The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

Can you cite a witness account that I have used in an attempt to rule out what can be seen in the Zapruder film?

And specifically what is it that you believe is shown in the Zapruder film that would “utterly refute” the shot around the Z133 time?

Start at the beginning of this thread. The testimonies of the SS agents riding in the follow up car alone refutes it. You have not dealt with any of the arguments presented in this thread that rule out a shot so early.

[Charles Collins]

Start at the beginning of this thread. The testimonies of the SS agents riding in the follow up car alone refutes it. You have not dealt with any of the arguments presented in this thread that rule out a shot so early.

I already addressed your opinion about this. You disagreed. And now you claim that I haven’t dealt with it. Your interpretation of the instant in time depicted in the Altgens photo is your opinion. And your opinion of that, in no way whatsoever, utterly refutes the evidence that has been presented suggesting a shot around Z133. I have good company in my assessment. See Max Holland’s documentary “The Lost Bullet” for a better presentation than I can provide on my own. The main difference between his and my viewpoints is that he believes the bullet hit the traffic signal which caused it to miss the target. While I believe the likelihood of interference in the sniper’s nest caused an inadvertent shot (before the shot was fully aimed).

[Dan O'meara]

I already addressed your opinion about this. You disagreed. And now you claim that I haven’t dealt with it. Your interpretation of the instant in time depicted in the Altgens photo is your opinion. And your opinion of that, in no way whatsoever, utterly refutes the evidence that has been presented suggesting a shot around Z133. I have good company in my assessment. See Max Holland’s documentary “The Lost Bullet” for a better presentation than I can provide on my own. The main difference between his and my viewpoints is that he believes the bullet hit the traffic signal which caused it to miss the target. While I believe the likelihood of interference in the sniper’s nest caused an inadvertent shot (before the shot was fully aimed).

Who's talking about opinions?
Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey describe looking behind them to their right after the first shot, exactly what we see in Altgens 6. Two of them use the word 'immediately'. This is not my opinion,
The Z-film shows no such reaction up to z207, 4 seconds after you're proposed shot. This is not my opinion.
Question - How can a shot in the z130's be justified in this scenario?
Answer - It can't.
How have you dealt with this?

[Dan O'meara]

Then when did the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy turn their heads to their right in reaction, they said, to hearing the first shot? Before Zapruder started filming?

Jackie Kennedy says she turned to the right after hearing JBC yell "Oh no no" and Mrs Connally says she turned around after hearing a 'frightening noise' and saw that JFK "had both hands at his neck", both testimonies you hold so dear refute what you propose.

Corrected on what?

At least twice now you have used agent Ready looking to his right as confirmation of his testimony about which way he looked after hearing the first shot. But this is not the case, he states that he looks to his right rear, he looks behind him but you use him looking to his right as support for an early shot. This is what I'm correcting you on. Agents on the left of the follow up car look mainly to the left, agents on the right look mainly to the right (at least in the Z-film). This does not mean they are reacting to a shot. When they look behind them, as in Altgens 6, we can assume they are reacting to a shot.

You want me to believe that Ready heard the first shot and turned around just before the Altgens photo?

Yes I do Jerry. I would really like it if we were singing from the same hymn sheet. Your ability with graphics alone would be a massive boost to any model being proposed.

You maybe shouldn't take the agents' "immediately" statements so literal.

Maybe you should.

Ready, for example, didn't claim he looked back after the first shot:

    "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."

The words "fire crackers" are plural.

What are you suggesting here? That Ready heard one 'firecracker' then, after a couple of seconds heard another and then he decided to react. Really?

Wow, you ready believe the first shot was a little bit before the Altgens photo.

I assume you mean I 'really' believe the first shot was just before Altgens 6. Yes I do Jerry and as funny as you find it I can back it up.
The Z-film and Altgens 6 refute your suspect belief in an early shot and there's no way around it.

[Andrew Mason]

You're welcome. BTW, I'm not denying a majority of witnesses felt a certain way about the shot spanning and that they were honest in their reporting. I just don't think we should use such samplings from any shot-spanning group. It's a minor detail likely not measured in real time.

Which is where we disagree.  I know you don't think the evidence is persuasive, (along with Betzner, Croft, Willis, the first shot-hit witnesses and first shot location witnesses) but I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to disagree with you.  It appears that you do.

Also: "1.....2...3" looks pretty evenly-spaced to me.

5:3 (1.67:1) is evenly spaced? The spacing at 197, 272, 313 is more like 1.8:1

The Zapruder film shows she can't see Kennedy at all during the time of your first shot.

I don't know how you think she came to give evidence about seeing JFK slump and clutch at his throat, do you?  It cannot be that she imagined seeing it but didn't and it is just a coincidence that this is what we actually see in the zfilm.  The only other possibility is that someone told her to say this and the 14 year old girl lied to the Warren Commission about seeing it herself.  Good luck finding evidence of that.  So did all the other 20 people who reported the same thing lie the same way? Who would have an interest in saying this?

What else could that be? How about Johnson left arm reaching forward to grip or rest on the top of the front seat? The dark upright shape in front of Johnson's head is the back of Youngblood's head. Youngblood is turned to his right talking to Johnson who's leaning in to listen.

