First shot reactions

[Jerry Organ]

   SA Hickey filed an Original Report and You claim it "can't be taken literal"?? He's a trained SS Agent and filing an official assassination document for posterity. He reported he reached to the, "BOTTOM of the car and picked up the AR 15 rifle". Based on Hickey's report, there is No denying that he reached Down to the Floorboard of the Queen Mary.

Having the AR-15 flat on the floor doesn't count as "within easy reach of me". William Manchester said in his book: "on the seat between them [Bennett and Hickey] lay an AR-15 .233 automatic rifle." Clint Hill said the AR-15 was: "Between the two agents in the rear seat."

Hickey got hold of the weapon very quickly; no one said he bent down out of sight to reach to the bottom of the floor. Sen. Yarborough, riding in the Vice Presidential car behind the Queen Mary, said: "After the shooting, one of the Secret Service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward." Also in the VP vehicle was Rufus Youngblood, who: "observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings."

Bennett wrote: "I immediately hollered 'he's hit' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5." Combine with what Manchester and Hill said, and the weapon being within "easy reach" and quick retrieval. So it could be between the two agents on the back seat with an end on the center hump.

    Do Not forget about the Drive Shaft Hump running along the floorboard of the Queen Mary. This would alter the level/height at which the weapon was situated on the floorboard = the elevation of the feet/legs of Hickey
 

Seems unlikely to me that the AR-15 was on the floor in front of Hickey. That would impede with him as he sat normally (which we know he did from pictures), not to mention making the AR-15 awkward to reach.

So Hickey wasn't seated on a footlocker and his feet could be bracing against the jump-seat.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Additionally, notice the contrast in the facial expressions in the two photographs below:

Willis took this photo near the beginning of the clip posted in the first post above. Everyone is smiling and in contact with the crowd.




Croft took this photo closer to the end of the clip in the original post. Both John Connally and Jackie have quizzical expressions. It appears to me that they are looking around and wondering what that loud noise they just heard was.

But no one in the crowd is showing any look of concern. BTW Look at your 2nd photo,  see how JFK is sitting? No way a bullet from the 6th story window went into his back and came out his throat

[Brian Roselle]

Andrew,

I admire your diligent effort to make the raw testimony work, but I struggled with raw testimony like this when trying to accurately nail down first shot timing (like the Willis photos issue).

It may be that a difference in 2 shot (which included slumping and/or hands going up to throat) or 3 shot testimonies would contribute to a significant difference in what is being interpreted, but in any case I think we all struggle with two sources of error or variability in testimony in general. 1) errors in how folks remembered what happened during the chaotic events and how they subsequently recalled it in their testimony and 2) (and this may be an equally large source of error), how researchers interpret what they think the testimony meant or what they thought the individuals meant.

So an example along these lines in your supporting testimonies are the drivers of cars #4 and #6.

#4 Hurchel Jacks (driver), WC 18 H 801, said "My car had just straightened up from making the left hand turn" when the first shot rang out.
#6 Milton Wright (driver), WC18 H 802: "had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection"

Their testimonies say that they were effectively in the same place at the same time.  That conclusion is obviously way wrong. Is it error 1) or 2) above? (or both)

I struggled with this dynamic and it led me to believe that additional analysis were ultimately necessary to clarify the situation.

[Jerry Organ]

Andrew,

I admire your diligent effort to make the raw testimony work, but I struggled with raw testimony like this when trying to accurately nail down first shot timing (like the Willis photos issue).

It may be that a difference in 2 shot (which included slumping and/or hands going up to throat) or 3 shot testimonies would contribute to a significant difference in what is being interpreted, but in any case I think we all struggle with two sources of error or variability in testimony in general. 1) errors in how folks remembered what happened during the chaotic events and how they subsequently recalled it in their testimony and 2) (and this may be an equally large source of error), how researchers interpret what they think the testimony meant or what they thought the individuals meant.

Mason has a pet theory with three SN shots, beginning at Z192-or-so, when the bullet goes through Kennedy's neck, passes harmlessly to the left of Connally's torso and ends up in his thigh. His way of dealing with the two-shot witnesses is to claim some were more likely to lose count of the middle shot because his last two shots (Z271-or-so and the head shot) were so close. He contends the first shot was so "ear-shattering" that there's no way witnesses could have lost track of it, despite all the accounts of three-shot witnesses describing the first shot as a "firecracker" or "backfire"; in other words, something of less importance than the shots that followed.

So an example along these lines in your supporting testimonies are the drivers of cars #4 and #6.

