Trajectory of the first bullet

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

So you want Chat GPT to place a greater emphasis on taken-by-surprise-by-a-traumatic-event witnesses? Trained soldiers can't pinpoint by sound alone shot origin in an urbanscape (they need electronic devices). Rape victims swear a certain person did it, only for DNA to overturn the conviction. Dozens of kids will swear they were sexually-abused at the same daycare.

Certain critics have mined the witness accounts, and argued the limousine fully stopped and the head wound seen at Parkland Hospital was at the very rear of the President's head. Others have taken witness accounts of a shot from the front and aftermath footage showing a flood of witnesses towards the fence corner area to prove a shot came from there.

Jean Hill thought she saw a white dog in the limousine. A Parkland doctor thought Jackie wore a white dress. An early news report said a Secret Service agent had been killed in Dealey Plaza. Why have a Commission or similar panel for anything if a simple tabulation of witness accounts is always more accurate?

The witnesses for Oswald's shot-1 ricocheting off the overhead signal arm are....
The bits of lead in the jfk xray, in right top back of jfk galea (ie outside the skull).
The 2 halves of the brass jacket found in the limo.
The hole (photo, Dec 1963) found in the floor pan of the jfk limo, hole made by remnant slug.
Roberts heard JFK say... my god i am hit... when just past the overhead signals.
And lots more.

[Dan O'meara]

Was there any evidence?
A mark on the concrete perhaps?

Yes, there was a mark on the concrete.
And a police officer witnessed it.
But you know nothing about it.
Not a clue.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Yes, there was a mark on the concrete.
And a police officer witnessed it.
But you know nothing about it.
Not a clue.

I have a good BS meter. So, a few years ago when i was looking closely at things, i would have realized that the mark on the manhole was BS, & the police witness was BS.
The mark on the kerb near Tague had some merit. But it too might have been irrelevant, ie made by a car wheel.
But if the mark on the manhole fitted Oswald's 2 shots (it duznt), or if it fitted Hickey's shots (it duznt), then i would have spent more time on it. Life is short.

Anyhow, a mark has size & shape & direction & other things.
Fill me in, i am all ears.

[Andrew Mason]

So you want Chat GPT to place a greater emphasis on taken-by-surprise-by-a-traumatic-event witnesses? Trained soldiers can't pinpoint by sound alone shot origin in an urbanscape (they need electronic devices). Rape victims swear a certain person did it, only for DNA to overturn the conviction. Dozens of kids will swear they were sexually-abused at the same daycare.

What you are saying is that:

1. a witness is, generally, not accurate or reliable in pinpointing sound direction especially when there are reflecting surfaces around them.
2. a witness cannot reliably identify by facial recognition someone they do not know and have never seen before.
3. witnesses who are children, can be manipulated by investigators to say what the questioner wants them to say.

I would agree.  But I don't see that this has anything to do the evidence about the three shot sequence and what they struck.

Certain critics have mined the witness accounts, and argued the limousine fully stopped and the head wound seen at Parkland Hospital was at the very rear of the President's head. Others have taken witness accounts of a shot from the front and aftermath footage showing a flood of witnesses towards the fence corner area to prove a shot came from there.

Yet when the data is examined there are just as many, if not more, who said the opposite.  A witness' accuracy and reliability depends on how well positioned they were to observe and the presence of confusing factors.

With respect to the limo stopping, most just said the motorcade stopped and those who said the limo stopped were looking at it from up Elm St. from behind.  No one who was watching it from the side said it stopped and no one in the car said it stopped. The brake lights may have confused observers as well. 

With respect to the location of the head wound, a large number of doctors who saw JFK at Parkland correctly placed the location of the head wound.  With all the blood and displaced scalp tissue it is not surprising that some got the location wrong.

But with respect to the first shot striking JFK, there is not a single witness who said that JFK continued to smile and wave after the first shot.  20+ witnesses said he reacted to the first shot in ways that are consistent only with what is seen in the zfilm after z223.  Not a single witness gave evidence that is inconsistent with a first shot after z186.  Dozens gave evidence that conflicts with a first shot before z186.

