First shot: z207
Second shot: z312
Third shot: z350
+ or - up to 3 frames
After reading from Jacket Kennedy’s WC testimony, she states she was looking LEFT and then after hearing noises , she turned RIGHT and that’s when she saw JFK with a “quizzical look” and his LEFT hand was upI'm assuming you're talking about the moment JFK is shot for the first time causing his fists to go up to his throat. The question is, if we assume there are three shots from the TSBD, which shot is this - first, second or third?
I'm assuming you're talking about the moment JFK is shot for the first time causing his fists to go up to his throat. The question is, if we assume there are three shots from the TSBD, which shot is this - first, second or third?
IMO the shot that caused JFK to raise his fists to his throat occurred at z223. The opening post of this thread is an assertion that no shot took place before z207. Less than one second after this (z223) Kennedy is hit. This leads me to conclude the first shot fired from the TSBD is the one that hits Kennedy in the throat. Quite a number of "ear-witnesses" describe a pattern to the shots - shot, pause, two shots closer together. If this is the case the second shot must be the head-shot with the third shot coming shortly after that.
Connally claimed he heard the first and third shotTo be honest Bill, when I look at Zapruder it's as clear as day (to me, at least) that JFK and Connally are shot through at the same time, presumably by the same bullet (not CE399), and this is the first of the three shots I assume are coming from the TSBD.
The second shot he only felt
Hi Jerry,My thoughts lie in the realm that a single gunman theory falls flat in view of all the wounds that the victims received. Remember that James Tague was struck by debris from a separate shot.
was hoping to get a discussion going on when the first shot occurred. What's your thoughts on that?
I know some researchers favour a shot very early on in Zapruder, even pre-z133, but I'm finding evidence to support a later first shot.
My thoughts lie in the realm that a single gunman theory falls flat in view of all the wounds that the victims received. Remember that James Tague was struck by debris from a separate shot.
Quickly... http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/zapruder.html
My thoughts lie in the realm that a single gunman theory falls flat in view of all the wounds that the victims received. Remember that James Tague was struck by debris from a separate shot.In the link you provide Tague is hit well before z207. Zapruder shows no meaningful reaction from agents Hickey, Landis or Ready up to that point, who all testify they reacted immediately to the first shot, turning to look "rear right". Zapruder refutes this model. The first shot must come after z207.
Quickly... http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/zapruder.html
The autopsy concluded there was a neck transit. Therefore, in theory, the bullet that emerged intact from the President's throat had to be accounted for. What was in the path of the bullet, in front of and slightly below the President? Connally.What does this tell us about when the first shot occurred?
Tague was not the defining issue with regard to the SBT. He could have been injured by a ricochet fragment on what some consider a missed first shot or a rogue metal fragment from the head shot.
In the link you provide Tague is hit well before z207. Zapruder shows no meaningful reaction from agents Hickey, Landis or Ready up to that point, who all testify they reacted immediately to the first shot, turning to look "rear right". Zapruder refutes this model. The first shot must come after z207.The West survey, as revealed by the late Tom Purvis, shows that SS, FBI etc. ..knew the location of hits.
At the moment I have it something like this:
1st shot - z223 - passes through JFK and Connally
2nd shot - z313 - headshot
3rd shot - ? - hits piece of concrete south side of Elm, fragment goes on to hit Tague
The West survey, as revealed by the late Tom Purvis, shows that SS, FBI etc. ..knew the location of hits.
Z207
Z312
Z350
Connally seems quite mobile at Z275, and upright. Not the actions of a man who had a massive back, chest wound.
Might want to consider the political future of a man who did nothing to protect JFK.
Also, his WC testimony ends with an apology of sorts. For not doing anything. Very telling.
Well worth reading.
What z-frame corresponds to Connally being shot ?Z312
Z312Hi John, really confused by your response. Firstly, I am familiar with Connally's WC testimony and the West survey (through Tom Purvis on "the other channel"). I asked what z-frame corresponds to Connally being shot and you replied:
Z350
Did you read his testimony at WC?
Why is he so apologetic?
Are you familiar with the West survey?
All available at the EF, under Purvis?
Apologies for citing the other " tv channel"; fyi, Tom Purvis also posted here, contributed to this site. Check with this site's owner about Mr. Purvis.
It's sort of bizarre how Connally's first reaction involves a violent jerk of his left shoulder and arm upwards.Also note Connally's wrist at the end of the clip posted above. In my opinion it is at a very unnatural angle. Much is made of Connally holding on to his hat but I suspect he couldn't let go of it if he wanted to.
The HSCA determined that
- President Kennedy first showed a reaction to a "severe external stimulus" by Zapruder frame 207;
- Governor Connally first showed a reaction to a "severe external stimulus" by Zapruder frame 224;
- at least two shots, spaced approximately 6 seconds apart, were fired at the Presidential limousine.
QUOTE:
The first, missed shot.
The first reaction by any of the limousine occupants to a severe external stimulus begins to occur in the vicinity of Zapruder frames 162-167. At this time, Connally is looking to his left, when his head begins a rapid, sudden motion to the right. In quantitative terms, he turns his head approximately 60° to his right in one-ninth of a second (a rate equivalent to a 540° rotation per second). He pauses momentarily and then executes a further 30° turn to his right, within an eighteenth of a second (again, a rate equivalent to a 540° rotation per second). This initial rapid motion, in which Connally has apparently turned his head to look behind him, is accompanied during the next approximately 20 frames by a more gradual 60° shift to the right of his upper torso. Although it is apparent that none of the limousine occupants has been shot at the time that Connally initiates this movement, the Panel considers these actions to be particularly significant because they were consistent with his Warren Commission testimony that he turned in response to having heard the first shot and was struck almost immediately afterwards.
During the period of Connally's initial rapid movement, however, no one else shows a comparable reaction. The President does not appear to react to anything unusual prior to Zapruder frame 190. The Panel observed, however, that at approximately this time, a young girl who had been running across the grass, beyond the far curb of the street where the limousine was traveling, suddenly began to stop and turn sharply to her right, looking up the street in a direction behind the limousine.
The second shot.
At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot. Connally's movements as he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frames 222-224 also indicate that he is reacting to a severe external stimulus. He appears to be frowning, and there is a distinct, stiffening of his shoulders and upper trunk. Then there is a radical change in his facial expression, and rapid changes begin to occur in the orientation of his head.
The third shot.
At frame 313, approximately 6 seconds (based on the 18.3 frames per second exposure rate of the Zapruder camera) after the President disappears behind the sign, his head is seen exploding from the impact of a bullet.
Source HSCA report volume 6 page 17 & 18.
Hi John, really confused by your response. Firstly, I am familiar with Connally's WC testimony and the West survey (through Tom Purvis on "the other channel"). I asked what z-frame corresponds to Connally being shot and you replied:Connally is upright at z275
Z312
Z350
You seem to be implying Connally was shot in the back whilst lying on Nellie's lap. After the headshot JBC rolls to his left to reveal blood streaming down his back. By z245 Connally has already twisted in his seat so much it is impossible for him to be shot in the back from anywhere close to the TSBD and at no point after does he turn his back in a way that such a shot would be possible.
In his WC testimony Connally states he heares the shot, turns to look over his right shoulder then, as he is turning to look over his left he is shot. Zapruder shows nothing of the sort. Around z 160 he looks to his left then turns to his right looking at the people on the street. He never changes this position until he is shot at z223:
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtPfdvRY/Z-Film-Clip.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This is the first of the three shots assumed to be fired from the TSBD. As Zeon hints at, a number of witnesses see JFK slumping to his side after this first shot. None as certain as Carl Brandt:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/ea06nf0Ktgg
{click on Dave Reitzes)
Connally is upright at z275
And looking at Kennedy.
Where is this blood on Connally's back you speak of?
Z frames?
( I don't know how you can claim to see that kind of detail in the Zfilm)
The clip below is from z323 to z354. It shows TBC rolling to his left after the headshot. Towards the end of the clip (approx z350-354) there appears to be "blood" near the top of his armpit area (IMO)West Survey.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Ng5VN87/z323-354-slo.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
I agree TBC is sat up looking at Kennedy at z275 but JFK is sat up as well and there is no question he's been shot. For me the clip in the previous post shows both men reacting in an extreme way. In Zapruder, just before they pass behind the Stemmons sign TBC is calmly scanning the crowd to his right. As he emerges from behind the sign he is exactly the same (z223), he then suddenly starts 'thrashing around'.
As the Z-film rolls on TBC stops thrashing, twists in his seat to face JFK then "swoons" into Nellies lap. IMO the fact he kind of collapses into Nellies lap is a strong indication he has already been shot.
West Survey.
That's way too cryptic for me.When?
Do you agree that looks like blood on Connally's back?
When?I'm not 'decoding minutae'. Please explain how Mr West knew the timing of the shots in order to establish the points of impact.
Why are you trying to decode minutae on the z film, when the points of impact from the three shots were established for SS, FBI, etc., by Mr West ?
Who’s TBC?;D
Or she might have believed he was hit by the first shot because he was hit by the first shot.
There is a fundamental difference in the accounts of John and Nellie Connally concerning when JBC used the phrase "Oh, no, no, no".Do you read lips? you must be guessing that is what he said. Maybe his open mouth is due to being shot or maybe he is grunting while he tries to spin around in that tiny seat with his knees sitting very high due to the low floor and maybe because his knees were touching or almost up against the seat in front of him. All we can do is speculate.
JBC is clear it happened after he was shot and Nellie is equally clear it happened before he was shot.
In his WC testimony JBC states that he "said" this phrase, in the interview with Nellie Connally that Chris posted she implies he said it with no urgency, however, in her WC testimony Jackie Kennedy states that "...then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no." She uses the word "yelling" three times and even says "Governor Connally screamed." In my view, the clip below shows Connally using the phrase immediately after being shot and it's more like Jackie Kennedy's version:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgGwHgXk/JBC-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
IMO this clip supports JBC's version of when he used the phrase - immediately after being shot. There are a few things about Nellie's version I have a problem with. In the interview Chris posted Nellie makes the following points:
She hears a noise that draws her attention
She turns in time to see JFK raise his hands to his throat
JBC turns to his right but can't see JFK
"Then he flipped to his left but he still couldn't see him"
Then he said "No, no, no"
Then, as he began to turn back he was shot.
Firstly, and most importantly, this account of events is absolutely NOT shown in the above clip.
Secondly, why would JBC be 'yelling' if he wasn't aware what was going on and hadn't been shot?
Thirdly, JBC immediately twists around in his seat offering no shot to his back from the TSBD.
Either JBC or Nellie is correct on this point, it can't be both. IMO the weight of the available (limited) evidence supports JBC.
There is a fundamental difference in the accounts of John and Nellie Connally concerning when JBC used the phrase "Oh, no, no, no".
JBC is clear it happened after he was shot and Nellie is equally clear it happened before he was shot.
In his WC testimony JBC states that he "said" this phrase, in the interview with Nellie Connally that Chris posted she implies he said it with no urgency, however, in her WC testimony Jackie Kennedy states that "...then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no." She uses the word "yelling" three times and even says "Governor Connally screamed." In my view, the clip below shows Connally using the phrase immediately after being shot and it's more like Jackie Kennedy's version:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgGwHgXk/JBC-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
IMO this clip supports JBC's version of when he used the phrase - immediately after being shot. There are a few things about Nellie's version I have a problem with. In the interview Chris posted Nellie makes the following points:
She hears a noise that draws her attention
She turns in time to see JFK raise his hands to his throat
JBC turns to his right but can't see JFK
"Then he flipped to his left but he still couldn't see him"
Then he said "No, no, no"
Then, as he began to turn back he was shot.
Firstly, and most importantly, this account of events is absolutely NOT shown in the above clip.
Secondly, why would JBC be 'yelling' if he wasn't aware what was going on and hadn't been shot?
Thirdly, JBC immediately twists around in his seat offering no shot to his back from the TSBD.
Either JBC or Nellie is correct on this point, it can't be both. IMO the weight of the available (limited) evidence supports JBC.
In an earlier post I said his mouth was open as he turned but I thought it was open much larger than a person talking and that his mouth remained agape. But now I notice that he might be opening and closing his mouth as he turned around to look for JFK. So maybe his mouth would be open that much if he was exclaiming" no no no". So it might be consistent with him saying no no no as he started to turn. That still leaves the possibility that he was shot while turning back after saying no no no. It also leaves the possibility that he was shot and then said no no no. It often happens that multiple Witnesses Place events in slightly different orders. Once we have contradictory testimony, it seems unlikely that we can draw much from these statements about when he said it. But both of them felt that he fell back onto Nellie almost immediately after being shot. That would be very inconsistent with him being shot at frame 223 because he did his full turn around after that and before he fell back on his wife. This is one of those subjects that we all have to throw out a bunch of conjecture on. So I don't think we're going to result in any solid proof either way, but it is interesting. I will always find it hard to believe that he gets hit and looks down to see a ton of blood. He assumes he has been mortally wounded and then decides to make that turn around to look for Kennedy. 4 in of missing rib and a sucking chest wound yet he twists around to the right. That's hard for me to digest. When he says he looked out of the corner of his eye and still couldn't see Kennedy how did that happen. The only thing I can think is he looked for Kennedy where he expected Kennedy to be. But if Kennedy had already lean way to the left that would explain why Connally would not see the person sitting right behind him when specifically looking for him.Yes, Mr Bristow.
In an earlier post I said his mouth was open as he turned but I thought it was open much larger than a person talking and that his mouth remained agape. But now I notice that he might be opening and closing his mouth as he turned around to look for JFK. So maybe his mouth would be open that much if he was exclaiming" no no no". So it might be consistent with him saying no no no as he started to turn. That still leaves the possibility that he was shot while turning back after saying no no no. It also leaves the possibility that he was shot and then said no no no. It often happens that multiple Witnesses Place events in slightly different orders. Once we have contradictory testimony, it seems unlikely that we can draw much from these statements about when he said it. But both of them felt that he fell back onto Nellie almost immediately after being shot. That would be very inconsistent with him being shot at frame 223 because he did his full turn around after that and before he fell back on his wife. This is one of those subjects that we all have to throw out a bunch of conjecture on. So I don't think we're going to result in any solid proof either way, but it is interesting. I will always find it hard to believe that he gets hit and looks down to see a ton of blood. He assumes he has been mortally wounded and then decides to make that turn around to look for Kennedy. 4 in of missing rib and a sucking chest wound yet he twists around to the right. That's hard for me to digest. When he says he looked out of the corner of his eye and still couldn't see Kennedy how did that happen. The only thing I can think is he looked for Kennedy where he expected Kennedy to be. But if Kennedy had already lean way to the left that would explain why Connally would not see the person sitting right behind him when specifically looking for him.
Connaly's wound occured at Z312, while he was lying ( no pun intended) down across the jump seats.
To suggest Connally was shot in the back whilst lying in Mrs Connally's lap is beyond bizarre.
And I note you have failed to provide the explanation as to how Mr West knew the timing of the shots that allowed him to determine the points of impact.
There are better vids of the one shown here: The one I have in mind is the one showing less shadow which reveals JBC with his eyes shut as he sways around and eventually is pulled down by the missus into her lap. And he did say that as soon as the shooting started he didn't see Kennedy again.Do you have a link as these are the best I've come across.
In Nellies WC Statement she references JBC cried out Oh No No No afte being struck the first shot. The same as what Jackie stated.This is clearly not the case Jack. Nellie is adamant it was the second shot that hit JBC. You seem to have left the important bit out of you're quote:
Mrs. CONNALLY. …….Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mrs. CONNALLY. -----------------------------------As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no."
Rosemary Willis is seen running alongside the Presidential limousine in the Zapruder film and other assassination motion pictures. She is clearly visible in her white, hooded coat and a red skirt.
At circa Z-164-171 she starts to slow down, then she stops running and, simultaneous with her slowing/stopping, she slightly turns her level-facing head to end up looking towards the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository. Willis stated she stopped because she heard a loud noise that attracted her attention.
Immediately after President Kennedy is first hidden at frame 207 by the "Stemmons Freeway" traffic sign in the Zapruder film, Willis suddenly, and beginning at Z-214, snaps her head very rapidly 90 to 100 degrees westward (completely away from the Depository southeast corner) within 0.16 second to then face Abraham Zapruder and the grassy knoll by Z-217.
She told the HSCA in 1978 that she heard four loud noises and saw suspicious activity on the grassy knoll.
To suggest Connally was shot in the back whilst lying in Mrs Connally's lap is beyond bizarre.Mr West was supplied with that information by SS, FBI, who were referencing the...Z film. (First generation.)
And I note you have failed to provide the explanation as to how Mr West knew the timing of the shots that allowed him to determine the points of impact.
Mr West was supplied with that information by SS, FBI, who were referencing the...Z film. (First generation.)
Obviously, you either did not read, or do not understand, the work of Tom Purvis.
Might want to look at third shot location, survey station 4+95. Which the WC published, perhaps forgetting to omit it, as it contradicts the entire " magic bullet" theory.
In terms of this thread the West survey has zero relevance. The timing of the shots was provided by the SS/FBI and West simply worked out the points of impact using the timings he was provided with. The only relevant aspect of it is how the timing of the shots was worked out. This has nothing to do with the West survey.Third shot - actually, third hit -was z349z350. Per Mr West's survey station, 4+95.
The only work of Tom Purvis I'm familiar with is to do with the West survey and you're right, I didn't understand what was being said. For example, the first shot was said to have passed through a branch of an oak tree (I don't understand why the assassin was shooting through the tree), the projectile then began to tumble after passing through the branch but still hit JFK in the back (I don't understand how that happened), it then "merely lodged" itself in JFK's back " due to impaired velocity as a result of having penetrated a limb of the live oak", yet there was still enough velocity to shear off a lead fragment which had been squeezed out of the base of the bullet, which then flew out of JFK's throat (something I truly don't understand). This fragment then misses Connally sat directly in from of him (I'm not too sure about that either)
As for the third shot, I find the scenario outlined so baffling that I don't know where to begin. The upshot is that this bullet is supposed to have hit JBC when he turned his back after the headshot but, as I've previously demonstrated, there was already blood streaming down his back by this time.
In a previous post you said:
"Connaly's wound occured at Z312, while he was lying ( no pun intended) down across the jump seats."
If this 'observation' is based on the work of Tom Purvis it shows you have far less understanding of his work than I do.
Third shot - actually, third hit -was z349z350. Per Mr West's survey station, 4+95.
You are familiar with Purvis' - and Mr West's - work yet you don't know this?
Or that z12 hit was from second shot?
Your comprehension....not so good.
Carrying on with the statements of the witnesses who were closest to the assassination. Few were closer than Bill and Gayle Newman. Hours after the assassination they were interviewed on TV about what they witnessed:You're getting closer.
Bill Newman:
"The President's car was some 50 ft still yet, in front of us, coming towards us when we heard the first shot and the President - I don't know who was shot first - but the President jumped up in his seat and I thought it scared him. I thought it was a firecracker...And then as the car got directly in front of us, well a gunshot, apparently from behind us, hit the President in the side of the temple [his finger pointing to his temple]"
Bill Newman, stood feet in front of the assassination, focussing on the President, describes him reacting to the first shot ("jumped up in his seat"). This is surely a reference to JFK's hands flying to his throat. The second shot being the infamous headshot.
This is confirmed by another witness stood only feet away from the assassination. In his FBI statement given two days after the assassination, Charles Brehm states the following:
"When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
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."
JFK reacts to the first shot (stiffens), the second shot is the headshot and then there is a third shot. Brehm is clearly familiar with rifles and was looking directly at the President at the time of the shooting.
There will always be discrepancies and contradictory statements but a pattern is beginning to emerge from the testimonies of those closest to the assassination - first shot, JFK reacts to being hit, second shot, headshot, third shot, (?). It will be important to collect more witness statements from those closest to the event but another question has now come into focus - what happened to the third shot?
Carrying on with the statements of the witnesses who were closest to the assassination. Few were closer than Bill and Gayle Newman. Hours after the assassination they were interviewed on TV about what they witnessed:
Bill Newman:
"The President's car was some 50 ft still yet, in front of us, coming towards us when we heard the first shot and the President - I don't know who was shot first - but the President jumped up in his seat and I thought it scared him. I thought it was a firecracker...And then as the car got directly in front of us, well a gunshot, apparently from behind us, hit the President in the side of the temple [his finger pointing to his temple]"
Bill Newman, stood feet in front of the assassination, focussing on the President, describes him reacting to the first shot ("jumped up in his seat"). This is surely a reference to JFK's hands flying to his throat. The second shot being the infamous headshot.
This is confirmed by another witness stood only feet away from the assassination. In his FBI statement given two days after the assassination, Charles Brehm states the following:
"When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
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."
JFK reacts to the first shot (stiffens), the second shot is the headshot and then there is a third shot. Brehm is clearly familiar with rifles and was looking directly at the President at the time of the shooting.
There will always be discrepancies and contradictory statements but a pattern is beginning to emerge from the testimonies of those closest to the assassination - first shot, JFK reacts to being hit, second shot, headshot, third shot, (?). It will be important to collect more witness statements from those closest to the event but another question has now come into focus - what happened to the third shot?
There a a number of two shot witnesses or witnesses who place the second shot as the head shot, notably SA Kellerman, James Jarman, SA Hickey and SA Kinney. Gayle Newman, in the 50th anniversary interview in the 6th floor museum, stated, between the 12 to 14 minute mark, she never actually heard a third shot.
Marilyn Willis (FBI Report on 6-19-64) "...when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds later she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy's head "blow off and ringed by a red halo." She stated she believes she heard another shot following this."
This is an example of a point easily refuted by the video evidence. Looking at the clip above it is clear that at no point after twisting in his seat does JBC offer his back up for a shot from the TSBD. From the moment he twists round until he falls in Nellie's lap his back is turned in a position as to make such a shot impossible. This is not a matter of opinion.
Ernest Brandt was one of the closest witnesses to the assassination. In the picture below he is the man in the dark suit with the dark hat. To his left is John Templin, the man he went to watch the parade with.
Yes it is. Who said he was shot from the TSBD?If you'd read through the thread you would have seen I've stated, on a number of occasions, what I've presented is based on the assumption of three shots from the TSBD.
Here we go again.
And you know this.....how?
If you'd read through the thread you would have seen I've stated, on a number of occasions, what I've presented is based on the assumption of three shots from the TSBD.
Thanks for just joining in though.
This is a signed photo by Ernest Brandt identifying himself. I assume, even for you, this is good enough.
(or have I faked it 8))
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyjTbrF2/Ernest-Brandt-Signed-4x6-Photo-JFK-Assassination-Dealey.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Yeah, back on page 2. But why are you making this assumption to begin with and then trying to claim that it's not a matter of opinion?
This is a signed photo by Ernest Brandt identifying himself. I assume, even for you, this is good enough.
(or have I faked it 8))
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyjTbrF2/Ernest-Brandt-Signed-4x6-Photo-JFK-Assassination-Dealey.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
He signed this in front of you, did he?
Regarding witnesses who saw the President react to the first shot. I was looking at Pat Speers website where he has a quite startling list of witnesses who reported Kennedy reacting to the first shot in such a way it indicated he had been hit when compared with his known reaction from the Zapruder footage. He concludes:
"When one performs even a cursory review of the statements regarding the movements within the limousine at the time of the first shot, one finds that 44 of these indicated Kennedy had a reaction to the first shot."
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter5%3Athejigsawpuzzle
However (and I hope I'm not getting this wrong), he seems to be of the opinion that this first shot occurred at z190. At the moment I've not read enough to understand why he's come to this conclusion (if that is indeed his conclusion) but I believe the Z-Film refutes this conclusion. In the first post of this thread there is a partial Z-Film focussing on the SS men in the Presidential follow-up car. It stays with them until z207, almost one full second after z190. At least three agents describe reacting immediately to the first shot (a reaction we can see in Altgens 6) but in the Z-Film posted there is no such reaction. I find it highly unlikely there would be no reaction for almost a full second from any of these trained agents from a shot at z190.
One of the main arguments for a shot before JFK goes behind the Stemmons sign is a quick 'head-snap' from right to left, presumably a reaction to the sound of a shot. However, on closer examination I believe it can be shown no such head-snap occurs.
Look at the hairline of JFK in the following frames:
(https://i.postimg.cc/66mKDdq2/z207.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/k5G31GCF/z225.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DfLVYR9D/z230.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In the top pic (z207, just before he passes behind Stemmons sign) the parting in his hair on the left side of his head can just be made out. Certainly the way his fringe sweeps up to the parting is clearly visible.
In the second pic (z225, first full frame of JFK emerging from behind Stemmons) his parting is not so visible but the sweep of his hair up to it is.
In the bottom pic (z230, JFK facing straight ahead) the part of his forehead revealed by the sweep of his hairline up to the parting is no longer visible.
Far from turning to his left JFK is still looking to his right as he passes behind the Stemmons sign (z207).
There is no head-snap to the left and, therefore, no reason to suspect JFK is reacting to anything.
Pat Speer assembled a very useful website. Z190 sounds like Jiggle Analysis but I really do not know why he chose Z190. It is best to just read the witness statements. They give the location of the car in relationship to where they were standing when they heard the first shot. Jean Newman states it was just after it had passed her and the Chisms state it was just before them. Mary Woodward states it was when JFK looks forward again which is Z204.
Mary Woodward: After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt...I don't believe anyone was hit with 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...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned halfway around, then fell on top of her husband’s body…
Ann Donaldson (11-22-63 first person account published in the Washington Evening Star, Second Extra Edition. Note: this article was apparently picked up from a Jackson, Mississippi paper.) "I was standing 70 feet from President Kennedy when he was assassinated today and saw him fall under the bullet that killed him. Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy threw herself over his body as the President's car speeded up as soon as the driver realized what had happened. The crowd began to scream and wail and people standing nearby began to throw their children on the ground for safety. I heard two shots. The first shot sounded like a firecracker and the President heard it. He turned to look, as did everyone else, and then the second shot sounded.
-------------------------------
Chisms, Newman, and Secretaries
John Chism : "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot,"
Jean Newman : "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report"
Gloria Calvery : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was Standing when I heard the first shot."
Karan Hicks : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gunshot"
Karen Westbrook : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot ."
------------------------------------
JBC describes his location in his WC statement:
The only children on the right side of the street was first the Chisms and then the Newmans.
Mr. SPECTER. When you turned to your right. Governor Connally, immediately after you heard the first shot. what did you see on that occasion?
Governor CONNALLY. Nothing of any significance except just people out on the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, just saw men, women, and children.
So, the shooter missed the first, closest, easiest shot - at Z190 - but then connected, quite proficiently, on the next two shots, which were from a farther distance?Have you been reading this thread John? It is about the first shot striking JFK. Read the last few posts. ::)
The shooter missed an entire 20? foot long, 6 foot wide limo?
I'm not a gun guy, having never shot one, but I think, with some elementary training, I could hit a 120 square foot target.
But, don't let me interrupt the Oswald missed a 120 square foot , slow moving target, from 100 ft, party. Rock on. But do look up Oswald's firing range individual scores - not his total score. Might learn something.
Pathetic.
"The gentleman wearing a hat, Ernest Brandt" 38:40
This film with synchronized sound also shows the crowd of witnesses running up the knoll--
Have you been reading this thread John? It is about the first shot striking JFK. Read the last few posts. ::)Well, Dan, since SS, FBI, etc., in their initial surveys completed by Mr. West in late 1963 located the first hit at Z207, why exactly do you feel the need, 57 years later, to reexamine what was/is already known.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/z225facefeatures.jpg)
Z227 is too blurred to use. The slumping that so many witnesses mention may be the one between Z226 and Z228. The level of his head drops an inch or so. I don't believe it's a reaction independent of the proposed double-hit in the Z220s, but rather a continuation of him reacting beginning Z225-226.
Could be Kennedy was trying to get his hands to his throat wound but nerve damage affected the control of his right hand, so it ended up at his chin.
Somebody said the Connally jacket pluck takes a few frames to exhibit, so Z222 or Z221/Z222 for bullet arrival and transit. In describing the SBT scenario, I go with Z220s (or early-Z220s) rather than a specific frame for impact.
The HSCA reported:
"By Zapruder frame 207 when President Kennedy is seen going behind
a sign that obstructed Zapruder's view, he appears to be reacting to a
severe external stimulus. This reaction is first indicated in the vicinity of
frame 200 of the Zapruder film. The President's right hand freezes in the
midst of a waving motion, followed by a rapid leftward movement of his
head. There is, therefore, photographic evidence of a shot striking the
President by this time."
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z207.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z225.jpg)
The President's head appears to be pointed the same way in Z207 and Z225, do the "rapid leftward movement of his head" could be a misinterpretation. I don't see the right hand freezing either.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_4984.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_4983.jpg) (https://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/131113175516-jfktheday05-horizontal-gallery.jpg)
Maybe so. Just that Kennedy's hands sometimes ended up in a clutched position anyway.
I really don't see the importance of a clenched fist. The obvious is his reaction like someone choking or about to gasp for breath. The motion exhibited show the President in a motion to move his hands towards his neck and the continuance of the frames shows that. There is an obvious reactive movement to something foreign that just occurred. He normally would be continuing to wave. To me, he felt something hit him and instinctively moved hands to neck area as someone who is choking. Frames later you can see his puffed cheeks which indicates breathing problems are occurring. I would agree the shot came while he was hidden behind the sign and he changed his stance from crowd waving.
I would be more apt to analyze how high his right elbow goes up in reaction. For example, is this a defensive posture move as a bullet comes from grassy knoll direction to protect himself from a further assault? His first reaction is not to duck and lower his head behind the seat. Jacqueline quickly reaches over with both hands and puts her hand on his left arm to stabilize him. The secondary movement of the crowd running to the grassy knoll should give secondary confirmation of where bullets where coming from. Who benefits from a single lone nut gunman narrative that is contrary to the crowd's response?
Reactions at or after Z313 by others in car are much more extreme but coincide more with a frontal/side assault than a rear assault. Connally and front SS agent duck below seat level. JFK's head move back with impact not forward. Connally's head reappears behind driver's post in an obvious defensive move to move left and out of harm's way in the shuffle. He is still very conscious of his movements and appears to be sitting or kneeling? there after the assassination was completed - his head wasn't in Nellie's lap yet!
In fact, the movement exhibited at Z313 by the President is an exact same movement to the first shot. His right elbow raises once more, just weaker. This time it is a headshot but has exact same reaction exhibited by him. Notably, the bullet also strikes a hard object (his head) and pushes it back.
The other thing to note is that if this was a mafia hit job and not an inside coup d'etat, you would expect more transparency and a real investigation to ensue. There is nothing really to hide if it was the mafia and so why were there all the investigative problems/blunders and total lack of congruency - abetted confusion? These people are not a bunch of bumbling idiots like they would have you to believe! A totally controlled event including autopsy control, destroying or tampering with evidence , pristine bullets on stretchers found for example and creating statements and narrative as required. This was total control, well planned and executed. Car and body removed from Dallas and information released as required to paint a story. Time is a great healer and so films hidden and released years later. 50 year seal orders placed to protect the guilty. Most evidence really was shredded anyway and nothing left to hide as it was sanitized early on. Why the need to protect if a LNer or even if mafia?
This is a classic example of state controlled media and events - much of what we continue to see today. Patriot's Act and Homeland Security Act which enacted to allow government to spy on its own people at will. Was it politicized and used against Trump and his campaign and presidency? 2nd amendment rights are on the way out if they have their way and COVID used as a weapon to create unrest and violence and aid that end. The scaremonger mentality is being pushed through once more with the help of media. Do the people control the government or does the government control the people? A lot of scientific expert opinions .....
I digress! Clearly, currency is backed only by paper and not gold. This started with FDR and Executive Order 6102 which banned people from owning gold! Do the people of a nation benefit from such moves and erosion of their rights? JFK saw this happening and called it the Military-Industrial Complex - Crony Capitalism for short. Trump like JFK has no business interfering with their games and exposing the swamp and how they get rich and ride the wave. Why do those in politics end up getting rich? Did past Presidents Obama, Clinton, the Bushes and others make their money from Presidential wages or was it by other means? Obviously you could launch an argument that they were just shrewd investors and used their wages "earned" to get rich - that's a laugh! Did Biden give his brother choice military contracts in Iraq?
Democracy is nothing more than a facade. Families run countries. Whether Democracy, Communism or Socialism, the scum always floats to the top, rich get richer and poor get poorer and politics has an "end". Again sorry for the digression.
Well, Dan, since SS, FBI, etc., in their initial surveys completed by Mr. West in late 1963 located the first hit at Z207, why exactly do you feel the need, 57 years later, to reexamine what was/is already known.
Well, Dan, since SS, FBI, etc., in their initial surveys completed by Mr. West in late 1963 located the first hit at Z207, why exactly do you feel the need, 57 years later, to reexamine what was/is already known.I get the impression there's something about this thread you're not quite grasping. It's about the timing of the first of three assumed shots that came from the TSBD. You keep bringing up the partial survey of Dealey Plaza completed by Robert West but, and maybe I'm wrong here, you seem to think that the West survey had something to do with establishing the timing of the shots.
Also, either you, and/or others on this thread keep bringing up Z190 as the first shot..
Z190 was the frame selected for the second shot by the HSCA, based mostly on acoustic analysis partnered with a "pronounced" blur episode "during frames 189-197, a time when other visual evidence suggests that President Kennedy was first shot". Among the "other visual evidence" was their belief that, as he was going behind the sign, Kennedy hand's suddenly stopped moving and he turned his head sharply towards his wife.Mr Organ: you say a "z190 second shot" .
In 2007, Vincent Bugliosi surprised many LNers by accepting the HSCA arguments when his book placed the second shot at Z190. Andrew Mason, Forum member and LNer who doesn't accept the SBT, has this original shot sequence:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
- Mid-Z190s: JFK neck transit, with bullet missing Connally's back and left side to end up in the Governor's left thigh.
- Z270-Z275: Barely missing Kennedy's head, the bullet strikes Connally's back.
- Z312/313: Head shot.
Some of his frame numbers have changed over the years. Link to his paper: Link (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Witness_Evidence_JFK_Dallas.pdf).
The HSCA had the first shot occurring earlier (it missed and the trigger pull was a few frames before):Ok. Thanks for the clarification, Mr Organ.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"The first reaction by any of the limousine occupants to a
severe external stimulus begins to occur in the vicinity of
Zapruder frames 162-167."
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
The reason I mentioned the HSCA's second shot timing is that they may have been the primary, and possibly original, source of a wounding shot occurring at Z190. Others--like Andrew Mason and Pat Speer--have since placed the first shot in the Z190s-or-so, largely based on their assessment of witness statements.
Some serious digressing here Allan, most of which I agree with but it doesn't concern us here. The point of this thread is to establish when the first of three assumed shots from the TSBD hit JFK. Some researchers believe the first shot missed and occurred before the Presidential limo passed behind the Stemmons sign (some have it before the limo appears in Zapruder - before z133). The arguments presented in this thread have, I believe, demonstrated that the first shot hit JFK and his reaction is clearly seen in the Z-film (clenched fists towards the throat, elbows extended).
"I really don't see the importance of a clenched fist."
Part of the evidence demonstrating this shot occurred after JFK passed behind the Stemmons sign is how JFK's right hand snaps shut in a fraction of a second, which I believe is a reflexive reaction to being shot. As a reflex reaction it is possible to find out how quickly after the initial stimulus (being shot) this reaction occurs and convert this time into z-frames and count back from the initial reaction to give a good estimate of when the initial stimulus occurred (ie: when JFK was hit by the first shot). In the clip posted it is possible to see his hand beginning to snap shut in z225 which pinpoints the moment of initial reaction. It is possible to estimate the speed this reaction would occur after the initial stimulus (a normal touch reaction is thought to be around 150 milliseconds but a reflex reaction is somewhat quicker. I would say 100 milliseconds is a fair estimate). If it is assumed that the stimulus occurs 100 milliseconds before the reaction and, as each Z-frame represents approximately 55 milliseconds it would be expected that the first shot hit JFK 2-3 Z-frames before the initial reaction. That is to say 2-3 Z-frames before z225 (z222/z223)
The clip below shows JFK's hand snapping shut. It must be remembered that it's in slo-mo and doesn't express the rapid nature of the hand-snap:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZYg0tyRK/z224-226-gif-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
I can see your point. To me, I don't necessarily see a fist clenching. Camera angle may dictate hand disappearing from view. The left hand is reacting at the exact same time - a reflex movement. One can see before the sign that the President is giving a last crowd wave as the right hand is still up and he has no distress. The crowd is thinning and it appears his hand moves down from his upstretched position somewhere behind the sign. Certainly I think your analysis is correct and it is a reflex action rather than a premeditated one and is much quicker than that of his wife - reflex versus reaction.
So compare his reaction time to that of Jacqueline who appears to be looking at him the whole time. She has a reaction time of about 8 frames. That is a reactive motion to an external stimulus. Use that reaction time to make further analysis. At frame Z338 she appears to have had quite enough stimulus and gets ready to leave the crime scene. Given the logic that 8 frames or half a second is about an adequate normal human response time and count from there backwards. She is looking right at the President the whole time and appears to be studying him after the first shot so she is on heightened awareness. A massive blow with fragments flying all over right in front of her face at Z313 should lead to a major reaction at Z321 (1/2 a second). My feeling is that reaction time of 1/2 a second is a realistic estimate to external stimulus by her or any human. Logic should say that a reaction by her at Z338 would coincide with a messy kill/headshot coming in at Z330 (1/2 a second earlier) with glass shards catching the sun light over a ducked Connally and SS agent and JFK's head a red ball. In my opinion, 2 seconds is an unrealistic reaction time to a supposed shot that totally removed the President's head and she misses it for 1 1/2 seconds even though she is looking right at him. Just compare her initial reaction at the first shot that strikes him to the despair reaction at Z338. No doubt she thought the next bullet was for her!
The facts are we know the car and body was whisked away in an un-examined state from the crime scene and that a windshield was changed and a controlled autopsy was done out of state - those facts are undisputed.
Some serious digressing here Allan, most of which I agree with but it doesn't concern us here. The point of this thread is to establish when the first of three assumed shots from the TSBD hit JFK. Some researchers believe the first shot missed and occurred before the Presidential limo passed behind the Stemmons sign (some have it before the limo appears in Zapruder - before z133). The arguments presented in this thread have, I believe, demonstrated that the first shot hit JFK and his reaction is clearly seen in the Z-film (clenched fists towards the throat, elbows extended).
"I really don't see the importance of a clenched fist."
Part of the evidence demonstrating this shot occurred after JFK passed behind the Stemmons sign is how JFK's right hand snaps shut in a fraction of a second, which I believe is a reflexive reaction to being shot. As a reflex reaction it is possible to find out how quickly after the initial stimulus (being shot) this reaction occurs and convert this time into z-frames and count back from the initial reaction to give a good estimate of when the initial stimulus occurred (ie: when JFK was hit by the first shot). In the clip posted it is possible to see his hand beginning to snap shut in z225 which pinpoints the moment of initial reaction. It is possible to estimate the speed this reaction would occur after the initial stimulus (a normal touch reaction is thought to be around 150 milliseconds but a reflex reaction is somewhat quicker. I would say 100 milliseconds is a fair estimate). If it is assumed that the stimulus occurs 100 milliseconds before the reaction and, as each Z-frame represents approximately 55 milliseconds it would be expected that the first shot hit JFK 2-3 Z-frames before the initial reaction. That is to say 2-3 Z-frames before z225 (z222/z223)
The clip below shows JFK's hand snapping shut. It must be remembered that it's in slo-mo and doesn't express the rapid nature of the hand-snap:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZYg0tyRK/z224-226-gif-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
In this previous post I've argued that the impact of the first shot should be expected in either z222 or z223. I believe it is possible to pinpoint the exact moment of impact to z223 based on an observation from fellow forum member Brian Roselle. In the pic below the detail in question is the small white blob seen above the edge of the door. This small white blob is the cuff of JBC's shirt at his right wrist.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncbVzkSH/z222-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The clip below begins at z222, the shirt cuff is seen just above the top edge of the limo door. By the very next frame (55milliseconds later) it has disappeared downwards, a very rapid movement. Up to this point JBC has been looking to his right, completely calm and composed. He's like this before he goes behind the Stemmons sign and is exactly the same when he first emerges from behind it. Suddenly he bursts into a flurry of activity. As the clip rolls a few things happen simultaneously - his hand is suddenly forced downwards then 'rebounds' upwards to face level. His right shoulder is pulled forward and downwards , rotating his body slightly, sending his left shoulder up and back. As all this happens the right side of his jacket bulges outward quite dramatically.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYqBSVNc/z222-230-close-good-quality.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
I believe this shows JBC's wrist being impacted by a bullet at z223. It drives his hand forcibly downwards which then rebounds upwards. The force of the impact drags his right shoulder forward and down causing his body to rotate slightly. The debris exiting his chest wound causes his jacket to bulge.
In the slightly extended clip below I would like to point out the position of JBC's wrist after all this initial activity has died down. To me it appears his wrist is at a really unnatural angle suggesting that his wrist can no longer support his hand due to the damage inflicted. It is also possible that the impact has damaged nerves causing some fingers to curl. It is possible JBC couldn't let go of his Stetson if he wanted to.
(https://i.postimg.cc/66ScG7C6/z222-275-JBC-hit.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
One of the upshots of the above analysis is that it highlights something that most "multi-Assassin" researchers seem really uncomfortable with - that both JFK and JBC were shot through at the same time, presumably by the same bullet. That both men sustained injury from a single bullet (the first shot of three assumed shots from the TSBD) seems to be some kind of Kryptonite but it is, as far as I'm concerned, clearly shown in the Zapruder footage. This does not mean, however, that I am in the "Oswald did it" camp. It's time to embrace the "Single Bullet" theory.Mr O'meara: Since JFK is not visible from z 208 to Z221, it's impossible to know exactly when he started reacting to being shot.
Mr O'meara: Since JFK is not visible from z 208 to Z221, it's impossible to know exactly when he started reacting to being shot.Obviously I completely disagree with your opinion on this and provide what evidence I can to determine when the first shot took place. The arguments I have presented in this thread have left me with the opinion that the first shot passes through both JFK and JBC at z223.
Obviously I completely disagree with your opinion on this and provide what evidence I can to determine when the first shot took place. The arguments I have presented in this thread have left me with the opinion that the first shot passes through both JFK and JBC at z223.Mr O: JFK not being visible from Z208 to Z221 is a fact, not an opinion.
If there is a specific point about any of the arguments have presented that you believe is erroneous I would be happy to discuss it with you.
Mr O: JFK not being visible from Z208 to Z221 is a fact, not an opinion.That is quite correct John, however, it was quite disingenuous of you to leave out this part of your sentence:
You can only guess what is going on behind the sign.
Why, exactly, would the SS and the FBI provide Mr West with a Z207 hit location, which he surveyed in on his plat at their direction?
That is quite correct John, however, it was quite disingenuous of you to leave out this part of your sentence:Ha!
" it's impossible to know exactly when he started reacting to being shot"
This is an opinion and, as I stated, I disagree with your opinion. The difference is that I have the decency to provide testable arguments to support my opinion.
This is correct and irrelevant
You are the one constantly championing this shot timing. You tell me what they based it on. Do you know or have you just swallowed it up without question?
Ha!
Mr O: I was unaware of my " indecency". I have begun a search for it. I'll let you know what I find.
Again, you have no idea what is going on behind that sign. Nor, it seems, do you have any desire to find out. Instead, you have defaulted to the " official story".
Enjoy.
"The Official Story of What Went On Behind the Stemmons Sign"Mr O: your posts indicate you already possess it, as both your version and the official version are identical, i.e. nothing of import occured behind the sign.
Sounds like a thriller. Can't wait to get my hands on it.
Mr O: your posts indicate you already possess it, as both your version and the official version are identical, i.e. nothing of import occured behind the sign.
Again, this version contradicts both the FBI's and SS's initial version.
What prompted the Warren Commission to revise their initial findings?
That's the " $64,000 Question" .
The "$64,000 Question" is how did the SS/FBI reach their conclusions regarding the timing of the shots.Mr O: answering a question with a questions a nice trick; nevertheless, it still leaves the first question unanswered. Try to stay on topic, please.
Mr O: answering a question with a questions a nice trick; nevertheless, it still leaves the first question unanswered. Try to stay on topic, please.
Ball's in your court.
Mr O: your posts indicate you already possess it, as both your version and the official version are identical, i.e. nothing of import occured behind the sign.Just reposting my question.
Again, this version contradicts both the FBI's and SS's initial version.
What prompted the Warren Commission to revise their initial findings?
That's the " $64,000 Question" .
Just reposting my question.I don't know what prompted the WC to revise their initial findings
I don't know what prompted the WC to revise their initial findingsThe first two official surveys of Dealey, with the locations of the three hits plotted out, is not relevant?
I've answered yours, now answer mine as, unlike yours, my question is relevant to this thread.
The first two official surveys of Dealey, with the locations of the three hits plotted out, is not relevant?
Gee, seems like important evidence to me. Z207.
You're not answering the question John.I asked my question first, several days ago.
Nice try though 8)
I asked my question first, several days ago.
You have no answer. Nor, does it seem, that you care about alterations to the first two surveys. Since that's one of the keys to understanding the how and why of the construction of the " magic bullet" myth, my condolences.
The Allegory of the Cave.
The misdirection and obfuscation created by the WC in regards to the first shot had the purpose of saving John Connally's political future. If the public knew that Connaly was aware by Z223 that the President had been hit (Z207), and did nothing but burrow himself into the jump seats, Connally's persona - 6'4" Tough Guy Texan - would have been shattered. At the end of his WC testimony, he apologizes for his inaction, after lying profusely about ..everything. Please read Connally's testimony, if you haven't already. Thx.
Both Connally and JFK were shot through at z223
Says you.
Both Connally and JFK were shot through at z223 by the first audible shot assumed to be fired from the TSBD. There's nothing Connally could've done about anything.So you read Connally's non apology apology at the end of his lies - oops- I mean testimony to the WC?
Connally doesn't "burrow himself into the jump seats" until after the headshot, presumably a response to the inside of the limo being sprayed with bullet fragments.
So you read Connally's non apology apology at the end of his lies - oops- I mean testimony to the WC?
And another opinion stated as a fact. Your specialty.
Cut and paste what you're talking about.So you haven't read it.
So you haven't read it.
History Matters. National Archive.
Researching a topic before opining is ..essential.
I have read it John but I don't know what you're talking about. As usual.More ad hominem.
The chances are, judging by your past record, that this is going to be a massive waste of time. More irrelevance.
So, if you know how to, cut and paste what you're talking about and explain, without any cryptic remarks, how this relates to the timing of the first shot.
The chances of you being able to do this are minimal but I would love to be surprised.
More ad hominem.
In lieu of answers.
As I expected, you've got nothing. Another worthless contribution. Another waste of time.Z207. First hit. SS, FBI, Time-Life surveys.
"The misdirection and obfuscation created by the WC in regards to the first shot had the purpose of saving John Connally's political future. If the public knew that Connaly was aware by Z223 that the President had been hit (Z207), and did nothing but burrow himself into the jump seats, Connally's persona - 6'4" Tough Guy Texan - would have been shattered. At the end of his WC testimony, he apologizes for his inaction, after lying profusely about ..everything. Please read Connally's testimony, if you haven't already. Thx."
You don't seem to realise that you're just making this stuff up. Worse than that, it doesn't make any sense. The only testable thing is your comment about Connally's WC testimony, something you've mentioned before, you seem to put great importance on it as if it explains something. I've read the testimony and I don't know what you're talking about (which has become a familiar feeling).
I've asked you to explain what you mean but you won't.
Why can't you explain what you mean?
Why don't you contribute?
Why don't you critique the arguments I've presented in this thread rather than make cryptic, meaningless, snide comments?
If you disagree with one of my arguments why don't you present a counter-argument?
You've got nothing and your contribution is worthless. This may seem harsh but it is accurate.
Z207. First hit. SS, FBI, Time-Life surveys.
As argued elsewhere in this thread, the first genuine reaction by JFK to being hit by the first shot occurs around z225. This is roughly one whole second after your proposed first shot. I would argue that such a long reaction to being shot is completely unrealistic. A reflex reaction would be in the order of 100 milliseconds (approximately). You are proposing a reaction time many times longer than this (approximately 1000 milliseconds).You don't know what goes on behind the sign.
How can you justify such a long reaction time to being shot?
You don't know what goes on behind the sign.
Therefore, you cant posit Z225 as "first reaction:
Note I said "first hit" at Z207. 18 frames - about one full second - pass before JFK emerges from behind the sign.
For the record, you post that you are "just asking questions ", and then go with the WC solution. That was fast. :)
I totally agreeAnd it's my fault you are clueless?
I disagree with this.
I have made a detailed argument about the first reaction with reference to JFK's left hand and arm which are in the same position before and after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, and an examination of the rapid 'hand snap' of JFK's right hand just after he emerges from behind the sign. From this I believe it is possible to determine JFK's first reaction to being hit.
Fair enough, you are saying first hit and not first shot (obviously I'm arguing that the first hit is from the first audible shot)
If my arguments about when JFK first reacts to being hit are acceptable it still leaves you with the problem of JFK not reacting to such a traumatic event for one whole second.
The point about not knowing what goes on behind the sign applies to you too. If you are arguing that JFK reacts to being shot but we can't see it, how do these 'hidden' reactions correspond to JFK's demeanour as he emerges from behind the sign?
I don't know what this means.
As far as I'm concerned the WC is too incompetent to be just incompetent. If anything I propose is similar to the WC that's just coincidence. I'm not taking my lead from the WC in anyway.
I don't know what the "WC solution" you mention is and the phrase "That was fast" I find utterly baffling.
It's obviously meant to be some sort of criticism but not having a clue what you're talking about takes the sting out of it.
And it's my fault you are clueless?
Go to the Nix Illusion thread to find out how clueless you are.I don't take orders from you.
I don't take orders from you.
Now that we have that out of the way, I'll stay here.
I'll keep it simple.
You, Dan O'meara, have no idea what went on behind the sign.
You can only guess. Not know. Guess. A "guess" is proof of nothing.
Three posts ago - THREE - you stated that I can't know what goes on behind the sign and I agreed!Two separate West surveys, for SS and FBI.
Yet here you are ranting on about me making guesses about what's going on behind it.
You seem to have problems of some kind.
I was hoping to get some kind of debate going about an important issue - when the first shot occurred of the three audible shots the vast majority of ear-witnesses heard. Many researchers, yourself included, believe the first shot occurred before z223, it also has implications for the dictabelt findings.
Instead I got you and your incessant trolling.
I have presented argument after argument which lead me to the opinion that the first shot occurred at z223.
You have presented nothing to support your belief of a shot at z207 other than your wholesale, swallow-it-down, acceptance that the FBI knew when the first shot occurred.
You have not presented one grain of evidence to support this view.
And nor will you.
I'm not giving you orders about anything but I can't express how unwelcome your non-contribution is to both threads I've started recently.
I seem to hold some kind of fascination for you.
Why don't you contribute John?
Hold up your evidence for a first shot at z207 and see how it stacks up to what I've presented (I know that won't happen though as you it's not your style. It's a bit too 'upright')
Two separate West surveys, for SS and FBI.
They also indicate third shot/hit directly in front of Altgens. As does Altgens testimony. Note Altgens location, documented by...Zfilm.
This is the situation, as I understand it. Please correct me on any detail I get wrong as a lot of this is guesswork and assumption.The oak tree.
At the behest of the SS/FBI Robert West surveyed part of Dealey Plaza from which he created a Plat Map (a representation of the information gained from the survey, very often a drawing or series of drawings). West was then asked to project the impact points of three shots fired during the assassination.
In order to determine the impact points West had to be given at least three pieces of information concerning the shots:
The location from which the shots originated
The direction of each shot
Most importantly, as far as this thread is concerned, the timing of each shot.
None of this information could be magically deduced from a drawing of Dealey Plaza. West was given the information by the SS/FBI.
The only question of any relevance for this thread is - How did the SS/FBI determine the timings of the three shots at z207, z312 and z350?
I have asked you this question a number of times and you clearly don't know, but we can assume, as they were using z-frames, that the Zapruder film played a large part in their deductions.
Without knowing how the SS/FBI came to their conclusions about the timing of the shots you fully accept they are correct.
In this thread I have presented argument after argument leading to the conclusion that the first audible shot of three shots assumed to come from the TSBD occurred at z223.
You have not challenged any argument I've made, you've simply said West Survey, West Survey, West Survey.
You have fully accepted that the SS/FBI are correct and have refused to enter any kind of meaningful dialogue regarding the arguments I've presented.
Very early in this thread Joffrey made the point that z207 was a shot through the oak tree. Why do you accept this as being correct?
Read through the thread John. I present testable arguments concerning my opinions (try it some time)
If you've got a critique of what I'm presenting let me have it.
Don't just snipe from the side-lines.
Get involved.
Let's hear what you have to think about things.
Let's test your arguments.
What's "testable" about "both Connally and JFK were shot through at z223" made as an absolute statement of fact based upon nothing other than "looks that way to me".
This is like you insisting that an ink-blot is an image of two dogs fighting and in order to "contribute", I have to make up a story about it being a squirrel on a fencepost instead of just pointing out that it's an inkblot.
In Altgens 6 we see Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD, presumably in response to the sound of gunfire:What do you make of the evidence of Phillip Willis who said that his z204 photo was taken a fraction of a second after the sound of the first shot?
(https://i.postimg.cc/DfPPnBm6/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."
Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."
Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "
Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6. However, when we take a closer look at Zapruder we see
no meaningful reaction from them (Hickey looks briefly over the side of the car but then returns to his original position). The partial footage of the Z-film below focuses on the follow-up car. It runs from z133 to z207. At no point do we see any meaningful reaction from the agents mentioned above:
(https://i.postimg.cc/FsLLmk09/Zap-SS-Close-Gif-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This is clear evidence the first shot did not take place before z207.
Phil Willis was a car salesman who was promoting the commercial set of slides he took in Dealey Plaza that day, so he could have said the sound of the shot made him click the shutter, when there was truthfully some time between hearing the shot and snapping the shutter. Thus he could claim he had a slide at the moment Kennedy was shot. Willis said the shot caused Mrs. Kennedy to turn from her left to her right:Odd then, that the first two West surveys pinpoint a first hit at Z207, a second hit at z312, and the third hit at "stationing point 4+95". Care to explain exhibit WC exhibit ce 875?
"Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right
toward him and he more or less slumped forward."
In Willis' Z202 slide, Mrs. Kennedy has already performed the reaction to the first shot (she appears in the slide turned towards the President). Willis himself seemed to think the President had grab his throat in his slide (though hidden from his vantage point):
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us when that picture was made?
Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the
first shot was fired. As a matter of fact, the fellow standing
on the ledge under the right-hand corner of the Stemmons
Highway sign is a gentleman who took the last pictures that
appeared in Life, and his pictures showed that this instant
with this sign in between the photographer and the President,
shows that at this instant he had already grabbed his throat.
Rosemary said she stopped after hearing the first shot. She does that before Z200.
Nothing burger. His head first turns to his right earlier. He's balanced on the running board and couldn't instantaneously turn to his rear.
Betzner recalls only two shots, one after he took his photo on Elm and the head shot:
"I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise."
As Betzner goes out of the Zapruder film in frame 207, he continues to lower his camera and is not looking down. So Betzner winding his camera as he hears a shot isn't proof of your first shot at ca.Z200.
Assuming he winds his camera shortly thereafter (post-Z207), it might be that the shot he heard while winding the camera was the proposed shot in the early-Z220s.
That doesn't work well with your first shot occurring about one-second later because Hughes says he stopped filming about five seconds before the shots were heard. Now in my scenario, he might not have been alarmed at a first shot in the Z150s, and instead took the hypothetical Z220s second shot for the first shot. That's about 2.25 seconds after Z180.
What's "testable" about "both Connally and JFK were shot through at z223" made as an absolute statement of fact based upon nothing other than "looks that way to me".
This is like you insisting that an ink-blot is an image of two dogs fighting and in order to "contribute", I have to make up a story about it being a squirrel on a fencepost instead of just pointing out that it's an inkblot.