#4 Hurchel Jacks (driver), WC 18 H 801, said "My car had just straightened up from making the left hand turn" when the first shot rang out.
#6 Milton Wright (driver), WC18 H 802: "had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection"

Their testimonies say that they were effectively in the same place at the same time.  That conclusion is obviously way wrong. Is it error 1) or 2) above? (or both)

I struggled with this dynamic and it led me to believe that additional analysis were ultimately necessary to clarify the situation.

Milton Wright's position doesn't necessarily apply to a "first shot" because he's a two-shot witness. Where he describes his car could apply to the second shot.

[Charles Collins]

But no one in the crowd is showing any look of concern. BTW Look at your 2nd photo,  see how JFK is sitting? No way a bullet from the 6th story window went into his back and came out his throat

The crowd is focused on the President and motorcade. Very few of them recognized the first shot as a rifle shot. Even JFK quickly recovered from the noise (after a brief look towards Jackie) and then returned looking to his right and began waving to the crowd again. Look closely at his facial expressions on the Zapruder clip as he turns back to his right. His look of concern quickly returns to a smile as he re-engages with the crowd.

The first shot missed. So I agree with your assessment of the second photo.

[Jerry Organ]

Tina Towner stopped filming about 1 second before Zapruder re-started filming.  A second after Zapruder restarted filiming (around z150) the VP car and VP security car are both pointing toward the TSBD with the VP followup car somewhere on Houston approaching the intersection.

You're moving the goalposts. I don't have to defend a first shot at Z150 if I believe a first shot occurred at ca.Z157 to which people nearby reacted about Z160-Z162. A shot ca.Z160 is about 2.3 secs after Tina stopped filming.

So if that is where the first shot occurred, these witnesses are wrong:
In the VP car (4th in motorcade):
Hurchel Jacks (driver), WC 18 H 801, said "My car had just straightened up from making the left hand turn" when the first shot rang out.
SA Rufus Youngblood, WC 18 H 767, said that the VP car had turned the corner and he observed grassy area to his right before first shot was heard.
Vice-President Lyndon Johnson WC 5 H 562: said he heard the first shot "after we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street"
Lady Bird Johnson, WC 5 H 565: said "we were rounding a curve and going down a hill" when the first shot was heard.
Senator Ralph Yarborough WC 7 H 440: "as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street a rifle shot was heard by me".

At Z160, the VP car isn't "pointing towards the TSBD". It's pointing towards the pergola. Hurchel Jacks was "looking directly at the President's car" so how could he gauge with precision where his car was? They're probably all looking ahead to the street they're practically on; only the trunk area is still on Houston. The car is no longer "rounding a curve" if it has literally "straightened up".

Occupants of the VP follow-up car (5th in motorcade) described the moment of the first shot:
Joe Rich. (driver), WC 18 H 800: "I was staying right on his bumper" (of the VP car). "we turned off Houston Street onto Elm Street"
Clifton Carter, WC 7 H 474: "our car had just made the lefthand turn off Houston onto Elm Street and
was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building"
SA Kivett, WC 8 H 778: "The motorcade was heading slightly downhill toward an underpass. As the
motorcade was approximately 1/3 of the way to the underpass.."
SA Johns, WC 18 H 764: "at this time were were on a slight downhill curve to the right"
SA Taylor, (18 H 782): "our automobile had just turned a corner"

If the VP follow-up car was "right along side the Texas School Book Depository" (Carter) at the moment of the first shot, how can the VP car still be "rounding a curve?" BTW, Carter was interviewed in May 1964 and might have based his car's position on seeing the Altgens photo.

What does "1/3 of the way to the underpass" mean? Relative to the Curry car or X-100? Does Kivett's perspective influence the size of the 1/3's he's sizing up?

Occupants of Mayor Cabell’s car (6th in motorcade) recalled hearing the first shot as follows:
Milton Wright (driver), WC18 H 802: "had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection"
Earle Cabell, WC 7 H 479, said that he was turned around talking to Rep. Roberts and Mrs. Cabell with the TSBD situated to his back.
Mrs. Cabell, WC 7 H 486, "we were making the turn" ... "I was directly facing [the TSBD]"

I believe Wright was a two-shot witness, so his position might apply to the second shot. Wright would not be pass the curve for a Z191 first shot. The car Mrs. Cabell was in was facing the Depository at Z160 and was turned about 40° off Houston. I imagine Mr. Cabell turned towards Roberts would have his head turned away from the Depository.

In addition, there were at least 20 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot in a distinct manner that is quite inconsistent with smiling and waving for 2-3 seconds.

