(PART 1261)


Interesting that you are absolutely sure there was three shots. Twenty-two men on two different Panels charged with investigating the assassination were never certain that three shots had been fired.


There's very little doubt, in my opinion, that three (and only three) shots were fired---and they all came from the sixth floor of the Depository. If some people have doubts as to the precise number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza, that's fine. People are free to doubt things all they want (and they do). But, IMO, the two facts shown below (when put together) pretty much seal the deal when it comes to the question of "How Many Shots Were Fired?"....

1.) More than 75% of the earwitnesses said they heard exactly THREE shots fired. No more. No less. (And according to John McAdams' 2013 re-evaluation of the witness statistics, the number of "3 Shots" witnesses is even higher---81%.)


2.) THREE spent bullet shells were found under the sixth-floor window.

Yes, we should always be wary of "witness testimony". But when you get THAT many people saying "Three Shots" (more than 100 witnesses were used to comprise McAdams' pie charts), it makes it much easier to accept what they said as the probable truth (and much more likely).

If we had only two or three witnesses who said "3 shots", it would be much easier to dismiss them all as possibly not getting the exact number correct. But 100+ witnesses? Are you going to dismiss 100-plus people who all said exactly the same thing regarding the number of shots? That doesn't seem like a very logical thing to do....does it?

More here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses


"The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired." -- Warren Commission
Report, page 110

"The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired." -- Warren Commission Report, pages 110111.

"The committee believed that the witnesses' memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22, 1963." -- HSCA Final Report, page 87.

Within 18 minutes of the shooting, the first report to J. Edgar Hoover was that two shots had been fired. Hoover's written memo stated that at 12:48 p.m. Dallas time, he was notified that, "One witness said a Negro man leaned out a window and made two shots." Half an hour later, Hoover clarified that it was unknown whether the gunman was white or Negro.

To make a blanket statement that the majority of the witnesses heard three shots is taking a very narrow view of the issue and ignores the explanation of two different panels as to why they believed there were fewer shots than what was reported by many witnesses.

A breakdown of witness testimony that does not include their initial statements, that the second shot was the head shot, that the second and "third" shots were so close together that they sounded as one, and that does not separate the eyewitnesses from the earwitnesses, is a narrow and unproductive look at the witnesses and how their statements evolved after hearing the constant press reports of three shots.

The only dismissing that appears to be taking place here is the large number of eyewitnesses who initially reported two shots, then changed to three; the sequence of the wounds; and the shot timing inconsistent with the 2.3 seconds the FBI determined was necessary to cycle the Carcano.

To blindly claim that three shots were fired is to completely dismiss the statements of some of [the] eyewitnesses like Jackie, Nellie, JBC, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, Bill Newman, Brehm, Hargis, Chaney, the Chisms, Jean Newman, Sitzman, Zapruder, Brennan, Bonnie Ray Williams, Jarman, Marilyn Willis, Greer, and Altgens. The people closest to JFK or to the sniper's nest made initial statements contradicting the conclusion that three shots were fired.

The only logical choice available is two shots, given a large majority of eyewitnesses stated that there were two shots, and only a bullet and bullet fragments from two bullets were ever recovered. A number of eyewitnesses told media interviewers that they did not know about a third shot, but the media persisted in reporting that three shots had been fired. Logic also dictates that the six differences between CE543 and the other shells, CE544, CE545, and CE141, and the thirty test shells fired by the FBI and referenced by Josiah Thompson, require an explanation.

A final logic issue is, how could LHO fire two extremely accurate shots and yet completely miss everyone and everything with a third shot, when all of them were fired within seconds of each other? And why was no third bullet ever found? How could so many eyewitnesses clearly hear two shots, yet fail to hear a third one? The sound of the rifle shots was described as very loud in the HSCA Acoustical Analysis Report, so how could a shot fail to even register with so many eyewitnesses?


