply in this forum... and does so with no
notice - rather cowardly of him...)

[Bud]

On Aug 11, 7:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> (Interesting to note - Johnny is so afraid of posts like this that he censors
> even the *MENTION* that there's a reply in this forum... and does so with no
> notice - rather cowardly of him...)
>
> Found in the censored forum:

Question: Why did Ben Holmes bring this here instead of addressing
the post where it appears?

Answer: He is a pussy, and he can`t defend his ideas.

He is afraid to discuss ideas here or there, and he lost any
credibility when he refused to support many of the things he has said.
He is one of the few CTers who post here who is knowledgeable enough
and smart enough to argue the merits of the conspiracy position but
wisely chooses not to. What does that tell the lurkers?


> In article <6ea005e5-1dbb-4281-9be7-0f5c1bf58...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Aug 11, 8:49 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 7:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>

> > (Interestingtonote - Johnny is so afraid of posts like this that he censors> eventhe*MENTION* thatthere's a reply in this forum... and does so with no> notice - rather cowardly of him...)
>
> > Found inthecensored forum:
>
>   Question: Why did Ben Holmes bring this here instead of addressingthepost where it appears?

>
>   Answer: He is a pussy, and he can`t defend his ideas.
>

>   He is afraidtodiscuss ideas here orthere, and he lost anycredibility when he refusedtosupport many ofthethings he has said.He is one ofthefew CTers who post here who is knowledgeable enoughand smart enoughtoarguethemerits oftheconspiracy position butwisely chooses notto. What does that tellthelurkers?

I disagree with the knowledgeable tag regarding Karate Boy's JFK
intelligence. Like most CTs, Ben is bristling with the ability to haul
out arcane trivia about the JFK assassination, but is totally lacking
in the ability to apply reason to 11/22/63.

Ben is a cowardly JFK trivia expert. When asked to provide a cite,
explain his position on the Zapruder film "Yellowpants" episode or
explain his fictitious book by a so-called author named John Walsh
Hodge, he shrivels back into Healy's tiny foreskin and hides. Run,
Ben! Run, Run, Run!

[Jason Burke]

On 8/11/2012 6:49 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Aug 11, 7:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> (Interesting to note - Johnny is so afraid of posts like this that he censors
>> even the *MENTION* that there's a reply in this forum... and does so with no
>> notice - rather cowardly of him...)
>>
>> Found in the censored forum:
>
> Question: Why did Ben Holmes bring this here instead of addressing
> the post where it appears?
>
> Answer: He is a pussy, and he can`t defend his ideas.

No, his mommy was a pussy, because she missed him with that coat hangar.

[Bud]

On Aug 11, 7:49 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:

Top Post:

Since Ben Holmes has proven himself to be too much of a coward to
defend the issues he raises in this open forum I`ve decide to create a
wholly fiction character, Honest Ben Holmes to provide the answers
that Dishonest Ben Holmes can`t bring himself to give.

> (Interesting to note - Johnny is so afraid of posts like this that he censors
> even the *MENTION* that there's a reply in this forum... and does so with no
> notice - rather cowardly of him...)
>
> Found in the censored forum:
>

> In article <6ea005e5-1dbb-4281-9be7-0f5c1bf58...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

> claviger says...
>
>
>
> >Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting ambush in
> >Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority of
> >eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film?
>
> The more *obvious* question is not limited to just "auricular perception"... but
> what eyewitnesses in general heard and *saw*.

Bud: Honest Ben Holmes, isn`t it dishonest for Ben to change the
point that the poster was making into something else and then address
that?

Honest Ben Holmes: Yes, yes it is, but Ben was raised on dishonest
Mark Lane pap, so he finds it difficult to honestly address issues
raised.

> Why do so many of the eyewitnesses report things that contradict the extant Z-
> film?
>
> Such as the dozens of eyewitnesses who reported the dramatic slowdown and/or
> brief stop of the limo.

Me: Isn`t the fact that the limo slowed down detectable in the z-
film?

HBH: Yes, yes it is.

> Or the incredible silence coming from Dealey Plaza about the "back and to the
> left" that's so dramatically seen in the extant Z-film.

