The First Shot

[Charles Collins]

I have taken your clever idea of superimposing Jerry's model over the H&E diagram and fitted the model length to the car:



The position of the doors and the length of the rear seating compartment in Jerry's model is farther forward that shown in the H&E diagram.  The question is, then, which is correct - the drawing or the model.

There is no question about it. The drawing is flawed with respect to the overall length. Jerry's model appears to be correct to me based upon matching the Z223 frame and the photo of the limo with the bubble top that Jerry posted and the drawing (if the overall length is considered the flaw in the drawing). See my post for more information regarding the flaw in the drawing:

It appears that Jerry's car is either too short or too wide.

No, it is not. If and when you realize that the H&E scaled drawing is flawed you should also realize that the H&E scaled drawing simply cannot be used the way you have tried to use it without distorting the actual location of the components. Here is a quick and simple test that will prove to anyone willing to try that the H&E drawing is flawed. There is a dimension located on the trunk lid showing the distance from the handholds to the front of the trunk lid. That dimension is shown as 37.00". If you measure it on a 100% size print of the drawing, it measures to be 44mm. Now, there is a dimension (that I have previously indicated in an earlier post, is out of scale with a red circle) which shows as 38.35" for the distance between the front of the front seat and the front of the jump seat. The two dimensions (37.00" & 38.35") are fairly close to the same length. If we use mathematics to see what the ruler should show for the 38.35", we get 45.6mm. The issue is that when we actually measure this distance on the print, it is 52mm. That is a significant difference of about 14%. And 14% of 38.35" is 5.4". There is a similar issue with the other dimension (27.4") that I circled in red in the earlier post. When you consider that adding up the individual dimensions shown does come close to the overall dimension of 256.10" and that two of the individual dimensions are significantly out of scale, it becomes obvious that the drawing does not show the true length of the limo. And your insistence on using the overall length of the limo as the basis for comparing the drawing to the image of Jerry's model is what is causing your delusion.


The H&E drawing does not show the windshield. That part in front is the dashboard.


Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is a photo of the "Queen Mary" that shows a side elevation view and the steep slope of the windshield. Both the "Queen Mary" and the JFK Limo were built by the same company (H&E). It is reasonable to believe that they could have started out with the drawing from the "Queen Mary" and revised it accordingly. The shape of the windshield on the JFK Limo drawing supports this idea.

[Jerry Organ]

I have taken your clever idea of superimposing Jerry's model over the H&E diagram and fitted the model length to the car:



The position of the doors and the length of the rear seating compartment in Jerry's model is farther forward that shown in the H&E diagram.  The question is, then, which is correct - the drawing or the model.

Doesn't the size of those hand openings on the parade bar give you a hint?


There are problems with the "Official" drawing.


You appear to have carried those mistakes through to your own method of measurement. That's how we now have Mason's Voodoo Geometry.

[Charles Collins]

Doesn't the size of those hand openings on the parade bar give you a hint?


There are problems with the "Official" drawing.


You appear to have carried those mistakes through to your own method of measurement. That's how we now have Mason's Voodoo Geometry.

Well done. I tend to believe the measurements are probably correct. I used to draw mechanical drawings as part of my work. And I began doing this (by hand) well before computer aided design became common. Drawings are an important form of communication for all parties involved in a project. I can only guess that this drawing was used to communicate the dimensions which the investigators of the assassination requested. It doesn’t seem to me to be the type of drawing that the actual workers who built the limo would need or use. And I can only guess that whoever created this drawing for the assassination investigators might have taken an early version of their design drawings and placed some requested measurements on it for those investigators while not being concerned that the actual drawing scales off accurately to those dimensions. I believe that H&E was in the process of reworking that limo during the WC investigation. Therefore someone at H&E might have taken those measurements from the actual limo. I think that the reworked limo is at the Ford Museum in Michigan now. And I wonder what some actual measurements of the limo might tell us now.

[Jerry Organ]

My model could be off since I have no personally-made measurements of the limousine, and the measurements that others made I have no precise way of knowing from what points or if they measured along an axis.

However, there's a pretty good correspondence of my 3D model with the White House/HSCA diagram's "Seat Fronts" measurements (if those measurements were made from the front edge of the seats; we don't know for sure). Presumably the man who measured at the White House used a level and plumb bob. This would allow him to measure over the seat-backs to get all the front edges of the seats. The level would keep everything on an even axis, necessary for an accurate top-down isometric drawing. Nowadays it's largely done by laser.