Phil Willis was a car salesman who was promoting the commercial set of slides he took in Dealey Plaza that day,...I see. So these witnesses:
.....Rosemary said she stopped after hearing the first shot. She does that before Z200.
....Betzner recalls only two shots, one after he took his photo on Elm and the head shot:
"I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise."
As Betzner goes out of the Zapruder film in frame 207, he continues to lower his camera and is not looking down. So Betzner winding his camera as he hears a shot isn't proof of your first shot at ca.Z200.
...[Hughes]..
That doesn't work well with your first shot occurring about one-second later because Hughes says he stopped filming about five seconds before the shots were heard. Now in my scenario, he might not have been alarmed at a first shot in the Z150s, and instead took the hypothetical Z220s second shot for the first shot. That's about 2.25 seconds after Z180.
I see. So these witnesses:
were all wrong because their recollections do not fit with the early first shot miss at z150-160 that you hypothesize.
- Betzner taking his photo at z186 and recalling that it was before the first shot;
- Rosemary Willis suddenly turning her head from z200-207 toward the TSBD, which she said she did on hearing the first shot (her feet stop at z198, by the way).
- Phil Willis recalling that his photo was taken an instant after the first shot
- Hughes recalling a pause after stopping filming and the sound of the first shot (this sequence ends with the rear wheel of the president's limo passing where JFK passed at z160 so that looks like about z168 to me).
- And Jack Ready removing his right hand from the front hand-hold as he begins to turn and as he said he did in response to the first shot
What about all the witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (20+) by moving left, changing expression, clutching his chest/neck? Where are the witnesses who recalled JFK smiling and waving for 2-3 seconds after the first shot? (z150-z207) Where are they Jerry?
Hi Andrew, I certainly have to agree that the available evidence rules out a shot as early as z150-160.Altgens is your friend. ( Or should be.)
The opening post of this thread focusses on the SS follow-up car behind the Presidential limo and compares it to the clear reactions of the SS agents in Altgens 6. Rufus Youngblood describes the first shot as an 'explosive noise', agents Ready and Landis describe reacting 'immediately' but in the Z-film, which shows these agents up to z270 no such reaction can be seen. For me this certainly rules out a shot as early as z150-160.
The same clip also shows Rosemary Willis 'reacting' to the sound of a shot while a carload of SS agents show no reaction. I find this highly unlikely.
You make a point about Jack Ready but the Z-film, as I see it, doesn't show Ready distinctly turning to his right. He looks to his left then slowly moves his head right but we certainly don't see him turning to his "right rear". To me it looks like a perfectly normal head turn as he scans the crowd.
I'm not 100% sure about the points you're making about Betzner and Hughes (I'm possibly being a bit slow here)
Phil Willis comes across as a credible witness who seems to 'timestamp' the moment of the first shot but I personally would like more evidence that backs up his statement as it's not enough to rely on a single witness.
The problem with this issue is that there are so many contradictory 'ear-witness' statements. On his website, Pat Speers analyses a comprehensive list of witnesses relating to the assassination:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 293 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 293, 88 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together. Another 13 heard the last two shots fired closely together, and yet another could only swear to hearing two shots, but thought there may have been a third, which was wholly consistent with the last two being fired closely together. This means that 173 of the 205 witnesses described the shots in a relatively consistent manner. Of the remaining 32, 18 heard four or more shots, and another 3 made statements indicating there was a shot after the head shot."
My challenge is to get, what I believe to be, the best fit between the ear-witness statements and any evidence that can be gleaned from photographic/video evidence.
Altgens is your friend. ( Or should be.)
Please review his testimony. Thx.
In his testimony, Altgens was only sure of two shots, but guessed there could have been a third shot that fitted in between the shot he heard before he took the photo at Z255 and the head shot. Mason places his LN second shot (it narrowly misses Kennedy, going on to strike Connally) about Z271.Who is this "Mason " you mention?
In 1985, "Ike" Altgens told Richard B. trask:
"My first instinct was ‘well, they’re shooting firecrackers up there,’
or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then
I hear it again as the car comes on down."
So here Altgens claims he heard "firecrackers up there" (or "some kind of celebration", presumably referring to the sound of a shot -- though Altgens didn't know at that moment it was gunfire -- when the car was on upper Elm), then heard it again as the "car comes on down" which I believe would be when he took his picture.
Therefore there could have been two shots fired before Altgens took his photograph at Z255.
Who is this "Mason " you mention?
Betzner said the shot he heard after taking his picture was followed by the head shot. Here's my earlier reply:
As Betzner goes out of the Zapruder film in frame 207, he
continues to lower his camera and is not looking down.
So Betzner winding his camera as he hears a shot isn't
proof of your first shot at ca.Z200.
Assuming he winds his camera shortly thereafter (post-Z207),
it might be that the shot he heard while winding the camera
was the proposed shot in the early-Z220s.
There is a "buffet" of evidence in the JFK assassination that allows people with various theories to pick and isolate witness statements and impressions that support their case. Some of the theories are quite impressive; the Mason Theory presented an ingenious pathway.
;D
I think that's really well put, a "buffet" of evidence.
What's striking is that it seems possible to pick several differing 'narratives' and have a range of supporting evidence for each.
The lack of any reaction from Landis, Hickey and Ready I don't think is so easily brushed away. Ready says he immediately turned to his "right rear". We don't see this in Zapruder but we do see this in Altgens6. Ready is obviously recalling the moment accurately as we see it confirmed in Altgens6 and I find it difficult to accept that these specially trained SS agents would take two to three seconds to react to an "explosive noise".
But, as you say, there's more to the case than this point. That's just the particular part of the "buffet" I am selecting from.
To return to Rosemary Willis: She (for me) is clearly reacting, as shown below, much earlier than Z200 to "something" (assuming the clip below is synchronized with the frames correctly). She completely stops at around Z190 but is looking away from the limo while jogging after roughly Z160. In several interviews she said she was reacting to the sound of a gun shot (she never testified to the WC).
One "problem" is that everyone around her appears not to be reacting at all. It's amazing really. Something got her attention (it couldn't have been her father calling her; he's still taking a photo) but no one else?
(https://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e2019b02be18c8970b-800wi)
I'd go with 'smorgasbord' over 'buffet'. Just seems more vivid, far-reaching, somehow. Well, at least somewhat more stylish. And what's wrong with a little flair, eh wot?
But I guess it depends on which side one's bread is buttered..
;)
To return to Rosemary Willis: She (for me) is clearly reacting, as shown below, much earlier than Z200 to "something" (assuming the clip below is synchronized with the frames correctly). She completely stops at around Z190 but is looking away from the limo while jogging after roughly Z160. In several interviews she said she was reacting to the sound of a gun shot (she never testified to the WC).
One "problem" is that everyone around her appears not to be reacting at all. It's amazing really. Something got her attention (it couldn't have been her father calling her; he's still taking a photo) but no one else?
(https://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e2019b02be18c8970b-800wi)
I see her just running alongside the parade, she can't keep up so she stops running. It'd be weird if she followed them through the triple underpass. It's like 'head turns', people pick a spot for a shot in the Z-film and whatever happens around that moment becomes instantly suspicious. She is just running alongside the limo, probably trying to keep up with Jackie, who appears to be watching the little girl running at one point. Maybe she did hear a noise but, as you point out, no-one else reacted to it.But she said in several interviews that she slowed and then stopped after hearing a gun shot.
But she said in several interviews that she slowed and then stopped after hearing a gun shot.
And yes, it's dangerous to engage in a sort of "confirmation bias", selecting that piece of evidence (as one sees it) to support their view.
As I've said elsewhere Steve, if you watch the Z-film Rosemary slows down and stops but the car load of SS agents show no sign of reacting to a potential gunshot. Although not impossible, It's my personal outlook that this is really unlikely, particularly when we see what appear to be serious reactions in Altgens6, reactions that are confirmed by the testimony of the agents themselves.Dan: As you know, you can drive yourself nuts trying to discern a first shot from looking at the crowd. It's puzzling as hell.
As I say, this is more of a personal opinion on this issue.
Dan: As you know, you can drive yourself nuts trying to discern a first shot from looking at the crowd. It's puzzling as hell.
Not sure if this was cited. It's a longish article on Willis:
https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/12/redskirt.html
I don't agree with all of it but it has some interesting points.
Who is this " Mason " you mention ?
It's a simple question.
IMO the only reactions that have any validity when examining the Z-film for shots are those of JFK and JBC after they have been hit. Everything else seems to be a matter of interpretation.
I also find the lack of reaction by the SS agents telling when compared to their obvious reactions in Altgens 6.
The article does have some interesting insights, particularly concerning the reactions of Landis and Ready but I couldn't disagree more with the following assessment:
"Ms. Willis’s sudden head turn towards the Book Depository in the first ½ second of the Zapruder film is the film’s earliest unambiguous evidence that the first shot happened before Z133."
"Unambiguous evidence"? Not convinced by that, just as I'm not convinced by a 'pre-Zapruder' shot for reasons outlined above.
"Puzzling as hell" - I'll definitely go for that Thumb1:
One of the more unambiguous descriptions of when the first shot occurred comes from Victoria Adams. Here is a link to a thread I started a while back regarding this:Just a hunch, a guess here but it seems to me that a shooter (whoever he was; I think it was Oswald) would have tried a shot before the Z222/223 film location of a separate shot. At that point, i.e., Z222/223 the limo is relatively far down Elm Street. Wouldn't a shooter have tried an easier/closer shot before that?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2647.0.html
The fact that Victoria’s position and the position of the tree that blocked her view are stationary positions is what makes her description less ambiguous than many others.
Just a hunch, a guess here but it seems to me that a shooter (whoever he was; I think it was Oswald) would have tried a shot before the Z222/223 film location of a separate shot. At that point, i.e., Z222/223 the limo is relatively far down Elm Street. Wouldn't a shooter have tried an easier/closer shot before that?
I just think - and it's just a guess - that a first shot would have been wiser earlier. Why wait until Z222 for the first try? Z222 make no sense to me as the first shot.
That (ahem) brilliance on my part tells us nothing about when that shot took place. If it was around Z133 then there were three shots in about 10 seconds. Meaning the slow reaction by the SS was indefensible.
Shorter: this is a worthless post, isn't it <g>?
Just a hunch, a guess here but it seems to me that a shooter (whoever he was; I think it was Oswald) would have tried a shot before the Z222/223 film location of a separate shot. At that point, i.e., Z222/223 the limo is relatively far down Elm Street. Wouldn't a shooter have tried an easier/closer shot before that?
I just think - and it's just a guess - that a first shot would have been wiser earlier. Why wait until Z222 for the first try? Z222 make no sense to me as the first shot.
That (ahem) brilliance on my part tells us nothing about when that shot took place. If it was around Z133 then there were three shots in about 10 seconds. Meaning the slow reaction by the SS was indefensible.
Shorter: this is a worthless post, isn't it <g>?
I don't expect the Secret Service to have act uniformly and instantaneously. I think there's some hindsight being unfairly applied here.Ten seconds over six is an indictment of the SS. Do I think they should have saved JFK? No, but there should have been a quicker reaction. Yes, easy for me sitting on my butt to say that.
There was a fleeting chance the first loud noise really was a backfire or firecracker. The agents were familiar with firearms but not on a everyday basis. Sometimes when you have a preference for an outcome (ie: the first loud noise not being a gunshot) it colors your perception.
Like how Biden supporters (like myself) believed he was going to have an easier night, that there was no way Trump was going to take all five or six of the big states that he needed; but lo-and-behold he did.
I think this a really important point Steve. It boils down to the oak tree that partly obscures the route of the Presidential limo from the sniper's nest. Possibly Charles can help out here as I can't find a reliable estimation of when the limo emerged from behind the oak tree from in terms of z-frames (as seen from the sniper's nest). I suspect an assassin, firing from the sniper's nest would take the first shot as soon as the limo was clear of the oak tree, but I'm not 100% sure when this is.
One of the more unambiguous descriptions of when the first shot occurred comes from Victoria Adams. Here is a link to a thread I started a while back regarding this:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2647.0.html
The fact that Victoria’s position and the position of the tree that blocked her view are stationary positions is what makes her description less ambiguous than many others.
Dan, looking at Don Roberdeau’s map, it appears to me that JFK would have been behind the tree between approximately Z165 to Z207. I hope that helps.
The various arguments I've presented in this thread have led me to a first shot at z223. Assuming this came from the sniper's nest the shooter would have approximately one second to take aim and fire after the limo emerges from behind the oak tree (at z207). I don't really know about these things but it seems reasonable to me.
Ten seconds over six is an indictment of the SS. Do I think they should have saved JFK? No, but there should have been a quicker reaction. Yes, easy for me sitting on my butt to say that.
There was an interesting section in the article you posted describing how the agents reacted:
"One witness’s recollections go far in helping us understand why the Secret Service reacted as it did. Landis, standing on the right rear running board of the Secret Service car just behind Kennedy’s limousine, explained his thinking process during the shooting in exhaustive detail. He wrote that he “heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle” and that “there was no question in my mind what it was.” Yet doubts immediately began to sap his initial certitude. Landis elaborated that he looked around, “observed nothing unusual,” and “began to think to think the sound had been that of a firecracker.” Landis recalled that Agent John Ready, in front of Landis on the running board, asked him “What was it? A firecracker?” Landis answered, “I don’t know; I don’t see any smoke.” Landis then thought that the sound might have been a tire blowout; he looked at the right front tire of the president’s limousine and saw that it was intact. He could not see the right rear tire from his position. Landis then saw Kennedy’s head “split open” and realized that the first loud sound had been a gunshot, just as he initially thought."
They reacted immediately but had nothing to go on, nothing to react to. A few seconds passed and it was too late. There was nothing they could have done. My only criticism is of the driver, Greer, who I feel should not have slowed down to a walking pace at the moment of the headshot.
The training is probably much better today. For example, there probably was little evasive driving training with a limousine in 1963.Jerry: You're a dinosaur leftist. Your ideology is bankrupt, out of date, and is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. You can't see people; you see race and argue backwards from there. Check the date on your computer; it says 2020 not 1860 or even 1960.
Well, Biden said he is and will be moderate. The only "radical" thing the Obama Administration did was Affordable Care. Trump sees himself as a moderate, so anything short of racist dog-whistles and not raising taxes on billionaires and large corporations will get Biden labelled a Communist.
Trump took most of the Confederacy, the Civil War border states and upper North-Midwest. In other words, those areas that spawn White Power groups and have a nasty history of treatment towards minorities. His strength in other areas of the country was in the rural areas, not metropolitan, and he slipped among suburban women.
Exactly! The same thing can be said for the other occupants of the limo. (see the head turns and quizzical expressions referenced in the thread about Victoria Adams that I linked to earlier in this thread).
I know what you're saying Charles but it's not the same thing. In Altgens 6 Landis, Ready and Hickey are twisted around looking behind them, it's an extreme, co-ordinated reaction by all three and they each testify it is a specific reaction to the sound of the first shot.
It's not just head turns, these are to be expected and should not be used to support the identification of a gunshot.
Altgens 6 was taken at approximately Z255. This is about 1.75 seconds after Z223 (when you say that you believe that the first shot occurred). If your hypothesis is correct, then it means that the following conversation and actions took place in that 1.75 seconds:
“Landis elaborated that he looked around, “observed nothing unusual,” and “began to think to think the sound had been that of a firecracker.” Landis recalled that Agent John Ready, in front of Landis on the running board, asked him “What was it? A firecracker?” Landis answered, “I don’t know; I don’t see any smoke.” Landis then thought that the sound might have been a tire blowout; he looked at the right front tire of the president’s limousine and saw that it was intact. He could not see the right rear tire from his position. Landis then saw Kennedy’s head “split open” and realized that the first loud sound had been a gunshot, just as he initially thought."
No way, Jose’!!!
The various arguments I've presented in this thread have led me to a first shot at z223. Assuming this came from the sniper's nest the shooter would have approximately one second to take aim and fire after the limo emerges from behind the oak tree (at z207). I don't really know about these things but it seems reasonable to me.The problem with a first shot at z223, apart from the need for an instantaneous facial and hand reaction, is the relative timing of the shots. As I have pointed out (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF), the overwhelming timing evidence is that:
I'm a bit lost Charles.
Why does any of that conversation have to take place before the Altgens pic?
Why isn't it a pic of the opening sentence - "“Landis elaborated that he looked around, “observed nothing unusual,” and “began to think to think the sound had been that of a firecracker.”
The reference to Kennedy's head splitting open is obviously something that took place after the Altgens pic.
Why would you say that happened in the 1.75 seconds between z223 and z255?
Jerry: You're a dinosaur leftist. Your ideology is bankrupt, out of date, and is rejected by the vast majority of Americans. You can't see people; you see race and argue backwards from there. Check the date on your computer; it says 2020 not 1860 or even 1960.As bone-headed as Jerry can be on some things, calling him a neanderthal leftist is somewhat unfair (although he, like all of us, is perhaps a bit of a neanderthal since we all have some neanderthal genes).
You're welcome to viewing things like you do and I'm welcome to calling it out for the neanderthal thinking that it is.
I see. It's like they all knew in advance that the first loud noise was a gunshot and so they were mentally prepared to gauge the span of all three shots. But maybe they only registered the span between the second and third shots, but the first shot that they didn't play much attention to was further back in their mind.Right. Of course, on hearing that second gunshot they would have completely forgotten about hearing the first "horrible, ear-shattering noise" (as Mary Woodward described it) 4 seconds earlier and have no sense of the relative spacing on hearing the third 2.3 seconds later. The 40+ people who recalled that same general shot pattern 1.........2.....3 in many different ways, were either all hallucinating together in the same way or actually heard such a pattern of shots.
The problem folks have with that is that Hickey would have to turn around to face forward (he's looking backward in Altgens, taken Z255) between Z255 and Z273 (about one second), locate Kennedy and observe a minor hair flutter.So when Hickey said he saw it and remained focused on the President from before the second shot to after the third, he was making it up.
I can see you're a defense attorney.
We don't know for sure if Hickey did turn around right after Z255 but he presumably witnessed the head shot.
"After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker.
It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level.
I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught
my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused
me to look forward toward the President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from
the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped
forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position
as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports
which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound
than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be
practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was
struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as
if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't
seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and
cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.
-- Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last."
It seems Hickey would have been turned around during the second shot, if he's taking half or the "four or five seconds" he estimates for the shot span to be turned back. About midway through the shooting, he recalls turning back and seeing the President slumped but beginning to straighten up, although the Zapruder film shows the President never straightens up ("almost erect sitting position").
I don't know why Hickey claimed he was facing forward for the last two shots; maybe it wouldn't look so good on paper that he's looking backward as the second shot is heard. But it could be he had yet to look back when he saw a shot strike the President in the Z220s that made the President slump, maybe causing his hair to finch. If that's the case, then putting on paper that he witnessed the President slump (Z220s), then looked back (Altgens) wouldn't look good, either.
The only other thing I can think of is that he heard the fatal gun shot and the impact on the head as separate sounds. Thus he heard the impact on the President's head first and saw "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward". A split-second later, Hickey heard the report from the rifle. He does mention "a noise at the point of impact" but it's out of sequence for my scenario.
There are a few things in Hickey's report the Zapruder film doesn't bear out. Could be he recalled things as best he could, with minor details getting transposed inadvertently. I am fairly certain Hickey couldn't see to the hair flutter in the Z270s.
The problem with a first shot at z223, apart from the need for an instantaneous facial and hand reaction, is the relative timing of the shots. As I have pointed out (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF), the overwhelming timing evidence is that:
1. there were 3 shots.
2. the head shot was the last shot
3. the last two shots were in rapid succession, the second shot being perceptibly closer to the third than the first: 1...........2......3 (A shot, a pause and two shots in rapid succession - see for example SA Lawson, Sheriff Craig, Ladybird Johnson, Luke Mooney, Mary Woodward, Pearl Springer all set out in my tabulation (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF)
The FBI determined that 2.3 seconds is about the fastest that two aimed shots could be made with Oswald's MC.
2.3 seconds or 42 frames prior to z313 is z271.
If the first shot was at z223, that would make the first interval 48 frames (271-223). That is a ratio of 48:42 which does not fit with the shot pattern. But a first shot around z190-200 (81:42 or 71:42) fits the pattern. That shot pattern fits pretty much the rest of the evidence as well - except Connally being hit in the back by z230. Perhaps he wasn't. Perhaps he was just turning around to see the President after realizing, in horror, that he had just heard a rifle shot and was fearing an assassination unfolding. After all, both he and Nelly said he turned around to see the President before he was hit in the back. By z271 there was a clear path from the SN to Connally's back that just passes to the right of JFK's head. Hickey said that JFK's hair flew up on the right side at the time of the second shot but it did not hit him. Where should we look for that hair flying up?
It appears to me that by the time Altgens 6 was taken that the looking around at things in various locations and observing nothing unusual, then discussing it, phase has already taken place.
What is it about Altgens 6 that makes it appear to you that all these things have already happened?
More misrepresentation from the man who never misrepresents my work.
You lack the courage to take on the work and all the arguments I present on this thread.
Firstly Andrew I'd just like to say you've written a fantastic paper, really well presented and not something to be taken lightly.I appreciate that. But we hold a small minority view on this board as both CTers and LNers don't like this evidence.
I'm in total agreement with your analysis of the shot pattern and, I assume, you have the first shot as the one that causes JFK to raise his hands to his throat (that is to say the first audible shot of the three assumed to be fired from the TSBD was a hit)All the witnesses who recalled what JFK did immediately after the first shot, with the possible exception of SA Bennett, said that he reacted in a way consistent only with the way JFK is reacting when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm. No one said he continued to smile and wave, let alone for 2-3 seconds afterward. Not even Bennett.
In this thread I am proposing a first shot at z223 that passes through both JFK and JBC, a second shot that is the headshot and a third missed shot. I would like to take some time to construct a worthy case for my position but I'd like to start off with an assertion you make in your post - that there is overwhelming timing evidence that the head shot was the last shot.Here are just some of the witnesses who said the last shot hit JFK in the head:
In your paper you seem to just accept Posner's claim for the last shot being at z312/313 but don't present the evidence for it.
I am simply assuming a third shot miss as I can't find any evidence for it from the video/photographic evidence but I need to make it fit the shot pattern. I believe there is plenty of witness evidence for a shot after the fatal headshot or the fatal headshot as the second shot but I would like the time to compile it rather than just insist it exists.
You also make a good point about JFK's reaction time to being shot. In the model I'm presenting the reflex reaction to JFK being hit is extremely rapid.
You've been peddling your Theory for almost two decades, and no one has adopted it, except maybe a handful of (Grassy Knoll)-fence-sitters. True, it's very clever and novel, but at the end of the day, it's he-said/she-said cherry-picks, two-shot witnesses that you claim lost track of the shot in between, hair flutters and a flapping sun visor.Jerry, the "theory" is that multiple witnesses independently reporting similar observations happens for a reason - and the reason is not because they were telepathically communicating the same hallucination.
Time for me to let folks in on what you're building up to. It apparently makes "more sense" Connally was hit in the torso about Z271 by a bullet that (and I appreciate the dramatic flair here) made Kennedy's hair flutter as it breezed on by. I don't know why everybody hasn't hopped on board. You're down to occasionally sticking a link to your PDF file rather than spelling out the parts of your Theory that are, yes, novel but ridiculous as well.Again, Jerry, that is not a theory. It is an observation made by SA Hickey that is corroborated by the zfilm. It is also corroborated by the overwhelming preponderance of witness recollections that the second shot was followed by the third shot in rapid succession.
I don't see how witnesses behind Kennedy (where many in your paper are, including Bennett) could speak to what he was doing with his face and hands.Witnesses directly behind JFK didn't mention his face or hands. They said that after the first shot he moved left (Powers) or he slumped to the left (SA Hickey, SA Kinney).
Andrew, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) you are proposing a first shot @z190-z200, a second shot @z271 and a third shot at z312/313.Altgens 6 is a very important photo. It is a fairly high resolution photo taken with a good telephoto lens so we can see a lot of detail from some distance. Altgens said it was taken after the first shot and before any other shots were heard. This is corroborated by SA Taylor who was travelling in the VP security car on the left rear seat. He said that the second shot occurred the instant he put his (left) foot out on the pavement when he exited the car. (18 H 782-83). We can see in Altgens 6 (uncropped - you have cropped the VP security car out) that his foot is not yet on the pavement. So not only do you have Altgens saying that his z255 photo is before the second shot, you have SA Taylor. Hickey said he turned forward and was looking at the President at the time of the second shot and continued looking at him to see the third (head) shot. He is still looking rearward in Altgens 6.
There is an interesting detail in Altgens 6 that puts quite a strain on this timing. This is from Rufus Youngblood's original report:
"I heard an explosion--I was not sure whether it was a firecracker, bomb, bullet, or other explosion. I looked at whatever I could quickly survey, and could not see anything which would indicate the origin of this noise. I noticed that the movements in the Presidential car were very abnormal and, at practically the same time, the movements in the Presidential follow-up car were abnormal. I turned in my seat and with my left arm grasped and shoved the Vice President, at his right shoulder, down and toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough. At the same time, I shouted
"get down!" I believe I said this more than once and directed it to the Vice President and the other occupants of the rear seat. They all responded very rapidly."
He hears "an explosion"
Has a quick look around
Notices 'abnormal movements' in the limo and follow-up car
Turns to LBJ and as he shoves him shouts at Mrs Johnson and Yarborough
"They all responded very rapidly"
This is from Hurchel Jacks (taken from your paper):
I heard a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice
President’s car. Mr. Rufus Youngblood, the Secret Service Agent riding in my car
asked me what that was and at the same time he advised the Vice President and Mrs.
Johnson to get down. He climbed to the rear of the seat with the Vice President and
appeared to be shielding the Vice President with his own body. At that time I heard
two more shots ring out.
He hears a shot
Youngblood asks him what it was
Youngblood tells LBJ and Ladybird to get down
Youngblood jumps into the back to shield LBJ
two more shots ring out
Piecing these two statements together it is possible to come up with this scenario:
A shot rings out. Youngblood looks quickly around and asks "What was that?". He sees abnormal movements in the Presidential limo and follow-up car. He turns to the people in the back, tells them to get down and jumps in the back to shield LBJ. Two more shots ring out.
The last point - Youngblood getting into the back before the second shot - is confirmed in Youngbood's WC testimony:
"So I turned around and hit the Vice President on the shoulder and hollered, get down, and then looked around again and saw more of this movement, and so I proceeded to go to the back seat and get on top of him.
I then heard two more shots. But I would like to say this. I would not be positive that I was back on that back seat before the second shot. But the Vice President himself said I was."
(https://i.postimg.cc/dQxX6LVw/lbj-Altgen-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The above pic is a detail from Altgens 6 taken at z255. In it I believe it is possible to discern Ladybird Johnson and Yarborough smiling away without a care in the world. This tells me that Youngblood is yet to yell at everyone in the back to get down. This means Youngblood has less than 0.9 of a second to tell everyone to get down and jump in the back to shield LBJ before a second shot at z271. This seems highly unlikely to me.
If the second shot is the headshot it gives Youngblood over 3 seconds to perform the same task which seems far more feasible (IMO).
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens_6_Crop2.jpg)
I would say Youngblood is turned to camera-left, maybe addressing Johnson, and that one of Youngblood's upper arms is raised such that it partially obscures our line-of-sight to Johnson. The top of Youndblood's shoulder is not much more higher above the top of the car doors than Yarborough's.
I find it interesting that most of the SS Agents in the follow-up car all describe hearing only two shots (when most of the other witnesses say they heard three). And you have to ignore the evidence suggesting an earlier shot (than Z223) to believe that it was the first shot.
In this C-Span interview by Gary Mack (https://www.c-span.org/video/?296967-1/the-kennedy-detail), Clint Hill and Gerald Blaine ("The Kennedy Detail") maintain that there were three shots. Beginning at about 30:55 Clint Hill talks about the shots. He admits that he did not hear the second shot but he accepts that there was a shot as he stepped off because other agents told him that (this is more fully recounted in the book). Hill says the head shot occurred as he was just about to reach the limo.
It is interesting that at 33:15 they both agree (Hill and Blaine) that all three bullets hit: the first hit JFK, the second hit Gov. Connally and the third hit JFK in the head. They are quite adamant that the single bullet theory is wrong, that Oswald fired all the shots and there was no evidence of a conspiracy.
I appreciate that. But we hold a small minority view on this board as both CTers and LNers don't like this evidence.
The problem for most LNers is that the evidence does not fit with the first shot miss and second shot SBT which seems to be the current SBT scenario preference (it has changed over the years from a first shot SBT at around z207 preferred by the WC to a second shot SBT al la Dr. Lattimer/Gerald Posner at z223 or so). The 3 shot, 3 hit scenario (which was the original assumption by the FBI) is the only scenario that fits all of the evidence. But the evidence is being discarded because it does not fit with what both LNers and CTers imagine that they can see happening to JBC by z230. Both camps believe they can tell he is hit in the torso by z230. CTers say he was hit around z230 on the second shot, the first being around z207 so there must have been 2 shooters. The LNers say that JFK and JBC are both hit by the SBT second shot at z223 with the first phantom shot missing the entire limo and disappearing without a trace at about z150-160. All the witnesses who recalled what JFK did immediately after the first shot, with the possible exception of SA Bennett, said that he reacted in a way consistent only with the way JFK is reacting when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign in the zfilm. No one said he continued to smile and wave, let alone for 2-3 seconds afterward. Not even Bennett.
SA Glen Bennett said in his initial notes written shortly after the events (CE 2112, 24 H 542):
"At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."
That very much looks to me like two shots. It could be that he was saying he heard the "supposed fire cracker" noise and immediately looked at the President and saw where a shot had hit - about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. Or, as most LNers interpret it, he heard the loud fire cracker noise and then immediately saw the second shot hit Gov. Connally (without mentioning a second shot sound). That is is an odd way to say it.. It is further complicated by the fact that the day after the events he gave a statement saying that there were three shots:
""At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/ and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limosine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."
Bennett does say that the third shot followed immediately after the shot that hit the president four inches down from the right shoulder. So unless he thinks that 5 seconds (the time from z223 to z313) is "immediately" the second shot hitting JFK does not fit what is apparent in the zfilm.
Here are just some of the witnesses who said the last shot hit JFK in the head:
[SA Glen Bennett (quoted above)
Photographer Ike Altgens (7 H 517): "There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot-that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
SA George Hickey (CE 1024 18 H 762): "The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."
Governor Connally: (3 H 133): the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again-it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue,
Nelly Connally (3 H 147): The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.
David Powers (7 H 473: "I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head")
SA Wm. Greer (2 H 119): Mr. SPECTER. Was it at about that time that you heard the third shot?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; just as soon as I turned my head. [he is seen turning his head for the last time at about z305 just before the head shot]
While one can theorize that these witnesses are wrong and that there was a shot after the head shot, I prefer to stick with evidence. Why the shooter would fire again after such an obvious hit also does not make much sense either.
I am not sure why we can't see LBJ's face but we can't:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Altgens6_VPcar_LBJdetail.jpg)
There appears to be something blocking it. We can just see the top of LBJ's head. The only thing that appears from the evidence is SA Youngblood climbing over top of him after the first shot.
What follows is based on the comprehensive witness analysis at Pat Speer's website. The analysis mainly focusses on what eye and ear-witnesses had to say about the shots - the amount, pattern, timing and whether there was a shot after the headshot at z313. From his analysis I count 26 witnesses he is confident identify a shot after the headshot, a further 8 who are probably describing such a shot and another 8 who are possibly describing a shot after the headshot.
John Templin
In a letter to [Pat Speers], written in March. 1998, Templin related his experience at the time of the assassination: the motorcade past (sic] us about 15 to 20 feet we heard what appeared to be a motorcycle backfire. As it did, the President's shoulders came up and he slumped down slightly on the back of the seat … As the car went a few feet more, the second shot was fired hitting President Kennedy with such force that I could see his hair actually depart from his skull...My (sic) attention was to look behind us and see if we could see anyone or anything. We could not determine where the shots came from other than from our left.' Templin (continued in his letter): 'Did the first shot strike the President? Yes.' Interestingly enough, Templin pointed out to me that while he believed that only three shots were fired, he stated that 'the third shot missed everything.'
Marilyn Willis
(6-19-64 FBI report, CD1245 p. 44-45) “Mrs. Willis advised when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds following this she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy’s head “blow off and ringed by a red halo.” She stated she believes she heard another shot following this.”
James Worrell
(3-6-64 UPI article on Worrell in the Dallas Times-Herald) "He said he was standing directly below the sixth floor of the depository when he heard a shot. 'I looked up real quick and saw the barrel fire again. I looked to see where it hit and saw President Kennedy hit in the back of the head. Then I looked up again and saw it fire a third time.
J W Foster
(3-26-64 FBI report based upon a 3-25-64 interview, CD897 p.20-21) “Just as the vehicle in which President Kennedy was riding reached a point on Elm Street just east of the underpass, Patrolman Foster heard a noise that sounded like a large firecracker…he realized something was wrong because of the movement of the President. Another report was heard by Patrolman Foster and about the same time the report was heard, he observed the President’s head appear to explode, and immediately thereafter, he heard a third report which he knew was a shot.
Malcolm Summers
(No More Silence p.102-107, published 1998) “ I heard three shots altogether…Then, when Jackie reached over and grabbed John, she was saying, “Oh, no! Oh, God no!” or something to that effect…Then I knew immediately that he had been hit…I thought he might have been ducking…When I heard her say that was after the second one had already hit. Apparently, that was the head wound.…as to the spacing of the shots, there was much more time between the first one and the second two, the second and the third. They were real close.”
Mary Moorman
(11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times-Herald) "Mrs. Moorman, who snapped a picture just at the time the President was shot, and said: 'I took the picture exactly at the moment the shot rang out. My Polaroid shows Kennedy slumped over in the car and it shows Jackie leaning towards him. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say 'My God, he's been shot.' I heard another shot or two and I turned to my friend and we got on the ground.'"
Charles Brehm
The first one hit the president—there was no doubt whatsoever--because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go.
Hugh Aynesworth
(March-May 1964 account written for the Dallas Morning News, published in the 2013 book JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes.) "Then came the first shot. I looked instinctively at one of the motorcycles to see if it was an exhaust. A woman near screamed. I saw a face look into mine briefly with a lost look, much as mine must have been. Then another shot. This was a shot I knew. I recall darting my eyes to the President's open limousine, now slipping down Elm St. to the viaduct. The president jerked his head. I could not tell if he were looking to see what the noise was, but I recall thinking he was only jerking his head to wave at the people on the other side of the grassy slope. His hair seemed to jump up. Later I understood why. Some of the vehicles in the caravan seemed to come to almost a complete stop. Others crept along. I could not tell who was in charge. Then a third shot, clearer now, for I somehow almost expected it.
These are just a handful of the more unambiguous statements. It's not a question of theorizing these witnesses are wrong or the ones you quote are. They are clearly contradictory statements and this is the problem, these witness statements are useful up to a certain point but cannot be solely relied upon to give us a definitive answer about the timing of the shots. Anyone trying to ascertain the timing of the shots who uses witness statements is forced to cherry-pick. They can only be used to enhance arguments derived from other evidence (video, photographic etc).
As for your point about the missing third shot, I agree, it's a weakness of the model I am presenting, not an insurmountable problem but a problem none-the-less. Assuming all three shots are meant to be head shots - the first is close, the second is on the mark but the third, when the sniper's eye should be in, goes awry. I can speculate that perhaps, because the gap between the second and third shots is so tight this hurried shot missed it's mark or perhaps the sudden appearance of Clint Hill in the sniper's sights caused him to pull his shot at the last second or perhaps.... more speculation, which is all it is.
I have to question the Hugh Aynesworth account. He wrote in his book “Witness to History” that he was standing about 10-feet from the curb on the east side of Houston Street near the intersection of Houston and Elm Street. I don’t know that he could have seen the limousine during the shooting from his location (I doubt it). Here is an excerpt from his account on page 16: “I initially had no idea who was shooting at whom or why or where, except that it sounded very close.”
If the account you posted is in that book and attributed to Aynesworth, then I would think that it could have been from his notes, but something that one of the other witnesses said (that he interviewed immediately after the shooting).
Omeara; Altgens describes the third spombleprofglidnoctobuns - second head shot - I'm great detail. So do Sibert and O neill
That's very naughty of him if he did do that.
Actually, Hugh Aynesworth is a highly respected journalist. What I am questioning is the accuracy of the information on Pat Speer’s claim that you referenced in your post. I now have a copy of the book in question on order. And hopefully will get to the bottom of this.
There is a titanic amount of evidence presented on Speers website, it truly is colossal, if there are no errors I would be amazed but it will be interesting to see what you turn up, as you seem like a clued up person on a lot of this Charles. If you are convinced this info is wrong, confident enough to buy the book, and it turns out you're wrong, it would be quite impressive validation of Speers work.
Whatever the case, the point being made is that there is, beyond doubt, contradictory eye/ear witness testimony and how we deal with that is important. You, yourself pointed out I would have to ignore evidence of an early shot and you're right, I do. But you have to ignore the evidence I present in this thread against an early shot and - guess what? - you do!
This seems to be an unacknowledged aspect of this type of research, when any researcher creates a model to describe a certain aspect of this case (ie; timing of shots) they must ignore certain evidence because there is so much contradictory evidence. It's impossible to avoid. So accusations of cherry-picking are ridiculous as everyone must do this.
One of the most important aspects of any investigation is to avoid having a biased viewpoint and treat all of the evidence with an open mind. It is proper to lay out some likely theories and test them against the evidence and attempt to prove or disprove the hypothetical theories. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. However, I do try not to ignore any of them simply because they do not fit a particular theory. I do try to test the witness accounts against the other evidence, and then form an opinion about each witness account. You say that I ignore your evidence in this thread, however you really don’t know how I have treated this evidence. It might be that I have formed an opinion to discount that evidence because it is not corroborated by the physical evidence, or contradictory to some well established evidence, etc.
Cherry picking the evidence is also known as confirmation bias. This is where an investigator has already formed an opinion and is looking for evidence that confirms his opinion. Avoid confirmation bias at all costs.
Twonkovich: I'll let the rudeness of you just referring to me by my surname go (and spelling it incorrectly) because the rest of your post is so funny :D
I'd be interested in why your name is spelled O'meara and not O'Meara
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_O%27Meara
Very well said Charles.
Allow me to explain why I felt you'd ignored some of the evidence presented in this thread.
You are a proponent of an 'early' first shot. The opening post of this thread starts with an examination of the photographic evidence of Altgens 6 in which we see three SS agents - Landis, Ready and Hickey - all twisted round from there usual positions looking back, apparently towards the TSBD. I compare this photographic evidence with the testimonial evidence of the three agents concerned:
Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."
Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."
Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "
It must be noted that two of the agents use the word "immediately" to describe their reactions. The testimonial evidence and the photographic evidence marry perfectly- "over my right shoulder", "to my right rear", "turned to the rear".
I then compare this photographic and testimonial evidence with the video evidence of the Zapruder film and note that, even though we can see these SS agents until z207 they do not react to a first shot as they seem to be doing in Altgens 6 and as we read about in their testimonies.
This combination of photographic, testimonial and video evidence refutes an 'early' first shot.
How, Charles, have you dealt with this evidence?
Dan, first I have to acknowledge that my opinion is just an opinion. I have no conclusive evidence of an early first shot that everyone would ever agree on. In this case, there is a lot of contradictory witness accounts. All of them cannot be correct. Neither can both yours and mine opinions be correct. The Altgens 6 photograph is a record of only one instant in time during the shooting. Yes, the three of them are all looking back in the direction of the TSBD. And I acknowledge that your theory doesn't appear to me to be impossible. LHO had reportedly practiced by dry firing his rifle on the screened porch in New Orleans. And in my opinion he probably developed a feel for the action of that rifle that allowed him to get three shots off very quickly. And it is certainly possible that he waited and began firing as the limo emerged from behind the tree and fired as quickly as he possibly could. In fact that makes good sense and I believe that that could have been his intention. But there is also credible evidence of an early first shot (I believe probably inadvertent due to interference in the tight confines of the sniper's nest). And I cannot disregard it based on the assumption that Altgens 6 is supposed to be confirmation of their accounts.
The Secret Service agents all had to write reports of what happened (and their related reactions). I believe that they had some opportunities to compare notes with each other before submitting their reports. And that that is why most of them sound suspiciously alike. None of them were likely to report anything that would indicate that they didn't react immediately. Landis' account (that you pointed out) indicates that there was initially some confusion because they detected nothing unusual. But most of them are very brief and just say that they reacted immediately. Greer initially slowing down the limo before speeding away at about the time of the fatal shot is (I believe) indicative of that confusion. Here is an excerpt from his original report: "The President's automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle behind the President's automobile. After the second shot, I glanced over my right shoulder and saw Governor Connally start to fall, I knew then that something was wrong and I immediately pushed the accelerator to the floor and Mr. Kellerman said, get out of here."
Please notice the fact that Greer said the limo was almost past the TSBD (meaning still in front of it) when he heard the first shot (that he thought was a backfire). This describes the section of the Zapruder film near Z133. And that by Z223 (your opinion of when the first shot occurred) the limo was well past the TSBD.
Because when I was setting this account up I cocked it up and didn't know how to change it. My surname is O' Meara (note the gap after the apostrophe). I wasn't that bothered about it but will change it now (if I can)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/dealey/Trask%20Endpaper%20Map.jpg)
Seems the southwest corner of the Depository might still be in Greer's vision as late as the Z160s.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z153.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z162.jpg)
It would appear at that time that Greer was looking towards the direction of Zapruder (maybe a little more northerly in Z153), not so much the Underpass. The southwest corner of the Depository would easily be in Greer's far peripheral vision, appearing as a blurred dark mass against the sky.
O' Meara
> The gap is not necessary
O'Meara
> The standard
Andrew P. O'Meara (1907–2005), United States Army general
Barry Edward O'Meara (1786–1836), Irish surgeon
Brian O'Meara (rugby union) (b.1976), Irish rugby union footballer
Brian O'Meara (hurler) (b.1990), Irish hurler
Brian O'Meara (Mullinahone hurler) (b.1973), Irish hurler for the Tipperary senior team
Colin O'Meara (b.1963), voice actor
David O'Meara, a Canadian poet.
Dermod O'Meara, Irish physician, poet and parent of Edmund O'Meara
Edmund O'Meara (1614–1681), Irish physiologist and child of Dermod O'Meara
Edward O'Meara (1921–1992), American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church
Eileen O'Meara, American artist
Frank O'Meara (1853–1888), Irish artist
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/croft~0.jpg)
Pretty odd for the driver of a car to be having his head off-center for several seconds while looking forward.
Even if Greer had his eyes fixated on the Underpass during the Z150-160s, the SW corner of the Depository would be in his far peripheral vision. Likewise, if Greer was looking straight in the direction of Zapruder, the Underpass would appear in his near peripheral vision.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Peripheral_vision.svg/499px-Peripheral_vision.svg.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/dealey/Trask%20Endpaper%20Map.jpg)
Can't a person look at something as big as a building and get a sense of where it's at even after they look away?
I find it odd that Kellerman has his head tilted away from the very front of the car for several seconds while you claim he would be looking with his eyes dead ahead anyway, supposedly fixated on the Underpass as if it's the only thing he need look at. Apparently Greer's eyes can't sweep back-and-forth so he can get a mental sense of both the Depository and the Underpass.
Thanks for updating me about my own name Bill but the gap is necessary. The O' is an indicator meaning something along the lines of "Belonging to the tribe/clan of". The tribe/clan in my name is Meara (an Anglicised version of the Gaelic original). They are two completely separate entities, therefore the gap.
I'm talking about the readability aspect. Nobody wants to encounter speed bumps, either on the road or on the page. I contend that your meaning comes across without the gap. After all, we're not reading from ancient scrolls here. We already know that o' means 'of'.
Thanks for the link to the interview. I had seen it a while back but have learned a few things in the meantime. So it was good to revisit it again. I haven’t read “The Kennedy Detail” however it is now on the list of books that I want to read.Gerald Blaine's account is in the chapter titled "Six Seconds in Dallas". He based his account in speaking to the SS agents afterward, not just their official statements. He maintains that the second shot occurred as Clint Hill was running:
I do have a copy of Clint Hill’s book “Five Days in November” and have read it. A review of his chapter “The Shots” beginning on page 103 finds that he only describes two shots. No mention of a third shot, period. “Five Days in November” has a copyright dated 2013. The Gary Mack interview was done in 2010. It seems to me that if Clint wanted to write about the third shot (that he didn’t hear) this book would have been his best opportunity to set the record straight. He apparently chose to completely avoid mentioning the shot that he didn’t hear. That choice leads me to believe that he is (quite understandably) not so sure about when that shot occurred and where it went.
Also, it appears to me that Gary Mack was trying to “put words in Clint’s mouth” and that Clint finally (and emphatically) said that he only heard two shots. Clint (as did JBC) apparently chose to agree with Mrs. Connally’s opinion that the second shot hit JBC. However, both of these men (JBC and Clint Hill) have stated that they didn’t actually hear that shot. Hmmm...
Gerald Blaine stated that both Emory Roberts and Sam Kinney saw all three shots hit their marks. However, a review of both of their original reports state otherwise. I would like to know where Gerald Blaine got his information regarding this claim...
"As his feet propelled him toward the moving car, Clint Hill was so focused on reaching his target that he didn't even hear the second shot."
"I glanced from the taillight of SS-100-X, at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head . With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.
*At this time Clint Hill jumped off and ran to the President's car, jumped on the back, and laid out across the trunk in a prone position where he rode the entire trip to the hospital . *"
Kellerman's recollection of the first shot tallies quite well with Rufus Youngblood's:It certainly is not consistent with a first shot at z160 when the VP car is still in the intersection in the middle of the turn onto Elm St.
Mr. SPECTER. Where, as best you can recollect, was the Vice President's car at the time the first shots. were heard? And would you take Commission Exhibit No. 354 and take the red pencil and mark as closely as you can the exact position on Commission Exhibit 354 of the Vice President's car with the capital letter "A" there?
Mr. YOUNGBLOOD. At the time of the first shot, did you say?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. YOUNGBLOOD. It will be in this area here, I should think.
Mr. SPECTER. I want the Vice President's car at this time.
Mr. YOUNGBLOOD. Well, this is what I am attempting to locate. It would be in the vicinity of this "X" right here, I do believe.
The X on the above diagram would be roughly at the spot marked z160 on Jerry's diagram. Quite a good correlation between the two testimonies.
If Greer is strictly looking at the Underpass during the first shot, as you maintain, how is he able to gauge where the car is relative to the Depository? He must either have just glanced at the building or formed a mental picture of it's location. And if he can do that for the Z130s, why not for the Z150s-Z160s?
It doesn't seem like Greer was exclusively concentrating on the Underpass, that he may have been glancing around.
Mr. SPECTER. When you were watching the overpass at that time,
did you observe anything on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Not that I can remember now.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe that there was no one present on the
overpass?
Mr. GREER. My recollection, there may have been a police officer up
there. It is vague to me now everything that I had seen at that time.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
When he was looking at the Underpass earlier, Greer didn't look well
enough to recall there were many people on top of the Underpass.
Greer seems surer of the car's location relative to the SW corner of the Depository: "The President's automobile was almost past this building." That gets it further down Elm Street than you like.
The car is only midway along the Depository's South facade in the Z130s.
Twonkovich: I'll let the rudeness of you just referring to me by my surname go (and spelling it incorrectly) because the rest of your post is so funny :DMy apologies. I misspelled your name. Please forgive me. Thx
If Greer is strictly looking at the Underpass during the first shot, as you maintain, how is he able to gauge where the car is relative to the Depository? He must either have just glanced at the building or formed a mental picture of it's location. And if he can do that for the Z130s, why not for the Z150s-Z160s?
It doesn't seem like Greer was exclusively concentrating on the Underpass, that he may have been glancing around.
Mr. SPECTER. When you were watching the overpass at that time,
did you observe anything on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Not that I can remember now.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe that there was no one present on the
overpass?
Mr. GREER. My recollection, there may have been a police officer up
there. It is vague to me now everything that I had seen at that time.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
When he was looking at the Underpass earlier, Greer didn't look well
enough to recall there were many people on top of the Underpass.
Well if you think the VP car is so far down down for the first shot, what about the comments from witnesses that the car was further back up Elm when the first shot was heard?All those quotes are quite consistent with a first shot with the VP car in the vicinity of the "x" that he marked, maybe a bit earlier. "rounding a curve" does not mean "turning the 135 degree turn at Elm". "Rounding a curve" is what the car did after the turn following the curved lanes on Elm St.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/z161-Map_VP-VPSS-Comments.png)
There is a difference between being reliable and being observant. Greer admitted he had only vague recollections of much of what was going on around him after the first shot.
Greer's testimony is clearly unreliable and should not be relied upon to ascertain the location of the first shot. Kellerman's testimony is far more reliable and locates the first shot at a relatively specific point.
All those quotes are quite consistent with a first shot with the VP car in the vicinity of the "x" that he marked, maybe a bit earlier. "rounding a curve" does not mean "turning the 135 degree turn at Elm". "Rounding a curve" is what the car did after the turn following the curved lanes on Elm St.
"Just made the turn" means a short time after completing the turn, not in the middle of making the turn.
You're a Defense Attorney. That means you know how to lie better than most in order to advance your case. And there's plenty of porkies in your PDF.
There is a difference between being reliable and being observant. Greer admitted he had only vague recollections of much of what was going on around him after the first shot.
Reliability is determined by fitting one's recollections to the rest of the evidence. If you wanted to establish whether there were people on the overpass, you would not use Greer's evidence because he admitted that he had only a vague recollection of that. But if you wanted to know whether his clear evidence about when the first shot occurred, you would see how it fit with the rest of the evidence. As far as I can determine, it fits very well with the rest of the evidence.
According to Greer, the limo was just about past the western edge of the TSBD. That puts it within 20 frames of z200, either way. That fits with a host of witnesses along Elm St., witnesses in the motorcade and photographers such as Phil Willis and Hugh Betzner (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF) who identified the time of the first shot in that same range.
Greer also had a clear recollection of turning around immediately after hearing the second shot, which he does at z278-80 and seeing JBC falling back. We can see that in the zfilm. The recollection of a shot just prior fits with what Hickey and Kinney observed with the hair flying up as seen in the zfilm at z273- 76. It also fits with the shot pattern recalled by over 40 witnesses.
And there's plenty of porkies in your PDF.
Are you saying he's in Barney Rubble?
Greer is clear that he turned round one time, after hearing the second shot, then hit the gas.
Mr. GREER I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again, to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after.
As for the slight ruffling of JFK's hair being the same as his hair "flying up"... I'm not so sure. I think the observation of JFK's hair flying up seems more like when part of his head flew up in the air with hair attached to it. Other witnesses make the same observation about his hair flying up but always in reference to the headshot.Who are you suggesting described the head shot as hair flying up only?
??He said he turned around twice. The Z-film shows him looking around twice. In his WC testimony he said:
That fits perfectly with what is seen in the zfilm. There is no question that Greer is reliable in saying that he turned around a second time and immediately after that there was another shot. We can see it in the zfilm. The question is whether he is as reliable in saying that when he turned the first time it was just after hearing a shot (the second shot).
Who are you suggesting described the head shot as hair flying up only?
It would not be particularly reliable if it was just one witness saying they saw something at a particular time (in Hickey's case, JFK's hair flying up after he turned to look forward at the time of the second shot). To have another independently report seeing the same thing (Kinney) ie. JFK's hair flying up at the time of the second shot, one has to take it more seriously. But then to have both corroborated by actual film showing JFK's hair flying up at that time and then have Greer corroborate it further by turning around just after that (which he said was immediately after the second shot) is highly significant. There are only two possibilities: they were all independently wrong in the same way and it is just a coincidence that the zfilm shows what they mistakenly thought they saw but didn't OR they were accurately reporting what they observed.
I thought I was going crazy there for a second but I see where you might be going wrong. Greer states:Greer used the phrase " And when I turned around again". That is an odd way to describe turning around rearward and then turning to the front. He seems to be talking about two rearward turns. If he had not actually turned around twice within about 2 seconds, there might be some ambiguity about whether he meant turning rearward twice. He also repeated this a little later on and it appears that Arlen Specter understood that he was referring to two rearward turns and glances at the Governor:
"Well, when we were going down Elm Street, I heard a noise that I thought was a backfire of one of the motorcycle policemen. And I didn't--it did not affect me like anything else. I just thought that it is what it was. We had had so many motorcycles around us. So I heard this noise. And I thought that is what it was. And then I heard it again. And I glanced over my shoulder. And I saw Governor Connally like he was starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong. I tramped on the accelerator, and at the same time Mr. Kellerman said to me, "Get out of here fast."
He heard a second noise.
Glanced over his shoulder
Realised something was wrong
Hit the gas
He states quite clearly he glanced over his shoulder once then reacted to it. Greer is then questioned about the timing of the shots:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many shots, or how many noises have you just described that you heard?
Mr. GREER. I know there was three that I heard--three. But I cannot remember any more than probably three. I know there was three anyway that I heard.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an independent recollection at this moment of having heard three shots at that time?
Mr. GREER. I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again, to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after.
Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
Here Greer is saying that he heard a second noise, looked over his shoulder, then turned round again meaning he turned back round to face forward. That's when he heard the third noise. This is confirmed later in his tesimony:
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recollect whether you accelerated before or at the same time or after the third shot?
Mr. GREER. I couldn't really say. Just as soon as I turned my head back from the second shot, right away I accelerated right then. It was a matter of my reflexes to the accelerator.
Mr. SPECTER. Was it at about that time that you heard the third shot?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; just as soon as I turned my head.
And later again:
Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your current recollection, did you notice that the President had been hit?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't know how badly he was injured or anything other than that. I didn't know.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you know at all, from the glance which you have described that he had been hit or injured in any way?
Mr. GREER. I knew he was injured in some way, but I didn't know how bad or what.
Greer describes turning around once. Something not shown in the Z-film. Now that's cleared up what do you think about all the other points made in my post pertaining to Greer's reliability?
Mr. SPECTER. You testified that at the second noise you glanced over your shoulder.
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Which shoulder did you glance over?
Mr. GREER. Right shoulder.
Mr. SPECTER. And describe or indicate how far you turned your head to the right at that time?
Mr. GREER. Just so that my eyes over, caught the Governor, I could see, I couldn’t see the President. I just could see the Governor. I made a quick glance and back again.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the movement of your head just then approximately the same?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. As the time?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. You just indicated the turn of your head slightly to the right.
Mr. GREER. My eyes slightly more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had vision real quick of it.
You'd better Adam and Eve it.
That moment when Greer "turned the first time" is definitely NOT when you would have it ("which he does at z278-80") because we see Greer's shoulder angle at Z268 and his hair line at Z273 consistent with succeeding frames showing Greer turned back.How long do you think Greer is looking back? He is driving the car. He can't look for much more than a second. We can see the second turn where he begins to turn his head rearward beginning at z304 and he turns forward by z320. So his turn back and forward takes 15 frames. If you apply that timing to the first turn, in which he faces forward by z293-95, he would have begun his rearward turn around z278-280.
Exactly.
"The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass.
The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X,
at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because
he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again. At this
time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from
the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the
President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at
that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots
were those that hit the President."
-- Samuel A. Kinney Report
What Kinney is calling the "second shot" is merely the first of two he can definitely associate with events. In this case, it could just as well be the fatal head shot, that most place as being the last shot. The "hair flying from the right side of his head" is placed "simultaneously" with him stepping on the gas and releasing the siren, which is generally placed about or immediately after the fatal head shot.
Kinney's "first shot" has all the indications of being the slumping seen in the Z220s.
That could as well be the second shot in a typical LN three-shot scenario.Well, that may be your take. I don't see how Hickey or Kinney could both imagine seeing something they couldn't see and then have what they couldn't see show up in the zfilm.
Yes, Kinney terming the head shot the "second shot" works in favor of your Theory and would convince many who might not look into the context of it.