There is definitely something over the back of the front seat that is between Ladybird and LBJ:



You may notice that Johnson is very far to the car left and the space between Ladybird and LBJ is greater than that between Yarborough and Ladybird.  Might that be because that large dark thing in between them happens to be SA Youngblood climbing over just like he said he did after the first shot?

Since Z271 has directional blur, how about we compare Z272 to a clearer frame?

There is a change of car angle between those two frames. Besides, the visor over the driver side is the one that was hit:


Lets look at the change in the driver's visor (and, while we are at it, in JBC's wrist) between z271 and 272:

Just that Hickey (and Kinney) can't possibly see to that area of the head at that moment. This is such an old chestnut.

Well, it is kind of amazing that JFK's hair actually did fly up without causing any damage just before the head shot, as Hickey said.  He did not see what he said he saw and yet what he said he saw actually happened.  You have not tried to explain that.

Wrong again. Connally actually moves across more of the width of the car before Z278 than after.

JBC moves. Watch the change in position of JBC from z271 to z279 relative to Nellie and Jackie who do not move at all.  Now compare that to the position of Kellerman relative to Nellie and Greer. There is no change in position of Kellerman:

[Dan O'meara]

I think when Mrs. Kennedy referred to Connally yelling, it was because it was different from the sounds she had previously heard.

    "You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always
     motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to
     the left. 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.
     But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."

She was looking left (pre-Z170s), then hears a noise (but Iater she says noises: "No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises."), and then she hears Connally yelling. But later she says "the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling" which contradicts her looking to her left and hearing "terrible noises" (backfires she described them).

This is getting ridiculous.
As far as the first shot was concerned Mrs Kennedy clearly states " I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different
noise really because there is so much noise". She pays little or no attention to what sounds like just another backfire but then you would have us believe she then describes it as "terrible noises". This is clearly nonsense.
So what does she mean by "terrible noises"?

"Suddenly Governer Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
"... the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling"
"And Governor Connally screamed."
" But I heard Governor Connally yelling..."

The "terrible noises" Jackie Kennedy is referring to are clearly related to JBC 'screaming' and not the backfire noise she barely noticed. This is confirmed in her testimony:

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling.

When she says "there must have been two" she is clearly not having a distinct memory of hearing the shots although she must have heard them. Her main memory is the 'terrible noises' JBC was making but more importantly, it was Connally yelling that she relates to the first shot.
This absolutely refutes a shot as early as you would have it. Connally was not screaming "Oh, no, no, no" before passing behind the Stemmons sign.

Nellie had more-often-than-not said she turned before she saw the President raise his hands up. Only once or twice did she say she saw him with his hands already raised up.

Great to see you undermining the witnesses you use to support your own rickety model.

Agent Ready says the full turn to the rear was after hearing "some firecrackers" not one shot. The Zapruder film shows during the Z160s and Z170s that the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy turned to their right (all said they turned in response to the first shot).

Even after undermining your own witnesses you carry on using them regardless.
Brilliant.
How unreasonable can you be?
Just to stress the point - when you say "all said they turned in response to the first shot" you then go on to show that Jackie Kennedy didn't respond to the first shot but to Connally yelling and Nellie Connally saw JFK clutching his throat after the first shot which you then deny.

Phil Willis said Mrs. Kennedy turned from his side of the street to the opposite in response, he thought, to her hearing the first shot, and that it happened before his Z202 slide. So I have to think Agent Ready turning his head quite sharply to his right in the Z160s could indicate he also heard the first shot at that time.

At no point does Ready turn sharply to his right in the Z-film. This does not happen. Anyone can check this.

I believe Ready first turned rightward in the Z160s in response to the first shot, he then had to secure his handhold before turning rearward, and he didn't get turned fully around until before the Altgens photo.

This is just something you're making up!
The important point is that you constantly refer to agent Ready and unreasonably forget Landis and Hickey.
Reading the testimonies they almost react in unison, something confirmed by Altgens 6. You just focus on Ready all the time forgetting he's not on his own

You can back up nothing. You can't be reasoned with and you appear to be here to troll.

I started this thread to present arguments for a first shot hit.
You are the troll who can't be reasoned with here.
Start your own thread and I'll troll you there but in the meantime I'll carry on shooting down your unreasonable trolling on this one.

[Zeon Mason]

Does a gunman at the SN 6th floor TSBD window , able to move into a cramped , crouch firing position, test rifle on the ledge for support( as most of the CBS trial shooters did) , aim the iron sights zeroed at 200 meters, at a target as near as 60 meters , from the height of 72ft SN and target moving away slightly laterally at 12-15mph, and fire at Z160 location?

[Dan O'meara]

Does a gunman at the SN 6th floor TSBD window , able to move into a cramped , crouch firing position, test rifle on the ledge for support( as most of the CBS trial shooters did) , aim the iron sights zeroed at 200 meters, at a target as near as 60 meters , from the height of 72ft SN and target moving away slightly laterally at 12-15mph, and fire at Z160 location?

Am I wrong to believe the limo was obscured by the oak tree around z160?