For what it's worth, the very first CBS bulletin as announced by Walter Cronkite stated that three shots were fired at JFK's motorcade. This of course does not establish as fact that three shots were fired since Cronkite made a number of false reports over the next couple of hours, but this early initial report cannot be dismissed as having been influenced by early news reports. It was the early news report.


Virtually all of the people who were in a position to report the shooting to the world (i.e., the TV and radio media personnel--such as Jay Watson, Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jerry Haynes, and others) heard THREE shots exactly.

And I don't see how the various "Two Shots" witnesses do any harm to the "Oswald Acted Alone" scenario at all. Any "4 Shots Or More" witnesses might do some damage to the theory of Oswald acting all by himself, but the 2-Shot witnesses (such as Abe Zapruder, Bill Newman, and others) don't hurt the Lone Assassin position a bit.


This memo shows how confused they [the Warren Commission and its staff] really were about the mechanics of the assassination. They seem to understand the cycle time of Oswald’s Carcano but fail to apply it properly to what the witnesses said happened.

The biggest mistake they make is relying on John Connally’s recounting of when he was wounded. He was all over the board about his actions and his estimates. One of the few things he got right was that he heard only two shots. The four witnesses, Jackie, Nellie, Newman, and Hargis, who noted his [Connally's] wounding, all stated that he was hit by the same bullet that struck JFK. They all initially stated that there were only two shots.

The exact location of the first shot is known by the statements of the sidewalk witnesses. It took place just after the limousine passed Jean Newman, before the Chisms, right in front of the TSBD secretaries, and right after JFK turned his head to the right which takes place at Z204.

The idea that these people could stand on the street waiting to see the President and not observe and note what took place in front of them is absurd. To believe that you would have to believe that people cannot recount a movie or any event they had intently just watched.

The Ball/Belin Report from February 1964 shows their only concern in investigating the assassination was to look entirely at the people around the sniper's nest in an attempt to identify the assassin. The conundrum noted by them was the fact that half of the witnesses they were concentrating on said there were only two shots. They were absolutely not interested in the witnesses surrounding the car at that time. How they could discount the statements of people like Clint Hill and Paul Landis, James Chaney and Bobby Hargis, is nonsensical. They did so because these people only heard two shots, and that did not fit with their preconceived notions and opened a can of worms they did not want opened.


Thomas Edison was confused about how to make a working light bulb for the longest time before he finally found the answer. Before then he had lots of failures but he learned something with each failure that eventually led him to the right answer.

People rarely find the answer to complex problems right off the bat. It takes time. Trial and error. I have no doubt the WC and their staff lawyers floated a number of ideas before finding the right answer. What matters is their final conclusion, not what they left in their waste paper basket.

You can construct just about any scenario you want depending on which witnesses you choose to believe. The forensic evidence tells the story. The medical evidence combined with the film record and the reconstruction of the shooting leave little doubt there were three shots, two hits, with one of the hits striking both men.

They [the Warren Commission] had to discount somebody's accounts since they had numerous accounts that were mutually exclusive. The shooting happened only one way but it was described dozens of ways. Lots of the witnesses had to be wrong about some very important details because they could not possibly all be correct.


One of the few things he [Governor Connally] got right was that he heard only two shots.


Governor Connally HEARD two shots but FELT a completely SEPARATE and DIFFERENT additional shot/bullet. His never-wavering testimony about hearing a shot BEFORE he was hit by a bullet is one of the most convincing reasons to know there were three shots fired in Dealey Plaza.

In order for the "2 Shots Only" theory to be correct, we'd have to believe Connally was hit by the first shot, which is a shot Connally could not possibly have been hit by, because he was very clear about the fact he heard that shot a few seconds before he was hit, and he was clear about there being enough time for him to "turn" in his seat and to "think" and to "react" to the sound of that shot before he himself was struck.

So while John B. Connally was positively the worst witness for trying to determine whether the Single-Bullet Theory is correct or not (since JBC never saw JFK at the operative time to determine such a thing), Mr. Connally was one of the best witnesses for trying to determine how many shots were fired. And that number was almost certainly three, not just two.

David Von Pein
September 18-23, 2017