Referring to the bottom drawing, the measurements from the top-of-the-front-seat (if, in fact, it was?) show some correspondence between the front seat and where the jump-seat cushion and jump-seat seat-back meet. Then I wondered if maybe the 29" length might have been from the front-top of the jump-seat seat-back to the where the backseat's cushion and seat-back meet.

The jump-seat's measurement of 22" is, on my model, roughly from the back edge of the top of the jump-seat to the front edge of the jump-seat's cushion. A 22" length for a cushion alone isn't feasible.

I notice the WH/HSCA limo drawing seems to have no seat-back slopes drawn in for the jump-seat and backseat. So maybe the intent was to have measurements from the "front" and "back" of all the seats but things got thrown off because the seat-back slopes were not factored in?

I'm afraid we're going to be throwing darts at this thing for awhile because I don't see the Museum that has the limousine allowing private researchers access. However I wouldn't build a model solely on the WH/HSCA limo drawing.

[Charles Collins]

My model could be off since I have no personally-made measurements of the limousine, and the measurements that others made I have no precise way of knowing from what points or if they measured along an axis.

However, there's a pretty good correspondence of my 3D model with the White House/HSCA diagram's "Seat Fronts" measurements (if those measurements were made from the front edge of the seats; we don't know for sure). Presumably the man who measured at the White House used a level and plumb bob. This would allow him to measure over the seat-backs to get all the front edges of the seats. The level would keep everything on an even axis, necessary for an accurate top-down isometric drawing. Nowadays it's largely done by laser.

Referring to the bottom drawing, the measurements from the top-of-the-front-seat (if, in fact, it was?) show some correspondence between the front seat and where the jump-seat cushion and jump-seat seat-back meet. Then I wondered if maybe the 29" length might have been from the front-top of the jump-seat seat-back to the where the backseat's cushion and seat-back meet.

The jump-seat's measurement of 22" is, on my model, roughly from the back edge of the top of the jump-seat to the front edge of the jump-seat's cushion. A 22" length for a cushion alone isn't feasible.

I notice the WH/HSCA limo drawing seems to have no seat-back slopes drawn in for the jump-seat and backseat. So maybe the intent was to have measurements from the "front" and "back" of all the seats but things got thrown off because the seat-back slopes were not factored in?

I'm afraid we're going to be throwing darts at this thing for awhile because I don't see the Museum that has the limousine allowing private researchers access. However I wouldn't build a model solely on the WH/HSCA limo drawing.

Good information Jerry! Throwing darts is a good analogy. But I enjoy learning what we can glean from these exercises. I hadn’t seen CE 872, or at least hadn’t noticed who drew the drawing. I searched and so far found a little information on Ronald S. Knowles:

  Who designed the WHCA logo?
Answer: MSG (R) Ronald S. Knowles . Ron was in Drafting and Reproduction Branch for nearly 20 years  In 1962, then SSG Knowles was directed by the Commander to design a new seal when the agency transitioned from White House Army Signal Agency to White House Communications Agency during the Kennedy administration. The new WHCA Seal has been in use now for 57 years.

So, it appears that a Master Sargent in the WHCA (U.S. Army, I think) drew it, not someone from the builder (H&E). I would like to know when Knowles drew this. Was it for the WC, or not until the HSCA? (Edit: I just realized it was for the WC since it was one of their exhibits, duh…) I am accustomed to seeing a date in a title block on drawings.

Do we have a way to contact the developer of the model of the limo you are using to ask for the source of the dimensions? I think that the photographic record of the assassination is better than Knowles’ drawing for comparing your virtual model. We have ample information to duplicate the camera angles in the 3D models, so that helps. The only item that I noticed that is slightly off in the Z223 overlay that I posted is the antenna on the left rear fender. And it is only off by maybe an inch or two.


