The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

An analysis of SA Youngblood's Original Report can help pin down what is occurring in the VP car the moment Altgens 6 is taken:

I heard an explosion--I was not sure whether it was a firecracker, bomb, bullet, or other explosion. I looked at whatever I could quickly survey, and could not see anything which would indicate the origin of this noise. I noticed that the movements in the Presidential car were very abnormal and, at practically the same time, the movements in the Presidential follow-up car were abnormal. I turned in my seat and with my left arm grasped and shoved the Vice President, at his right shoulder, down and toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough. At the same time, I shouted
"get down!" I believe I said this more than once and directed it to the Vice President and the other occupants of the rear seat. They all responded very rapidly.

I quickly looked all around again and could see nothing to shoot at, so I stepped over into the back seat and sat on top of the Vice President. I sat in a crouched position and issued orders to the driver. During this time, I heard two more explosion noises and observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings. The second and third explosions made the same type of sound that the first one did as far as I could tell, but by this time I was of the belief that they definitely were shots--not bombs or firecrackers. I am not sure that I was on top of the Vice President before the second shot--he says I was. All of the above related events, from the beginning at the sound of the first shot to the sound of the third shot, happened within a few seconds.

"I heard an explosion--I was not sure whether it was a firecracker, bomb, bullet, or other explosion."

This can't be stressed enough. The sound of the shots is really loud. That 160+ witnesses describe hearing three clearly audible shots leaves me with little doubt that's how many were fired. It can be stated with confidence Youngblood is describing the first of these three shots.

" I looked at whatever I could quickly survey, and could not see anything which would indicate the origin of this noise. I noticed that the movements in the Presidential car were very abnormal and, at practically the same time, the movements in the Presidential follow-up car were abnormal."

The first thing Youngblood notices is 'abnormal movements' in the Presidential limo and the follow-up car. In Altgens 6 we see three agents have spun round and are looking towards the TSBD. In the limo JFK's hands have flown up to his throat with his elbows extended upwards. Youngblood sees these movements and realises something serious is happening.

" I turned in my seat and with my left arm grasped and shoved the Vice President, at his right shoulder, down and toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough. At the same time, I shouted "get down!" I believe I said this more than once and directed it to the Vice President and the other occupants of the rear seat. They all responded very rapidly."

He shoves LBJ down towards Ladybird (confirmed by LBJ) and as he does he shouts at everyone to "Get down". I would imagine it is at this point that Ladybird stops smiling as she and Yarborugh duck down immediately.

"I quickly looked all around again and could see nothing to shoot at, so I stepped over into the back seat and sat on top of the Vice President. I sat in a crouched position and issued orders to the driver. During this time, I heard two more explosion noises..."

It is at this point Youngblood dives into the back seat after which he hears two more shots.

"All of the above related events, from the beginning at the sound of the first shot to the sound of the third shot, happened within a few seconds."

This is an important point - the three shots occurred within a few seconds. Something confirmed by other witnesses:

"I distinctly remember three shots. There was an interval of approximately 5 to 6 seconds from the first to the last shot," C. Carter

The sequence of events is as follows.

First shot
Sees 'abnormal movements' in Pres. limo and Pres. follow-up car.
Turns in his seat, reaches over with left hand, pushes LBJ down towards Ladybird.
At the same time he shouts "Get down"
Ladybird and Yarborough duck down immediately.
He jumps on top of LBJ.
Two more shots ring out.
The whole sequence happens in a matter of seconds.

This may have implications for when the second shot occurred.
We know Altgens 6 is taken at z255 and the headshot happens at z313.
If the headshot is the second shot it means Youngblood has just over three seconds to shove LBJ down as he shouts at everyone, then jump in the back to cover LBJ. It's tight but definitely possible.
If there is a shot before the headshot it makes it almost impossible to get all this done.
Altgens 6 strongly supports the headshot as the second shot.

Finally, is it possible to pin down the exact moment Altgens takes his picture in relation to the sequence of events in the car? There is no point in his original report he states he looked to his right for any reason, there is just the vague description of looking to where he thought the explosive noise might be coming from. However, when we turn to his WC testimony he is slightly more specific as to where the sound of the shot came from:

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you have any reaction or impression as to the source or point of origin of the first shot?
Mr. YOUNGBLOOD. I didn't know where the source or the point of origin was, of course, but the sounds all came to my right and rear."


