The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?

[John Mytton]

After reading some posts by CTs, like this example "Not merely a "large number.".....  The vast majority of the witnesses reported that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous......  That's impossible with a bolt action rifle...." so I did a quick collation of a number of witnesses who said the shots were roughly about evenly spaced or the spaces between were longer than virtually instantaneous. Btw some witnesses guessed that the length of time was greater between shots 2 and 3 than 1 and 2 but a lot of these witnesses didn't specify a specific length so cannot be counted by either side.


Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they were pretty well even to me.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.

Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately 10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate on the time that passed from the first to the last shot?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Very short. It seemed to me that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third.

Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there have been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were relatively the same.

Mr. BELIN - The shots seemed to be how far apart?
Mr. FISCHER - That's hard to say. I've been thinking about that. And--uh--I'd guess--3 to 4 seconds.
Mr. BELIN - Was that between the first and the second or between the second and the third?
Mr. FISCHER - Between both. As far as I can remember, the shots were evenly paced.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.

Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4 seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They rang out pretty fast.

Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall whether or not the statement is accurate in that you told the police officials at that time that there was a time span of 8 seconds between the first and second shots and a time span of 3 seconds between the second and third shots?
Mr. ROWLAND - I think I did tell them that, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. I see. Did you tell them that you heard the bolt action of the rifle?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And that you heard the expended cartridges fall to the floor?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; I heard them making a sound.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

JERRY HAYNES from WFAATV who was there with JAY. @17:37
....we heard one shot then a second or two later we heard another shot and then another second or two later the third shot.

JAY WATSON from WFAATV who ran straight back to the studio gave this account @27:28
I can best explain it in my own words, we were a hundred yards....yada yada yada
Jerry Haynes and I were standing there and we heard one shot and immediately thereafter heard another shot and then a third little bit later.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."

Are YOU part of the coverup?

I don't know about that Bob, there appears to be a lot of witnesses who specifically didn't hear the last two shots one on top of the other? Why are your CT mates afraid of confronting any evidence that contradicts their fragile infrastructure?



JohnM

[Joe Elliott]

I don't know about that Bob, there appears to be a lot of witnesses who specifically didn't hear the last two shots one on top of the other? Why are your CT mates afraid of confronting any evidence that contradicts their fragile infrastructure?

JohnM

John

It is not surprising that a lot of witnesses didn?t hear the last two shots right on top of each other.

For those close to the line of fire, they will hear two sounds from one shot. A ?Crack?, the sound of the supersonic bullet itself, shortly followed by a ?Thump?, the sound from the muzzle blast. Being closer to the bullet (at it?s closest approach), the ?Crack? occurs before the ?Thump?.

The greater the distance from the shooter, the greater the time difference comes between the ?Crack? and the ?Thump?. For the last shot, at the longest range, 88 yards, the two sounds would be the most distinct.

Some witnesses may have been far enough away from the path of the bullet not to hear the ?Crack?. Or the ?Crack? and the ?Thump? were still close together for them to perceive it as two separate sounds. Or knew, from previous experience, that a ?Crack-Thump? means one shot, not two. And so did not report two shots coming right on top of each other.

Joe

[Dillon Rankine]

According to Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas, (1976, p. 29) that out of 65 witnesses reporting:

40 said the second and third shots were bunched (closer together)
13 said three shots were evenly spaced
7 said first two shots were bunched
5 said four shots with first two bunched, a pause, then final two bunched

Various studies have been conducted since and despite some differences in interpretation of qualitative witness data, these findings remain basically identical. Then again, witnesses can be mistaken and there?s just too many psychophysical variables in play to conceivably account for, so this data can be used with extreme caution.   

 

[Joe Elliott]

According to Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas, (1976, p. 29) that out of 65 witnesses reporting:

40 said the second and third shots were bunched (closer together)
13 said three shots were evenly spaced
7 said first two shots were bunched
5 said four shots with first two bunched, a pause, then final two bunched

Various studies have been conducted since and despite some differences in interpretation of qualitative witness data, these findings remain basically identical. Then again, witnesses can be mistaken and there?s just too many psychophysical variables in play to conceivably account for, so this data can be used with extreme caution.   

The bulk of the earwitnesses support the theory that the last two shots were closer together.

And the bulk of the eyewitnesses support the theory that the Presidential limousine stopped or almost stopped. Indeed, there is even stronger support from the witnesses for the limousine stopping then there is for the last two shots being bunched together.

And yet, we know from the Zapruder film that the limousine did not stop. It slowed from 13 mph to 8 mph. It always went faster than jogging speed. Just ask Clint Hill.



Had the Zapruder film recorded sound, we would likely know the bulk of the witnesses were wrong on the shot sequence as well.


What are the odds of 61.5 % or 79.4 % of the witnesses being wrong by sheer luck? Astronomical. Assuming witness errors are independent events. But if witness errors are systematic, it?s no wild fluke at all.

