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

[Bob Prudhomme]

Altgens was 25 yards from the muzzle? Using Don Roberdeau?s map, I find Altgens was at z255, just beyond where the limousine would reach at z313, 90 yards away. Not 25 yards.



Decibel levels go down by 6 every time the distance from the sound source is doubled.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/isprob2.html



The following list:

http://www.metrogun.com/db_list.html

shows:

firecracker:  150 db
rifle:  163 db


This list does not specify the distance from the rifle or the firecracker or what kind of firecracker or rifle they are talking about. But it does give us a rough measure.


This implies that a firecracker at 20 yards away would be as loud as a rifle at 90 yards away. It is quite possible that Altgens did not know whether he was hearing a rifle from 90 yards away or a firecracker that was closer.





As far as why didn?t Altgens hear a shot until z255, I would say that most witnesses did hear the first shot, at around z153. Did not recognize it as a shot. Dismissed it as a backfire or firecracker. And forgot about it. And continued to excitedly watch JFK and Jackie during the few seconds they would be close to them. They only remembered the shots that occurred after they realized something seems to be terribly wrong.

Are you aware that a rifle at 163 dB is more than ten times as loud as a firecracker at 150 dB?

[John Anderson]

Charles Brehm. He was a ranger on D-Day. Which means, I believe, he either went up the cliffs Pointe du Hoc. Or over the open beaches of Omaha Beach, as was depicted in the movie ?Saving Private Ryan?. Either way, a hell of a day.

But nobody seen in the Zapruder film is seen to react to shots being fired until z312, the headshot, except for the occupants of the limousine and the standing Secret Service agents in the follow up car.

People were just ignoring, and likely forgetting, the bangs they heard. They dismissed them as firecrackers or vehicle backfires. And continued applauding and concentrating on JFK and Jackie. It was a big deal to them and they were not in a mindset to get distracted.

Absolutely.

[Joe Elliott]

Are you aware that a rifle at 163 dB is more than ten times as loud as a firecracker at 150 dB?

Not if the rifle is about 90 yards away and the firecracker is about 20 yards away. At equal distances, a 163 db sound source is about 20 times as powerful as a 150 db sound source. But at about 90 and 20 yards away, respectively, they would sound equally loud.

From the loudness alone, Altgens could not tell if he was hearing a rifle from 90 yards away or a firecracker that was 20 yards away. So, it is reasonable, as Mr. Altgens testified, that he assumed the loud noise he heard, while preparing for an important photograph (that was his job), was probably a firecracker.

[John Iacoletti]

Willis's photo coincides with Zapruder 210.

Z202-3 actually.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Not if the rifle is about 90 yards away and the firecracker is about 20 yards away. At equal distances, a 163 db sound source is about 20 times as powerful as a 150 db sound source. But at about 90 and 20 yards away, respectively, they would sound equally loud.

From the loudness alone, Altgens could not tell if he was hearing a rifle from 90 yards away or a firecracker that was 20 yards away. So, it is reasonable, as Mr. Altgens testified, that he assumed the loud noise he heard, while preparing for an important photograph (that was his job), was probably a firecracker.

Many people on the sidewalk in front of the TSBD heard the shots as "firecrackers". By the time Altgens snapped his photo at z255, the onlookers had still not reacted to two rifle shots, despite the facts they were very close to the rifle AND the muzzle of the rifle was pointing toward them.

Are you aware how much louder a rifle is if you are ahead of the muzzle, as opposed to standing behind the shooter?

Why did the onlookers in front of the TSBD not display instantaneous startle reactions, as would be expected of people exposed to 163 dB? Why did many of them describe a deafening muzzle blast as a firecracker?

[Jack Nessan]

Kennedy's right hand is between his face and the Zapruder camera in Z185


But we can get a better sense of where his head is turned in Z180. He doesn't seem to be looking in Woodward's direction at all.







The Woodward group are just gently applauding in the Z160s until they go out-of-frame in the Z180s. One hand (Thornton's?) raises and waves. They don't seem to be shouting or jumping up and down.

