Phantom Shot

[Dawn Meredith]

I cannot bring myself to read even one book by a LN. I mean with all the great books to read why waste time on provable lies?

Dawn

[Tracy Riddle]

I cannot bring myself to read even one book by a LN. I mean with all the great books to read why waste time on provable lies?

Dawn

When I first started studying the subject around 1992, I knew nothing about the JFK assassination other than what I had seen in Oliver Stone's film. I wanted to know both sides of the argument really well so I could make up my own mind. You can only do that by reading everything you can get your hands on.

I kept expecting at some point to read a LNer book that would really convince me that the government's case was right, but I never did. Then I became fascinated by the levels of deception and propaganda at work in those books, and it was interesting just to read them as an exercise in critical thinking.

[Bob Mady]

Over at Amazon, I stumbled across a book released last year that I hadn't heard of - Phantom Shot by Mike Majerus. It supports the official story, except that it proposes there were only two shots fired. The third was a car backfire or something. Of course it's nonsense, but has anyone else read it?

I used to try and read all of the lone-nutter books back in the 1990s, but I finally stopped because they were so repetitively stupid and numbingly deceptive.

Why waste time on this non-sense.
There were over 129 witnesses that claimed to have heard three or more shots.
This includes 19 sheriff deputies guarding the front steps of their station house located just outside of DP, all heard three rifle shots.

A Person who would propose a phantom shot does not understand all of the evidence available or has failed to put it in context and only concentrate on the few claims of having heard 'firecracker' or 'noise' or 'backfire' which alternately each claim can be provided with more logical and reasonable explanations than reverting to a phantom shot.

As ridiculous as it now is three shots can't explain all of the wounds, two shots certainly does not help to make the scenario any more evident.

[Jack Nessan]

Over at Amazon, I stumbled across a book released last year that I hadn't heard of - Phantom Shot by Mike Majerus. It supports the official story, except that it proposes there were only two shots fired. The third was a car backfire or something. Of course it's nonsense, but has anyone else read it?

I used to try and read all of the lone-nutter books back in the 1990s, but I finally stopped because they were so repetitively stupid and numbingly deceptive.

Why waste time on this non-sense.
There were over 129 witnesses that claimed to have heard three or more shots.
This includes 19 sheriff deputies guarding the front steps of their station house located just outside of DP, all heard three rifle shots.

A Person who would propose a phantom shot does not understand all of the evidence available or has failed to put it in context and only concentrate on the few claims of having heard 'firecracker' or 'noise' or 'backfire' which alternately each claim can be provided with more logical and reasonable explanations than reverting to a phantom shot.

As ridiculous as it now is three shots can't explain all of the wounds, two shots certainly does not help to make the scenario any more evident.

I am not sure which witnesses you are referring to but there are a significant number of witnesses that if you trace their statements back to the first one; they originally reported hearing just two shots. What is interesting is the 19 deputies hearing three shots. Their boss, Sheriff Bill Decker, stated he heard only two shots in his statement. He was riding in a car in an open grassy area directly in front of JFK's limo on Elm Street. The deputies were on Houston street standing in front of a tall building. Generally the later the date on an statement the more likely it will state three shots being fired. Even later statements from people who originally stated hearing just two shots then state they heard three shots. The original statements of Jackie, James Altgens, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, DPD James Chaney, DPD Bobby Hargis, and 30 to 40 other eyewitnesses is that they not only heard two shots but also describe the two shots. Two shots can explain the whole assassination; three shots and the timing of the shots with the carcano rifle does not.

[Bob Mady]

Over at Amazon, I stumbled across a book released last year that I hadn't heard of - Phantom Shot by Mike Majerus. It supports the official story, except that it proposes there were only two shots fired. The third was a car backfire or something. Of course it's nonsense, but has anyone else read it?

I used to try and read all of the lone-nutter books back in the 1990s, but I finally stopped because they were so repetitively stupid and numbingly deceptive.

Why waste time on this non-sense.
There were over 129 witnesses that claimed to have heard three or more shots.
This includes 19 sheriff deputies guarding the front steps of their station house located just outside of DP, all heard three rifle shots.