Edit: More info on Ronald Knowles:

Spotlight on Ron Knowles





This month's Spotlight Article is on an- other distinguished and accomplished member of Post 7589, Ronald Knowles. There is hardly enough space here to tell the whole story of his accomplishments and contributions to our community.
He enlisted in the Army from his home town of Wichita, Kansas in 1957. Based on his excellence in the Army Engineering School he was quickly selected and assigned to the Army White House Signal Agency in July 1958. In 1962 it became the White House Communications Agency (WHCA) and is probably one of the most select assignments anyone in uniform can ever have. The WHCA is hard to get into and even harder to get out of as evidenced that Ron eventually served 17 1/2 years there. From 1967-1968 in Vietnam as NCOIC, of the Engineering and Plans Section with the 18th Engineer BDE. He retired from the Army in 1977 in the grade of Master Sergeant (E-8).
He is a Life Member of the VFW, DAV, American Legion and Vietnam Veterans of America, all of which are the beneficiaries of his enormous energy and leadership skills. He has served as Post 7589 Chaplain, Adjutant, Junior and Senior Vice Commander, Commander and Trustee. In all of these posi- tions he demonstrated exceptional professionalism and dedica- tion. As Post Commander he led the post to All State Honors. In addition to the above he served on the Manassas Veterans Parade Day Committee from its start to 2014.
He has 57 years of award winning service with Boy Scouts of America in a variety of senior leadership positions, including as a member of the VFW National Scout Team. He currently serves on the BSA-Bull Run District Committee and Troop 670 Com- mittee. The BSA is a superb character building organization and Ron has been an "Impact Player" for decades with this superb organization.
It is hard to believe he had the time, but he founded his own small business, Knowles Hobbies Unlimited in 1970 and Knowles Custom Creations, Inc. in 1990. Ron has been a PPFA- certified Picture Framer since October 1989. He is also a devout member of the Baha’i World Faith and father of three grown chil- dren.
Ron, as a Veteran and Community Activist you make us all proud. We are all blessed to be recipients of your dedication and

[Jerry Organ]

Good information Jerry! Throwing darts is a good analogy. But I enjoy learning what we can glean from these exercises. I hadn’t seen CE 872, or at least hadn’t noticed who drew the drawing. I searched and so far found a little information on Ronald S. Knowles:

  Who designed the WHCA logo?
Answer: MSG (R) Ronald S. Knowles . Ron was in Drafting and Reproduction Branch for nearly 20 years  In 1962, then SSG Knowles was directed by the Commander to design a new seal when the agency transitioned from White House Army Signal Agency to White House Communications Agency during the Kennedy administration. The new WHCA Seal has been in use now for 57 years.

So, it appears that a Master Sargent in the WHCA (U.S. Army, I think) drew it, not soomeone from the builder (H&E). I would like to know when Knowles drew this. Was it for the WC, or not until the HSCA? (Edit: I just realized it was for the WC since it was one of their exhibits, duh…) I am accustomed to seeing a date in a title block on drawings.

Knowles also did a diagram of the "Queen Mary" (Exh. CE-871). It sounds like Sgt. Knowles would have used the level and plumb bob method. He obviously measured something with precision. I'm wondering if he used a diagram of the limousine before the parade bar was placed. Maybe that drawing was made when the Signal Corps installed the radio and phone when they first got the X-100. The parade bar in Exh. CE-872 looks like an afterthought.

Do we have a way to contact the developer of the model of the limo you are using to ask for the source of the dimensions?

The 3D model was a stock Continental found on the SketchUp Warehouse. I had to cut it apart and "stretch" it, and then add the parade bar and custom backseat, etc. I don't know who originated the model but I would bet it was simply scanned from the outside. The model as I found it had no seats or steering wheel.

I think that the photographic record of the assassination is better than Knowles’ drawing for comparing your virtual model. We have ample information to duplicate the camera angles in the 3D models, so that helps. The only item that I noticed that is slightly off in the Z223 overlay that I posted is the antenna on the left rear fender. And it is only off by maybe an inch or two.

The rear deck is not finished towards the rear. I would like to have another look at the hand-holds, too. I can't vouch for its accuracy but there a Ford-Authorized 3D model of X-100 available for purchase.

[Charles Collins]

Knowles also did a diagram of the "Queen Mary" (Exh. CE-871). It sounds like Sgt. Knowles would have used the level and plumb bob method. He obviously measured something with precision. I'm wondering if he used a diagram of the limousine before the parade bar was placed. Maybe that drawing was made when the Signal Corps installed the radio and phone when they first got the 100-X. The parade bar in Exh. CE-872 looks like an afterthought.