Greer, much less Kinney, could not possibly see to where the President's hair flutters in the Z270s. They're more likely, IMO, describing pieces of scalp with hair attached flying away from the explosive head wound.
Bubble bath Thumb1:
But would you put your bees & honey on that?
If I did it'd have to be a bushel and peck as I'm all out of sausage and mash!
My belief is that Greer began to look back about the Z250s. In the Altgens photo, Greer appears to be turned enough to see Connally. Kellerman also starts to look back in the Z250s and they both don't get turned back around until the Z290s. Two seconds for each man to see something highly unusual, comprehend it and then turn forward again. Not a bridge too far.With all due respect, Jerry, anyone's belief is irrelevant. You need evidence. There is simply no evidence that Greer turned his head to look back before the turn where he is seen looking back at z283-291 or so. If he turned back before z278 he would not have seen JBC falling back onto his wife. JBC is not falling back before z278-80.
Gee, Counselor, do they teach you Dramatics in Law School? What could happen if Greer takes his eyes off the road for a whooping two seconds? Is there some obstruction in the road or vehicle on his front bumper? Will the car suddenly go out of control and go off the road? The car is coasting at 11 mph on a cleared street where the crowds had thinned. There's something more pressing going on behind them.Ok. He obviously is capable of looking back for more than a second, but his responsibility is driving the car and he is trained to keep his eyes on the road. You have him looking backward continuously from the late 250's to z290, based on your "belief" only. His chest is facing forward up to z270 and after that we cannot see it. We can't see his head until about z280 and by z283 we can see that his head is already turned to the right and a bit to the rear.
I wonder if the Z250s is where Greer inadvertently began to ease his foot off the accelerator. That would begin the process that caused the car to slow down by time it reached the Z290s.I expect that the car would slow down as soon as he lifted his foot off the accelerator. However, there is evidence in the Muchmore film that the brake lights came on as Clint Hill ran to the limo:
Connally is falling and collapsing in the Altgens photo.In your mind, perhaps. But he is not moving much until z272 when he starts sailing toward the front and then immediately falls back onto Nellie.
Let's see: You have Greer limited to a one-second head turn, so about 1/2 second for actual looking. Now you say he looks back long enough to witness the Governor falling towards Nellie, then Greer immediately loses interest and turns around again.There you go editorializing again. How can you tell that Greer loses interest? Perhaps he is felt a need to do what he is trained to do: watch where he is going.
Greer used the phrase " And when I turned around again". That is an odd way to describe turning around rearward and then turning to the front. He seems to be talking about two rearward turns. If he had not actually turned around twice within about 2 seconds, there might be some ambiguity about whether he meant turning rearward twice. He also repeated this a little later on and it appears that Arlen Specter understood that he was referring to two rearward turns and glances at the Governor:
As far as the evidence of Greer as to when the car accelerated forward, the zfilm shows that he slowed down as he was looking back and did not accelerate until after the head shot. This was the third shot in the sequence that he described. He is not reliable on that issue since he is contradicted by the zfilm and also by Clint Hill and the other agents. That may have been Greer's way of coping with his feeling that he should have accelerated sooner and wished he had.
Some witnesses make reliable observations and unreliable observations. To find facts you have to be able to determine what is reliable and what isn't.
Who are you suggesting described the head shot as hair flying up only?
It would not be particularly reliable if it was just one witness saying they saw something at a particular time (in Hickey's case, JFK's hair flying up after he turned to look forward at the time of the second shot). To have another independently report seeing the same thing (Kinney) ie. JFK's hair flying up at the time of the second shot, one has to take it more seriously. But then to have both corroborated by actual film showing JFK's hair flying up at that time and then have Greer corroborate it further by turning around just after that (which he said was immediately after the second shot) is highly significant. There are only two possibilities: they were all independently wrong in the same way and it is just a coincidence that the zfilm shows what they mistakenly thought they saw but didn't OR they were accurately reporting what they observed.
Has the trouble and strife left you without an Abergavenny?
Just want to get at the braking claim for now, and the rest later.
"I wonder if the Z250s is where Greer inadvertently began to ease
his foot off the accelerator. That would begin the process that
caused the car to slow down by time it reached the Z290s."
Well, I didn't say (above) Greer completely lifted his foot off the accelerator. I speculated Greer may have slowly eased his foot off, beginning in the Z250s, when I believe both Kellerman and Greer looked back, possibly responding to the same causation coming from behind. Such a gradual lifting off the accelerator would gradually slow down the car.
This is from an article by Chuck Marler in the old newsletter "Fourth Decade" (May 1994):
"Based upon the government's measurements, the limousine only reduced
its speed 1.2 miles per hour between frames 225 through 255 and frames
255 through 313. When one views the Zapruder film without the close–up
enhancements, the limousine reduces its speed significantly between frames
255 and 313—substantially more than the 1.2 miles per hour. This obvious
reduction of speed prior to frame 313 also occurs as the limousine is
becoming more perpendicular to the location of Abraham Zapruder which
should visually appear to be going faster even if there wasn't a reduction
in speed."
Those aren't brake lights that are lit up. They're "wrap-around" tail-light lenses that allow ambient light to shine through.Whether one tail-light or both (or none) were artificially bright depended on the viewer's position and amount and direction of ambient light. Now you'll argue Ford Lincoln wouldn't allow such a tail-light design because it would be a traffic hazard.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sample (far lens brighter due to light background showing through)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sample (Nix film on Houston)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sample (Towner film on Elm)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sample (Zapruder frame 374, direct sunlight but also background is bright)Tail-light in M19 and M45 (the frame you supplied in your post) are about equal in brightness. Neither appear to be lit by a bulb.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
M19 | Z290
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
M45 | Z316
Looks like the slowing event Alvarez presented was centered on Z300. Alvarez wrote:
"The heavy car decelerated suddenly for about 0.5 sec (10 frames),
centered at about frame 299, reducing its speed from about 12 mph
to about 8 mph." (or frame 300 in his graph)
So now we look for a brake light being on at Z295. There is a still of Muchmore frame M24 (Z295) in Robin's Gallery. As it happens, it's one of the clearest frames.In the animation, see if the limousine tail-lights come on before the tail-light passes the little boy. That's when braking must occur if Greer braked to account for the slowdown Alvarez centered on Z300.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_image007~0.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qB64sjleNYw/WGMqFkG690I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/8jtXjjfWtIIR3i_DnSuPDLCUOIIknhvQgCLcB/s640/Muchmore+2.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Actually, Hugh Aynesworth is a highly respected journalist. What I am questioning is the accuracy of the information on Pat Speer’s claim that you referenced in your post. I now have a copy of the book in question on order. And hopefully will get to the bottom of this.
I don’t believe that Hugh Aynesworth actually saw JFK jerk his head after the second shot with his own eyes.
And I don’t believe that whoever apparently told him that they saw this intended to imply that the second shot was the fatal head shot.
It appears to me that JFK would have had a sudden reaction when he was hit in the back of the base of his neck. And that that was what is described as a jerk of his head. We do not see this head jerk on the Zapruder film because JFK is still hidden from Zapruder’s camera by the sign when the bullet hit him.
And JFK appears to have already started to raise his arms by the time he emerges into camera view from behind the sign.
In this interview with Aynesworth he basically opens it with saying he didn't see JFK at the time of the assassination'
JFK did react within a fraction of a second of being hit. This first reaction is recorded in Zapruder and is dealt with in this thread. The head jerk is a reference to the headshot. JFK is indeed hidden behind the sign when hit at z223 but by z224 onwards enough of him is visible to ascertain when his first reaction to being hit took place.
The danger of using JFK's right arm position as he emerges from behind the sign to indicate a reaction to being shot is dealt with in this thread. It is his left arm position that indicates his reaction more accurately
In this interview with Aynesworth he basically opens it with saying he didn't see JFK at the time of the assassination'Mr O'meara again assumes he knows what was going on behind the sign.
JFK did react within a fraction of a second of being hit. This first reaction is recorded in Zapruder and is dealt with in this thread. The head jerk is a reference to the headshot. JFK is indeed hidden behind the sign when hit at z223 but by z224 onwards enough of him is visible to ascertain when his first reaction to being hit took place.
The danger of using JFK's right arm position as he emerges from behind the sign to indicate a reaction to being shot is dealt with in this thread. It is his left arm position that indicates his reaction more accurately
Pat Speers apparently interprets Hugh Aynesworth’s words differently. Spinning them to try to imply that they indicate a shot after the fatal head shot. However, Aynesworth’s story is not sworn testimony, it is most likely an anecdotal comment from another witness (because Aynesworth could not have seen this from his position), and Bill Rives gave license to the reporters to include anecdotes, etc..
Now, as to my personal feelings regarding Aynesworth's credibility... When I created my witness database, many if not most CTs were of the mind-set Aynesworth was not even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting--I mean, where were his notes, his interviews, etc, and why hasn't he ID'ed himself in a photo, etc... But, from reading his many statements over the years, I've come to believe he was just where he said he was (at least some of the time), mid-block on the east side of Houston and Elm.
In this interview with Aynesworth he basically opens it with saying he didn't see JFK at the time of the assassination'
JFK did react within a fraction of a second of being hit. This first reaction is recorded in Zapruder and is dealt with in this thread. The head jerk is a reference to the headshot. JFK is indeed hidden behind the sign when hit at z223 but by z224 onwards enough of him is visible to ascertain when his first reaction to being hit took place.
The danger of using JFK's right arm position as he emerges from behind the sign to indicate a reaction to being shot is dealt with in this thread. It is his left arm position that indicates his reaction more accurately
Huh. Aynesworth's original account of his actions on the day of the shooting, found in the book you recently purchased, claims he saw Kennedy's head jerk with the second shot. He reports this in an eyewitness account--not in an account of the shooting as told by numerous witnesses. If you read through the book, furthermore, you'll find that the notes collected by his paper were all supposed to be personal accounts of the day of the shooting, and not news stories comprising the recollections of others. Now, this was written before the publication of the Warren Report, and the gradual belief the last shot was the head shot. So it's understandable if Aynesworth backed away from his initial impression--lord knows many other witnesses did as much.
Now, could Aynesworth have even seen Kennedy at the time of the head shot? Good question. Probably not. The possibility exists, then, that he just added the bit about seeing Kennedy's head jerk to impress his boss--Aynesworth was at that time a young ambitions reporter and he may very well have noticed how those closest to the action (or claiming to be closest to the action, a la Dan Rather) received a boost in credibility, and stature, within the journalistic community. (See Barbie Zelizer's Covering the Body).
Now, as to my personal feelings regarding Aynesworth's credibility... When I created my witness database, many if not most CTs were of the mind-set Aynesworth was not even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting--I mean, where were his notes, his interviews, etc, and why hasn't he ID'ed himself in a photo, etc... But, from reading his many statements over the years, I've come to believe he was just where he said he was (at least some of the time), mid-block on the east side of Houston and Elm.
So why do I think as much? Aynesworth is a dyed-in-the-wool Oswald did-it guy. And yet he has been consistent in claiming the last two shots were bunched together. If he'd made up his story, it seems he would have changed it to fit the nonsensical 160-224-313 scenario pushed by most LNs these days. But he hasn't. So I tend to believe it is his genuine impression the last two shots were bunched together.
In any event, upon re-reading Aynesworth's account, I noticed something I should have included on my website--that Aynesworth placed himself in the vicinity of a large black woman wearing a pink dress. Such a woman should be easy to spot in the crowd along Houston. I took a quick look and was unable to find her. Maybe someone with an interest in supporting Aynesworth's credibility could find her, and then find him nearby.
Huh. Aynesworth's original account of his actions on the day of the shooting, found in the book you recently purchased, claims he saw Kennedy's head jerk with the second shot. He reports this in an eyewitness account--not in an account of the shooting as told by numerous witnesses. If you read through the book, furthermore, you'll find that the notes collected by his paper were all supposed to be personal accounts of the day of the shooting, and not news stories comprising the recollections of others. Now, this was written before the publication of the Warren Report, and the gradual belief the last shot was the head shot. So it's understandable if Aynesworth backed away from his initial impression--lord knows many other witnesses did as much.
Now, could Aynesworth have even seen Kennedy at the time of the head shot? Good question. Probably not. The possibility exists, then, that he just added the bit about seeing Kennedy's head jerk to impress his boss--Aynesworth was at that time a young ambitions reporter and he may very well have noticed how those closest to the action (or claiming to be closest to the action, a la Dan Rather) received a boost in credibility, and stature, within the journalistic community. (See Barbie Zelizer's Covering the Body).
Now, as to my personal feelings regarding Aynesworth's credibility... When I created my witness database, many if not most CTs were of the mind-set Aynesworth was not even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting--I mean, where were his notes, his interviews, etc, and why hasn't he ID'ed himself in a photo, etc... But, from reading his many statements over the years, I've come to believe he was just where he said he was (at least some of the time), mid-block on the east side of Houston and Elm.
So why do I think as much? Aynesworth is a dyed-in-the-wool Oswald did-it guy. And yet he has been consistent in claiming the last two shots were bunched together. If he'd made up his story, it seems he would have changed it to fit the nonsensical 160-224-313 scenario pushed by most LNs these days. But he hasn't. So I tend to believe it is his genuine impression the last two shots were bunched together.
In any event, upon re-reading Aynesworth's account, I noticed something I should have included on my website--that Aynesworth placed himself in the vicinity of a large black woman wearing a pink dress. Such a woman should be easy to spot in the crowd along Houston. I took a quick look and was unable to find her. Maybe someone with an interest in supporting Aynesworth's credibility could find her, and then find him nearby.
Aynesworth did a credible job with the Henry Lee Lucas false confessions. I watched the 2019 Netflix series on that called "The Confession Killer". Maybe it took one to know one, as in Aynesworth being a Texas blowhard who exposed what the Texas Department of Public Safety blowhards were doing.One major difference.
Aynesworth reminds me a bit of Phil Willis, the Texas blowhard who exaggerated the worth of his Z202 slide, claiming it was taken simultaneously with the first shot. That misled the Warren Commission, along with countless JFK assassination buffs.
Huh. Aynesworth's original account of his actions on the day of the shooting, found in the book you recently purchased, claims he saw Kennedy's head jerk with the second shot. He reports this in an eyewitness account--not in an account of the shooting as told by numerous witnesses. If you read through the book, furthermore, you'll find that the notes collected by his paper were all supposed to be personal accounts of the day of the shooting, and not news stories comprising the recollections of others. Now, this was written before the publication of the Warren Report, and the gradual belief the last shot was the head shot. So it's understandable if Aynesworth backed away from his initial impression--lord knows many other witnesses did as much.
Now, could Aynesworth have even seen Kennedy at the time of the head shot? Good question. Probably not. The possibility exists, then, that he just added the bit about seeing Kennedy's head jerk to impress his boss--Aynesworth was at that time a young ambitions reporter and he may very well have noticed how those closest to the action (or claiming to be closest to the action, a la Dan Rather) received a boost in credibility, and stature, within the journalistic community. (See Barbie Zelizer's Covering the Body).
Now, as to my personal feelings regarding Aynesworth's credibility... When I created my witness database, many if not most CTs were of the mind-set Aynesworth was not even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting--I mean, where were his notes, his interviews, etc, and why hasn't he ID'ed himself in a photo, etc... But, from reading his many statements over the years, I've come to believe he was just where he said he was (at least some of the time), mid-block on the east side of Houston and Elm.
So why do I think as much? Aynesworth is a dyed-in-the-wool Oswald did-it guy. And yet he has been consistent in claiming the last two shots were bunched together. If he'd made up his story, it seems he would have changed it to fit the nonsensical 160-224-313 scenario pushed by most LNs these days. But he hasn't. So I tend to believe it is his genuine impression the last two shots were bunched together.
In any event, upon re-reading Aynesworth's account, I noticed something I should have included on my website--that Aynesworth placed himself in the vicinity of a large black woman wearing a pink dress. Such a woman should be easy to spot in the crowd along Houston. I took a quick look and was unable to find her. Maybe someone with an interest in supporting Aynesworth's credibility could find her, and then find him nearby.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Groden_Willis5.jpg)My point being, Willis "was" in Dealey Plaza. There's proof.
What do we see in the Willis photo that proves it was taken simultaneously with the first shot?
I see some things that suggest it was taken well after the first shot:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/firstshot/willis-bretzner-labelled.jpg)
- Mrs. Kennedy and the Connallys are looking to their right; all said they turned their heads in reaction to hearing the first shot; the Connallys beginning in the Z160s and Mrs. Kennedy in the Z170s. Willis05 was taken at Z202. Willis himself stated:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of
the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just
snap in that direction ... she turned to the right toward him."
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)- Agent John Ready is looking off to his right; he also said he did this in response to the first shot.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)- (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)Agent Bennett (between the Betzner and Willis photos) moves his head from his right to his left:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and
looked towards the President who was seated in the right
rear seat of his limousine open convertible."
My timing of the Willis photo is that it was taken about 2.4 seconds after the first shots and 1.14 seconds before the second shot. If it happened that way, the Willis photo was "simultaneous" with the first two shots, but not a particular shot. Willis was sort of telling the truth, Ted Cruz-style.
On a second look through the photos, Charles, I think I found the woman described by Aynesworth. She's right by the entrance to the jail, which is to say, at the south end of the County Records Building along Houston. She is most easily observed in the Betzner photo of the JFK limo on Houston.Thanks Mr Speer.
To be clear, I don't have a particular grievance against Aynesworth. When I first started researching this case (about 18 years ago), I was confounded by all the cherry-picking and misinformation caused by cherry-picking. So I decided to create a database per se, in which I compared the statements made by witnesses over the years. I started off with the assassination witnesses, but eventually included sections where I compare the statements of the Parkland witnesses as well. And the bottom line is this--most every witness making more than one or two statements over the years contradicted themselves on one point or another.
But that's not to say that witnesses are unreliable. When there is a consistent pattern within the witness statements--such as the earliest and closest witnesses saying the last two shots were bunched together--which is in direct opposition to the cognitive psychology maxim time slows down during traumatic events--one can bet the farm the last two loud sounds heard by the bulk of the witnesses were bunched together.
As far as the possibility of a shot at 190, it's not just the blur analysis and eyewitness evidence that places the first shot at this time, but the photo analysis. One of the most overlooked facts about the case is that the HSCA photography panel concluded a shot rang out before Kennedy went behind the sign...and that they came to this conclusion before the acoustics panel came to their conclusion a shot at Z-190 was probable. Here's why...
(https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/_/rsrc/1592424563911/Zfilm193-207.gif?attredirects=0&d=1)
(https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/_/rsrc/1596965924261/ZapruderJFK190-205.gif?attredirects=0&d=1&height=268&width=400)
Kennedy's head and arm movements as he heads behind the sign suggest he was hit at this time. They certainly don't look natural. And the failure of Dale Myers etc to acknowledge this and to insist he continued calmly waving at this time is perplexing, to say the least.
Thanks Mr Speer.
SS and FBI both suggested Z207 as first hit. Within days of the assassination.
On a second look through the photos, Charles, I think I found the woman described by Aynesworth. She's right by the entrance to the jail, which is to say, near the south end of the County Records Building along Houston. She is most easily observed in the Betzner photo of the JFK limo on Houston.I looked for a large black woman wearing a pink dress in Bell, Hughes and Nix color films. Only the Bell video, from “The Lost “Bullet”, gives a clear enough view of, possibly, such a woman. I stabilized Bell's Houston Street clip, centering on a woman that seems to wear a very faint pinkish dress. She is near where Don Roberdeau shows Aynesworth on the sidewalk towards the SW corner of the DCRB. After stabilization, 9 frames were combined with stacking software. Stacking (frame addition) improves the signal-to-noise ratio with the aim of strongly increasing the image saturation. The result on my laptop appears pinkish, while on a TV appears a little more orange.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/p_Ug5pDalw7VgLaXNnoNwUwl4ajXhnhKb3AdY4nUtnpONodPHZtDOvZnCHExSywhuKONxuLKMKdo6aKJfSVNlkyOX2G-JtHuWDKMTWJXPY-4Dfu84WzfCiY8eYgNJ5NOSK_cHVIwjQmp0Z52mw)
I looked for a large black woman wearing a pink dress in Bell, Hughes and Nix color films. Only the Bell video, from “The Lost “Bullet”, gives a clear enough view of, possibly, such a woman. I stabilized Bell's Houston Street clip, centering on a woman that seems to wear a very faint pinkish dress. She is near where Don Roberdeau shows Aynesworth on the sidewalk towards the SW corner of the DCRB. After stabilization, 9 frames were combined with stacking software. Stacking (frame addition) improves the signal-to-noise ratio with the aim of strongly increasing the image saturation. The result on my laptop appears pinkish, while on a TV appears a little more orange.
(https://i.imgur.com/PWl1MPI.jpg)
Ok, that's all well and good...... I'll not disagree with you..... BUT?..... Where is Aynesworth? He doesn't appear to be in the vicinity.I don't have any idea what he looked like at that time. Does anyone?
I see. In your mind, I'm the one off-topic.Phil Willis was in Dealey Plaza.
Nixon resigned not knowing he would be pardoned. The pardon came a month after Nixon resigned, and after it was explained to Nixon that acceptance would mean "an admission of guilt".
"At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period,
Benton Becker, explained an additional element that influenced
Ford’s decision to issue a presidential pardon: a 1915 Supreme
Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that
a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon
was "an admission of guilt.” Thus, this decision implied that
Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also
accepting Ford’s pardon.
Prior to Ford’s issuance of the pardon, Becker was tasked with the
difficult job of mediating the negotiations between Ford and Nixon.
Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California
when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s
instructions, walked through the decision with Nixon.
Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the
former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick.
Finally, Nixon acknowledged Becker’s argument about what the
Supreme Court decision meant.
After he left the White House, Ford carried part of the Burdick decision
with him in his wallet in case someone brought up the pardon. In a
later interview with Woodward for Caroline Kennedy’s book,
“Profiles in Courage for Our Time,” Ford pulled out the dog-eared
decision and read the key parts of it to [Bob] Woodward."
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
-- The Nixon Pardon in Constitutional Retrospect
National Constitution Center, September 8, 2020 ( Link (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-nixon-pardon-in-retrospect) )
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://constitutioncenter.org/assets/img/logo-lg.jpg) (https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/styles/bias144x24/public/bias-center.png) (https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/AllSides-Logo.png)
If you haven't looked at Chapter 2b at patspeer.com, you should probably give it a look.
Purvis and I used to hash it out on the Ed Forum. He had it in his head that the SS and FBI were on the up and up, and that the WC came along and dismantled their work.
But Purvis had NEVER bothered to read the FBI and SS memos and reports on this stuff. It turns out that the FBI and SS both claimed the head shot occurred way past Kennedy's position at Z-313, and that Eisenberg and Specter caught them in this charade, and tried to straighten things out, so that their single-assassin solution wouldn't collapse under even the slightest analysis. This is all demonstrated on my website.
In essence, I believe the SS and FBI were concerned the shots were fired too closely together, and that they deliberately moved the head shot (which they believed was the last shot) further down the road so as to give the assassin (whom they believed to be Oswald) more time to fire the shots. They fudged their work. And got caught.
FWIW, when confronted with the FBI internal memos proving the FBI assumed the last shot was the head shot, Purvis claimed they'd all been faked by Specter et al, to cover their tracks. These were the FBI's internal memos, from the FBI's files, which had never been provided the Warren Commission.
I lost respect for Purvis at that point.
We'd been colleagues, of sorts, in that we were at one point the only two researchers pushing there was a shot after the head shot. But I couldn't go along with his claim Specter and Eisenberg and Belin et al were the bad guys in this whole fiasco, and that the SS and FBI were innocent. At the time I wondered if anti-semitism had clouded his thinking, but later came to believe his military background had led him to favor what he interpreted as hard-working men of action over sycophantic lawyer-types. And I can't say I disagree with him in that bias...
I don't have any idea what he looked like at that time. Does anyone?
I see. In your mind, I'm the one off-topic.
Nixon resigned not knowing he would be pardoned. The pardon came a month after Nixon resigned, and after it was explained to Nixon that acceptance would mean "an admission of guilt".
"At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period,
Benton Becker, explained an additional element that influenced
Ford’s decision to issue a presidential pardon: a 1915 Supreme
Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that
a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon
was "an admission of guilt.” Thus, this decision implied that
Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also
accepting Ford’s pardon.
Prior to Ford’s issuance of the pardon, Becker was tasked with the
difficult job of mediating the negotiations between Ford and Nixon.
Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California
when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s
instructions, walked through the decision with Nixon.
Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the
former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick.
Finally, Nixon acknowledged Becker’s argument about what the
Supreme Court decision meant.
After he left the White House, Ford carried part of the Burdick decision
with him in his wallet in case someone brought up the pardon. In a
later interview with Woodward for Caroline Kennedy’s book,
“Profiles in Courage for Our Time,” Ford pulled out the dog-eared
decision and read the key parts of it to [Bob] Woodward."
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
-- The Nixon Pardon in Constitutional Retrospect
National Constitution Center, September 8, 2020 ( Link (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-nixon-pardon-in-retrospect) )
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://constitutioncenter.org/assets/img/logo-lg.jpg) (https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/styles/bias144x24/public/bias-center.png) (https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/AllSides-Logo.png)
Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.Accepting a pardon is an acknowledgment of guilt?
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.
I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.
Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.Trump was the "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the offences that Michael Cohen got 3 years for - basically following Trump's instructions to do the illegal acts on his behalf contrary to Federal Election laws. Trump can't pardon himself and be assured that the pardon will be effective. So the only way he can avoid prosecution would be for another president to pardon him. Perhaps he will turn the Presidency over to VP Pence at the last minute. Then Pence can pardon him and perform all the official functions in the transition and Biden's inauguration.
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.
I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.
Dirty lawyer up to his tricks.Ad hominems, Jerry? Really?
Well I think the witnesses most certainly got RIGHT their personal subjective recreation of the shot span spacing. Others spoke of even spacing and still others spoke of the first two shots being closer together. You obviously cling to the first group because they support your wacky pet theory.No. My "wacky pet theory" is that these witnesses heard what they all said they heard: A shot, a pause and two shots in rapid succession. So many recall hearing the same pattern that it is difficult to understand how they could have such similar recollections and be so wrong (ie. thinking 5 seconds was rapid). But it is not just the shot spacing. It is the dozens of witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot and the consistent witness recollections as to the timing of the first shot and location of JFK when it sounded. It all fits together: 3 shots: First hits JFK. Second hits JBC as Clint Hill leaps from the running board. Third at z313. It also provides a better explanation of Governor Connally's wounds. And it is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots.
To me it's not science, and I think for most the "shot spacing" concentration (if any concentration; why would they for Pete's sake?) didn't kick in until after they heard the second shot; the first shot being thought of as a backfire or firecracker. BTW, if so many said Kennedy was struck on the first shot, why do so many speak of a backfire and firecracker?Several people, including Clint Hill and Gov. Connally recognized it as a rifle shot. Others did not maybe because they had not heard a rifle but had heard cherry bomb fire crackers and backfires. Cherry bombs were a big thing in the early sixties and they were deafening.
We have to match a witness group's purely-subjective recreation?I'd like you to tell Bob Jackson to his face that he did not hear what he has always maintained that he distinctly recalled hearing and that it was just his purely subjective recreation.
It's like the stuff the Trump people are taking to the judges to get a recount.No. It is a conclusion based on evidence. By maintaining that speculation should be preferred over evidence, you are the one behaving that way.
Remember Nickerson and I looked into your first-shot-struck witnesses? Turned out many of them described Kennedy reacting to a slumping shot (Z220s), BUT the next shot they recalled was the head shot. You take honest God-fearing two-shot witnesses and make them into three-shot witnesses, by pretending they missed your Z271 second shot. That way the "slumping" shot becomes your Theory's "first shot".There are too many "three shot, last two close together" witnesses to believe that they could have mistaken a 5 second pause between the last two shots for two rapid shots. But, as I say, it is not just that evidence.
You're turning into Trump, thinking he'll never concede. You' may not be far removed from the Donahue-Hickey Theory people who think the Bronson Film is too blurry and doesn't prove anything.Again, Jerry, you should not use ad hominem arguments. It makes it look like you can't deal with the evidence.
Thank you for sharing something in an obscure book I'll probably never come across or my library would have. It's good to have a fresh piece of the puzzle. However, for example, the people in Car No.4 (Vice-Presidential car) suggest the first shot occurred later:Not sure where that gets us, but the Z150s-160s would place Baskin about halfway along the Dallas County Records Bldg. Not mathematically-halfway relative to the whole block, but sort of consistent with his recollection of that day. I think the Z200s would be getting the press car too close to the end of the block.
- Jacks (driver): "My car had just straightened up from making the left turn..."
- Youngblood (SS agent): "As we were beginning to go down this incline ..."
- LBJ" "After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street..."
- Lady Bird: "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill..."
Others in the press car:
Malcolm Kilduff (WH Assistant Press Secretary): "There was a longer
pause between the first and the second than there was between
the second and the third." (Andrew won't like that)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Kilduff said he was near enough to read the sign over the doorway
of the TSBD building and ask: "Would you mind telling me what in
the name of heaven the Texas School Book Repository is? I never
heard of a school book 'repository.'"
Bob Clark: "Right as we turned in front of the Texas School Book
Depository I heard three extremely loud and clear shots."
(He's taking about where they were during all the shots.)
Jack Bell: "There was a loud bang as though a giant firecracker
had exploded in the cavern between the tall buildings we were
just leaving behind us." (If Bell meant the gap between the
Records and Criminal Courts Bldgs then Car No. 7 would
have to be further along than Z133)
What is this "visual evidence" of a missed shot?
It is pointless to try to formulate an exact time of the shot in question based solely on all of the witness accounts because they are all different and conflicting and most are vague in one or more aspects (Bob Baskin’s account included). They can’t all be correct, and even if only one is chosen to be correct, it can often be interpreted differently in an attempt to support two different theories.
The visual evidence that points to an early missed shot is less disputable and helps to support the witness accounts that agree with it.
I think that Jack Bell was referring to the Main Street corridor surrounded by the tall buildings. They had just left it.
Thank you for sharing something in an obscure book I'll probably never come across or my library would have. It's good to have a fresh piece of the puzzle. However, for example, the people in Car No.4 (Vice-Presidential car) suggest the first shot occurred later:One does not have to guess. The first press car was the car immediately behind the Cabell car. The Cabell car was immediately behind the VP Security car. The VP Security car was immediately behind the VP car. We can see that the VP car at z160 is pointing north of a line from Zapruder to the corner so it is about half way into the turn. The Cabell car has yet to enter the intersection. So the first press car is still about 2 car lengths from entering the intersection. That is about 30 feet. Moving at about 1 foot per frame, maybe a bit slower going through the intersection, that would put the first press car just entering the intersection at z190 which correlates to the first shot. That fits Betzner, Willis and about 20 others including the occupants of the cars ahead of the press car.Not sure where that gets us, but the Z150s-160s would place Baskin about the south edge of the Dallas County Records Bldg. I think the Z200s would be getting the press car too close to the end of the block.
- Jacks (driver): "My car had just straightened up from making the left turn..."
- Youngblood (SS agent): "As we were beginning to go down this incline ..."
- LBJ" "After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street..."
- Lady Bird: "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill..."
Others in the press car:Why would you say that!? That is what I have been saying the shot pattern was!
Malcolm Kilduff (WH Assistant Press Secretary): "There was a longer
pause between the first and the second than there was between
the second and the third." (Andrew won't like that)
One does not have to guess. The first press car was the car immediately behind the Cabell car. The Cabell car was immediately behind the VP Security car. The VP Security car was immediately behind the VP car. We can see that the VP car at z160 is pointing north of a line from Zapruder to the corner so it is about half way into the turn. The Cabell car has yet to enter the intersection. So the first press car is still about 2 car lengths from entering the intersection. That is about 30 feet. Moving at about 1 foot per frame, maybe a bit slower going through the intersection, that would put the first press car just entering the intersection at z190 which correlates to the first shot. That fits Betzner, Willis and about 20 others including the occupants of the cars ahead of the press car.
Why would you say that!? That is what I have been saying the shot pattern was!
You left out the best part. Kilduff continued:
HARTIGAN: So you're of the school of thought that you heard three shots.
KILDUFF: Oh, I know I heard three shots. Nobody's going to tell me I didn't hear three shots. I mean I know that there was a long pause because there was that little interchange of conversation between Merriman Smith and me between the first and the second shot. Then the third shot got off very quickly.
What is somewhat remarkable is that Kilduff did not give that statement to the WC or the FBI or the Dallas Sheriff. He gave it in 1976 in an interview as part of an oral history project. Those last two shots being closer together remained in his memory for 13 years. He was in the same car as Jackson and Jackson did give a statement on 22Nov63 to the FBI and Jackson also mentioned the last two shots being in rapid succession. He still maintains that the last two were closer together and he is now 86 years old. I am pretty sure that Kilduff would not agree that 5 seconds between the last two shots = third shot getting off very quickly.
What is this "visual evidence" of a missed shot?
A missed first shot, no less?
He was in the same car as Jackson...I think you are right. Jackson was not in the same car as Merriman Smith. He was in the car immediately behind the first open press convertible. He said he was in the eighth car in the motorcade but I think he was not counting the lead Sheriff's car. The Cabell car was #6, the White House pool car was #7, then there were two open press cars and Jackson was in the second so that would be #9. It is a bit odd that no one in the pool car gave statements or testified before the WC.
I believe that Bob Jackson was three cars behind Kilduff. Here is what Bob Baskin wrote:
“Malcolm Kilduff, the assistant White House press secretary, rode in the front seat of the pool car with Merriman Smith between him and a Department of Public Safety driver. I was on the left in the rear seat with Jack Bell between me and Bob Clark.
What is this "visual evidence" of a missed shot?There is no evidence, let alone visual evidence, of a missed shot. According to the current SBT (as opposed to the WC SBT), Oswald missed the entire limo on the first and closest shot. Yet no one could find evidence of anything it hit. And no one noticed that JFK kept smiling and waving for 2-3 seconds afterward. And over 20 witnesses mistakenly recalled him reacting immediately by moving/leaning left, or ducking or clutching his chest/neck after the first shot. And Betzner was mistaken that his z186 photo was taken just before the first shot. And Croft was mistaken that his z163 photo was taken before the first shot and he had enough time to wind his camera and click the shutter at the time of the first shot. And over 40 witnesses mistakenly recalled that the last two shots were in rapid succession.
A missed first shot, no less?
There is no evidence, let alone visual evidence, of a missed shot. According to the current SBT (as opposed to the WC SBT), Oswald missed the entire limo on the first and closest shot. Yet no one could find evidence of anything it hit. And no one noticed that JFK kept smiling and waving for 2-3 seconds afterward. And over 20 witnesses mistakenly recalled him reacting immediately by moving/leaning left, or ducking or clutching his chest/neck after the first shot. And Betzner was mistaken that his z186 photo was taken just before the first shot. And Croft was mistaken that his z163 photo was taken before the first shot and he had enough time to wind his camera and click the shutter at the time of the first shot. And over 40 witnesses mistakenly recalled that the last two shots were in rapid succession.
Dorman does that while the limousine is on Houston. She's not using the viewfinder but holding the camera at chest level.
Quite the take on the Willis photos. Shoehorn any evidence into a preconceived theory. That's what Mason does.
"I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the
corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of
Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back
was in line with the last windows I have previously described I
heard what I thought was a back fire."
By "last windows", Brennan didn't mean the SW set of windows. He meant "the last windows I had previously described" meaning the SE windows. And I believe Brennan was describing the President's back facing squarely back towards the SE windows.This doesn't happen in the Z130s but later.
Maybe you can sell Mason on it.
I think you are right. Jackson was not in the same car as Merriman Smith. He was in the car immediately behind the first open press convertible. He said he was in the eighth car in the motorcade but I think he was not counting the lead Sheriff's car. The Cabell car was #6, the White House pool car was #7, then there were two open press cars and Jackson was in the second so that would be #9. It is a bit odd that no one in the pool car gave statements or testified before the WC.
Bob Jackson was in the right rear of the third open press convertible. I believe that Tom Dillard was right in front of him in the front seat of the same car. And it was Bob Jackson’s description that helped Dillard aim his camera at the correct window just seconds after the shots. They would have been in car #10 in the diagram.It is not a major point but why do you say Jackson and Dillard were in the third open press convertible? Jackson said this (2 H 157):
It is not a major point but why do you say Jackson and Dillard were in the third open press convertible? Jackson said this (2 H 157):
Mr. SPECTER. And then there was one car filled with photographers?
Mr. JACKSON. Directly in front of US.
Mr. SPECTER. Between your car and the cars which you believe to have been
filled with White House newsmen?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.
Were there two White House press cars - the second one being an open convertible?
I believe the experiment with a revolver/pistol usually has one shot fired or none fired. No shot spanning to be recreated in the mind.
Ever heard tell of the Innocence Project?
The Innocence Project was established in the wake of a study
by the United States Department of Justice and United States
Senate, in conjunction with the Jewish Yeshiva University's
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which claimed that
incorrect identification by eyewitnesses was a factor in over
70% of wrongful convictions.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
There are many reasons why wrongful convictions occur.
The most common reason is false eyewitness identification,
which played a role in more than 75% of wrongful convictions
overturned by the Innocence Project. Often assumed to be
incontrovertible, a growing body of evidence suggests that
eyewitness identifications are unreliable.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
-- Wikipedia
I think they're right about generalities, like the number of shots and seeing Kennedy struck in the head and the left-behind motorcade pausing at the top of Elm and on Houston. But shot spanning strikes me as a non-priority detail and for some an afterthought; I doubt any of the witnesses were prepared to or thought to assess shot spanning in real time.I think they're right about generalities, like the number of shots and seeing Kennedy struck in the head and the left-behind motorcade pausing at the top of Elm and on Houston. But shot spanning strikes me as a non-priority detail and for some an afterthought; I doubt any of the witnesses were prepared to or thought to assess shot spanning in real time.
A review of the student responses apparently reveals that most
of the students got the prominent facts right, but varied on lots of
subsidiary details, and that they omitted important facts.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
( Link (https://pcjc.blogs.pace.edu/2014/05/13/professor-gershman-conducts-eye-witness-identification-exercise-in-criminal-procedure-class/) )
So you think the witness record supports the last two shots occurred within a second of each other, which I guess would be shots that struck near Z295-onward and at Z313.
It that's not right, then 75% of the 75% actually did get it wrong.
Seems like apples and oranges the classroom experiment compared to the assassination.
The majority of the Witnesses in the JFK case said the last two shots came closer together. In about 75% of them felt the shots came almost at the same time or within a second of each other.The first sentence is correct. The second is not. See my compilation of their evidence (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF). Few witnesses quantified the time intervals. Many indicated that the spacing was longer than a second. Greer said he turned around AFTER the second shot and he is already turned around by z282. All you can really conclude is that the last two shots were closer together.
The accounts in which the last two sounds were almost simultaneous or very close together (less than the time required to aim and fire the rifle) were most likely describing the sounds of the impacts of the bullet (or one of its fragments) with the skull, or the inside of the windshield or the sound of the skull exploding (not the sound of a separate shot). In these cases their accounts would be describing a sound that was mistaken for a shot. And therefore these accounts should not be considered as describing the last two shots closer together and should removed from this category.
That said, using statistics of witness accounts alone (without other evidence to substantiate it) to attempt to make sense of this aspect is pointless. There are too many variables, and most witness accounts were taken after a period of time in which other descriptions from other witnesses (seen on TV or heard on radio or read in the papers and magazines or communications in person) could have colored their memories.
Our memories are reconstructions (not taped replays) and are based on associations. They are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Basing one’s theory on witness accounts, without confirmation from other evidence, is not recommended. And if one bases a theory solely upon statistics of witness accounts then starts to look for some other evidence to support it, confirmation bias is most likely going to follow.
Echoes, anyone?Bill, most heard three shots so where were the echos? I think if echos were an issue we would have many people reporting 4 to six shots
Charles, the sound of a shock wave or muzzle blast is just not similar to the sound of a piece of shrapnel, The sound of the round hitting JFK's head was heard by several people and it is also a distinct sound different from a shock wave or muzzle blast. I think it was Connally or Kellerman who described the sound like a melon being broken open. I think Kellerman and Greer would easily differentiate between rounds entering the limo and shrapnel.
Basing a theory on the statistics of witness accounts is exactly what a police detective does isn't it? It is based on the majority of witnesses. That does not mean that they draw a conclusion from it, they use it to create a theory and follow it to see if it is correct. I am not saying that the witnesses statements are proof, they are circumstantial evidence and compelling because of the number of witnesses and the statements of two SS agents who had fire arms training and were so close to the action.
I see your first witness is high-confidence. No surprise. Poor Bob Jackson is fast becoming your "star witness".Well, he is a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer. so that makes him somewhat of a star. That also indicates that he has some good observational skills. But I have to thank you for pointing out Malcolm Kilduff whose later statements I was not aware of until you kindly pointed it out. Funny how that is: the more one digs, the more evidence one finds that the shot pattern was 1.....2...3.
Please explain how your second witness, Linda Willis, could see the President slump about the time of your first shot.I don't have to explain. Her testimony speaks for itself:
Rather than during the first two shots, Hurchel Jacks could just as well be saying Youngblood got into the back seat during the last two shots.I don't know what you think you are seeing in Altgens #6 but it looks to me like something is blocking a clear view of the right side of the back seat to the right of Lady https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html What else could that be? We can see the top/side of the back of Johnson's head but we can't see Younblood's head anywhere.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"He climbed to the rear of the seat with the Vice President and appeared
to be shielding the Vice President with his own body. At that time I heard
two more shots ring out."
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
But we know Youngblood didn't hop over the front seat even then because Johnson and him are seated in their respective seats in the Altgens photo.
Why Z282? We can see enough of Greer's face by Z277 to know he's turned around about as far as he ever got. The film also shows Greer turned around by frame 273 (when we first see his hairline clearly; it's the same as later frames).It is absolutely impossible to tell what direction Greer is looking in the Altgens photo. There is just shadow. But if you look at the zfilm during this time his chest and shoulders do not move at all.
(https://i.ibb.co/pjK2TT6/greer-in-altgens.jpg)
Greer is probably turned to his right in the Altgens photo.
Kellerman begins to turn his head to his left about the late-Z240s. Possibly, both Greer and Kellerman heard Connally shouting beginning at Z242, which finally prompted them to look back. In Greer's case, he said he heard the second shot before turning his head.The second shot at z271 is consistent with:
This doesn't do much for your "second shot" at Z271. You have to learn to follow the evidence.
The Mason Theory has the CE399 bullet transit Kennedy's neck and go on to pass to the left of Connally (not striking his torso or arm) and then strike the Governor's left thigh, when it stopped. He thinks the bullet was slowed down enough when it left the neck to not fracture the thigh bone.
Mason's second shot at Z271-ish is fired from the Sniper's Nest and directly strikes the Governor in the back and then the arm. I guess the bullet fractures or something. This is where Greer hears the second shot and is supposed to look back around Z282 and see the Governor "start to fall". The Governor's actions between emerging from behind the sign and being struck in the Z270s are explained as "expressing concern" for the President.
Mason appears to be on Planet Earth with the head shot.
Thanks, I must have forgotten some of his details. However, the physical evidence indicates that JBC’s back (near his right armpit) was lined up with the trajectory of the bullet, not his left thigh. Also that the thigh wound was not very deep. Neither of those support that theory.I am not sure how you conclude that. In order for JBC's right armpit to be in line with the exit trajectory from JFK's throat, JBC had to be where Thomas Canning put him:
I am not sure how you conclude that. In order for JBC's right armpit to be in line with the exit trajectory from JFK's throat, JBC had to be where Thomas Canning put him:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Canning_HSCA_F143.JPG)
In order to get JBC that far left, he had to assume that his right shoulder would have been visible in Betzner's z186 photo if he was any farther to the right:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/betzner_shoulder.JPG)
But that was an error because JBC's shoulder was below the top of the car as seen in the Altgens #5 photo:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Altgens5_shoulder.JPG)
and we can see from this photo that JBC was not nearly as far left as Canning put him.
If the first shot occurred between z190 and z200 (which is consistent with Betzner, Croft, Willis and the witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade), you will see that JBC is turned to the right and you can readily see that he is not where Canning has placed him:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)
If his legs were spread apart (which I suggest is a reasonable possibility) JBC's left leg would have been exposed something like this:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_2.jpg)
As far as the depth of the thigh wound, Dr. Shires who operated on it and reviewed the xrays said that there was a bit of lead in the femur and he debrided the wound down to the femur.
Andrew, I counted 35 who said the last shots were closer but that is not specific of course. 22 of those used terms like "In rapid succession" or "almost at the same time". That is significant.The reverberation in Dealey Plaza caused by the reflection of sound from the TSBD, the buildings along Houston and the concrete structures in the plaza had the effect of sustaining the sound after the gun fired. There was also a large building south of Dealey Plaza (Post office) that sound would have reflected from and sustained the sound for some time afterward. The distance from the TSBD to the Post Office was about 600 feet so the first reflection would have taken more than a second to return. Mary Woodward described the last two shots as follows:
"“The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.” … “and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”
Anyone can put a straight line between JFK's neck and JBC's right armpit. The difficulty is aligning it with a straight line from the SN. That photo does not do that. Neither did Arlen Specter's pointer.
Here is a similar angled view (of a re-enactment) which appears to be just a few feet further down Elm Street (I don't remember for sure which exact Z-rame this re-enactment is portraying):
(https://i.vgy.me/gNxXss.jpg)
And this is an overhead view of the same position:This is a much better attempt. Presumably the laser shows the path from the SN although I am not sure how that is done. The laser beam normally does not show up passing through air. But even this shows that JBC's right armpit had to be to the left of the middle of the jump seat. I don't see where that was ever the case.
(https://i.vgy.me/MQTgXd.jpg)
I believe that the reason we apparently don't see JBC's right shoulder in the Betzner photo is that the shot actually occurred a little later than when that photo was taken. JBC said that he turned to look at JFK and was in the middle of turning the other way (to look over his left shoulder for JFK) when he was hit (in the back). So JBC was moving during that time period, not stationary.You can't prove that the second shot occurred at z223 or so by using as a premise that that is when the second shot occurred, which is what you are doing.
A look at the Z-186 frame shows that JBC was turned to his right, I believe that that was approximately when he was turned as far right as he could. And his right shoulder was a little further towards the centerline of the limo than it was after he started to turn the other way. A look at the Z-frames that follow Z-186 confirms that JBC was turning back the other way.JBC maintained that right turned posture until he disappeared behind the Stemmons sign. When he emerges in z223 we can see that he is turned facing forward. If that is where you think he was hit, his right shoulder is certainly not left of the middle of the jump seat.
Another point is: If you want to rely on witness testimony for the timing of this shot, then how the heck can you ignore the fact that JBC said that he felt the shot hit his back. If he had been shot in the left leg a few seconds before he was hit in the back (as you suggest), why wouldn't he have said that be the pain he said he felt when he was shot was in his left thigh?He NEVER felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound. Extremity wounds are not always felt. Bullets hit and destroy tissue and nerves so you don't feel them. What you feel is the loss of function resulting from the wound. I have never been shot. I am just going by what wound experts and people who have been shot say they experienced. Even JBC said he felt no pain from the bullet passing through his chest but he felt the impact.
Anyone can put a straight line between JFK's neck and JBC's right armpit. The difficulty is aligning it with a straight line from the SN. That photo does not do that. Neither did Arlen Specter's pointer.
This is a much better attempt. Presumably the laser shows the path from the SN although I am not sure how that is done. The laser beam normally does not show up passing through air. But even this shows that JBC's right armpit had to be to the left of the middle of the jump seat. I don't see where that was ever the case.
You can't prove that the second shot occurred at z223 or so by using as a premise that that is when the second shot occurred, which is what you are doing.
JBC maintained that right turned posture until he disappeared behind the Stemmons sign. When he emerges in z223 we can see that he is turned facing forward. If that is where you think he was hit, his right shoulder is certainly not left of the middle of the jump seat.
He NEVER felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound. Extremity wounds are not always felt. Bullets hit and destroy tissue and nerves so you don't feel them. What you feel is the loss of function resulting from the wound. I have never been shot. I am just going by what wound experts and people who have been shot say they experienced. Even JBC said he felt no pain from the bullet passing through his chest but he felt the impact.
As far as the possibility of a shot at 190, it's not just the blur analysis and eyewitness evidence that places the first shot at this time, but the photo analysis. One of the most overlooked facts about the case is that the HSCA photography panel concluded a shot rang out before Kennedy went behind the sign...and that they came to this conclusion before the acoustics panel came to their conclusion a shot at Z-190 was probable.
Dave Powers said Kennedy jerked off the side of the car when hit. Kennedy's head and arm movements as he heads behind the sign suggest he was hit at this time. His movements at this time certainly don't look natural. And the failure of Dale Myers etc to acknowledge this and to insist he continued calmly waving at this time is perplexing, to say the least.
The first point is about Jiggle/blur analysis of the Z-film.
You would not disagree that only a very loud noise would cause such blur/jiggle.
You would also agree that, according to the vast majority of ear-witnesses, only three clearly audible shots rang out.
But would you agree that more than three instances of blur/jiggle during the Z-film makes the use of this analysis to determine when shots occurred completely redundant?
Another observation of the HCSA panel was that JFK 'froze' before going behind the Stemmons sign.
This is not shown in the Z-film.
The 'biggest' revelation was that JFK made a startling head turn to his left just before passing behind the Stemmons sign.
This has been completely refuted in this thread. JFK made no such head turn.
This leaves you with witnesses like Willis and Powers but I will hold up witnesses like Brandt and Templin who are absolutely adamant the first shot hit Kennedy after the limo had passed their position.
This rules out a first shot at z190 as does JFK's reaction to being shot as seen in the Z-film.
Dan, witness accounts will never cause visual evidence such as the Zapruder film to be ruled out. The opposite is going to happen every time.
I couldn't agree more with you Charles, for me the Z-film is the benchmark against which witness evidence should be tested.
You're idea of a shot @ z130's has been utterly refuted in this thread using the Z-film but it seems to have made little difference to your point of view.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Groden_Willis5.jpg)The reason they are looking to their right is because the crowds are to their right, there is just an empty space to the left with the odd person to their right. Watch the Z-film, as they enter the area with no-one to their left heads turn right. Why would they be looking into an unoccupied area?
What do we see in the Willis photo that proves it was taken simultaneously with the first shot?
I see some things that suggest it was taken well after the first shot:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
- Mrs. Kennedy and the Connallys are looking to their right; all said they turned their heads in reaction to hearing the first shot; the Connallys beginning in the Z160s and Mrs. Kennedy in the Z170s.
Willis05 was taken at Z202. Willis himself stated:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of
the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just
snap in that direction ... she turned to the right toward him."
I'm pretty sure we've been here before.
- Agent John Ready is looking off to his right; he also said he did this in response to the first shot.
My timing of the Willis photo is that it was taken about 2.4 seconds after the first shot and 1.14 seconds before the second shot. If it happened that way, the Willis photo was "simultaneous" with the first two shots, but not a particular shot. Willis was sort of telling the truth, Ted Cruz-style.
Can you cite a witness account that I have used in an attempt to rule out what can be seen in the Zapruder film?
And specifically what is it that you believe is shown in the Zapruder film that would “utterly refute” the shot around the Z133 time?
Start at the beginning of this thread. The testimonies of the SS agents riding in the follow up car alone refutes it. You have not dealt with any of the arguments presented in this thread that rule out a shot so early.
I already addressed your opinion about this. You disagreed. And now you claim that I haven’t dealt with it. Your interpretation of the instant in time depicted in the Altgens photo is your opinion. And your opinion of that, in no way whatsoever, utterly refutes the evidence that has been presented suggesting a shot around Z133. I have good company in my assessment. See Max Holland’s documentary “The Lost Bullet” for a better presentation than I can provide on my own. The main difference between his and my viewpoints is that he believes the bullet hit the traffic signal which caused it to miss the target. While I believe the likelihood of interference in the sniper’s nest caused an inadvertent shot (before the shot was fully aimed).
Then when did the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy turn their heads to their right in reaction, they said, to hearing the first shot? Before Zapruder started filming?
Corrected on what?
You want me to believe that Ready heard the first shot and turned around just before the Altgens photo?
You maybe shouldn't take the agents' "immediately" statements so literal.
Ready, for example, didn't claim he looked back after the first shot:
"I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position.
I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but
was not able to determine the exact location."
The words "fire crackers" are plural.
Wow, you ready believe the first shot was a little bit before the Altgens photo. :D
You're welcome. BTW, I'm not denying a majority of witnesses felt a certain way about the shot spanning and that they were honest in their reporting. I just don't think we should use such samplings from any shot-spanning group. It's a minor detail likely not measured in real time.Which is where we disagree. I know you don't think the evidence is persuasive, (along with Betzner, Croft, Willis, the first shot-hit witnesses and first shot location witnesses) but I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to disagree with you. It appears that you do.
Also: "1.....2...3" looks pretty evenly-spaced to me.5:3 (1.67:1) is evenly spaced? The spacing at 197, 272, 313 is more like 1.8:1
The Zapruder film shows she can't see Kennedy at all during the time of your first shot.I don't know how you think she came to give evidence about seeing JFK slump and clutch at his throat, do you? It cannot be that she imagined seeing it but didn't and it is just a coincidence that this is what we actually see in the zfilm. The only other possibility is that someone told her to say this and the 14 year old girl lied to the Warren Commission about seeing it herself. Good luck finding evidence of that. So did all the other 20 people who reported the same thing lie the same way? Who would have an interest in saying this?
What else could that be? How about Johnson left arm reaching forward to grip or rest on the top of the front seat? The dark upright shape in front of Johnson's head is the back of Youngblood's head. Youngblood is turned to his right talking to Johnson who's leaning in to listen.There is definitely something over the back of the front seat that is between Ladybird and LBJ:
Since Z271 has directional blur, how about we compare Z272 to a clearer frame?There is a change of car angle between those two frames. Besides, the visor over the driver side is the one that was hit:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ad/e9/SY6gCycj_o.gif)
Just that Hickey (and Kinney) can't possibly see to that area of the head at that moment. This is such an old chestnut.Well, it is kind of amazing that JFK's hair actually did fly up without causing any damage just before the head shot, as Hickey said. He did not see what he said he saw and yet what he said he saw actually happened. You have not tried to explain that.
Wrong again. Connally actually moves across more of the width of the car before Z278 than after.JBC moves. Watch the change in position of JBC from z271 to z279 relative to Nellie and Jackie who do not move at all. Now compare that to the position of Kellerman relative to Nellie and Greer. There is no change in position of Kellerman:
I think when Mrs. Kennedy referred to Connally yelling, it was because it was different from the sounds she had previously heard.
"You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always
motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to
the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different
noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things.
But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
She was looking left (pre-Z170s), then hears a noise (but Iater she says noises: "No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises."), and then she hears Connally yelling. But later she says "the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling" which contradicts her looking to her left and hearing "terrible noises" (backfires she described them).
Nellie had more-often-than-not said she turned before she saw the President raise his hands up. Only once or twice did she say she saw him with his hands already raised up.
Agent Ready says the full turn to the rear was after hearing "some firecrackers" not one shot. The Zapruder film shows during the Z160s and Z170s that the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy turned to their right (all said they turned in response to the first shot).
Phil Willis said Mrs. Kennedy turned from his side of the street to the opposite in response, he thought, to her hearing the first shot, and that it happened before his Z202 slide. So I have to think Agent Ready turning his head quite sharply to his right in the Z160s could indicate he also heard the first shot at that time.
I believe Ready first turned rightward in the Z160s in response to the first shot, he then had to secure his handhold before turning rearward, and he didn't get turned fully around until before the Altgens photo.
You can back up nothing. You can't be reasoned with and you appear to be here to troll.
Does a gunman at the SN 6th floor TSBD window , able to move into a cramped , crouch firing position, test rifle on the ledge for support( as most of the CBS trial shooters did) , aim the iron sights zeroed at 200 meters, at a target as near as 60 meters , from the height of 72ft SN and target moving away slightly laterally at 12-15mph, and fire at Z160 location?