A Person who would propose a phantom shot does not understand all of the evidence available or has failed to put it in context and only concentrate on the few claims of having heard 'firecracker' or 'noise' or 'backfire' which alternately each claim can be provided with more logical and reasonable explanations than reverting to a phantom shot.

As ridiculous as it now is three shots can't explain all of the wounds, two shots certainly does not help to make the scenario any more evident.

I am not sure which witnesses you are referring to but there are a significant number of witnesses that if you trace their statements back to the first one; they originally reported hearing just two shots. What is interesting is the 19 deputies hearing three shots. Their boss, Sheriff Bill Decker, stated he heard only two shots in his statement. He was riding in a car in an open grassy area directly in front of JFK's limo on Elm Street. The deputies were on Houston street standing in front of a tall building. Generally the later the date on an statement the more likely it will state three shots being fired. Even later statements from people who originally stated hearing just two shots then state they heard three shots. The original statements of Jackie, James Altgens, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, DPD James Chaney, DPD Bobby Hargis, and 30 to 40 other eyewitnesses is that they not only heard two shots but also describe the two shots. Two shots can explain the whole assassination; three shots and the timing of the shots with the carcano rifle does not.

Jack, out of 201 witnesses that provided statements:
137 reported 3 shots
13 x 3+ shots
17 x 2 shots
4 x only talked about hearing a shot did not disclose how many
26 x ? FBI never asked or recorded how many shots these witnesses heard (the most extensive murder investigation of all time)

Are you implying it is justified to disregard 150 witnesses in an attempt to justify the reports of 17 witnesses?
We may disregard 19 SD because the Sheriff only heard 2 shots.

What about the many witnesses that reported the second and third shots to have occurred almost simultaneously, could this account for 17 people hearing two shots?
Also of the people that heard two shot, some were in the process of ducking, like NEWMAN and SUMMERS or like CLINT HILL running to the limo.
Of these 17 witnesses 3 of them reported multiple 'firecracker' like sounds...?

[Tracy Riddle]

Two shots can explain the whole assassination; three shots and the timing of the shots with the carcano rifle does not.

Um, Jack, do you support the official story (lone gunman, no conspiracy)?

[Jack Nessan]

Over at Amazon, I stumbled across a book released last year that I hadn't heard of - Phantom Shot by Mike Majerus. It supports the official story, except that it proposes there were only two shots fired. The third was a car backfire or something. Of course it's nonsense, but has anyone else read it?

I used to try and read all of the lone-nutter books back in the 1990s, but I finally stopped because they were so repetitively stupid and numbingly deceptive.

Why waste time on this non-sense.
There were over 129 witnesses that claimed to have heard three or more shots.
This includes 19 sheriff deputies guarding the front steps of their station house located just outside of DP, all heard three rifle shots.

A Person who would propose a phantom shot does not understand all of the evidence available or has failed to put it in context and only concentrate on the few claims of having heard 'firecracker' or 'noise' or 'backfire' which alternately each claim can be provided with more logical and reasonable explanations than reverting to a phantom shot.

As ridiculous as it now is three shots can't explain all of the wounds, two shots certainly does not help to make the scenario any more evident.

I am not sure which witnesses you are referring to but there are a significant number of witnesses that if you trace their statements back to the first one; they originally reported hearing just two shots. What is interesting is the 19 deputies hearing three shots. Their boss, Sheriff Bill Decker, stated he heard only two shots in his statement. He was riding in a car in an open grassy area directly in front of JFK's limo on Elm Street. The deputies were on Houston street standing in front of a tall building. Generally the later the date on an statement the more likely it will state three shots being fired. Even later statements from people who originally stated hearing just two shots then state they heard three shots. The original statements of Jackie, James Altgens, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, DPD James Chaney, DPD Bobby Hargis, and 30 to 40 other eyewitnesses is that they not only heard two shots but also describe the two shots. Two shots can explain the whole assassination; three shots and the timing of the shots with the carcano rifle does not.

Jack, out of 201 witnesses that provided statements:
137 reported 3 shots
13 x 3+ shots
17 x 2 shots
4 x only talked about hearing a shot did not disclose how many
26 x ? FBI never asked or recorded how many shots these witnesses heard (the most extensive murder investigation of all time)

Are you implying it is justified to disregard 150 witnesses in an attempt to justify the reports of 17 witnesses?
We may disregard 19 SD because the Sheriff only heard 2 shots.

