Correct me if I'm wrong, but most witnesses seem to have heard only

[donald willis]

At least I believe the current LN thinking is that the "double bang" heard
by most everyone at about Z-313 was (a) a shot and (b) the sound of the
bullet hitting JFK's skull. So that's one shot, really, if this is true,
and the back/neck shot the other.

Most witnesses heard only two shots, right?

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

NO. ever read Six Sconds in Dallas?
Or is this the first time you have ever didcussed the witnesses?


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 8:52:40 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> At least I believe the current LN thinking is that the "double bang" heard
> by most everyone at about Z-313 was (a) a shot and (b) the sound of the
> bullet hitting JFK's skull.

That's a new one on me. I don't think I've ever once heard any LNer
propose such a theory about the "double bang".

Are there any LNers here who have ever suggested such an explanation? I
know I never have.

Also: Seems to me that if the "double bang" really could be explained in
such a manner, then we would have had many more witnesses falling into the
"Shots Came From 2 Different Directions" category. Because a loud cracking
sound coming from JFK's head in the Presidential limousine certainly
wouldn't sound like it had come from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the
Depository or from the fence on the Grassy Knoll either.

But, then too, sounds *can* play tricks on the ears in Dealey Plaza (or at
least I think they did)....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

[MR. X]

81 % of witnesses heard 3. 12% heard 2. Marsh says 5 shots were fired.
Marsh also says that the dictabelt proves 4 shots. Marsh how do you
account for this?

[donald willis]

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 7:24:07 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 8:52:40 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > At least I believe the current LN thinking is that the "double bang" heard
> > by most everyone at about Z-313 was (a) a shot and (b) the sound of the
> > bullet hitting JFK's skull.
> That's a new one on me. I don't think I've ever once heard any LNer
> propose such a theory about the "double bang".
>
> Are there any LNers here who have ever suggested such an explanation? I
> know I never have.

SS agent Kellerman testified that he heard the apparent third shot as a
"double bang". And Hank S has noted that fellow SS agent Clint Hill
testified that he heard a "double sound", one of the two sounds NOT being
a separate shot.

>
> Also: Seems to me that if the "double bang" really could be explained in
> such a manner, then we would have had many more witnesses falling into the
> "Shots Came From 2 Different Directions" category. Because a loud cracking
> sound coming from JFK's head in the Presidential limousine certainly
> wouldn't sound like it had come from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the
> Depository or from the fence on the Grassy Knoll either.
>

Guess you had to have been in the Queen Mary to have heard a "double bang"
or "double sound"....

dcw

[donald willis]

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 7:24:07 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:

> On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 8:52:40 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > At least I believe the current LN thinking is that the "double bang" heard
> > by most everyone at about Z-313 was (a) a shot and (b) the sound of the
> > bullet hitting JFK's skull.
> That's a new one on me. I don't think I've ever once heard any LNer
> propose such a theory about the "double bang".
>
> Are there any LNers here who have ever suggested such an explanation? I
> know I never have.

In fact, today, under "Hank's Theory", Sienzant proposes a two-shot
scenario, a "double sound", as per Clint Hill. Or at least he doesn't
reject it. Perhaps you can explain to Hank how a two-shot scenario would
indicate a conspiracy, or at least a cover-up....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Witness recollections are the least reliable form of evidence we have.
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable so why would we think ear
witnesses would be any better. Trying to reconstruct the shooting based on
what witnesses remembered reminds me of the story of the five blind men
describing an elephant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

We can expect witnesses will get some things right but they will get
things wrong too. Like the five blind men, they don't get the whole story
right because they only perceive certain things and miss out on a lot.
I've said this countless times and I'll say it again. The way to determine
if a witness got something right or wrong is to compare their account to
the physical evidence which is far more reliable than human memories. Any
theory that is based primarily on eye or ear witness recollections is
dubious from the start. To have any credibility, it first must be
established that the witness got it right. Rarely do I see people want to
take that step.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Simple math, no doubt. 81% + 12% = 93%.

93% heard five.

; )

Hank

[MR. X]

Joe Biden said 93 %?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 8:52:40 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > At least I believe the current LN thinking is that the "double bang" heard
> > by most everyone at about Z-313 was (a) a shot and (b) the sound of the
> > bullet hitting JFK's skull.
> That's a new one on me. I don't think I've ever once heard any LNer
> propose such a theory about the "double bang".
>
> Are there any LNers here who have ever suggested such an explanation? I
> know I never have.