Woodward claims the Kennedys looked around after the first shot. This could be when Jackie started her head turn in the Z170s. Kennedy turns his head to his right between Z153 and Z162, and in the Z170s, leans forward a little and turns further right. Don't see anywhere else in the pre-sign footage where the Kennedys turn their heads so much.

This doesn't work too well for your Woodward claim that the first shot she heard must have been after Z204, since that gets close to her second shot where she saw Kennedy slump. It may not have been the slump she referred to, but the first slump supposedly caused by a hit to be seen in the film occurs at Z226-228. If one accepts that as the slump Woodward referred to, then the first two shots Woodward heard (ca. Z204 and Z226) would have been about one second apart followed by the head shot nearly five seconds later.

Sounds like Burney's "first shot" is Woodward's "second shot".

I don't think we should be relying on these accounts too much; some witnesses either literally heard two shots or heard three (or more) and could only recall two. Others recall hearing more than two shots but felt comfortably with taking about two of them. Reasons for that might be that they associate a shot with something they were doing or saw something significant as they heard the shot. Still others, such as Woodward, heard three shots they were able to recall distinctively. A few heard more than three.

How about actually prove in some fashion there was an early missed shot instead of insinuating somehow Woodward did something wrong. To date the only proof offered of  an early missed shot is makig an unsupported claim that all the eyewitnesses are all wrong and a 10 year old child heard a shot not one other adult eyewitness in Dealey Plaza heard. It is obvious what is behind the need to dismiss the eyewitnesses because they do not support this theory at all. In fact their statements prove it never happened. The biggest clue to when the first shot occurred is the eyewitnesses state where it occurred.  It either happened past them, before them, or right in front of them but they all reference its location in relation to where they were standing.

Mary Woodward is just one of many eyewitnesses who stated JFK was wounded in the Z200+ area and Woodward places the shot at the same spot all the other eyewitnesses do. Woodward had a small interaction with JFK which is the whole purpose of the motorcade in the first place. JFK can be clearly seen looking to his right at Woodward and friends between Z180 and Z190+. An attempt to interpret her movements in relationship to his eye contact in the context of what is seen in the Zapruder film is impossible.

[Jack Nessan]

Altgens said:
I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot? the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle.


Altgens said his picture was taken almost simultaneously with the first shot. That alone make it sound like the two events were almost together, within a second of each other.

In addition, he clarifies this (with a mistake) by saying it was just a fraction ahead of his picture.

Question:

1.   What kind of units is Altgens talking about when he said ?fraction?. Units of weight? Units of Length? It?s units of time, correct?

2.   What unit of time would he be referring to? A fraction of a minute? A fraction of a fortnight? It has to be a fraction of a second, right?


People, particularly if they are a little nervous, making an official statement in front of others, often skip words. While Altgens didn?t say ?fraction of a second?, that has to be what he meant. The shot occurred with a fraction, almost simultaneously with his picture, just like the pictures taken by Betzner and Willis. But we know those pictures were all spread of several seconds, so one of them, perhaps all three, were wrong.

All three were right. That is correct, he pictures were spread over the very small time of several seconds and that is what their statements indicate, before the shot, at the time of the shot, and after the shot.

These eyewitnesses, including James Altgens, all state the same thing. The only issue being raised seems to be Altgen's choice of words in trying to describe how quick the whole assassination took place, not whether the shot took place before he took the picture.

Obviously the main issue with eyewitness statements is the fact they do not support the idea there was an early missed shot in any form. The theory there was an early missed shot is what is wrong not the witnesses. The time frame of the assassination was approximately five seconds and the cycle time of the carcano was 2.3 seconds and the mechanics of the assassination need to be explained with those parameters in mind.

[John Anderson]

There are indeed witnesses talking about an early shot as shown in this very thread. Regardless of what we each choose to believe it involves discounting some of the witnesses. They can't all be right.