The Magic Bullet

[John Iacoletti]

However, the zfilm can be useful in identifying when the shots occurred if one uses other evidence to bracket the shot times. Then you can use the zfilm to narrow down the frame range for the shots.

I appreciate that you are trying to reconcile all the eyewitness testimonies, I really do.  But you must realize that witness memories are hugely unreliable.  You and Jerry both are putting way too much stock in them.

[Andrew Mason]

I appreciate that you are trying to reconcile all the eyewitness testimonies, I really do.  But you must realize that witness memories are hugely unreliable.  You and Jerry both are putting way too much stock in them.

Perhaps you can give us an example, then, of a group of witnesses having similar recollection of a fact that was proven to be wrong. Give us an example even remotely similar to the 20+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as he is seen reacting when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm (ie. not by smiling and waving). 

While a witness can make a wrong observation or lie, absent collusion or some common factor that induces the same mistake, the mistakes or lies will be random and will not agree.  If it is a fact that is difficult for a human to observe correctly then witnesses will disagree with each other.  This was the case, for example, with witnesses trying to identify the location of source of the shots.

[Gary Craig]

[Andrew Mason]

Re: Betzner, Croft, Willis, Hughes....

Thank-you for reinforcing my point that in order to reconcile the early first missed shot fantasy you have to show that their evidence cannot be taken at face value.  You make the point very well that one needs to provide detailed subjective interpretations of why they must have erred (rather than evidence) to show how their simple observations could all have been wrong in the same way.

That's quite a reaction. 1/4-to-1/2 second to decline to turn around and forget about how the President was.

I would suggest some people use the term "immediately" in different ways. Ready said the first shot occurred as:

    "we began the approach to the Thornton Freeway"
    "The shooting occurred as we were approaching the
     Thornton Freeway [sign]"


Which photo better represents Ready "approaching" the Thornton sign? I would think that the Z150s/Z160s would even more so represent to Ready the beginning of the approach to the Thornton sign.

Jerry, he said he turned around to look behind him "immediately" after the first shot.  Do you really think 3 seconds (z151-z199) before even beginning the turn could be considered "immediately" by anyone? 

The issue is not what photo better represents Ready "approaching" the Thornton sign.  He was approaching the Thornton Freeway sign up to the time he passed it, which would have been about z225 as he was about 25-30 feet behind JFK and JFK passed it about z200. There is no way to tell from just that statement how far in front of it he was. But he was definitely in front of it and moving toward it at z195.

Not a danger? Even more reason ....
Altgens....

Again, thanks for demonstrating that one cannot take Ready's or Altgens' evidence as they gave it if you want to stick to your early missed first shot fantasy (with two shots well before the midpoint between first and last).

Except how can Woodward see Jackie's face and her reaction, if the President is blocking the view by then? Also Jackie is not waving.

There you go again trying to second guess a witness' observation and say the witness did not observe what they said they observed.  Woodward said:
 

(Dallas Morning News, Nov 24, 1963): The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us, it seemed. ....

As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces he noticed in the crowd.

After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.

(24 H 520): She stated she was watching President and Mrs. KENNEDY closely and all of her group cheered loudly as they went by. Just as President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them.

The fact is that one can only see Jackie's head in the zfilm so we cannot say that she did not wave.  Woodward said she waved. You were not there. She was.

And when does she see the Kennedys look around as if bewildered after the first shot if it's not when Mrs. Kennedy turns her head in the Z170s? Woodward probably could see some of Jackie's pillbox hat. The President turns his head rightward in the late-Z150s-to-early Z160s. That's about the only time we know for sure the Kennedys looked around before they disappeared behind the sign.

Again, you are changing evidence.  First of all, Woodward said the first shot occurred AFTER the President acknowledged their cheers.

"After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. "

Second, if that turn of JFK from looking to his left at z154 to looking forward and slightly right at z161 as the turn acknowledging Mary Woodward, then you have to conclude that she was wrong that JFK waved and she was wrong that Jackie even turned toward them let alone smiled and waved and acknowledged them. The JFK wave does not begin until z173 and Jackie does not being to turn until z172. Their actions post-z172 are the only actions that fit what Woodward described.

As far as the President and Jackie looking around after the first shot, it appears that even she was not sure about events post-first-shot:

"Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit by the first bullet.  The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they too didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun."

Really. Eyewitness assessment by consensus. The Parkland witnesses mostly described a head wound further back than the Zapruder film and autopsy photos show. Many witnesses (ask Palamara) said the limousine stopped after the fatal shot.

There was blood everywhere on JFK's head and Jackie had tried to put his skull back together.  I am not sure that anyone other than those who closely treated JFK's head wound could give an accurate observation of its location.  On the other hand, the witnesses who could see what JFK did in response to the first shot or hear the relative shot spacings, were able to make those observations without difficulty.  As far as "consensus" is concerned, it depends on how you define consensus.  It is not a simple majority. Significant proportions of witnesses giving conflicting accounts indicates confusion or inability to observe accurately.  But if there are statistically significant numbers of witnesses who agree on a simple fact observations and only a smattering who disagree, one cannot ignore that evidence.