The genesis of that idea - as far as I go - came about because Bob Harris
over on the International Skeptics board back in 2015 argued that his
claim of two shots at Z285 and Z313 were the best explanation of the
witness reports of two shots close together.

I pointed out to Bob that there's a better explanation that didn't involve
multiple unseen shooters firing multiple unseen weapons from multiple
unseen locations and leaving no trace of themselves behind - no shells, no
weapons, no bullets, no fragments, no wounds that Oswald's weapon couldn't
be responsible for.

I simply argued for a two-shot scenario, with shots at Z223 and Z313,
along with a loud enough impact to the skull that numerous confused that
with another shot. That gives us three loud sounds, with the last two very
close together, accounting for the bunching of the final two 'shots'
reported by numerous witnesses.

Bob didn't care for my explanation very much, as it pretty much explained
a lot of his arguments more economically. He couldn't rebut it, so he
tried repeatedly to misunderstand it. And no amount of explanation could
clarify it for him, it seemed.

Hank

>
> Also: Seems to me that if the "double bang" really could be explained in
> such a manner, then we would have had many more witnesses falling into the
> "Shots Came From 2 Different Directions" category. Because a loud cracking
> sound coming from JFK's head in the Presidential limousine certainly
> wouldn't sound like it had come from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the
> Depository or from the fence on the Grassy Knoll either.

Some people reported a shot from the car. Others reported that one of the
shots sounded different. I grant there is problems with trying to shoehorn
those witness accounts into the two shot argument. For instance, the shot
that sounded like a firecracker was typically described as the first, not
the second or third.

Hank

[donald willis]

And as I noted, there's another big problem with that argument--the three
hulls photographed on the 6th floor of the depository....

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I've explained that twice, but neither post seems to have hit the board.

I see that Mr. X has now also given the same explanation, fair more
succinctly that I did:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/FJ9N6Crdw2g/m/Cs-O3IUjCQAJ

== QUOTE ==

The rifle could have started out with an empty in the chamber,. It would
have been ejected when the gunman cycled the action to bring the first
live round into battery [barrel?]. That would account for three empty
cases and two shots without having to imaginatively add a pet theory.

== UNQUOTE ==

The "pet theory" under discussion prior was Robert Harris' pet theory of a
shot at Z285, but of course the Don Willis pet theory of a fifth floor
shooter, with the evidence being transported to the sixth floor, also fits
that description.

Hank

[John Corbett]

What people heard is largely going to be a product of where they were. For
example Clint Hill would have been close enough to hear the impact on the
skull, the fragments hitting various places inside the limo, and the
muzzle blast. These would have occurred almost simultaneously so it would
be unlikely he would perceive these as separate shots and according to his
testimony he did not. It did give the last shot a different sound as he
described it.

[donald willis]

However, note that to arrive at the two-shot concussion (it's the Leo
Gorcey in me) one has to discount both the ear-witnesses--most of whom
thought that they heard 3 shots--AND the seductive visual of three hulls
on the floor.

dcw

[donald willis]

SS agent Kellerman was at least as close as Hill and he testified that he
heard two "instantaneous" final shots:

Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells
into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you
described as sounding like a firecracker?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang,
bang.

Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the time, in seconds, from the
first noise sounding like a firecracker until the second noise which you
heard?

Mr. KELLERMAN. This was instantaneous.

Best aural case for conspiracy: Two "instantaneous" shots.... Of course,
yes, countered by Hill's recollection....

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Understood.

This scenario was offered in response to Robert Harris' claim that nothing
explained the two close shots at the end of the assassination attempt as
noted by many witnesses as his Z285 and Z313 shots. In a matter of a day,
I came up with a scenario that explained those two close shots many of the
witnesses described, and my scenario doesn't advance fanciful shooters
that are unseen by everyone, leave no trace of themselves, fired unheard
shots from silenced weapons, and do no damage to the victims.

As I pointed out to Bob at the time (back in 2015 on the International
Skeptics forum), there isn't a dime's worth of difference between his
supposed extra shooters and no extra shooters at all.

My scenario incorporates and explains the witness statements and doesn't
invoke pop up shooters with pink unicorn spotters.

