Why the first shot missed

[Jack Nessan]

Where did i state that Jack?
I'm saying there were three shots. You say two. Jarman says three. You quoted him so you must believe him, otherwise why quote him?

Jarman was not lying, he added a shot like so many others. In general it is believed there was not a shot after the headshot. So what is Jarman describing?  Both the WC and the HSCA made statements about the media heavily influencing the witnesses resulting in the inflating of the number of shots.

WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"

HSCA Conclusion: "they may well inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137

HSCA Conclusion: "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- pg 87


Your turn. You think Jarman was lying about a second shot headshot and a first shot that wounded both JFK and JBC but you thought it was alright to quote him anyway to make some strange point? Apparently the content of the statement does not matter.  It is just a matter of whether they stated three shots or not.

[Jerry Organ]

Willis's memory like everyone else did not improve with time and is proven by how much more vague he becomes as time went by. I know you try to pinpoint the first shot by the coordinated movements of the Jackie, JFK, and JBC. The memory recall of these movements and that anyone would note them is sketchy at best.

So your take is that these witnesses collectively mis-recalled actions and events that are substantiated by the Zapruder film and what Phil Willis described happened between his 04 and 05 slides?

Few people make any statement as to the wounding of JBC at all let alone what he was doing.

His first visual reaction to being wounded would seem to me to be just after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign.

It is easier to use the statements of the eyewitness and coordinate their common observations. Basically they state they hear the first shot and see JFK react. They also state where this occurred on the street by relating it to where they were standing. No one states there was an early missed shot.

Mary Woodward, for one, states the first shot missed.

    "The car proceeded down Elm, and when it was about 40 yards
     from us, we heard the first noise ... the sound repeated itself twice
     in rapid succession. I saw the bystanders fall to the ground,
     saw the President slump"

    "With the second and third shot I did see the president being hit."

Since 40 yards would mean the car was still turning off Houston, I think she might have meant 40 feet. The President is about that distance from her in Z160.

   "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a
     firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after
     he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I
     noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down and
     I thought at the time that it probably scared him, too, just like it did me,
     because he flinched, like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this,
     with his hands on his chest.

Jean Newman said she heard two shots, one of which caused the President to slump.



This can't be tied into a Z200-area shot because the car is not pass her position and Kennedy doesn't slump until the late Z220s.

They all place it in the same general location as Willis with his photo.

You getting this stuff off the Speer site?

Hugh Betzner took a photo slightly before Willis (Z186) and completely corroborates Willis's statement that it was the first shot. Betzner also stated and describes that there were two shots.

Hugh  Betzner 11/22
 "....I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following:
I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. ...."

Bretzner talks about the shot that occurred before the head shot. Bretzner thought it was possible there was more shots but he could only recall the specifics of two because they related to things he was doing (winding the camera) and saw (events near to the head shot). In an LN three-shot scenario, the shot before the head shot would take place in the Z223 area.

Key is: "I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise" and "I looked up". This means he looked down to wind his camera. The Zapruder film and the Dorman film show him still lowering his camera as late as Z207 when he goes out of the Zapruder film. His head is still upright. This relates much better to a Z220s shot than to a pre-Z202 shot ("reflex from the shot") that supposedly caused Willis to snap his camera.



Why would Willis wait any longer than he did to take this picture? The President would only get smaller and the bodyguards were about to block his line-of-sight to the President.

-----------------------------

Jackie hears, what is to her a loud backfire, different than the others.

    "They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires;
     there was one noise like that;"

She doesn't say there was a difference. In her testimony, she literally says there no difference: "I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things."

She says she's looking to her left when the noises began: "No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises." I think she heard the one "backfire"-like noise before she began to turn her head to her right about Z172, and the subsequent shots all blended on recall.

I assume Jackie did not have a great deal of experience with the sound of rifles discharging but she does her best by noting the difference. JBC is wounded at exactly the same time,

    "Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying"

That quote doesn't say Connally's wounding occurred the same time as any particular noise. In her testimony, she says: "But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no." She then says: "Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling." So, if she's tagging any shot onto Connally's wounding, it's would seem to be the shot before the head shot (a Z220s shot in a LN three-shot scenario). According to lip-readers, Connally says "No, no, no, no." between Z242 and Z250. Jackie turns her head in his direction not long after. Presumably that is when she saw him "grabbing his arms". However, she could have been seeing Connally out of the corner of her eye before looking right at him.



If she heard Connally say "No, no, no, no" in the Z170s (when she began to turn her head) or anytime before they went behind the sign, she could not have seen his arms. Connally's face is partially obscured by the parade bar, making it difficult to see if he mouth is open.

I am unaware of him having any issues with Tourette's Syndrome and just cries out for no reason. JFK having a piece of his skull separate from his head which would definitely be an indicator of a bullet impact. Her WC statement is definitely more detailed.

Jackie couldn't recall being on the trunk. She says there was "a blue gray building up ahead". Is that the Underpass? She suffered a severe shock and her memories are not reliable. Some things do stand out for her (Connally yelling, the piece of skull) but I don't think one should be using her testimony to establish a linear sequence of events.

If a witness claims something and it can be substantiated by the films and photos, then that may be worthwhile. Overall the witness testimony is this case is like a buffet (as one critic compared it). One picks what one likes.

[Ray Mitcham]

Jarman was not lying, he added a shot like so many others.

You missed out "in my opinion", Jack.

In general it is believed there was not a shot after the headshot. So what is Jarman describing?  Both the WC and the HSCA made statements about the media heavily influencing the witnesses resulting in the inflating of the number of shots.

WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"

HSCA Conclusion: "they may well inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137

HSCA Conclusion: "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- pg 87


Your turn. You think Jarman was lying about a second shot headshot and a first shot that wounded both JFK and JBC but you thought it was alright to quote him anyway to make some strange point? Apparently the content of the statement does not matter.  It is just a matter of whether they stated three shots or not.

My turn o.k.,  but first answer the question I asked you, Jack.
You wrote, "You are saying there was a shot after the headshot as the car accelerated and was leaving Dealey Plaza."

Where did I say that?

I just don't understand why you would quote a witness who disagrees with your conclusion, that there were only two shots. Why do that?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

What I have presented is a possible alternative to the bullet missing because it hit the traffic signal. I have cited several additional reasons, that Holland didn't include, in my first post as evidence of an early first shot. The Scearce article explains the reactions of the limo occupants much better than I could. Here is the last paragraph from that article:

The single bullet theory and the rear head shot are settled issues, the forests and terabytes that continue to be consumed debating these subjects notwithstanding. The only remaining major forensic questions concern the missed 1st shot. As to those questions, the Z155–Z157 consensus timing is a millstone. The torch has been passed to original thinkers like Holland and Rush. They are helping uncover what has been “hidden in plain view” for over four decades. The open-minded among us owe them a fair hearing in their journey through the heretofore undiscovered country of the Kennedy assassination towards the final truth.

Do you consider yourself open-minded?

If you believe someone's first shot from the window(if that is where it came from) and it hit the streetlight post, then you also would have to say the limo was not below the streetlight

[Charles Collins]

If you believe someone's first shot from the window(if that is where it came from) and it hit the streetlight post, then you also would have to say the limo was not below the streetlight

Peter, the reason why I think the first bullet missed the entire limo and it's occupants is not dependent upon the bullet hitting the traffic signal or it's post. I believe it is more likely that the rifle collided with the cardboard box. And that the collision stopped the tracking motion of the rifle, but the target kept moving. Therefore the bullet simply went into the pavement behind the limo.  (By the way a streetlight is different from a traffic signal. So please use the proper term so people won't get confused.)

[Gary Craig]

Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound

of that shot startled him.

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Peter, the reason why I think the first bullet missed the entire limo and it's occupants is not dependent upon the bullet hitting the traffic signal or it's post. I believe it is more likely that the rifle collided with the cardboard box. And that the collision stopped the tracking motion of the rifle, but the target kept moving. Therefore the bullet simply went into the pavement behind the limo.  (By the way a streetlight is different from a traffic signal. So please use the proper term so people won't get confused.)

That is interesting, especially assuming 3 shots came from that window. So explain at what point did this shooter start this tracking motion with this rifle.

Do you even understand what you are saying? When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's film,
I mean, we already have Brennan, if you believe his description of a shooter as "did not seem to be in any hurry".

Why not just say this shooter in the middle of this tracking motion decided to stop and light a cigarette for the hell of it

I get it, the rifle collided with the cardboard, the shot is fired, but the bullet hits the pavement and not the intended target. 
Then after this apparent blunder, it is followed by a couple of perfect recovery shots.

Wouldn't that be something?

[Jack Nessan]

"he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward" (see above)

"In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead ...  when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward" (see above)

Jackie turns from looking to her left to looking to her right in the early Z170s. Willis was very close to Jackie by then and could see this clearly.


    "When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead,
     and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the
     first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less
     faced the other side of the street and leaned forward"     (WC testimony)

    "Well, after having photographed the President on Main Street and on Houston Street and
     then in front of the Depository Building on Elm Street I cocked my camera for another
     picture and this loud shot went off and the first reaction was that could it be a crank or a
     firecracker but it was so loud and of such a sound it had to be rifle so I became alarmed.
     I was trying to take a picture at the moment and the reflex from the shot caused me to
     take one of these pictures."     (Shaw trial)

Where does she say that?

Not with this:

    "They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that;
     I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connelly grabbing his arms and saying `no no no nonono,'
     with his fist beating--then Jack turned and I turned--all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead;
     then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a
     piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--he was holding out his hand--and I can see
     this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap"

Everything specific Rosemary Willis and her parents say is substantiated by the Zapruder film. Phil Willis made a generalization about his most important slide being "instantaneous" with the first shot (or having captured Kennedy's reaction to the first shot which means the first shot occurred before he took his 05 slide). Willis was selling a slide set at the time.

This is good. Lots of useless posting trying to obscure the point. You realize there was never an early missed shot or you would not be deliberately misquoting these witnesses in an attempt to give the idea there was one.

Every Z frame is approximately 1 foot of travel

Willis photo The WC thought it was Z210, The HSCA thought it was Z202.

Betzner takes his photo at Z186 and is rewinding the camera and hears the first shot afterwards.

------------------------

Mary Woodward places the shot after Z204, Her reference to 40 yards is after he passes her not before .
Woodward said the earsplitting noise happened after JFK turned forward not before and JFK does not turn forward until Z204+

Mary Woodward
"After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right."
----------------------
Jean Newman: the first shot occurs after he passes her. The Chisms standing a few yards further down Elm Street  said the first shot occurred  right before them.
------------------------

Jackie is answering the question from Rankin, not describing the wounding of JBC.

Mr. RANKIN. "Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots? is a description of the total number of shots."


Jackie: "Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling"  Jackie in her WC statement dismisses the thought there was three shots and states there was only two

----------------------------

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember.
And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two


She could not have been any clearer on that point of two shots vs three shots. She references the medias influence the same as the WC and the HSCA.