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

[Andrew Mason]

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.
...

JohnM

You have to look at all the evidence that bears on shot spacing, not just evidence specifically about shot spacing.  You have to look at evidence relating to where the car was the shots sounded; what witnesses say what occurred in response to the shots - particularly the first shot as well as the perceived relative shot spacing.  Then you must try to fit all the evidence of witnesses, photographs, film, physical evidence together to figure it out.

With respect to the evidence of witnesses as to shot spacing, you have to look at all their evidence too, not just what they said they recalled about the shot spacing. For instance, you cite Nellie Connally's evidence as to what she recalled about the spacing being 1..2.....3.  But she also gave other evidence that conflicts with this.   She said that she looked back at JFK after the first shot and never looked back after the second, which she said she saw hit JBC.  The latter statement is inconsistent with her shot spacing recollection because she looks back until about z270. That puts the second shot after z270 and that is evidence of a 1.......2.....3 shot pattern.   

It is not correct that the vast majority of witnesses reported that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous.  If you look at the two witnesses (Kellerman and Hickey) who suggested they were nearly simultaneous or instantaneous, even they recalled a distinct spacing between those shots.  Kellerman was able to discern 3 shots but described the last shots as a flurry. He said that there was 3 to 4 seconds of pause after the first shot and that the time between the first and last was 5 seconds.  So implicitly, he is acknowledging that there could have been 1 to 2 seconds between the last shots, of which he recalled two.  Kellerman admitted that the reason he described a "flurry" of shots was because he thought the wounds of Governor Connally indicated that he had been hit by several bullets (2 H 79).  SA George Hickey expressed it as "almost simultaneous" but he recalled very distinct shots.  He said that the first of those last two shots did not seem to hit JFK - only the hair on his right side flew up but the second definitely struck him in the head.

I have compiled the summary of all the witness evidence relating to the shot spacing.  The vast majority (47 out of 63 by my count) of those who commented on the shot pattern stated that the last two shots were closer together than the first two.  Many others reported hearing a shot and then two more without expressly stating the relative spacing.

By my count 6 witneses said that the first two were closer together.  Ken O'Donnell described two almost simultaneous shots and then a third but the others described distinct shots.   
By my count 10 witnesses described shots about equally spaced.

So the distribution is: 47:10:6.  To suggest that the 6 were right and 47 wrong, you would have to explain why people hearing a 1...2.....3 pattern are almost 8 times more likely to recall it as 1......2...3.

But that is not all the evidence that bears on shot spacing.  At least 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. Not a single witness said he smiled or continued to wave after the first shot.  This necessarily puts the first shot after z190.

Photographers (Hughes, Betzner) said that they they exposed their film before the first shot sounded. Both exposures ended after z186. This body of evidence is inconsistent with a first missed shot or any shot before at least several frames after z186.

Observations that the first shot struck JFK fits with other independent evidence:

SA Jack Ready said that he turned to the rear immediately when he heard the first shot. He was on the front right running board of the Secret Service car following the President.  To turn rearward, he had to let go of the front hand-hold with his right hand. He does not do this until z199 when he lets go and begins his rearward turn.

The witnesses in the motorcade gave consistent evidence as to their position along Elm or Houston streets at the time of the first shot that is completely inconsistent with a first shot before z190.  At z190, the VP car was still turning and the VP security car was just beginning the turn.  The car carrying Mayor Cabell and his wife was still on Houston just coming up to the intersection.

The witnesses along Elm street observed the position of the President relative to where they were standing at the time of the first shot. For example, Mary Woodward said that the first horrible ear-shattering noise occurred as the car passed by her.  She was standing just west of the lamp post on Elm and the President was opposite her around z190-195. Others, provided consistent recollections.  Their evidence is compiled here.

So, when you put all of the evidence together, the only shot pattern that fits the rest of the evidence, is the 1.....2...3 pattern, which is the one recalled by the vast majority of witnesses.  And this fits perfectly with the abundant evidence that there was a single shooter who fired 3 shots from the SN.

[Joe Elliott]

Looks like one more example of the witnesses being wrong.  In this case these are people specifically placed there to observe the sounds and note them. Under what circumstances are witnesses correct?

Obviously with your extensive knowledge of a carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds you know what the witnesses hear.