The 3D model was a stock Continental found on the SketchUp Warehouse. I had to cut it apart and "stretch" it, and then add the parade bar and custom backseat, etc. I don't know who originated the model but I would bet it was simply scanned from the outside. The model as I found it had no seats or steering wheel.

The rear deck is not finished towards the rear. I would like to have another look at the hand-holds, too. I can't vouch for its accuracy but there a Ford-Authorized 3D model of 100-X available for purchase.

Interesting, that Knowles did draw both limos for the WC. I wonder if he was rushed by superiors and might have taken a shortcut or two resulting in the issues we have documented in this thread. If so, it reminds me of Carl Day and his situation. Not that I think Day took any shortcuts, but he appears to have become frustrated and just did as he was told and stopped working on the rifle while in the middle of his examination.  Apparently without objecting, like I wished he had done.

You did a great job on your limo drawing. I wondered if you purchased it. I have seen one for sale also. If it is Ford authorized, Ford (and/or the Ford Museum) might have provided dimensions. It seems like the asking price for it was around $80.00, if I remember correctly. Maybe I should be saving some money?

[Dan O'meara]

I am presenting a method by which the location and timing of the first shot can be pin-pointed with a large degree of accuracy:

No – this is presenting an opinion.  The Thorburn Flex, ITEK Auditory Assessment, and Cranor- and the Jiggle Analysis are all interesting but unless you have a starting point and can determine where the shot actually took place they are just conjecture. Zapruder is a two shot witness which is exactly what was determined by jiglle analysis. The witnesses provide the rough location but that would be it. JFK and JBC are not reacting to the same wounds. There are people who are shot and do not know it. President Reagan when shot by Hinkle was one of them.

 
Then why are you disputing that the first shot occurred at z222/z223?

Because I think it was a little earlier because you can use the Zapruder film with the aid of a few pieces of information and the witness statements to clarify where it actually took place. In my mind there is no real difference between Z214 and Z222. It is understanding that the shot took place here at this point and not that ridiculous early missed shot theory, thit is what is important.

If it is important, I just used the Zapruder film to locate JFK and the people standing on the side of the road. In Willis no 5 (Z202), JFK is about even with Jean Newman. In Z207 he is past Jean Newman and almost even with the secretaries. Again, every Z frame is approximately 1 foot of travel. Again, the car is 21 feet long, it can be used to estimate distances in the pictures. By Z214 he is even with the secretaries. You can use the sign to estimate his movement and location. The sign is 21 feet long using the car as a scale. Definitely not perfect but functional enough.


Reaction time extends to witness statements. If they are stating, he was just past them when they heard the shot, they too a have reaction times to having heard the sound. JFK had a reaction time. Jean Newman’s “just past her” means what? Same with the secretaries in front of them? The Chisms’, before them instead of even with them? Don’t like 10 Z frames, use 6 frames. 6 feet. The whole reaction time is nothing but a guess. JFK was in a brace. JBC is not thought to have reacted until he takes his first breath. There is no telling if they immediately knew they had been shot.


Once again, what does Roberdeau base this on?

Because you can visibly see that they are reacting to having been shot.


What about the witnesses who state there was a shot after the head-shot?

You mean the missed shot that either occurred before, during, or after that no one can pinpoint but forever is discussed? The only question that should be asked is what did the eyewitnesses initially state. There is evidence of two shots but not three. A large group of eyewitnesses state there were two shots. There is evidence on the shells that only two of them were fired but not all three. The rifle could be examined tomorrow and determine if there is an anomaly in the chamber that caused the indentation on the side of the shells but not on CE543. Maybe that is not necessary, because the FBI already determined that the indentations came from the chamber of the rifle. The indentation exists on CE141 the unfired cartridge found in the chamber of the rifle. That is the biggest piece of information of all.

 The immediate eyewitness statements are a wealth of information. No hidden agendas. By the end of the day, the media’s influence had changed all that.

No – this is presenting an opinion.

I am not presenting an opinion.
The witness statements regarding whether or not JFK had passed them at the time of the first shot is not my opinion.
The irony is that, as we shall see, all you do is offer your own hugely biased opinion without a scrap of evidence to back it up.