It would appear that Altgens 6 was taken at the moment Youngblood was trying ascertain where the shots were coming from. Again, this indicates that the picture was taken very soon after the first shot. Indeed Altgens himself makes that point in his WC testimony:

"I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot--the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture,"

"...it was almost simultaneously with the shot...the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture." The analysis of Altgens 6 presented here is certainly in accordance with Altgens' own observation.
In the model I'm presenting here the first shot occurs at z223, just 1.7 seconds before the Altgens pic is taken.

[Jerry Organ]

In his testimony, Altgens was pretty sure about two shots.

    "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I
     could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot
     tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another
     shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the
     last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

When pressed, he reluctantly placed a third in between the two he was sure about.

    "I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at
     least one shot in between.

     Mr. LIEBELER. At least one?

     I would say that—I know there was one in between. It is possible there
     might have been another one I don’t really know, but two, I can really
     account for.”

Altgens seemed to think he heard more one "firecracker" sound before taking his picture:

    "Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my
     position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts
     fireworks explosions?"

In 1985, he told Richard Trask:

    "My first instinct was 'well, they're shooting firecrackers up there',
     or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then
     I hear it again as the car comes on down. No one has the foggiest
     idea that something was taking place."

Seems like he's describing multiple "firecracker" sounds before he takes his picture, but had no clear impression the first of those noises was a gunshot. He probably reasoned, as his picture shows Kennedy reacting, that the "firecracker" before that picture was a gunshot. What's really the second shot is "No. 1" in his testimony.

[Dan O'meara]

In his testimony, Altgens was pretty sure about two shots.

    "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I
     could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot
     tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another
     shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the
     last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

When pressed, he reluctantly placed a third in between the two he was sure about.

    "I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at
     least one shot in between.

     Mr. LIEBELER. At least one?

     I would say that—I know there was one in between. It is possible there
     might have been another one I don’t really know, but two, I can really
     account for.”

Altgens seemed to think he heard more one "firecracker" sound before taking his picture:

    "Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my
     position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts
     fireworks explosions?"

In 1985, he told Richard Trask:

    "My first instinct was 'well, they're shooting firecrackers up there',
     or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then
     I hear it again as the car comes on down. No one has the foggiest
     idea that something was taking place."

Seems like he's describing multiple "firecracker" sounds before he takes his picture, but had no clear impression the first of those noises was a gunshot. He probably reasoned, as his picture shows Kennedy reacting, that the "firecracker" before that picture was a gunshot. What's really the second shot is "No. 1" in his testimony.

Ahh...the joys of interpreting eye-witness testimony.
Obviously, Jerry, you will be interpreting things to suit your model as I will be interpreting things to suit mine.

"Seems like he's describing multiple "firecracker" sounds before he takes his picture"

I completely disagree.
Altgens is consistent about one thing - he can confidently vouch for two shots and two shots only. In the testimony you posted he makes this point twice:

"I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot..."

"I can really only vouch for the two."

However, he seems to be convinced there were other shots in between, even though he is only sure about two. When he says - "I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at least one shot in between." - the impression I get is that he has heard, as has rest of the country by the time of the WC hearings, that there were three shots. He seems to accept this to be the case but he really has no idea about it as he only heard two shots. To explain why he only heard two shots when the official account is that there were three he uses various vague giveaway phrases:

"I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place..."

"It is possible there might have been another one I don’t really know, but two, I can really account for.”

"...who counts fireworks explosions?"

Altgens is most certainly not describing a shot before the first shot. He has a very specific memory of the first shot - "the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture"
There can be no doubt Altgens only remembers two shots - the one just before taking the photo and the headshot. His confusion concerning fireworks, firecrackers, pops etc. is a result of finding out there were actually more shots than he remembers.

More importantly, his recollection of the first shot is confirmed by my analysis of Altgens 6. It is noteworthy that your response to this analysis, that rules out your own proposal of an early missed shot, boils down to a strained interpretation of the word "firecrackers" from testimony that really had nothing to do with the analysis itself.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In his testimony, Altgens was pretty sure about two shots.

