The First Shot

[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.

[Dan O'meara]

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

Explain this photo without acting dumb or sounding like one of the Tin Foil Brigade.

[Jack Nessan]

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.

You don't need to interpret the Z Film. The eyewitnesses state exactly where the first shot happened. The Chisms state it happened right before the car gets to them.

John Chism :  "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot,"

Jean Newman states it happened right after it passed her.

Jean Newman : "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report"

Calvery, Hicks, and Westbrook state it happened directly in front of them.

Gloria Calvery : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was Standing when I heard the first shot."

 Karan Hicks : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gunshot"

Karen Westbrook :  "The car he was in was almost directly  in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot ."

[Dan O'meara]

You don't need to interpret the Z Film. The eyewitnesses state exactly where the first shot happened. The Chisms state it happened right before the car gets to them.

John Chism :  "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot,"

Jean Newman states it happened right after it passed her.

Jean Newman : "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report"

Calvery, Hicks, and Westbrook state it happened directly in front of them.

Gloria Calvery : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was Standing when I heard the first shot."

 Karan Hicks : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gunshot"

Karen Westbrook :  "The car he was in was almost directly  in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot ."

I agree, but there are witnesses who seem to state that the shot occurred earlier.
The contradictory nature of eye-witness testimony can be used to support almost any theory/model.
Because there are so many witnesses there is an inevitable variance in the witness accounts as we are dealing with human memory which, as is well documented, isn't a perfect recording system.
On top of this is the possibility to interpret an eye-witness account in many different ways if it is not specific.
The Z-film is the "ultimate eye-witness" in a way. It can be viewed over and over again, paused, slowed down, zoomed in etc.
This doesn't make it infallible because interpreting these images, once again, has the human factor involved.
I view the Z-film as 'primary' evidence and eye-witness accounts as 'secondary', if the eye-witness testimony does not support what we are seeing in the Z-film I discard it and not the other way round.

The greatest mystery to me is that there is any argument over JFK and JBC being shot through at the same time.
From the moment I started examining the Z-film it was absolutely clear it showed both men having extreme reactions at exactly the same moment to what I assume is a shot. I can't get over how obvious it is, and I still can't.

By the same token, I felt the same way about JFK's "back and to the left" motion until I changed my mind.

[Bill Chapman]

Explain this photo without acting dumb or sounding like one of the Tin Foil Brigade.

Ask me nicely