POV: A sniper’s view of an early shot

[Brian Roselle]

No problem regarding my post Charles, I posted this in the evening so I may have had some mental fog when posting which made it a little unclear. Sometimes my mental fog is all day though  .

As I mentioned, the shooting of the first shot has interested me but I haven’t really looked at all the associated dynamics. I have thought that missing the limo was at least partly related to hitting a moving target. In this case the target center is the center of the Presidents head. I do think it’s probably not all that simple though, and variables that you are looking at would also contribute, like anxiety of starting to do what he planned, rushing to get off an extra early shot with JFK so close, the body position you describe and such as bumping against a pipe or wall or the positioning of the window etc. I suspect it could be a combination of variables and not only center of target angular velocity.

I’m curious on how far open the window was, do you have an approximate estimate on that?

Thanks

[Charles Collins]

No problem regarding my post Charles, I posted this in the evening so I may have had some mental fog when posting which made it a little unclear. Sometimes my mental fog is all day though  .

As I mentioned, the shooting of the first shot has interested me but I haven’t really looked at all the associated dynamics. I have thought that missing the limo was at least partly related to hitting a moving target. In this case the target center is the center of the Presidents head. I do think it’s probably not all that simple though, and variables that you are looking at would also contribute, like anxiety of starting to do what he planned, rushing to get off an extra early shot with JFK so close, the body position you describe and such as bumping against a pipe or wall or the positioning of the window etc. I suspect it could be a combination of variables and not only center of target angular velocity.

I’m curious on how far open the window was, do you have an approximate estimate on that?

Thanks

The following photo shows that the model has a window open slightly over 19”. I have also tried to show how a shot at about Z160 has potential interference from the window box. The blue tape just above the box represents the Z160 target. Although, when sitting up as straight as possible, my eye level has a line of sight to the target, the scope is mounted about 1-1/2” above the bore of the barrel. Therefore, the barrel hits the top edge of the box (as the rifle is lowered during the aiming process) before the Z160 target appears in the line of sight through the scope. I hope that makes sense to you. These are the types of things that can only be answered while sitting in the nest. The Z133 target is hidden well below the top edge of that box and requires a standing position in order to have a clear shot at it.



Edit: oops, here is the photo I meant to include:

[Brian Roselle]

There is a significant amount of evidence that suggests an early shot around the Z160 timeframe. I first read about it in Posner’s book “Case Closed.” If I remember correctly, a group of experts associated with the HSCA came up with this idea. And I believe that Bugliosi included it in his book “Reclaiming History.” What a lot of people might not realize is that there is definitely potential interference from the window box for a shot at ~Z160. So, to answer your question, yes I think it is possible.

I agree that the common consensus since the HSCA chimed in has been a z157-z160 timing. When I was looing at this awhile back, what I found agreed with what you stated, that the HSCA was basically the genesis of the z160 ish first shot timing estimate. What concerned me when looking into this was the basis they used to define their estimate.

The HSCA based their estimate for the first shot on the acoustic evidence, jiggle analysis, and Connally’s rapid head rotation right, which began at z162 (basically assuming a reflex startle reaction timing).
It’s hard to prove a negative, but some extended jiggle analysis suggests that the Zapruder z157-z158 film blur was not related to his involuntary jiggle, but rather a voluntary camera panning effect.

And neither Connally's rapid z162 left to right head rotation (nor his preceding rapid z150 right to left head rotation) were startle reactions.

What may be the most concerning is the HSCA also used the acoustic data to justify their z157- z160 timing as the acoustic data was used as an anchor justifying their jiggle analysis and Connally reactions conclusions.

The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data to jiggle analysis:
“The photographic evidence panel also noted some correlation between the acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gun fire at about z160.”

The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data as the logical reason for Connally’s recollections at that time:
“According to the more logical synchronization, the first shot would have occurred at approximately Zapruder frame 160. This would also be consistent with the testimony of Governor Connally, who stated that he heard the first shot and began to turn in response to it.” “His reactions, as shown in Zapruder frames 162-167, reflect the start of a rapid head movement from left to right.”