Me: Isn`t it true that experts on such things do not share the
confidence Dishonest Ben Holmes has in the ability of witnesses to
faithfully and accurately relate details in situations such as split
second attacks? And isn`t it true that if witnesses were as reliable
as Ben represents them to be and since so many witnesses witnessed
this murder then Ben Holmes should be able to use his much touted
witnesses to give a detailed explanation of what happened?

HBH: All true.

> There *is*, of course, a credible and reasonable explanation... it's just not
> non-conspiratorial.

Me: Isn`t it true that a conspiracy retard like Ben should not be
trusted to determine what is "credible and reasonable"?

HBH: True, and Dishonest Ben Holmes also pretends that witnesses
could not describe the action he refers to as "slumping", something
numerous witnesses report.

> >A number of eyewitnesses
> >heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the passengers in the
> >Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud sound as a gunshot
> >but most did not, and thought it was either a firecracker, motorcycle
> >backfire, or tire blowout.
>
> >Many witnesses did notice the physical reaction of the President to the
> >next two loud sounds. A majority of those witnesses heard three loud
> >sounds. We know there was a shot at z224
>
> Actually, no we don't.
>
> It was, undoubtedly, somewhere in that vicinity - but an *honest* person will
> state that there's no *unmistakable* showing of shots other than frame 313.
>
> Indeed, different LNT'ers will put that "Z224" shot at other times.

Me: Isn`t Ben splitting split-second hairs here?

HBH: Yes. What a dick.

> You are, of course, presuming that the shot (or more likely, shots) that wounded
> Connally are to be included in these two shots that killed Kennedy.
>
> Intelligent people will *reject* such a presumption...

Me: Isn`t Ben proven wrong by the number of intelligent people who
don`t reject this presumption.

HBH: Yes.

>as did the doctors who
> worked on Connally, for example.

Me: Isn`t Ben being deceitful here, since the doctors were not
experts in the fields that determine such things and never expressed
the idea that it was impossible for one bullet to have inflicted the
wounds on Connally?

HBH: Yes.

> >and z313 as recorded on the
> >Zapruders film. The gap between those two shots is approximately 4.86 -
> >5.56 seconds according to the measured speed of Zapruder's Model 414 PD
> >Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera. That is plenty of time to
> >re-chamber and fire the M38 Carcano SR purchased by LHO and found on the
> >6th floor of the TSBD. Several witnesses heard and a few even saw
> >something hit the street, at the first loud sound. Therefore all three
> >shots are accounted for: a first shot miss, a second shot back wound on
> >the President, and a third shot head wound on the President.
>
> Some major speculation going on there... and *NOT* able to explain *all* the
> evidence.
>
> You *PRESUME* that there were three shots, then pretend that all three have been
> "accounted" for... despite expert opinion to the contrary.

Me: Can Ben produce this expert opinion?

HBH: Likely not.

> >For the last two sounds to be so close together one of the following
> >must be true:
>
> >1. There were 3 shots :
>
> >The 1st loud sound is not perceived as a gunshot, the 2nd loud sound is
> >recognized as a gunshot, and a 3rd loud double sound, a gunshot- echo
> >perceived as two gunshots. The first loud sound is disconnected as a
> >confirmed gunshot in the startled memory of several witnesses. Problem:
> >How can that many witnesses be wrong? If there were 3 shots plus echo why
> >didn't a majority of witnesses hear 4 loud sounds?
>
> Some did.
>
> You realize, of course, that the difference in sound of the shots can *EASILY*
> be explained by different shooters firing different rifles.

Me: Can Ben explain why the witnesses largely didn`t indicate
different locations for the source of the shots?

HBH: Likely not.

> >2. There were 3 shots :
>
> >The 1st loud sound was a gunshot that struck the President in the back.
> >The 2nd shot missed and hit the street and several witnesses confused it
> >as the first shot. LHO quickly re-chambered and got off a 3rd shot that
> >struck the President in the head. This is possible because the Carcano
> >M38 has been recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds. Problem: Several well
> >placed witnesses are quite sure they saw and/or heard a first shot miss.
>
> You're lying. This sequence is *IMPOSSIBLE* based on the cycle time of the
> actual rifle.

Me: Isn`t Ben lying when he claims to know the cycling time of the
assassination rifle at the time of the assassination?

HBH: Of course.

> I find it amusing that the kooks will simply label the WCR wrong whenever it's
> inconvenient for their theory.