With respect to the shot pattern, I agree that not every witness is going to be perfect in recalling the shot pattern.  But it is a simple observation that is not subject to factors that would confuse the spacing of the shots or ability to hear them.  As it was 78% agreed that the last two were closer together and some gave specific recollections that put the second shot noticeably closer to the third shot.  That is consistent with witnesses being about 80% accurate in recalling a fact that has moderate salience (a moderate no. of people who recalled that fact in their account of what they observed).  The probability that you will get this distribution if the pattern was anything other than 1.....2...3 is very low. The probability that the distribution is wrong AND the witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot were wrong is a whole lot lower.

Jean Hill thought she saw a white dog in the limousine. A Parkland doctor thought Jackie wore a white dress. An early news report said a Secret Service agent had been killed in Dealey Plaza. Why have a Commission or similar panel for anything if a simple tabulation of witness accounts is always more accurate?

This is why you look for multiple consistent witness accounts. Why a Commission? Because there is a lot more than just witness statements.  But on the issue of what the witness statements mean, ignoring large bodies of consistent evidence to support a theory that has no evidentiary support, the Commission should have ignored the unsupported theory.  Three of the members (Boggs, Russell and Cooper) did just that.

[Jerry Organ]

What you are saying is that:

1. a witness is, generally, not accurate or reliable in pinpointing sound direction especially when there are reflecting surfaces around them.
2. a witness cannot reliably identify by facial recognition someone they do not know and have never seen before.
3. witnesses who are children, can be manipulated by investigators to say what the questioner wants them to say.

I would agree.  But I don't see that this has anything to do the evidence about the three shot sequence and what they struck.
Yet when the data is examined there are just as many, if not more, who said the opposite.  A witness' accuracy and reliability depends on how well positioned they were to observe and the presence of confusing factors.

With respect to the limo stopping, most just said the motorcade stopped and those who said the limo stopped were looking at it from up Elm St. from behind.  No one who was watching it from the side said it stopped and no one in the car said it stopped. The brake lights may have confused observers as well. 

With respect to the location of the head wound, a large number of doctors who saw JFK at Parkland correctly placed the location of the head wound.  With all the blood and displaced scalp tissue it is not surprising that some got the location wrong.

But with respect to the first shot striking JFK, there is not a single witness who said that JFK continued to smile and wave after the first shot.  20+ witnesses said he reacted to the first shot in ways that are consistent only with what is seen in the zfilm after z223.  Not a single witness gave evidence that is inconsistent with a first shot after z186.  Dozens gave evidence that conflicts with a first shot before z186.

All these witness were "well positioned" to observe the President's right arm or facial expressions? The Connallys spoke of the first shot missing, that it caused the Governor to turn from his left to his right in the direction he perceived the shot. He tried to turn around but decided to turn back and was facing forward, relative to the car, when he was struck. This only happens between the Z160s and Z220s.

With respect to the shot pattern, I agree that not every witness is going to be perfect in recalling the shot pattern.  But it is a simple observation that is not subject to factors that would confuse the spacing of the shots or ability to hear them.  As it was 78% agreed that the last two were closer together and some gave specific recollections that put the second shot noticeably closer to the third shot.  That is consistent with witnesses being about 80% accurate in recalling a fact that has moderate salience (a moderate no. of people who recalled that fact in their account of what they observed).  The probability that you will get this distribution if the pattern was anything other than 1.....2...3 is very low. The probability that the distribution is wrong AND the witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot were wrong is a whole lot lower.
This is why you look for multiple consistent witness accounts.

I prefer Dave Reitzes' tabulation ( Link ).

    "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were
     timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly,
     and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together."

