The First Shot

[Jerry Organ]

Ok. I do owe you an apology, Jerry. Your model is fairly accurate. It is really your positions of the two men, that I question. 

limo_interior_with_measurements_CAD.jpg

When I did my Sketchup model I used measurements and inferences to determine the dimensions of the doors and rear seat depth:



In your critique of my model, you drew depth of the rear seating compartment in my model incorrectly.   The arrow goes back to the back of the rear seat back.

If you're talking about the graphic below, I drew nothing on your model other than the two orange arrowed lines. The two lengths shown by the arrows appear equal in length, when they should be different lengths. Maybe you measured right but presented it in your model wrongly.

[Jack Nessan]

Again, nothing but unsupported opinion.

It will always be just a guess and nothing more because the sign obscured the moment it took place.

What evidence leads you to this opinion?

If it's just a case of "it looks that way to me", you needn't respond.

It will always be just a guess and nothing more because the sign obscured the moment it took place.

What evidence leads you to this opinion?

Your "evidence". No other conclusion can be reached. It was all just your opinion.

[Dan O'meara]

It will always be just a guess and nothing more because the sign obscured the moment it took place.

What evidence leads you to this opinion?

Your "evidence". No other conclusion can be reached. It was all just your opinion.

Your "evidence". No other conclusion can be reached.

??
WTF is that supposed to mean??


You've stated you believe the first shot happened between z210 and z214, when JBC and JFK were behind the Stemmons sign.
You say you know this "based on Zapruder frames". Obviously this is utter nonsense and I keep asking you to clarify this statement
This will be the fourth time I've asked you to provide some kind of evidence to support this incredibly weak proposal.
Rather than do that [and I'm not saying you're a lazy researcher] you say it's the evidence I have provided for a first shot at z222/z223 that has led you to this 'revelation' and that "no other conclusion can be reached",

Really?

You made this statement:

"...I think it was a little earlier [than z222/z223] because you can use the Zapruder film with the aid of a few pieces of information and the witness statements to clarify where it actually took place."


I've asked you what in the Z-film are you using to come to this watery opinion?
What "few pieces of information" are you using?
What witness statements have you re-interpreted to reach this bogus conclusion?
Instead of providing one tiny scrap of evidence to support any of this [and, again, I'm not saying you're a lazy researcher], you simply say it's the evidence I have provided that demonstrates the first shot was at z222/z223.
And that there's no other way this evidence can be interpreted.
Even though it clearly demonstrates the first shot was around z222/z223.

I get the impression you're not going to do any work regarding the subject of this thread - when the first shot occurred.
You're just spouting some silly opinions based on nothing.
Maybe you've got nothing better to do and that's fair enough.
Or, and I think this is far more likely, you're completely out of your depth here and shouldn't really have stuck your beak in.

Get out of bed and start your own thread about how many shots there were.
It's not a massive effort and you might even enjoy it.
If you do, my first questions would be - why did the conspirators need to fake three shots? Why not just have two shots?

[Andrew Mason]

The positions are virtually the same as shown on my previous post.  The sight line from the left edge of the right hand-hold to the corner of the glass side panel passes through the front 1/4 to 1/3 of JFK's head.  The sight line from the edge of JFK's left shoulder passes to the left side of JBC's head and intersects the right sunvisor just a tad right of its centre:

This shows that Jerry's positions of both men are wrong. They are in very similar positions shown in the Sisco photo on Main Street. Here is the difference:

[Jerry Organ]

The positions are virtually the same as shown on my previous post.  The sight line from the left edge of the right hand-hold to the corner of the glass side panel passes through the front 1/4 to 1/3 of JFK's head.  The sight line from the edge of JFK's left shoulder passes to the left side of JBC's head and intersects the right sunvisor just a tad right of its centre:

This shows that Jerry's positions of both men are wrong. They are in very similar positions shown in the Sisco photo on Main Street. Here is the difference:

Just Mason strapping on his defense attorney cowboys and misrepresenting everything. How can my 3D model be "wrong" when it's not meant to show how the men were seated in the Sisco Photo or a still from the Powers film?



In this one Powers still, Kennedy is leaning towards his left (as in the Sisco Photo). Notice how high up his right shoulder is.



Now compare the angle of the President's shoulders in the Altgens05 Photo when Kennedy is seated upright, seconds before the turn onto Elm.