If the 6th floor gunman (or rifle demonstrator?) at TSBD SE window was hiding out of LOS until after JFK limo has fully turned on ELM st and has passed by the window and past the traffic light, then IMO there is only approx about 3 to 4 sec until limo is at the Z160 location on Elm St.
IMO it’s therefore more probable if there was a shot fired as early as Z160 by a lone shooter from the TSBD SN window that it was an accidental unaimed shot DURING his effort to get himself onto crouched kneeling firing position.
Improbable even more when considering the WC theory that the tilted unstable box on window ledge was used as a rifle rest, which in combination with window only open approx 15.5 inches, leaves a questionable difficulty for the rifle to be some downward at the Z160-170 location on Elm st, let alone the awkward position which precludes a kneeling postion
So what to make the whatever it was stimulus that cause the Jackie head turn between 160-170?
Possibly a 2nd gunman who tried a1st shot from Daltex, and missed because the suppresser caused the
inaccuracy?
Am I wrong to believe the limo was obscured by the oak tree around z160?The car was never fully obscured by the tree and neither was the President. Oswald would have been able to track him easily while the car passed under the branches. The Secret Service did a re-enactment in early December 1963 and took a film of a stand-in car and occupants. You can see that the car is about to pass under the first tree branches when JFK was just past the west retaining wall:
If the 6th floor gunman (or rifle demonstrator?) at TSBD SE window was hiding out of LOS until after JFK limo has fully turned on ELM st and has passed by the window and past the traffic light, then IMO there is only approx about 3 to 4 sec until limo is at the Z160 location on Elm St.
IMO it’s therefore more probable if there was a shot fired as early as Z160 by a lone shooter from the TSBD SN window that it was an accidental unaimed shot DURING his effort to get himself onto crouched kneeling firing position.
The car was never fully obscured by the tree and neither was the President. Oswald would have been able to track him easily while the car passed under the branches. The Secret Service did a re-enactment in early December 1963 and took a film of a stand-in car and occupants. You can see that the car is about to pass under the first tree branches when JFK was just past the west retaining wall:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/SS_Dec1963_1_beforetree.BMP)
That appears to be about where the President was when Croft took his z163 photo, which he said was enough time before the first shot that he was able to wind his camera and take another at the moment of the first shot (unfortunately that frame did not turn out).
JFK was a possible target from the SN at and after this point:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_clear_perpendicular_lines.jpg)
when JFK was opposite the lamppost and about 10 feet from the Thornton Freeway sign. That corresponds to Zapruder frame 190 by my calculation.
In doing their reenactment in May 1964 the FBI did not take into account how the tree looked from the SN on November 22/63. The SS film shows that. For some reason which is not explained in the WC material, the FBI did not realize that JFK was quite visible after z190.
I don't have any difficulty seeing the car and occupants passing under the tree. All Oswald had to do was aim down the street and shoot when JFK came into view. My point is that JFK is clear well before z207.
Did you really think people were going to be fooled by your fuzzy soft-focus screen grab? Come on. The figures on the side of the road are blobs.
And why did you want people to believe that it was easy to track through the foliage and that JFK came out in the clear at Z190? A search for the truth. Hmmm, nope. You want things to fit your Theory's requirement for a shot fired about Z200-ish.
Look at page 101 of the Warren Report.(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/000/946/images/img_946_125_200.jpg) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/m1/1/high_res/)
You can't see hardly any features of the car in the approaching foliage.
Croft said no such thing. An FBI AirTel characterized the exposure that didn't turn out as "taken simultaneously with the shot which killed the President."Trask interviewed Croft and he said his photo (taken at z163) was taken before the first shot. He also said he wound his camera and pressed the shutter at the time of the first shot. I think we have gone over this before. Perhaps your memory is becoming as bad as your etiquette.
Croft was interviewed not long after:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Croft told the Powell Tribune for a story published Nov. 26, 1963,
that he was 30 feet from JFK’s limousine when the shots rang out
at around 12:30 p.m. Central Time."
That also doesn't say he was taking a photo that corresponded with a first shot.
Kennedy emerges from the foliage and into the clear about Z200.First of all, the FBI did their reenactment in May 1964 after the new spring foliage and branches had appeared. The tree in November 1963 did not look like that, as we see in the Secret Service film from early December 1963.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/PwBFkct/SS-Reenactment-Video.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
No one could have tracked Kenndy through that foliage. You don't know know better than the FBI.
I don't have any difficulty seeing the car and occupants passing under the tree. All Oswald had to do was aim down the street and shoot when JFK came into view. My point is that JFK is clear well before z207.
I thought it was your contention the first shot was between z190 - z200. [reply#258]That is correct. Well before z207, which is when the FBI determined the earliest time that JFK was clear of the tree from the 6th floor sniper's nest. He was clear almost a second earlier judging by the Secret Service film.
That is correct. Well before z207, which is when the FBI determined the earliest time that JFK was clear of the tree from the 6th floor sniper's nest. He was clear almost a second earlier judging by the Secret Service film.
I notice that Warren Commission Exhibit CE 907 is a film of the FBI re-enactment done on May 24, 1964. Does anyone know where I might view this film (other than going to NARA)?
Also, I would like to know how the Secret Service film done in December 5, 1963 was documented. The film does not appear to be an exhibit to either the WC or HSCA although stills from what appears to be a similar re-enactment done the same day but which is not in the film are found in CE875.
Hmmm...The FBI conclusion that JFK was not clear of the foliage (that is, the foliage in late May 1964) until z207 is based on their re-enactment using the Secret Service car (the "Queen Mary") from which this photo is made:
If JFK isn't clear of the foliage until z207 and the graphic Jerry posted above has JFK still in the foliage at z186 this surely means a shot at z190 would have been through the foliage.
Am I missing something?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yqb7kPj1/ce-895-z225-from-depository.jpg)Thanks for posting the above composite gif which shows that the relative positions of JFK and JBC in the re-enactment are very accurate except for their relative height.
A direct comparison between Z225(a fraction of a second after the SBF) and the SS recreation shows that the Connally stand-in was too high and too close to the side of the Limo, now when we align the corrected position with the SS recreation we can see that Connally indeed was in the location that fully supports the SBF.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jzrh5JHQ/ss-zap-kenn-conn.gif)
Thanks for posting the above composite gif which shows that the relative positions of JFK and JBC in the re-enactment are very accurate except for their relative height.
We can see through the crosshairs of the re-enactment view from the SN that the path through JFK goes to the left of Governor Connally's midline which is no where near his right armpit, even if you lowered the jump seat. How do you explain that this is consistent with the single bullet "fact"?
It's simply a matter of perspective, the Limo's were different, look at the following GIF and how far forward the Kellerman stand-in is as compared to the actual Kellerman and it follows that the Connally stand-in was also forward(see comparison photo's below) from where Connally actually was, which by definition means that Connally in this comparison GIF was directly behind and therefore must have been sitting further inboard.It was a windy fall day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jzrh5JHQ/ss-zap-kenn-conn.gif)
The two Limo's from side on show where Kennedy, Connally and Kellerman were positioned relative to their respective stand-in's.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbVnZ7r5/z313-zap-vs-ss.jpg)
Btw do you have any reasonable explanation of why Connally's jacket suddenly billows a fraction of a second before both Kennedy and Connally simultaneously violently react?
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2jvdam4bt00/VVfoJFx064I/AAAAAAABGGI/pKHXhM1_PmY/s1600/Z224-Z225-Zapruder-Film-Clip.gif)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqHV1ZHUal0/WRo7Bc8dH6I/AAAAAAABL0I/3gbqoFJwHNcLEdSUbfxa898LwU5wdhVRACLcB/s1600/Z225-Z226.gif)
JohnM
It was a windy fall day.
The FBI conclusion that JFK was not clear of the foliage (that is, the foliage in late May 1964) until z207 is based on their re-enactment using the Secret Service car (the "Queen Mary") from which this photo is made:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Frame_207_reenactment_24May64.JPG)
Even based on that photo from the FBI re-enactment, we can see everything back to the rear of the car which was about 7 feet behind JFK. So JFK would have been visible 7 feet earlier. At a foot a frame, that brings it down to z200 even in the re-enactment.
But it is not really an accurate re-enactment. The foliage Oswald saw was similar to that depicted in the December 1963 Secret Service film which is somewhat less full than in May 64. The president just had to move past the centre of the outer branch to be quite visible:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_clear_perpendicular_lines_copy.jpg)
Also, because they used the wrong car, you can see that JFK does not appear in quite the same position from Zapruder's position in the reenactment:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Frame_207_from_Zapruder_24May64.JPG)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z207.BMP)
So, in my view JFK was in Oswald's sights several frames before z200. I may be over-stating it a bit at z190 but I think it is safe to say JFK was clear to Oswald by z195. But more significant perhaps is the fact that the tree branches never completely obscured Oswald's view so Oswald could have sighted on the edge of the leaves, tracked the car aiming at a point about 2 feet in from the right side of the car and fired as soon as JFK was just about to come into the sights or cross-hairs (depending on which he was using).
The SS simulated the Limo position at a number of Zapruder frames and compared these locations to what Oswald would see through his scope from his Sniper's nest, but unfortunately the Limo the SS used was not the same model so the position of Connally as compared to Kennedy could not be accurately recreated and has led many people to say that the positions of the two men does not support the Single Bullet Fact.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0yjsNCJh/ce-895-z225.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yqb7kPj1/ce-895-z225-from-depository.jpg)
A direct comparison between Z225(a fraction of a second after the SBF) and the SS recreation shows that the Connally stand-in was too high and too close to the side of the Limo, now when we align the corrected position with the SS recreation we can see that Connally indeed was in the location that fully supports the SBF.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jzrh5JHQ/ss-zap-kenn-conn.gif)
Connally's jacket billows as the bullet passes through.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2jvdam4bt00/VVfoJFx064I/AAAAAAABGGI/pKHXhM1_PmY/s1600/Z224-Z225-Zapruder-Film-Clip.gif)
Both men react simultaneously.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqHV1ZHUal0/WRo7Bc8dH6I/AAAAAAABL0I/3gbqoFJwHNcLEdSUbfxa898LwU5wdhVRACLcB/s1600/Z225-Z226.gif)
JohnM
It is clear from the evidence available that JFK was behind the foliage Z190-z200 and I think we can dispense with the notion the assassin would be firing through the oak tree. Obviously your only recourse is to question the validity of the evidence as it blows your notion of a shot this early out of the water. Interestingly it also refutes the memory of Phil Willis that he was startled by a shot this early.The FBI re-enactment, even with its many errors, shows that JFK was visible by z200. A first shot at z223 is all perfectly reasonable and logical - except your reason and logic is not evidence and, more importantly, your conclusion does not fit large bodies of consistent evidence. I will explain:
At best you would have us believe the very instant JFK emerged from behind the last leaf of foliage the shot was taken. This makes no sense. The assassin may have tracked the limo through the foliage but the shot would have been taken once the limo was in the clear, say z223 :)
Btw do you have any reasonable explanation of why Connally's jacket suddenly billows a fraction of a second before both Kennedy and Connally simultaneously violently react?As far as the jacket "bulge" is concerned, originally, this was a theory of a lapel flip until someone pointed out that the lapel was not struck. Then the armchair Rorschach experts opined that it was a jacket "bulge". To suggest that a bullet exiting the right jacket pocket is going to bulge the jacket needed experimental confirmation. Certainly a bullet alone is not going to do that, as experiments showed. That is because in order to impart momentum to the jacket the bullet has to lose momentum in passing through the cloth. It loses so little momentum in passing through that jacket cloth that the bullet would not move the entire jacket panel significantly. So then the story changed to - oh, the jacket bulged because the impact from the spray of blood and tissue exiting from the chest caused this. Again another conjecture without evidence or experimental support. The jacket bears no evidence of such blood and tissue:
All perfectly reasonable and logical - except your reason and logic is not evidence and, more importantly, your conclusion does not fit large bodies of consistent evidence.
1. As you have noted, the evidence is rather overwhelming that JFK reacted to the first shot. There are at least 20 witnesses who saw him react immediately and not a single witness said that he continued to smile and wave after the first "horrible ear-shattering noise"
2. The shot pattern recalled by the vast majority of witnesses (over 40 by my count) was the last two shots were closer together but not so close as to be impossible to have been fired by the MC, which requires around 2.3 seconds to fire successive aimed shots. There is strong evidence that at least one bullet was fired by Oswald's MC. (There is also strong evidence that all three shots came from the SN using the MC). In order for the first shot to have been at z223, the third shot could not have been as early as z313 in order to fit the shot pattern: 1.......2...3 and have close to 2.3 seconds between the last two shots. Therefore there must have been a third shot after z313. There is quite a body of evidence that z313 was the last shot so one would have to discard that evidence.
3. If the SBT occurred at z223 then Gov. Connally (and his wife) was hallucinating when he said that he heard the first shot, realized it was a rifle shot and turned to look at JFK saying "oh, no, no, no" (as Nellie recalled) before the second shot hit him with an impact that he felt (but did not hear) and which Nellie saw. So you have to throw out the Connally's evidence. You also have to throw out Greer's evidence which is that he turned around to see Gov. Connally falling back onto his wife immediately after the second shot. He is already lying down by z313.
The problem here is that everyone has looked at the zfilm and concluded that they can "see" the shot hitting both men at that time. They both react together if you assume that JFK is not already reacting behind the sign and just begins to react immediately as the bullet strikes him at z223 (another conjecture). JBC said he reacted to the first shot. And JBC insisted that his reaction was well before he felt the second shot that hit him in the back. So we cannot judge by his reaction, even if it was "simultaneous" with JFK reacting, that he was hit in the back at that time if that was the first shot.
As far as the jacket "bulge" is concerned, originally, this was a theory of a lapel flip until someone pointed out that the lapel was not struck. Then the armchair Rorschach experts opined that it was a jacket "bulge". To suggest that a bullet exiting the right jacket pocket is going to bulge the jacket needed experimental confirmation. Certainly a bullet alone is not going to do that, as experiments showed. That is because in order to impart momentum to the jacket the bullet has to lose momentum in passing through the cloth. It loses so little momentum in passing through that jacket cloth that the bullet would not move the entire jacket panel significantly. So then the story changed to - oh, the jacket bulged because the impact from the spray of blood and tissue exiting from the chest caused this. Again another conjecture without evidence or experimental support. The jacket bears no evidence of such blood and tissue:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_jacket_front.JPG)
My logic is based on the evidence provided by the re-enactment. At z186 JFK is passing behind thick foliage, by your own admission the FBI state he is not clear of this foliage until z207. Therefore JFK is behind the foliage from z190-z200. You cannot deny this logic.There is nothing wrong with the logic. It is your premise: that the FBI reconstruction was accurate. You can see that in the 1963 film the tree in front of the TSBD, particularly the upper branches, was much thinner than in May 1964:
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/oak_tree_May64.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/oak_tree_nov63.JPG) |
I agree with the shot pattern. There may well be evidence for z313 as being the last shot but there is also a body of evidence for a shot after the headshot. In his analysis of ear-witness statements concerning the shots, Pat Speer identifies 26 witness he feels confident describe a shot after the headshot and 16 witnesses who are probably/possibly describing such a shot. How can this evidence be discarded?
"He said he was looking directly at President Kennedy and saw his head slump to one side simultaneously with the loud report made by the first shot fired by the assassin."
Mr. LIEBELER. Did it look to you like the President was hit by the first shot?which completely contradicts his earlier statement regarding shot #1. That kind of makes you wonder how well he recalled the events of Nov. 22/63 8 months later.
Mr. HUDSON. No, sir ; I don’t think s+I sure don’t.
Mr. LIEBELER. You don’t think he got hit ‘by the first shot?
Mr. HUDSON. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. You
JBC's testimony has been dealt elsewhere in this thread. The bottom line is this, it impossible for the shot at z271 (from the TSBD or anywhere near it) you are proposing to hit JBC causing the injuries he suffered as he is turned too far round in his seat. It's impossible.
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/overhead_model_271.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/rearview_model_271.JPG) |
Not only is JFK concealed behind the foliage for your first shot, JBC is turned too far round in his seat for the second!I never said it was the wind. I am just saying that his jacket moves relative to the shirt as he moves.
Anyone who can "see" the shot has got insanely good eyesight. I can see them reacting in a very extreme way that indicates to me the have both been shot.
The jacket bulge occurs before JBC begins to move in any meaningful way and can be seen as something clearly related to the extreme movements he makes immediately after the 'bulge'. That the right side of his jacket bulges and also happens to have a bullet pass through it is a great coincidence. The jacket bulges and for those passing it off as an effect of the wind, look at the flag at the front of the limo on JBC's side, it is barely moving giving a good indication of the wind speed at that moment.
There is nothing wrong with the logic. It is your premise: that the FBI reconstruction was accurate. You can see that in the 1963 film the tree in front of the TSBD, particularly the upper branches, was much thinner than in May 1964:And they used the wrong car.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/oak_tree_May64.JPG) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/oak_tree_nov63.JPG)
On the other hand, there is evidence of a shot just before z204 (Phil Willis).
It is not necessarily a matter of discarding all that evidence. It is a matter of looking at all the evidence and interpreting it correctly before drawing conclusions. I haven't read Pat Speers compilation but if you could direct me to it I will.
This is where "expert" evidence has to be examined very carefully. That opinion came from Robert Frazier of the FBI. But he is not an expert in human anatomy. Nor did he necessarily accurately understand all the details of the bullet path through JBC.
The evidence is that there was a shot between the first shot which struck JFK and the head shot, that JBC was hit by it and that it was closer to shot #3 than to shot #1. Hickey saw JFK's hair fly up but no damage on the second shot. Greer saw JBC falling immediately after the second shot. The Connallys said that JBC was hit by it. Dave Powers said that JBC disappeared after it. That is real evidence.
So when you say that it is "impossible" for such a second shot to have struck JBC you are relying on expert opinion that conflicts with a lot of evidence. Moreover, when you look at the trajectory, the path to JBC's right armpit from the SN at z270 or so is almost directly from behind the car:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/later_view_down_Elm_through_scope.jpg)
Using an accurate 3D model using this is what a trajectory from the SN to JBC's right armpit at z271 would have looked like:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/overhead_model_271.JPG) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/rearview_model_271.JPG)
I never said it was the wind. I am just saying that his jacket moves relative to the shirt as he moves.
The Willis pic was taken at z202:Yes 202 is correct. Also Rosemary Willis does her sharp right head turn beginning at z204:
In an earlier post you say "There is quite a body of evidence that z313 was the last shot so one would have to discard that evidence." but when it's pointed out that you would have to discard ear-witness evidence supporting a shot after the headshot it's suddenly "not necessarily a matter of discarding all that evidence". Hmmm...It depends on what the witness says. If Witness A says "There were two really fast shots after a pause and I think there may have been a shot after the head shot" you just have to be careful about what conclusion you draw. If there is a lot of other more specific evidence (such as Altgens, Connallys, Powers, Hickey, Bennett, Kinney, Hill, Chisms, Woodward who are quite clear that the third and last shot was the head shot) you can use A's recollection of the last two shots being close together (because it fits many other independent similar recollections) but ignore his unsure evidence on the head shot not being the last shot.
Check out Pat Speer's work at PatSpeer.comI have. I can't find his list of 26 witnesses that you mention. Maybe you could direct me to it.
At no point did I say it was impossible for JBC to be struck by a bullet at z271. This is what I did say:I believe you are mistaken in saying that it is a through-and-through chest wound. It was not. It was astrike to the fifth rib that pushed the fifth rib inward causing a fracture of the fifth rib at the spine. It then penetrated the rib driving shards of rib bone down into the lower lobe of the right lung, according to Dr. Shaw. I don't see how that can happen unless the bullet penetrated the rib from the outside in, not the inside out. The bullet did not go through the lung but went around it yet was able to exit under the right nipple. I suspect that is quite consistent with being hit in the right armpit while turned around but you may want to have a thoracic surgeon opine on that. I ran it by a retired pathologist friend of mine several years ago and he thought it was certainly possible but he also said bullets often do very odd things when passing through a body and it is difficult to reconstruct the fine details.
"it impossible for the shot at z271 (from the TSBD or anywhere near it) you are proposing to hit JBC causing the injuries he suffered as he is turned too far round in his seat. It's impossible."
Explain how the injuries JBC suffered could have been caused by a shot at z271 - a through-and-through chest wound which then struck his wrist.
Andrew Mason wrote “there is a lot of other more specific evidence (such as Altgens, Connallys, Powers, Hickey, Bennett, Kinney, Hill, Chisms, Woodward who are quite clear that the third and last shot was the head shot).”
Let’s go through the earliest statements of these witnesses one by one in order of the first statements…
James Altgens (11-22-63 AP bulletin, around 12:39 CST) "President Kennedy was shot just as his motorcade left downtown Dallas. Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and grabbed him. She cried "Oh, no!" The motorcade sped on. Photographer James Altgens said he saw blood on the President's head. Altgens said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw blood on the President. Altgens said he saw no one with a gun." (11-22-63 eyewitness account, presented as an AP dispatch at 6:49 PM. This more detailed account was also published in the 11-25-63 issue of Stars and Stripes.) "There was a burst of noise - the second one I heard - and pieces of flesh appeared to fly from President Kennedy's car. Blood covered the whole left side of his head. Mrs. Kennedy saw what had happened to her husband. She grabbed him exclaiming, "Oh, No!" The car's driver realized what had happened and almost as if by reflex speeded up towards the Stemmons Expressway. There seemed to be utter confusion. One motorcycle officer ran his cycle into the curb, almost falling off. Police came from everywhere as the President's car disappeared from sight. At first, I thought the shots came from the opposite side of the street. I ran over there to see if I could get some pictures. But it turned out to be just more confusion. Police ran in all directions in search of the assassin. I did not know until later where the shots came from. I was on the opposite side of the President's car from the gunman. He might have hit me. The motorcade was moving along in routine fashion until there was a noise like fireworks popping. I snapped a picture of the motorcade at just about that time, still unaware of what was happening. I cranked my camera for another shot. The procession still moved along slowly. Then came the second burst of noise."
Analysis: James Altgens heard two shots, the second of which was the head shot. Thought the shots could have come from the knoll.
John Chism (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H471) “we were directly in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign…When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him “The President,” sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side. At this point, I saw Mrs. Kennedy stand up and pull his head over her lap, and then lay down over him as if to shield him. And the two men in the front seat, I don’t know who they were, looked back, and just about the time they looked back, the second shot was fired. At this point, I looked behind me, to see whether it was a fireworks display or something. And then I saw a lot of people running for cover, behind the embankment there back up on the grass.”
Analysis: John Chism heard two shots, the second of which was the head shot. Thought the shots could have come from the knoll.
Marvin Faye Chism was John Chism’s wife and stood beside him and their son Ricky in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H472) “As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the President fell to his left. The President’s wife immediately stood over him, and she pulled him up, and lay him down in the seat, and she stood up over him in the car. The President was standing and waving and smiling at the people when the shot happened. And then there was the second shot that I heard…It came from what I thought was behind us and I looked but I couldn’t see anything. The two men in the front of the car stood up, and then when the second shot was fired, they all fell down and the car took off just like that.”
Analysis: Faye Chism heard two shots, the second of which was the head shot. Thought the shots could have come from the knoll.
First Lady of Texas Nellie Connally (11-22-63 press conference by Connally aide Julian Read, as found on youtube) "As Mrs. Connally recalls, just before they reached the triple underpass, the shot rang out, the first shot, and she feels quite sure that it did hit the President. Governor Connally, who was seated here, turned immediately to see what happened, and as he turned, he was struck. The President, according to Mrs. Connally, immediately slumped and Mrs. Kennedy grabbed him. A moment later Governor Connally slumped, and Mrs. Connally grabbed him. Both women grabbed the men almost simultaneously and ducked as much as possible to guard against any possible gunfire following that. Mrs. Connally says the next thing she recalls is the Secret Service man picking up a telephone in the car and getting instructions of "Let's proceed to the nearest hospital." (11-22-63 WFAA report on the approximately 2:00 PM press conference given by Connally aides Bill Stinson and Julian Read.) (Quoting Read, who had just spoken to Mrs. Connally.) “The car had turned to the left on Elm Street and was getting ready to go under the Triple Underpass. At that moment, Mrs. Connally said she heard a shot. Instantly, when she heard the shot, her husband turned to see what had happened and at that instant he too was shot. Mrs. Connally says she believes the first shot was the one that struck President Kennedy in the head. There was a second shot. That shot struck Governor Connally in the back, and coming out of his body in the right chest. There are reports of a third shot and Governor Connally has a wound on his wrist and that could be the result of that third pistol shot, although Mrs. Connally is not certain whether there was a third shot or not. She said immediately after the first shot Mrs. Kennedy grabbed her husband. After the second shot Mrs. Connally grabbed her husband. All four of them ducked down into the car to escape any further fusillade of shots.” (Notes written on 12-2-63, as reprinted in her book From Love Field, 2003) “then I heard a loud, terrifying noise…I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see him clutch his neck and see him sink down in his seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him…I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise was…Quickly, there was a second shot, John had turned to the right at the first shot to look back and then whirled to the left to get another look…John said, “No, No, No,” was hit himself by a second shot and said “My God, they are going to kill us all,” wheeled back to the right, crumpling his shoulders to his knees…I reached over and pulled him to me…Then came a third shot.”
Analysis: Nellie Connally believed there were three shots, the first which struck the President, and the second which struck her husband. She was only vaguely aware of a third shot. Assuming this third shot was the head shot, which rang out as she was pulling her husband down in the car, well, then, it would not be a surprise should she not have heard a shot immediately following this shot
Mary Woodward (11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) "We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and 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. Jackie was wearing a beautiful pink suit with beret to match. Two of us, who had seen the President last during the final weeks of the 1960 campaign, remarked almost simultaneously how relaxed and robust he looked. 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. My first reaction, and also my friends’, was that as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President’s car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt. Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don’t believe anyone was hit with 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. Then after a moment’s pause there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned half-way around, then fell on top of her husband’s body. Not until this minute did it sink in what actually was happening. We had witnessed the assassination of the President.”
Analysis: Mary Woodward saw Kennedy respond to the first shot, and not continue calmly waving, so she was mistaken as to the first shot missing. Her recollection that she saw Kennedy slump in response to the second shot, then, is most logically a reference to the head shot. As she heard a shot after this shot, then, it seems clear she heard a shot after the head shot. (This puts her in line with many of the closest witnesses, e.g Brehm, Moorman, Hill, Hudson, Summers, etc.) Thought shots could have come from the knoll.
Glen Bennett (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head. I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.”
Analysis: Bennett’s original notes are a bit odd, what with his saying the head shot was the “second shot.” Did he mean that it was the second shot after the head shot? Or that it was, in fact, the second shot he heard? His report is so garbled, in fact, that we have reason to believe his typed-up report was written by someone else, based upon his notes. Still, when taken at face value, it appears that Bennett believed he heard three shots, with the second one hitting Kennedy in the back, and the third one striking his head.
Sam Kinney (11-22-63 report, 18H732) “The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass…it appeared that he (the President) had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately, he sat up again. At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.” (11-30-63 report, 18H730-731) “As we completed the left turn and on a short distance, there was a shot…I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with his right hand. There was a second of pause and then two more shots were heard. Agent Clint Hill jumped from the follow-up car and dashed to the aid of the President and first Lady in the President’s car. I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head.”
Analysis: Sam Kinney heard the second two shots bang-bang, but could not say for sure which one hit the President’s head. Still, his first report indicated that he thought it was the second one, and that the third shot missed. (This was in keeping with many of the closest witnesses.)
George Hickey (11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.” (11-30-63 report, 18H761-764) “Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by 679x. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker…I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering. A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward to the President’s car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound from the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the president was struck in the right upper rear of the head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again. Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last. At the end of the last report I reached to the bottom of the car and picked up the AR 15 rifle, cocked and loaded it, and turned to the rear. At this point the cars were passing under the over-pass and as a result we had left the scene of the shooting. I kept the AR 15 rifle ready as we proceeded at a high rate of speed to the hospital.”
Analysis: Hickey, much as Kinney, heard the last two shots bang-bang. While he thought the second of these was the head shot, his recollection that JFK’s hair flew up with the first strongly supports that it was in fact the first of these shots that struck the President’s head.
Texas Governor John Connally (11-22-63 report of CBS News' Walter Cronkite, quoting Connally's aide William Stinson's circa 2:00 PM press conference) (On Connally's response when asked from which direction the shots came) "I don't know. I guess from the back. They got the President, too." (11-27-63 televised interview with Martin Agronsky, transcript printed in the 11-28-63 New York Times.) ”we had just turned the corner, we heard a shot; I turned to my left—I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat—the President had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly. I knew the President had been hit and I said, “My God, they are going to kill us all.” Then there was a third shot and the President was hit again and we thought then very seriously. I had still retained consciousness but the President had slumped in Mrs. Kennedy's lap and when he was hit the second time she said, or the first time—it all happened in such a brief span--she said “Oh, my God, they have killed my husband—Jack, Jack.” After the third shot, the next thing that occurred—I was conscious--the Secret Service man, of course, the chauffeur, had pulled out of the line--they said, “Get out of here…”
Analysis: John Connally heard only two shots—both of which he believed hit the President. He assumed that the third shot heard by others was the shot that hit him and that it had been fired in between the two shots striking Kennedy. But there is virtually no support that a shot was heard between these two shots. That the Connallys were only vaguely aware of the shot striking Kennedy in the head, and recalled this shot mostly in connection with the brain matter that rained down upon them afterwards, supports that with their dive down below the level of the seats for protection at this time they failed to hear the last shot heard by others.
Clint Hill (11-30-63 report, 18H740-745) “On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The noise came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound—like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left. I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off;" then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy. SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward. I heard ASAIC Kellerman call SA Lawson on the two-way radio and say, "To the nearest hospital, quick." I shouted as loud as I could at the Lead car, "To the hospital, to the hospital." As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat...At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket.”
Analysis: Clint Hill heard only two shots, the second of which was the head shot. The different sound of the second shot, moreover, could have been the bang-bang heard by others, only blurred into one sound.
David Powers, another Kennedy assistant, rode in the middle seat to the right of O’Donnell. (Notes on a 4-8-64 interview with William Manchester, as reported in the TV documentary "The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After," 2009) "I am looking at the Presidential car. His hand was waving and now he put his hands slowly to his throat and slumps towards Jackie. And I say to Kenny 'I think the President's been hit.' Kenny and I not only saw the next one we heard it. We just saw that handsome head get blown off. We heard the shot and we heard the impact of the shot. It was the most sickening thing--like a grapefruit being thrown against a brick wall...At Parkland, I ran up to the Presidential car. His eyes were open. I opened the door and said 'Oh, my God, Mr. President!' I almost expected him to say 'I'm alright' because he never complained. A fragment of the bullet had come out of his forehead. I still get an ache in my head like a toothache where he was hit. I suppose it's just nerves."
Analysis: although Powers would later make statements in which he supported what was then believed to be the official scenario—that Connally was hit by the second bullet--his initial interview with Manchester indicates he had a clear recollection of but two shots—the second of which struck Kennedy in the head.
Yes 202 is correct. Also Rosemary Willis does her sharp right head turn beginning at z204:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/RosemaryW_z200-207.gif)
It depends on what the witness says. If Witness A says "There were two really fast shots after a pause and I think there may have been a shot after the head shot" you just have to be careful about what conclusion you draw. If there is a lot of other more specific evidence (such as Altgens, Connallys, Powers, Hickey, Bennett, Kinney, Hill, Chisms, Woodward who are quite clear that the third and last shot was the head shot) you can use A's recollection of the last two shots being close together (because it fits many other independent similar recollections) but ignore his unsure evidence on the head shot not being the last shot.
I have. I can't find his list of 26 witnesses that you mention. Maybe you could direct me to it.
I believe you are mistaken in saying that it is a through-and-through chest wound. It was not. It was astrike to the fifth rib that pushed the fifth rib inward causing a fracture of the fifth rib at the spine. It then penetrated the rib driving shards of rib bone down into the lower lobe of the right lung, according to Dr. Shaw. I don't see how that can happen unless the bullet penetrated the rib from the outside in, not the inside out. The bullet did not go through the lung but went around it yet was able to exit under the right nipple. I suspect that is quite consistent with being hit in the right armpit while turned around but you may want to have a thoracic surgeon opine on that. I ran it by a retired pathologist friend of mine several years ago and he thought it was certainly possible but he also said bullets often do very odd things when passing through a body and it is difficult to reconstruct the fine details.
As far as the wrist wound is concerned, that is much easier to do at z271 because his right wrist is pressed against the right side of his jacket. This also solves the SBT problem of having the bullet deflect off the inside surface of the radius but instead of deflecting away from the point of contact it deflects a huge angle left around the point of contact, through the palm side and across his body to the left thigh. That is really difficult to reconcile with physics. On the other hand, if the second shot deflected off the wrist and fragmented as the wrist is positioned in z271, the fragments would go up and forward. Greer said he heard or felt a concussive effect from the second shot. His ear was about 12 inches from the impact dent on the windshield frame. James Tague said he was struck on the second shot. Oh, and the left visor does appear to move forward from z271 to 272 and it appeared to have been hit by small fragments (although that is based on a photo of the visor at Parkland and as far as I can tell has not been verified as having been struck by a lead fragment).
The point of the Willis photo being at z202 is that it must have been a response to a shot in the late z190's, a time when JFK is travelling behind the oak tree. The re-enactment may not be accurate by a frame or two but you would have to clearly demonstrate the gross inaccuracies you are suggesting. I would suggest the re-enactment is not so faulty as to have JFK clear of the tree by z200.Even the faulty re-enactment shows the back of the car behind JFK to be quite visible at z207. You seem hung up on using the May 24, 1964 foliage. It was materially different in November 63 as we see in the 1963 film. It shows that the JFK stand-in was clear of the tree when he was opposite or perhaps a few feet past the lampost and the front of the stand-in car (about 10 feet in front of the JFK stand-in) was even with the Thornton Freeway sign. Plot that on a scale map of Dealey Plaza and tell me what frame that corresponds to. I say the lamppost was at z190 and the sign at z200:
And Rosemary Willis? Really? The little girl who stops running because she hears a gunshot that a car full of specially trained SS agents just a few feet away are completely oblivious to, including those who testified to reacting immediately to the 'ear-splitting', 'explosive' noise. Credulity is being stretched to breaking point.There is not much activity but it is hard to see. SA Jack Ready on the right front running board of the QM has his right hand securely placed on the front handhold up to z198. By z207 is it down by his right side and he has turned noticeably toward the right. That is half a second. He said he immediately turned to his right after hearing the first shot. But we don't see Ready or any other agents after z207 except SA Landis and SA Hill. Landis on the left rear running board is looking down and to the left at z223 if not before. He said he did this after the first shot to check to see if a tire had blown. Hill said he was looking at the President after the first shot, which is consistent with what we see until he disappears from the sproket image.
It appears Pat has addressed this issue but I would like to add that the Chisms describe the first shot as happening directly in front of them, certainly not in accordance with a shot at z190-z200 and certainly more in line with a shot at z223.JFK was on a line perpendicular to the north curb at the position of the Chisms at about z235. John Chism said (19H471):
Governor Connally, after viewing the Z-film, was convinced he was shot in the early z230's, another of your own witnesses refuting your model.Correct. He was giving his opinion of the frames when the second shot hit him. He was not questioned, however, on where he did his turn around to see JFK before that. That is unfortunate.
It appears credulity has reached beyond it's limits.Ok. Tell us where the medical evidence shows that the bullet went through the lung or even the pleural cavity.
In the above pic ( a close-up of z272) we see JBC has turned at least 90 degrees in his seat from a forward facing position (I feel he is turned even further).At that point the car is pointing 30 degrees to a line from Zapruder and it appears to me that JBC's chest is more or less facing Zapruder, probably about the 2 o'clock position relative to car forward (Zapruder is a 1 o'clock=30 degrees). So that would make the turn about 60 degrees from forward, not 90.
To suggest that a shot from the TSBD, or anywhere near it, could strike JBC at the armpit, make at least a 90 degree turn, and exit through his chest under his right nipple seems fairly outlandish to say the least. It is certainly not a notion I would like to have to defend as it relies on the complete absence of logic and common sense.It works quite well if you look at the geometry:
Look at the pic. Is his right wrist pressed against the right side of his jacket? The answer is clearly no.??. Where do you think the right wrist is? The bullet caught the end of his jacket cuff. The end of his jacket cuff is right over his right breast pocket in z271 as far as I can tell.
Your model is falling apart at the seams, the video evidence refutes it as does the re-enactment as do many of your own witnesses. Dragging Greer into it is a further sign of desperation. And Tague isn't that sure if he was hit by the second or third shot.Initially Tague, when asked, was not sure. But on reflection he said there was a shot after he was hit. Check his testimony:
Other than that...
Even the faulty re-enactment shows the back of the car behind JFK to be quite visible at z207. You seem hung up on using the May 24, 1964 foliage. It was materially different in November 63 as we see in the 1963 film. It shows that the JFK stand-in was clear of the tree when he was opposite or perhaps a few feet past the lampost and the front of the stand-in car (about 10 feet in front of the JFK stand-in) was even with the Thornton Freeway sign. Plot that on a scale map of Dealey Plaza and tell me what frame that corresponds to. I say the lamppost was at z190 and the sign at z200:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/roberdeau_190_200.JPG) There is not much activity but it is hard to see. SA Jack Ready on the right front running board of the QM has his right hand securely placed on the front handhold up to z198. By z207 is it down by his right side and he has turned noticeably toward the right. That is half a second. He said he immediately turned to his right after hearing the first shot. But we don't see Ready or any other agents after z207 except SA Landis and SA Hill. Landis on the left rear running board is looking down and to the left at z223 if not before. He said he did this after the first shot to check to see if a tire had blown. Hill said he was looking at the President after the first shot, which is consistent with what we see until he disappears from the sproket image.
JFK was on a line perpendicular to the north curb at the position of the Chisms at about z235. John Chism said (19H471):
"And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President," sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side."
We can see that JFK turned and waved to the right side of the street at around z180. So John Chism is actually saying the first shot was at about that point, z180. z195-200 is a better fit than z223 to John Chism's statement.Correct. He was giving his opinion of the frames when the second shot hit him. He was not questioned, however, on where he did his turn around to see JFK before that. That is unfortunate.
Ok. Tell us where the medical evidence shows that the bullet went through the lung or even the pleural cavity.
At that point the car is pointing 30 degrees to a line from Zapruder and it appears to me that JBC's chest is more or less facing Zapruder, probably about the 2 o'clock position relative to car forward (Zapruder is a 1 o'clock=30 degrees). So that would make the turn about 60 degrees from forward, not 90.
It works quite well if you look at the geometry:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/overhead_model_271.JPG)
??. Where do you think the right wrist is? The bullet caught the end of his jacket cuff. The end of his jacket cuff is right over his right breast pocket in z271 as far as I can tell.
Initially Tague, when asked, was not sure. But on reflection he said there was a shot after he was hit. Check his testimony:
James Tague 7H555:
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn’t say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
As far as Greer is concerned, it would surprise me if he did not hear some kind of impact noise from the damage caused to the windshield frame which was about 12 inches from his right ear.
Even the faulty re-enactment shows the back of the car behind JFK to be quite visible at z207. You seem hung up on using the May 24, 1964 foliage. It was materially different in November 63 as we see in the 1963 film.
It shows that the JFK stand-in was clear of the tree when he was opposite or perhaps a few feet past the lampost and the front of the stand-in car (about 10 feet in front of the JFK stand-in) was even with the Thornton Freeway sign. Plot that on a scale map of Dealey Plaza and tell me what frame that corresponds to. I say the lamppost was at z190 and the sign at z200:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/roberdeau_190_200.JPG) There is not much activity but it is hard to see. SA Jack Ready on the right front running board of the QM has his right hand securely placed on the front handhold up to z198. By z207 is it down by his right side and he has turned noticeably toward the right. That is half a second. He said he immediately turned to his right after hearing the first shot. But we don't see Ready or any other agents after z207 except SA Landis and SA Hill. Landis on the left rear running board is looking down and to the left at z223 if not before. He said he did this after the first shot to check to see if a tire had blown. Hill said he was looking at the President after the first shot, which is consistent with what we see until he disappears from the sproket image.
JFK was on a line perpendicular to the north curb at the position of the Chisms at about z235. John Chism said (19H471):
"And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President," sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side."
We can see that JFK turned and waved to the right side of the street at around z180. So John Chism is actually saying the first shot was at about that point, z180. z195-200 is a better fit than z223 to John Chism's statement.Correct. He was giving his opinion of the frames when the second shot hit him. He was not questioned, however, on where he did his turn around to see JFK before that. That is unfortunate.
Ok. Tell us where the medical evidence shows that the bullet went through the lung or even the pleural cavity.
At that point the car is pointing 30 degrees to a line from Zapruder and it appears to me that JBC's chest is more or less facing Zapruder, probably about the 2 o'clock position relative to car forward (Zapruder is a 1 o'clock=30 degrees). So that would make the turn about 60 degrees from forward, not 90.
??. Where do you think the right wrist is? The bullet caught the end of his jacket cuff. The end of his jacket cuff is right over his right breast pocket in z271 as far as I can tell.
Initially Tague, when asked, was not sure. But on reflection he said there was a shot after he was hit. Check his testimony:
James Tague 7H555:
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn’t say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
At that point the car is pointing 30 degrees to a line from Zapruder and it appears to me that JBC's chest is more or less facing Zapruder, probably about the 2 o'clock position relative to car forward (Zapruder is a 1 o'clock=30 degrees). So that would make the turn about 60 degrees from forward, not 90.
At z272 the limo is pointing 72-degrees relative to a line to Zapruder, not 30-degrees. And it is difficult to understand how you arrived at 60 degrees from forward if you believe JBC’s chest is facing Zapruder and Zapruder is at 1:00. Then you say Zapruder is at the 2-o’clock position which is 60-degrees. That is closer to the actual 72-degrees. But still a bit off. The bullet would have to be deflected about 72-degrees by the collision with the rib bone in order to exit near the nipple. Is that what you believe happened?
You are right. At z272 the angle of Zapruder to the perpendicular to the car path is about 18-20 degrees so your 72 degrees is about right. I had in mind a 30 degree angle but that was the angle at z190. So JBC is a bit past 72 degrees but the plane of his chest (ie. the perpendicular from the chest surface) is not as much as 90 degrees to the direction of the car.
At that point the car is pointing 30 degrees to a line from Zapruder and it appears to me that JBC's chest is more or less facing Zapruder, probably about the 2 o'clock position relative to car forward (Zapruder is a 1 o'clock=30 degrees). So that would make the turn about 60 degrees from forward, not 90.
At z272 the limo is pointing 72-degrees relative to a line to Zapruder, not 30-degrees. And it is difficult to understand how you arrived at 60 degrees from forward if you believe JBC’s chest is facing Zapruder and Zapruder is at 1:00. Then you say Zapruder is at the 2-o’clock position which is 60-degrees. That is closer to the actual 72-degrees. But still a bit off. The bullet would have to be deflected about 72-degrees by the collision with the rib bone in order to exit near the nipple. Is that what you believe happened?
You are right. At z272 the angle of Zapruder to the perpendicular to the car path is about 18-20 degrees so your 72 degrees is about right. I had in mind a 30 degree angle but that was the angle at z190. So JBC is a bit past 72 degrees but the plane of his chest (ie. the perpendicular from the chest surface) is not as much as 90 degrees to the direction of the car.
As far as the path of the bullet striking JBC:
1. it struck the fifth rib in the back close to the axilla (armpit) and imparted a significant impact that JBC described as a hard punch from about 12 inches away.
2. The impact indicates that the bullet lost some momentum on hitting the fifth rib. So it either slowed suddenly or changed direction suddenly or a combination of both.
3. The bullet destroyed the last 10 cm or 4 inches of the lateral and anterior (front) portion of the right fifth rib and emerged just below and slightly medial to the right nipple. The point of impact on the fifth rib was more than 10 cm from the end of the rib.
One can conclude from that that the bullet did not destroy the fifth rib at the point of initial contact.
4. In destroying the last 10 cm of rib the bullet drove shards of rib bone down into the lower lobe of the right lung. That means that the bullet drove bone fragments inward.
5. The bullet did not penetrate the lung.
From the medical evidence, the bullet followed along the fifth rib for a few inches before smashing through it which is consistent with some deflection of either the rib (to the left) and the bullet (to the right) or a combination of both upon impact. It exited just below the right nipple. Twist your torso around like that and you can easily see a path along the rib and exiting just below the right nipple that does not pass through the lung. In fact it is much harder to make that path work on a shot from the SN at z225 with JBC facing forward without passing through the chest/lung. When he is twisted right, the right nipple is essentially on the side and the point below and slightly medial to it almost aligns with the back entry point on a line with a shot directly from the rear without going through much if any of the pleural cavity. So there would only have to be very slight deflection of a few degrees. Try it (minus the bullet from the rear).
You are right. At z272 the angle of Zapruder to the perpendicular to the car path is about 18-20 degrees so your 72 degrees is about right. I had in mind a 30 degree angle but that was the angle at z190. So JBC is a bit past 72 degrees but the plane of his chest (ie. the perpendicular from the chest surface) is not as much as 90 degrees to the direction of the car.
As far as the path of the bullet striking JBC:
1. it struck the fifth rib in the back close to the axilla (armpit) and imparted a significant impact that JBC described as a hard punch from about 12 inches away.
2. The impact indicates that the bullet lost some momentum on hitting the fifth rib. So it either slowed suddenly or changed direction suddenly or a combination of both.
3. The bullet destroyed the last 10 cm or 4 inches of the lateral and anterior (front) portion of the right fifth rib and emerged just below and slightly medial to the right nipple. The point of impact on the fifth rib was more than 10 cm from the end of the rib.
One can conclude from that that the bullet did not destroy the fifth rib at the point of initial contact.
4. In destroying the last 10 cm of rib the bullet drove shards of rib bone down into the lower lobe of the right lung. That means that the bullet drove bone fragments inward.
5. The bullet did not penetrate the lung.
From the medical evidence, the bullet followed along the fifth rib for a few inches before smashing through it which is consistent with some deflection of either the rib (to the left) and the bullet (to the right) or a combination of both upon impact. It exited just below the right nipple. Twist your torso around like that and you can easily see a path along the rib and exiting just below the right nipple that does not pass through the lung. In fact it is much harder to make that path work on a shot from the SN at z225 with JBC facing forward without passing through the chest/lung. When he is twisted right, the right nipple is essentially on the side and the point below and slightly medial to it almost aligns with the back entry point on a line with a shot directly from the rear without going through much if any of the pleural cavity. So there would only have to be very slight deflection of a few degrees. Try it (minus the bullet from the rear).
The angle that JBC is turned to Zapruder is not the issue.?? Of course it is not THE issue. It is a useful tool to measure the amount of turn that JBC has from facing forward.
The issue is how JBC is turned in relation to the shooter in the sniper's nest.Right. And that depends on the frame. And if we measure the angle to Zapruder on that frame we can use that as a reference. For example, at z271 JBC is turned a few degrees further right than facing Zapruder. Zapruder is 72 degrees to the JBC face- forward direction (car direction).
The pic below is taken from Speer's website and a discussion of the SBT.There are several problems if that is supposed to depict an SBT shot. The path through JBC exiting just below and slightly medial to the right nipple requires a significant right turn to avoid the lung and exiting through his sternum. Then it has to strike the right radius, pass through the wrist and deflect sharp left to then strike the left thigh and make a tangential wound in the direction of the femur. It certainly does not work with that posture.
It is a fair representation of the relative positions of JFK, JBC and the trajectory of a shot from the TSBD.
Obviously, as the limo travels on to z271 these positions will change slightly but the pic is useful to demonstrate two things:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PWrn4cN/cuttingthecrap-full-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Firstly, around z271 JBC is turned far more to his right than in the pic above, so much so that the plane of JBC's body, shoulder to shoulder, would be more or less in line with the trajectory of the bullet making a shot entering JBC's back, at the armpit, very unlikely:Why? At z271 the car has travelled farther along the curve and is moving almost directly away from the SN.
But that's not the important point. If you look at the trajectory of the bullet it is moving away from JBC at the time of impact.
The shot fired from the TSBD is moving laterally from right to left as it travels towards the limo. If, by some very unlikely circumstance, the bullet did strike the armpit area of JBC it would be moving right to left - away from JBC's body.
Rather than blowing out his spinal column we are being asked to believe the bullet, moving away from his body, would somehow have all the force transferred into a left to right motion through JBC's body.No. It would transfer forward momentum in the direction of the bullet. JBC described a forceful impact. Nellie observed JBC move from the impact. We can see JBC sail forward (the only person moving) from z272 to z278 when he starts to fall back onto Nellie.
Also, just from eye-balling the above diagram, the bullet would have to make an almost 90 degree turn to pass through JBC's torso, exiting the right side of his chest.I don't know why you would think that. It followed along the fifth rib for a few inches. The bullet did not pass through the lung. It passed around the lung.
Finally, this mage from z280 - a full half second after supposedly being shot through the chest, smashing a rib and blowing splinters into his lung - JBC is still in the same position, looking towards JFK.That is a bit less than half a second. He said he felt no pain. Are you saying that he should have reacted? Besides, you seem to think he assumed that position and was looking toward JFK for the previous 3 seconds after being hit.
?? Of course it is not THE issue. It is a useful tool to measure the amount of turn that JBC has from facing forward.Right. And that depends on the frame. And if we measure the angle to Zapruder on that frame we can use that as a reference. For example, at z271 JBC is turned a few degrees further right than facing Zapruder. Zapruder is 72 degrees to the JBC face- forward direction (car direction).
There are several problems if that is supposed to depict an SBT shot. The path through JBC exiting just below and slightly medial to the right nipple requires a significant right turn to avoid the lung and exiting through his sternum. Then it has to strike the right radius, pass through the wrist and deflect sharp left to then strike the left thigh and make a tangential wound in the direction of the femur. It certainly does not work with that posture.
Also, JBC is not turned like that at z223. He is facing more or less forward. So to have the path through JFK align with the entry wound on JBC you have to move JBC so his right armpit is left of the middle of the jump seat.
Finally, this depicts JFK extremely far to the right with his ribs pressed against the inside panel of the car. But that is not what he is doing in z224. He has moved well away from the wall and has his hands at his neck. (which also makes it hard for the bullet exiting his neck to miss them, but that is a minor detail).
Why? At z271 the car has travelled farther along the curve and is moving almost directly away from the SN. No. It would transfer forward momentum in the direction of the bullet. JBC described a forceful impact. Nellie observed JBC move from the impact. We can see JBC sail forward (the only person moving) from z272 to z278 when he starts to fall back onto Nellie.I don't know why you would think that. It followed along the fifth rib for a few inches. The bullet did not pass through the lung. It passed around the lung.
That is a bit less than half a second. He said he felt no pain. Are you saying that he should have reacted? Besides, you seem to think he assumed that position and was looking toward JFK for the previous 3 seconds after being hit.
If I'd known Charles was posting at the same time I would have left it to him as he deals with this issue far better than I can.
Would you like to address the points Charles makes?
The simple answer to that is that there is abundant evidence from witnesses to conclude that the first shot struck JFK. So Dan is on solid ground there. He is also on solid ground in concluding that the shot sequence has the last two shots closer together and in rapid succession. The only point on which Dan and I disagree is whether there was a shot after the head shot. I think we both disagree with him on that.
You and I made similar points. He probably believes that he has “utterly refuted” both of us. Much like your belief that your opinion utterly refutes anything other than a first shot at Z223.
From the testimony of Mr Canning, Staff Engineer for the Space Projects Division of NASA Ames Research Center, explaining trajectory analysis during the HSCA Investigation.I don't know. Who ever suggested that?
Mr. SAWYER. If we were to start at the other end then and assume that a bullet were fired at the approximate time we have determined from the sixth floor of the depository, would it have of necessity given the wounds in the President, would it of necessity, based on what you have determined as to locations somewhat, also have hit Governor Connally?
Mr. CANNING. The bullet would have had to have been substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit with the alinements that we have found.
Mr. SAWYER. So that if we assume, as apparently is the fact, that this jacketed bullet did not hit anything solid in the way of bone in the President but only traversed the soft tissue of the neck, and presuming the approximate location of the limousine at the time and the posture as nearly as can be determined of the President at that time, that in your view then, absent a deflection of that bullet, it could not have missed Governor Connally.
Mr. CANNING. That is my view, yes.
Mr. SAWYER. I think that is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is really not that complicated. A shot striking JBC at Z270+ is not even within the realm of possibilities. Whatever happened to the proposed idea that the 2nd shot bullet only stuck JBC in the leg?
The reason a shot between the neck/back shot and head shot cannot ever be discerned is because it never happened. Exactly what the eye witnesses stated that they only know of two shots.There is a significant body of evidence for a shot there. It would be necessary in order to fit the 1......2...3 shot pattern evidence if z313 was the last shot. It would also fit SA Hickey's evidence, Greer's evidence, the Connally's evidence, the first shot hitting JFK evidence, Power's evidence, etc. BTW, how do you explain the sudden motion of JBC from z272-278:
One just has to determine the direction of a line between the entrance and exit wound locations with the torso twisted about 75 degrees as seen in the z271 and 272 and compare to a line from the SN to the entrance wound. I was trying to find a photo of a twisted naked torso but, alas, this is the best I could come up with:
It appears to me that at Z272 the limo was traveling in a line close to directly away from the sniper's nest window. Therefore the path of the bullet would have been roughly parallel to the back to front centerline of the limo. If JBC was turned with a line perpendicular to the plane of his chest at 72-degrees (your apparent opinion) from straight forward (in relation to the limo) and a bullet hit him in the back near the right armpit and continued to travel in a straight line, it would exit on the left side of his chest after probably going through his heart. That didn't happen, the bullet exit wound is near his right nipple. Therefore the bullet wouldn't have been slightly deflected as you apparently believe. It would have had to have been deflected around 60-degrees.
Here is Dale Meyers' animation at Z224. (Note that the limo is not traveling directly away from the sniper's nest window at that point, so the path of the bullet is at a corresponding angle instead of straight in line with the limo direction as it was at Z272.) I don't remember the precise angle that Meyers calculated that JBC is turned to the right from straight forward. But eyeballing it, I get around 30-degrees. You have stated that you believe JBC is turned somewhere around 72-degrees. This is approximately an additional (42-degrees minus the change in the relative bullet path to the limo, lets just say around 35-degrees) to the right. And if your theory that the bullet hit JBC in the back at his right armpit area then this would require that the bullet was deflected an additional 35-degrees to the right (from the slight deflection that Meyers calculated) in order to exit JBC where it did (in the right nipple area). Is this what you believe happened?This shows an angle of the bullet path to the car about 8 degrees. I can't get anywhere near 8 degrees at z224. It is more like 12.5 degrees. Besides, this shows JBC with his head out over the console between the jump seats and has his shoulders turned quite a bit right from forward. That does not fit z224 that I can see. He is facing forward at that time.
(https://i.vgy.me/UiYF8e.jpg)
One just has to determine the direction of a line between the entrance and exit wound locations with the torso twisted about 75 degrees as seen in the z271 and 272 and compare to a line from the SN to the entrance wound. I was trying to find a photo of a twisted naked torso but, alas, this is the best I could come up with:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/torso_twist_baby.JPG)
But even with that, you can easily see that the path from the armpit to nipple does not go through lung let alone the other side. That is because the rib cage is articulated by the ribs and the shoulders move more than parts lower down. So just because JBC's shoulders are turned 75 degrees the relative positions of the armpit and right nipple do not change that much. In fact, it moves the right nipple farther to the right making the line from the armpit to the nipple align closer to a shot from the rear.
This shows an angle of the bullet path to the car about 8 degrees. I can't get anywhere near 8 degrees at z224. It is more like 12.5 degrees. Besides, this shows JBC with his head out over the console https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1339&fullsize=1 the jump seats and has his shoulders turned quite a bit right from forward. That does not fit z224 that I can see. He is facing forward at that time.