Me: Isn`t Ben being hypocritical when he touts WC supplied
information to support an idea when it suits him but rejects it when
it goes against his theories? And doesn`t he have no problem accepting
an incredibly slow time but would question if the WC supplied an
incredibly fast time?

HBH: Right on both counts.

> The Warren Commission, with EVERY POSSIBLE BIAS in favor of getting the fastest
> time they could, were unable to produce a time faster than 2.3 seconds to
> recycle the MC.

Me: Isn`t putting "EVERY POSSIBLE BIAS" all in capitals meaningless
hyperbole, and isn`t Dishonest Ben Holmes proven wrong by the fact
that the WC *DID* return a slow time?

HBH: Yes. He is scum.

> You do so simply by lying. "This is possible because the Carcano M38 has been
> recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds." - you carefully omit that you're speaking of
> ANOTHER rifle. One that has undoubtedly been far better cared for than the MC in
> question.

Me: Isn`t it true that we have no idea what the condition of the
rifle was in when was used by Oswald to kill Kennedy since it was
disassembled and dusted for prints?

HBH: Yes, any small child knows that putting dust on the oiled
working parts of machinery will affect performance.

Me: Isn`t it also true that it is in evidence that Oswald sat around
practicing working the bolt of his rifle?

HBH: Yes, thats true. You can`t really expect to get the same
results unless you can faithfully replicate the conditions.

Me: How do you suppose Ben would answer if I asked him why he
thought the rifle took so long to operate?

HBH: I suspect he would dance or run.

> Of course, pointing out that you're lying, and you *KNOW* that you're lying,
> isn't possible in the censored forum.

Me: Wouldn`t it be possible for Dishonest Ben Holmes to say "This
isn`t true because..." on the moderated board, and isn`t it true that
he doesn`t take that tact because he is afraid of having to debate the
two opposing ideas (conspiracy or not) on their merits?

HBH: Sadly, yes.

> >3. There were 3 shots :
>
> >1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
> >(GKS).
>
> >Problem: No person was seen behind the fence or anywhere else on the
> >Grassy Knoll with a weapon, and several witnesses heard 3 shots from
> >the same direction as the TSBD.
>
> You're again making claims not supported by the evidence. There were
> eyewitnesses to a weapon in the GK... Ed Hoffman and Julia Ann Mercer come to
> mind. Since you certainly know about these witnesses, you're simply lying again.

Me: Isn`t Ben representing witnesses to be credible when there are
severe questions about their accounts?

HBH: Yes, conspiracy retards cling to such information regardless of
whether it can pass critical muster.

> As for someone hearing three shots being proof that no other shots were fired...
> well, that's just too silly to respond to.

Me: Isn`t this a strawman?

HBH: Yes, I picked that right up.

> >4. There were 3 shots :
>
> >1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
> >from behind the Limousine (not LHO): Take your pick, the Dal-Tex
> >Sniper theory or the Donahue theory.
>
> >Problem: No witness specifically saw or heard a shooter behind the
> >Limousine other than LHO.
>
> Problem, the trajectory evidence can't be explained by you.

Me: have you ever seen a conspiracy retard offer plausible
trajectories?

HBH: No, and I doubt I ever will.

> >5. There were 4 shots :
>
> >A 1st shot miss (LHO), a 2nd shot hit (LHO), a 3rd shot miss (GKS),
> >and a 4th shot hit (LHO). This is the HSCA conclusion.
>
> >Problem: No sniper was seen or heard on the GK
>
> You're *LYING* again... Why do you think you can lie and get away with it?

Me: Isn`t Ben assertion that this is a lie contingent on his ability
to show their was a sniper on the GK to be heard or seen?

HBH: Yes.

> Oh yeah... you're posting in a censored forum where lies can't be pointed out.
>
> >by elevated witnesses on
> >the Triple Underpass, the pedestal in front of the North Pergola, or in
> >the Union Terminal Co north tower. No witness on the GK reported hearing
> >4 shots. Sitzman, the Hesters, and Clint Hill only heard 2 shots.
>
> And on the *same* basis as you just used previously to declare that because
> someone heard three shots from the TSBD, that there couldn't have been any shots
> from the GK, you now must admit that you couldn't have had three shots from the
> TSBD, because you mention an eyewitness who only heard *two* shots.
>
> But that's kook logic for you...