No. I don?t have extensive knowledge of Carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds. It is the CTers who argue that we can tell what happened from what the witnesses reported they heard, not I.



But I know, from basic physics, the loudness of a sound depends, heavily, on the observer?s distance from the source. The loudness diminishes rapidly with distance.



So, one cannot say:

** It?s impossible to mistake a rifle with a firecracker because a rifle is so much louder.

** It doesn?t matter a firecracker is just 20 yards away and a rifle is 90 yards away, or 9 miles away, or any amount of distance away, the rifle is always going to sound louder.

A 163 db rifle (and the Carcano was likely not as loud as this) that is 90 yards away won?t sound any louder than a loud firecracker of 150 db that is 20 yards away. And the same rifle 45 yards away won?t sound any louder than the same firecracker that is 10 yards away.


So, it is nonsense to state that a witness, who is probably not an ?expert? on what various types of rifles and various types of firecrackers sound like, can tell whether a loud sound is from a rifle or a firecracker just from how loud the sound is. That this determination would be ?unmistakable?.


This would only be true of an ?expert?, a person who made an extensive study of what various rifles and firecrackers sound like at various distances. And who somehow knew his distance from the sound source, who somehow knew he was 90 yards from the sound source and so the sound could not be from an ordinary firecracker.



I believe that there were rifle shots at z153, z222 and z312 not because that is what the witnesses are telling me. I believe that these are the probable shots based on the physical evidence, primarily the Zapruder film. The clear evidence of frame z313. The pretty clear movement of JFK and Connally, and the lapel, and a large camera jiggle for a shot at z222. And the persuasive evidence for a shot at z153 from another large camera jiggle, plus the movements of people in the z160?s.

[John Iacoletti]

No. I don?t have extensive knowledge of Carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds. It is the CTers who argue that we can tell what happened from what the witnesses reported they heard, not I.

No, it's you who argues that you can tell what happened by selectively interpreting jiggles and a little girl who stopped running.

[Joe Elliott]

No, it's you who argues that you can tell what happened by selectively interpreting jiggles and a little girl who stopped running.

A shot at z153 is based on:

** One of the three strongest camera jiggles before z318.

**** Not counting the camera jiggles which occurred while JFK disappeared behind the sign. Having the subject disappear behind an object in the foreground has been found to cause camera jiggles, just like loud noises can. This is not subjective.

** Connally turning to his right in the z160?s.

** JFK suddenly turning to his right, in the z160?s.

** Rosemary Willis starting to slowdown and stare in the direction of the TSBD in the z160s.

Oh, yes, and Connally saying he heard a gunshot and he turned to his right but could not see the rifle. And then was shot a few seconds later. This indicates a shot just before the z160?s.



Does this make use of an eyewitness? Yes. But it is an eyewitness supported by the Zapruder film. It does show him turning to his right just before he is clearly shot. And further supported by a camera jiggle that occurs about a quarter second before Connally starts his turn to the right.


Could this all be coincidences? Connally thought he heard a shot causing him to turn to the right, but he really didn?t hear anything? A totally fortuitous strong camera jiggle just before Connally starts his turn? JFK turning as well? A girl starts to slow down to stop and stares at the TSBD?

Yes. But I don?t believe in coincidences.

[Jack Nessan]

No, it's you who argues that you can tell what happened by selectively interpreting jiggles and a little girl who stopped running.

Exactly John, why let a little thing like reality, evidence, or corroboration of a single adult eyewitness standing along Elm street  get in the way of wanting there to be a shot at Z152. Just pretend there is a shot dismiss the lack of evidence and statements of everyone and go with it. Make it up as you go.

The guy (Zapruder) being studied for Jiggle Analysis said there was just two shots. The guy (DR Hartman) doing the study with Jiggle Analysis concluded there was just two shots but ignore that and all the eyewitness statements and claim they are all wrong because they must be deaf and believe there was a shot at a location where there wasn't one.

[Joe Elliott]

Exactly John, why let a little thing like reality, evidence, or corroboration of a single adult eyewitness standing along Elm street  get in the way of wanting there to be a shot at Z152. Just pretend there is a shot dismiss the lack of evidence and statements of everyone and go with it. Make it up as you go.

