The First Shot

[Walt Cakebread]

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).

 It becomes almost second nature to see things in a way that favours your model.

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.

FWIW.... I firmly believe that the Z film is tainted....  It was kept from the public for many years.   The conspiirators had ample time to create a Z film that would soupport their tale.   Or at least cast a lot of doubt which would create a huge controversy.

And that's exactly what we have....

[Bill Chapman]

Pretty please Bill.
What are your thoughts on the photo in question?

I'll not get sucked into another one of your bottomless rabbit-holes.

[Dan O'meara]

I'll not get sucked into another one of your bottomless rabbit-holes.

When have we had any kind of interaction regarding the assassination?

[John Tonkovich]

Mr. O'meara: you still don't understand the survey data. I left this thread alone for months. Here you are, still ignoring data.

[Dan O'meara]

Agreed, I don't see the doubt about one bullet striking both JFK and JBC. Bill Newman stated he could not tell which man was hit first by the first shot in the WFAA interview.

The eyewitnesses are consistent that the first shot stuck JFK. No one was looking at JBC. Mary Woodward gives a good example by referencing the shot never took place until after JFK faced forward, which does not happen until Z207. The earwitnesses are all over the board and in general describe a shooting sequence that is not representative of the cycle time of the carcano.

An early missed shot is nothing more than an attempt to compensate for the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano by stretching out the shooting time.
-----------------------------
The HSCA Analysis of the photos concluded The bullet leaving jFK's throat would have to strike JBC. JFK's position in the car ovr shadows JBC's back
Mr. SAWYER. If we were to start at the other end then and assume that a bullet were fired at the approximate time we have determined from the sixth floor of the depository, would it have of necessity given the wounds in the President, would it of necessity, based on what you have determined as to locations somewhat, also have hit Governor Connally?
Mr. CANNING. The bullet would have had to have been substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit with the alinements that we have found.
Mr. SAWYER. So that if we assume, as apparently is the fact, that this jacketed bullet did not hit anything solid in the way of bone in the President but only traversed the soft tissue of the neck, and presuming the approximate location of the limousine at the time and the posture as nearly as can be determined of the President at that time, that in your view then, absent a deflection of that bullet, it could not have missed Governor Connally.
Mr. CANNING. That is my view, yes.
Mr. SAWYER. I think that is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's such an obvious point that is regularly brushed under the carpet.
A bullet, fired from the SN, passing clean through JFK must hit JBC.

[Bill Chapman]

Very true.  The contrarian motto is that because everything cannot be known with absolute certainty, nothing can ever be proven.  As a result, there must be doubt regarding any fact in human history because it is possible to dream up an alternative scenario (no matter how baseless or improbable the alternative).  There are no time machines to disprove these improbable alternatives to their subjective satisfaction.  Thus, we must forever reside in a state of uncertainty known as the rabbit hole.  Repeat endless.  When all else fails put a word in quotation marks to suggest fake "doubt."

No uncertainty necessary: Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

[John Iacoletti]

I'll not get sucked into another one of your bottomless rabbit-holes.

Yeah, Dan, how dare you try to discuss the JFK assassination on the JFK Assassination Forum?  It's only for posting movie clips and nonsensical one-liners.

[Jerry Organ]

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,"

It's just that a frame like Z162 is "just about in front of me".


Chism would be watching the car as it neared him. The Willis photo is about two seconds later and the Chisms appear pretty close to the car, so certainly some looking up towards the car before that.

However, Chism seems to recount just two shots:

    "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, and I saw him, "The President,"
     sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side. At this point,
     I saw Mrs. Kennedy stand up and pull his head over in her lap,
     and then lay down over him as if to shield him."

In that case, the "first" shot is the one before the head shot. He's describing as the "first shot" the SBT shot in the Z220s. Another thing, too, Chism wasn't sure about the number of shots, allowing for up to three. But he could only really recount what happened during two of those.

If the first of the three shots was the one he lost track of, it's possible he heard it while the car was further up Elm.

His wife, Marvin Faye, is also "first shot" before the head shot:

    "As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the
     President fell to his left. The President's wife immediately stood over
     him, and she pulled him up, and lay him down in the seat, and she
     stood up over him in the car. The President was standing and waving
     and smiling at the people when the shot happened.

     And then there was a second shot that I heard, after the President's
     wife had pulled him down in the seat."

Likewise, Jean Newman. So basically, their statements could be a way to situate the moment of the second shot, rather than the first. The general consensus is that three shots were fired, with the head shot being the last.

The eyewitness accounts are interesting but often not reliable. I look at the film for subjectivity (yes, film and digital recording can be manipulated, but this one seems accurate).

The turning of the heads of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy just as Rosemary Willis begins to slow to stop: that's first shot territory. The simultaneous reactions of both men in the Z220s: that's second shot territory. The head shot: obvious, but the head initially goes forward first, so consistent with SN.