It is important to try to get this right. Here is how I determined the angle. I used a scan of a scale map of Dealey Plaza that is provided by Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain.
This shows an angle of the bullet path to the car about 8 degrees. I can't get anywhere near 8 degrees at z224. It is more like 12.5 degrees. Besides, this shows JBC with his head out over the console https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1339&fullsize=1 the jump seats and has his shoulders turned quite a bit right from forward. That does not fit z224 that I can see. He is facing forward at that time.
I just checked the angle using the following method. Don Roberdeau’s map shows the limousine’s locations at various times including Z207, Z225, and Z247. An arc would be required to connect these three points. Therefore the limousine was turning towards the left during the time between Z207 and Z247 (not traveling in a straight line). I drew a straight line between the points labeled Z207 and Z225 and extended it substantially past each point. I did the same thing for Z225 and Z247. Z224 is close to halfway between Z207 and Z247 in time and distance. Therefore I believe that a line that bisects the angle between the first two lines that I described earlier would be very close to the direction of the limo at Z224. I hope that you can follow all of that. Another line between the point designating the rifle in the sniper’s nest window and the point designating Z225 would represent the path of a bullet aimed at JFK at that moment. I measured the angle between the bullet path and the limousine direction at Z224 to be 8-degrees. The angle between the bullet path and the line between points Z207 and Z225 to be 12-degrees. And the angle between the bullet path (@Z225) and the line between points Z225 and Z247 to be 2-degrees. So it appears to me that Don Roberdeau’s map tends to agree with Dale Meyers’ calculations. And perhaps your results don’t take into account the curved path of the limo.
Also, JBC is not facing to the front of the limo at Z224. I believe that this set of Z-frames might help clarify the actual position of JBC during this time period. His right shoulder is difficult to discern from what I interpret to be shadow behind and to his right of that shoulder. Which tends to distort the perception of his actual position.
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1339&fullsize=1 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1339&fullsize=1)
It is important to try to get this right. Here is how I determined the angle. I used a scan of a scale map of Dealey Plaza that is provided by Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Angle_at_z223_a.JPG)
1. I located JFK at z223 on the map. Since at z225 JFK is just past aligning with the corner of the west retaining wall from Zapruder's position, I conclude that he would have aligned with it at z223. So I locate JFK at z223 at the intersection of a line from Zapruder to the corner of the west retaining wall (purple) and a line following the path of JFK at z223 (blue line). [Since the left side of the limo was close to the left side of that lane, JFK would have been about 6 feet from the left lane marker and a similar distance from the right lane marker.]
2. I then draw a line (red)from the SN to the position of JFK at z223. I extend a line from the SN perpendicular to the blue line (green).
3. I measure the sin of the angle by measuring the length of the green line and divide it by the length of the red line to the point of intersection at the JFK z223 position.
As far as the shoulder direction of JBC at z225 is concerned, I just don't see much of a turn, if there is any at all. Perhaps we could estimate the possible range of angle. I would say it is anywhere from 0 to 10 degrees right.
You are right again! Thanks for pointing that out. It does make a big difference: the angle measures 9.5 degrees not 12.5:
I believe that if you select the southeast corner window as the sniper’s nest, instead of the next one over, that you might be a little more accurate.
You are right again! Thanks for pointing that out. It does make a big difference: the angle measures 9.5 degrees not 12.5:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Angle_at_z223_a1.JPG)
Depending on how accurate the blue line is in identifying the angle of the car path I suppose one could get another degree or so less so 8 or 8.5 degrees would be possible. Sorry about causing confusion there - entirely my fault.
I tried the sine, inverse sine method on the lines that I drew on Don Roberdeau’s map. And calculated 8.1-degrees. Which is essentially what the protractor indicated. And a line connecting Zapruder’s position to the estimated Z223 point of the limousine and extended to the west retaining wall, hits the wall a foot or two south of the 45-degree corner. So if your estimated position of JFK is accurate, then perhaps the points indicated on Roberdeau’s map are supposed to be the center of the limo, just guessing.Roberdeau's map is amazingly inaccurate.
Roberdeau's map is amazingly inaccurate.
Many times, I have directed users to Robert West.
Instead of just complaining about how wrong everything is, why don’t you actually do something about it? Here is Don Roberdeau’s words which invite anyone to do just that:
“Your comments, and your specific referenced critiques are always welcomed.
Any + all of your referenced information will be considered for inclusion for our DP
map when you email me via my contact information.”
Here is the web page where I found the above invitation (just for you):
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/8957-dealey-plaza-detailed-map-by-donald-roberdeau/ (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/8957-dealey-plaza-detailed-map-by-donald-roberdeau/)
Many times, I have directed users to Robert West.
Because it's accurate.
Q: Are there any reasons why this plat is an incomplete drawing?
A: This is what the FBI agent instructed me to show on this plat, these features.
Q: Mr. West, I direct your attention -- no, I will ask you something prior to that. Would you please step down from the witness stand and come over here?
A: Yes.
MR. SCIAMBRA: Your Honor, for the sake of convenience, provided I speak in a loud voice and provided Mr. West speaks in a loud voice, can I ask him questions from here?
THE COURT: Yes, but speak up.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: I notice in the center lane of that which you have depicted as Elm Street there are numerals close to small dots. Can you please tell the Gentlemen of the Jury what those numbers represent and what the dots represent?
A: The number represents the frame number of the Zapruder film. The dot represents the location of President Kennedy in the limousine when the particular frame was shot.
MR. DYMOND: We object to that unless this gentlemen can testify to that of his own knowledge, Your Honor. Unless he measured where the President was each time it would be based purely on hearsay.
MR. SCIAMBRA: I am asking the question.
BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: Why did you place the dot in the frame number in a particular location which is shown on this plat?
A: On the instructions of the FBI agent.
MR. DYMOND: We object to it and ask the Jury be instructed to disregard it.
THE COURT: I so instruct the Jury. Disregard the last remark.
So John, exactly why do you direct people to a map that the FBI had control of creating?
Because it's accurate.
I have shown how the trajectory of a first shot between z190 and z200 through JFK's neck would have gone to the left side of JBC's midline.
The problem with discounting a neck to left thigh path for the bullet is that no one has ever considered it. If it is so outlandish it would have been easy to reject as even a possibility. The trajectory certainly can work if the positions of the two men were such that the neck wound and thigh wound aligned with a shot from the SN at some point. We would be able to determine what conditions are required in order for the trajectory to work and then see if those conditions are met at some point. I suggest that they could have all been met at a point between z190-205, which also fits with the witness evidence.
We would then the have to consider the wounds. It seems to me that all the wounds and the CE399 bullet are consistent with passing through JFK 's neck, knicking the tie knot then tumbling - perhaps getting tangled in the drape of the jacket before striking JBC's left thigh (and either sticking in the thigh or perhaps continuing at a slowed speed and striking the wall in front and landing on JBC's lap). It would certainly provide an explanation for the condition of CE399 that is much less problematic than the SBT.
There is a significant body of evidence for a shot there. It would be necessary in order to fit the 1......2...3 shot pattern evidence if z313 was the last shot.
It would also fit SA Hickey's evidence, Greer's evidence, the Connally's evidence, the first shot hitting JFK evidence,
BTW, how do you explain the sudden motion of JBC from z272-278:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z271_279_visor_motion_cuff_copy.gif)
Because it's accurate.
More feasible with a shot that enters from behind at the Z220s rather than through the shoulder from the side at Z271.Show us. I gave you the baby with shoulders turned and looking backward. Not a great model but it was the only thing I could find. A shot through the armpit on a downward path (JBC was also leaning back) comes out around the nipple on the same side. Where is your photo?
He could see you were showing him manipulated drawings with shoe-horns, so he entertained you and gave you a noncommittal answer to get rid of you.
I believe Dr. Gregory had a drawing showing the bullet might have gone through the wrist on the outer side of the radius. It is of a left hand because he was drawing with his right hand. It has been flipped below.
(https://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-6369-0-74333400-1385381514.jpg)
I don't know, but the Xray seems to show the "criss-cross" that could be an impact point is on the outer side of the radius.
Don't you still have to have a fragment exit the palm side at Z271?
That's what it looks like, Jerry. The stetson is below the wrist. He is holding the brim.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/overhead_model_271.JPG) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z272.jpg)
Now, Mason, isn't there the bulk of a Stetson hat between Connally's right hand and his chest? Yet you have his right hand against his chest.
I think I've missed that, could you point me to it.I posted this 3D image. (I don't know why you are not getting them - use a computer not your phone):
I'm not sure what you're saying here.That seems to be the trajectory and it fits the thigh wound characteristics of being struck by the butt end of an intact bullet.
That the bullet passed through JFK and JBC without any deflection from JFK's neck to JBC's left thigh?
You seem to be suggesting a shot that passes through JFK's neck the hits JBC's thigh without passing through his torso.You have not been paying attention to my posts or to Jerry's mocking of them!
I can't be reading that right, surely?
I'm getting a bit confused.
The bullet gets "tangled in the drape of the jacket"? What a clumsy bullet.?? The bullet was likely tumbling after exiting JFK's neck and striking the tie knot.
"...striking the wall"? What wall? Did JBC get shot at home?Do you not see the partition or "wall" in front of the jump seats?
The idea that CE399 was stuck in JBC's thigh then fell out, as if the entry wound left a cylinder-shaped hole in his leg, has surely been debunked. If not, it should be.?That is the general consensus - that CE399 caused the thigh wound and fell out onto JBC's stretcher at some point. When it fell out of the wound is not known, of course.
How can it be evidence if you've assumed z313 was the last shot???I haven't "assumed" it as a hypothetical. There IS evidence that the head shot was the last shot.
Hickey saw hair move from a position he could not have possibly seen the slight ruffle of JFK's fringe line. The two shots he heard are described as being almost simultaneous. How can a reference to a hair ruffle in the z270's and the headshot at z313 be described as almost simultaneous? The hair flying up is a reference to the headshot,Greer has not been discredited. He was obviously wrong in suggesting that he did not slow down. But that does not mean he was wrong on other details. His turn is corroborated by the zfilm: he said he turned and saw JBC falling back onto his wife. We can see that is what JBC is doing from z280-285, which is when he is turned around.
Stop using Greer, he's been totally discredited (and the way you phrase your sentence you imply Greer provided evidence for the first shot hitting JFK. Hmmm...)
Connally describes shouting "Oh. no, no, no" immediately after being hit. He can actually be seen in the Z-film doing this and it's long before the z270'sNellie said that her husband uttered "Oh, no, no, no" BEFORE the second shot:
He is responding to the first shot about a second or so before, after he has determined that it was a rifle shot and an assassination was occurring. He said he turned around to try to see the President. That is exactly what he does from z230-270. When do you see him turn around trying to see JFK before then?
How do you explain his truly extreme reaction from z225 to z230?
PS: I get the impression you're posting images and Gifs but they're not coming up on the pages I'm getting.Where are you located and what are you using to view pages?
Can you see them when you look at the forum pages because I can't?
One just has to determine the direction of a line between the entrance and exit wound locations with the torso twisted about 75 degrees as seen in the z271 and 272 and compare to a line from the SN to the entrance wound. I was trying to find a photo of a twisted naked torso but, alas, this is the best I could come up with:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/torso_twist_baby.JPG)
But even with that, you can easily see that the path from the armpit to nipple does not go through lung let alone the other side. That is because the rib cage is articulated by the ribs and the shoulders move more than parts lower down. So just because JBC's shoulders are turned 75 degrees the relative positions of the armpit and right nipple do not change that much. In fact, it moves the right nipple farther to the right making the line from the armpit to the nipple align closer to a shot from the rear.
This shows an angle of the bullet path to the car about 8 degrees. I can't get anywhere near 8 degrees at z224. It is more like 12.5 degrees. Besides, this shows JBC with his head out over the console between the jump seats and has his shoulders turned quite a bit right from forward. That does not fit z224 that I can see. He is facing forward at that time.
I can't disagree with you if you are referring to your photo. But Connally was not sitting on a chair like that. He was sitting on a jump seat mounted on the floor with his feet on the floor so his knees were up:
One of the problems that I have with your contention of a separate bullet hitting JBC’s left thigh is that the twisted torso posture you show with his left leg pointed in the opposite direction isn’t comfortable and requires constant tension to maintain. Maintaining this posture for any significant length of time would be unlikely. With the plethora of images showing JBC seated well inboard of JFK and turned to the right (which span the length of the motorcade), I believe that JBC shifted to the left side of the seat and turned his legs to the right as far as the space between him and the door of the limo allowed. This leg position makes it much easier to maintain the half turned posture so that he could address both the crowd on his side of the limo and turn a little more to chat with JFK occasionally. Here is an image showing a man in a chair. His legs are turned to the left so he can look to his left side. Whereas JBC was turned to his right. But this is the general idea (a more relaxed posture which allows one to turn further to the right than would be possible with the legs straight forward, etc).
I can't disagree with you if you are referring to your photo. But Connally was not sitting on a chair like that. He was sitting on a jump seat mounted on the floor with his feet on the floor so his knees were up:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/high_knees.JPG)
Try sitting like that and NOT keeping your legs apart. Now that is uncomfortable (assuming, Charles, that you are a male).
Also, Connally was not turned around at z190-200 as in your photo:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/turned_on_chair.JPG)
He was turned a bit more than is depicted here:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/jbc_back.JPG)
And the photo you provided was taken from directly behind. Take one from the same angle as the bullet would have to be if fired at Z190-Z200 (I estimate it to be about 18 to 19-degrees) and see if the left thigh is visible to the camera. (And just how comfortable that position would be to hold.)This is taken from about .6 m (2 feet) behind the right top corner of the jump seat, with the shoulders turned in the position JBC is seen in z190-200. JFK's throat exit wound was not as far right as this but the left thigh is visible from even that far right. The key is the right turn of the shoulders that JBC had assumed.
This is taken from about .6 m (2 feet) behind the right top corner of the jump seat, with the shoulders turned in the position JBC is seen in z190-200. JFK's throat exit wound was not as far right as this but the left thigh is visible from even that far right. The key is the right turn of the shoulders that JBC had assumed.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Photos/JBC_z200_rear2_reenactment.jpg)
The angle at Z195 to the SN was 15.1 degrees as I measure it:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_angle.JPG)
and would be less at z200.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/z193-trajectory-model.jpg)You have JFK as far right as possible. It is possible he was not that close to the right side of the car. So you have to allow for a possible range of positions that are consistent with his position in z193.
here's an attempt to model a shot through Kennedy in the Z190s (Note: this is not a SBT demonstration!).
Mason has the entire torso, including the waist, turned. But the waist area would be more or less untwisted.It passed above the waist. The thigh wound was above the waist and the bullet was moving downward from JFK.
Mason needs that area out of the way so his bullet can get pass Connally and strike the thigh. He's also claiming fragment strikes to the "wall" in front of Connally and to the driver-side sun-visor. No such such damage (holes) was reported in those areas.I am not "claiming" fragment strikes. We are dealing with CE399! I suggest that CE399 stuck in JBC's left thigh but all we know is that it fell out of his thigh at some point because it was found on his stretcher. So maybe it stayed in and fell out as he was placed onto the stretcher or removed from it. Maybe it struck the hard wood panel in front at a few feet per second and bounced back onto his lap. We really don't know what it did. But it was not a fragment and at slow speed there is no assurance that the bullet would make a mark. (As far as I know, the front panel was not tested for lead or copper residue).
I could have done a better job of showing the setup details. I did this several years ago.The camera was about 6 inches above the end of the meter stick. So the camera is above the shoulder. Here is a side view of the setup.
What elevation was the camera in relation to the left shoulder? It appears to me to be about level with it.
I could have done a better job of showing the setup details. I did this several years ago.The camera was about 6 inches above the end of the meter stick. So the camera is above the shoulder. Here is a side view of the setup.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_z200_side_reenactment.jpg)
As I recall it was necessary to hold the right leg to do that to keep the right knee from its natural tendency to move right as one turns to the right. I wanted the right knee to point more or less forward and not to the side as JBC had the door on the right to keep the knee from moving farther right. It may have been easier to hold a right shoulder turn by pressing the right leg against the door.
It appears that this photo is a good illustration of my point about having to keep tension in order to stay in that twisted position. The hand on the lower leg appears to be helping to hold the pose.
I don't remember which one of us combined the two photos. Back then we could use screen names, so mine was different than it is today.The loss of the archived threads from years ago is unfortunate.
(https://i.vgy.me/XOFWNf.jpg)
Left of picture. I thought that was a woman bending over :D
Then released it was a lamp.
As I recall it was necessary to hold the right leg to do that to keep the right knee from its natural tendency to move right as one turns to the right. I wanted the right knee to point more or less forward and not to the side as JBC had the door on the right to keep the knee from moving farther right. It may have been easier to hold a right shoulder turn by pressing the right leg against the door.
But I don't see how all this affects the position of the left knee. It tends to move left when the torso turns right and there is no question that at z190-200 JBC has his shoulders turned right.
The loss of the archived threads from years ago is unfortunate.
I put several books under my feet and put my feet close together. I pulled my chair up to the right side of my desk so that my right knee is pressed against the inside right wall of my desk. I then turned my torso sharply to the right as we see JBC doing from z190-200 and held it there without holding my hand on any part of my body. But I could not do that without having my left knee somewhat out to the left. I certainly could not keep my left knee directly in front of me. I will see if I can get someone to take a picture for me.
Some of us are not as flexible as others. For me personally, I would need to grab my leg and pull against it to even attempt to twist my torso as far to the right as the one in your photo. That pose also reminds me of a pose in a Hatha Yoga book that I used to do to stretch and try to stay more flexible.
That lamp (and another one just like it) was made by my mother and given to me many years before, when I left home. I believe that I hadn’t yet completely gotten that room’s furniture arrangement worked out or set up at the time the photo was made. Hence the lamp on the floor. :)
Your mother could make lamps? What a crafty woman. The whole thing or just the shade?
She was in some sort of ceramics group. As far as I know, they basically just painted and then baked on the finishes. She made a beer stein for me also. The lamp shade was purchased.
This is a model set I don't use anymore. Seems to have overdeveloped muscles. I did proportionally-scale the figures to a height of 6' 1". But the chest, as noted, was barrel-shaped and the shoulders were a bit too wide. Thanks for spotting that. I have a different more-average model set today.This is not a criticism of your graphics, which you do really well, but the arm and chest position does not look natural and does not look like the photos. This photo taken on Houston Street shows a more natural position that is not have his armpit was pressed against the side of the car as you are assuming:
I did return to the model and narrowed the shoulder width of JFK and JBC. The open gap between them in the film (where we see the seatback) is now closer in width to what is in Z193. This must be the problem. I didn't change anything else on the figure models. The only other change I did was reorient the car relative to the curvature of Elm at that point. About a 1 or 2 degree change.
My limousine is not accurate yet with regards to the hand-holds and tire hump. So I removed the handholds. I estimate Kennedy's midline to be 7 1/2" in from the interior wall of the limousine. The rear seat is 60" wide.
Nothing much changed with regard to the trajectory hitting Connally to the right of his mid-line.The Powers film shows JFK and JBC from the rear and has JFK's shoulder inside the car:
So I have JFK's midline at 7 1/2" from the interior side wall and the bullet arriving at Connally 13 1/2" from the same wall. About six inch difference. My jumpseats are 21" wide and about 8 1/2" apart. The center of a jumpseat is about 16" from the side wall interior.You should estimate the range of error or uncertainty on the right/left position of JFK. The minimum is 7.5 inches and that has his right armpit right against the side (Canning measured the spine to armpit distance to be 20 cm = 7.9 inches on JBC). As explained above, there is also some uncertainty in the distance from JFK's exit wound to JBC's spine. It is at least 24 inches to the plane of the jump seat.
I would have to move the Kennedy figure about six inches further away from the interior side wall to get the missile path to bypass Connally's torso.
Why would either a lone gunman or a 2nd gunman take a shot after 313?... so how, exactly did he find Oswald, a person who unbeknownst to him had used his gun in a previous assassination attempt? And how did he persuade Oswald to bring his gun to work, then leave, get his gun and shoot officer Tippett... and trust that he would not talk?
Would it not be quite apparent to the one (or both) observing the target in their scope or iron sights, that the head is nearly completely destroyed?
rusty barrel MC rifle with defective scope impossible to align unless shim used after rescrewiimg the mount to the stock, Suggests this rifle was planted before the shooting and never actually fired
What purpose to do this, as it seems rather pointless?
One possibility might be a shooter who was an CIA operative who was got left for dead at the Bay of Pigs.
This shooter was an enraged individual who vowed not just to terminate JFK but make him suffer pain just before finishing him off with a head shot
The shooter used a semi auto rifle with accurate scope and made his 1st shot approx 223 purposely aiming at the back of JFK in order to inflict a moment of severe pain
The shooter could have then immediately fired a 2nd and 3td shot in 2 secs, but instead, he waited a full 4.8 secs, carefully keeping his scope on the head of JFK as the shooter sadistically enjoyed those few seconds knowing the agony of pain that JFK must have been suffering at that point
The shooter then fired his final kill shot by rapid firing 2 shots in about 1.5 secs
The 2nd shot hit the skull at Z312-313
The 3rd shot right immediately followed but went slightly high due to muzzle rise , and flew just over the windshield to strike the curb near James Teague
All the bullets fired by the lone gunman using a semi auto rifle (7.62mm?). were comical shaped FMG type this necessitating the replacement with CE 399 and placing MC 6.5 mm fragments underneath Mrs Connallys seat in the limo.
The point of pre planting the MC rusty barrel rifle was to make a final statement of mockery , perhaps implicate Oswald as a traitor and or informant
This shooter would have had to use an elevator to descend from 6th floor to 1st floor, as he Would have been by Mrs Garner on the 4th floor if he had used the staircase.
This leaves Jack Dougherty as a prime suspect, either aiding the shooter or Jack being the shooter himself, UNLESS, JD was actually on the 7th floor sleeping when shots were fired and Jack stayed on the 7th floor for hiding for awhile (otherwise would’ve been seen by the 3 amigos huddling on the 5th floor, or by Mrs Garner, or by Truly/Baker when they arrived on the 7th floor.
For what it is worth:And we also had Zapruder's secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, who was holding on to his legs as he was on the pedestal or column or whatever it was. She too said she heard only two shots. Here she is in an interview with Josiah Thompson.
Harry McCormick, the legendary crime reporter for the Dallas Morning News, writes (in his notes written four months after the assassination per his editor’s request):
One of the first persons I ran into was Abraham Zapruder. He was obviously highly agitated, almost weeping.
“I saw it all through my camera,” he half sobbed to himself. I stopped him and without identifying myself I asked him questions. “I got it all on film,” he said. “There were three shots. Two hit the President and the other Gov. Connelly. I know the President is dead for his head seemed to fly to pieces when he was hit the second time.
Looking at the televised interview with Zapruder done only a short while later, he is unsure whether or not there were two or three shots. This is the first time that I have seen a quote of Zapruder that appears to be definite regarding the number of shots. If Harry McCormick had not put those words in quotation marks, I would probably guess that McCormick had used the generally accepted view of that point in time. But it appears that this is a verbatim quote of Abraham Zapruder. And I find that interesting because I was under the impression that Zapruder was always unsure about the number of shots.
And we also had Zapruder's secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, who was holding on to his legs as he was on the pedestal or column or whatever it was. She too said she heard only two shots. Here she is in an interview with Josiah Thompson.
Sitzman: ....There was nothing unusual [happening] until the first sound, which I thought was a firecracker, mainly because of the reaction of President Kennedy. He put his hands up to guard his face and leaned to the left, and the motorcade, you know, proceeded down the hill. And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his fa ... [sic]
And this:
Sitzman: And as far as the sound of the shots go, the first one, as I said, sounded like a firecracker, and the second one that I heard sounded the same, because I recall no difference whatsoever in them. And I'm sure that if the second shot would have come from a different place -- and the supposed theory is they would have been much closer to me and on the right side -- I would have heard the sounding of the gun much closer, and I probably had a ringing in my head because the fence was quite close to where we were standing, very close. Ah, it just sounded the same way.
Two shots. As I said earlier, it'll drive you nuts trying to figure out why some heard two shots and others three. I guess some were focusing so much on seeing JFK and the crowds were so loud that they didn't notice it or distinguish it from the background noise.
Two shots. As I said earlier, it'll drive you nuts trying to figure out why some heard two shots and others three. I guess some were focusing so much on seeing JFK and the crowds were so loud that they didn't notice it or distinguish it from the background noise.It may have been due to the lack of a distinct separation between the last two shots, which many people recalled as being close together. Mary Woodward said this in an interview recorded for the pseudo-documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" released 1988:
The Connally’s accounts of the three shots differ substantially. The following is from Wikipedia, the numbered references link to their Warren Commission testimonies (if you go to the Wikipedia article).You should consider Gov. Connally's other statements. He made a statement to Life Magazine in 1966 that he said 'Oh no, no, no' before he was hit in the back by the second shot. He told the HSCA that he said it just before but then changed his mind and said it was after he was hit:
In my opinion, the key is the timing of JBC yelling “Oh, no, no, no.” He is the one who yelled it so I believe that I have to give his testimony more weight (than Mrs. Connally’s testimony) regarding the timing of this yell. He specifically says that he yelled it immediately after he was hit.In the quote you have provide from his WC testimony Gov. Connally said he said it "as I was hit", not after.
A look at the Zapruder frames shows him appearing to start yelling this by about Z236 (possibly before that but definitely discernible by then). Z236 is only 7/10 of a second Z223 at a rate of 18.3 frames per second. That is a reasonable time for a reaction to being shot, (first realizing it, and then beginning to yell). And it is understandable that JBC would consider this 7/10 of a second as being immediately.The big problem with this is the significant preponderance of evidence that the last two shots were close together. Listen to Sam Kinney, for example:
JBC and his wife rejected the SBT (apparently based on her memory regarding the second shot timing). But it seems clear to me that his testimony is the correct one due to the above and the other persuasive evidence cited by the WC and HSCA investigations.
Mrs. Woodward passed away 2017. Since you're referring to the Z220s, she noticed the President slump at that moment, which by her reckoning means the second shot. The first shot, she said, did not strike the President.
Now go back to cherry-picking pictures of the President leaning away from the car rail. :D
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/jfk_front_right_HoustonStreet.jpg)Why would you find a conspiracy? There was no conspiracy. The SBT is only needed to preserve the single shooter conclusion if JBC was hit by the second shot less than 2.3 seconds after the first. But the shot pattern shows that this was not the case.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Kennedy is leaning to camera-right and Connally is leaning to camera-left. Almost like they're in front of each other (for a brief instance).
I guess I assume my models are reasonably accurate, though I'm a novice compared to a professional. Where the photo-matches end up is governed by what will be. Given the yahoos in the US, I would be just as happy to disprove the SBT and find a conspiracy. But proving your Theory is coming up dry.
Those 3D figure models weren't actually modeled from Connally's body. The seatback was cushioned and I wouldn't be surprised if it had a bit of give to it. You seem hung up on the jumpseat locations, but it's the positions of the (mostly) head and shoulders we see in the photos that determine where they are in the model. Would be nice if I got the jump-seats perfect but my ruler and I haven't flown down to the Henry Ford.If JBC is turned as he is in z193, his spine has to be farther forward than the back of the jump seat. He is turned about 60 degrees and his right shoulder is not pressed against the jump seat back, so I would say that is spine must be 6 inches at least in front of the jump seat back surface. So the question is how far is JFK's throat from the seat back surface of the jump seat. I measure that to be 27 inches using the scale drawing.
To the spine I get 27". I must be doing something wrong. ???
You should consider Gov. Connally's other statements. He made a statement to Life Magazine in 1966 that he said 'Oh no, no, no' before he was hit in the back by the second shot. He told the HSCA that he said it just before but then changed his mind and said it was after he was hit:
"When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit-no, I guess it was
after I was hit-I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no,
no," just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this
24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed."
This latter statement is interesting because the governor did not say "no, no, no" because he was hit. He said it because he feared that a beautiful reception for the President in his state was turning into a tragedy.
In the quote you have provide from his WC testimony Gov. Connally said he said it "as I was hit", not after. The big problem with this is the significant preponderance of evidence that the last two shots were close together. Listen to Sam Kinney, for example:
Why would so many witnesses - 47 by my count - think that? 5 seconds seemed like 2 seconds?
You should consider Gov. Connally's other statements. He made a statement to Life Magazine in 1966 that he said 'Oh no, no, no' before he was hit in the back by the second shot. He told the HSCA that he said it just before but then changed his mind and said it was after he was hit:
"When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit-no, I guess it was
after I was hit-I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no,
no," just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this
24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed."
This latter statement is interesting because the governor did not say "no, no, no" because he was hit. He said it because he feared that a beautiful reception for the President in his state was turning into a tragedy.
In the quote you have provide from his WC testimony Gov. Connally said he said it "as I was hit", not after. The big problem with this is the significant preponderance of evidence that the last two shots were close together. Listen to Sam Kinney, for example:
Why would so many witnesses - 47 by my count - think that? 5 seconds seemed like 2 seconds?
You make it sound like their brains were digital recorders. Ever hear tell of estimator variables, memory conformity and perceptual set? You probably used it in court. And I bet you heard of the day-care sex-abuse hysteria ( Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria) ).No. I have never heard of a simple fact that is4 easy to observe where the vast majority of a group of 60+ witnesses got it completely backward. If the shot pattern was 1......2........3 and there was only a 10% chance of recalling it correctly, of those who recalled it incorrectly one would expect most to have recalled the shots as being about equally spaced. Why would the vast majority recall the opposite pattern 1.......2...3?
Hallucinating? How florid, Mr. Lane. So the witnesses who said the shots were evenly-spaced or the first two were closer together were instead hallucinating.It is not just that we have 47+ witnesses, many with specific recollections of the shot pattern, that you think got it wrong. You also think that large groups of witnesses who placed the time of the first shot after z186 or the second after z255 such as Betzner, Willis (Linda and Phil), Altgens, Hickey, Kinney, Hughes, motorcade witnesses, etc got their recollections which fit with the 1........2...3 pattern - indeed require it - wrong. The 10 or so witnesses who thought the shots were evenly spaced and even fewer who gave statements that the pattern was the reverse are likely due to statistically expected error. Not every witness is accurate. Some get it wrong. But when they get it wrong their recollections are distributed over the range of possible wrong answers.
Just a little bit of Connally's right shoulder, the part that's above the top of jump-seat, is claimed to reach back behind the front surface of the seat-back. The location of the jump-seat doesn't alone determine where the models are positioned for a photo-match, though you seem to think it's the most important thing. Grasping at straws.You have to have JBC turned as shown in z193. There is no way that JBC's right shoulder is over the top of the jump seat back. How far forward of the jump seat back surface is his spine when he is turned 60 degrees like that? That's the issue.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/croft-altgens05-relative-positions.jpg)
If I leave Connally's head where it is in the Croft photo and turn his shoulders, some of the right shoulder has to go towards Kennedy, as the photo shows it doing so.
You have him turned 70 degrees. Myers goes with 50 degrees. I suspect the latter may be too much, but Myers does have the right shoulder tip over the top of the back of the jump-seat.
Right. His right shoulder is above the seat-back.
And the band played on.
FWIW, Andrew, I did quite a bit of reading on this very issue, and the fact is that a witness' sense of time almost always slows down considerably during a traumatic event.The expectation would be, then, that if the last two shots were in fact 5 seconds apart, that many of the witnesses would say they were 10 seconds apart, not one or two seconds apart.I don't think it applies to everyone the same way. Witnesses who were farther away and did not realize a traumatic event was occurring would not necessarily overestimate the time between the last two shots because of trauma. Generally, humans are not good at estimating absolute times. They are much better at identifying relative times and patterns: rhythm.
That so many witnesses heard the last two shots bang-bang, then, strongly suggests that there was but one shot at this time, and that they heard echoes, or, much more disturbingly, that there were indeed two shots at this time, fired too closely together to have been fired by a bolt-action rifle.Many said that the last two shots were distinct but noticeably close together without estimating the time between shots. That 1........2....3 pattern was common to the vast majority of witnesses who recalled the relative spacing of the shots. Many more simply recalled a shot and then two more shots without commenting on the spacing. While some, like Kellerman, thought that they were almost simultaneous, others did not. Greer, right beside him, said that the second came just before he turned around the first time and the third shot came after he turned a second time to look back. We can time this in the zfilm and it is at least 2 seconds. Emmett Hudson said they were about as fast as one could fire a bolt action rifle. Bob Jackson who was on Houston St. some distance from the president said they were about 2 seconds apart.
One should note, moreover, that the first police report on the suspected sniper said he may be carrying a Winchester rifle. This was undoubtedly a reference to a popular TV show at the time, The Rifleman, in which the main character famously fired a Winchester lever-action rifle, which fired roughly twice a second, around 5 times as fast as the rifle found in the building.If the person who wrote that report knew a lot about different rifles and said that "Winchester" comment was based on shot spacing that they heard, it might be probative of the relative spacing of the shots. Do we have any idea what that comment was based on? In the grand scheme of things, that kind of evidence is not as useful as actual witness reports about the relative shot spacing.
Since Greer first turns his head to look backward about Z250, it's more like 3.4 sec.Tell me, Jerry, can you also see badge man in the shadows of the grassy knoll fence?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/cL4FB13/Sketch-Up-Analysis-of-Greer-head-in-Altgens.png)(https://i.ibb.co/k0KSRZj/greer-head-turn-Z240-260.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Greer's shirt front widens about the late Z-240s as he turns towards the middle of the car.
But say your 47 witnesses held up to scrutiny, and furthermore that they really did reflect the actual occurrence of what happened. Any scenario conclusion drawn from that just wouldn't include your first two shots, which are impossible with regard to trajectory and wound strikes.If you wanted to show they are impossible you could show the range of positions for JFK and JBC that would allow the shot through JFK's neck to strike the left thigh of JBC and then show that these do not begin to fit anything seen in the photographs or zfilm.
If you still insist on a wounding shot in the Z190s and another at Z271, then you will have to shift the firing points away from the SN. If you hold on to the first shot being fired from the SN, then your Theory needs to consider:The first transited JFK's neck. There are at least 20 witnesses who saw JFK react to it. There is no evidence that JBC was hit on the left side of his back. The second shot just missed JFK (Hickey saw his hair fly up on the second shot which, he said appeared to miss him) and struck JBC in the right armpit as he was turned right. Nellie said he was turned right when hit. The exit wound in the chest below and medial to the right nipple coincides with the end of his right jacket sleeve as seen in z268-271 and it also explains the slight but sudden change in appearance of the shirt sleeve and hat brim that happens between z271 and z272:
- Bullet didn't transit Kennedy's neck
- Bullet transited Kennedy's neck, but deflected to strike Connally in the back
- Bullet missed Kennedy and struck Connally directly in the back
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_jacket_sleeve.jpg) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_jacket_pocket.jpg) |
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z268.BMP) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z271.JPG) |
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z272.BMP) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z275.JPG) |
We cannot see Greer turned until about z280 and he is in the process of turning his head further right until about z285. He then holds that until he starts turning to the front at z292. Greer said that when he turned he saw JBC falling back onto his wife. JBC does not begin to do that until z278. If you wanted to show they are impossible you could show the range of positions for JFK and JBC that would allow the shot through JFK's neck to strike the left thigh of JBC and then show that these do not begin to fit anything seen in the photographs or zfilm.
I say that the most conservative estimate for frame z195 allows for the reasonable possibility that JFK's midline is 8-10 inches inside the car and JBC's is 15-18 inches inside the car; that the distance between JFK's neck exit wound and JBC's spine in z195 is 28-32 inches; that the angle to the car from the SN at z195 was 12-14 degrees; that JBC was turned 50-70 degrees right at z195. So you would have to show that using those ranges of positions, a shot through JFK to JBC's left thigh was impossible. It isn't. To determine the positions at z195 you can use z193 which is clearer - (unless you see significant movement between z193 and z195).
The first transited JFK's neck. There are at least 20 witnesses who saw JFK react to it. There is no evidence that JBC was hit on the left side of his back. The second shot just missed JFK (Hickey saw his hair fly up on the second shot which, he said appeared to miss him) and struck JBC in the right armpit as he was turned right. Nellie said he was turned right when hit. The exit wound in the chest below and medial to the right nipple coincides with the end of his right jacket sleeve as seen in z268-271 and it also explains the sudden increase in sleeve that happens between z271 and z272:
The bullet fragmented on hitting the radius and fragments deflect up and forward striking the windshield and Tague. A fragment or bone shard penetrated the palm side of the wrist. It all fits the trajectory and wound evidence quite well. And it fits the first shot hit and first shot location evidence. And it fits the shot pattern, which also fits the times required to aim those shots. And it fits Oswald firing all three shots. What more do you need?
Can't believe you're still using Greer.He was not accurate on when he accelerated. That is the only thing you have shown him to be inaccurate on. Why does that discredit the rest of his evidence, particularly evidence that is corroborated by the zfilm? That makes no sense. What has been not been discredited is the evidence that the last shot was at z313. Perhaps you should take your advice, accept it and move on.....
Totally discredited as a witness earlier in this thread.
It seems you are impervious to reasoned argument.
Ride it out and press on.
Can't believe you're proposing z195You seem to not understand what you can see in the Secret Service film taken in December 1963 which shows that JFK was visible when he was opposite the lamp post just to the east of where Mary Woodward stood. Mary Woodward was opposite JFK at z195.
It's been demonstrated JFK is passing behind dense foliage at this time earlier in this thread.
Ride it out and press on
At z271 JBC is more or "less shoulder on" to a shot from the TSBD.You should actually read my posts. How does the bullet pass through JBC's abdomen? The baby picture shows that when the torso is turned sharply as we see in z271, a shot from the rear to the armpit exiting below the right nipple does not pass through the lung. Besides, there is evidence that corroborates the evidence of a shot at around that time.
The shot you propose somehow hits him around the back right armpit area
Even though the bullet is travelling away from JBC at the time of impact it suddenly makes a 50-60 degree right turn, passes through his abdomen, exits the front of his chest, which is facing towards Zapruder, smashes through his wrist bone, then goes on to hit Tague!!
Bring back the Magic Bullet, it all seems so reasonable now ;)
Well, it hasn't really been tested, has it? All we have to go on is your and other's "expert" opinion. You have not done as I asked and given us a range that JFK's midline could have been from the right side of the car; you have not given us a range that JBC's midline could have been in relation to JFK's; you have not given us a range for the separation of JFK's neck from JBC's spine; and you have not given us a range for the angle that JBC is turned at z195. Until that is accurately determined, no one can say that the SN to JFK neck to JBC thigh trajectory was not possible. I suggest that it was quite possible from z190-200 or so. No one has proven otherwise.
Unfortunately for you, every single mechanical aspect of your Theory's first two shots has now been blown to smithereens. Not just by me, but Mytton, Nickerson and Collins. You have nothing; nada. But I'll show you what sort of fellow I am. I hope you get at least an orange in your sock.
If you're going to remain faithful to the shot pattern, think second shot Z240s (or maybe earlier, like one sec earlier).That would require a first shot before Zapruder started filming. The evidence from multiple independent sources is that the first shot was after z186 and that it struck JFK.
I think I agree somewhat with points made by everyone:)
I agree with Jerry that there is a quick turn of Jackie’s head in approx 1/2 a sec between z160-170. However, this may be some other noise than a rifle shot. It could have been an actual motorcycle backfire.
I agree with Mr. Collins opinion that a shooter in the SE window could possibly have taken shots from a seated position on the box nearest the pipes and was able to lean back and remain out of sight during the Hughes film segment of the JFK limo approaching TSBD (including turning on Elm st.) If he did so, however, then the WC theory for the box on the window ledge being used as rifle test is improbable. And what about the shell ejections? Do they fly over top of those stacked boxes if shooter fires from seated position near the pipes?
I agree with some of Andrew Masons reasons for his theory of the shots fired in a very brief few seconds, in the 1....2..3 pattern and the 1st shot actually IS hitting JFK Imo, however, That 1st shot is at Z223 rather than earlier because of the tree, although the Willis girl head turn after full stop, may indicate slightly earlier at z205 perhaps in coincidence with Willis photo taken and just after Betzner photo at z186 approx. This spacing coincides fairly close to Harold Norman’s impressions of the shot spacing and his stated observation of hearing 1 shot, then saw JFK “slump” then heard 2 more shots after that.
I agree with the general SBT being plausible But only IF BOTH Connallys legs are turned towards the limo door in effect approx 45 degrees as with his apparent turned shoulders and face turned also rightward. In this position, the hat is held upside down with the right hand on top of the outer rim of the hat keeping it pressed down on top of his left leg. The well of the hat is thus hanging off the Left side of his left leg at the time of the Z223 shot that (Imo) DID penetrate thru JFK and still had enough momentum to penetrate thru Gov. Connolly also. The projectile, however, was probably NOT CE 399 as no bullet experiment except for perhaps the one with 36” length array of sideways glued 1” pine boards , produces an MC bullet with such minimal deformation as CE 399 .
It's been tested. And to a reasonable degree of precision. You just don't like the results.By "tested" I mean actually tested, not "theoretically" tested.
Remember I looked at the first two pages of your PDF and found only one witness.You did not deal with the 47+ witnesses who recalled the shot pattern 1.........2....3 that is completely inconsistent with a first shot miss. You simply questioned how a couple of witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot by arguing that they could not see what they said they saw.
Are you having trouble dismissing a Theory you spent almost two decades promoting? You have to start thinking about your family and professional reputation. Don't be ashamed. 2020 wasn't good for a lot of folks.The evidence is that that JFK reacted to the first shot in a way that is not seen prior to z200. That is not a theory. That is what witnesses independently reported observing.
Regarding the seated position proposal Mr. Collins has suggested for the shooter , if the dent on the top of the box on window ledge can be due to something other than a riffle then the purpose of those stacked boxes may have been solely to provide shade from the sun.
There is not much time for the shooter to have moved and stacked those 3 boxes up against the window and lifting 2 of the 3 and adjusting them
Jisr right without accidentally the one on the window ledge itself not falling out the window.
If the timeline for Bonnie Ray Williams not leaving the 6tjh floor until approx 12:23 then the shooter has only about 2 minutes to walk across the 6th floor probably 180 ft if he was hodong put on the mid landing of the 7th floor staircase
If so, then it’s going to take another 30 secs to walk fast at 6ft/sec arriving at the SE window approx 12:23:30.
If the Bronson film starts approx 12:25, then the shooter must have completed his moving and stacking the 3 boxes in 1 minute 20 secs and then seated himself and holding his rifle in way not to be seen in Bronson film
He also kept himself out of the Hughes film as the JfK approaches the TSBD and turns onto Elm at.
If the shooter is the seated position
on the 15” ? height box (adjacent to the pipes) would not some part of his upper legs and knee be visible from the perspective of the Hughes and or the Bronson film camera position?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
The figure model is bend at articulation points.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Gouge in Box A comes close to fitting for headshot in
this model. It's so close I wouldn't rule it out.
He was not accurate on when he accelerated. That is the only thing you have shown him to be inaccurate on. Why does that discredit the rest of his evidence, particularly evidence that is corroborated by the zfilm? That makes no sense. What has been not been discredited is the evidence that the last shot was at z313. Perhaps you should take your advice, accept it and move on.....
You seem to not understand what you can see in the Secret Service film taken in December 1963 which shows that JFK was visible when he was opposite the lamp post just to the east of where Mary Woodward stood. Mary Woodward was opposite JFK at z195.
You should actually read my posts. How does the bullet pass through JBC's abdomen? The baby picture shows that when the torso is turned sharply as we see in z271, a shot from the rear to the armpit exiting below the right nipple does not pass through the lung. Besides, there is evidence that corroborates the evidence of a shot at around that time.
"That is the only thing you have shown him to be inaccurate on."I don't know if he lied. But he was not accurate. The vehicle slowed. Whether he braked or not is not entirely clear.
This is a blatant falsehood and would encourage anyone reading to go to Reply #245 to grasp the scale of this falsehood.
Just to clarify - when you say he wasn't accurate on when he accelerated you are wrong, what you meant to say was that he lied about not braking during the shooting.
The pictures from the re-enactment posted below show that at z195 there is no question that JFK was hidden behind foliage (which was much more dense at the time of the shooting). There is no way a shot was taken at this time.First of all, there was no time in which JFK and the car was not visible through the leaves. Just watch the Secret Service film. If you disagree, show us where the JFK stand-in is not visible. The car passed on the left side of the middle lane and was partially obscured only by the outer branch. A smart shooter could see where JFK would emerge from under that branch and aim there and fire as soon as JFK came into the sights. JFK is clear well before he passed the Thornton Freeway sign. He passed that sign at frame 200 of the Zapruder film:
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z200_Dealy_map.JPG) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JFK_clear_0.jpg) |
Jerry's graphic shows the ridiculous nature of your claim of a shot around z271 hitting JBC. The shot would've hit JFK first. There's no way it would be deflected so radically to exit below his right nipple. It is beyond question that JBC's wrist position is too high (above his right nipple) to have been hit by a bullet exiting his chest below the right nipple.Jerry's graphic is wrong. The torso twists and the shoulders turn more than the lower ribs. All Jerry is doing is using a forward facing chest turned 90 degrees.
And why are you always bringing up the lung?Because the lung was not penetrated by the bullet. If you twist to the right, the right nipple and the entry point in the right armpit align without passing through the lung. If you are facing forward the path goes through the lung.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/60/Photo_wcd88_027.jpg)Thank-you for making my point. One can easily see the JFK stand-in through those leaves. There would have been no difficulty tracking JFK while under the tree.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
LOL!
I wouldn't trust that map as printed in the Trask book. Cutler always placed Kennedy out from the Thornton sign Z206-or-so. A lot is riding on how accurate he placed the Thornton sign.That's fair. But I get the same result in Roberdeau's map. And using the aerial view photo from the WC I get the same thing:
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z200_Dealy_map.JPG) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z200_Dealy_photo.JPG) |
I did apply twist to the Connally model. Would you like me to put more in the upper area? You want the right nipple to move to the left?I would like you to show what happens when you turn around while keeping your hips facing forward and your shoulders turned right with your right hand and elbow elevated with the right hand placed against the chest just as JBC is doing at z271. The right nipple moves right but the right armpit doesn't so that the right nipple and right armpit entry point align with a shot from the rear without passing through the lung. It looks something like this only with the right side:
It's well-established that Hickey (let alone Kinney) could not see to where Kennedy's hair fluttered in the Z270s. And that both were referring to seeing scalp material fly away from the head at the moment of the head shot.Ok. We know where you stand. Hickey said he saw something that can be seen in the zfilm at exactly the time he said he saw it but didn't. You are forgetting that Hickey described the third shot as a separate shot that struck JFK in the head.
You bringing this up is trolling. You presenting some new 3D analysis proving me wrong or science showing some people can see through solid objects would not be trolling.
Thank-you for making my point. One can easily see the JFK stand-in through those leaves. There would have been no difficulty tracking JFK while under the tree.
I would like you to show what happens when you turn around while keeping your hips facing forward and your shoulders turned right with your right hand and elbow elevated with the right hand placed against the chest just as JBC is doing at z271. The right nipple moves right but the right armpit doesn't so that the right nipple and right armpit entry point align with a shot from the rear without passing through the lung. It looks something like this only with the right side:Using this image of a baby to represent the same movement of a large middle-aged man is embarrassing.
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/torso_twist_baby.JPG)
Ok. We know where you stand. Hickey said he saw something that can be seen in the zfilm at exactly the time he said he saw it but didn't. You are forgetting that Hickey described the third shot as a separate shot that struck JFK in the head.
??? ??? ???Why are you embarrassed? The only thing that we do not agree on is whether the head shot was the third and last shot. I say that the evidence is rather persuasive that it was and you think there was a shot after Oswald had obviously hit his target. If I am right, then you would have to agree that there was a second shot around z270.
This is moving beyond unreasonable into embarrassing.
Remember, the foliage was much more dense at the time of the assassination.On what basis do you suggest that the leaves were more dense on November 22, 1963 than on December 3, 1963?
The shot did not happen at this time.I disagree. To suggest that he didn't, without evidence, would be the odd thing.
To suggest the assassin began shooting whilst trying to track his target through dense foliage is ridiculous.
A first shot at z223 avoids all this nonsense as the limo is well clear of the tree and the shooter has had time to acquire his target.Bugliosi and the WC thought he was hit around z210 and the HSCA thought he was reacting to an external stimulus before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. It is only relatively recently that the z223 SBT has become fashionable.
It is also noteworthy that in your last reply to my post you avoided mentioning the very uncomfortable fact that JBC's wrist position is clearly above the right nipple. In your scenario it is impossible for the bullet to exit JBC's chest and strike his wrist.I don't like to repeat myself (we have gone over this before) but since you insist: Where do you think the bullet exited? Where do you think his right nipple is? It struck the jacket sleeve a good half an inch from the end of his jacket cuff which is pressed against his chest at the level of his right nipple in z271:
How do you account for this glaring error in your model?
Using this image of a baby to represent the same movement of a large middle-aged man is embarrassing.Embarrassing to whom? The baby?
Jerry's graphic amply demonstrates the impossibility of the bullet path you are proposing, a radical deflection occurring against the momentum of the bullet (not to mention the impossible wrist-strike)The bullet would not deflect much but it definitely would have deflected some because it depressed the rib enough to cause a fracture near the spine. But the path from the armpit to the right nipple did not require much deflection. Since it occurred when he was turned to the right (as Nellie told Dr. Shaw and Dr. Shires) his right nipple moved to the right. Just sit in a chair and keeping your hips facing forward twist your torso around to the right and you will see what I mean. The right nipple moves right so that it is practically on the side. The path from the rear along the fifth rib from the entry point to the right nipple is practically a straight line.
You are being shown that Hickey could not see the 'hair flutter' that you are proposing he did.I did not propose that he saw the hair flutter. Hickey did - he said he saw it (Hickey CE1024 statement 30Nov63 18H762):
He could not see it.Hickey is supported by the zfilm. Hickey was turned around to the rear still at z255 (Altgens #6) but he said he turned forward and heard the last two shots while looking at the President. So that means the last two shots occurred after z255. The only time that JFK's hair lifts up during the period z255-z312 is from z273-z276. I don't like to use terms like "ridiculous" but if it is to be used, I would say that would be better used to describe your suggestion that Hickey imagined but did not see JFK's hair fly up in those 3 seconds between z255 and z312 and then by some miracle coincidence JFK's hair actually did fly up then just as he described.
The only reasonable conclusion is that Hickey is mistaken in the way he describes the head shot and that the hair flying up is the head strike itself.
Hickey is a single unsupported witness who could not have seen what you attribute to him.
It's time to let goMaybe it is time to let go thinking that the head shot was the second shot.
The HSCA thought Kennedy suddenly turned towards his wife approx.-Z200 as he went behind the sign. But whoever suggested that didn't have a very clear set of Zapruder frames, because later analysis showed the President's remained facing forward in that interval.That is not only what the HSCA based its conclusion on. At 6 HSCA 17 the Photographic panel concluded:
How can the right arm be "pressed" again the jacket? The crown of the hat would be several inches into his chest. You kidder.Really Jerry? Let me guess - you don't own a stetson do you?
Connally is leaning into the seatback of his seat, so his right nipple is lower than his left. On the line-of-sight to Zapruder, the right nipple would be seen visible just above the car rail (though some distance from the car rail itself if shown in other views).Your right nipple is that low? Mine is 7 inches below the top of my tie knot.
How do you know Hickey hadn't looked back earlier? Or that he was too ashamed to say he continued looking back until after hearing a second shot?Because he said so. He said he looked rearward and then looked forward and was looking at JFK at the time he heard the second and third shots.
Your Theory requires Hickey to turn his head around between Z55 and Z271 (just shy of one sec), locate where the President is, observe him "slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position" and then witness "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward". All in one second.Can you not turn your head in much less than a second? I can. Greer turned his head from looking rearward to looking forward between z289 and z294. That is a bit more than a quarter of a second.
That is not what the HSCA based its conclusion on. At 6 HSCA 17 the Photographic panel concluded:
- "(70) At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements
suddenly freeze ; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving
motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the
direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the
time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing
some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he
emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President
makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating
clearly that he has been shot."
Because he said so. He said he looked rearward and then looked forward and was looking at JFK at the time he heard the second and third shots.
Can you not turn your head in much less than a second? I can. Greer turned his head from looking rearward to looking forward between z289 and z294. That is a bit more than a quarter of a second.
I was just pointing out that others have opined that JFK appeared to be struck before z223. You agree that JFK was struck on the first shot. Phil Willis said his z202 photo was taken just after the first shot. So I am not alone in thinking the first shot was earlier than z223. You agree with the 1..........2......3 shot pattern. If the head shot was the last shot, as many witnesses said and which makes sense, then the first shot had to be earlier than z223.
This has been completely debunked elsewhere in this thread.
Yet another pillar supporting your model topples.
The point about Hickey (other than being the sole witness to the 'pre-headshot hair ruffle) is that he describes the second and third shot as follows - "there seemed to be practically no time element between them".I can't tell what he meant by "practically". Obviously, he did not mean there was no discernible period of time between them. Perhaps he meant that there was no period of silence between them. Mary Woodward observed that the sound of the second shot had not died out before the third was heard:
Think about that - practically no time element.
He is describing JFK's hair flying up due to his head exploding and the subsequent movement of his body as two separate incidents that have "no time element between them".
Hickey is not describing the 'hair ruffle' seen in Zapruder, Jerry has ably demonstrated he is not in a position to see it but, also, there is at least two seconds between the z-film 'hair ruffle' and the headshot. In no way can this be described as having 'practically no time element between them'.So how do you account for the fact that 1) he reported seeing JFK's hair fly up at the moment he heard the second shot as if it just missed his head on the right side and 2) JFK's hair actually flies up from z273 to z276 just as he said he observed? How is that even possible unless he actually saw what he said he saw? Jerry was not there. Hickey was. He was standing up in the QM. How can you be so sure he could not see JFK? Are you suggesting he did not see the head shot?
You have put too much stock in this single, unsupported witness who is clearly describing something other than you would have us believe.
I was just pointing out that others have opined that JFK appeared to be struck before z223.
You agree that JFK was struck on the first shot.
Phil Willis said his z202 photo was taken just after the first shot. So I am not alone in thinking the first shot was earlier than z223.
You agree with the 1..........2......3 shot pattern.
If the head shot was the last shot, as many witnesses said and which makes sense, then the first shot had to be earlier than z223.
I can't tell what he meant by "practically". Obviously, he did not mean there was no discernible period of time between them. Perhaps he meant that there was no period of silence between them. Mary Woodward observed that the sound of the second shot had not died out before the third was heard:
- "The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.” … “and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”.
[/list]So how do you account for the fact that 1) he reported seeing JFK's hair fly up at the moment he heard the second shot as if it just missed his head on the right side and 2) JFK's hair actually flies up from z273 to z276 just as he said he observed? How is that even possible unless he actually saw what he said he saw? Jerry was not there. Hickey was. He was standing up in the QM. How can you be so sure he could not see JFK? Are you suggesting he did not see the head shot?
The zfilm alone does not tell us where JFK or JBC is hit and does not tell us when the first two shots occurred. So the events that it shows have to be interpreted with the rest of the evidence. For example, when JFK and Jackie turn sharp right at about z160-175 from looking left and wave to bystanders, it appeared to Mary Woodward that this was done in response to them shouting and waving to get the President's attention and that the first shot was after this. Also, no one said that JFK smiled and waved after the first shot. Yet many ignore that evidence and conclude that this was a turn in response to hearing a gunshot. All those who support second shot SBT do that. They are just fooling themselves.
Of course there are different models attempting to explain when the first shot occurred, that is what this thread is about. Some have it taking place before Zapruder even starts filming the Presidential limo itself. We have seen the differences between yourself, myself, Jerry and Charles, all presenting very different models using the same evidence.
Unlike others, I have put much emphasis on the Z-film with all other evidence being secondary and used to support what we see there.