The guy (Zapruder) being studied for Jiggle Analysis said there was just two shots. The guy (DR Hartman) doing the study with Jiggle Analysis concluded there was just two shots but ignore that and all the eyewitness statements and claim they are all wrong because they must be deaf and believe there was a shot at a location where there wasn't one.

The eyewitnesses are unreliable. It should not even be up for debate. They are unreliable because they disagree with each other.

Many say there were only two shots. Many say there were three shots. Many say all the shots came from the front. Many say all the shots came from the back. Many say the shots were evenly spaced. Many say the first two shots were closer to each other. Many say the last two shots were closer to each other.

And a clear majority said the limousine stopped (the most popular view) or almost came to a stop (the second most popular view). Which differs from the Zapruder film, which clearly shows the limousine slowing from 13 mph to 8 mph. With no stop.

[Jerry Organ]

You have to look at all the evidence that bears on shot spacing, not just evidence specifically about shot spacing.  You have to look at evidence relating to where the car was the shots sounded; what witnesses say what occurred in response to the shots - particularly the first shot as well as the perceived relative shot spacing.  Then you must try to fit all the evidence of witnesses, photographs, film, physical evidence together to figure it out.

With respect to the evidence of witnesses as to shot spacing, you have to look at all their evidence too, not just what they said they recalled about the shot spacing. For instance, you cite Nellie Connally's evidence as to what she recalled about the spacing being 1..2.....3.  But she also gave other evidence that conflicts with this.   She said that she looked back at JFK after the first shot and never looked back after the second, which she said she saw hit JBC.  The latter statement is inconsistent with her shot spacing recollection because she looks back until about z270. That puts the second shot after z270 and that is evidence of a 1.......2.....3 shot pattern. 

I believe Nellie has her head turned enough in the Willis 05 slide to see Kennedy. She saw him raise up his hands so she must be looking towards him in the Z220s. We can't know for sure, but my reading of the film suggests she doesn't continuously keep her eyes on Kennedy until the Z270s.


^{Robert Harris}

When we see her clearly again, she's looking (assuming her eyes are looking straight ahead) at her husband, then turns her head back in the Z250s. She may have looked back at Kennedy again (and not recalled it later) or she could be looking towards the Secret Service agents to get them to do something. If the latter, she probably would have seen an incidental glimpse of Kennedy anyway. She turns forward in the Z270s, then does a rapid head turn back in the Z280s.



These back-and-forth head turns by Nellie between approx. Z255 and Z293 seem to me to be consistent with her seeking help from the agents.

Though she told the Commission: "I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband was shot."

She also said:

    "I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have
     been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting
     and me holding him.  So that I looked out, I mean as he
     was in my arms, I put my head down over his head so that
     his head and my head were right together, and all I could see,
     too, were the people flashing by.  I didn't look back any more."

She's saying she didn't look back after she pulled her husband towards her (beginning in the Z290s). She sort of says the decision to not look back came when she pulled her husband towards her in this exchange:

Nellie:     "... after the third shot she said, "They have killed
               my husband.  I have his brains in my hand," and she
               repeated that several times, and that was all the
               conversation.
 Spector:  From that point forward you say you had your eyes
               to the front so you did not have a chance----
Nellie:     Yes, because I had him, and I really didn't think
               about looking back anyway ..."

Nellie told the HSCA:

    "The only thing I could do was pull him down and by leaning
     over him, I hoped if anything else happened, they wouldn't
     hurt him anymore. I never looked back after John was hit.
     I heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "they have shot my husband."

One can isolate "I never looked back after John was hit" but the context is when she pulled her husband towards her. She told Larry King in 2002: "And I'm not looking back now because I'm tending to John."

[Zeon Wasinsky]

Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.

Heard 1st shot. Saw President "slump" Heard 2 more shots. Harold Norman, closest ear witness to the shooter.

demonstrates shot timing of 3 shots fired in less than 5 seconds. Harold Norman, closest ear witness to the shooter.

Guess Norman must be mistaken on BOTH his observation AND his  memory of the shot spacing, according to WC since if the 1st shot caused the "slumping" then the 1st shot was at Z223 and that would mean Normans other observation, of hearing 3 shots in less than 5 seconds is also correct, since Z223 to Z313 is 4.8 seconds. That would make it not probable that the MC rifle was used.

So the WC must reject most of Normans observation except for hearing 3 shots and hearing shells hit the floor.