Perception of Reality

[Charles Collins]

One problem is that Adams said that the shot occurred while the tree obscured her view.  Even using your frame numbers, that is well after z133.  You seem to ignore the large number of people who have every reason to be as reliable as Veronica Adams, who put the first shot after z186.  You are also ignoring the 1.....2..3 shot sequence.

From chapter 10 of “The Girl on the Stairs”, this is what a Jim Leavelle report dated 2/17/64 says Adams told him on that date:

When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot.

The fourth floor Dorman window appears to me to already have become at least partially obstructed at the beginning of the clips that James Hackerott provided. He indicates that those clips begin very close to z133.

So I have to disagree with both of your points. It wasn’t well after z133. The other accounts that you repeatedly cite lack the precision that the stationary tree combined with her confirmation (that the turn and subsequent first shot occurred prior to the obstruction by the tree) gives her account. She appears to me to be a credible witness. And the photographic record tends to support her accounts. Why should your favorite accounts be taken as more credible than Adams’ account?

[Andrew Mason]

From chapter 10 of “The Girl on the Stairs”, this is what a Jim Leavelle report dated 2/17/64 says Adams told him on that date:

When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot.

That is one of her alleged statements and we don't know if Jim Leavelle wrote down verbatim what she said or recorded it. It is apparent that Victoria Adams did not review the statement.  You are placing a lot of weight on Leavelle's recollection, uncorroborated, that she actually said "that is when" in relation to JFK turning. 

Dorothy Garner, who was standing at the same window with Adams said:

"I recall that moments following the passing of the Presidential car I heard three loud reports which I first thought to be fireworks but only seconds later realized something had happened on the street below although as the time of the shots, the Presidential car was out of view behind a tree."

In Adams' WC testimony she said her view of JFK was obstructed when the shots were fired:

"Miss ADAMS. And from our vantage point we were able to see what the
President’s wife was wearing, the roses in the car, and things that would attract
women’s attention. Then we heard-then we were obstructed from the
view.
Mr. BELIN. By what?
Miss ADAMS. A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a
second shot, and then a third shot."

By the way, if you accept Victoria Adams' statement to Leavelle, why do you not accept her statement about the shot pattern:  "we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot?"

Why should your favorite accounts be taken as more credible than Adams’ account?

It is not about taking "favorite accounts".  It is about examining all the evidence and fitting it together.  The early missed shot/second shot SBT does not fit large bodies of consistent, independent evidence. One has to ask: how is it that so many witnesses independently recalled that the same consistent things?

[Charles Collins]

That is one of her alleged statements and we don't know if Jim Leavelle wrote down verbatim what she said or recorded it. It is apparent that Victoria Adams did not review the statement.  You are placing a lot of weight on Leavelle's recollection, uncorroborated, that she actually said "that is when" in relation to JFK turning. 

Dorothy Garner, who was standing at the same window with Adams said:

"I recall that moments following the passing of the Presidential car I heard three loud reports which I first thought to be fireworks but only seconds later realized something had happened on the street below although as the time of the shots, the Presidential car was out of view behind a tree."

In Adams' WC testimony she said her view of JFK was obstructed when the shots were fired:

"Miss ADAMS. And from our vantage point we were able to see what the
President’s wife was wearing, the roses in the car, and things that would attract
women’s attention. Then we heard-then we were obstructed from the
view.
Mr. BELIN. By what?
Miss ADAMS. A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a
second shot, and then a third shot."

By the way, if you accept Victoria Adams' statement to Leavelle, why do you not accept her statement about the shot pattern:  "we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot?"It is not about taking "favorite accounts".  It is about examining all the evidence and fitting it together.  The early missed shot/second shot SBT does not fit large bodies of consistent, independent evidence. One has to ask: how is it that so many witnesses independently recalled that the same consistent things?

Then we heard-then we were obstructed from the
view.
Mr. BELIN. By what?
Miss ADAMS. A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a
second shot, and then a third shot."

If taken verbatim, she says that “we heard-then we were obstructed…

[Andrew Mason]

Then we heard-then we were obstructed from the
view.
Mr. BELIN. By what?
Miss ADAMS. A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a
second shot, and then a third shot."

