How Good Are People at Counting?

[Jerry Organ]

 The question is whether it is true.  The only way you can determine if it is a true theory is by comparing it to the evidence. Not a single witness said they had difficulty recalling the 1......2....3 shot pattern.  Ask Robert Jackson or Mary Woodward what the shot pattern was. They still remember it.  Ask them what they think of your theory.

Robert (Bob) Jackson was certainly a distracted witness at the time of the first shot. He was looking backwards from the car he was in and laughing with others at a reporter who was trying to get a roll of film thrown to him that the wind had caught.

To you, Mary Woodward is reliable for "shot spanning"-- but "hazy" in her claim the first shot struck no one and the second shot made the President slump?

[Bill Chapman]

You haven't demonstrated that Oswald did anything with that revolver.

No, you state your conclusions as facts.

Says the guy who can't even show that a rifle was ever in that bag.

Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence.

That's hysterical.  Do you think anybody is going to buy that?

Take that up with Joseph "was there a number two man in there" Ball.

No, you state your conclusions as facts
>You state the facts as lies

Those are conclusions based on your faulty characterization of the actual evidence
>Your conclusions are cherry-picked misrepresentations of the facts.

That's hysterical. Do you think anybody is going to buy that?
>Do you think anyone is going to take seriously someone (you and Caprio) who claims the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket?

[John Iacoletti]

It was a description you used to describe Oswald in relation to the scene around the TT

I think you're confused.  Must be inattentional blindness.

[John Iacoletti]

>You state the facts as lies

Provide a single example.

>Your conclusions are cherry-picked misrepresentations of the facts.

Provide a single example.

>Do you think anyone is going to take seriously someone (you and Caprio) who claims the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket?

Neither Caprio or I have ever claimed that.  It's appropriate that you posted a troll graphic, because that's exactly what you're doing: accusing people of saying stuff that they never said.

[Andrew Mason]

Three (if that's what it was) loud noises became increasing "salient" as the sounds unfolded. The first few loud noises weren't "salient" to everyone.

On what evidence do you base that statement? Name one witness who did not notice the first shot - or any of the shots.  Only a few identified it as a rifle shot, but they could not help but hear that "horrible, ear-shattering noise" (as Mary Woodward described it).

They were also in a distraction setting with peak concentration on the motorcade at the time of the first shot.

On what evidence do you base that statement? Name one witness who "dismissed" the first loud noise from their mind.  Do you think that hearing another similar noise 4 seconds later that they could not remember having heard the first?

While it's true they could not fail to hear three shots (if there were, in fact, three shots), it doesn't mean it was stored in memory equally. For some of the witnesses, their perception and retention of initial events (some termed the first shot as a backfire or firecracker) could be affected by a greater concentration on the latter shots and things occurring visually up to and including the shock of the head shot and the dramatic Jackie/Clint potential tragedy.

And if you actually had evidence that this occurred at all, let alone that it affected the vast majority of witnesses, I could take it seriously.  But as it is, it is just made-up - speculation.  Think about it: if these witnesses had trouble recalling the pattern of three loud ear-shattering noises spaced 1...2.......3 why did they recall 1.......2...3 in so many different, consistent ways? ie:

• Many witnesses, without quantifying the spacing, said that they heard a loud noise and then a pause then two in rapid succession. 
• John Wiseman heard a loud noise - then ran from the front door of the Sheriff's building to the corner of Houston and Main (half the width of the building) and then hears 2 more shots (John Wiseman 19 H 535)
• Wm. Greer stated that the second followed the first by three or four seconds and ?The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don?t recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn?t really say.?  2 H 118. 
• Sorrels: ?There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.?  7 H 345.
• Bowers: ?I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together?. 6 H 287.
• Paternostro:  ?He said he estimated several seconds, possibly four or five or more, elapsed between the first report and the second and third reports?... ?then when the other reports followed in quick succession?CE 2105,  24 H 536. 

