The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

Omeara; Altgens describes the third spombleprofglidnoctobuns - second head shot - I'm great detail. So do Sibert and O neill

Twonkovich: I'll let the rudeness of you just referring to me by my surname go (and spelling it incorrectly) because the rest of your post is so funny 

[Charles Collins]

That's very naughty of him if he did do that.

Actually, Hugh Aynesworth is a highly respected journalist. What I am questioning is the accuracy of the information on Pat Speer’s claim that you referenced in your post. I now have a copy of the book in question on order. And hopefully will get to the bottom of this.

[Dan O'meara]

Actually, Hugh Aynesworth is a highly respected journalist. What I am questioning is the accuracy of the information on Pat Speer’s claim that you referenced in your post. I now have a copy of the book in question on order. And hopefully will get to the bottom of this.

There is a titanic amount of evidence presented on Speers website, it truly is colossal, if there are no errors I would be amazed but it will be interesting to see what you turn up, as you seem like a clued up person on a lot of this Charles. If you are convinced this info is wrong, confident enough to buy the book, and it turns out you're wrong, it would be quite impressive validation of Speers work.
Whatever the case, the point being made is that there is, beyond doubt, contradictory eye/ear witness testimony and how we deal with that is important. You, yourself pointed out I would have to ignore evidence of an early shot and you're right, I do. But you have to ignore the evidence I present in this thread against an early shot and - guess what? - you do!
This seems to be an unacknowledged aspect of this type of research, when any researcher creates a model to describe a certain aspect of this case (ie; timing of shots) they must ignore certain evidence because there is so much contradictory evidence. It's impossible to avoid. So accusations of cherry-picking are ridiculous as everyone must do this.

[Charles Collins]

There is a titanic amount of evidence presented on Speers website, it truly is colossal, if there are no errors I would be amazed but it will be interesting to see what you turn up, as you seem like a clued up person on a lot of this Charles. If you are convinced this info is wrong, confident enough to buy the book, and it turns out you're wrong, it would be quite impressive validation of Speers work.
Whatever the case, the point being made is that there is, beyond doubt, contradictory eye/ear witness testimony and how we deal with that is important. You, yourself pointed out I would have to ignore evidence of an early shot and you're right, I do. But you have to ignore the evidence I present in this thread against an early shot and - guess what? - you do!
This seems to be an unacknowledged aspect of this type of research, when any researcher creates a model to describe a certain aspect of this case (ie; timing of shots) they must ignore certain evidence because there is so much contradictory evidence. It's impossible to avoid. So accusations of cherry-picking are ridiculous as everyone must do this.

One of the most important aspects of any investigation is to avoid having a biased viewpoint and treat all of the evidence with an open mind. It is proper to lay out some likely theories and test them against the evidence and attempt to prove or disprove the hypothetical theories. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. However, I do try not to ignore any of them simply because they do not fit a particular theory. I do try to test the witness accounts against the other evidence, and then form an opinion about each witness account. You say that I ignore your evidence in this thread, however you really don’t know how I have treated this evidence. It might be that I have formed an opinion to discount that evidence because it is not corroborated by the physical evidence, or contradictory to some well established evidence, etc.

Cherry picking the evidence is also known as confirmation bias. This is where an investigator has already formed an opinion and is looking for evidence that confirms his opinion. Avoid confirmation bias at all costs.

[Dan O'meara]

One of the most important aspects of any investigation is to avoid having a biased viewpoint and treat all of the evidence with an open mind. It is proper to lay out some likely theories and test them against the evidence and attempt to prove or disprove the hypothetical theories. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. However, I do try not to ignore any of them simply because they do not fit a particular theory. I do try to test the witness accounts against the other evidence, and then form an opinion about each witness account. You say that I ignore your evidence in this thread, however you really don’t know how I have treated this evidence. It might be that I have formed an opinion to discount that evidence because it is not corroborated by the physical evidence, or contradictory to some well established evidence, etc.

Cherry picking the evidence is also known as confirmation bias. This is where an investigator has already formed an opinion and is looking for evidence that confirms his opinion. Avoid confirmation bias at all costs.