Which teaches us that treating this as a statistical problem or a problem in probability is a mistaken. Statistics and Probability can only be used for independent events.



What could cause systematic errors in the ?Limousine Speed? witnesses? Look at Don Roberdeau?s map of Dealey Plaza. A great number of the witnesses were close to the cars three or more cars behind the limousine. They had a good look at those cars but not the limousine at the time of the shots.

When the limousine slowed from 13 to 8 mph, each succeeding car had to slow more abruptly then the car in front of it (common in heavy traffic). So, the cars further back had to stop.

Rather than admit that they were not close enough to see history, it appears many witnesses guessed. The cars they could see easily had stopped. That means the limousine must have stopped as well.


What could cause systematic errors in the ?Shot Spacing? witnesses? The fact that a single shot can generate multiple noises, like ?Crack ? Thump?. Why would this be more common for the last shot? I don?t know. Maybe because that was the furthest shot and the sounds would be more noticeably separate. Maybe because it was only with the third fatal head shot that witnesses realized the President was shot and they remembered the details of that shot better than the others.

In any case, we should not trust witnesses. Not as individuals. Not as a group based on the idea ?Well, they couldn?t have all made the same mistake?.





Addendum:

Of the 59 ?Speed of Limousine? witnesses:


   52.9 % said the limousine stopped
    2.9 % said the limousine stopped or almost stopped
   23.5 % said the limousine almost stopped
   14.7 % said the limousine slowed
    5.9 % said the limousine maintained its speed


In other words:


   79.4 % said the limousine stopped or almost stopped




Of the 65 ?Shot Sequence? witnesses (Josiah Thompson):


   61.5 % said the second and third shots were bunched together
   20.0 % said the shots were evenly spaced
   10.8 % said the first and second shots were bunched together
    7.7 % said there were two pairs of bunched shots
 


If 79.4 % of the witnesses can be wrong about the speed of the limousine, why can?t 61.5% of the witnesses by wrong about the spacing of the shots?

[Pat Speer]

Not sure what the point of this thread is.
Most LNs claim the first two shots were closer together than the last two, while the majority of those interviewed who noted a pattern claimed the last two were closer together than the first two, and a great number of these witnesses claimed the last two were bang bang, right after each other. This is a huge problem for those claiming the first shot was heard at Z-160, the second at Z-224, and the third at Z-313.

There's just no getting around that. The fact that some witnesses recalled there being a 3 second or more gap between the last two shots does little to explain why so many more thought the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds. If the shots were evenly spaced, or spaced like most LNs claim, the vast majority of witnesses would think the first two shots were closer together, and that the final shot was delayed. But the reverse is true. The appropriate conclusion then is that the 160, 224, 313 scenario is at odds with the collective statements of the witnesses.

[Joe Elliott]

Not sure what the point of this thread is.
Most LNs claim the first two shots were closer together than the last two, while the majority of those interviewed who noted a pattern claimed the last two were closer together than the first two, and a great number of these witnesses claimed the last two were bang bang, right after each other. This is a huge problem for those claiming the first shot was heard at Z-160, the second at Z-224, and the third at Z-313.

There's just no getting around that. The fact that some witnesses recalled there being a 3 second or more gap between the last two shots does little to explain why so many more thought the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds. If the shots were evenly spaced, or spaced like most LNs claim, the vast majority of witnesses would think the first two shots were closer together, and that the final shot was delayed. But the reverse is true. The appropriate conclusion then is that the 160, 224, 313 scenario is at odds with the collective statements of the witnesses.

Questions:

Why isn?t the great bulk of the witnesses saying the limousine stopped or almost stopped a major problem for the notion that we can rely on the witnesses if bulk of the witnesses support a certain observation?

If the great bulk of the witnesses are wrong about the speed of the limousine, why couldn?t they be wrong about the spacing of the shots?



And I question that notion that ?Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds?. Playing NFL football is pretty stressful. Rookies commonly find the game too fast for them. If they can stay in the league for a while, they may be able to calm down and find that the game is no longer too fast for them.

[Gary Craig]

Kellerman said the first shot sounded different then the rest, followed by a flurry of shots.

--------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. As you are positioning yourself in the witness chair, your right hand is up with the finger at the ear level as if clutching from the right of the head; would that be an accurate description of the position you pictured there?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat.

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the time, in seconds, from the first noise sounding like a firecracker until the second noise which you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. This was instantaneous

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe the sound of the flurry of shots by way of distinction with the way you have described the sound of the first shot?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, having heard all types of guns fired, most of them, rather, if I recall correctly these were two sharp reports, sir. Again, I am going to refer to it as like a plane going through a sound barrier; bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you are referring to the flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Mr. SPECTER. Did it sound differently from the first noise you have described as being a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; definitely; very much so.

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN.President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.
Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--
Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.
Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?