Looks like 52%, not 78%. Vincent Bugliosi suggested that witnesses would have no reason to engage in "shot-span" timing after the first shot (a good many though it was merely a backfire or harmless firecracker). No second loud noise was anticipated. It's more likely they would have a better placement of the "shot span" between shots two and three, when they're increasing alert that the loud reports are gunfire that's striking people. Any "shot spanning" by witnesses is a best-guess reconstruction. To believe only one group of witnesses got it right means that two other groups (the "evenly-spaced" and "1-and-2 closer") are wrong. Better not to rely on "shot-panning" at all. Yet it's a cornerstone of your Pet Theory.

The salience example you like to cite was for a study of witnesses who had to recall seeing something straight-forward and non-violent that they could process, about as far removed from the shock and half-expecting to be killed yourself of the near-to assassination witnesses.

Why a Commission? Because there is a lot more than just witness statements.  But on the issue of what the witness statements mean, ignoring large bodies of consistent evidence to support a theory that has no evidentiary support, the Commission should have ignored the unsupported theory.  Three of the members (Boggs, Russell and Cooper) did just that.

That doesn't mean they would agree with your Ash-Heap Pet Theory. But if they did, that would mean there once existed four people in the entire world who adopted your Theory.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

The WC didn't really have a clue about which bullet missed.
It is more likely it was the third shot that missed.
Whatever the case, be it first, second or third shot, it missed by a really wide margin.
It is felt by many that the missed shot struck a concrete manhole cover before ricocheting towards Tague.
The Allen pic below gives an idea how much the shot missed by. The red circle marks the area of the manhole cover the bullet is thought to have struck:

None of Oswald's 2 shots went anywhere near that manhole.
Hickey's 4 or 5 shots went north of the manhole by say 13 ft.
No shot hit near the manhole.

You know nothing about it.

You know nothing about it.

Was there any evidence?
A mark on the concrete perhaps?

Yes, there was a mark on the concrete.
And a police officer witnessed it.
But you know nothing about it.
Not a clue.

I have a good BS meter. So, a few years ago when i was looking closely at things, i would have realized that the mark on the manhole was BS, & the police witness was BS.
The mark on the kerb near Tague had some merit. But it too might have been irrelevant, ie made by a car wheel.
But if the mark on the manhole fitted Oswald's 2 shots (it duznt), or if it fitted Hickey's shots (it duznt), then i would have spent more time on it. Life is short.

Anyhow, a mark has size & shape & direction & other things.
Fill me in, i am all ears.

Dan O'meara wont answer my question, so i will answer it.
No one saw a bullet hit that manhole. They did see a bullet hit Elm St (tarmac & kerb).
No one saw a bullet hit the grass near that manhole. They did see a bullet hit the grass on south side of Elm St.
Foster found a fresh mark on the south west corner of that manhole, he called it a bullet mark.
The mark was a long deep graze, parallel to Elm St.
The mark aimed about 10 ft north of Tague, & about 50 ft south of the intersection of Houston & Elm (about 80 ft south of the middle of the intersection).
The mark was imo not from a bullet (too deep)(alignment made no sense).
Re alignment, this would be from the records building, & passes low down throo trees & concrete. Or, it comes from the peristyle itself, in Houston. Or, it comes from the TUP.
Michael Griffith writes............
..............Researchers have noted that the photo of the mark indicates it did NOT come from the TSBD. The mark can be seen on the twelfth photo page in the second set of photographs in Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden's book HIGH TREASON. One can readily see that the angle of the mark does not line up with the Book Depository, but that it does line up with the County Records Building. It might be worth recalling that a 30.06 rifle shell casing was later found on the roof of the County Records Building.

[Andrew Mason]

All these witness were "well positioned" to observe the President's right arm or facial expressions?

No. They observed different things. For example, Dave Power noticed JFK move left after the first shot.  Gayle Newman, who could see him from the front, said that he looked startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up.  That can only be what we see beginning at z225. The Chisms standing more beside the limo said that JFK moved to the left after the first shot. BJ Martin looking from the left side said that JFK leaned forward and from the left side of his face he appeared to have no facial expression.