Spectators in the stands at the Boston Marathon Bombing barely react until the second bomb goes off.

How is that relevant? As I understand it, the two bombs were separated by a city block and were 12 seconds apart, so it is understandable that people near the site of the second bomb may not have reacted to the first.   In any event, few spectators on Elm St. reacted to the first shot.  They did not react until after the second or third shots. 

This does not mean that the sound of the shots, or of the bombs, was not etched in the witness' memories.

[Andrew Mason]

Robert (Bob) Jackson was certainly a distracted witness at the time of the first shot. He was looking backwards from the car he was in and laughing with others at a reporter who was trying to get a roll of film thrown to him that the wind had caught.

He was looking forward toward the TSBD at the time of the shots. The incident that you mention occurred at the corner.  Their car was "approximately almost half a block on Houston Street when he heard the first shot.  He just had to look up to see the rifle in the 6th Floor window.

To you, Mary Woodward is reliable for "shot spanning"-- but "hazy" in her claim the first shot struck no one and the second shot made the President slump?

No to me.  To her.  She said that things were a bit hazy after the first shot as to what it hit.  But the one thing that she said she would swear on the bible till the day she dies is that there were three shots - the last two sounding one over top of the echo of the other.

[Jerry Organ]

He was looking forward toward the TSBD at the time of the shots. The incident that you mention occurred at the corner.  Their car was "approximately almost half a block on Houston Street when he heard the first shot.  He just had to look up to see the rifle in the 6th Floor window.

Stop lawyering up the witness.

Mr. SPECTER - All right. Will you now proceed to tell us what happened as you rounded the corner of Main and Houston , Please?
Mr. JACKSON - Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on Houston Street.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you identify for me on Commission Exhibit 347, Precisely as possible, where your automobile was at the time you heard the first shot?
Mr. JACKSON - Approximately right here, I would say the midpoint of this building. Approximately where we heard the first report.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you mark a black "X" on 347 the spot where your car was at the time you heard the first shot?
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.





Z180s, Jackson is pass the midpoint of the building. And he's still turned away from the Depository.

No to me.  To her.  She said that things were a bit hazy after the first shot as to what it hit.  But the one thing that she said she would swear on the bible till the day she dies is that there were three shots - the last two sounding one over top of the echo of the other.

You mean this quote:

    "One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how
     many shots there were. And there were three shots. The
     second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one
     were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound
     of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second
     and third shot I did see the president being hit."

If you're going to include everything she was sure of in that statement, then you have to include the first shot miss.

Plus we have this:

    "I knew the first shot missed--I have never wavered on that.
     And I see now that this is getting a lot of support. But I have
     said that from day one--that the first shot missed. I've never
     changed my mind on that."

[Andrew Mason]

Stop lawyering up the witness.

Z180s, Jackson is past the midpoint of the building. And he's still turned away from the Depository.

I can't see Jackson's "x" on CE347 can you?  He said he was about half way on Houston and approximately the midpoint of "this building".  In any event, it was after he tossed his film to the guy standing on the corner of Houston and Main. It was after that that he heard the shots.  Here is a Youtube video of what he recalled in 1999:

  Notice that he still remarked on the spacing of the shots almost 40 years later.

You mean this quote:

    "One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how
     many shots there were. And there were three shots. The
     second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one
     were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound
     of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second
     and third shot I did see the president being hit."

If you're going to include everything she was sure of in that statement, then you have to include the first shot miss.

Plus we have this:

    "I knew the first shot missed--I have never wavered on that.
     And I see now that this is getting a lot of support. But I have
     said that from day one--that the first shot missed. I've never
     changed my mind on that."

Yes. I have made the point many times that the two are inconsistent. If she heard the last two shots close together as she describes then her "hazy" impression that JFK was not hit by the first shot was wrong.  If her "hazy" impression (which conflicts with the clear recollections of about 20 others) is correct, then her recollection of the last two shots being so close together is wrong. They cannot both be correct.