The statements of the witnesses pictured show, unanimously, that JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot [as usual, statements lifted from Pat Speer's website]:

JUNE DISHONG: [taken from a letter written on the day of the assassination]
                        "His arm in the air waving… He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car. Jackie circled him with her arm. Another shot. Panic among the people. Woman with children. Parents pushing them to the ground. No one knows where the shots are coming from. A cry. The President has been shot. A third shot, people scatter. I can't believe what I have seen.

Dishong specifically states that JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.

PEGGY BURNEY: [A first person account  published in the Dallas Times-Heraldthe day after the assassination]
                         "When the President's car made the curve around the corner, he was smiling and waving...he was happy and Jackie was happy and smiling as they passed. The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. The President ducked; instinctively I told myself 'something is happening,' but nobody knew what."


Burney could not be any more specific - the Presidential limo was 15ft beyond her position when she heard the first shot - this is not my opinion.

JEAN NEWMAN: [ From a statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department on the day of the assassination]
                       "I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about halfway between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner… The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something 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, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too."

Newman is certain JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.

ERNEST BRANDT: [Oral History interview performed for the Sixth Floor Museum, 5-12-94]
                          "He was kind of casually smiling…acknowledging the crowd and waving casually. Nothing had happened by the time the limo was exactly opposite us, from the curb straight out to the street. Nothing had happened. But I was still watching Kennedy from the back...And of course, all I could see above the back seat was his shoulders, his neck, and head…I think the limousine was probably about 60 or 70 feet past us, three or four seconds I guess from the time. It wasn't moving real slow but yet not real fast either, y'know. And--60 or 70 feet past us, then BAM! the first shot was fired and boy it just reverberated around Dealey Plaza something terrible."

[11-22-95 article in the Dallas Morning News]
"Ernest Brandt, a salesman, watched from the curb as President John F Kennedy's motorcade turned down the Elm Street slope toward Stemmons Freeway... "Kennedy's limo was about 15 to 20 feet past us when the first shot was fired. I was still looking at him and I saw his arms come up."

[July 2000 hand-written, 3-page letter from Brandt to researcher Don Roberdeau published in part on Roberdeau's Men of Courage website and posted in total on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in 2009]
 "President Kennedy was about 15 feet from me when the FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED!!! He was SLIGHTLY PAST ME at a "ONE O'CLOCK POSITION" in relation to my location on the NORTH SIDE of the Elm street curb.


Brandt could not be more explicit - he was looking at JFK from behind at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.

JOHN TEMPLIN: [7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]
"Well, as the limo drew even with us, well, the president was waving and, of course, grinning. He had just a great big smile on his face...And just about, I would say, thirty feet past us, we heard what I personally thought was a motorcycle backfire, and I... the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know.

Templin is certain JFK had passed his position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.

All five witnesses are unequivocal that JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot.
The best representation of where these witnesses were stood in relation to where the limo was at specific Z-frames is Don Roberdeau's map.
As I have already posted, when we map their positions in Dealey Plaza compared to the limo position at various Z-frames it becomes apparent that the first shot cannot have taken place any earlier than z222/z223.

Again, this is not my opinion.
Unlike your own various proclamations, that are completely unsupported and often appear to be figments of your imagination.
Here's a few of unsupported claims:

A better location for the first shot would be Z210 to Z214 based on Zapruder Frames.

This will be the third time I've asked you to support this claim.
Why will you not support your claims?

Because I think it was a little earlier because you can use the Zapruder film with the aid of a few pieces of information and the witness statements to clarify where it actually took place.

What in Zapruder makes you think this? What pieces of information? What witness statements?
Why won't you provide any support for your claims?

In Willis no 5 (Z202), JFK is about even with Jean Newman. In Z207 he is past Jean Newman and almost even with the secretaries.

What are you basing this on?
Is it just a case of 'that's what it looks like to you'?

Because you can visibly see that they are reacting to having been shot.

You previously made a statement that you could see JFK reacting to a shot in z223 - when JFK isn't even visible!!
How can you make such a statement?
What is it you're seeing that makes you think JFK is reacting as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign?

If you believe all five witnesses were wrong when they said JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot, that's up to you.
If you believe there is something wrong with the method I'm using above to locate the position of the first shot, let's hear it.
But try and support your arguments with something a little more solid than 'that's what it looks like to me'.