The Connallys spoke of the first shot missing, that it caused the Governor to turn from his left to his right in the direction he perceived the shot. He tried to turn around but decided to turn back and was facing forward, relative to the car, when he was struck. This only happens between the Z160s and Z220s.

That is one witness and he is contradicted by Nellie who said he was turned around to the right when the second shot struck. The path through from JFK's neck to the right armpit and then to the wrist does not fit at that time either.  I am not sure why anyone would think that Connally is going to remember exactly how he was positioned when his mind is contemplating death. He remembers thinking of turning to the left before he was hit. JBC said he turned around trying to see JFK after the first shot. There is nowhere that occurs before z228.

I prefer Dave Reitzes' tabulation ( Link ).

    "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were
     timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly,
     and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together."

Looks like 52%, not 78%.

You have to read what they said.  His "equal spaced witnesses" include these, most of which do not mention relative spacing:

• Malcolm O. Couch said that "the shots or the noises were fairly close together, they were fairly even in sound . . ." (6H156)
• Charles Brehm said that ". . . all three shots were relatively close together." (FBI report, 11-24-63; 22H837, see also Trask)
• June Dishong: three shots (Mark Wrolstad, "Newly found journal captures shock, details of JFK assassination," Dallas Morning News, August 1, 1999.) Spaced evenly: "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. Jackey [sic] 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."
• Stavis Ellis, DPD, said there were "three shots in all! The sounds were all clear and loud and sounded about the same." (Sneed, p. 145)
• Ronald B. Fischer said, "As far as I can remember, the shots were evenly paced." (6H195) [note: Fischer thought there were four shots but changed his mind by the time he gave evidence to the WC. That gives an interesting slant to "as far as I can remember".]
• Emmett J. Hudson said the succession of shots "was pretty fast and not too fast either. It seemed like he had time enough to operate his gun plenty well -- when the shots were all fired. . . . They seemed pretty well evenly spaced." (7H564-65) "He said he was looking directly at President KENNEDY and saw his head slump to one side simultaneously with the loud report made by the first shot fired by the assassin. He said he then heard two more reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot. He volunteered the shots were fired 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle,' or words to that effect." (FBI report, November 26, 1963; Harold Weisberg, PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH [Frederick, Md.: Harold Weisberg, 1976], p. 156.)
  
• B. J. Martin: Earlier statements are not as specific with regard to the timing issue. Martin stated in his Warren Commission deposition that he "looked at the President after I heard the shot and he [President Kennedy] was leaning forward--I could see the left side of his face. At the time he had no expression on his face." He subsequently heard "Two more shots." (6H291) At the trial of Clay Shaw, Martin stated: ". . . I heard what I thought was a shot and then I heard, I looked back to my right and two more shots or what I thought to be two more shots I heard." (Shaw trial testimony, February 14, 1969)
• Eddie Piper (interpretation) initially stated, "I distinctly heard three shots in all." (Intelligence Report, by P. M. Parks. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill concerning statements by Eddie Piper, Texas School Book Depository employee, 02-17-64) While he did not specifically state the shots were even, he described during his Warren Commission undertaking actions during the time that elapsed between the first and second, and second and third shots
• Madie Belle Reese: "She stated that she heard three reports, distinct and separate . . ." (Intelligence Report, by O. J. Tarver. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill concerning an interview with Madie Bell Reese, Texas School Book Depository employee, 02-17-64.) -[Note: it may be noted that "distinct and separate does not mean equal spacing.]
• White House photographer Cecil Stoughton heard three very distinct, loud reports. (Richard B. Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN [Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 1994], p. 38.) [Note: no mention of relative spacing]
  
• etc.

Vincent Bugliosi suggested that witnesses would have no reason to engage in "shot-span" timing after the first shot (a good many though it was merely a backfire or harmless firecracker). No second loud noise was anticipated. It's more likely they would have a better placement of the "shot span" between shots two and three, when they're increasing alert that the loud reports are gunfire that's striking people. Any "shot spanning" by witnesses is a best-guess reconstruction. To believe only one group of witnesses got it right means that two other groups (the "evenly-spaced" and "1-and-2 closer") are wrong. Better not to rely on "shot-panning" at all. Yet it's a cornerstone of your Pet Theory.