What about the many witnesses that reported the second and third shots to have occurred almost simultaneously, could this account for 17 people hearing two shots?
Also of the people that heard two shot, some were in the process of ducking, like NEWMAN and SUMMERS or like CLINT HILL running to the limo.
Of these 17 witnesses 3 of them reported multiple 'firecracker' like sounds...?

Bob, I have seen this shot breakdown before. I think it is something McAdams worked up but I am not sure, but it is a snapshot in time as these witnesses were changing their stories to match the medias estimate of the number of shots. The correct number of two shot witnesses is really 45 to 50 if the data is taken from the first day before they changed their statements. Then to be considered is that most of the two shot witnesses are eyewitnesses standing by the car and not the larger group of earwitnesses standing by the buildings. There should be a breakdown of just the eyewitnesses alone.

You are on the right track studying the witness accounts. It is important to take each eyewitness and read all the statements they made and take note of the date, and the narrative of the assassination and then you will see a pattern emerge where they add a third shot but the narrative doesn't change. Often the extra shot being added in doesn't fit the narrative. If you are interested here is a list of names to look at to start. Nellie Connally, George Hickey, John Ready, Clint Hill, Bill Newman, Gayle Newman (at station WFAA and at the 50th Oral History in the TSBD), Mary Moorman, Charles Brehm, (Bonnie Ray Williams along with Norman and Jarman), Marilyn Willis, Most of Secret Service. Hickey is a great example, he just makes a slight change to his statement but totally changes the narrative. Jackies testimony is very good because she mentions the noise of the motorcade, the fact that the general consensus is there were three shots and dismisses it all and says there was only two shots. Her and Nellie actually confirm Gov Connally was hit by the first shot by referencing when he says Oh No No No, which is contrary to his statement.

People saying they heard shots two and three as being almost simultaneously are trying to conform a two shot testimony into being a three shot testimony. A number of witnesses state they heard a shot after the head shot except the only problem being is the head shot was the last shot.

You are absolutely right about the FBI not investigating the witnesses except it is far worse than 26. In February and March of 1964 they interviewed 73 of the TSBD employees who were standing by the car on Elm Street and never asked them what did you see and what did you hear. Unless the witness volunteered the information it was never brought up. If they did say what happened they would write down there were three shots, shots or several shots but never two shots. I think that shows what a can of worms the FBI thought the number of reported shots was and they decided to stay away from it. Only three of the seven Warren Commission members supported the three shot conclusion the other 4 felt there was definitely two shots and maybe a third.

[Jack Nessan]

Two shots can explain the whole assassination; three shots and the timing of the shots with the carcano rifle does not.

Um, Jack, do you support the official story (lone gunman, no conspiracy)?

If you have a conspiracy theory based on only two shots being fired from the snipers nest I would be very interested to hear it.

[Drew Phipps]

If you assume 2 shots coming from the same location you will not get to a "conspiracy."

The FBI's official investigation concluded three shots (So did the Secret service re-enactment). The Warren Commission realized that they couldn't use the FBI's conclusions and account for the damage to the curb and James Tague (which had already been published and couldn't be ignored), and the magic bullet theory was invented (which still used three shots). All the official versions had all three shots coming from a single location.

If you truly believe that the bolt action Carcano could not accurately fire three shots in the time allotted, as your previous post implied, then are you suggesting a different weapon, or multiple shooters?

[Bob Mady]

Why waste time on this non-sense.
There were over 129 witnesses that claimed to have heard three or more shots.
This includes 19 sheriff deputies guarding the front steps of their station house located just outside of DP, all heard three rifle shots.

A Person who would propose a phantom shot does not understand all of the evidence available or has failed to put it in context and only concentrate on the few claims of having heard 'firecracker' or 'noise' or 'backfire' which alternately each claim can be provided with more logical and reasonable explanations than reverting to a phantom shot.

As ridiculous as it now is three shots can't explain all of the wounds, two shots certainly does not help to make the scenario any more evident.