Hank

[John Corbett]

I tend to be reluctant to use uncorroborated witness accounts to advance
an argument for one simple reason. Witnesses often get important details
wrong. In this case, we have so many eye and earwitnesses with widely
varying accounts of how the shooting went down that it makes no sense to
me to make an argument along the lines of "so-and-so said". So-and-so
might very well have been wrong. The one witness I do place faith in, in
addition to Zapruder's camera, is Connally because we an see him doing
just what he described to the Warren Commission. Upon hearing the first
shot he said he immediately recognized it as a rifle shot and turned to
look over his right shoulder which is where he perceived the shot came
from. I will add one disclaimer. Before testifying, Connally had looked at
stills from the Zapruder film and his memory could have been influenced by
what he saw. Still, I find it difficult to believe the he could have had a
false memory of hearing a shot several seconds before he felt the shot
that hit him because we see him reacting to the first shot rou ghly 3
seconds before he reacts to being hit.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Already explained. Governor Connally said he heard both the sound of the
shot and the sound of the impact, and he described the sound of the impact
as quite loud.

== QUOTE ==

and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very
clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed
again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the
President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible,
very clear.

== UNQUOTE ==

AND the seductive visual of three hulls
> on the floor.

Asked and answered, one shell ejected before the shooting, two fired and
ejected during the shooting. Again, this scenario was produced in response
to the bleating of Robert Harris that nothing explains the witness
statements of two shots at the end of the shooting as well as his
scenario.

It should be compared and contrasted with that scenario.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Let's continue to quote Kellerman, shall we? Starting right before where
you left off:

== QUOTE ==

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the time, in seconds, from the
first noise sounding like a firecracker until the second noise which you
heard?

Mr. KELLERMAN. This was instantaneous.

Mr. SPECTER. No; let me repeat the question so I am sure you understand
it. From the time you first heard the noise coming to your right rear,
which you described as sounding like a firecracker, until you heard the
flurry of shots?

Mr. KELLERMAN. This is about how long it took, sir. As I am viewing,
trying to determine this noise, I turned to my right and I heard the voice
and I came back and I verify it and speak to the driver, grab the mike,
these shots come in.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, you have described it as 3 to 4 seconds from the time--

Mr. KELLERMAN. No more.

Mr. SPECTER. From the time of the first noise--wait a minute--until you
gave the instruction to Mr. Greer and then as you made the statement to
Special Agent Lawson over the microphone that was an instantaneous
timespan as you have described it.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. How soon thereafter did the flurry of shots come?

Mr. KELLERMAN. They came in, Mr. Specter, while I am delivering that radio
message.

Mr. SPECTER. To Mr. Lawson. All right. Was there any timespan which you
could discern between the first and second shots and what you have
described as the flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that.

== UNQUOTE==

No, you're missing the point. He heard two loud noises, nearly
instantaneous. That could be the sound of the rifle shot and the sound of
the impact.

Kellerman described hearing only three "shots" in total, one, and then two
more that were nearly instantaneous. He put the total time span as "five
seconds, if that".

How much time between Z223 and Z313? Do the math, tell us.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

John, I don't know how better to describe it than as I already have. It's
not offered up as a stand-alone scenario to replace the standard
three-shot scenario, it was offered to Bob Harris to meet his challenge to
come up with a scenario that better explained than his did why the
witnesses described two shots at the end of the shooting that were very
close together . Harris put the two "close" shots at Z285 and Z313. I put
them as one shot and the sound of the impact. I think my explanation is
better than Bob's because it explains the witness statements at least as
well as Bob's, but doesn't invoke silenced weapons that were unseen,
shooters that were unseen, shots that weren't heard, and bullets that
caused no damage. Like I said to Bob back in 2015, It's almost like his
extra shooters didn't exist.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

No one cares for your misrepresentations Except the cover-up.

[Anthony Marsh]

NO, i don't/ Stop misrepresenting.
I said the acoustical studies show possible 5 shots.
One is not certain.
Why not read their report?

[Anthony Marsh]

HOW COME McAdams allows You to bring politics into this discussion

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

> No one cares for your misrepresentations(1). Except the cover-up(2).

(1). the Logical fallacy of Begging the Question
(2). the Logical fallacy of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is when you insert into your argument a point you must p
rove, not just assume or assert is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
== QUOTE ==

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal
fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the
conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning:
an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true...

== UNQUOTE ==