Bugliosi was not giving evidence. It appears to have been very easy to recall that the last two were closer together because over 40 witnesses recalled exactly that.

The fact is that a large group of witnesses are rarely 100% in agreement *.    So we know that there are going to be witnesses who, in recalling the shot pattern will get it wrong.  They may be wrong because they remembered that there was a pattern but were distracted by something visual and all they remember is there was some kind of rhythm to the shots.  Or they may not have been asked to recall it until long after the event.  Some did not notice a pattern and would, therefore, say they were about evenly spaced.  But wrong answers would be in the minority and would be distributed over the incorrect possible answers.   And they are:

In fact, the low numbers of the 1.2....3 and evenly spaced witnesses being more or less similarly low compared to the 1......2..3 witnesses is perfectly consistent with the shot pattern being correctly recalled by about 80% of the  witnesses. Besides, the 1......2...3 witnesses necessarily imply that the first shot hit JFK (if the third and last shot was the head shot) which is exactly what the 20+ "first shot hit JFK" witnesses say happened.

*Accuracy depends on how long after the events when they gave their statements, whether they were distracted by something at the time, whether they volunteered the recollection without being asked as opposed to being asked about.  There is also independent corroboration of the 1......2...3 pattern by George Hickey and the events he describes being shown in the zfilm.  Also Wm. Greer and James Tague.  In addition, the 20+ "first shot hit" witnesses corroborate the 1.....2...3 pattern because we can see that JFK is reacting 5 seconds before the head shot.

The salience example you like to cite was for a study of witnesses who had to recall seeing something straight-forward and non-violent that they could process, about as far removed from the shock and half-expecting to be killed yourself of the near-to assassination witnesses.

Most witnesses did not react until after the third shot (head shot).  Until then, there is nothing to suggest that they were doing anything other than trying to figure out what was happening.  Look at the crowd in Altgen's photo taken at z255.

[Dan O'meara]

No. They observed different things. For example, Dave Power noticed JFK move left after the first shot.  Gayle Newman, who could see him from the front, said that he looked startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up.  That can only be what we see beginning at z225. The Chisms standing more beside the limo said that JFK moved to the left after the first shot. BJ Martin looking from the left side said that JFK leaned forward and from the left side of his face he appeared to have no facial expression.
That is one witness and he is contradicted by Nellie who said he was turned around to the right when the second shot struck. The path through from JFK's neck to the right armpit and then to the wrist does not fit at that time either.  I am not sure why anyone would think that Connally is going to remember exactly how he was positioned when his mind is contemplating death. He remembers thinking of turning to the left before he was hit. JBC said he turned around trying to see JFK after the first shot. There is nowhere that occurs before z228.
You have to read what they said.  His "equal spaced witnesses" include these, most of which do not mention relative spacing:

• Malcolm O. Couch said that "the shots or the noises were fairly close together, they were fairly even in sound . . ." (6H156)
• Charles Brehm said that ". . . all three shots were relatively close together." (FBI report, 11-24-63; 22H837, see also Trask)
• June Dishong: three shots (Mark Wrolstad, "Newly found journal captures shock, details of JFK assassination," Dallas Morning News, August 1, 1999.) Spaced evenly: "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. Jackey [sic] 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."
• Stavis Ellis, DPD, said there were "three shots in all! The sounds were all clear and loud and sounded about the same." (Sneed, p. 145)
• Ronald B. Fischer said, "As far as I can remember, the shots were evenly paced." (6H195) [note: Fischer thought there were four shots but changed his mind by the time he gave evidence to the WC. That gives an interesting slant to "as far as I can remember".]
• Emmett J. Hudson said the succession of shots "was pretty fast and not too fast either. It seemed like he had time enough to operate his gun plenty well -- when the shots were all fired. . . . They seemed pretty well evenly spaced." (7H564-65) "He said he was looking directly at President KENNEDY and saw his head slump to one side simultaneously with the loud report made by the first shot fired by the assassin. He said he then heard two more reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot. He volunteered the shots were fired 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle,' or words to that effect." (FBI report, November 26, 1963; Harold Weisberg, PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH [Frederick, Md.: Harold Weisberg, 1976], p. 156.)
  