Me: Can Dishonest Ben Holmes explain why there are witnesses who
said they only heard two shots?

HBH: Not in any honest way.

[David Von Pein]

Excellent, Bud. I loved it (the "HBH" material).

Allow me to add a couple more to the pile:

====================

DVP: Isn't it true, as noted by me (DVP) in the blog post below, that
Dishonest Ben Holmes is making a huge boiling volcano out of a little
wet-weather spring when, in December 2007, he raked the Warren
Commission over the coals regarding the issue of the exact date that
Lee Oswald travelled from London to Helsinki?

Honest Ben Holmes: Yes, he is making mountains out of very small
molehills. Especially when we also consider what ELSE the WC placed in
its Report concerning this matter about Oswald's trip from London to
Helsinki. That is to say--the WC was being very forthright and honest
by acknowledging the problem concerning the flights that Oswald could
have taken. They didn't hide any of this information. It's all right
there in the WCR for everybody to study. Dishonest Ben is a nutcase.
(Of course.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-82.html

====================

DVP: Isn't it also true that kooks like Dishonest Ben are full of more
feces when they continue to claim (as the retards have for years on
end) that the Warren Commission was pretty much FORCED to accept the
Single-Bullet Theory as part of the shooting scenario in Dealey Plaza,
due to the fact the WC was boxed-in to a 5.6-second shooting timeline
for all three of Oswald's shots and the added fact that bystander
James Tague was slightly wounded on the cheek during the
assassination, with the kooks also erroneously saying that the WC
insisted that a "missed" shot must have caused Tague's injury and the
damage to the Main St. curb?

HBH: Yes, that is correct. All conspiracy-happy retards are, indeed,
full of feces whenever they trot out such false claims. And the proof
they are full of excrement when they say such things about the WC is
right there in the WCR itself--on Page 117--which plainly says that
the Warren Commission allowed for multiple possible scenarios
concerning the Main Street curb damage (and, hence, Tague's injury)
and also allowed for the possibility of a shooting timeline that
extended all the way to 7.9 seconds for the three shots that were
fired:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

[Ben Holmes]

Posted in the censored forum... I suspect that it will be censored just as my
last response was.

The truth really hurts these kooks...


In article <5027b79a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>On 8/11/2012 10:28 PM, claviger wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 4:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:30:54 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>>> Several editing mistakes by me in the first post. Hopefully this
>>>
>>>> correction will be more readable:

>>>
>>>> Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting
>>>
>>>> ambush in Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority
>>>

>>>> of eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film? A number of

>>>
>>>> eyewitnesses heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the
>>>
>>>> passengers in the Limousine.
>>>

>>> A number? Name one.
>>
>> Mary Woodward
>>
>>> There is no credible evidence for a first shot miss or
>>> loud sound leading to no reaction. Not one witness said "Yeah, I heard a
>>> loud sound, but Kennedy kept smiling and waving to the crowd, so I thought
>>> nothing of it," or anything remotely similar to that. There are dozens of
>>> witnesses, however, who observed his reaction to the first shot. Dave
>>> Powers, for example, said he jerked to his left. This can be seen as
>>> Kennedy disappears behind the sign in the Z-film.
>>
>> Can you provide the other 11 witnesses?
>>
>
>Here we go again. Disinformation tactic #27. After we provide you the
>other 11 witnesses, then you demand another 100, then another 1,000.
>Then notarized and filmed statements. That's only for our witnesses. You
>can make up your witnesses from your imagination.


Interesting comment from someone who refuses to cite for his claim that Dr.
Humes burned the first draft and notes on Saturday morning... and when cites
WERE finally provided, they didn't say what you claimed *AT ALL*.

Now, of course, you refuse to respond.

It's really not difficult to keep frequently asked for material on your hard
drive, in a "JFK" folder... that way, when people ask for you to cite your
sources, you can actually *DO* so.

Unfortunately, my previous response to this thread was censored without notice.

Ironically, it was only a statement to the effect of where my response could be
found.

Peter... can you explain this?


>>> The first shot miss is a myth that should have been abandoned long ago.
>>
>> There are several other witnesses to a first shot miss. The car full of
>> SS Agents didn't notice any physical reaction until the second shot.
>>
>>
>
>
>Not necessarily a miss. Maybe just that no one SAW where it hit.