If taken verbatim, she says that “we heard-then we were obstructed…

Of course, that interpretation conflicts with Dorothy Garner, who said that the tree obstructed their view of the President at the time of the shots.

You conveniently ignore Adams' recollection of the 1.......2....3 shot pattern, which puts the second shot after the midpoint between the first and last shots.  Even if you put the first shot as early as z133, then the second shot would be a perceptible time after z223 if the last shot was at z313.  That means the President was hit by the first shot, just as at least 22 witnesses recalled.

[Charles Collins]

Of course, that interpretation conflicts with Dorothy Garner, who said that the tree obstructed their view of the President at the time of the shots.

You conveniently ignore Adams' recollection of the 1.......2....3 shot pattern, which puts the second shot after the midpoint between the first and last shots.  Even if you put the first shot as early as z133, then the second shot would be a perceptible time after z223 if the last shot was at z313.  That means the President was hit by the first shot, just as at least 22 witnesses recalled.

No matter what kind of spin anyone wants to apply to Adams’ accounts, she clearly associates the time of the turn of JFK (before he went behind the tree) and the time of the tree becoming obstructive to her view of JFK with the timing of the first shot. When Adams’ account is combined with (and supported by) the other items that the photographic records very clearly show occurred during that time period (Hughes film very brief 6-frames stoppage, Towner’s account of the first shot timing, Dorman’s film stoppage, Willis’ blurred photo, traffic cop in Hughes’ film suddenly turning away from his intersection to look intently and walk towards the limo, and the shortly thereafter actions of the limo occupants (stopping the waving and smiling to quickly and almost simultaneously jerk their heads to look from side to side). It is abundantly clear to me that the first shot occurred in the neighborhood of z133.

Belin: Where was their car as you got this good view, had it come directly opposite your window? Had it come to that point on Elm, or not, if you can remember?
Miss Adams: I believe it was prior, just a second or so prior to that.
Belin: All right.
Miss Adams: And from our vantage point we were able to see what the President’s wife was wearing, the roses in the car, and things that would attract women’s attention. Then we heard—then we were obstructed from the view.
Belin: By what?
Miss Adams: A tree, and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.


Adams’ account, as it was apparently told to Leavelle, confirms what she told Belin.

When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot. I thought it was a firecracker. Then the second shot I saw the Secret Service man run to the back of the President’s car. After the third shot I went out the back door.

Adams really doesn’t explicitly say in her testimony to Belin that there was a lengthier pause between the first and second shots than between the second and third shots. I can see how one might assume that, but she doesn’t really come out and definitively say it. Your spin is an example of how accounts are interpreted to fit one’s already formed opinions (confirmation bias). The photographic record is less ambiguous and requires less interpretation.

[Andrew Mason]

No matter what kind of spin anyone wants to apply to Adams’ accounts, she clearly associates the time of the turn of JFK (before he went behind the tree) and the time of the tree becoming obstructive to her view of JFK with the timing of the first shot.

It is not putting "spin" on it to say that she associates the time of the first shot with a time when her view of JFK was obstructed by the tree. That is what she said in her first statement (FBI - 24Nov63): "She had not been able to fully observe the President at the exact moment he was shot, inasmuch as her view was partially obstructed".
and this also fits with her WC statement and with the account provided by the person standing beside her, Dorothy Garner. 

When Adams’ account is combined with (and supported by) the other items that the photographic records very clearly show occurred during that time period (Hughes film very brief 6-frames stoppage, Towner’s account of the first shot timing, Dorman’s film stoppage, Willis’ blurred photo, traffic cop in Hughes’ film suddenly turning away from his intersection to look intently and walk towards the limo, and the shortly thereafter actions of the limo occupants (stopping the waving and smiling to quickly and almost simultaneously jerk their heads to look from side to side). It is abundantly clear to me that the first shot occurred in the neighborhood of z133.