You rely on single witness statements too much. Willis is contradicted by other witness statements so no absolute authority can be given to it. He could easily be mistaken and, as I've demonstrated in this thread, the Z-film appears to show he is indeed mistaken.I am not relying only on Phil Willis. His evidence is supported by several others including:
No-one is saying you're alone in thinking the first shot was earlier than z223. What we have seen, though, is the disintegration of your own model - nothing in the Z-film supports it in any substantial way, having the assassin firing through dense foliage, the impossible ballistics etc.As I have pointed out, JFK is clear of the foliage when he was opposite the Thornton Freeway sign as seen in the Secret Service film:
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/clear_from_tree_before_Thornton_sign.JPG) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/clear_from_tree_before_Thornton_sign_3.JPG) |
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z200_Dealy_map.JPG) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z200_Dealy_photo.JPG) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z200_lines.JPG) |
The failures of your model argue against the headshot being the final shot (a shot after the headshot is something many witnesses testify to). The integrity of the shot pattern can be kept with a shot after the headshot without the pitfalls your own model has run into.There are are many more witnesses who said that the head shot was the last shot: all the Secret Service agents, the Connallys, Dave Powers and Altgens. A third shot after the head shot means the shooter continued firing after such an obvious hit to the head.
When he is saying there is practically no time element between the two shots he is saying the shots were almost simultaneous. Some thing others seem to testify to. In your model there is a gap of over two seconds between the 'hair ruffle and the headshot'. In no way can a gap of over two seconds be described as 'practically no time element' or 'almost simultaneous'.It is if he meant that they overlapped: as Mary Woodward said, the sound of the second had not died out before the third shot was heard.
Hickey is describing the headshot. His hair does not 'fly up' from z272 to z276. It ruffles in the wind. Exactly the same thing happens just before the headshot (@ z305). It is something that surely happened dozens of times during the parade.There is no hair flying up at z305. You are seeing movement of the camera. The hair is identical in z304 and z306. The camera moves during the exposure of z305 as you can see in the double line on the car (look at the roof support bar).
Jerry does not need to be there, that is the point of the modelling he does. He has demonstrated that Hickey was not in a position to see the 'hair ruffle' but was in the position to see the hair blown off as JKF's head explodes.
The only place I can find where it might be thought by Woodward that the Kennedys were both "full-faced" towards her group is in the Tina Towner film.
That fits what we see from z154 when JFK begins to turn right
The President turns rightward in the Z150s with Mrs. Kennedy starting to turn in the Z160s. They don't turn rightward nowhere else during the approach to the Stemmons Frwy sign.
That would be more consistent with what Woodward described. As well, Woodward said she saw the Kennedys react to hearing the first shot:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Why not use Mary Woodward's DMN article that she wrote within a couple of hours of the events:
- "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. Jackie was wearing a beautiful pink suit with beret to match. Two of us, who had seen the President last during the final weeks of the 1960 campaign remarked how relaxed and robust he looked.
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".
We can see beginning that prior to z170 the President is facing forward and a bit to the right but not sharp right. Jackie is looking left. At this point the President is approaching Mary Woodward and her friends (the President is opposite them at z190-195). We can see that they are clapping. At z170-180 his head turns fully right and looks at them and he gives a full wave of his right hand and smiles. Jackie's head turns from looking left to looking sharp right, as well from z173 to z192, which is one second, . JFK then turns forward by z206.
This is exactly what Mary Woodward described as occurring just before the first shot. She said that she thought that they were the last people the President acknowledged before that first "horrible, ear-shattering noise".
You're making an argument for a first shot @z223 and against a first shot in the z190'sWell, it is evidence that indicates that the first shot was around z206 or later. It is difficult to pinpoint when he started to turn forward and all Mary Woodward says is that the first shot did not occur before he made that turn. He is turned sharp right and waving in z193 which is the clearest frame between z190 and z207. At z193 he was opposite Mary Woodward so if he turned forward after he passed her, as her account indicates, he could have begun his turn earlier than z206. On the other hand, we can see in Willis' photo taken at z202 that JFK appears to still have his head is still turned somewhat right. But he is not looking back toward Mary Woodward who was then about 10 feet behind him.
JFK turns forward (@ z206) "and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right".
A shot at z223 would be less than a second after JFK faced forward.
In her account, Woodward makes it clear both JFK and Jackie "turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us".
In the Towner film, at no point is Jackie looking to her right, she is clearly looking to her left.
From z133 Jackie is looking to her left.
She starts to turn @ z170 but it's not until about z190 that both she and JFK are looking to their right. JFK is still waving and smiling.
As you say, this is the moment described by Woodward.
She describes JFK turning to face ahead (this happens @ z206) immediately after which was the first shot (I would argue at z223 which is the only model that makes sense of Woodward's observations)
The Towner film proves Jackie did not turn to her right as the limo turned the corner at Houston and Elm.
Well, it is evidence that indicates that the first shot was around z206 or later. It is difficult to pinpoint when he started to turn forward and all Mary Woodward says is that the first shot did not occur before he made that turn. He is turned sharp right and waving in z193 which is the clearest frame between z190 and z207. At z193 he was opposite Mary Woodward so if he turned forward after he passed her, as her account indicates, he could have begun his turn earlier than z206. On the other hand, we can see in Willis' photo taken at z202 that JFK appears to still have his head is still turned somewhat right. But he is not looking back toward Mary Woodward who was then about 10 feet behind him.
Mary Woodward is one witness. Of course, we have to look at all the evidence. And the evidence of Linda Willis, who was a couple of feet to her father's right and on the step behind him, said that the President was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot occurred. From Phil Willis' view at z202, he was just past the Stemmons sign. So from Linda Willis' point of view, at z202 the president would be just about past the Stemmons sign. We also have Rosemary's sharp right turn back toward the TSBD at z204-207 and if that was in response to a shot, it must have come a few frames earlier.
I would agree that the most difficult to determine bracket for the first shot is the "not after" bracket. There is abundant evidence that the "not before" bracket is at least z186.
Woodward is not the first witness you have presented that has refuted your own model. Her observations fit very well with my own model.Rosemary Willis turns her head suddenly at 204-207:
As for the Willis's, in particular Rosemary's turn in response to the sound of the first shot. This has been dealt with numerous times and it is somewhat disheartening to have to refute the same point again and again and again.
One last time -
In the Z-film we can see Rosemary Willis' response to what is possibly a shot somewhere in the z190's
A few feet away from her we can also see a vehicle full of specially trained Secret Service Agents
Not one of these Agents makes any kind of meaningful response for the entire time they are in view (up to z207)
You are (again) asking us to believe that this little girl is responding to a shot but that the car full of SS Agents are completely oblivious to it.
Even though many of these agents describe reacting immediately to the first 'explosive noise'
This is the reaction we see in Altgens 6
Rosemary Willis is not reacting to the sound of the first shot.
The Z-film proves this beyond reasonable doubt.
Surely this is the end of this particular matter
I think showing Rosemary Willis's reactions starting at Z-204 can be misleading. Here's a fuller clip below. To me she is fully stopped before 204 and at about frame ~190. And she is slowing down well before that. Again: why?Maybe she began to realize as the limo proceeded down Elm Street faster than she could run that there was no point in running after it. She slowed gradually. Her feet continued to move until z198.
On the other hand, if she heard a shot wouldn't she immediately stop and not "slow" stop? Trying to figure this out is maddening.Of course, if she had already decided to slow down before she heard the shot and the shot occurred while slowing..... one would not be able to tell when the shot occurred by watching her slow down.
Rosemary Willis turns her head suddenly at 204-207:
(https://www.spmlaw.ca/JFK/RosemaryW_z200-207.gif)
Please explain how you know that she does not do this in response to the first shot.
The problem is not that the Secret Service agents did not respond. The problem is that we can't see them respond. We can only see Landis and Hill after z212 and frames 208-211 are missing.
Jack Ready lifts his right hand off the front hand-hold and starts to turn his body to the right at z199. By z207 his right arm is down by his side. He said he turned around to his right in response to the first shot.
I am not claiming that she is not responding to the first shot.I merely said that IF she is responding to the first shot then that would put the first shot before then. (She later said that she looked back toward the TSBD after the first shot and she saw pigeons flying away). YOU, on the other hand say that such a possibility has been debunked. I was just asking you to explain why you think you have debunked the possibility that her head turn could not be a response to the first shot.
It is you who is claiming that she is responding to the first shot.
As far as your proposal that Rosemary is responding to the first shot is concerned, the problem is 100% that the agents did not respond.[Correction: In a previous post I confused Landis with McIntyre. We see Hill and McIntyre on the left side not Landis. Landis was on the right, behind Ready. Sorry for that error.]
I don't understand how you can suggest otherwise.
In the Gif below we can see both Willis and the SS in the same shot. You are proposing that the little girl has responded to a shot while the SS agents, just feet away, have not responded. I won't ask for an explanation of this anomaly as we seem to have left 'being reasonable' far behind.I merely disagree with your premise that they did not respond. Ready responded 5 frames earlier when he began his right turn by removing his right hand from the front handhold. Hill turned his gaze to the President and was watching him react. You seem to be expecting them to react in ways that they said they did not.
This issue has been dealt with at least four times in this thread. It is incompetent research to suggest Landis said he turned to his right and this is what we see in the Z-film. He actually says he turns to his 'right rear'. We do not see this in the Z-film, this is not up for debate. We do not see it.Landis gave a long detailed statement 8 days after the events. In his statement he said he first looked at the president. We do not see him in the zfilm after z207 at which time he is looking at the president. When he is next seen in Altgens #5 at z255 he is looking right, toward the bystanders and TSBD. We don't know when he turned to the right between z207 and z255
What a bore it is to have to clear up the same incompetence over and over again.
The following is an account from David V. Hardness, DPD, who was stationed at the intersection of Main and Houston very close to the position of the Hughes film camera. He appears in the Hughes film about the time of the first shot. This is from an interview of Harkness that is part of “No More Silence” by Larry A. Sneed.At 200 feet away from the events, in a crowd, looking across the entire space between Main and Elm how would he provide a clearer indication than the Connallys and the occupants of the Secret Service car who watched the president and saw him react to the first shot? If the first shot occurred at z150 or so as you suggest, his view would have been blocked by trees and retaining walls.
I was on the northwest corner of the intersection when I saw the parade coming west on Main and making the turn onto Houston. I was looking at the President, made eye contact with him, and he waved at me. As soon as the motorcade passed, the people that were standing near the intersection where I was kind of walked back. So, when the motorcade made the turn to go down Elm Street, they went back to the grassy area there in the median between Main and Elm to get a better view of him. So I kind of followed the crowd. As the first shot rang out, then the second, I saw the President’s head jerk. Then, as the third shot was fired, Mrs. Kennedy came out of the car and was on all fours on the trunk lid of the car. At the time, I was probably 150–200 feet from the car at the edge of the grassy median between Main and Elm, not far from where my motor was parked at the intersection. The sounds were loud reports. It seemed like there was more time between the first and the second shots than between the second and the third. The second and the third were pretty close together. Due to the echo pattern in Dealey Plaza, though, I was unable to tell the direction of the shots.
It is one of the clearest indications from the eyewitnesses that the first shot was the one that missed.
At 200 feet away from the events, in a crowd, looking across the entire space between Main and Elm how would he provide a clearer indication than the Connallys and the occupants of the Secret Service car who watched the president and saw him react to the first shot? If the first shot occurred at z150 or so as you suggest, his view would have been blocked by trees and retaining walls.
I think showing Rosemary Willis's reactions starting at Z-204 can be misleading. Here's a fuller clip below. To me she is fully stopped before 204 and at about frame ~190. And she is slowing down well before that. Again: why? On the other hand, if she heard a shot wouldn't she immediately stop and not "slow" stop? Trying to figure this out is maddening.Your clip should end at z207 because including z212 and after gives a misleading impression of her look at the TSBD since frames 208-211 are not available.
(https://www.washingtondecoded.com/.a/6a00d834523b6869e2019b02be18c8970b-800wi)
If the first shot occurred at z150 or so as you suggest, his view would have been blocked by trees and retaining walls.So how can he be a witness to the first shot missing?
He doesn’t say that he saw the President’s head during the first shot. So your point is mute.
So how can he be a witness to the first shot missing?
The following is an account from David V. Hardness, DPD, who was stationed at the intersection of Main and Houston very close to the position of the Hughes film camera. He appears in the Hughes film about the time of the first shot. This is from an interview of Harkness that is part of “No More Silence” by Larry A. Sneed.
I was on the northwest corner of the intersection when I saw the parade coming west on Main and making the turn onto Houston. I was looking at the President, made eye contact with him, and he waved at me. As soon as the motorcade passed, the people that were standing near the intersection where I was kind of walked back. So, when the motorcade made the turn to go down Elm Street, they went back to the grassy area there in the median between Main and Elm to get a better view of him. So I kind of followed the crowd. As the first shot rang out, then the second, I saw the President’s head jerk. Then, as the third shot was fired, Mrs. Kennedy came out of the car and was on all fours on the trunk lid of the car. At the time, I was probably 150–200 feet from the car at the edge of the grassy median between Main and Elm, not far from where my motor was parked at the intersection. The sounds were loud reports. It seemed like there was more time between the first and the second shots than between the second and the third. The second and the third were pretty close together. Due to the echo pattern in Dealey Plaza, though, I was unable to tell the direction of the shots.
It is one of the clearest indications from the eyewitnesses that the first shot was the one that missed.
"As the first shot rang out, then the second, I saw the President’s head jerk. Then, as the third shot was fired, Mrs. Kennedy came out of the car and was on all fours on the trunk lid of the car."
This is one of the clearest indications the first shot missed?
I think you'll find it's an indication the third shot missed.
He reports seeing the President's head jerk after the second shot. This surely a reference to the headshot.
In the Z-film the first shot is the throat shot but Harkness (not Hardness) is too far away and to the rear to see JFK's reaction to this (your suggestion that when witnessing a crime it's sometimes better to be further away than closer is laughable).
The second shot is the headshot (President's head jerk)
The third shot was very close to the headshot. There is a gap of about 3 seconds between the headshot and Jackie being "on all fours on the trunk lid of the car". Harkness is reporting the headshot (second shot) then a third shot just as Jackie climbs on to the trunk. This third shot, as Jackie climbs on to the trunk, comes a second or two after the headshot and is a miss (we can see from the Z-film the effects of the first shot).
Once again, a witness statement meant to support one model of the assassination has ended up supporting my own.
I merely said that IF she is responding to the first shot then that would put the first shot before then. (She later said that she looked back toward the TSBD after the first shot and she saw pigeons flying away). YOU, on the other hand say that such a possibility has been debunked. I was just asking you to explain why you think you have debunked the possibility that her head turn could not be a response to the first shot.
We can't say that no SS agents reacted when we cannot see 100% of the SS agents. We can only see two of them (Hill and McIntyre) for more than half a second after the time that I suggest that the first shot occurred. And those we do see do what they said they did immediately after the first shot (Ready, Hill). McIntyre appears to be leaning left to check the left side of the limo. He did not provide a statement so we don't have anything to refer his actions to.
I merely disagree with your premise that they did not respond. Ready responded 5 frames earlier when he began his right turn by removing his right hand from the front handhold. Hill turned his gaze to the President and was watching him react. You seem to be expecting them to react in ways that they said they did not.
Landis gave a long detailed statement 8 days after the events. In his statement he said he first looked at the president. We do not see him in the zfilm after z207 at which time he is looking at the president. When he is next seen in Altgens #5 at z255 he is looking right, toward the bystanders and TSBD. We don't know when he turned to the right between z207 and z255
Well it is good to see you take witnesses into account even if they were 150-200 feet away, had an obstructed view and did not provide a statement at the time, giving their statement 25 years later. Presumably, you would find the recollections of people who had an unobstructed view from much closer - some only 20 feet away, many of whom gave their statements within hours of the events to be almost as compelling:
He doesn’t say that he didn’t see the President’s head during the first shot either.
What makes his account point to the first shot as the one that missed is that he saw reactions (from either JFK or Jackie) associated with the last two shots. He doesn’t say that he saw JFK already in his arms up posture before the second shot; I believe that he would have said this if it was true and he saw it.
He does say (later in the interview) that he didn’t have a view of the sniper’s nest window, due to the trees and other structures between him and the TSBD, during the shooting; but that he did have a view of JFK’s head.
Well it is good to see you take witnesses into account even if they were 150-200 feet away, had an obstructed view and did not provide a statement at the time, giving their statement 25 years later. Presumably, you would find the recollections of people who had an unobstructed view from much closer - some only 20 feet away, and gave their statements within hours of the events to be almost as compelling:
- T.E. Moore (24 H 534, "President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in the Presidential car.") (heard 3 shots)
- Nellie Connally (4 H 147. "I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.") (heard 3 shots)
- David Powers (7 H 473: "I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head") (heard 3 shots)
- Bobby Hargis (heard 3 shots) (6 H 294):
“….I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and a real shocked and surprised expression on his face.
Mr. STERN. On Governor Connally’s?
Mr. HARGIS. Yes; that is why I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that (indicating) the shot that killed him hit him. I don’t know whether it was the second or the third shot. Everything happened so fast.- Gayle Newman (19 H 488: "President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up. After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car") (heard 3 shots)
- William Newman (19 H 490 "The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it.") (first (22Nov63) described only 2 shots and later (24Nov63) 3 shots)
- John Chism (19 H 472 “When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President," sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side.” (described 2 shots but not asked how many there were).
- Faye Chism (19 H 471 “As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the President fell to his left.”) (described 2 shots but not asked how many there were)
- James Altgens (7 H 520. He said his z255 shot was after first shot and before any other. It shows JFK reacting.) (more than 2 shots-not sure)
- Abraham Zapruder (TV interview at 2:00 pm Nov. 22/63: http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Transcript.htm - " I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two) (2 or 3 shots, not sure)
- SA Clint Hill (2 H 138, Recalled only two shots. After the first: "I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left". CE1024, 18 H 742: "I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left."). (2 shots recalled)
- Linda Willis (7 H 498. “ Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went.) (heard 3 shots)
- SA George Hickey (CE1024, 18 H 761. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.”) (heard 3 shots)
- SA Sam Kinney (CE1024, 18 H 731. “As we completed the left turn and on a short distance, there was a shot. At this time I glanced from the tailights of the President's car that I use for gaging distances for driving. I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with right hand. There was a second of pause and then two more shots were heard”). (heard 3 shots)
- SA Emory Roberts (CE1024, 18 H 734. “12:30 p.m. First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy. I do not know if it was the next shot or third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw ,,,what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President's head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left.”). (heard 3 shots)
- Cecil Ault (24 H 534. Viewing from court house on Houston. Reported to have seen JFK rise up in his seat after first shot.) (heard 3 shots)
- Harold Norman (3 H 191. “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,”) (heard 3 shots)
- Malcolm Summers (Affidavit, 19 H 500 “The President's car had just come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "Oh, no", then a second shot and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots.”) (described 2 shots - not asked how many shots he heard).
- Mary Moorman (Affidavit, 19 H 487, “As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over.” (heard 3 or 4 shots).
- Jean Newman (Affidavit, 19 H 489, “The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down and I thought at the time that it probably scared him, too, just like it did me, because he flinched, like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest.”) (heard 3 or 4 shots in all – Dallas PD 22Nov63)
- Charles Brehm (Dallas Times Herald statement, Nov. 22, 1963 “The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. ‘The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped’.”) (heard 3 shots but said the second shot hit JFK in the head because he saw his hair fly up).
- Pierce Allman, (WFAA radio interview, in which he states that he thought “the President was ducking from the first shot”)
When you suggest that someone is incompetent because you think they have missed something, it can backfire. You risk having that term used against you when it turns out that you are wrong. That, as well as basic principles of good advocacy and civility in debate, are good reasons to avoid this kind of approach in your arguments.
"McIntyre appears to be leaning left to check the left side of the limo. He did not provide a statement so we don't have anything to refer his actions to."
The fact you are unaware of McIntyre's WC testimony says it all. Total incompetence
I expect there were some who were unable to hear that "horrible, ear-shattering noise", but it would have more likely been due to deafness than the shot sound being buried in background noise.
Another aspect to consider regarding the eyewitnesses that were close to the limo during the shooting is the noise factor. There was the crowd noise, the multiple Harley Davidson Motorcycles noise, the noise created by the limo and other motorcade vehicles, and even a train going over the triple underpass during the shooting. At the point of impact of the headshot (Z313) the limo was roughly equidistant to the triple underpass (where the noisy train was moving) and the sniper’s nest window. All of this extra noise level in the vicinity of the limo would be a disadvantage, particularly to the closest witnesses, to being able to clearly distinguish the shots above the other noise. Granted, some of them appear to have heard three shots, but quite a few did not. Harkness’ position was well away from much of the extra noise being created in the immediate vicinity of the limo.
I expect there were some who were unable to hear that "horrible, ear-shattering noise", but it would have more likely been due to deafness than the shot sound being buried in background noise.
When you suggest that someone is incompetent because you think they have missed something, it can backfire. You risk having that term used against you when it turns out that you are wrong. That, as well as basic principles of good advocacy and civility in debate, are good reasons to avoid this kind of approach in your arguments.
It would be helpful if you could direct us all to William McIntyre WC testimony. It appears that the WC did not include it in their 26 volumes.
You are absolutely correct and I totally apologise for getting personal.We all make mistakes. For what it is worth, I think you are far from incompetent. Apology accepted.
As you also point out, it has back-fired and I deserve it for losing my cool.
McIntyre made an intial report about the assassination but, as you correctly point out, did not testify before the WC.
I'll review a few.Not enough. You need witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as seen in frames z150 to z193 - by smiling and waving. Not a single witness said that. We have dozens who said he did not.
Wasn't like Moore was side-to the President and the sign.Moore was near the SE corner of Houston and Elm. He could see the Thornton sign without obstruction. His evidence is that the first shot occurred when the President was opposite that sign. I am not suggesting that this evidence in itself is conclusive. But it is quite consistent with the location of the President provided by all the others.
More often than not, Nellie said she saw Kennedy before he reached for his throat.Do you mean when she said "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you"? Yes I agree. But she also said that was before the first shot.
She also said there was less pause between the first and second shots than the last two.Well, she said it "seemed" to her that there was (4H149):
How does Powers work for a Z190s first shot if he said the President moved left right away? Almost two second gap between Z195 and Z228.He didn't say how long after the first shot that JFK started to move away from the far right. He just described what JFK did after the first shot and before the second. We don't know when JFK's reaction began but he stops leaning on the right side of the car sometime after z195 and before he emerged on the other side of the Stemmons sign at z224. You seem to be arguing that the first shot was later than z195.
Hargis' account of who got struck on which shot is inconclusive.Of course it is inconclusive by itself. It is the fit with the other evidence that allows conclusions to be drawn.
I think he meant Connally was hit on the shot before the head shot:Ok. But this still means that the first shot was the one we see JFK and JBC reacting to after they emerge from behind the Stemmons sign.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot
rung out. It sounded like a firecracker. First thing that came to my
mind was, it was a firecracker. I was kind of hoping it would be a
firecracker, but it wasn't. I thought Connally was the first one shot
because he turn[ed] around and looking at the president like, you
know, he'd been shot. And I remember Kennedy leaned forward to
listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up,
that second shot hit him in the head.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
-- Texas Monthly, 1988
Kennedy "leaning forward" toward Connally probably means Kennedy was hit at the same moment. (Hargis goes on to describe the SBT as what happened).
At the Shaw Trial, Bill Newman testified:It sounds like he is describing the same thing Hargis described except that he does not say that he thought Governor Connally was hit - he turned to look back at the President. Where do you see him doing that?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"I heard two shots — BOOM, BOOM — and when the first shot was
fired the President throwed his hands up like this (demonstrating),
and at the time what we thought had happened, somebody throwed
firecrackers or something under the automobile and he was protecting
his face. At the time of the first shot Governor Connally turned in his
seat in this manner (demonstrating), to look back at the President
I suppose."
Sounds like both men hit by the same bullet, the one fired prior to the head shot.
But it doesn't help that there's almost two seconds between Mason's mythical Z195-ish (or whatever it is these days) "first shot" and the President slumping about Z228ff. On the other hand, the Chisms didn't say the President reacted immediately.The President had a hole in his windpipe. His reaction began before z228 but that does not necessarily mean he realized he could not breathe immediately. He would realize that when he tried to take his next breath. I don't know about you, but I don't inhale in every second.
But it doesn't help that there's almost two seconds between Mason's mythical Z195-ish (or whatever it is these days) "first shot" and the President slumping about Z228ff. On the other hand, the Chisms didn't say the President reacted immediately.
Once you understand that Connaly acted in total self preservation mode - and, yes, I would have too- then you should realize he had a log of "splainin" to do.
Elsewhere in this thread I've demonstrated that JFK's first genuine reaction to being hit occurs at z225You can tell he is not reacting at z223 or z222 or z221? Or z207? By z207 he has turned from facing right and waving with his right hand to facing forward and with his right hand down.
To imagine that it would take over one and a half seconds to react to such a trauma is beyond unrealistic.
It is an insurmountable problem for a hit at z195
You can tell he is not reacting at z223 or z222 or z221? Or z207?
By z207 he has turned from facing right and waving with his right hand to facing forward and with his right hand down.
Yes. JFK's reaction to being shot is the rapid movement of his hands towards his throat. This reaction begins at z225Why could the changes between z193 and z207 not be the beginning of a reaction? Did he react to pain? Or did he react to loss of function ie breathing? How do you know that his facial expression in z225 is the beginning of a reaction? You can't see his facial expression in the 25 frames before then.
So?
Why could the changes between z193 and z207 not be the beginning of a reaction? Did he react to pain? Or did he react to loss of function ie breathing?
How do you know that his facial expression in z225 is the beginning of a reaction? You can't see his facial expression in the 25 frames before then.
JFK is shot through the throatYou are assuming there would be an immediate radical reaction. I personally have never had a bullet pass through my neck so I don't know what kind of immediate reaction one would have. I don't even know what it would feel like. I don't know whether I would experience pain. I don't know if I would have an immediate sensation or a gradual sensation that became overwhelming when I tried to take my next breath.
He reacts to being shot through the throat by grabbing for his throat
There is nothing between z193 and z207 that even suggests he's been hit
No radical reaction to a traumatic stimulus
Nothing that couldn't be interpreted as perfectly ordinary
JFK turns, smiles and waves.
He begins to finish his wave and turns more forward.
Absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
From z225 onwards his moves can certainly be considered anything other than perfectly ordinary.
There is nothing between z193 and z207 that suggests JFK has been shot.
The only reason to argue there is such reactions is to support a a preconceived scenario
Something you do quite often is introduce Strawmen that you can then argue againstYou point to z225 as the beginning of his reaction and the only difference between z224 and z225 is that we can see his face in the latter frame. If that is not what you are referring to, I apologize for drawing such a reasonable inference. It seems to me that if you don't want to suggest that it is not his facial expression that shows the reaction, you have to make that clear.
Here you seem to be arguing against my point that JFK's facial expressions are crucial to understanding when he was shot and are a fundamental part of my argument.
But I've not mentioned JFK's facial reactions once.
Please point to where I've argued using JFK's facial expressions.
Why are you insinuating that I've used JFK's facial expressions to argue when he was shot when I've not?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/oddities/z225facefeatures.jpg)You are assuming that JFK has his hands in front of him for reasons completely unrelated to having just been shot. Your face pasting is not very persuasive. No one except you has suggested that he is smiling in z225.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Although presumed wounded at about Z223, neither Kennedy nor Connally appear to exhibit facial reactions until over the span Z226-Z228. There are involuntary reactions at Z225-226: Kennedy right hand cups and directs towards his chin area, and Connally right arm springs up.
It would take a few frames for the two men to exhibit a facial reaction to being shot (obviously this doesn't apply to being shot in the face). Other than the head shot, this is the only "perfect storm" of a shot reaction in the entire film.I can't tell if the reactions are simultaneous because JFK could have begun reacting earlier than z224. JBC does not appear to react until z228. But, according to the evidence, particularly JBC and Nellie, JBC and JFK reacted to the first shot in this manner, and for different reasons. JFK reacted because he was hit. JBC reacted to the sound of the first shot, which he immediately recognized as a rifle shot. Several witnesses said he turned around toward JFK as if to speak to him after the first shot. Where do you see him turn around prior to z228?
- No facial reaction until pain sensed.
- Near-immediate involuntary physical reactions
- Simultaneous nature of reactions indicate both men seriously wounded at same moment
You are assuming there would be an immediate radical reaction. I personally have never had a bullet pass through my neck so I don't know what kind of immediate reaction one would have. I don't even know what it would feel like. I don't know whether I would experience pain. I don't know if I would have an immediate sensation or a gradual sensation that became overwhelming when I tried to take my next breath.
The problem with your analysis is that we cannot see JFK for 25 frames before you say his first reaction occurs. Yet you state with confidence that no reaction occurred earlier. This is despite the fact that JFK already at z224 has his hands in a markedly different position than he had less than 1.5 seconds earlier and his face already appears contorted when we first see it in z225.
You point to z225 as the beginning of his reaction and the only difference between z224 and z225 is that we can see his face in the latter frame. If that is not what you are referring to, I apologize for drawing such a reasonable inference. It seems to me that if you don't want to suggest that it is not his facial expression that shows the reaction, you have to make that clear.
Many said he was smiling immediately before the first shot but none said he continued smiling after. His first reaction simply have been to stop smiling while his brain tried to process what had had just happened. If so, it is quite possible that his reaction began several frames before z225 while he was behind the sign. You may recall that some witnesses in front or beside JFK said he assumed a blank look after the first shot e.g. B.J. Martin, Charles Brehm.
This tells me JFK's first clear reaction to being shot is z226 although it is possible the reaction may begin in z225. The question is, how quickly would someone react to being shot? If a time factor can be established this can be converted into zframes and it will be possible to count these frames back from z225/226 to get a good estimate for when JFK is initially hit.
Many said he was smiling immediately before the first shot but none said he continued smiling after. His first reaction simply have been to stop smiling while his brain tried to process what had had just happened. If so, it is quite possible that his reaction began several frames before z225 while he was behind the sign. You may recall that some witnesses in front or beside JFK said he assumed a blank look after the first shot e.g. B.J. Martin, Charles Brehm.
As far as the time factor to react, we would need to know what he would have been sensing. There would not have been a strong impact felt because the bullet did not strike bone. We can't assume he felt any pain immediately. But we can say with confidence that he would have noticed that he could not breathe when he next tried to take his next breath. That could be up to a couple of seconds. If that is what he is reacting to at z227 that could put the first shot up to a couple of seconds before.
This is nothing more than wild speculation.I am not sure where you get this from. This question was asked of Dr. Shaw by WC member John McCloy (4H116):
"His first reaction simply have been to stop smiling while his brain tried to process what had had just happened."
A significant trauma to a person's body usually produces a reflex reaction. This does not require any processing by the brain. You seem to be suggesting JFK requires a bit of time to work out what's going on before he decides how to react.
"We can't assume he felt any pain immediately."What is the basis for you saying that bullets are painful? Even Gov. Connally who suffered a significant injury that struck bone said he felt no pain until he arrived at Parkland. He did not even notice that he had been wounded in the thigh and wrist until he woke up after surgery. The literature seems to bear this out. This may be because tissue is destroyed quickly, the nerve endings do not have time to send pain signals before they are gone.
Why can't we assume this? A bullet has passed through his body. True he may have gone into shock (which is a reaction) but to say that he feels pain immediately seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption (IMO)
"But we can say with confidence that he would have noticed that he could not breathe when he next tried to take his next breath. That could be up to a couple of seconds. If that is what he is reacting to at z227 that could put the first shot up to a couple of seconds before."I am just saying that his reaction was likely a bit more gradual than you and others suggest. The main reaction would be to the loss of function, not pain because it is likely he felt no significant pain. How many times per second do you breathe? Normal is around 15-20 breaths per minute or one every three to four seconds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_rate). If he felt no pain and if he was hit just after he filled his lungs, why would he have necessarily noticed a serious problem for a second or two until he began expelling air. If he was hit while he was filling his lungs, he may have noticed something odd sooner but he would not necessarily have panicked due to lack of air. The panic look is what we see starting at z227. That is why I said that the panic look at z227 could easily be a second or two after he was hit.
To infer that it may have taken him up to two seconds to realise something was wrong is really desperate. You clearly need this amount of time to make your model work but to imagine he didn't even notice he'd been shot through the throat is a stretch.
I notice you've not really tackled any of the issues I raised in my post. If you go back to it you will see JFK's left arm down by his side with his hand resting on his stomach area before he passes behind the sign. As he emerges from behind the sign his arm and hand are in exactly the same position. Within a fraction of a second his hand and arm begin to shoot up, a clear reaction to being shot. This is not speculation.I don't know how you can tell that JFK's right arm is down by his side before he passed behind the sign. It may be. But all I can tell is that it appears to be lowered and even that is not entirely clear. If at z204 it was in the same position as we see it in z224 then he was already reacting by z204 because that position in z224 is not normal.
You must surely agree this radical and rapid reaction cannot be squared with a shot as early as z195
I don't know how you can tell that JFK's right arm is down by his side before he passed behind the sign. It may be. But all I can tell is that it appears to be lowered and even that is not entirely clear. If at z204 it was in the same position as we see it in z224 then he was already reacting by z204 because that position in z224 is not normal.
I don't know if this a deliberate strategy on your behalf or you're just not reading what I'm posting. Just to clarify, at no point anywhere do I say JFK's right arm is down by his side. It is absolutely clear from the Z-film that JFK's right arm is resting on the limo door as he passes behind the sign and as he emerges from behind it.I was responding to your statement that in z224 his right arm was in a normal position so it could not be an indicator of a reaction. I agree that his left hand/arm is about where it was before the first shot, e.g. z193. But I disagree that his right arm and right hand was in a normal position in z224. It was not in the same position it was in before the first shot. You had said:
His right hand can be seen in a slightly raised position and can be interpreted as already reaching for his throat. However, as JFK raised and lowered his hand for waving it is often in this position:It appears to me that in z224 JFK is already reacting because his right hand is in a semi-clenched position And if there is anything to doubt about that we can see it from his fully clenched right hand and facial expression that is already showing reaction in z225. But we cannot determine when he first visibly reacts because we cannot see anything for the second prior, from z207 to z223. It could be that his reaction begins when he turns forward just before he disappears behind the sign by z207 and that it started gradually and built up to the gagging we see at z227 and after. That could be due to the accumulation of blood in the wind pipe or the interference with breathing when he took his next breath. We don't know when his reaction began except that it began sometime between z193 and z224.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGsT0n88/motorcade-9.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/KKMxxvz9)
As he passes behind the Stemmons sign JFK is just finishing a wave and it can be expected that his right hand would be in such a position as he emerges from behind the sign. As such, the right hand is an unreliable indicator of his reaction to being shot.
I was responding to your statement that in z224 his right arm was in a normal position so it could not be an indicator of a reaction. I agree that his left hand/arm is about where it was before the first shot, e.g. z193. But I disagree that his right arm and right hand was in a normal position in z224. It was not in the same position it was in before the first shot. You had said:It appears to me that in z224 JFK is already reacting because his right hand is in a semi-clenched position And if there is anything to doubt about that we can see it from his fully clenched right hand and facial expression that is already showing reaction in z225. But we cannot determine when he first visibly reacts because we cannot see anything for the second prior, from z207 to z223. It could be that his reaction begins when he turns forward just before he disappears behind the sign by z207 and that it started gradually and built up to the gagging we see at z227 and after. That could be due to the accumulation of blood in the wind pipe or the interference with breathing when he took his next breath. We don't know when his reaction began except that it began sometime between z193 and z224.
I'm really surprised you've decided to adopt a strategy of misrepresenting what I'm saying in order to avoid the arguments I'm putting forward. It seems totally unreasonable but I will put the argument forward again as I believe it 's of great importance in determining when JFK was first hit.I am sorry you think that I am misrepresenting anything and/or avoiding the arguments you put forward. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227 is the beginning of any reaction. I strongly disagree and I am explaining why. I am saying that we simply cannot tell when his reaction began because when he first emerges from behind the sign he is already reacting. I am not sure why you do not respond to this point.
I have clearly been talking about monitoring the position and movement of JFK's left arm/hand in order to determine when JFK first reacts to being hit. It is JFK's left arm/hand that hold the key to understanding when JFK first reacts to being hit. But you keep trying to turn it into an argument about his right arm/hand (which I will turn to shortly).
It really is an extraordinary and profound reaction. There can be little argument it is a reaction to being shot. The pic below shows how extreme the reaction is:I agree. I am just saying that he is also reacting, in a less demonstrative manner, before then. I am also saying that this gradual reaction prior to z227 is apparent when he is first seen after appearing from behind the sign so we cannot tell when that reaction began.
This incredibly rapid reaction, when we have seen his left arm is down by his side for the duration of the Z-film up to z225, is indicative of a reflex reaction to being shot.Yes. I agree. It is just not his first reaction to being shot. What appears to be a gag reflex is definitely a response to the injury he has sustained but it is just not his first response. He is responding by z224 to a gradual sense of his injury and then starts to gag.
I am sorry you think that I am misrepresenting anything and/or avoiding the arguments you put forward. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227 is the beginning of any reaction. I strongly disagree and I am explaining why. I am saying that we simply cannot tell when his reaction began because when he first emerges from behind the sign he is already reacting. I am not sure why you do not respond to this point.
;DFirst of all, I apologized if I did not make myself clear and left you the impression that I misrepresented something. I never intended to misrepresent anything. I did not apologize for intending to misrepresent what you said.
You're unbelievable. You start by apologising for misrepresenting and avoiding my arguments.
In the very next sentence you misrepresent and avoid my arguments - for the third time!!
"If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227"
Nowhere have I mentioned an "apparent gagging action",
You have completely made this up (for the third time)
You then "strongly disagree" with this point you've just made up, avoiding the arguments I have presented (for the third time)
Earlier in the thread Jerry gave the impression you were some kind of slippery customer.Jerry thinks all lawyers are slippery. I am not sure what experience he has had with lawyers, probably very little. I think you should look at my arguments and not try to resort to ad hominem epithets. It gives the impression of a last resort in a losing argument.
I thought it was harsh at the time but I'm starting to get it.
I am collecting good examples of ad hominem statements for how not to weaken an argument. Can I use these?
Most successful defense attorneys are. However, Posner, Bugliosi and the lawyers on the WC are heads and shoulders above a spatially-challenged lawyer who vainly argues a failed Theory.
When people believe slime-ball attorneys or rally to their specious arguments that waste court time and resources.
Now if you would stop avoiding the very simple point that I am making that would contradict the point you are trying to make, it would be appreciated. "How can you determine that JFK is NOT reacting before z224 when he is obviously reacting at z225, which is very similar to z224, and we cannot see him except his left hand in z223 and do not see him at all between z207 and z223?" Simple question.
Firstly - I'm not avoiding anything.What arguments? That the left hand is the only indicator of whether he is reacting? That seems to be what it boils down to. Based on your hunch, you assert that the stimulus for the motion of his left hand beginning in z225 occurred at z223.
Secondly - you still haven't dealt with the arguments I have presented
Thirdly - the answer to your "simple question" is in the arguments I have presented.Which is your hunch that the z225 left hand motion has to be within 2 frames of being shot. And I asked you how you can rule out that he was not already reacting behind the sign before z223. To which you have never responded.
(https://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Rudy-Giuliani-Alan-Dershowitz.jpg)I wouldn't include Dershowitz in that "slime ball" category. Giuliani, yes; I have no idea what's happened to him with Trump and this election nonsense. Slimy? Deranged? I don't know.
Most successful defense attorneys are. However, Posner, Bugliosi and the lawyers on the WC are heads and shoulders above a spatially-challenged lawyer who vainly argues a failed Theory.
(https://c.ndtvimg.com/2021-01/636ht1ks_trumpsupporters_640x480_07_January_21.jpg)
When people believe slime-ball attorneys or rally to their specious arguments that waste court time and resources.
Let's have a look at what you describe as my "hunch" concerning JFK's left arm.I agree. That is an observation.
It has already been established that for the full duration of the Z-film, from z133 (when we first see the presidential limo) until z225 (just after JFK emerges from behind the 'Stemmons' sign), JFK's left arm is down by his side. This is a fact, not a hunch.
Within approximately one third of a second JFK's left arm moves from this position (at z225)
To this position (at z232)I agree. Just an observation.
Within such a ridiculously small amount of time his left elbow goes from being down by his side at z225 to the unnaturally extended position we see in z232. This is a fact, it is not a hunch.I agree. Just an observation.
It would be difficult to achieve this speed of movement as a conscious action but JFK is doing it as a reflex reaction to being shot. It is reasonable to assume that prior to this moment he has no intention of raising his arm in such a fashion.I agree that it is a reaction to being shot. It just doesn't tell you when he was shot. It tells you more about when his brain became aware that something was wrong after having been shot. Moreover, we cannot tell from just looking at the zfilm that he is not already reacting behind the sign.
Is it a "hunch" to assume JFK is reacting to being shot?
JFK is shot through the throat. His reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands up to his throat. This reaction begins at z225. This is not a hunch.
His left arm does not raise up before z225. This is not a hunch.
So if his reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands to his throat, and if it can be clearly demonstrated from the Z-film that this reaction does not occur until z225 then what is this "hunch" you're talking about?The "hunch" that you are going on is that the response at z225 occurs within 2 frames or 110 ms after the bullet passes through his neck. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. Therefore, it is a "hunch" as in "a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than known facts"; "an idea that is based on feeling and for which there is no proof".
Maybe you are proposing that whilst JFK is behind the sign he has a "pre-reaction" to being shot. The problem with that is the extreme speed at which JFK moves which indicates a "reflex reaction" to being shot (NOT A GAGGING REFLEX ::), A REFLEX REACTION). A Reflex Reaction would be his first response to such a traumatic injury. We don't need to guess about what's going on behind the sign as the Z-film shows us his first reaction.So, again, you are using your "hunch" that the trigger for the "reflex" reaction is the bullet passing through his neck rather than the physiological impairment that resulted from that injury.
So what is this "hunch"? - "That the left hand is the only indicator of whether he is reacting?"No. I am just saying that we cannot pinpoint the time the bullet struck from the reactions we see because we don't know how long after the bullet penetrated his neck that he began to react, AND we cannot tell when his reaction began. Since he is already reacting when we first see him emerge from behind the sign we cannot rule out the real possibility, if not probability, that he was reacting before z223. His left hand is showing signs consistent with a reaction in z224 and his face is clearly showing a reaction when we first see it in z225. We don't see his face before z225. So how can you tell he is not reacting facially and with his left arm (and perhaps with other body parts that we can't see) before z225? But that doesn't even matter. Even if his first reaction did not begin until the very instant he appears from behind the sign, we don't know how long before that the bullet necessarily struck. The evidence from several independent sources is that the first shot occurred just before z202. Your hunch does not fit that evidence.
Really? It's the only indicator?
Are there any other extreme and rapid reactions that occur at the same time as JFK's left arm movement?Not according to Gov. Connally or his wife. JBC and others said he turned around to see the President after the first shot. He said that he turned because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot. He said that he was hit in the back after turning around to see JFK. Nellie told Dr. Shires that her husband was turned around to his right when the second shot occurred. There is simply no such turn before z230. Where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK after the first shot and before he was hit? You don't, of course, because you reject the Connallys' evidence.
At z223 both JFK and JBC are shot through with the same bullet.
Not according to Gov. Connally or his wife. JBC and others said he turned around to see the President after the first shot. He said that he turned because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot. He said that he was hit in the back after turning around to see JFK. Nellie told Dr. Shires that her husband was turned around to his right when the second shot occurred. There is simply no such turn before z230. Where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK after the first shot and before he was hit? You don't, of course, because you reject the Connallys' evidence.
Obviously I'm talking about measurable observations we see in the Z-film.Actually, you put your interpretation of the film/photographic evidence before witness testimony. If you take the position that there is some kind of inherently superior quality to certain kinds of evidence that entitles you to ignore large bodies of other evidence, you are making up your own rules. The trier of fact has to carefully assess all the evidence and draw conclusions based on all the evidence. Juries are told this in every trial.
Your recourse to contradictory witness evidence shows the weakness of your position.
If you wish to discuss the observations recorded in the Z-film and the ramifications of these observations, fair enough.
I put the video/photographic evidence before the witness testimony.
You don't and it's obvious why you don't.
Actually, you put your interpretation of the film/photographic evidence before witness testimony. If you take the position that there is some kind of inherently superior quality to certain kinds of evidence that entitles you to ignore large bodies of other evidence, you are making up your own rules. The trier of fact has to carefully assess all the evidence and draw conclusions based on all the evidence. Juries are told this in every trial.
The weight given to one's interpretation of the film/photographic evidence depends how that interpretation fits with the rest of the evidence. Where the film/photographic evidence is unequivocal, it is entitled to a great deal of weight, which is not a problem because the witness evidence doesn't conflict with it. We see the head shot at z313 and conclude that that coincided within a couple of frames of a very loud rifle sound. And, guess what, that is not inconsistent with what all the witnesses said.
Although the zfilm is not unequivocal with respect to the times of the other shots, we can conclude:
- that there were three shots only because the vast majority of witnesses said there were exactly three loud noises.
- that the last two shots were close together because the vast majority of witnesses independently recalled that pattern.
- that the first shot struck JFK because the vast majority of witnesses observed his reaction after the first shot and before the second. Not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot.
- that Governor Connally turned around after the first shot and before he was hit because the witnesses - JBC, Nellie, Gayle Newman, and others recalled this. And the zfilm shows this.
There is an "inherently superior quality" to the evidence provided by the Z-film over the contradictory evidence of witness accounts.The only thing the witness evidence contradicts is your hunch that the reaction shown in the zfilm after JFK emerges from behind the sign indicates that he was hit in the neck 110 ms earlier.
That doesn't mean witness statements are ignored. To suggest I'm ignoring "large bodies of other evidence" is mystifying, particularly when it is you ignoring the evidence before your eyes in the Z-film and scrabbling around for cherry-picked, selected statements that prop up your failed model. A model that has failed spectacularly in key areas.Of course, that is the classical straw man argument. I have never suggested that those facts are anything but unequivocal. Of course the headshot occurs at z313, that JFK sat in the limo and that we see JFK react with extreme and rapid physical reactions. No one is challenging you on that. No one. So why use that in your argument?
When I observe the headshot at z313 is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe JFK sat in a limo is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe radical, extreme and rapid physical reactions, is that "my interpretation"?
I think not,
It is notable you have completely abandoned trying to argue against the video evidence I have presented showing multiple extreme physical reactions occurring at the same time.It is film evidence, not video evidence, btw. I have never argued against the film or photographic evidence. It is not the film or photographs that are in issue. Rather it is the interpretation of what has happened to cause those things we see and when they happened. All I am saying is that in order to determine what is happening you have to listen to the people who were there. You have already concluded that those frames show JFK's reaction to the first shot. You have reached that conclusion because of the overwhelming strength of independent witness evidence. I agree with you on that. But others are convinced that he is reacting to the second shot and completely discount all that witness evidence.
You are right to to try to switch the focus to vague lawyerly philosophy. It's a pity you can't bring yourself to accept a new way of looking at things.Saying you have to look at all the evidence is not a "vague lawyerly philosophy". It is the way to accurately draw facts from evidence based on centuries of fact-finding by courts. There is no switch of focus. That has always been my focus.
The multiple extreme, coordinated and rapid reactions I observe in the Z-film are unequivocal.Again, there is no question about that. That is a strawman argument. No one is arguing that. I am certainly not. That is not the point on which we disagree. The point on which we disagree is your hunch that JFK was shot in the neck 110 ms before z225. The zfilm does not tell us that. That is you. That is your guess based on no evidence. Your intuition is not evidence. And I am merely pointing out that your intuition conflicts with the known evidence.
They are recorded and measurable.
You cannot escape this fact and it is something that you should be willing to consider more deeply.
You're last point is clearly wrong.For the umpteenth time, I agree. That is not the issue on which we disagree. The issue on which we disagree is your hunch about how long before z225 JFK was hit.
The Z-film unequivocally shows JBC reacting in an extreme and rapid manner.
You can put the greater weight on contradictory and muddled witness statements. That is your prerogative.You are right. There is not much difference. We differ in 23-28 frames or 1.25 to 1.5 seconds on when the first shot occurred. We also differ on whether the head shot was the last. You think it was the second and that there was a shot after z313. I say that the evidence shows that it was the last.
If you want to take this conversation down the road of vague philosophical arguments I won't be following. I'm presenting my model for when the first shot occurred on this thread. Its a strong model and has withstood any attempt to undermine it. We agree on so much, I do not think the step from your model to mine is that great.
The point on which we disagree is your hunch that JFK was shot in the neck 110 ms before z225. The zfilm does not tell us that. That is you. That is your guess based on no evidence. Your intuition is not evidence. And I am merely pointing out that your intuition conflicts with the known evidence.
I get it. I've not provided the evidence that "JFK was shot in the neck 110ms before z225"Yes. But we don't know whether JFK's reaction is to:
There has been a lot of info in my last few posts and this may have gone under the radar:
“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.”
[https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]
So, for a simple touch stimulus we're looking at a reaction time of around 150 ms. But JFK's body is reacting to severe trauma.
I found this on the McAdams website:If the reaction of JFK is to the sound of the shot that struck at z223, you have to also take into account the fact that the sound would have arrived 77 ms. after the bullet hit ie. more than one frame after z223 (at 20 degrees C the speed of sound is 1127 feet/sec so the sound takes 177 ms to travel 200 feet whereas the bullet travelling at 2000 fps avg. takes 100 ms. to cover that distance).
"While human reaction times tend to require hundreds of milliseconds, "One of the fastest [neural feedback] loops is from arm sensors to spinal cord and back out to arm muscles: it takes 110 milliseconds for feedback corrections to be made to an arm movement." (William H. Calvin, "The unitary hypothesis: A common neural circuitry for novel manipulations, language, plan-ahead, and throwing?" in Tools, Language, and Cognition in Human Evolution, edited by Kathleen R. Gibson and Tim Ingold. Cambridge University Press, pp. 230-250, [1993].)
So there could already be a reaction of a subject's arms in as early as 110 milliseconds, the equivalent of two Zapruder frames. But, of course, with JFK and Gov. Connally shot between 223 and 224, we should not be able to discern a significant reaction before frame 226. While only a few milliseconds later, this would still be too late.
However, an experiment cited by conspiracist Milicent Cranor demonstrates that even less time may be required.
Cranor summarizes a study published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):
Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:
Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)
Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)
Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)
Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)
Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)
Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)
The authors concluded:
"The most generalized startle response to the standard sound stimulus employed consisted of eye closure, grimacing, neck flexion, trunk flexion, slight abduction of the arms, flexion of the elbows and pronation of the forearms. There was considerable variation in the degree to which this response was expressed, and in some subjects only eye closure and flexion of the neck was apparent."
[See Cranor, "Neurology and Jiggle Analysis"]
The experiment demonstrated that, in response to an auditory stimulus, quantifiable physical reactions can be observed occurring most quickly in muscles the shortest distance from the brain: in the neck as quickly as 40 milliseconds (less than one Zapruder frame), in the paraspinal muscles as quickly as 48 milliseconds (less than one Zapruder frame), in the forearm flexors as quickly as 60 milliseconds (slightly more than one Zapruder frame), in the forearm extensors as quickly as 62 milliseconds (slightly more than one Zapruder frame), in the thumb as quickly as 75 milliseconds, and in the back of the hand as quickly as 72 milliseconds.
Hit the start button above to see frames where Kennedy and Connally are hit by the Single Bullet. Note that Kennedy's hand is moving downward between Zapruder Frames 224 and 225. Connally's torso hunches between 224 and 225, and both men have shocked expressions on their faces. Clip produced by Ken McDonald.
This means that it is possible for JFK and Gov. Connally, if struck between frames 223 and 224, to display quantifiable reactions originating in the men's necks and paraspinal muscles — and, depending on how many milliseconds elapsed between the shot and the exposure of frame 224, possibly even their forearm flexors, forearm extensors, and hands — as early as frame 225."
There is solid science behind such a quick reaction time.But there is not solid evidence that the reaction we see in z225 is the beginning of ANY reaction. We also cannot tell what specific stimulus it is in reaction to. It is certainly not in reaction to sound that has not yet reached his ears or reached his ears less than 50 ms. earlier. It could be a gradual reaction to being hit followed by a more demonstrative reaction when he tried to breathe.
A hit at z223 could indeed trigger the beginnings of the extreme, co-ordinated and rapid reactions that are unequivocally shown in the Z-film.
So here we have an example of the sleaze-bag defense attorney going at it. Re-defining the narrative through recasting what I said. O'meara knows about it.Ok. I see. I was correct in saying that you allege that Phil Willis lied, just a sleaze bag for failing to distinguish it as "white" and not "Big". I am not sure why a white lie cannot be a big lie. The "white" lie that the U.S. civil war was not about keeping slavery" was a pretty big one.
I said Phil Willis said a "white lie" (not a Big Lie like you traffic in) about his picture being taken "simultaneously" with the sound of the first shot.
If Willis took his Z202 slide between shots 1 and 2 (say, Z155 and Z222), then it was taken in the midst of shots and echoing, so it could be said his slide was "simultaneous" with the shots, but not the precise moment of the first shot.You do realize that you are supporting the point I was making which was that the shot was before Willis' z202 photo and, therefore, it was BEFORE z223. Are you sure you want to be supporting the sleaze bag defence lawyer's argument?
Objection! I didn't say Linda Willis lied. I suggested she got the Stemmons sign confused with the Thornton sign. She can only see the President and a sign beyond when he is between her and the Thornton sign. She can't see the President at all when he's between her and the Stemmons sign.I see. Your theory is that she just happened to be mistaken in a way that fits perfectly with the "white" lie told by her father. And her sister just happened to turn her head suddenly toward the TSBD at a time that fits her mistake and her father's lie father (oh, and fits with Moore, Hooker, the occupants of the VP security car etc.). I understand.
Therefore the second shot occurred about Z220-to-Z240 (I prefer the earlier Z220s because of the simultaneous reaction of both men as they emerge from behind the sign).So you think they could be reacting before the shot that they were reacting to occurred??
Even if we go with the Z240s as the second shot and team it with your Z195ish "first" shot, that'll get you a 1.....2.......3 shot pattern.But if the second shot occurred at z271 as I suggest, that fits the 1.........2....3 pattern. It also fits Greer's turn, the unusual forward movement of JBC, the movement of the wrist or hat, JFK hair flip reported by Hickey etc.
The shot spanning for, say, Z155-to-Z222-to-Z313 is 1.....2.......3. More evenly-spaced.
Yes. But we don't know whether JFK's reaction is to:
1. the bullet strike; or
2. the impairment of bodily function caused by the bullet;
Being shot does not always cause an immediate "reflex" reaction.
If the reaction of JFK is to the sound of the shot that struck at z223, you have to also take into account the fact that the sound would have arrived 77 ms. after the bullet hit ie. more than one frame after z223 (at 20 degrees C the speed of sound is 1127 feet/sec so the sound takes 177 ms to travel 200 feet whereas the bullet travelling at 2000 fps avg. takes 100 ms. to cover that distance). But there is not solid evidence that the reaction we see in z225 is the beginning of ANY reaction. We also cannot tell what specific stimulus it is in reaction to. It is certainly not in reaction to sound that has not yet reached his ears or reached his ears less than 50 ms. earlier. It could be a gradual reaction to being hit followed by a more demonstrative reaction when he tried to breathe.
Other reasons the reaction in z225 is not to being hit at z223:
The fact remains that the evidence is that JFK was struck after z186 and before z202. Phil Willis' photo, according to his evidence, was taken just after the sound of the shot. Do you think he was lying about that? (Jerry does). Because if he was just mistaken about that and the first shot was at z223, you have to explain how it is that:
1. his daughter Linda also pinpointed the first shot at that time (when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign - z195-205) (or, if you were Jerry, why she also lied);
2. why TE Moore and Jeanette Hooker said that the first shot occurred just before the President reached the Thornton freeway sign. (z200); (or, if you were Jerry, why they also lied)
3. why occupants of the VP security car said that the first shot occurred just before they completed the turn onto Elm. (z190-210).(or, if you were Jerry, why they also lied)
One would also then have to explain why so many people mistakenly recalled the third shot as being the last, because a first shot at z223 does not fit the 1.......2....3 pattern if the last was at z313.
etc.