Very well said Charles.
Allow me to explain why I felt you'd ignored some of the evidence presented in this thread.
You are a proponent of an 'early' first shot. The opening post of this thread starts with an examination of the photographic evidence of Altgens 6 in which we see three SS agents - Landis, Ready and Hickey - all twisted round from there usual positions looking back, apparently towards the TSBD. I compare this photographic evidence with the testimonial evidence of the three agents concerned:

Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."

Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."

Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "

It must be noted that two of the agents use the word "immediately" to describe their reactions. The testimonial evidence and the photographic evidence marry perfectly- "over my right shoulder", "to my right rear", "turned to the rear".
I then compare this photographic and testimonial evidence with the video evidence of the Zapruder film and note that, even though we can see these SS agents until z207 they do not react to a first shot as they seem to be doing in Altgens 6 and as we read about in their testimonies.
This combination of photographic, testimonial and video evidence refutes an 'early' first shot.
How, Charles, have you dealt with this evidence?

[Bill Chapman]

Twonkovich: I'll let the rudeness of you just referring to me by my surname go (and spelling it incorrectly) because the rest of your post is so funny 

I'd be interested in why your name is spelled O'meara and not O'Meara

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_O%27Meara

[Dan O'meara]

I'd be interested in why your name is spelled O'meara and not O'Meara

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_O%27Meara

Because when I was setting this account up I cocked it up and didn't know how to change it. My surname is O' Meara (note the gap after the apostrophe). I wasn't that bothered about it but will change it now (if I can)

[Charles Collins]

Very well said Charles.
Allow me to explain why I felt you'd ignored some of the evidence presented in this thread.
You are a proponent of an 'early' first shot. The opening post of this thread starts with an examination of the photographic evidence of Altgens 6 in which we see three SS agents - Landis, Ready and Hickey - all twisted round from there usual positions looking back, apparently towards the TSBD. I compare this photographic evidence with the testimonial evidence of the three agents concerned:

Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."

Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."

Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "

It must be noted that two of the agents use the word "immediately" to describe their reactions. The testimonial evidence and the photographic evidence marry perfectly- "over my right shoulder", "to my right rear", "turned to the rear".
I then compare this photographic and testimonial evidence with the video evidence of the Zapruder film and note that, even though we can see these SS agents until z207 they do not react to a first shot as they seem to be doing in Altgens 6 and as we read about in their testimonies.
This combination of photographic, testimonial and video evidence refutes an 'early' first shot.
How, Charles, have you dealt with this evidence?

Dan, first I have to acknowledge that my opinion is just an opinion. I have no conclusive evidence of an early first shot that everyone would ever agree on. In this case, there is a lot of contradictory witness accounts. All of them cannot be correct. Neither can both yours and mine opinions be correct. The Altgens 6 photograph is a record of only one instant in time during the shooting. Yes, the three of them are all looking back in the direction of the TSBD. And I acknowledge that your theory doesn't appear to me to be impossible. LHO had reportedly practiced by dry firing his rifle on the screened porch in New Orleans. And in my opinion he probably developed a feel for the action of that rifle that allowed him to get three shots off very quickly. And it is certainly possible that he waited and began firing as the limo emerged from behind the tree and fired as quickly as he possibly could. In fact that makes good sense and I believe that that could have been his intention. But there is also credible evidence of an early first shot (I believe probably inadvertent due to interference in the tight confines of the sniper's nest). And I cannot disregard it based on the assumption that Altgens 6 is supposed to be confirmation of their accounts.

The Secret Service agents all had to write reports of what happened (and their related reactions). I believe that they had some opportunities to compare notes with each other before submitting their reports. And that that is why most of them sound suspiciously alike. None of them were likely to report anything that would indicate that they didn't react immediately. Landis' account (that you pointed out) indicates that there was initially some confusion because they detected nothing unusual. But most of them are very brief and just say that they reacted immediately. Greer initially slowing down the limo before speeding away at about the time of the fatal shot is (I believe) indicative of that confusion. Here is an excerpt from his original report: "The President's automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle behind the President's automobile. After the second shot, I glanced over my right shoulder and saw Governor Connally start to fall, I knew then that something was wrong and I immediately pushed the accelerator to the floor and Mr. Kellerman said, get out of here."


 Please notice the fact that Greer said the limo was almost past the TSBD (meaning still in front of it) when he heard the first shot (that he thought was a backfire). This describes the section of the Zapruder film near Z133. And that by Z223 (your opinion of when the first shot occurred) the limo was well past the TSBD.