How many of those actually could see the front of the President? Mary Woodward could see the front of Kennedy and was near to him; she said he was uninjured by the first shot and that he looked around, and stumped only on the second.

In addition, you have Hughes, Betzner and Willis and several witnesses along Elm who put the President much farther along Elm than he was at z150.

You're claiming Hughes writing "About five seconds after I quit taking pictures we heard the shots" supports a first shot in the Z190s? Hughes stopped filming six frames before Z191 or 1/3 sec. Betzner is not looking down and winding his camera during the Z190s; he might be by Z223. Willis testified the first shot occurred between him talking his 04 slide (Z137) and 05 slide (Z202), noting Mrs. Kennedy turned her head from his side of the street to the opposite (she does this beginning about Z172).

Trask interviewed Croft and wrote a whole chapter about him. While he also uncovered an FBI document of an interview with Croft and uses a quote from that, it is inconceivable that Trask would not have confirmed with Croft those details when, for example at p.225 Trask, says that Croft quickly wound his camera as the car went by and took his fourth photo as he heard a shot.  The bottom line is that Trask confirms that Croft took his z162 photo a perceptible amount of time before any shot was heard.

The sole footnote for that is an FBI AirTel.

You are assuming that Myers gave a complete quote from Gary Mack's email. It is apparent that he omitted the reference that Mack would have given to the 1996 oral history statement.

You are assuming that Myers had something he needed to omit. He's not a defense attorney. Could be Mack talked to Towner in the interval between your email and Myers.

We need to determine why she has given a range of 1 to 6 seconds as the delay between her end of filming and the first shot.

And you have no stake in it. LOL. You've mischaracterized dozens of witnesses.

Her recollection that she was getting ready to leave when she heard the first shot suggests that the delay was closer to 6 seconds than to 1. Four seconds would put the first shot at about z191.

Tina said "Now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in" in Teen Magazine. The Kennedys had gone out of sight and that was basically all she was there for. Don't think she was enamored with Lyndon Johnson. When she stops filming, the next thought is of leaving. Any objective tally of her reported estimates would lean towards the area of two seconds.

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew,

I admire your diligent effort to make the raw testimony work, but I struggled with raw testimony like this when trying to accurately nail down first shot timing (like the Willis photos issue).

It may be that a difference in 2 shot (which included slumping and/or hands going up to throat) or 3 shot testimonies would contribute to a significant difference in what is being interpreted, but in any case I think we all struggle with two sources of error or variability in testimony in general. 1) errors in how folks remembered what happened during the chaotic events and how they subsequently recalled it in their testimony and 2) (and this may be an equally large source of error), how researchers interpret what they think the testimony meant or what they thought the individuals meanto.

While witnesses are not video recorders, they generally don't fabricate entire events. They will often differ on small details but will generally agree on the salient points. And if a witness reports an event that did not occur, other witnesses will not independently report the same thing. That simply does not happen.

 So, while one can try to explain away an individual witness recollection on such grounds as you suggest, the only way multiple witnesses can report observing an event that did not occur is if they are not independent.

So an example along these lines in your supporting testimonies are the drivers of cars #4 and #6.

#4 Hurchel Jacks (driver), WC 18 H 801, said "My car had just straightened up from making the left hand turn" when the first shot rang out.
#6 Milton Wright (driver), WC18 H 802: "had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection"

Their testimonies say that they were effectively in the same place at the same time.  That conclusion is obviously way wrong. Is it error 1) or 2) above? (or both)

The security car was only about 5 feet behind the VP car. Both were regular cars not extended limos. So Wright was less than 25 feet behind Jacks. Jacks said that he just straightened up after completing the turn onto Elm. Wright did not say that. He said he had just turned onto Elm. He did not say he had straightened up.  That turn extends past the intersection as Elm curves for some distance in front of the TSBD before the driver (Wright) could straighten up.

[Jerry Organ]

The crowd is focused on the President and motorcade. Very few of them recognized the first shot as a rifle shot. Even JFK quickly recovered from the noise (after a brief look towards Jackie) and then returned looking to his right and began waving to the crowd again. Look closely at his facial expressions on the Zapruder clip as he turns back to his right. His look of concern quickly returns to a smile as he re-engages with the crowd.

No reason to believe he's not smiling here. The glare spot begins to obscure his face as the Z240s increase.

Left: raw frames; Right: deblurred (TinyPic to close 2019)

It seems to me he's smiling before his head gets to the right. The change in shadow makes it seem he begins to break out in smile.