The First Shot

[Bill Chapman]

You'd better Adam and Eve it.

Bubble bath 
But would you put your bees & honey on that?

[Andrew Mason]

That moment when Greer "turned the first time" is definitely NOT when you would have it ("which he does at z278-80") because we see Greer's shoulder angle at Z268 and his hair line at Z273 consistent with succeeding frames showing Greer turned back.

How long do you think Greer is looking back?  He is driving the car.  He can't look for much more than a second.  We can see the second turn where he begins to turn his head rearward beginning at z304 and he turns forward by z320.  So his turn back and forward takes 15 frames.  If you apply that timing to the first turn, in which he faces forward by z293-95, he would have begun his rearward turn around z278-280.

There is another reason to conclude that his first turn began at that point. He said the second shot was just BEFORE his first rearward glance when he saw Gov. Connally falling.  That is what he described seeing when he turned back. That occurs from z278 to z290.  That is what Greer said he saw when he first looked back after the second shot.  He did not say that he saw JBC turned or sailing forward (which he appears to do from about z272-278).  He said he saw him falling back, which means his turn back was at that time.

    "The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass.
     The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X,
     at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because
     he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again. At this
     time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from
     the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the
     President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at
     that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots
     were those that hit the President."
               -- Samuel A. Kinney Report

What Kinney is calling the "second shot" is merely the first of two he can definitely associate with events. In this case, it could just as well be the fatal head shot, that most place as being the last shot. The "hair flying from the right side of his head" is placed "simultaneously" with him stepping on the gas and releasing the siren, which is generally placed about or immediately after the fatal head shot.

Kinney's "first shot" has all the indications of being the slumping seen in the Z220s.

Exactly.

That could as well be the second shot in a typical LN three-shot scenario.

Yes, Kinney terming the head shot the "second shot" works in favor of your Theory and would convince many who might not look into the context of it.

Greer, much less Kinney, could not possibly see to where the President's hair flutters in the Z270s. They're more likely, IMO, describing pieces of scalp with hair attached flying away from the explosive head wound.

Well, that may be your take. I don't see how Hickey or Kinney could both imagine seeing something they couldn't see and then have what they couldn't see show up in the zfilm. 

In any event, Clint Hill and the consensus of Secret Service Agents that Blaine interviewed seem to stand firmly by the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario with the second shot coming as Clint Hill stepped off the running board.  Now perhaps we are all bat-spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy as you contend.  But at least I am in good company.  And it fits with these bodies of consistent evidence:

1. shot pattern 1........2......3 described by 40+ witnesses
2. JFK reacting to first shot by moving left, slumping left, clutching chest etc (20+ witnesses)
3. JFK not smiling and waving after the first shot (ie. observed by no one)
4. the location of the first shot being noticeably later than z160 (Betzner, Hughes Croft)
5. the location of the first shot being around z190-200 (Willis, Woodward and a host of others along Elm St.)

The only thing it conflicts with is the belief that JBC is reacting to being hit in the torso/back by z225.  So maybe he wasn't.

[Dan O'meara]

Bubble bath 
But would you put your bees & honey on that?

If I did it'd have to be a bushel and peck as I'm all out of sausage and mash!

[Bill Chapman]

If I did it'd have to be a bushel and peck as I'm all out of sausage and mash!

Has the trouble and strife left you without an Abergavenny?
 

[Andrew Mason]

My belief is that Greer began to look back about the Z250s. In the Altgens photo, Greer appears to be turned enough to see Connally. Kellerman also starts to look back in the Z250s and they both don't get turned back around until the Z290s. Two seconds for each man to see something highly unusual, comprehend it and then turn forward again. Not a bridge too far.

With all due respect, Jerry, anyone's belief is irrelevant. You need evidence.  There is simply no evidence that Greer turned his head to look back before the turn where he is seen looking back at z283-291 or so. If he turned back before z278 he would not have seen JBC falling back onto his wife.  JBC is not falling back before z278-80.

Gee, Counselor, do they teach you Dramatics in Law School? What could happen if Greer takes his eyes off the road for a whooping two seconds? Is there some obstruction in the road or vehicle on his front bumper? Will the car suddenly go out of control and go off the road? The car is coasting at 11 mph on a cleared street where the crowds had thinned. There's something more pressing going on behind them.

Ok. He obviously is capable of looking back for more than a second, but his responsibility is driving the car and he is trained to keep his eyes on the road.  You have him looking backward continuously from the late 250's to z290, based on your "belief" only.  His chest is facing forward up to z270 and after that we cannot see it.  We can't see his head until about z280 and by z283 we can see that his head is already turned to the right and a bit to the rear.

I wonder if the Z250s is where Greer inadvertently began to ease his foot off the accelerator. That would begin the process that caused the car to slow down by time it reached the Z290s.

I expect that the car would slow down as soon as he lifted his foot off the accelerator.  However, there is evidence in the Muchmore film that the brake lights came on as Clint Hill ran to the limo:

In the above frame, the left brake light is not on.


The right brake light is on in the above two frames but in the following frame as Clint Hill reaches the limo the brake like is off.


Physicist Luis Alvarez did an analysis of the limo speed ("A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film", American Journal of Physics, Sept. 1976, Vol 44, No. 9, p. 813 at p. 825 and determined that it began to slow down around z300:



which corresponds to the time that Clint Hill was running as seen in Muchmore.

Connally is falling and collapsing in the Altgens photo.

In your mind, perhaps.  But he is not moving much until z272 when he starts sailing toward the front and then immediately falls back onto Nellie.

Let's see: You have Greer limited to a one-second head turn, so about 1/2 second for actual looking. Now you say he looks back long enough to witness the Governor falling towards Nellie, then Greer immediately loses interest and turns around again.