I don’t believe in the accuracy the acoustic data, so I think it’s another bad reason used to assign a first shot to z157-z160.

[Brian Roselle]

Thanks for the perspective, I think I see what you are saying. I will have to look out a window to get the effect, but this sounds like good insight.

Thanks again.

[Charles Collins]

Thanks for the perspective, I think I see what you are saying. I will have to look out a window to get the effect, but this sounds like good insight.

Thanks again.

I apologize for my failure to include the photo. You replied before I realized this, so please take a look at it in the earlier post. Thanks.

[Charles Collins]

I agree that the common consensus since the HSCA chimed in has been a z157-z160 timing. When I was looing at this awhile back, what I found agreed with what you stated, that the HSCA was basically the genesis of the z160 ish first shot timing estimate. What concerned me when looking into this was the basis they used to define their estimate.

The HSCA based their estimate for the first shot on the acoustic evidence, jiggle analysis, and Connally’s rapid head rotation right, which began at z162 (basically assuming a reflex startle reaction timing).
It’s hard to prove a negative, but some extended jiggle analysis suggests that the Zapruder z157-z158 film blur was not related to his involuntary jiggle, but rather a voluntary camera panning effect.

And neither Connally's rapid z162 left to right head rotation (nor his preceding rapid z150 right to left head rotation) were startle reactions.

What may be the most concerning is the HSCA also used the acoustic data to justify their z157- z160 timing as the acoustic data was used as an anchor justifying their jiggle analysis and Connally reactions conclusions.

The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data to jiggle analysis:
“The photographic evidence panel also noted some correlation between the acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gun fire at about z160.”

The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data as the logical reason for Connally’s recollections at that time:
“According to the more logical synchronization, the first shot would have occurred at approximately Zapruder frame 160. This would also be consistent with the testimony of Governor Connally, who stated that he heard the first shot and began to turn in response to it.” “His reactions, as shown in Zapruder frames 162-167, reflect the start of a rapid head movement from left to right.”

I don’t believe in the accuracy the acoustic data, so I think it’s another bad reason used to assign a first shot to z157-z160.

You have studied this much closer than I have. I agree the acoustical data should be tossed out. If I remember correctly, the acoustical data came at the 11th hour. Did the photographic panel also form their conclusion at the 11th hour?

[Brian Roselle]

You have studied this much closer than I have. I agree the acoustical data should be tossed out. If I remember correctly, the acoustical data came at the 11th hour. Did the photographic panel also form their conclusion at the 11th hour?

The HSCA quotes I used came from the HSCA Final Assassinations Report. I assume they sat down and discussed all the data they had for the final report, so it could be their hypothesis on Connally reactions and film blur results were gathered before the acoustic data was finalized. They way the wrote it up it sounded like they used the acoustic data to help justify the conclusions on the other data. If all they had was their opinions on Connally's reactions at z162 and film blur observations around z157, and no acoustic data, I assume their conclusions would still have been essentially the same.

And yes, that picture you added of your snipers window really helps. That looks good and helps me visualize what you are saying.

Thanks

[Charles Collins]

The HSCA quotes I used came from the HSCA Final Assassinations Report. I assume they sat down and discussed all the data they had for the final report, so it could be their hypothesis on Connally reactions and film blur results were gathered before the acoustic data was finalized. They way the wrote it up it sounded like they used the acoustic data to help justify the conclusions on the other data. If all they had was their opinions on Connally's reactions at z162 and film blur observations around z157, and no acoustic data, I assume their conclusions would still have been essentially the same.

And yes, that picture you added of your snipers window really helps. That looks good and helps me visualize what you are saying.

Thanks

If you do try looking out a typical window, please keep in mind that the windows in the TSBD were only about 11” above the finished floor. That’s significantly lower than what is typical in most of today’s buildings and houses.