Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Charles Collins]

You and I interpret Tague’s testimony differently wrt the first shot’s z-frame. This is a good example where not only can witness testimonies differ, but researchers can exacerbate the situation by interpreting any given testimony in a different way.

My effort to mitigate this: I understand that witness testimony can be quite variable. Witness variability was a problem I ran into early on when looking into the shooting timeline using ear witness testimony regarding how they all recalled hearing the first shot. To avoid this issue the PRT analysis was done without using any testimony, but rather based on human reactions, and the results came back saying a shot was triggered about z124. Someone I know challenged me by saying that even if witnesses have large variability in what was recalled, there still should be a subset of witness testimony that agreed with a first shot around z124.

The only way around this conundrum that I could think of was to put a tighter constraint on the witness testimony used, but not in a way that would bias any particular answer. This was done by using three shot witness testimonies that included both audible (hearing the first shot) and visual (positioned the presidential limo at the time of hearing that first shot with a fixed background landmark or photo view/camera reaction). This significantly reduces the sampling population but the thought was that testimonies “anchored” using 2 separate senses (sight and sound) would be more reliable with reduced variability.

So for that challenge, the technique tried consisted of (1) Using the “anchored” visual testimonies to estimate the limo’s position at the time of the first shot, and then augment that by (2) Using the power of averaging on those testimonies to help converge on a final estimate for the limo’s position on Elm at the time of a the first shot.

The results of this approach was very interesting. At the time of the first shot, the average limo location appeared to be around a z133 timing position (if using Phil Willis and his slide #5) or alternately slightly before a z133 timing position, right around z124, (if using Phil Willis and his #4 slide).
 
The approach was summarized at this link. I would recommend skipping over the background and just click on the link that appears at the bottom of that page to see how the results converged. This approach used only a stricter testimony pool without any reaction time science.

https://sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home

Well done Brian. Your “anchored first shot” presentation is excellent. Thanks!

[Royell Storing]

  So let me get this straight. People for 60+ years have gone on-and-on about there being some kinda "echo" effect there in Dealey Plaza with sound bouncing every which way, yet in the face of this, some of you wanna rely on 11/22/63 Ear Witness Accounts/Testimony to go ahead and justify an extremely early 1st shot. And that extremely early 1st shot would require the shooter to: (1) fire his rifle from a Standing Position, (2) Fire his rifle downward through a 1/2 Open Window, (3) the fired bullet then striking a traffic light support beam, (4) the fired bullet then caroming off, (5) the fired bullet then striking a street curb, and (6) resulting in an injury to some guy standing about a football field away? Do you hear yourselves? Do you have any idea as to how ridiculous all of this sounds?     

[Brian Roselle]

  So let me get this straight. People for 60+ years have gone on-and-on about there being some kinda "echo" effect there in Dealey Plaza with sound bouncing every which way, yet in the face of this, some of you wanna rely on 11/22/63 Ear Witness Accounts/Testimony to go ahead and justify an extremely early 1st shot. And that extremely early 1st shot would require the shooter to: (1) fire his rifle from a Standing Position, (2) Fire his rifle downward through a 1/2 Open Window, (3) the fired bullet then striking a traffic light support beam, (4) the fired bullet then caroming off, (5) the fired bullet then striking a street curb, and (6) resulting in an injury to some guy standing about a football field away? Do you hear yourselves? Do you have any idea as to how ridiculous all of this sounds?   

Royell, I understand your frustration, but part of it may be related to an incorrect interpretation of the scenario on your part (basically all the items 3 through 6). For example the shot scenario described at z124 would most likely not strike a traffic mast (the traffic mast was significantly behind the President at this point) but rather the bullet would most likely have struck the pavement near, and right below Connally just ahead of JFK. This is what a miss of the President while minimally missing the limo would look like.

Thus the bullet would not carom off anything and go down the street to hit the curb by Tague. It would break up on impact almost underneath the limo. (I personally believe that may be part of what we see Kellerman reacting to in addition to a muzzle blast, by briefly leaning over and looking behind/down to the right at Z148). Without bullet remnants we can't prove that scenario, but that's a simple way a bullet could miss the President and limo and not be found.

This implies that if the curb mark by Tague was related to the shooting, it would likely have been caused from the missing segment of the third/head shot bullet that apparently escaped the limo, on a trajectory in Tague's direction, but was never found. That was a good distance of flight, about 250 ft, but was less than a football field distance.