Let's be clear: your interpretation that Adams' account supports a z133 shot is supported by your interpretation of Towner's account, your interpretation of why Hughes allegedly stopped his film for 6 frames, and your interpretation of why Dorman's film may have stopped and by you completely ignoring contrary evidence (that Towner stated that the first shot occurred 4-6 seconds after she stopped filming and as she was preparing to leave; that Hughes said he stopped filming - which occurs at about Zapruder frame 182 - BEFORE the first shot; that Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot).

Adams really doesn’t explicitly say in her testimony to Belin that there was a lengthier pause between the first and second shots than between the second and third shots. I can see how one might assume that, but she doesn’t really come out and definitively say it. Your spin is an example of how accounts are interpreted to fit one’s already formed opinions (confirmation bias). The photographic record is less ambiguous and requires less interpretation.

You are right.  Although Adams mentions a pause between shots 1 and 2 but does not mention a pause between 2 and 3, she does not explicitly say that there was no similar pause between 2 and 3.  She could have just mentioned a pause between one and two because she remembered a pause there but did not remember a pause between 2 and 3. 

One has to look at all the evidence and there is no question that dozens of witnesses explicitly recalled that pattern and that the last two shots were in rapid succession.  Adams' description fits that pattern. It does not fit the other patterns but I would agree, in itself it does not clearly exclude them.

[Charles Collins]

It is not putting "spin" on it to say that she associates the time of the first shot with a time when her view of JFK was obstructed by the tree. That is what she said in her first statement (FBI - 24Nov63): "She had not been able to fully observe the President at the exact moment he was shot, inasmuch as her view was partially obstructed".
and this also fits with her WC statement and with the account provided by the person standing beside her, Dorothy Garner. 
Let's be clear: your interpretation that Adams' account supports a z133 shot is supported by your interpretation of Towner's account, your interpretation of why Hughes allegedly stopped his film for 6 frames, and your interpretation of why Dorman's film may have stopped and by you completely ignoring contrary evidence (that Towner stated that the first shot occurred 4-6 seconds after she stopped filming and as she was preparing to leave; that Hughes said he stopped filming - which occurs at about Zapruder frame 182 - BEFORE the first shot; that Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot).
You are right.  Although Adams mentions a pause between shots 1 and 2 but does not mention a pause between 2 and 3, she does not explicitly say that there was no similar pause between 2 and 3.  She could have just mentioned a pause between one and two because she remembered a pause there but did not remember a pause between 2 and 3. 

One has to look at all the evidence and there is no question that dozens of witnesses explicitly recalled that pattern and that the last two shots were in rapid succession.  Adams' description fits that pattern. It does not fit the other patterns but I would agree, in itself it does not clearly exclude them.

You can interpret whatever accounts you want to interpret any freaking way you want to interpret them. And there will be some conflicting accounts that some freaking body will argue with you about. In some cases there are inconsistencies by the same freaking witnesses. You can argue about them until the end of time. And all the “he said/she said arguments will get you no closer to the truth. I will stand by what I have said that the photographic record clearly shows.

[Andrew Mason]

You can interpret whatever accounts you want to interpret any freaking way you want to interpret them.

Not if you are trying to determine what really happened.  If you are just trying to confirm a predetermined conclusion, that's fine.  But if you are trying to find what happened, you have to look at all the evidence and fit it together.  You ignore vast bodies of consistent, independent evidence.  No interpretation - just their words taken as they are given.  When 80% of the witnesses who gave evidence as to the shot pattern and said the last two were close together, closer than 1 and 2, and when another several dozen describe the shots as 1+ 2 more or 1 + a pause + 2 more you AND another 2 dozen say that JFK reacted to the first shot AND at least 18 others say that the first shot was after z186, that evidence cannot be ignored if you want to discover what really occurred.  You are ignoring that evidence.

And there will be some conflicting accounts that some freaking body will argue with you about. In some cases there are inconsistencies by the same freaking witnesses. You can argue about them until the end of time. And all the “he said/she said arguments will get you no closer to the truth. I will stand by what I have said that the photographic record clearly shows.

Again, you are not standing by what the photographic record clearly shows. You are going by the evidence of one witness and interpreting the photographic record in a way that suits your conclusion.  Your confirmation bias is creating your perception of reality!