How The 3 Shots Sounded In Dealey Plaza

From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza:
Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination
by Andrew M. Mason
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF

Conclusions about the shot pattern

As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.


Only 6 of the 60 sort of agreed with the official shot pattern? 44 agreed on an exact same pattern that differed considerably from the official one. Why were not all the ear-witnesses asked to give an account? Your thoughts would be most welcomed.

#DealeyPlaza

psellers wrote:From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza:
Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination
by Andrew M. Mason
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF

Conclusions about the shot pattern

As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.


Only 6 of the 60 sort of agreed with the official shot pattern? 44 agreed on an exact same pattern that differed considerably from the official one. Why were not all the ear-witnesses asked to give an account? Your thoughts would be most welcomed.

Here's some light reading for you...physics forum debate