Does Mason not know the President was assassinated on Elm Street, and not Main?

[Andrew Mason]

Just Mason strapping on his defense attorney cowboys and misrepresenting everything. How can my 3D model be "wrong" when it's not meant to show how the men were seated in the Sisco Photo or a still from the Powers film?



In this one Powers still, Kennedy is leaning towards his left (as in the Sisco Photo). Notice how high up his right shoulder is.



Now compare the angle of the President's shoulders in the Altgens05 Photo when Kennedy is seated upright, seconds before the turn onto Elm.

ok.  How is this for the positions of the men in Altgens #5 on Houston:

You have JFK a bit too far forward.  You can see that all but the cervical spine is pressed into the seatback.  The yellow lines show the sightlines for JFK's shoulders and turned head. The blue lines show the sight lines for JBC's head only since we cannot see his shoulders.

Does Mason not know the President was assassinated on Elm Street, and not Main?

He wasn't assassinated on Houston either.  Houston is just around the corner from Main.

[Jerry Organ]

ok.  How is this for the positions of the men in Altgens #5 on Houston:

You have JFK a bit too far forward.  You can see that all but the cervical spine is pressed into the seatback. 

That would be the only moment in the motorcade that Kennedy was able to get his spine fully up against the seat back. A photo by Bretzner and the Muchmore film shows, to me, Kennedy's back is not pressing against the top of the front of the seat back. There's a Skaggs photo showing Kennedy leaning forward.

The Croft Photograph, taken on Elm, shows Kennedy's upper back away from the front of the top of the seat-back.



Is there a profile photo of Kennedy seated normally anywhere in the motorcade showing the seat-back and Kennedy's back pressed to it right to the top?

The yellow lines show the sightlines for JFK's shoulders and turned head. The blue lines show the sight lines for JBC's head only since we cannot see his shoulders.He wasn't assassinated on Houston either.  Houston is just around the corner from Main.

That's nice. Except you don't know how to do sightline analysis. For example, your top yellow line goes along Kennedy's left shoulder and then on to where the back of the side window rests on the car rail. Yet the photo shows a gap between Kennedy's left shoulder and the base of the side window.



I would allow a small margin of error when using sightlines involving the handrails on my model; I have not been able to measure them at the Henry Ford Museum.

[Jack Nessan]

Your "evidence". No other conclusion can be reached.

??
WTF is that supposed to mean??


You've stated you believe the first shot happened between z210 and z214, when JBC and JFK were behind the Stemmons sign.
You say you know this "based on Zapruder frames". Obviously this is utter nonsense and I keep asking you to clarify this statement
This will be the fourth time I've asked you to provide some kind of evidence to support this incredibly weak proposal.
Rather than do that [and I'm not saying you're a lazy researcher] you say it's the evidence I have provided for a first shot at z222/z223 that has led you to this 'revelation' and that "no other conclusion can be reached",

Really?

You made this statement:

"...I think it was a little earlier [than z222/z223] because you can use the Zapruder film with the aid of a few pieces of information and the witness statements to clarify where it actually took place."


I've asked you what in the Z-film are you using to come to this watery opinion?
What "few pieces of information" are you using?
What witness statements have you re-interpreted to reach this bogus conclusion?
Instead of providing one tiny scrap of evidence to support any of this [and, again, I'm not saying you're a lazy researcher], you simply say it's the evidence I have provided that demonstrates the first shot was at z222/z223.
And that there's no other way this evidence can be interpreted.
Even though it clearly demonstrates the first shot was around z222/z223.

I get the impression you're not going to do any work regarding the subject of this thread - when the first shot occurred.
You're just spouting some silly opinions based on nothing.
Maybe you've got nothing better to do and that's fair enough.
Or, and I think this is far more likely, you're completely out of your depth here and shouldn't really have stuck your beak in.

Get out of bed and start your own thread about how many shots there were.
It's not a massive effort and you might even enjoy it.
If you do, my first questions would be - why did the conspirators need to fake three shots? Why not just have two shots?

It took 2 1/2 years to grasp the concept of what did the witnesses state happened. Will it be 2 ½ more years to grasp how to view the other info and locate JFK’s position on Elm Street. Somewhere in less than a second and 12 feet it took place. Very interesting. 

Good question did the conspirators fake three shots vs two shots. Did they? Maybe it would be better to stick to the extremely challenging location of the first shot.