I have presented a detailed analysis of the Z-film highlighting multiple extreme and rapid reactions.No. That is not what I was unconvinced about. Certainly a reaction CAN occur 110 ms. after a stimulus. I have never said otherwise. The issue is whether the reaction seen in z225 was due to a bullet striking him at z223. To establish that it was, one has to show: 1) that JFK was not reacting before z225 and that, therefore z225 is the beginning of any reaction; and 2) that the kind of reaction he is exhibiting had to have occurred within 110 ms from the bullet impact. You have not demonstrated either.
These extreme reactions all occur at the same time. That is to say they are co-ordinated.
The extreme, rapid and co-ordinated reactions I have highlighted are unequivocally present in the Z-film.
You were unconvinced that such reactions could be related to a stimulus only 110 milliseconds beforehand.
I provided hard science to demonstrate that they could.I see that.
Your response is poor, to say the least.
Meaningless, nothing statements - "Being shot does not always cause an immediate "reflex" reaction."
Your usual BS: straw man - "If the reaction of JFK is to the sound of the shot that struck at z223, you have to also take into
account the fact that the sound would have arrived 77 ms. after the bullet hit" [WTF!!]
And wheeling out the handful of contradictory witness statements that support your failed model. You're faith in their testimony is revealed in the question - "Do you think he was lying about that?" Really?
Reasoned debate has left the building.
No. That is not what I was unconvinced about. Certainly a reaction CAN occur 110 ms. after a stimulus. I have never said otherwise. The issue is whether the reaction seen in z225 was due to a bullet striking him at z223. To establish that it was, one has to show: 1) that JFK was not reacting before z225 and that, therefore z225 is the beginning of any reaction; and 2) that the kind of reaction he is exhibiting had to have occurred within 110 ms from the bullet impact. You have not demonstrated either.
"1) that JFK was not reacting before z225"The resolution of the zfilm is not good enough to say that it is in "exactly the same position". It is in roughly the same location but the hand posture may be different. But so what? It is not as if the left hand is the only part of his body that will react. We cannot see JFK's face until z225 and in that frame it is already contorted with an unnatural expression. His right hand appears to be forming a fist at z224 and forms a fist by z225. Your analysis of the left hand does not exclude the very real, if not likely, possibility that z225 is not the beginning of his contorted facial reaction to being shot in the neck.
Two of the reactions I've highlighted clearly demonstrate that the reactions @ z225 were the first reactions.
The argument concerning JFK's left arm/hand shows JFK in exactly that position for the duration of the Z-film from the first appearance of the presidential limo (z133) until the first reaction at z225.
His left arm/hand are in exactly the same position as JFK travels down Elm St., as he passes behind the Stemmons sign and, most importantly, as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign.
The Z-film shows this continuity of the left arm/hand position.
Suddenly, at z225, his left arm/hand begins to rocket up from his side at a tremendous speed. Up until this point it has been in a relaxed state, down by his side.Ok. So it is your opinion that this reaction of his left hand is a reflex reaction to being shot. My opinion is that it is not. The difference is that my opinion is based on evidence (that the shot occurred over a second before z223).
JFK's bunched fists flying up to his throat and his elbows extending high in the air, can hardly be disputed as a reaction to being shot through the throat. The very first part of this movement occurs at z225. The incredible speed at which this physical action happens is indicative of a reflex reaction, which would be the first reaction to such trauma.
The Z-film is showing us JFK's first reaction to being shot.
The same arguments apply for the extremely rapid movements of JBC's right arm/hand. He is in exactly the same position as he moves behind the Stemmons sign as he is when he emerges from behind - sat upright, calm and composed, looking towards the people lining Elm St to his right.What if his face went blank at z202 and he then began the contorted expression first seen in z225 when he emerges from behind the sign? How can you possibly say that this did not occur? It was just a coincidence that his face contortion seen on the first frame that we see after he emerges also began in that frame? It is not just a hypothesis he may have reacted earlier. There is evidence that the shot was over a second earlier.
His Stetson hat is resting on his lap for the duration of this part of the Z-film. Suddenly it rockets up in front of his face, within one third of a second. It is an incredibly quick physical movement, prior to which his hand has been at rest. We see this in the Z-film before the sign and after it. The Z-film shows us this continuity of right arm/hand position. Which suddenly explodes into action at exactly the same time JFK suddenly explodes into action.
In both cases we are seeing extreme, reflex reactions (demonstrated by the incredible speed of the physical movements from a state of rest).
As reflex reactions they are the first reactions.
In both cases we are seeing the 'resting positions' before and after the Stemmons sign.
There can be little doubt the Z-film shows us the first reactions are at z225.
What happens behind the sign is of no relevance as we see the continuity of 'resting positions' in the Z-film.
Ok. We have made progress. On this point at least you have not argued the "Thorburn's position" that SBT proponents usually invoke to "prove" that the shot occurred within 3 frames before z226. There is no evidence here of Kennedy having assumed Thorburn's position, which is an involuntary position assumed by quadriplegics due to transverse lesions of the spinal cord at the C6 level. No nerves were severed in JFK's neck and C6 is well below the bullet path.
"2) that the kind of reaction he is exhibiting had to have occurred within 110 ms from the bullet impact".
This point seems phrased in a strange way (or maybe I'm just a bit tired).
I am not saying reacting to being shot 110 ms after impact is the only option.
I'm saying that a reaction this quickly after being shot is a perfectly feasible, scientifically proven fact.
Reacting this quickly after being shot is not unusual, I would argue it is to be expected.
But I'm certainly not arguing that this is the only type of reaction there is.
I don't know if that's really dealt with that point.
The resolution of the zfilm is not good enough to say that it is in "exactly the same position". It is in roughly the same location but the hand posture may be different. But so what? It is not as if the left hand is the only part of his body that will react. We cannot see JFK's face until z225 and in that frame it is already contorted with an unnatural expression. His right hand appears to be forming a fist at z224 and forms a fist by z225. Your analysis of the left hand does not exclude the very real, if not likely, possibility that z225 is not the beginning of his contorted facial reaction to being shot in the neck.
Ok. So it is your opinion that this reaction of his left hand is a reflex reaction to being shot. My opinion is that it is not. The difference is that my opinion is based on evidence (that the shot occurred over a second before z223).
What if his face went blank at z202 and he then began the contorted expression first seen in z225 when he emerges from behind the sign? How can you possibly say that this did not occur?
There is no evidence here of Kennedy having assumed Thorburn's position, which is an involuntary position assumed by quadriplegics due to transverse lesions of the spinal cord at the C6 level.
No nerves were severed in JFK's neck and C6 is well below the bullet path.
It seems to me that there is a difference in the posture of his left hand in z224 compared to z193 which is the clearest frame prior to him disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. But I was suggesting that it is not entirely clear because of the poor resolution. I was trying to be generous:
The resolution isn't good enough to say it's in exactly the same position but it is good enough to read his facial expression?
You've descended into farce.
JFK's left arm is clearly down by his side, it is perfectly clear.
His facial expression? Are you joking?You don't see a difference? (comparing z167 to z225):
My opinion is based on the recorded and measurable speed of his physical movements.I think I have provided it. Also, look at the photos. All I am saying is that the reaction seen in z225 may well have begun within a few frames after being hit just before z200, which is when the evidence indicates the first shot occurred.
What is your evidence? Phil Willis?
The usual BS: straw manI said at least you DIDN'T argue the Thorburn position. It would be a straw man if I said you had and then attacked the argument as if you were making it.
Cite evidence for this please as it is a point worth discussing (at last)Sorry. I should have said that the bullet path was below the C6 vertebra. The bullet entered the upper back below the cervical (neck) part of the spine. The autopsy report (Warren Report, Appendix 9, p. 6):
It seems to me that there is a difference in the posture of his left hand in z224 compared to z193 which is the clearest frame prior to him disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. But I was suggesting that it is not entirely clear because of the poor resolution. I was trying to be generous:
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/jfk_hands.gif)
In z193 I see his left hand with the fingers in a somewhat relaxed position but still curled. In z224 the fingers of the left hand appears to be more clenched together. But, as I said, the resolution may not be good enough to really be sure.
You don't see a difference? (comparing z167 to z225):
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/jfk_face.gif)
I said at least you DIDN'T argue the Thorburn position. It would be a straw man if I said you had and then attacked the argument as if you were making it.
Sorry. I should have said that the bullet path was below the C6 vertebra. The bullet entered the upper back below the cervical (neck) part of the spine. The autopsy report (Warren Report, Appendix 9, p. 6):Dr. Lattimer published a paper in 1977 suggesting that the spine at the C6 vertebra suffered an injury from the bullet passing below. But the Thorburn position requires severance of the spinal cord at C6 and there is no evidence that this occurred. Lattimer was inferring injury to the spine at C6 from what he thought was the Thorburn position, so the argument gets rather circular.
- "The other missile entered the right superior
posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular
and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right, side of the neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical
portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles
of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the
anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no
bony structures in its path through the body."
The point of mentioning the Thorburn position is that this is the kind of evidence one would need in order to begin to prove that the actions of JFK are tied to the passage of the bullet through the neck. If the spine at C6 was severed and it was established that a person with such an injury necessarily has the kind of neuromuscular response within 165 ms. of the injury, then this would be evidence that he was struck at z223 or thereabouts.
As it is, it is just speculation because there is no evidence that the spinal cord was damaged at all, let alone severed at C6. There is also no documented case establishing that someone with a C6 injury assumes the "Thorburn position" within a few hundred milliseconds of the injury. The Thorburn position comes from a 19th century medical case of patient L.F. that was written up by a Dr. William Thorburn. The patient L.F. fell off a ladder and lay on the floor for several hours before anyone saw him. Four days elapsed before he was admitted to the infirmary where a photograph was taken from which a drawing was made showing the elbows out and the hands and forearms pointing upward as if he was flexing his biceps. Brain Vol. 9, p. 511.
The difference in left hand position is really small and left arm is down by his side. What exactly is your point??? YOU made the assertion that it was "in exactly the same position" in z224 as before the shot. It wasn't exact and the difference, though small, may be material because it could already be showing reaction. You are the one saying the left arm is showing no reaction in z224.
The difference is clear.I can't say he is not already reacting. That's the issue Apparently you can.
The second image is badly distorted, blurred, grainy and marked.
You really feel confident you can read the expression correctly?
It's great you so readily admit one of your arguments was a BS: straw man.Either you misread what I said or you have a different understanding of what a straw man argument is.
Let's just put the Thorburn thing to one side.High up in the back is not the cervical spine. The path appears to be to the right of the thoracic spine below the brachial plexus.
(https://i.postimg.cc/90ZSyXyD/brachial-plexus.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It's clear the bullet that entered JFK's back was close to the spine and high up in the back.
As I understand it no bone was hit (at least not significantly)
If this is the case the chance the bullet missed one of the nerves of the brachial plexus is almost zero.
I can't say he is not already reacting. That's the issue Apparently you can.
High up in the back is not the cervical spine. The path appears to be to the right of the thoracic spine below the brachial plexus.
At no point have I ever tried to argue anything from JFK's facial expressions.
The resolution of the Z-film is clearly not good enough.
Never have I even hinted at using this aspect of the Z-film to determine reactions.
On the contrary - it is you who keeps dragging in JFK's facial expressions as if can you discern something from them. Does this quote ring a bell:
"We cannot see JFK's face until z225 and in that frame it is already contorted with an unnatural expression."
I have pointed out the resolution is not good enough to reach any conclusions using facial reactions but apparently you can reach conclusions from it.
Really?
Can you explain this quote from one of your previous posts:I made a correction in my subsequent post, which you must have read because you quoted it. I said:
"No nerves were severed in JFK's neck and C6 is well below the bullet path. "
In one moment you're saying the bullet enters JFK's back above the C6 vertebra then your saying the bullet path is below C6 (below the brachial plexus.
It is clear you are willing to say whatever it takes to "win a point".
Constantly introducing BS: straw man arguments, twisting and misrepresenting what is being said.First of all, I thought we were talking about JFK's reaction after he emerges from behind the sign and whether that was unequivocal evidence of a shot at z223. What does the tree have to do with that?
Anyone can look over the last few pages and see the contribution I am making and your own contribution.
Your model has failed - passing under the oak tree at the time of your proposed first shot, the impossible ballistics of your proposed second shot and now this - a delay of over a second and a half between being shot and the multiple extreme, rapid and co-ordinated reactions of both JFK and JBC. The speed of these physical reactions is startling, measured in milliseconds. To suggest they come after one and a half seconds is preposterous. One and a half seconds may not seem a long time but it is an eternity when dealing with such rapid reactions.
There is no sane proposal you can make that accounts for this time gap.Again, they are co-ordinated only if JFK is not reacting before z226-227.
Weak attempts at muddying the water - maybe there was some kind of subtle reaction we can't see before z225 - cannot explain the sudden, co-ordinated rapidity of these physical reactions.
The bullet passed between the C7 and T1 vertebrae, close to the spinal column.Very good. That could explain his curled fingers of his right hand seen in z224 that could well have begun some time prior.
This is confirmed by a fracture found in JFK's spine:
“There is an undisplaced fracture of the proximal portion of the right transverse process of T1 (or the region of the costovertebral junction)”
Quote from the report of the HSCA consulting radiologist, G.M. McDonnel, MD, in: HSCA vol.7: 219.
[see https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0115a.htm]
An "undisplaced" fracture is one in which the bones remain aligned indicating a glancing blow by the bullet. This may have affected the trajectory of the bullet through JFK but that is not being considered at this moment. The fracture is of the right transverse process, in accordance with the entry of the bullet slightly to the right of the spine. Looking at this diagram again (obviously the diagram is of the left side of the body but the arguments apply due to the symmetry of the body):
(https://i.postimg.cc/90ZSyXyD/brachial-plexus.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
A bullet passing between the C7 and T1 vertebrae, glancing off the transverse process of T1, would almost inevitably sever, or at least severely damage, the nerve marked T1 in the diagram, affecting in particular the Ulnar nerve which has its roots in the "T1" (and C8) nerve. The Ulnar nerve runs the length of the arm, entering the hand where it "flexes the ring and little fingers at the distal interphalangeal joint".
A bullet severing the Ulnar nerve may cause the hand to rapidly contract, however the Ulnar nerve only controls the flexion of the ring and little fingers.
I wish I could find a clearer image than the one below but there is a very strange aspect of JFK's hands in reaction to being shot. One might expect someone to 'clutch' at their throat if they were shot there but JFK doesn't do this. Instead he appears to clench his hands into fists and thrusts them under the area of his chin.
But even this is not quite correct. A clear image ('ve seen one but can't find it at the moment) reveals that JFK appears to be 'pointing' at his throat:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvGv6CYW/Screenshot-27.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I believe this indicates the bullet has severed his Ulnar nerve, causing some of his fingers (ring and little) to instantly clench shut but leaving his index finger unaffected and in a 'pointing' position.
In order to prove that the reaction beginning at z226-227 is the first reaction to being shot at z223, you have to demonstrate that he was NOT reacting before then. By suggesting that the reaction began at z226 and not before, you are saying that he is not reacting in z225. So you must be confident about that. I'm not.
But, of course, that is not all one must establish in order to prove that the bullet struck at z223. One must have evidence that the reaction beginning at z226-227 is the physical reaction that a person suffering the injury that JFK suffered would have to exhibit within 165ms to 220 ms. after being hit. I have yet to see that kind of evidence. That is what Lattimer was saying with his Thorburn argument. You are not making the same kind of argument.
I made a correction in my subsequent post, which you must have read because you quoted it. I said:
"Sorry. I should have said that the bullet path was below the C6 vertebra. The bullet entered the upper back below the cervical (neck) part of the spine. The autopsy report (Warren Report, Appendix 9, p. 6):
"The other missile entered the right superior
posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular
and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right, side of the neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical
portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles
of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the
anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no
bony structures in its path through the body.""
First of all, I thought we were talking about JFK's reaction after he emerges from behind the sign and whether that was unequivocal evidence of a shot at z223. What does the tree have to do with that?
Second, there is only a delay of a second and a half if he is not reacting at all when we can't see him. There is only a "co-ordinated reaction of both JFK and JBC if JFK is NOT REACTING when he is not visible prior to z225.
Third, your analysis assumes that JBC is reacting to being hit in the back on the first shot. That is not what he said occurred. He said that his reaction to the first shot was to turn around to see JFK. That was what Nellie said as well. So did the Newmans who were standing right there 20 feet away. That is what the police outriders said he did as well. That is what the evidence says was JBC's reaction to the first shot. So even by your own theory that the first shot was at z223, JBC's reaction beginning at z228 or so is to start turning around to see JFK. And that is exactly what he proceeds to do at that point.Again, they are co-ordinated only if JFK is not reacting before z226-227.
The time gap for JBC's reaction is due to the fact, as he testified, that he was not hit in the back on the first shot so his reaction was due to the time required for his brain to process that he had just heard a rifle shot, that an assassination attempt was underway and feel concern for the President and then to start turning around to see him.
JFK's reaction was to having a bullet pass through his upper back and neck. Since it did not strike bone, the reaction could have been a fairly immediate but gradual reaction such as facial expression and hand movement followed by the more demonstrative reaction beginning at z226 when he realized he could not breathe.
The usual misrepresentation and "maybe this, maybe that" waffle.By gradual, I mean a bit more than a second before he fully realizes the impact of what just happened. Kind of like the soldier in John McCone's anecdote who was shot in the back and didn't understand what had just happened for several seconds and then he fell over and died.
There is one factual error that needs correcting:
"Since it did not strike bone, the reaction could have been a fairly immediate but gradual reaction such as facial expression and hand movement followed by the more demonstrative reaction beginning at z226 when he realized he could not breathe."
The bullet passing through JFK fractured his T1 vertebra ("an undisplaced fracture of the proximal portion of the right transverse process of T1"). As explained in a previous post the "undisplaced" nature of the fracture indicates a glancing blow.
I've no doubt you'll argue JFK will still have reacted "gradually" to having a vertebra fractured by a bullet ripping through his body.
By gradual, I mean a bit more than a second before he fully realizes the impact of what just happened. Kind of like the soldier in John McCone's anecdote who was shot in the back and didn't understand what had just happened for several seconds and then he fell over and died.
There are not many cases of this kind to go by. Again, bullet wounds do not necessarily cause pain immediately. JBC is a case in point. The transverse process is the small bone protruding forward and to the right from the body of the vertebra. The bodies of the vertebrae in the spine were not injured or strained. So you are going to need some evidence that a non-displaced fracture (ie. a crack) caused by passage of the bullet some distance away from that little bone will cause immediate pain.
Most of these kinds of injuries are the result of extreme twisting of the neck which also strains soft tissue around the cervical spine. JBC suffered an undisplaced fracture of the fifth rib at the spine. It was not noticed until someone examined the xrays long afterward. JBC never complained about it.
Andrew, I've noticed there's something you're not quite grasping about a reflex reaction.I understand that you believe that JFK was exhibiting a reflex reaction to the bullet passing through his neck. But the problem is that there is no consensus among medical experts either that JFK's reaction is an autonomic reflex as opposed to a brain directed reaction or that the passage of the bullet through his neck that way would necessarily have triggered such a reflex reaction. Dr. Latimer is the only one who tried this approach.
When you say things like "... before he fully realizes the impact of what just happened" or "bullet wounds do not necessarily cause pain immediately", you seem to imagine that the reaction is somehow connected to pain or what's going on in the brain.
JFK doesn't have to realise something is wrong before he reacts to being shot.That is a guess on your part. There are very few neural pathways that can trigger a reflex. The demonstrative part of the reaction that begins at z226 or 227 is as much as 220 ms after z223. Reflexes are much faster than that because the nerve signal that causes the muscles to contract (the reflex reaction) is direct - it does not come from the brain.
JFK doesn't need to be aware of pain before he reacts to being shot.
His reaction happens automatically and is incredibly rapid.
I understand that you believe that JFK was exhibiting a reflex reaction to the bullet passing through his neck.
But the problem is that there is no consensus among medical experts either that JFK's reaction is an autonomic reflex as opposed to a brain directed reaction or that the passage of the bullet through his neck that way would necessarily have triggered such a reflex reaction. Dr. Latimer is the only one who tried this approach.
That is a guess on your part.
There are very few neural pathways that can trigger a reflex.
The demonstrative part of the reaction that begins at z226 or 227 is as much as 220 ms after z223. Reflexes are much faster than that because the nerve signal that causes the muscles to contract (the reflex reaction) is direct - it does not come from the brain.
This is correct.Yes. As I said, I agree that a reflex is not a brain driven response. But that does not mean that every sudden response is a reflex. If I suddenly jerk my lower leg it may look like a reflex. But if it is not done within a few milliseconds after the stimulus (e.g. by the doctor hitting my knee) it is not a reflex reaction. Furthermore, not every nerve stimulation causes muscle contractions. Can you provide any evidence at all for an immediate reflex action of arms and hands caused by stimulation of nerves in the neck?
My belief JFK is exhibiting a reflex reaction to the bullet passing through his neck is based on the recorded, measurable, sudden and extreme physical movements he undergoes.
This doesn't mean anything. So what if there's no consensus? I'm presenting measurable and extremely rapid physical movements indicative of a reflex reaction to a stimulus.
Read the definition of reflex reaction again -
"A reflex, or reflex action, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus. A reflex is made possible by neural pathways called reflex arcs which can act on an impulse before that impulse reaches the brain. The reflex is then an automatic response to a stimulus that does not receive or need conscious thought."
When I say "JFK doesn't have to realise something is wrong before he reacts to being shot" this is not a guess. It's an inherent part of the definition of 'reflex reaction'.
Another meaningless statementYou have spent the last several posts arguing that his face is not showing a reaction in z225. I thought you were, therefore, arguing that the facial response began at z226-227. So are you now arguing that the facial response is NOT a reflex? In that case, it may be too fast for a deliberate action for a shot occurring at z223.
You do this too often for it to be accidental.
Time after time I have argued for a first reaction at z225.
Yes. As I said, I agree that a reflex is not a brain driven response. But that does not mean that every sudden response is a reflex. If I suddenly jerk my lower leg it may look like a reflex. But if it is not done within a few milliseconds after the stimulus (e.g. by the doctor hitting my knee) it is not a reflex reaction.
You have spent the last several posts arguing that his face is not showing a reaction in z225. I thought you were, therefore, arguing that the facial response began at z226-227. So are you now arguing that the facial response is NOT a reflex? In that case, it may be too fast for a deliberate action for a shot occurring at z223.
You seem not to recognize the circular nature of that argument. You are assuming he was hit at z223. That is what you are trying to prove.
So JFK decided to make this extreme and rapid reaction reaching for his throat and by some outrageous coincidence just happened to be shot through the neck milliseconds before he made it.
Wow
This is a blatant falsehood on your behalf.I thought you were just referring to frame z225. You cannot discern JFK's facial expression after z225? How about at z228?:
Just a few posts back I wrote this:
"At no point have I ever tried to argue anything from JFK's facial expressions.
The resolution of the Z-film is clearly not good enough.
Never have I even hinted at using this aspect of the Z-film to determine reactions.
On the contrary - it is you who keeps dragging in JFK's facial expressions as if can you discern something from them. Does this quote ring a bell:
"We cannot see JFK's face until z225 and in that frame it is already contorted with an unnatural expression."
I have pointed out the resolution is not good enough to reach any conclusions using facial reactions but apparently you can reach conclusions from it.
Really?"
I have made it perfectly clear I put no value on JFK's facial expression and it has never formed any part of the arguments I have presented for his reaction to the first shot.
This is just more of your twisting and turning misrepresentation instead of engaging with the arguments being presented.
It is the strategy of someone who has lost the argument but will not accept it.
Anyone who wishes to read through the thread will find I have argued that JFK's very first physical reaction to being shot takes place at z225.
You seem not to recognize the circular nature of that argument. You are assuming he was hit at z223. That is what you are trying to prove.
I thought you were just referring to frame z225. You cannot discern JFK's facial expression after z225? How about at z228?:
Do you not think that his face is reacting to the same thing that his arms are reacting to?
If you cannot see JFK's facial expression then you cannot see JBC's facial expression. How are you concluding that JBC is reacting to being hit in the back at z223 then? It has to be more than just the turn because he said he turned around because he was concerned about having heard a rifle shot and feared an assassination was underway.
Your posts have descended into random, meaningless comments unrelated to the posts you're replying to.??When you say: "So JFK decided to make this extreme and rapid reaction reaching for his throat and by some outrageous coincidence just happened to be shot through the neck milliseconds before he made it." you are saying that it is ridiculous to suggest that he had this reaction milliseconds after being shot in the neck but that there is no connection between being shot. I agree. That would be ridiculous to suggest. That is one reason I have never suggested it. His reaction is obviously a reaction to being shot. A word of advice: if you are going to set up a stawman argument, don't make it a circular.
I don't know what to say.
This has already been explained. You'll have to actually read what I've posted.And why would JBC not move the hat he was holding in order to turn around to see JFK?
The clue is the big, whitish blob in front of JBC's face.
??When you say: "So JFK decided to make this extreme and rapid reaction reaching for his throat and by some outrageous coincidence just happened to be shot through the neck milliseconds before he made it." you are saying that it is ridiculous to suggest that he had this reaction milliseconds after being shot in the neck but that there is no connection between being shot. I agree. That would be ridiculous to suggest. That is one reason I have never suggested it. His reaction is obviously a reaction to being shot. A word of advice: if you are going to set up a stawman argument, don't make it a circular.
The question is how long before this was he shot? Nothing you have shown or argued excludes the possibility the he may have been reacting for all or some part of the second or more before when he was obscured by the sign after being shot around z200 or slightly before, which is where the evidence indicates the first shot occurred.
And why would JBC not move the hat he was holding in order to turn around to see JFK?
Wow ::)So.... you really were you saying that every sudden jerk reaction is necessarily a reflex?
In a previous post you made this absolutely ridiculous point:
"But that does not mean that every sudden response is a reflex. If I suddenly jerk my lower leg it may look like a reflex. But if it is not done within a few milliseconds after the stimulus (e.g. by the doctor hitting my knee) it is not a reflex reaction."
In your desperation to try and come up with some kind of counter-argument, no matter how bizarre or weak, you made the above ludicrous statement and I was making fun of it.
There is no extreme reaction of any kind present in the Z-film before z225.If that is the case, the WC, HSCA, Bugliosi etc. were preposterous for thinking it possible. Ok. What about John McCloy's (corrected: not McCone's) anecdote about the soldier who had a very gradual reaction to being (corrected: not fatally) shot through the chest?
There is after z225
In your desperation you want to hide behind the Stemmons sign and play "What if"
The fact remains, regardless of some potential, maybe reaction you might want to cling on to - the time gap between your proposed shot at z195 and the radical and rapid reactions recorded in the Z-film at z225, is over one and a half seconds.
To have some mild kind of reaction for this time then suddenly to burst into the intensely rapid physical reactions we see in the Z-film is preposterous and it's on you to show anything from anywhere that is remotely like that.
Good luck
If that is the case, the WC, HSCA, Bugliosi etc. were preposterous for thinking it possible. Ok. What about John McCone's anecdote about the soldier who had a very gradual reaction to being fatally shot through the chest?
In McCloy's (corrected: not McCone's) anecdote did the soldier have a gradual reaction then suddenly have an extreme and rapid physical reaction?Yes. McCloy (corrected: not McCone's) was standing beside him when he was hit. The soldier remained standing and said, "I think I've been shot". He then fell over and collapsed (corrected: not "died").
Please cite where the WC, HSCA, Bugliosi etc. describe a gradual reaction followed by a sudden, extreme and incredibly rapid reaction.They all concluded that JFK could have been shot in the neck well before z223. The WC said he was likely hit between z210 and z225 (WR 105). Bugliosi concluded he was hit "within a split-second of Z210" (Reclaiming History). The HSCA concluded he was hit at z190 (6 HSCA 43).
Yes. McCone was standing beside him when he was hit. The soldier remained standing and said, "I think I've been shot". He then fell over and died.This is not a gradual reaction followed by a sudden and rapid physical reaction. When I asked...
They all concluded that JFK could have been shot in the neck well before z223. The WC said he was likely hit between z210 and z225 (WR 105). Bugliosi concluded he was hit "within a split-second of Z210" (Reclaiming History). The HSCA concluded he was hit at z190 (6 HSCA 43).
This is not a gradual reaction followed by a sudden and rapid physical reaction. When I asked...Sorry, I meant McCloy, not McCone. (3 HSCA 605): "Cutter turned to me at a certain point, sort of hesitated and said, 'Jack, I think I'm shot,' and in a little while, he collapsed." (another correction; it appears he did not die, he just collapsed).
"In McCone's anecdote did the soldier have a gradual reaction then suddenly have an extreme and rapid physical reaction?"
...the answer is NO, this did not happen, instead of the contradictory nonsense you came up with.
So not one of them described a gradual reaction followed by a sudden, extreme and rapid reaction. When I asked you to...If I followed your posts correctly, the argument you made against a shot earlier than z223 is:
"...cite where the WC, HSCA, Bugliosi etc. describe a gradual reaction followed by a sudden, extreme and incredibly rapid reaction."
...your answer should have been - I can't cite anything like that as there is no example of that anywhere.
Your proposed model of a gradual reaction followed by a sudden, extreme, and rapid physical reaction is utter nonsense but you won't admit it. In your defence of the nonsensical you end up talking nonsense.
Is it so hard to accept that the sudden, extreme and rapid physical reactions displayed by both JFK and JBC at exactly the same moment, are in response to a shot at z223?
...There are at least two differences between z223 and z224 regarding JBC. There is a reduction in the amount of white shirt visible. There is also a change in JBC's facing position. He turns to the left slightly between those two frames. Are you suggesting that the bullet at z223 that you are hypothesizing also caused him to turn in that space of time?
And JBC's movement of his Stetson from down by his lap to in front of his face. This action taking about 0.22 seconds.
All incredibly rapid physical movements indicative of reflex reactions.
What other evidence is there in the Z-film that indicates both men are shot through at this time?
I have presented film evidence that shows the exact moment JBC's wrist is impacted by the bullet, forcing his hand down below the edge of the limo door from where it suddenly springs up.
Another piece of film evidence revealing the impact of the bullet is JBC's lapel flap/jacket bulge. The following Gif (z223- z224. Again lifted from Van's site)) clearly shows part of JBC's jacket suddenly moving across the area of his shirt:
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqkxW3vv/223-224-lapel-flap.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The bullet that causes LBC's chest injuries is known to have exited his chest and through the right side of his jacket.
The model I am presenting and the arguments I am presenting that support the model, and from which the model is derived, require the bullet that passes through both JFK and JBC to exit JBC's chest at z223.
It requires the bullet to exit the right side of JBC's jacket at z223
According to my model the so-called lapel flap/jacket bulge can only be caused by the bullet exiting the right side on JBC's jacket.
The fact the right side of JBC's jacket moves in such an extreme fashion at this exact moment cannot, in my opinion, be considered a coincidence. It is clear, physical evidence of the bullet's impact.
He turns to the left slightly between those two frames. Are you suggesting that the bullet at z223 that you are hypothesizing also caused him to turn in that space of time?I asked whether you thought the turn was also connected to the supposed bullet strike or is it just a coincidence that it occurs at the same time?
I hadn't yet addressed the issue of JBC's body slightly rotating, so hadn't 'suggested' anything related to it.
However, the answer to your question is "Yes", JBC's body has ever-so-slightly rotated from one frame to the next (IMO)
I asked whether you thought the turn was also connected to the supposed bullet strike or is it just a coincidence that it occurs at the same time?
I've created this simple Gif to emphasise how extreme Connally's reaction to being shot is. We've already seen the incredibly quick "hat flip" but this is to show how his body has reacted. I've taken a close up from z223 where Connally is sat upright, looking composed. The other frame is from z240 - less than one second later - and shows JBC twisted and contorted in his seat.I agree that it is a sudden turn of the shoulders and torso from forward facing to about 75 degrees right together with a turn of the head about the same relative to the shoulders, so the head is turned about 150 degrees to the right. That would appear to be an intentional turn.
It is clearly an extreme reaction.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnZQqntW/Connally-moves-223-240.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
I agree that it is a sudden turn of the shoulders and torso from forward facing to about 75 degrees right together with a turn of the head about the same relative to the shoulders, so the head is turned about 150 degrees to the right. That would appear to be an intentional turn.
How can you tell that it is NOT the intentional turn that JBC said he made after the first shot and before he felt the bullet strike his back?
Because of the copious amounts examples I've given, leading up to the post you are responding to, highlighting a multitude of reactions/movements indicating JBC is shot at this point. The radical nature of this turn, within less than a second of sitting upright, is just another supporting piece of evidence that JBC is reacting to being shot.Oh, I see. Hearing a rifle shot and being consumed with worry that his guest behind him, the President, was being assassinated would not result in such a flurry of movement. Ok. So where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK after the first shot that he was sure did not hit him?
You would like to take this single example out of context and treat it as if it's an isolated incident but it's not.How is 'trying to interpret what is happening the zfilm by examining what witnesses recalled happening' taking things out of context?
Connally's various interviews, reports and testimonies concerning the assassination are full of contradictions and his account changes over time. More importantly, a lot of his statements are refuted by the Z-film. Take his WC testimony for example, he states he heard what he thought was a shot, turned to his right and as he was turning to his left was shot. Immediately when he was shot he 'said' "Oh, no, no, no" (Jackie Kennedy describes him yelling or screaming. In one interview she says he "screamed like a stuck pig).You can't see from z240 to z270 JBC straining to see JFK over his right shoulder?
In the Z-film he turns briefly to his left (z160's) then back to his right (at no point does he attempt to look over his right shoulder as he states in his testimony).
As we've seen in my previous posts, he stays in this position as he passes behind the Stemmons sign and is still in the same position - looking to his right - as he emerges from behind the sign.He expressed uncertainty about when he said oh no, no, no. Nellie consistently said he uttered it before he was hit on the second
At no point does he attempt to turn to his left as he states in his WC testimony. He is shot and then appears to cry out "Oh, no, no, no":
It is interesting to note that JBC states:It looks to me that he could be referring to what is seen after z271.
"I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again
Immediately after this JBC states:So why did he think he was not hit in the back on the first shot?
"I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap."
This is what we see in the Z-film
Oh, I see. Hearing a rifle shot and being consumed with worry that his guest behind him, the President, was being assassinated would not result in such a flurry of movement.
Ok. So where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK after the first shot that he was sure did not hit him?
How is 'trying to interpret what is happening the zfilm by examining what witnesses recalled happening' taking things out of context?
You can't see from z240 to z270 JBC straining to see JFK over his right shoulder?
He expressed uncertainty about when he said oh no, no, no.
Nellie consistently said he uttered it before he was hit on the second
It looks to me that he could be referring to what is seen after z271.
So why did he think he was not hit in the back on the first shot?
No it wouldn't.
The bizarre thing about what you're suggesting is that in your model the first shot that Connally is supposed to be responding to is over one and a half seconds before he suddenly explodes in a 'flurry of concern'!
In the Z-film JBC doesn't turn round to see JFK until after he is shot.
I made it clear in my post that the Gif showing the extreme change in JBC's body posture (in less than a second!) is just one piece of a collection of inter-related and interlocking reactions and movements all occurring at the same time.
This is the context you are taking it out of.
Of course I can. It even appears to me that he is staring straight at JFK. Something he fails to mention in his statements.
"...immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap..."
I'm not really seeing this uncertainty you're talking about.
He's hit
Immediately calls out "Oh, no, no, no"
Says "My God, they're going to kill us all"
Is pulled into Nellie's lap
The possibility exists Nellie is mistaken
I'd need you to explain this more clearly.
Maybe throw in an image or two to clarify
Don't know
Jackie also references JBC crying out "Oh No No No" as having taken place after the first shot.
No it wouldn't.I think you are stretching it a bit to call a 25-28 frame - 1.5 second - delay "bizarre". Given what he had to do to react, it might be considered rather quick. It was certainly quicker than Kellerman's reaction which does not begin until z252.
The bizarre thing about what you're suggesting is that in your model the first shot that Connally is supposed to be responding to is over one and a half seconds before he suddenly explodes in a 'flurry of concern'!
In the Z-film JBC doesn't turn round to see JFK until after he is shot.?? I agree that he doesn't turn around to see JFK until after JFK is shot (on the first shot). JBC said he turned around after the first shot and before he - JBC - was hit in the back. So, according to the evidence, that turn is before JBC was hit in the back.
I made it clear in my post that the Gif showing the extreme change in JBC's body posture (in less than a second!) is just one piece of a collection of inter-related and interlocking reactions and movements all occurring at the same time.The evidentiary context in which JBC turned around to see JFK was JBC reacting to the sound of the shot. The actions that you describe are, according to the evidence, the result of JFK being hit by the first shot and JBC reacting to hearing it, not being hit in the back by it.
This is the context you are taking it out of.
Of course I can. It even appears to me that he is staring straight at JFK. Something he fails to mention in his statements.He did say in his interview in the hospital that he saw "the President had slumped".
"...immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap..."The uncertainty is evident in the fact that in 1966 in the Life article (25 Nov 1966) (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/Life_nov25_1966_full_colour_copy.pdf) he said:
I'm not really seeing this uncertainty you're talking about.
He's hitThat is a possibility. Sure. But if she was mistaken about that and JBC was hit at z223, she was also mistaken about seeing JFK clutching at his neck/face BEFORE her husband was hit. And she was also mistaken that she reached out to pull him down immediately after he was hit because she does not appear to do anything of the kind until after z278 when JBC begins to fall back onto her.
Immediately calls out "Oh, no, no, no"
Says "My God, they're going to kill us all"
Is pulled into Nellie's lap
The possibility exists Nellie is mistaken
Mrs Connolly's testimony to W.C.
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
Mrs Connolly's testimony to W.C.
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
Nelly referencing JBC's own words to identify JBC as being hit by the first shot. Same as Jackie.
I think you are stretching it a bit to call a 25-28 frame - 1.5 second - delay "bizarre". Given what he had to do to react, it might be considered rather quick. It was certainly quicker than Kellerman's reaction which does not begin until z252.
Keep in mind, JBC's was not a reaction prompted by recognizing a physical impact. His brain first had to recognize the sound as a gunshot. Then his brain had to process the significance of that sound ie. that an assassination of the President was unfolding. Then his brain had to make a decision to turn around to check on JFK. Then the brain had to instruct the muscles to co-ordinate a turn to the rear to perform the check. All of that took 25-28 frames (z195-198 to z223) or 1.37 to 1.53 seconds.
And that is assuming that his reaction began at z223. It may not have. If you look at JBC's shirt, the amount of white shirt visible in z222 is less than in z223. In fact, z222 and z224 look very similar (so much for the jacket bulge theory). One possible and very reasonable explanation would be that, while he is behind the sign, JBC is already beginning to move his body.
?? I agree that he doesn't turn around to see JFK until after JFK is shot (on the first shot). JBC said he turned around after the first shot and before he - JBC - was hit in the back. So, according to the evidence, that turn is before JBC was hit in the back.
The evidentiary context in which JBC turned around to see JFK was JBC reacting to the sound of the shot. The actions that you describe are, according to the evidence, the result of JFK being hit by the first shot and JBC reacting to hearing it, not being hit in the back by it.
He did say in his interview in the hospital that he saw "the President had slumped".
The uncertainty is evident in the fact that in 1966 in the Life article (25 Nov 1966) (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/Life_nov25_1966_full_colour_copy.pdf) he said:
- “Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”
Also, in his testimony before the HSCA he said:This is a revealing statement. While he could not recall when exactly he uttered the "no, no, no", he did recall why he said it: out of concern for the president being assassinated and not because he had just been hit in the back. So that fits with having said it before he was hit. And it also explains how he would have known that JFK had been hit and had slumped. His statement "they are going to kill us all" indicates that he was aware at that time that JFK had been hit. That is a possibility. Sure. But if she was mistaken about that and JBC was hit at z223, she was also mistaken about seeing JFK clutching at his neck/face BEFORE her husband was hit. And she was also mistaken that she reached out to pull him down immediately after he was hit because she does not appear to do anything of the kind until after z278 when JBC begins to fall back onto her.
- “When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit-no, I guess it was
after I was hit-I said first, just almost in despair, I said, "no, no,
no," just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this
24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed.
The President had been so marvelously received and then here,
at the last moment, this great tragedy. I just said, "no, no, no, no."
Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to
kill us all.”
And this is exactly why I consider the confusion and contradiction of eye-witness testimony to be 'secondary' evidence.So what in the zfilm makes you think there were three shots? What makes you think that the shot that struck JFK in the neck was the first shot? I agree with both of those facts, but it is not because of the zfilm. It is the consistency of the witness evidence that tells us that.
....
The contradictory nature of these testimonies can be manipulated to support almost any scenario and in that sense are useless.
In my opinion the Z-film is 'primary' evidence and eye-witness testimony can only be validated if it is represented in the Z-film.
The pages of arguments I have presented demonstrating a first shot hit at z223 have deliberately avoided witness statements (for the very reasons we see above) but is there a way of validating these statements through the Z-film?Where is the contradiction between Nellie and JBC? Both said that she pulled him down and said repeatedly "be still". Both said that occurred before and after the head shot.
...
However, JBC testifies Nellie comforts him before the headshot and the Z-film appears to show Nellie lean towards JBC's ear at which point she could say something to him. Although not definitive, the Z-film supports JBC's testimony to a certain extent and refutes Nellie's testimony.
I believe this is how witness statements should be viewed - through the lens of the Z-film:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YRj8gjt/Nellie-connally.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
So what in the zfilm makes you think there were three shots? What makes you think that the shot that struck JFK in the neck was the first shot? I agree with both of those facts, but it is not because of the zfilm. It is the consistency of the witness evidence that tells us that.
Just because witnesses can be unreliable does not mean that they always or even usually are.
We are unable to rely on Kellerman's evidence that JFK spoke after the first shot because it conflicts with all the other witnesses who said that he uttered nothing (which is consistent with having his speech apparatus damaged). But that does not mean that we cannot rely on the Connally's evidence. Their evidence on what occurred is perfectly consistent with what is seen in the zfilm.
Where is the contradiction between Nellie and JBC? Both said that she pulled him down and said repeatedly "be still". Both said that occurred before and after the head shot.
Trying to make sense of the various statements of the assassination made by John and Nellie Connally and how they fit with the Z-film, I've made a list specific points made by both:
After the first shot:
1) JBC turns to the left
2) Calls out "Oh, no, no, no" (at some point after this - "My God they're going to kill us all")
3) Turns/recoils sharply to his right.
4) Crumples/doubles up in his seat
5) Is pulled back by Nellie
These things are shown clearly in the Z-film. Points 2, 3 and 4 happen almost together but they occur as described. Point 1 is interesting as there are only two times JBC turns to his left. One time is in the z160's and is caught in the Croft photo but cannot be the moment the Connally's are referring to. The other is between z229 and z234 and :
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk9dttTK/z221-286-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
JBC is clear as to when he is hit:
"I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
In this extreme close up we see JBC turning left until he is facing " a little bit to the left of center" :
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zyGfzpf/Connaly-left-turn.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
It is at this moment JBC says he is hit. JBC estimates z234 as the frame he is hit. The next thing we see in the Z-film is JBC crying out "Oh, no, no, no":
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZZNB61t/235-262-Connally-alone.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
It should be noted that this Gif starts at z235, the very next frame after JBC claims he is hit. What is clear from this is that, according to JBC, he is hit and then cries out "Oh, no, no, no". He is consistent on this point apart from one quote from a Life Magazine interview:
“Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”
The irony is that the article this quote comes from concerns JBC looking through magnified z-frames and it is during this article he positively identifies z234 as the frame he is hit. As we can see, he cries out "Oh, no, no, no" after z234. What is also clear from the Gif is JBC turning sharply to his right and crumpling in his seat.
It is immediately after this that JBC is pulled back by Nellie and, although it's not really discernable in the Z-film, I assume JBC says, "My God, they're going to kill us all"
Nellie Connally is mistaken in believing JBC cries out before being hit.
Another choice. It is when JBC first realizes he has been hit. Reagan did not know he had been shot until he was on his way to the hospital. The bullet was a half of an inch from his heart. Also remember JBC never heard a third shot. Both Nellie and Jackie place it before a second shot.
Just to clarify - JBC doesn't hear the bullet that hits him. He assumes it's a second shot as he distinctly remembers hearing a first shot, which he is confident didn't hit him, so assumes there must have been a second shot that he didn't hear.
I think this is a really important point particularly as, like many witnesses, he describes the sound of the shots as being "very loud" -
"It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear."
I'm sure there are theories why JBC would hear the first shot and not hear the shot that struck him but I'm unaware of them. I've no doubt it's the usual baloney.
It is also important to note the emphasis that JBC puts on the time difference between hearing the first shot and being aware he himself is shot -
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.
JBC, a man seemingly familiar with guns and rifles, describes the gap in time between hearing the first shot and being aware that he is hit, as similar to the time gap between the shots of an automatic rifle. Is this less than one second? - a "very, very brief span of time."
The following is lifted from the Pat Speers website -
(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) "When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…"
It seems highly probable that the first shot heard by JBC hit him and that he didn't become consciously aware of being shot for a "split second". Indeed, if z234 represents the moment he first became aware of being shot I would argue he is responding to being hit 0.6 seconds earlier - literally a split second. JBC is constantly emphasising this "unbelievably quick" gap between the two events and we can say with some certainty that two initial shots fired so close together didn't actually happen.
I would argue JBC is shot at z223 and becomes aware of it @ z234
It may be no more than coincidence but Connally is asked to mark on a survey plat of Dealey Plaza where he thought the limo was at the time of the first shot. Pat Speer produced the following graphic to illustrate JBC's choice (the blue circle):
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PjMRdMR/connallyfirst2-full.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
How anybody can mistake what both John Connolly and Mrs Connolly said is beypond me. Both said that Connolly was hit by the second bullet.
Governor Connally. (To the Warren Commission)
Governor CONNALLY. We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.
Mrs Connolly.
“Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.[Connolly] As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John [JKF] saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John,[Connolly] and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
Jack, you have misunderstood what she said. When Mrs Connolly said "John said Oh,no,no," she meant John Kennedy not her husband. After she heard these words a "a second shot and it hit John (Connolly). The words "Oh,no,no,no..." were said after the first shot and before John Connolly was shot. It is unfortunate that both men hit were named John.. (that causes the confusion) but easy to understand if you follow what Mrs Connolly was saying.
It was postulated by someone once that JBC never felt the full impact of the wound until he took his first breath. Given the injuries to his chest I thought that was a very good explanation.
There is ample evidence to explain why JBC never heard the shot. It was because there was never was a shot to be heard by him. It also was not heard by the other occupants of the car. Greer is a two shot witness right up until he goes in front of the WC. Kellerman, when the flurry of shots nonsense is removed by Specter and the WC members, places the headshot as taking place with the second shot. A number of the Secret Service stated or described there was only two shots.
On the plane back to Dallas an argument took place between reporters Charles Roberts of Newsweek, the Secret Service Agents , other passengers, and Merriman Smith of UPI about the number of shots. Smith's bulletin was read by Cronkite which is the genesis of three shots having been fired.
The actual evidence points to there only having been two shots. The vast majority of the eyewitnesses near the car or the snipers nest initially stated there was only two shots. The realistic number of shots that could have been fired within the 6 second time frame is that there was only time to fire two shots. The early missed shot is nothing but an attempt to increase the time frame to fire three shots and the theory does not have one valid piece of evidence or witness support to validate it.
Except that over 160 of just over 200 witnesses in Dealey Plaza who reported on the shooting reported hearing three shots.
I agree the early missed shot is nonsense and have argued that point extensively in this thread.
To be honest, I'm not really interested in a third shot as the model I'm presenting works perfectly well with just two but I can't ignore those sort of numbers when it comes to witnesses reporting the same detail.
At 275 feet from the muzzle, the bullet takes t = d/v = 275/2000 = .1375 seconds (137.5 ms) to arrive and the sound takes 275/1127 = .2440 sec. (244 ms) ms. So he feels the impact and over 100 ms. before the sound wave front reaches his ears (the sound lasting afterward for several hundred ms if not more). So for JBC to be capable of hearing the shot he would have to maintain auditory brain function for several hundred milliseconds after sustaining a traumatic injury. Do you know for a fact that the auditory brain function continues after being shot like that?
I'm sure there are theories why JBC would hear the first shot and not hear the shot that struck him but I'm unaware of them. I've no doubt it's the usual baloney.
It is also important to note the emphasis that JBC puts on the time difference between hearing the first shot and being aware he himself is shot -You are assuming that JBC was hit by the first shot!! He said he was not because he was able to turn to his right and look back to check on JFK. Nellie said he turned around and uttered "Oh, no, no, no" after the first shot and that the second shot hit him in the back as he was turned around to the right. (JBC thought he had turned back before he was hit but the fact is he never turns back to the left before he falls back on his wife).
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.
JBC, a man seemingly familiar with guns and rifles, describes the gap in time between hearing the first shot and being aware that he is hit, as similar to the time gap between the shots of an automatic rifle. Is this less than one second? - a "very, very brief span of time."
The following is lifted from the Pat Speers website -The Connallys' selection of z234 as the point where he was hit is interesting as is his WC testimony. We do not know what frames were made available to him to examine. In the end, JBC's opinion was based on his belief at the time that he was hit while facing forward. But he was never asked to explain why he told Dr. Shires in the hospital a few days after being shot that he was turned to his right when he was hit. Nellie was never questioned on why she had said the same thing to Dr. Shires (6 H 108):
(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) "When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…"
It seems highly probable that the first shot heard by JBC hit him and that he didn't become consciously aware of being shot for a "split second". Indeed, if z234 represents the moment he first became aware of being shot I would argue he is responding to being hit 0.6 seconds earlier - literally a split second. JBC is constantly emphasising this "unbelievably quick" gap between the two events and we can say with some certainty that two initial shots fired so close together didn't actually happen.
I would argue JBC is shot at z223 and becomes aware of it @ z234
It may be no more than coincidence but Connally is asked to mark on a survey plat of Dealey Plaza where he thought the limo was at the time of the first shot. Pat Speer produced the following graphic to illustrate JBC's choice (the blue circle):
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PjMRdMR/connallyfirst2-full.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
At 275 feet from the muzzle, the bullet takes t = d/v = 275/2000 = .1375 seconds (137.5 ms) to arrive and the sound takes 275/1127 = .2440 sec. (244 ms) ms. So he feels the impact and over 100 ms. before the sound wave front reaches his ears (the sound lasting afterward for several hundred ms if not more). So for JBC to be capable of hearing the shot he would have to maintain auditory brain function for several hundred milliseconds after sustaining a traumatic injury. Do you know for a fact that the auditory brain function continues after being shot like that?
If not, we have only JBC's evidence to go by, which is that he felt the impact and saw that he had been shot but did not recall hearing the sound of the shot. That indicates that his auditory brain function either temporarily not functioning or not registering in his conscious mind due to the trauma of being shot.
You are assuming that JBC was hit by the first shot!!
He said he was not because he was able to turn to his right and look back to check on JFK.
Nellie said he turned around and uttered "Oh, no, no, no" after the first shot and that the second shot hit him in the back as he was turned around to the right.
(JBC thought he had turned back before he was hit but the fact is he never turns back to the left before he falls back on his wife).
The Connallys' selection of z234 as the point where he was hit is interesting as is his WC testimony. We do not know what frames were made available to him to examine. In the end, JBC's opinion was based on his belief at the time that he was hit while facing forward. But he was never asked to explain why he told Dr. Shires in the hospital a few days after being shot that he was turned to his right when he was hit.
- Dr. SHIRES. She had thought, and I think correctly so, that he had turned
to his right after he heard the first shot, apparently, to see what had happened
to the President, and he then later confirmed this, that he heard the first shot,
turned to his right, and then was hit.
I forgot about that a moment ago, incidentally. He definitely remembers
turning after hearing the first shot, before he was struck with a bullet. I forgot
about that.
Mr. SPECTER. When did Governor Connally tell you that?
Dr. SHIRES. Oh, several days later.
Mr. SPECTER. While he was in the hospital?
Dr. SHIRES. Oh, yes 4 or 5 days later and we were constructing the events.
And there is some corroboration that he was turned right when hit. Dr. Shires stated that the injury to the dorsal side of the wrist was explained if it was made by a bullet exiting his chest if he had turned to his right when hit because the wrist pronates (turns) when the torso/shoulders turn (6 H 111):
- Mr. SPECTER. In what position would the wrist have had to be in, in order
to have the same bullet make all three wounds?
Dr. SHIRES. The main point was that his arm be up here. In other words,
in some fashion, however his hand happened to be turned, but he had to have
his right arm raised up, next to his chest.
Mr. SPECTER. His wrist would have to be up with the palm down, would it
not?
Dr. SHIRES. As depicted here.
Mr. SPECTER. In order for the point of entry to be on the dorsal side?
Dr. SHIRES. That’s right, again, which makes it a little more likely he was
turning, since ordinarily you pronate your wrist as you turn, whereas, this
would have been a little strange for him to have been sitting like this, but
again, depending on what he had in his hand. It’s just a question of which
side is up.
"Do you know for a fact that the auditory brain function continues after being shot like that? "I don't know. Perhaps his brain was overwhelmed with information coming from other parts of his body at that instant in time just after he was hit. All we know is that JBC said he was hit by it but did not hear it. What evidence do you have that JBC was making that up, that he really heard it and recalled hearing it?
Why should it stop?
What evidence do you have it stops?There are not a large number of witnesses to draw from - ie those who get shot in the chest by a distant rifle shot and survive. So all I have is JBC and the well known sniper adage "if you hear the shot you were not the target". The facts are that JBC said he felt but did not hear the shot that hit him in the back, that he heard the first shot but that he did not feel it hit him, and that he heard and felt the effects of the third shot (brain material covering them). What evidence do you have that he heard the second shot? If he was hit by the first shot in the back, why did he not mention that he heard a shot afterward that was other than the one that caused the spray of brain matter on him?
And while we're at it, you made this assertion a few posts ago:I am not sure what you mean by corroboration. The fact that both said it in their testimony is established by the WC transcripts. You don't need corroboration for that. The zfilm shows Nellie leaning forward as if to speak to JBC just before the head shot. Both said that she said it over and over after the head shot. What corroboration are you looking for?
"Where is the contradiction between Nellie and JBC? Both said that she pulled him down and said repeatedly "be still". Both said that occurred before and after the head shot."
I asked you for corroboration of this claim and you just blanked it. Could you corroborate such claims please or if it's stuff you're just making up could you clarify that also. Thanks
What evidence do you have the auditory brain function ceases after being shot?Are you saying that there were only two shots then?
I'll need some kind of evidence for this baloney, otherwise we'll go with the common sense explanation - there was no second shot to hear. JBC became aware of being shot a split second after it had happened. His memory of the event is not a video. It does not have the absolute reliability you attribute to it.
I'm also surprised you're not questioning this rapid two shot scenario as it refutes your own model.
I'm not just assuming it!z250-270.
The previous pages in which I've presented argument after argument are demonstrating JBC was hit by the first shot.
Please give the frame in the Z-film where JBC is trying to "check on JFK".
Wow. You seem to be suggesting JBC might have 'misremembered' the event.That appears to be his belief in April 1964. But in November 1963 a few days after the events, he told Dr. Shaw and Dr. Shires that he was turned to the right when he was hit.
I get the impression you haven't read any of the last few posts.
JBC states unequivocally that he was turned slightly to the left when he was hit (even though he was, in fact, facing right).
Did you read the Life article you posted where JBC identifies z234 as the moment he was hit? It's quite interesting.If the second shot was the head shot, perhaps you could explain:
Thank you for confirming JBC was turned to his right when hit.
Precisely as I'm arguing.
I don't know. Perhaps his brain was overwhelmed with information coming from other parts of his body at that instant in time just after he was hit.