    "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I
     could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot
     tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another
     shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the
     last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."

When pressed, he reluctantly placed a third in between the two he was sure about.

    "I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at
     least one shot in between.

     Mr. LIEBELER. At least one?

     I would say that—I know there was one in between. It is possible there
     might have been another one I don’t really know, but two, I can really
     account for.”

Altgens seemed to think he heard more one "firecracker" sound before taking his picture:

    "Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my
     position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts
     fireworks explosions?"

In 1985, he told Richard Trask:

    "My first instinct was 'well, they're shooting firecrackers up there',
     or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then
     I hear it again as the car comes on down. No one has the foggiest
     idea that something was taking place."

Seems like he's describing multiple "firecracker" sounds before he takes his picture, but had no clear impression the first of those noises was a gunshot. He probably reasoned, as his picture shows Kennedy reacting, that the "firecracker" before that picture was a gunshot. What's really the second shot is "No. 1" in his testimony.

The one area where we need to fight our "confirmation bias" more than any other is on this issue of the shots. Timing, spacing and even number.

We stare at the film, pore over testimony, and grab a bit here and another thing there and think we've got it worked out. Then another smart person comes along and points out, "What about this?" and we mumble to ourselves and move on.

It'll drive you mad.

[Dan O'meara]

The one area where we need to fight our "confirmation bias" more than any other is on this issue of the shots. Timing, spacing and even number.

We stare at the film, pore over testimony, and grab a bit here and another thing there and think we've got it worked out. Then another smart person comes along and points out, "What about this?" and we mumble to ourselves and move on.

It'll drive you mad.

Hi Steve,

Firstly, I couldn't agree with you more about 'confirmation bias' and touched on that issue at the beginning of my last post when I wrote:

"Obviously, Jerry, you will be interpreting things to suit your model as I will be interpreting things to suit mine."

Once a person has established a way of comprehending the evidence  (I call this a 'model') it becomes very difficult to avoid confirmation bias. It becomes almost second nature to see things in a way that favours your model. The important part for me has been the construction of the model. In this thread I have looked at what I believe to be a crucial aspect of understanding the JFK assassination - the shots, in particular the first shot. I've avoided eye-witness testimony where possible, as it can be twisted into almost any point of view, and relied in the most part on the Z-film and Altgens 6, I view these as 'primary' evidence. Obviously eye-witness testimony must come into it to some degree but I view this as 'secondary' evidence, the validity of which must be corroborated by the primary evidence where possible.
The evidence has led me to believe the first shot passed through both JFK and JBC at z223 and this is the model I have presented in this thread. Once my model was established it was then the confirmation bias kicked in and I now interpret any evidence through the filter of the model I've established.
I now put my model forward to be tested and torn down but no serious challenge has arisen. The majority of the thread is spent uncovering the weaknesses in other models and I have seen how confirmation bias can turn into flat-out denial. I know that if a better model than mine comes along I'll adopt that and drop my own as it's something I've done before (a thread  called "Unseeing the Headshot")

With that in mind, have a look over the partial analysis of Altgens 6 I've put forward in recent threads and feel free to point out the weaknesses of it (or strengths if you're so inclined).

[John Iacoletti]

The problem is that interpreting the Z film and other films and photos is just as subject to confirmation bias as interpreting testimony.  It definitely is crazy-making to try.

[Dan O'meara]

The problem is that interpreting the Z film and other films and photos is just as subject to confirmation bias as interpreting testimony.  It definitely is crazy-making to try.

When I started examining the Z-film the only confirmation bias I had was that the "back and to the left" motion of JFK proved there was a shot from the front. Everything else, all the arguments I've presented in this thread were based on an impartial look at the evidence.
That's how I came up with the model I'm presenting here - a first shot that passes through both JFK and JBC at z223.
Once I'd established the model, then the confirmation bias kicked in.
In the course of my examination I came across something that undermined my 'core belief' that JFK was shot from the front.
I followed that evidence and, when I was convinced the headshot came from behind, I dropped that belief.
I've yet to come across any argument or evidence that I'm wrong about the first shot.
If I do I'll drop that as well.
Confirmation bias or no confirmation bias.

[Bill Chapman]

In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.