Here we have 20+ witnesses who observed JFK react to the first shot as if hit by it and 40+ witnesses who observed a shot pattern that necessarily MEANS he was hit by the first shot, and 20 or so witnesses who put the first shot at a time/location that means there could not have been a missed first shot before JFK began reacting, then we can draw a reliable conclusion that JFK was hit by the first shot.

I suppose you're now going to suggest that I'm claiming most of the shot-spacing witnesses had a mass hallucination?

No. You are going to change their evidence so that none of them actually heard the 1.......2...3 shot spacing that they said they heard.

[John Iacoletti]

Thank-you for reinforcing my point that in order to reconcile the early first missed shot fantasy you have to show that their evidence cannot be taken at face value.  You make the point very well that one needs to provide detailed subjective interpretations of why they must have erred (rather than evidence) to show how their simple observations could all have been wrong in the same way.

That's the fatal flaw in most LN arguments.  When there is contradictory evidence, it's always reconciled as "the evidence that I don't like must have been the product of a mistake or error".

[Andrew Mason]

That's the fatal flaw in most LN arguments.  When there is contradictory evidence, it's always reconciled as "the evidence that I don't like must have been the product of a mistake or error".

I will grant you that it is the fatal flaw in most SBT arguments.  The evidence that Oswald assassinated JFK really has no contradictory evidence, just a lot of arguments that the evidence that exists could be wrong.

For example, Buell Frazier said that Oswald took a paper wrapped package to work on Nov 22/63 that Oswald told him contained curtain rods. 

CTers make a big issue about the statements of Frazier regarding the length of the package, its exact colour, and how Oswald carried it, even though by his own admission, Frazier said that he did not pay much attention to it or how Oswald carried it.  CTers seize on this evidence as if it were ironclad proof that Oswald could not have taken the gun to work.

But the critical part of Frazier's evidence is that it puts Oswald carrying a paper wrapped longish package and that Oswald lied about its contents. Frazier expressed no uncertainty about what Oswald said or that he carried a package that was consistent with what he said it contained.  The disassembled rifle fit entirely into the package recovered in the SN (CE364) and it had Oswald's palmprint on it as well as fibres matching the blanket found the the Paine's garage that Marina said was used to wrap the rifle. No paper package other than CE364 was found. No curtain rods were found.  Oswald did not carry curtain rods or a paper package out of the TSBD. Yet all of this evidence is dismissed by CTers as unreliable.

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence that Oswald assassinated JFK really has no contradictory evidence

Or really any supporting evidence for that matter...

For example, Buell Frazier said that Oswald took a paper wrapped package to work on Nov 22/63 that Oswald told him contained curtain rods. 

CTers make a big issue about the statements of Frazier regarding the length of the package, its exact colour, and how Oswald carried it, even though by his own admission, Frazier said that he did not pay much attention to it or how Oswald carried it.  CTers seize on this evidence as if it were ironclad proof that Oswald could not have taken the gun to work.

LNers assume that this bag was used to carry a rifle, even though there is no evidence to support that whatsoever.

But the critical part of Frazier's evidence is that it puts Oswald carrying a paper wrapped longish package and that Oswald lied about its contents.

That doesn't follow.  We don't know what the bag was or what it contained.

Frazier expressed no uncertainty about what Oswald said or that he carried a package that was consistent with what he said it contained.  The disassembled rifle fit entirely into the package recovered in the SN (CE364) [sic]

Yes, but there is no evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw.  It fact they explicitly said it was not.

and it had Oswald's palmprint on it as well as fibres matching the blanket found the the Paine's garage that Marina said was used to wrap the rifle.

The fibers could not be matched to any specific blanket.  And Marina only saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle in the blanket.  So it certainly doesn't follow that any particular rifle was in that bag.

No paper package other than CE364 [sic] was found.

Not you too.  There's no evidence that any other packages were ever looked for.

No curtain rods were found.

Curtain rods were found in the Paines' garage.

  Oswald did not carry curtain rods or a paper package out of the TSBD.

How could you possibly know that?

Yet all of this evidence is dismissed by CTers as unreliable.

No, it's the conclusions that you make based upon this evidence that is unreliable.  It contains a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.

[Andrew Mason]

That doesn't follow.  We don't know what the bag was or what it contained.

The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents. Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.

Yes, but there is no evidence that CE 142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw.  It fact they explicitly said it was not.

CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.

No, it's the conclusions that you make based upon this evidence that is unreliable.  It contains a whole lot of speculation and assumptions.

No conclusions need to be drawn from this evidence. It is the entire body of evidence against Oswald that tells the story.
Can you explain to me the difference between your use of "speculation and assumptions" and inferences?