There you go editorializing again.  How can you tell that Greer loses interest?  Perhaps he is felt a need to do what he is trained to do: watch where he is going.

[Dan O'meara]

Greer used the phrase " And when I turned around again".  That is an odd way to describe turning around rearward and then turning to the front. He seems to be talking about two rearward turns.  If he had not actually turned around twice within about 2 seconds, there might be some ambiguity about whether he meant turning rearward twice.    He also repeated this a little later on and it appears that Arlen Specter understood that he was referring to two rearward turns and glances at the Governor:

 
Specter is clear it was a single glance:
 
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you know at all, from the glance which you have described that he had been hit or injured in any way?"

At no point in his testimony does Greer describe what he saw during his second glance unless I’m missing something, particularly as he appears to be looking in the President’s direction as his head explodes. But let's not get bogged down on this issue. Greer's unreliability is established with his omission of hitting the brakes during the shooting and that he is apparently caught in a lie during his testimony regarding whether or not he knew the President was injured after "the glance".
The real issue is how observant he is. His observation of being 'almost past' the TSBD at the time of the first 'noise' is being used to establish when the first shot occurred, even though, by his own admission, he barely noticed it. So how observant is Greer? let's recap:
 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe that there was no one present on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. My recollection, there may have been a police officer up there. It is vague to me now everything that I had seen at that time.
 
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you have described motorcycles. How many were present with the President's automobile, if any?
Mr. GREER. I could not toll the exact amount of motorcycles that were escorting us at that time.
 
Mr. SPECTER. Now, do you know how many cars back your car was in the motorcade?
Mr. GREER. No; I don't know how many police cars were ahead of us
 
Mr. SPECTER. And as you turned onto Elm Street, how far, to the best of your ability to estimate, was your automobile from the overpass which you have just described?
Mr. GREER. I wouldn't have a distance recollection at all on how far it was. It wasn't too far. I just could not give you the distance.
 
Mr. SPECTER. As you turned onto Elm, did you have any opportunity to observe how far behind you the President's follow-up car was?
Mr. GREER. No, sir. I was not looking in my mirror; I could not say how far it was behind me at the time.
 
Mr. SPECTER. How many lanes of travel were there on Elm Street?
Mr. GREER. It was either three or four lanes wide. I have forgotten.
 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear anyone in the car say anything from the time of the first shot until the time of the third shot?
Mr. GREER. Not to the best of my recollection, I don't remember.
 
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullets strike any portion of the car or ricochet in any way during the course of the shooting?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I did not.
 
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the distance between the point where the assassination occurred and Parkland Hospital?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I haven't. It seemed like endless miles and probably wasn't very far, but it seemed like to me it was endless getting there. I was-
 
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to give us an estimate with reasonable accuracy on the time it took?
Mr. GREER. No, sir.
 
A strong contender for least observant person in Dealey Plaza. The only thing he can remember clearly is travelling at a constant speed during the shooting.
 

As far as the evidence of Greer as to when the car accelerated forward, the zfilm shows that he slowed down as he was looking back and did not accelerate until after the head shot.  This was the third shot in the sequence that he described.  He is not reliable on that issue since he is contradicted by the zfilm and also by Clint Hill and the other agents. That may have been Greer's way of coping with his feeling that he should have accelerated sooner and wished he had.

It may also be his way of coping with the sight of JFK’s head exploding from a shot made so much easier by him hitting the brakes.

Some witnesses make reliable observations and unreliable observations.  To find facts you have to be able to determine what is reliable and what isn't.

Agreed. This is precisely the reason Greer’s observation about when the first shot occurred should be ignored.

[Dan O'meara]

Who are you suggesting described the head shot as hair flying up only?

This is such a weirdly phrased question. This is what I posted:

"As for the slight ruffling of JFK's hair being the same as his hair "flying up"... I'm not so sure. I think the observation of JFK's hair flying up seems more like when part of his head flew up in the air with hair attached to it. Other witnesses make the same observation about his hair flying up but always in reference to the headshot."

Nowhere in this post is there the slightest suggestion that anybody only described the headshot as hair 'flying up'. Different witnesses described JFK's hair flying up or jumping up but this has formed part of their description of the headshot but not the full description.

It would not be particularly reliable if it was just one witness saying they saw something at a particular time (in Hickey's case, JFK's hair flying up after he turned to look forward at the time of the second shot).  To have another independently report seeing the same thing (Kinney) ie. JFK's hair flying up at the time of the second shot, one has to take it more seriously.   But then to have both corroborated by actual film showing JFK's hair flying up at that time and then have Greer corroborate it further by turning around just after that (which he said was immediately after the second shot) is highly significant.  There are only two possibilities:  they were all independently wrong in the same way and it is just a coincidence that the zfilm shows what they mistakenly thought they saw but didn't OR they were accurately reporting what they observed.

As you say, it wouldn't be particularly reliable if it was just one witness and this should be kept in mind. Kinney is describing the headshot. He does not coroborrate Hickey's observation that JFK's hair flew up. This is from his original report:

 "At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head."

Kinney does not describe JFK's hair flying up, he describes it 'flying from the right side of his head'. He is describing something leaving JFK's head, not a slight ruffle of the fringe. It is very similar to John Templin's description of the headshot:

"But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually."

Kinney is describing a second shot headshot and, as such, leaves Hickey as a single witness to the hair ruffle. I'm perplexed as to how you are trying to fit Greer into this. I probably need to go back and have a closer read of your posts.

[Dan O'meara]

Has the trouble and strife left you without an Abergavenny?

 
You're Pete Tong on that Bobby Moore. I blew my sausage on a jam jar.