Here’s a different independent take supporting an early first shot that missed. Bullet trajectory is not part of the analysis (but I would guess it disintegrated in the pavement as a near miss as there was nothing between the rifle and limo at the time).
Background: Recently there have been two common LN estimates debated for the first shot timing (in the three shot scenario). The more recent one by Holland/DeRonja and an older one by HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. Both are influenced heavily on testimony and especially on Win Lawson’s testimony for Holland/DeRonja and John Connally’s testimony for HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. In addition at times they both have been fueled by theorizing something deflected the bullet (a traffic mast or tree branches). Besides an obstruction, the choice in testimonies that have been chosen to focus on gives two clearly different answers. Is the testimony problem just too much natural variation in witness memories, or the interpretations that researchers try to assign to those memories/testimonies, or both, or some witnesses being misled or even worse lying? (I don’t believe in dishonesty and deceit though)
I wondered what the result would be if no testimony at all was used, but rather a technique using only reactions on film.
The referenced manuscript below did that, and formalizes the work done via a forensic technique based on the science of human reaction times that is applied to the evaluation of surprise gunshot sounds in silent films. It’s an analytical tool that doesn’t rely on any eyewitness testimony, and as such is a good candidate to independently estimate the JFK first shot timing on Elm Street using early reactions identified in the Zapruder film.
https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Estimating-Occult-Timing-of-Surprise-Gunshot-Sounds-in-Silent-Film-via-Observed-Start-of-Human-Voluntary-Reactions-of-Concern-Roselle.pdfApplied to the JFK case, the analysis technique indicated that the first shot was triggered half a second before z133. In a 3 shot scenario where shot 2 struck around z222 and shot 3 struck just before z313, this would give approximately three equally spaced shots with the duration of the three shot shooting sequence ~10.2 seconds.
How does this compare to those other two completely different based analysis? Well, although notably different, interestingly enough it positions the first shot happening at a very specific point in time which occurred in-between the timing estimates of Holland/DeRonja and that of HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi and a point in time where the limo was at least temporarily essentially in the clear.