Question about Dealey Plaza Witnesses.

[Paul J Cummings]

The bullet casings found with Tippit were a 38 automatic revolver which could eject while Oswalds was a 38 revolver which was not an automatic.

"But Oswald being found a half hour within a half mile (as I recall) of the murder scene. Oswald being found with the loaded murder weapon that matched shells found at the scene. Oswald being found with bullets in his pocket of the same type used to kill Officer Tippit. Oswald’s suspicious behavior just before entering the theater and within the theater. And Oswald pulling a gun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater. If I can explain away all this, I can explain away any evidence against anyone. All these things I find incredibly incriminating against Oswald."

[Charles Collins]

Question:

Can someone provide us with a list of witnesses, along with a link or something supporting this claim, who reported seeing JFK’s head moving forward as a result of the headshot during the first three days of the assassination?

Note, this cannot include a person who saw the Zapruder film.

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.

Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.

Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe.

Asking Joe what the purpose of his question is, is an "unreasonable relentless attack"?

Hilarious! What's wrong with you?

[Joe Elliott]

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.

Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.

I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.

And to clarify, naturally none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza noticed the 1/18 th of a second forward head movement of two inches between z312-z313. But the movement I was asking about was the backwards motion from z313-z318 of about ten inches (as I recall). It seems that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses noticed this at the time. So, it seems reasonable that Dan Rather would also not notice this from his one time viewing of the Zapruder film. Despite what others said, I don't think Dan Rather 'knew' ahead of time exactly what he was going to see in the film and, like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, was so shocked by the head explosion that he did not notice or remember the slow (maximum speed of just under 2 mph) motion of the head and torso backwards during z313-z318.

And on another note, some might claim that Dan Rather did see the brief forward motion of 312-312 of two inches. I don't think that would be possible from a one=time, real time, viewing of the Zapruder film. Certainly highly implausible. It was likely the subconscious of Dan Rather figuring out what he should have seen, not what he actually saw. A common sort of error that people make from a one time viewing of an event, whether in person or on film.

[Charles Collins]

I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.

And to clarify, naturally none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza noticed the 1/18 th of a second forward head movement of two inches between z312-z313. But the movement I was asking about was the backwards motion from z313-z318 of about ten inches (as I recall). It seems that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses noticed this at the time. So, it seems reasonable that Dan Rather would also not notice this from his one time viewing of the Zapruder film. Despite what others said, I don't think Dan Rather 'knew' ahead of time exactly what he was going to see in the film and, like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, was so shocked by the head explosion that he did not notice or remember the slow (maximum speed of just under 2 mph) motion of the head and torso backwards during z313-z318.

And on another note, some might claim that Dan Rather did see the brief forward motion of 312-312 of two inches. I don't think that would be possible from a one=time, real time, viewing of the Zapruder film. Certainly highly implausible. It was likely the subconscious of Dan Rather figuring out what he should have seen, not what he actually saw. A common sort of error that people make from a one time viewing of an event, whether in person or on film.

Okay, I think that I understand your question better now, thanks. And I tend to agree with your assessment. But I would appreciate it if you would refresh my memory regarding when, where, and the circumstances of the viewing that Dan Rather had that you are referring to. Thanks!

[Paul J Cummings]

Dan Rather watched the Zapruder film when it came out the night of the assassination. I believe he did so with FBI and Secret Service.

Okay, I think that I understand your question better now, thanks. And I tend to agree with your assessment. But I would appreciate it if you would refresh my memory regarding when, where, and the circumstances of the viewing that Dan Rather had that you are referring to. Thanks!

[Martin Weidmann]

I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.

And to clarify, naturally none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza noticed the 1/18 th of a second forward head movement of two inches between z312-z313. But the movement I was asking about was the backwards motion from z313-z318 of about ten inches (as I recall). It seems that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses noticed this at the time. So, it seems reasonable that Dan Rather would also not notice this from his one time viewing of the Zapruder film. Despite what others said, I don't think Dan Rather 'knew' ahead of time exactly what he was going to see in the film and, like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, was so shocked by the head explosion that he did not notice or remember the slow (maximum speed of just under 2 mph) motion of the head and torso backwards during z313-z318.

And on another note, some might claim that Dan Rather did see the brief forward motion of 312-312 of two inches. I don't think that would be possible from a one=time, real time, viewing of the Zapruder film. Certainly highly implausible. It was likely the subconscious of Dan Rather figuring out what he should have seen, not what he actually saw. A common sort of error that people make from a one time viewing of an event, whether in person or on film.

I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.

Very disappointing. First of all, my response was not designed to dodge the question at all. I merely asked you what the purpose of it was (I now know and it was exactly as I expected). You then asked me why I assumed 'bad intent' from a LNer and I answered with two examples. Now you complain that I brought up "unrelated posts from months ago" but how else, but with examples, was I going to answer that question?

This "us against them" thing LNs have is all over this thread. No need to pretend otherwise. It's beyond obvious to see.

[John Iacoletti]

how in the world can you come to any conclusion if you haven't looked into it very much?

Damn if that doesn’t describe most followers of the WC dogma.