I was wrong. I suggested you would change the subject. Instead, you opted for speculation, bald assertions with no evidence, misdirection, conjecture, and a large heaping of outright falsehood instead, in an attempt to salvage just a portion of your position from March of 2017.
Why do I theorize more than three shots if most of the witnesses only heard three loud shots?
You are rephrasing my question. Don't. I asked this:
"So the 90% of the witnesses who said three shots were all mistaken and couldn't count to four? And the witnesses who testified to only two shots (which were more than those who testified to four or more), also were mistaken? Only the four or five witnesses who said four or more shots were on the ball that day, and everyone else was mistaken? If you're going to argue with the vast majority of the witnesses perception of something as simple as the number of shots given within days of the assassination, please don't quote eyewitness recollections from decades after the fact and try to sell us on how they couldn't be mistaken."
Noise suppressors probably.
That doesn't even answer the question you just asked, let alone the ones I did. You asked,
"Why do I theorize more than three shots if most of the witnesses only heard three loud shots?"
A valid answer would be
"because of the evidence of four shots, like: {followed by your list of the evidence of four shots}". But you don't have any evidence of suppressed shots, so you're just arguing in a circle.
The CIA manual on assassination mentions using suppressors, and that was written a decade before.
Asked and answered almost a year ago. You're just taking us on another ride through your spin cycle on that conspiracy carousel once more.
If you want to explain away unheard shots by unseen assassins firing unseen weapons that caused unseen damage, well, wouldn't it be simpler to just explain away these unheard shots by saying they weren't fired?
If you want to argue for actual shots, then you need some evidence, not just conjecture and speculation and logical fallacies.
1. Let's see the link to this supposed "CIA manual on assassination".
2. Let's see the eyewitness testimony for other assassins.
3. Let's see the other bullets that were fired.
4. Let's see the evidence for the CIA's involvement in the assassination.
5. Let's see the evidence for suppressed shots (hint: It's not "well, nobody heard them, so ergo, they must have been suppressed!").
6. Show the damage to JFK in the autopsy evidence and from the autopsy report and the HSCA forensic panel report of what these bullets struck, if anything. Or to Connally in Connally's Parkland medical records.
7. Wouldn't it be simpler to just explain away these unheard shots by unseen assassins firing unseen weapons that caused unseen damage by saying there weren't any?
The DIRECT evidence for noise suppressors is John Connally.
No, he's not. He said he heard two shots, spaced about ten to twelve seconds apart. He also said he was struck by a shot between those two he heard (which he didn't hear, because of the damage it caused). So Connally testified to three shots only. He appears to react to a shot at Z224. And JFK's head was blown apart at Z313, and Connally testified he was pelted by blood and brains from the third shot. There is an average of five to six seconds between shots according to Connally. From Z224 to Z313 is about 4.9 seconds between those two shots (the camera ran at 18.3 frames per second). That means Z224 is the second of the three shots Connally heard, and there is one missing one earlier than that. Probably somewhere about Z135 if we allow five seconds from the first to the second shot.
And he provided some of the best evidence against the Single Bullet Theory:
No, he didn't. His testimony as cited above fits very well with a first shot miss, the second shot hitting both men, and the third shot hitting JFK in the head.
A. I think it's pretty clear, judging by the dozens of Dealey Plaza witness statements, that the first loud shot was at 190-224.
Connally said the second shot was the one that hit him. You just said Connally was a great witness for you, but he's already contradicting you. When do you think Connally was struck, anyway?
I think there's very little in the way of evidence for a loud shout occurring before that. Rosemary Willis and Conally turning their heads before that is kind of weak evidence compared to the totality of it all.
Connally's testimony is that he was struck by the second shot. When was this second shot, if the first one was in Z190-224 range?
B. Connally always swore that he was struck very shortly after the first loud shot, and that he did not hear this shot.
No. I asked you to document this 'very shortly' previously, and you couldn't.
When do you think Connally was shot? When do you think the first shot was?
He always said that he remembered only two loud shots, but he thinks the second shot was the head shot
False. He said the second shot he heard was the head shot, but it was the third shot in total.
... and by the totality of the evidence it appears that the last two loud shots were bunched together almost like you could mistake it for just one.
No, I went through this in detail with Robert Harris before you got here. Read the prior threads and see the evidence for a head shot and the sound of the impact of the head shot as the close-together two loud reports heard by many witnesses. Bob pretended not to understand the point. You can take that approach as well.
And now, after citing Connally's ability to recall the exact sequence (which you butcher and get wrong), you then claim Connally wasn't a good witness and didn't hear all the shots, and mistook two separate shots for one. You claimed above he was "The DIRECT evidence for noise suppressors". Now you're trying to tell us he was not a good witness. It can't be both. Which is it?
Your attempt to answer the original questions fails, because it just raises more question you can't answer.
You're funny. Unintentionally funny, perhaps, but funny nonetheless.
Here's your problem: You're mistaking confirmation bias for a massive amount of evidence for your opinion. It's not. It never will be.
Unheard shots that hit nothing from unseen assassins firing unseen weapons that leave behind no trace of the assassin, rifle, bullets, or shells is NOT evidence of suppressed weapons. It's evidence of NO weapons. You're somehow confusing those two. The distinction is quite important.
Hank