[Royell Storing]

  Based on All of the mayhem You and Max Holland are describing, like it or not, this mayhem would be the result of: (1) More than 3 shots, and (2) More than 1 shooter.

[Brian Roselle]

Well done Brian. Your “anchored first shot” presentation is excellent. Thanks!

Thanks!  It actually surprised me a bit when I plotted out all the lines of sight and even though they were from very different view angles from both sides of the street, they all converged very closely (except Willis #5)

[Andrew Mason]

You and I interpret Tague’s testimony differently wrt the first shot’s z-frame. This is a good example where not only can witness testimonies differ, but researchers can exacerbate the situation by interpreting any given testimony in a different way.

How do witnesses differ from Tague?

There is no evidence that Tague was struck on the first or third shots.  We only have Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot. 

As far as Tague's recollection of the time between the first and second shots, [Tague said "almost five seconds... maybe four seconds" between the first and second shots?].  That fits with what many other witnesses recalled:

• Robert Jackson: "3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together.  It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure." 
• Earl Cabell: "There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession"
• Lady-Bird Johnson: "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession"
• Luke Mooney: "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot".
• Bonnie Ray Williams: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember."
• Senator Ralph Yarborough: "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots"
• SA Winston Lawson: "There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two".
• Reporter Robert MacNeil: "And there was a bang and we said: “What was that?  Was that a shot? Was that a backfire?”  And there was time for us to exchange.  And then were two shots close together bang bang"

My effort to mitigate this: I understand that witness testimony can be quite variable.

Yes. Witness evidence can vary.  That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.

[Royell Storing]

How do witnesses differ from Tague?

There is no evidence that Tague was struck on the first or third shots.  We only have Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot. 

As far as Tague's recollection of the time between the first and second shots, [Tague said "almost five seconds... maybe four seconds" between the first and second shots?].  That fits with what many other witnesses recalled:

• Robert Jackson: "3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together.  It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure." 
• Earl Cabell: "There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession"
• Lady-Bird Johnson: "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession"
• Luke Mooney: "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot".
• Bonnie Ray Williams: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember."
• Senator Ralph Yarborough: "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots"
• SA Winston Lawson: "There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two".
• Reporter Robert MacNeil: "And there was a bang and we said: “What was that?  Was that a shot? Was that a backfire?”  And there was time for us to exchange.  And then were two shots close together bang bang"

Yes. Witness evidence can vary.  That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.

 Was MacNeil seated inside a bus when the shots were fired? The location and surroundings of an "ear" witness are important when considering their testimony regarding the shots being fired.

[Tom Mahon]

  So let me get this straight. People for 60+ years have gone on-and-on about there being some kinda "echo" effect there in Dealey Plaza with sound bouncing every which way, yet in the face of this, some of you wanna rely on 11/22/63 Ear Witness Accounts/Testimony to go ahead and justify an extremely early 1st shot. And that extremely early 1st shot would require the shooter to: (1) fire his rifle from a Standing Position, (2) Fire his rifle downward through a 1/2 Open Window, (3) the fired bullet then striking a traffic light support beam, (4) the fired bullet then caroming off, (5) the fired bullet then striking a street curb, and (6) resulting in an injury to some guy standing about a football field away? Do you hear yourselves? Do you have any idea as to how ridiculous all of this sounds?   

Roselle's and Scearce's 2020 study (have you read it?) did not involve analyzing "earwitness accounts" in the traditional meaning of the term, but analyzing the caught-on-film timing of the conscious (i.e., not "startle") head movements made by seven witnesses (including JFK, Jackie, JBC and Nellie) in reaction to the unexpected sounds and vibrations of the first, missing-everything, shot.

You keep harping on how unlikely is that an early shot hit the traffic signal's mast arm and continued down Elm Street to injure James Tague. Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize that that isn't at issue here because Roselle's and Scearce's shot was at "Z-124," not at Max Holland's "Z-107" and therefore couldn't have hit said mast arm.

It seems that you're so iconoclastic that you don't want to consider the possibility that Tague was nicked by a bullet fragment from the Z-313 fatal head shot, which Brian Roselle has proved to himself may indeed have happened, and which he has, btw, written about at another forum.