• B. J. Martin: Earlier statements are not as specific with regard to the timing issue. Martin stated in his Warren Commission deposition that he "looked at the President after I heard the shot and he [President Kennedy] was leaning forward--I could see the left side of his face. At the time he had no expression on his face." He subsequently heard "Two more shots." (6H291) At the trial of Clay Shaw, Martin stated: ". . . I heard what I thought was a shot and then I heard, I looked back to my right and two more shots or what I thought to be two more shots I heard." (Shaw trial testimony, February 14, 1969)
• Eddie Piper (interpretation) initially stated, "I distinctly heard three shots in all." (Intelligence Report, by P. M. Parks. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill concerning statements by Eddie Piper, Texas School Book Depository employee, 02-17-64) While he did not specifically state the shots were even, he described during his Warren Commission undertaking actions during the time that elapsed between the first and second, and second and third shots
• Madie Belle Reese: "She stated that she heard three reports, distinct and separate . . ." (Intelligence Report, by O. J. Tarver. Report to Captain W. P. Gannaway through Lt. Jack Revill concerning an interview with Madie Bell Reese, Texas School Book Depository employee, 02-17-64.) -[Note: it may be noted that "distinct and separate does not mean equal spacing.]
• White House photographer Cecil Stoughton heard three very distinct, loud reports. (Richard B. Trask, PICTURES OF THE PAIN [Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 1994], p. 38.) [Note: no mention of relative spacing]
  
• etc.

Bugliosi was not giving evidence. It appears to have been very easy to recall that the last two were closer together because over 40 witnesses recalled exactly that.

The fact is that a large group of witnesses are rarely 100% in agreement *.    So we know that there are going to be witnesses who, in recalling the shot pattern will get it wrong.  They may be wrong because they remembered that there was a pattern but were distracted by something visual and all they remember is there was some kind of rhythm to the shots.  Or they may not have been asked to recall it until long after the event.  Some did not notice a pattern and would, therefore, say they were about evenly spaced.  But wrong answers would be in the minority and would be distributed over the incorrect possible answers.   And they are:

In fact, the low numbers of the 1.2....3 and evenly spaced witnesses being more or less similarly low compared to the 1......2..3 witnesses is perfectly consistent with the shot pattern being correctly recalled by about 80% of the  witnesses. Besides, the 1......2...3 witnesses necessarily imply that the first shot hit JFK (if the third and last shot was the head shot) which is exactly what the 20+ "first shot hit JFK" witnesses say happened.

*Accuracy depends on how long after the events when they gave their statements, whether they were distracted by something at the time, whether they volunteered the recollection without being asked as opposed to being asked about.  There is also independent corroboration of the 1......2...3 pattern by George Hickey and the events he describes being shown in the zfilm.  Also Wm. Greer and James Tague.  In addition, the 20+ "first shot hit" witnesses corroborate the 1.....2...3 pattern because we can see that JFK is reacting 5 seconds before the head shot.Most witnesses did not react until after the third shot (head shot).  Until then, there is nothing to suggest that they were doing anything other than trying to figure out what was happening.  Look at the crowd in Altgen's photo taken at z255.

Most witnesses did not react until after the third shot (head shot).

That the third shot was the head shot has not been proven.
It's just your opinion.
Obviously there is evidence that supports your opinion but there is also evidence that refutes it.
The abject failure of your theory to hold water, as documented in "The First Shot" thread, does nothing to bolster your claims of a third shot = head shot scenario.