I am not sure which witnesses you are referring to but there are a significant number of witnesses that if you trace their statements back to the first one; they originally reported hearing just two shots. What is interesting is the 19 deputies hearing three shots. Their boss, Sheriff Bill Decker, stated he heard only two shots in his statement. He was riding in a car in an open grassy area directly in front of JFK's limo on Elm Street. The deputies were on Houston street standing in front of a tall building. Generally the later the date on an statement the more likely it will state three shots being fired. Even later statements from people who originally stated hearing just two shots then state they heard three shots. The original statements of Jackie, James Altgens, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, DPD James Chaney, DPD Bobby Hargis, and 30 to 40 other eyewitnesses is that they not only heard two shots but also describe the two shots. Two shots can explain the whole assassination; three shots and the timing of the shots with the carcano rifle does not.

Jack, out of 201 witnesses that provided statements:
137 reported 3 shots
13 x 3+ shots
17 x 2 shots
4 x only talked about hearing a shot did not disclose how many
26 x ? FBI never asked or recorded how many shots these witnesses heard (the most extensive murder investigation of all time)

Are you implying it is justified to disregard 150 witnesses in an attempt to justify the reports of 17 witnesses?
We may disregard 19 SD because the Sheriff only heard 2 shots.

What about the many witnesses that reported the second and third shots to have occurred almost simultaneously, could this account for 17 people hearing two shots?
Also of the people that heard two shot, some were in the process of ducking, like NEWMAN and SUMMERS or like CLINT HILL running to the limo.
Of these 17 witnesses 3 of them reported multiple 'firecracker' like sounds...?

Bob, I have seen this shot breakdown before. I think it is something McAdams worked up but I am not sure, but it is a snapshot in time as these witnesses were changing their stories to match the medias estimate of the number of shots. The correct number of two shot witnesses is really 45 to 50 if the data is taken from the first day before they changed their statements. Then to be considered is that most of the two shot witnesses are eyewitnesses standing by the car and not the larger group of earwitnesses standing by the buildings. There should be a breakdown of just the eyewitnesses alone.

You are on the right track studying the witness accounts. It is important to take each eyewitness and read all the statements they made and take note of the date, and the narrative of the assassination and then you will see a pattern emerge where they add a third shot but the narrative doesn't change. Often the extra shot being added in doesn't fit the narrative. If you are interested here is a list of names to look at to start. Nellie Connally, George Hickey, John Ready, Clint Hill, Bill Newman, Gayle Newman (at station WFAA and at the 50th Oral History in the TSBD), Mary Moorman, Charles Brehm, (Bonnie Ray Williams along with Norman and Jarman), Marilyn Willis, Most of Secret Service. Hickey is a great example, he just makes a slight change to his statement but totally changes the narrative. Jackies testimony is very good because she mentions the noise of the motorcade, the fact that the general consensus is there were three shots and dismisses it all and says there was only two shots. Her and Nellie actually confirm Gov Connally was hit by the first shot by referencing when he says Oh No No No, which is contrary to his statement.

People saying they heard shots two and three as being almost simultaneously are trying to conform a two shot testimony into being a three shot testimony. A number of witnesses state they heard a shot after the head shot except the only problem being is the head shot was the last shot.

You are absolutely right about the FBI not investigating the witnesses except it is far worse than 26. In February and March of 1964 they interviewed 73 of the TSBD employees who were standing by the car on Elm Street and never asked them what did you see and what did you hear. Unless the witness volunteered the information it was never brought up. If they did say what happened they would write down there were three shots, shots or several shots but never two shots. I think that shows what a can of worms the FBI thought the number of reported shots was and they decided to stay away from it. Only three of the seven Warren Commission members supported the three shot conclusion the other 4 felt there was definitely two shots and maybe a third.

Jack, I don't refer to McAdams statistics.

Reported in Affidavits on 11/22 and 11/23/1963
35 witnesses reported hearing 3 shots including 19 Sheriff Deputies
7 witnesses more than 3 shots

10 witnesses heard two shot, of these ten, six claimed to be doing some action at the time of the shots, such as ducking.


1 witness heard 1 shot - DOUGHERTY
2 witnesses claimed to hear shots - PIPER (later claimed 3) and PRICE who used the term "volley" (my opinion is the intention of using this term is to reflect at least 3 shots)


I don't know where you get your statistics from but you might want to check them for accuracy.


You are correct that the three shot WCR theory does not work because they had to add a shot, can you tell me what you believe the scenario actually was and when shots occurred?