All we know is that JBC said he was hit by it but did not hear it. What evidence do you have that JBC was making that up, that he really heard it and recalled hearing it?
There are not a large number of witnesses to draw from - ie those who get shot in the chest by a distant rifle shot and survive. So all I have is JBC and the well known sniper adage "if you hear the shot you were not the target". The facts are that JBC said he felt but did not hear the shot that hit him in the back, that he heard the first shot but that he did not feel it hit him, and that he heard and felt the effects of the third shot (brain material covering them). What evidence do you have that he heard the second shot? If he was hit by the first shot in the back, why did he not mention that he heard a shot afterward that was other than the one that caused the spray of brain matter on him?
I am not sure what you mean by corroboration. The fact that both said it in their testimony is established by the WC transcripts. You don't need corroboration for that. The zfilm shows Nellie leaning forward as if to speak to JBC just before the head shot. Both said that she said it over and over after the head shot. What corroboration are you looking for?
Are you saying that there were only two shots then?
z250-270.
If the second shot was the head shot, perhaps you could explain:
1. why JBC suddenly starts sailing forward from z272-278
2. why his hat changes position in his hand between z271 and z272
3. why Greer said he turned to look back immediately after the second shot and saw JBC falling back onto his wife. This occurs from z278-290
4. why JFK's hair flies from z273-275 but no one else's hair moves. According to Hickey, this occurs at the time of the second shot just before the head shot.
And the vast majority of witness Heard the Last 2 shots closer together..
And at least 2/3 rds majority of earwitness heard 3 shots, of which Harold Norman the witness right beneath the SE 6th floor TSBD gunman, concurred.
Not only that, but Norman heard the 3 shots fired is approx 4 secs as per his camera recorded interviews using the “boom, klak, klak “ sequence
The point that JBC was describing a 'split second' between the two events - hearing the shot and awareness of being shot - could hardly be clearer. You avoided this point by trying to change the subject because it causes such great difficulties for your own model:No. I looked at all the evidence.
I ignored the fact you'd totally blanked the point I had made because I was interested in this sentence - "He said he was not because he was able to turn to his right and look back to check on JFK."He is not looking directly at him. JFK has moved left. JBC's face cannot be facing directly backward let alone to further around to face JFK - try it. So he is using peripheral vision.
JBC couldn't have been hit by the first shot because he had time "to turn to his right and look back to check on JFK."
Because I accepted JBC's testimony that he first became aware of being shot @z234 I knew for a fact there was nowhere in the Z-film, before z234, that JBC made any kind of attempt to look back at JFK. So I asked you:
"Please give the frame in the Z-film where JBC is trying to "check on JFK".
And you answered: "z250-270."
Looking at the clip above, specifically at frames z250 -z270, we see JBC turning round in his seat to face JFK.
According to your model JBC hasn't been shot yet. This is the moment in JBC's WC testimony when he states:
"I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye."
The corner of his eye?? He's looking directly at the president. If his goal is to look at the president how can he not be seeing him if he's looking directly at him?
Whatever the case, it's now that your model really disintegrates:That is the problem. No one asked him or Nellie where he said "no, no, no" in the zfilm. Nellie said he said it before he was hit. We can see when he says it (z245 - z250 or so).
"...failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
This does not happen in the Z-film. After looking directly at JFK there is no point at which JBC tries to look over his left shoulder "into the back seat". In the many statements (and there are many) JBC is consistent in stating that at the moment he was shot he was turning to his left.
This does not happen after z270
JBC states that immediately after being hit he cried out "Oh, no, no, no" but in the Z-film this happens before he has even turned round in his seat. It has already been established that JBC cried this out after he was shot, the one example you gave to try and muddy the water from the Life article ended up confirming he cried this after being shot as the article itself was about JBC positively identifying z234 as the frame he was shot!
After this JBC doubles up in his seat. This can be seen happening before z270 and therefore before he is shot according to your model. In fact both Nellie Connally and JBC describe him turning sharply to the right and crumpling in his seat. It is this that we are seeing between z250 - z270, not JBC responding to the first shot.Doubling up ever? I don't see that. Certainly not before z278 which is just before he falls back onto his wife. It is apparent that JBC's mind was not focused on his surroundings or his position after he was hit so I don't think we can attribute much weight to what he said about such things after he was hit where it is at odds with the rest of the evidence.
It's amazing how many times you've wheeled out the Connally's to make some dubious point or another but a closer examination of their testimonies and how they fit with the Z-film reveals the near impossibility of your proposed shot at Z271. In order to make it work you have to ignore virtually every part of their testimonies apart from the one piece that seems to agree with your doomed model - JBC turning to the right.(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_movement_268_283_wide.gif)
1. JBC doesn't sail forward in any way, shape or form?
2. His hat doesn't change position(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_hand_271_272.gif)
3. Greer is FoS. This has been solidly established yet you keep wheeling him out.So he did not see JBC falling back when he looked back from z280-290? Or he did not do it in response to hearing the second shot just before that?
4. The wind blows his hair. Hickey is describing the headshot, not the slight ruffle of JFK's hair you put so much on.
Your model lies in tatters.That's a pretty big weakness. Particularly when so many confidently recalled that the head shot was the last. Do you have any explanation why the shooter (Oswald) would want to risk another shot after such an obvious hit on the target?
There is only one weakness in the model I am presenting (in regard to JBC's statements) and it is a significant one - if the first shot JBC hears is the same shot that hits him, and the second shot he hears is the headshot - what happens to the third shot? JBC describes the shots as "very loud" noises, so how come he doesn't hear the third shot?
The only answer I can give is that in the immediate aftermath of the headshot JBC finds himself somewhat occupied:
If he was hit in the back by the first shot he would have felt being hit a split second BEFORE he heard the sound of the first shot because the bullet arrives first.
JBC described a time lapse, which he referred to as a "split second", in which he recognized the sound as a rifle shot, formed the view that an assassination was unfolding, having enough time to turn around to see JFK, conclude from what he saw that the President had slumped and then decided to turn to the left to get a better look BEFORE he was hit in the back. That is not possible to do in one a second let alone negative 100 ms. He was not a clock measuring seconds. So his reference to a "split second" is a subjective impression and should only be given weight if it fit with all the rest of the evidence. It doesn't.
He is not looking directly at him. JFK has moved left. JBC's face cannot be facing directly backward let alone to further around to face JFK - try it. So he is using peripheral vision.
That is the problem. No one asked him or Nellie where he said "no, no, no" in the zfilm. Nellie said he said it before he was hit. We can see when he says it (z245 - z250 or so).
"...failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
This does not happen in the Z-film. After looking directly at JFK there is no point at which JBC tries to look over his left shoulder "into the back seat". In the many statements (and there are many) JBC is consistent in stating that at the moment he was shot he was turning to his left.
This does not happen after z270
Doubling up ever? I don't see that. Certainly not before z278 which is just before he falls back onto his wife. It is apparent that JBC's mind was not focused on his surroundings or his position after he was hit so I don't think we can attribute much weight to what he said about such things after he was hit where it is at odds with the rest of the evidence.
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_movement_268_283_wide.gif)
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_hand_271_272.gif)
So he did not see JBC falling back when he looked back from z280-290? Or he did not do it in response to hearing the second shot just before that?
Hickey was not describing the head shot. He said that the second shot appeared to miss him and just cause his hair to fly forward. He said the third did impact the President: (18 H 43):We can see the hair fly forward from z273 to z276:
- At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again.
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JFK_hair_flip_272_277.gif)
That's a pretty big weakness. Particularly when so many confidently recalled that the head shot was the last. Do you have any explanation why the shooter (Oswald) would want to risk another shot after such an obvious hit on the target?
You referred to their WC testimony. So I assumed you were aware of what they said on the point to which you were referring.
"Where is the contradiction between Nellie and JBC? Both said that she pulled him down and said repeatedly "be still". Both said that occurred before and after the head shot."
I asked you for corroboration of this claim and you just blanked it. Could you corroborate such claims please or if it's stuff you're just making up could you clarify that also. Thanks
What evidence do you have the auditory brain function ceases after being shot?Just JBC's statement that he did not consciously register hearing the muzzle blast which would have occurred 100 ms. or so after the second bullet struck him. Why do you find it surprising that he would not remember hearing the sound?
You referred to their WC testimony. So I assumed you were aware of what they said on the point to which you were referring.
Nellie Connally (4 H 147):
- 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.
The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over
us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue,
or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.
I thought John had been killed, and then there was some imperceptible movement,
just some little something that let me know that there was still some
life, and that is when I started saying to him, “It’s all right. Be still.”
Governor John Connally (4 H 133):
- Governor CONNALLY. Mrs. Connally. When she pulled me over into her lap,
she could tell I was still breathing and moving, and she said, “Don’t worry. Be
quiet. You are going to be all right.” She just kept telling me I was going
to be all right.
Both say that she said it just after he fell back onto Nellie. Whether that occurred before the third shot is not entirely clear. JBC said she started talking to him "when" she pulled him over, which occurs around z280-290. It does appear that Nellie does what she said she did (putting her head over his) before the head shot.
Just JBC's statement that he did not consciously register hearing the muzzle blast which would have occurred 100 ms. or so after the second bullet struck him. Why do you find it surprising that he would not remember hearing the sound?
Just JBC's statement that he did not consciously register hearing the muzzle blast which would have occurred 100 ms. or so after the second bullet struck him. Why do you find it surprising that he would not remember hearing the sound?He did not "assume" it hit him. He felt the impact and it was enough time after the first shot that he had been able to recognize it as a rifle shot and turn around to see JFK. Nellie said he also had time to say "no, no, no" before he received the bullet. You cannot do that in 75-100 ms.
Just to paraphrase:
Q: What evidence do you have that JBC's auditory brain function ceased after being shot?
A: He did not consciously register hearing the muzzle blast which would have occurred 100 ms. or so after the second
bullet struck him.
If that was any more circular it'd have infinite angles.
There's no need to go stumbling down the road of the ins and outs of auditory brain function.
JBC is hit by the same bullet that passes through JFK. I have presented many arguments that demonstrate this is the case and this foray into the testimony of the Connally's has, surprisingly, supported this view. I say surprisingly as JBC is adamant he was missed by the first shot and hit by the second but a closer analysis of his testimony and how it relates to the Z-film has revealed he is hit by the first shot also.
The key point is that he doesn't hear the second shot that he assumes hits him.
He hears the first shot perfectly and describes it in detail:Well, he did not recall hearing it. The sound did not register in his mind.
"I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot."
"...once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot,"
Equally, he is certain about the headshot:
"...the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly."
"It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear."
He hears these two very loud noises that he instantly recognises as rifle shots but he doesn't hear the shot that strikes him.
There is a very simple explanation for this apparent mystery - there isn't a second shot that hits JBC. He is describing being hit by the shot that has passed through JFK. As explained in my previous post -It is much less of a stretch to conclude that the sound of the second shot did not register in his mind because he was overcome with the impact of being shot through the torso than it is to conclude:
JBC is hit at z223
The sound of the shot reaches him @ z225
He becomes consciously aware of being shot from Z232 onwards
It is no coincidence that, after careful examination of specific Z-frames Connally identifies z234 as the moment he is hit, at almost exactly the same instant we would expect him to become aware of a strike at z223 (give or take 100 milliseconds)
The gap between the sound reaching him (z225) and his awareness of being hit (z234) is around half a second. When asked about this time gap JBC is both insistent and consistent:
"A very, very brief span of time."
"...the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took,"
"My God, it was fast"
"A split second"
"Unbelievably quick"
There is not one shred of unequivocal evidence that there were two initial shots a 'split second' apart and a mountain of evidence that this was not the case. Because there wasn't two initial shots so close together. Just the one shot - the shot that passed through both JFK and JBC.
His recollections of the event are of someone 'projecting back' to this traumatic moment. His memories are not a 'video record' of what happened. His memory is 'stretching out' this split second moment:
"Trauma memories – like all memories – are malleable and prone to distortion...After a traumatic experience, intentional remembering (effortful retrieval) and unintentional remembering (intrusive mental imagery) can introduce new details that, over time, assimilate into a person’s memory for the event..."
[Memory Distortion for Traumatic Events: The Role of Mental Imagery]
He did not "assume" it hit him.
He felt the impact and it was enough time after the first shot that he had been able to recognize it as a rifle shot and turn around to see JFK.
Nellie said he also had time to say "no, no, no" before he received the bullet. You cannot do that in 75-100 ms.
Well, he did not recall hearing it. The sound did not register in his mind.
He hears the first shot perfectly and describes it in detail:
"I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot."
"...once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot,"
Equally, he is certain about the headshot:
"...the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly."
"It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear."
He hears these two very loud noises that he instantly recognises as rifle shots but he doesn't hear the shot that strikes him.
It is much less of a stretch to conclude that the sound of the second shot did not register in his mind because he was overcome with the impact of being shot through the torso than it is to conclude:
1. that he mistakenly thought he was not hit by the first shot,
2. that the impact registered in his mind but long enough after the sound of the first shot caused him to hallucinate that he turned around to see JFK before he felt the impact, and caused him to recall that he said "oh, no, no, no" not because he realized he was hit but because he was overcome with the feeling of tragedy that an assassination was unfolding
"he said "oh, no, no, no" not because he realized he was hit but because he was overcome with the feeling of tragedy that an assassination was unfolding"LOL. JBC was upset the day was ruined.
3. that caused Nellie to recall that he said "oh, no, no, no" BEFORE the second shot hit her husband.
Is this another point-scoring "misunderstanding" on your part?You have to read my whole answer. I was saying that he did not "assume" that it was the second shot that hit him. Rather he based that conclusion on what he observed: BEFORE HE FELT THE IMPACT on his back he recalled hearing a rifle shot AND he recalled fearing that an assassination was occurring AND he recalled turning to check on the President. Under your scenario there was no time when he did that. Under your scenario he was imagining that because he was hit in the back on the first shot.
Of course he doesn't "assume" it hit him. When I wrote:
"...he doesn't hear the second shot that he assumes hits him."
...I am saying he assumes he was hit by the second shot! Not that he "assumes" he's been hit by a bullet that tore through his torso and shattered his wrist. ::)
Turn around to see JFK? Am I missing something?Yes. There are several witnesses who said that JBC turned right to look at JFK after the first shot and before the second.
As I've already pointed out to you, Nellie's mistake on this issue has been dealt with (Reply #615).I will have to review her WC testimony but I am pretty sure she said he turned right not left. She told his doctors that he was turned right when hit. She said he moved from the impact and she reached out and pulled him down. You are saying he was hit facing forward and she counted to 3 before reacting.
Some witnesses are good witnesses and some are bad. Not all are equal. On his website, Pat Speer has collated the witness accounts of almost everyone who had anything to say about the shooting. It is a truly colossal effort and invaluable research tool. He has put together virtually every relevant word Nellie Connally spoke and wrote about the shooting and concludes:
" Mrs. Connally’s statements are a hodgepodge of what she remembers mixed with what her husband told her he remembered, mixed with her inaccurate recollections of what he told her he remembered. Her latter-day statements that her husband yelled out “no, no, no” while turning to the left before he was hit, and that he was hit while spinning back around to his right are but one example. The Zapruder film shows that Connally yelled out both “no, no, no” and “my God” as he faced his right between Z-240 and 260, and never turned to his left in between. Furthermore, while the break between these utterances is around Z-250, Mrs. Connally testified before the Warren Commission that she felt her husband was hit by Z-229. These inconsistencies in her testimony make interpreting her words difficult."
I tend to agree with this analysis. That she is describing two shots a split second apart is enough to question her reliability but there is far more amiss than that. Doubtless you will continue to wheel her out even though she completely refutes your own model but you might score the odd point here and there.
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm pointing out AndrewHave you seen his interview in the hospital? He said that he saw the President had slumped. He doesn't say that in his WC testimony but he does say he turned to his right because he wanted to see the President (4 H 132-133 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0071a.htm)). One thing was clear to him: he was not hit by the same bullet that struck JFK. As he stated in the Life article (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/Life_nov25_1966_full_colour.pdf) at page 48:
I posted:
He has no difficulty hearing and recognising these two very loud noises he instantly recognises as rifle shots but he doesn't hear the shot that hits him. You rolled out the old sniper adage "If you heard the shot you weren't the target". I imagine this is a boastful reference to successful kills. Not applicable in this case.
The point is, he does hear the shot that hits him.
It's not less of a stretch but it's not impossible. Again, this is not just about this one specific aspect of the shooting in isolation. It is part of a larger interlocking 'matrix' of information. But it's a difficult point to argue against on it's own as it also makes sense.
One of us is definitely hallucinating. This is the second time you've used the phrase "turned around to see JFK" and I don't recall him saying that anywhere. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean he remembers "attempting to turn round to see JFK".
You have to read my whole answer. I was saying that he did not "assume" that it was the second shot that hit him. Rather he based that conclusion on what he observed: BEFORE HE FELT THE IMPACT on his back he recalled hearing a rifle shot AND he recalled fearing that an assassination was occurring AND he recalled turning to check on the President. Under your scenario there was no time when he did that. Under your scenario he was imagining that because he was hit in the back on the first shot.
Yes. There are several witnesses who said that JBC turned right to look at JFK after the first shot and before the second.
I will have to review her WC testimony but I am pretty sure she said he turned right not left. She told his doctors that he was turned right when hit. She said he moved from the impact and she reached out and pulled him down. You are saying he was hit facing forward and she counted to 3 before reacting.
[Edit after reviewing Nellie's WC testimony]
Let's look at Nellie's evidence together with the zfilm. She is facing forward until about z236. She then turns to her right and by about z253 she is looking back at JFK. At z268-272 she turns to her left from looking back and is watching her husband. She then pulls him over.
In her WC testimony she said that she looked back at JFK before the second shot and did not look back at all after the second shot. That in itself puts the second shot no earlier than about z268 in Nellie's account. She said that when her husband was hit he recoiled to the right. To his doctors she said he was turned to the right when hit. If she was not aware how much her husband had turned to the right before she turns to look at him at z271 and after, it may be that she heard the shot and at that time looked at him and saw him sailing backward as he was turned to his right and thought the shot caused him to turn to the right. One thing is evident: she was not looking at her husband prior to z271. She is looking at her husband by z273 and possibly 271-272.
The important word in your post is "recalled". You use it three times.So the event that he recalled (turning around to check on JFK being concerned about JFK but not realizing he was hit) was because he heard the shot and after turning around to check on JFK and not being able to see him he then felt the impact that had occurred just before he heard the shot. That is your theory?
JBC is recalling a traumatic event which is not like someone watching a video clip of the event and describing what they see, even though this is how you constantly present it. These quotes are from a research article entitled "Does Time Really Slow Down during a Frightening Event?" [Chess Stetson,Matthew P. Fiesta,David M. Eagleman. Published: December 12, 2007https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001295]:
"Observers commonly report that time seems to have moved in slow motion during a life-threatening event."
"Our findings suggest that time-slowing is a function of recollection, not perception: a richer encoding of memory may cause a salient event to appear, retrospectively, as though it lasted longer."
"Temporal judgments – such as duration, order, and simultaneity – are subject to distortions."
The distortion of time duration, order of events and simultaneity of events relating to a traumatic event is a function of the recollection of these events. Such distortions are commonplace for such events and it is in this light that JBC's recollection of events must be viewed.
It is not a case of JBC 'imagining' or 'inventing' anything.
It is the case that his honest recollections of the event are an honest attempt to reconstruct it from his memory. This is why the Z-film must be regarded as 'primary' and JBC's recollection of the event as 'secondary'. You seem to view things the other way round and that JBC's recollection of the event is unimpeachable and to be accepted without question.No. I just don't reject his evidence arbitrarily. Unless it does not fit with the rest of the evidence, it should be given significant weight because he was the closest witness to describe the events surrounding the shot that hit him.
"BEFORE HE FELT THE IMPACT on his back he recalled hearing a rifle shot..."Why would sound be relayed and processed by the brain faster than a bullet impact in the back? I expect that the brain needs time to process a stimulus but i don't see any evidence that it processes a sound faster than an impact.
I would change you're phrasing to "BEFORE HE BECAME AWARE OF BEING SHOT he recalled hearing a rifle shot." As has already been discussed, JBC would become consciously aware of the impact approximately 500 milliseconds after the impact. The noise from the shot would have reached him approximately 400 milliseconds before he was aware of being shot. He would have heard the shot before becoming aware of being shot.
JBC reports turning to his right after hearing the shot, in order to catch a glimpse of the president. Your notion that the right turn JBC is describing here occurs between z250-2270 has been utterly refuted [Reply #628 and #631].How is it refuted? That is his turn. It is after the first shot and it is before the second shot. We both agree on that. The only issue is whether it is before he felt the impact of the bullet on his back. Whether the first shot was at z195-200 or z223, that turn at z250-270 is well after the first shot.
The fact you have to abandon almost every significant aspect of JBC's testimony in order to make it work says it all.As I said, I do not rely on aspects of his testimony that are inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. That rejection of those aspects is not arbitrary. I do not rely on those aspects for reasons. The aspects which I do not accept are: 1) that the time element between hearing the first shot and feeling the bullet hit him was a "split-second" 2) that JBC had completed his turn to the left after turning right to see JFK. 3) that he was accurate when he chose z234 as the frame in which he was hit in the back.
The right turn is followed immediately by the left turn he describes during which he becomes aware he is hit. The only moment this left turn occurs is during the z230's. What is notable is that the Z-film clearly shows JBC makes no attempt to turn to his right prior to this left turn (remember - you've dropped JBC's left turn from his testimony because it suits you to do so). There is something amiss with his recollection.He suggested that he must have made his right turn while behind the sign. Keep in mind, he did not have the ability to play the frames in sequence back and forth like we have.
This right turn is the one between z250 and z270. It comes between the first shot that passes through both men (z223) and the second shot (z313) - the headshot.I agree with much of your "model" because much of your model is based on the evidence. I agree that the first shot struck JFK and JBC, that JBC did not immediately feel the shot, and that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3. The main points on which we disagree is your view that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was a shot after the head shot which means that the second shot occurred just before z313 and that there was a shot that missed. In my view the second shot occurred at z271-272 and struck JBC in the back.
I'm not sure why you are providing evidence that supports my model ;)
You're above post is in response to one about Nellie's reliability as a witness. ...Nellie is actually a very good witness for what she observed and when. She is not as reliable in areas where she was asked to give an opinion after the fact of things that she did not consciously observe at the time. But her observations at the time are completely consistent with the rest of the evidence.
What does it say about her reliability as a witness when we realise that both JBC and Nellie herself identify the moment of impact while she is still facing forward.
What do you say we leave Nellie out of this 8)
So the event that he recalled (turning around to check on JFK being concerned about JFK but not realizing he was hit) was because he heard the shot and after turning around to check on JFK and not being able to see him he then felt the impact that had occurred just before he heard the shot. That is your theory?
No. I just don't reject his evidence arbitrarily. Unless it does not fit with the rest of the evidence, it should be given significant weight because he was the closest witness to describe the events surrounding the shot that hit him.
You put all the weight on his opinion as to which zframe he thought corresponded to when he was hit. You give no weight on his actual recollections of the events. I am saying his opinion that he was hit at z234 does not fit with the rest of his evidence (unless the turn he described occurred behind the sign, which means the evidence as to the 1.......2....3 shot pattern was wrong and Nellie's recollection of not looking back after the second shot was wrong, and her recollection of immediately pulling JBC toward her was wrong, and Greer's evidence and Hickeys evidence were are all wrong, and the hair flip at z273-276 was a remarkable coincidence etc.). Why would sound be relayed and processed by the brain faster than a bullet impact in the back? I expect that the brain needs time to process a stimulus but i don't see any evidence that it processes a sound faster than an impact.
How is it refuted? That is his turn. It is after the first shot and it is before the second shot. We both agree on that. The only issue is whether it is before he felt the impact of the bullet on his back. Whether the first shot was at z195-200 or z223, that turn at z250-270 is well after the first shot.
As I said, I do not rely on aspects of his testimony that are inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. That rejection of those aspects is not arbitrary. I do not rely on those aspects for reasons. The aspects which I do not accept are: 1) that the time element between hearing the first shot and feeling the bullet hit him was a "split-second" 2) that JBC had completed his turn to the left after turning right to see JFK. 3) that he was accurate when he chose z234 as the frame in which he was hit in the back.
He suggested that he must have made his right turn while behind the sign. Keep in mind, he did not have the ability to play the frames in sequence back and forth like we have.
I agree with much of your "model" because much of your model is based on the evidence. I agree that the first shot struck JFK and JBC, that JBC did not immediately feel the shot, and that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3. The main points on which we disagree is your view that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was a shot after the head shot which means that the second shot occurred just before z313 and that there was a shot that missed. In my view the second shot occurred at z271-272 and struck JBC in the back.
Nellie is actually a very good witness for what she observed and when. She is not as reliable in areas where she was asked to give an opinion after the fact of things that she did not consciously observe at the time. But her observations at the time are completely consistent with the rest of the evidence.
;DIf I may summarize, as I see it, your model is consistent with and based on two very important bodies of witness evidence which establish:
I reckon we'll just agree to disagree on this issue of the testimonies and how they fit with the Z-film.
Debating how someone recalls the details of a traumatic event is open to any kind of interpretation and I feel we're just getting into some kind of dead-end. It's the same once we get into the quagmire of such contradictory eye witness accounts. The debate we've had over the last few pages has pushed me into considering the smallest details of the model I'm proposing and I feel my model has been strengthened by this testing (I'm sure you feel the same way).
You're right about the main weakness of my model - the third missed shot.
There's no clear evidence I can point to that supports it. It's a matter of eliminating other possibilities which I feel I've done quite well.
After that it's just pure speculation.
I believe I've presented good arguments against a shot as early as z195 and the shot you propose for the shot that hits JBC in the back @ z271 and I'm happy to let the record show that.
If I may summarize, as I see it, your model is consistent with and based on two very important bodies of witness evidence which establish:On the contrary, the model I'm proposing fits JBC's testimony very well. It is your model that has to reject almost every salient point of his testimony..
- that the first shot struck JFK and
- that the shot pattern was 1........2...3
The biggest problems with your model, however, are:
- the Connallys' evidence, especially explaining how JBC heard the first shot but did not immediately feel it hit him in the back. Although one can be shot and not feel it, JBC said he felt it. While there may be a delay in responding physically, there should be no delay in feeling that impact.
- explaining why many witnesses close to the scene had clear recollections of the head shot being the last, and why the shooter would shoot again after obviously striking the target.
- explaining how a third shot missed the car entirely and left no trace of having hit anything very soon after striking the bullseye.
In the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario, there are no fundamental disagreements with the evidence. It nicely explains the path of the first bullet after passing through JFK's neck, which was the main reason for proposing the SBT in the first place. The main issues for most critics is the notion that JBC did not feel the thigh wound on the first shot and the path of the bullet through JBC if it struck him at z271. These are not really problems with the evidence. They are problems with people's opinions of how bullets are supposed to behave and how the human body and brain should react to them.
On the contrary, the model I'm proposing fits JBC's testimony very well. It is your model that has to reject almost every salient point of his testimony.It does not fit the evidence of the Connallys that JBC was hit on the second shot. Minor details have to fit with the rest of the evidence and some (how he was facing when hit, and when he said "no, no, no") are unclear even from the JBC's own statements made at various times.
JBC would become aware of being shot approximately 500 milliseconds after impact, this is roughly equivalent to 9 Z-frames.It does not take 500 ms to feel an impact. It may take 100-200 ms to respond physically, but there is no perceptible time lag between the impact and feeling the impact. And it makes no sense that he heard the shot 100 ms after it reached his ears but did not feel the shot until 500 ms after it hit. You are just making that up.
He is also adamant he cries out "Oh, no, no, no" after being hit. This is confirmed by Jackie Kennedy's testimony where she describes JBC screaming it "like a stuck pig".Hardly "adamant". He was of the opposite view in 1966 and was very unsure in 1978. Nellie always maintained that he said it after the first and before the second shot that hit him in the back. Jackie's evidence is not materially different.
Again, we are into contradictory eye witness accounts. For every witness you produce who thinks he headshot is the last shot I will produce one who is sure there was a shot after the headshot. Evidence you have to ignore as I have to ignore those who insist the headshot was the last shot. Where does that get us.There had to be at least 2 seconds between them. Oswald had to use the bolt action to eject the shell and load a new cartridge. He may not have had to reaim if he was holding the rifle tightly to himself and the boxes. But if that was the case, why did it miss the whole car?
As to why the shooter would take another shot after the patently devastating headshot, I can only speculate. The rapidity of the final shot, so close behind the second shot may indicate the shooter had already decided to take the third shot before he even got off the second one. Pure speculation.
Again, missing the shot completely can be explained by the rapidity of the third shot behind the second. It is even possible the shot was pulled as Clint Hill came into sight. Pure speculation.It is perhaps a minor problem, but Tague said the shot that struck him was on the second shot.
As for there being no evidence of a third shot - there is clear evidence a manhole cover was struck during the shooting and it is possible a fragment of this caused Tague's injury.
"In the 3 shot, 3 hit scenario, there are no fundamental disagreements with the evidence."When I say "fundamentally" I am referring to important material facts that can be established by and are consistent with the preponderance of the evidence.
This is a pretty wild statement and it most certainly depends on the evidence you have specifically chosen to support your model. To assert it doesn't fundamentally disagree with all the evidence is way out there.
Your main problems are -He was never hidden by the foliage and, besides, by z195 he was clear of the tree as the Secret Service film from December 1963 shows. I suggest that this is where it occurred because Jack Ready starts doing what he said he did after the first shot at z199; that Phil Willis said he took his z202 photo immediately after the first shot; that Linda Willis put the first shot when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign which is between z195 and z205; that TE Moore and D. Hooker said the president was at or almost at the Thornton Freeway sign when the first shot sounded (z200); Rosemary Willis turns her head sharply rearward toward the TSBD at z204 - she said she did immediately after the first shot and saw pigeons flying from the TSBD; etc.
The shot at z195 occurs while JFK is hidden by the foliage of the oak tree.
I know you like to do some sketchy calculation using a video of the re-enactment. But the evidence of the re-enactment itself - the synchronising of photos from the SN with photos of "JFK" from Zapruders' position demonstrate, beyond a shadow of doubt, JFK is obscured by the foliage at z195 (foliage that was much denser at the time of the assassination). To have the assassin shooting through the tree is a non-starter. My model has no such problem.Why would the foliage be denser on May 24 than on Nov. 22? You can see in the SS film that JFK is clear of the foliage before he reaches the Thornton sign.
You also have no clear, unambiguous reaction to a shot at z195 anywhere in the Z-film. This can hardly be said about my own model.You are assuming there is no reaction behind the sign AND that there would necessarily be a demonstrative reaction immediately.
The physical unlikelihood (bordering on impossibility) of the shot at z271 passing through JBC.I will leave it to experts to opine on that. To my knowledge such a scenario was never presented to any medical expert.
JBC is turned 'shoulder on' to the SN making a strike to the top of his right armpit almost impossible but let's say it does strike him there - the bullet is moving away from JBC's body yet you are proposing the bullet, through some completely unknown mechanism, does a turn between 45 and 90 degrees to exit his chest.It deflects very little. If you turn JBC to the right his right armpit and right nipple align pretty well with a shot to the rear (at that point, the angle of the car to Oswald was essentially 0 - a straight line) without passing through the right lung.
It then strikes his wrist but the Z-film unequivocally shows there is no reaction to a shot that shattered his large wrist bone at the moment you propose. Another borderline impossibility.I have to strongly disagree. Dr. Shires indicated that the wrist would likely have been pressed against his chest in order for the bullet to drag jacket fibres deeply into the wrist wound. He also said that for the bullet to have struck the dorsal side of the wrist as it did, the wrist would have to be turned (pronated) which would occur naturally if he was turned right. The only time he has the wrist in that position and is turned right is from about z240-280.
We've already looked at how you have to dismiss nearly all of JBC's testimony.I don't attribute much weight to his recollections of minor details unless they are consistent with the rest of the evidence. The evidence that he was struck on the second shot is reliable because it does fit the rest of the evidence. He was not sure of how was facing and when he was hit or when he said "no, no, no" in relation to when he was hit. His opinion as to which zframe he was hit does not fit with the rest of his evidence, let alone other bodies of reliable evidence, particularly the 1.......2...3 shot pattern.
It does not fit the evidence of the Connallys that JBC was hit on the second shot. Minor details have to fit with the rest of the evidence and some (how he was facing when hit, and when he said "no, no, no") are unclear even from the JBC's own statements made at various times.
It does not take 500 ms to feel an impact. It may take 100-200 ms to respond physically, but there is no perceptible time lag between the impact and feeling the impact. And it makes no sense that he heard the shot 100 ms after it reached his ears but did not feel the shot until 500 ms after it hit. You are just making that up.Hardly "adamant". He was of the opposite view in 1966 and was very unsure in 1978. Nellie always maintained that he said it after the first and before the second shot that hit him in the back. Jackie's evidence is not materially different.
There had to be at least 2 seconds between them. Oswald had to use the bolt action to eject the shell and load a new cartridge. He may not have had to reaim if he was holding the rifle tightly to himself and the boxes. But if that was the case, why did it miss the whole car?
It is perhaps a minor problem, but Tague said the shot that struck him was on the second shot.
When I say "fundamentally" I am referring to important material facts that can be established by and are consistent with the preponderance of the evidence.
You agree that the first shot passed through JFK's neck, that the shot pattern was 1......2...3 and that there were three shots. But you disagree that the second shot struck JBC and offer all sorts of reasons why JBC's and Nellie's clear evidence that he was struck on the second shot was wrong, along with Greer, Powers, Newman, and Hickey. But your excuses for why they may have been wrong is not evidence that he was hit by the first shot. You need evidence that JBC was struck in the back on the first shot. There is no such evidence at all. None.
Similarly, with the "missing shot" required by the SBT, there would have to be evidence of a missed shot. There is none. The witnesses who gave evidence that some use to support a missed shot are not consistent with each other let alone consistent with a missed shot.
At its most elementary level, the evidence as to the shots establishes at least the following:
1. that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3
2. that the second shot struck JBC.
3. that there were three shots.
Only the three shot, three hit scenario fits that evidence and is consistent with the zfilm.
He was never hidden by the foliage and, besides, by z195 he was clear of the tree as the Secret Service film from December 1963 shows. I suggest that this is where it occurred because Jack Ready starts doing what he said he did after the first shot at z199; that Phil Willis said he took his z202 photo immediately after the first shot; that Linda Willis put the first shot when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign which is between z195 and z205; that TE Moore and D. Hooker said the president was at or almost at the Thornton Freeway sign when the first shot sounded (z200); Rosemary Willis turns her head sharply rearward toward the TSBD at z204 - she said she did immediately after the first shot and saw pigeons flying from the TSBD; etc.
Why would the foliage be denser on May 24 than on Nov. 22? You can see in the SS film that JFK is clear of the foliage before he reaches the Thornton sign.
You are assuming there is no reaction behind the sign AND that there would necessarily be a demonstrative reaction immediately.
I will leave it to experts to opine on that. To my knowledge such a scenario was never presented to any medical expert. It deflects very little. If you turn JBC to the right his right armpit and right nipple align pretty well with a shot to the rear (at that point, the angle of the car to Oswald was essentially 0 - a straight line) without passing through the right lung.
I have to strongly disagree. Dr. Shires indicated that the wrist would likely have been pressed against his chest in order for the bullet to drag jacket fibres deeply into the wrist wound. He also said that for the bullet to have struck the dorsal side of the wrist as it did, the wrist would have to be turned (pronated) which would occur naturally if he was turned right. The only time he has the wrist in that position and is turned right is from about z240-280.
I don't attribute much weight to his recollections of minor details unless they are consistent with the rest of the evidence. The evidence that he was struck on the second shot is reliable because it does fit the rest of the evidence. He was not sure of how was facing and when he was hit or when he said "no, no, no" in relation to when he was hit. His opinion as to which zframe he was hit does not fit with the rest of his evidence, let alone other bodies of reliable evidence, particularly the 1.......2...3 shot pattern.
There is so much I disagree with in your post but I would like to focus on one thing regarding your proposed shot at z271.First of all, if it struck at z271 with his wrist and arm pinned between the chest and the seat back, a bullet striking the back of the radius is not going to move the wrist away from the chest, which is the direction that the bullet was travelling. What it is more likely to do is change the clothing slightly and/or change the position of the hand slightly. That is the kind of change we see from z271 to z272.
The bullet exits JBC's chest and strikes his wrist shattering the large radius bone. It is a serious blow to his wrist but in the Z-film there is absolutely no instantaneous, mechanical reaction to this proposed shot at z271.
In the clip below we see JBC with his wrist in front of his chest, The clip runs from z268 to z280. At z271/272 JBC's wrist should be blown apart by a bullet exiting his chest but we see no such thing:
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yQWvTsc/Connally-wrist-z268-280.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Here is a close up of the same clip:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqvrXvYP/Connally-wrist-z268-280-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This must be considered irrefutable proof that there is no shot that shatters JBC's wrist when you propose. To imagine he could sustain such a high impact injury without any kind of movement is a non-starter.
First of all, if it struck at z271 with his wrist and arm pinned between the chest and the seat back, a bullet striking the back of the radius is not going to move the wrist away from the chest, which is the direction that the bullet was travelling.
Really Andrew?The problem is that you have not provided unequivocal and irrefutable evidence. The shot around z270 is a conclusion that necessarily follows from the clear and unrefuted evidence of three facts:
When unequivocal and irrefutable evidence is put forward it's time to review and reassess your position.
In my opinion this would be the reaction of someone who genuinely wanted to get to the truth of what happened during the assassination.
Look at this clip with open and honest eyes and you will see the near-impossibility of what you are suggesting - that a bullet exploding out of JBC's chest, shatters his wrist bone - the large part of the radius - and that this substantial force does not blow his hand out of the way:How bullet impacts manifest themselves requires an analysis of details we do not have. If, as it appears, JBC's right arm was pinned against his chest at z271 between the seat back and his side, it doesn't surprise me that the glancing impact of a partially spent and deformed bullet that fragmented on striking the radius if not sooner did not cause his forearm to move much. It does move there, but not much. You can see that the position of the hand and particularly the hat relative to the hand changes between z271 and 272. I am surprised you cannot see JBC sail forward from z272-278 before he gets pulled down onto Nellie. I am surprised that you cannot relate the hair on JFK's head that flies up from z273-276 to the hair movement that Hickey described on the second shot which appeared to just miss JFK. I am surprised that you are unable to accept Greer's recollection of his turn immediately after the second shot and of the concussion sound on the second shot (consistent with the damage to the windshield frame just above his head). I am surprised that you ignore Tague's recollection that he was hit in the face on the second shot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqvrXvYP/Connally-wrist-z268-280-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The problem is that you have not provided unequivocal and irrefutable evidence. The shot around z270 is a conclusion that necessarily follows from the clear and unrefuted evidence of three facts:
- there were 3 shots
- JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, and
- the last two shots were closer together with the shot pattern being 1.........2...3
The Z-film is unequivocal and irrefutable proof that Connally is not shot through the wrist at z271.If the zfilm was unequivocal and irrefutable there would not be evidence that he was hit on the second shot. There is. So you have to deal with the evidence of the Connallys that he was not hit in the back on the first shot. Suggesting that the Connally evidence is flawed does not constitute evidence that he was hit on the first shot. There is zero evidence that he was hit in the back on the first shot. There are are multiple independent sources that support the Connallys that he was hit on the second shot.
If we assume the bullet that shatters JBC's wrist first explodes out of JBC's chest, what you are proposing is a physical impossibility for a combination of two issues:But his forearm is pressed against his chest. The bullet strikes the back of the radius that is pressed against the chest. The bullet or fragments pass through the last half inch of his jacket sleeve, penetrate the french cuff of his shirt in the middle about an inch and a half from the end of the french cuff and deflect back off the wrist causing a large and very irregular hole in the shirt cuff:
1) To suggest such a shot, passing through JBC's wrist, shattering the radius bone would not cause any kind of significant movement is truly preposterous which is confirmed by..
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_jacket_cuff.jpg) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg) |
2) The position of JBC's wrist at the moment you claim it is hit. Look at this close-up from z272, the moment after the bullet has exited JBC's chest. The 'back' of JBC's wrist, where the bullet entered on its way through his wrist is facing upwards, towards JBC's face.No. It is facing the chest. The wrist is pronated so the dorsal side is pressed against the chest.
It is physically impossible that a bullet exiting JBC's chest on a downward trajectory could enter the back of his wrist given the position we see it in this pic:It is easier to understand the wrist position by assuming JBC's position. The back of the wrist is pressing against his chest. The bullet does not penetrate the wrist. The fragments deflect off the back of the wrist. This may be why the shirt sleeve has a much larger and more irregular hole in the back of the cuff: the long irregular hole is partly an entrance hole and partly an exit hole made by the bullet/fragments There is no damage to the other side of the cuff. This is consistent with the bulk of the bullet deflecting up off the impact point on the radius and not penetrating the wrist or other side of the cuff.
I have gathered already that you cannot face up to such unequivocal evidence so it is going to be interesting to see how you circumnavigate this particular issue.
But it's the Z220s double-hit and corresponding simultaneous reactions. Not Z271; that's "Greer shot Kennedy" territory.Dan and I both agree that JFK was hit in the neck on the first shot. The difference is that Dan is not persuaded that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot. He disagrees with the Connallys' evidence on that point.
No less demanding is the fact that Connally was not hit in the thigh on the first shot. That's how silly your Theory is. Furthermore, 3D analysis shows a bullet transiting Kennedy's neck in the Z190s (your Theory's first shot: Z195) will arrive at a point to the right of Connally's mid-line, not pass by the outside of his left torso (per your failed Theory). That is, if one doesn't use Gumby as a model.Your disagreement cannot be based on the trajectory. The trajectory is right to left. There is no dispute that JBC's left thigh was in the path of the bullet from JFK's neck. The dispute is whether his right armpit and wrist was also in that path.
A bullet emerging from below the nipple in Z271 travels substantially downward and away from the wrist.Not unless you think 9 degrees is a substantial downward angle. That is the angle to 12 oclock made by the minute hand at 1.5 minutes after the hour. [At z271 the horizontal angle of a line to the SN relative to the car being arctan(60/275) - 3° = 9°]. The angle through the body is greater than that - roughly the angle of declination of the fifth rib (25°) which is consistent with JBC leaning back about 16 degrees or the angle the minute hand makes at 2.5 minutes after the hour.
Same scenario would work for the wrist injury occurring in the Z220s. The slowed whole bullet would deflect off the wrist and, slowed even more, into the thigh.All I can say is that it is a lot more plausible and a better fit with the wounds and clothing than CE399 doing all that damage, let alone following a bizarre path: passing through the wrist (without making a hole in the shirt cuff) deflecting over to the left side and entering the left thigh in a direction at an oblique angle along the femur, making a nice round hole (as compared to the jagged hole made in the shirt cuff). Tell me how CE399 makes a hole that looks like this in the jacket cuff:
Sorry your Theory's first two shots have failed the BS Test. Concede the election.
If the zfilm was unequivocal and irrefutable there would not be evidence that he was hit on the second shot. There is. So you have to deal with the evidence of the Connallys that he was not hit in the back on the first shot. Suggesting that the Connally evidence is flawed does not constitute evidence that he was hit on the first shot. There is zero evidence that he was hit in the back on the first shot. There are are multiple independent sources that support the Connallys that he was hit on the second shot.
But his forearm is pressed against his chest. The bullet strikes the back of the radius that is pressed against the chest. The bullet or fragments pass through the last half inch of his jacket sleeve, penetrate the french cuff of his shirt in the middle about an inch and a half from the end of the french cuff and deflect back off the wrist causing a large and very irregular hole in the shirt cuff:
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_jacket_cuff.jpg) (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg)
It is apparent that the holes in the jacket and shirt are in the same location at z271.
The hole in the french cuff can be compared to the relatively small exit hole in the jacket pocket just below the right nipple where the bullet exited the chest. There is no hole on the volar or palm side of the cuff.
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/Gov_Connally_jacket_exit.jpg)
The bullet or fragments would have deflected away from the point of contact, which is up. So the fragments fracture the wrist and deflect upward. Where is the wrist going to move? It is not going to move away from the chest.
No. It is facing the chest. The wrist is pronated so the dorsal side is pressed against the chest.It is easier to understand the wrist position by assuming JBC's position. The back of the wrist is pressing against his chest. The bullet does not penetrate the wrist. The fragments deflect off the back of the wrist. This may be why the shirt sleeve has a much larger and more irregular hole in the back of the cuff: the long irregular hole is partly an entrance hole and partly an exit hole made by the bullet/fragments There is no damage to the other side of the cuff. This is consistent with the bulk of the bullet deflecting up off the impact point on the radius and not penetrating the wrist or other side of the cuff.
In fact, if you could get JBC's torso out of the way of the bullet path (by turning his torso to the right - like we see at z195) the bullet exits JFK's neck on a downward right to left path that intersects with the thigh at the correct angle and makes a hole in the trousers and thigh that looks like the butt end of CE399.
You have clearly taken leave of your senses.
There's more weird pet theories around here than you can shake a stick at.
Its clear you are willing to say anything - no matter how ludicrous - to try and keep your doomed model afloat.There are a lot of people on this board who disagree with you on the first shot hitting JBC in the back. Most accept that JBC's recollection of being struck on the second shot is reliable and accurate.
I will let other readers come to their own conclusions about your response to the points made in the last few posts.
The notion that a bullet exploding out of JBC's chest, shattering his radius bone and leaving metal fragments in his wrist isn't powerful enough to move his hand is beyond desperate.
That the Z-film shows irrefutably, that your proposed shot at z271 did not occur is the final nail (of many) in the coffin of your model. There is very little point in debating something with someone who is willing to deny the undeniable.
The shot at z271 does not happen - this has been shown without doubt.
This thread is packed with strong evidence demonstrating JBC was hit in the back by the first shot. You can't "unwrite" what's already been written. You can only pretend its not there.The "evidence" consists of rationalizations why JBC and Nellie are unreliable. That is not evidence that he was hit on the first shot. The fact is that several witnesses said that JBC was hit on the second shot. None said he was hit on the first. The zfilm is equivocal. If it was unequivocal that JBC was hit in the back on the first shot, you would not have reasonable people on this board disagreeing with you. Even Jerry disagrees with you on that point.
"The bullet does not penetrate the wrist."That is evidence that something penetrated the wrist but it is not evidence that CE399 penetrated the wrist. The projectile that exited his chest struck the back of his french cuff about 1.5 inches from the end of the cuff. Yet it did not make any exit hole on the palm side of the cuff where the slit in his skin was located. Perhaps you could explain how that could occur. When you have done that, perhaps you can explain how it ended up making a nice round oblique hole in his left thigh along the direction of the femur.
There is a relatively large lateral entry wound a few inches from the base of his thumb and a much smaller exit wound near the crease of the wrist indicating the bullet fragmented on contact with his wrist. It also indicates the fragment did not travel side-to-side but travelled 'diagonally' up his arm towards his wrist.
"The wrist is pronated so the dorsal side is pressed against the chest."It is just the natural path of a bullet exiting JBC's chest below the right nipple at z271. How does a bullet deflect around the radius after striking the radius so forcefully?
I find this physically impossible. JBC's hand position is clearly shown in the pic I posted. This is utter nonsense.
"The bullet or fragments would have deflected away from the point of contact, which is up."
Before you were talking about a 'glancing' blow, now we've got the bullet/fragments deflecting upwards. You are clearly willing to say anything.
You have clearly taken leave of your senses.Perhaps you do not realize that the trajectory through JFK's neck was right to left. There is no path from JFK's neck exit to JBC's right armpit and right wrist that goes into the left thigh let alone along the direction of the femur:
| (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_3.jpg) | (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/limo_z197_front_SN.jpg) |
There are a lot of people on this board who disagree with you on the first shot hitting JBC in the back. Most accept that JBC's recollection of being struck on the second shot is reliable and accurate.
If that is the case, as I suggest the evidence shows, then the second shot struck JBC at around z270. That is just an inevitable consequence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern. So don't tell us why there can't be a shot striking JBC at z271. Show us the evidence that JBC was hit on the first shot. Perhaps you can explain not only why no one observed him hit on the first shot but why it is that the witnesses who observed him being hit said he was hit on the second (Connallys, Newmans, Dave Powers) and why that is independently corroborated by others such as Hickey and Greer.
The "evidence" consists of rationalizations why JBC and Nellie are unreliable. That is not evidence that he was hit on the first shot. The fact is that several witnesses said that JBC was hit on the second shot. None said he was hit on the first. The zfilm is equivocal. If it was unequivocal that JBC was hit in the back on the first shot, you would not have reasonable people on this board disagreeing with you. Even Jerry disagrees with you on that point.
That is evidence that something penetrated the wrist but it is not evidence that CE399 penetrated the wrist. The projectile that exited his chest struck the back of his french cuff about 1.5 inches from the end of the cuff. Yet it did not make any exit hole on the palm side of the cuff where the slit in his skin was located. Perhaps you could explain how that could occur. When you have done that, perhaps you can explain how it ended up making a nice round oblique hole in his left thigh along the direction of the femur.
It is just the natural path of a bullet exiting JBC's chest below the right nipple at z271. How does a bullet deflect around the radius after striking the radius so forcefully?
There are a lot of people on this board who disagree with you on the first shot hitting JBC in the back.
Most accept that JBC's recollection of being struck on the second shot is reliable and accurate.
If that is the case, as I suggest the evidence shows, then the second shot struck JBC at around z270. That is just an inevitable consequence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern.
So don't tell us why there can't be a shot striking JBC at z271. Show us the evidence that JBC was hit on the first shot. Perhaps you can explain not only why no one observed him hit on the first shot but why it is that the witnesses who observed him being hit said he was hit on the second (Connallys, Newmans, Dave Powers) and why that is independently corroborated by others such as Hickey and Greer.
The fact is that several witnesses said that JBC was hit on the second shot. None said he was hit on the first. The zfilm is equivocal. If it was unequivocal that JBC was hit in the back on the first shot, you would not have reasonable people on this board disagreeing with you. Even Jerry disagrees with you on that point.
That is evidence that something penetrated the wrist but it is not evidence that CE399 penetrated the wrist. The projectile that exited his chest struck the back of his french cuff about 1.5 inches from the end of the cuff. Yet it did not make any exit hole on the palm side of the cuff where the slit in his skin was located. Perhaps you could explain how that could occur. When you have done that, perhaps you can explain how it ended up making a nice round oblique hole in his left thigh along the direction of the femur.
It is just the natural path of a bullet exiting JBC's chest below the right nipple at z271. How does a bullet deflect around the radius after striking the radius so forcefully?
Perhaps you do not realize that the trajectory through JFK's neck was right to left. There is no path from JFK's neck exit to JBC's right armpit and right wrist that goes into the left thigh let alone along the direction of the femur:
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_3.jpg) (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/limo_z197_front_SN.jpg)
Oh I do realise that the trajectory of the bullet is right to left (from the shooters POV) which is yet another reason your proposed shot at z270 doesn't work.Actually, it is NOT a problem at z270 because by z270 the car has turned left so that the shot from the SN is in the direction of the car almost directly from behind. At z270, the right-to-left path from the SN through JBC is arctan(2.3125 /54.0625) or about 2.5 degrees.
To imagine JBC is hit on the inside of his left thigh from the bullet passing through JFK's neck is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on this forum, and that's up against some stiff competition.The 3d frames I provided show not only that it is possible, but that it fits the positions of JBC and JFK around z195. If you think that is ridiculous, what do you call the left to right jog from the left side of JFK's tie knot to strike JBC's right armpit followed by the right to left jog after the wrist to strike the thigh (not to mention the left to right sudden 90 degree turn to follow along the femur)?
I wonder how many other forum members are going to go along with this one.
Actually, it is NOT a problem at z270 because by z270 the car has turned left so that the shot from the SN is in the direction of the car almost directly from behind. At z270, the right-to-left path from the SN through JBC is arctan(2.3125 /54.0625) or about 2.5 degrees.
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/angle_at_z271.JPG) The 3d frames I provided show not only that it is possible, but that it fits the positions of JBC and JFK around z195. If you think that is ridiculous, what do you call the left to right jog from the left side of JFK's tie knot to strike JBC's right armpit followed by the right to left jog after the wrist to strike the thigh (not to mention the left to right sudden 90 degree turn to follow along the femur)?
Besides, the thigh wound was on the top portion of the thigh in the same direction as and along the femur (toward the knee):
- and lower third, medial apact. of the left thigh. X-rays of
the thigh and revealed a bullet fragment which was imbedded
in the body of the femur via the distal third.
...
The direction of the missile wound was judged not to be in the course
of the femoral vessel, since the wound was distal and anterior to Hunter's canal.
The Hunter's canal is on the inside of the thigh. This wound was above that to the front (anterior) side.
Please explain how you have established this seated position (body turn and legs) for Moby...sorry, JBCThe positions in the car are based on their positions seen in z193-198.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vT7km8jY/Mason-jbc-animation-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The positions in the car are based on their positions seen in z193-198.
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_2.jpg)
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_3.jpg)
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_Zapruder_view.jpg)
I don't know what to say.There are no material differences that I can see. How does the precise head turn of JBC affect the position of his left thigh? How does the position of his arm affect the trajectory to his left thigh?
The positions are not even remotely similar.
JBC is sat bolt upright, his head turned to the right, his body very slightly turned right.
Moby is twisted way to his right and hunched forward.
Is this some kind of joke that I'm not getting.
The leg positioning of Moby is insane, the arm positioning is crazy.We are only interested in the position of the left thigh in relation to JFK's neck. Here is a picture of an actual person from the rear a distance of 2 feet behind :
The Z-film unequivocally refutes the shot at z270. Your arguments to the contrary have been desperate and weak. I thought this was a low point for you. But now we have your neck-to-thigh shot. You'll have to excuse me but, as far as I'm concerned, we've stepped into the kind of territory usually reserved for those who believe things like "Jackie took the headshot". You're on your own with that.The zfilm is hardly "unequivocal" for anything except the head shot and establishing the "after bracket" of the neck wound.
The zfilm is hardly "unequivocal" for anything except the head shot and establishing the "after bracket" of the neck wound.
The Z-film is absolutely unequivocal about the shot at z270.If it was unequivocal you would not have to explain:
It does not happen.
This is unequivocally shown in the Z-film.
That his wrist/hand does not move in any meaningful way demonstrates, unequivocally, a bullet has not shattered JBC's radius forcefully enough to leave fragments in the wrist and have a fragment blow through the wrist and exit near the crease of the wrist. There can be no doubt whatsoever that such a forceful blow would result in an obvious movement, it's basic physics - Newton's laws of motion, conservation of momentum etc.If that really was the case, you will no doubt be able to explain, using physics, the following.
I ask anyone reading this post to closely study the images below and ask themselves if it is possible, even given the most fantastical assumptions, that these images represent a bullet exploding out of JBC's chest and shattering his radius leaving fragments embedded in his wrist.I could use the same kind of argument to "prove" that there is no SBT shot at z223 because the laws of physics do not permit the bullet, after having exploded out of JBC's chest, to shatter his radius and not deflect away from the point of contact. The bullet would have to strike the radius and deflect leftward but the impact was on the back of the wrist on the distal side of the radius (the side nearest the ulna bone). The main difference is that you are arguing about the magnitude of the force of impact. I am saying that the direction of the force is wrong at z223. In your case, you have yet to show that the magnitude of the force would be great enough to move the wrist. In my case, it is a physical principle that is at issue: a bullet deflects away from, not toward, the point of contact.
If it was unequivocal you would not have to explain:
1. why we see JBC move the way he does beginning at z272. What causes him to move forward from z272 - z280 before he falls back onto Nellie? You seem to be ignoring that.
I wanted to move on to something else but, out of interest, let's deal with your so-called objections one by one.By "forward" I mean in the direction the car is moving.
I find this one quite interesting as you've mentioned it before and I have dealt with it although you appear to have ignored me.
You say that from z272 - z280 JBC is moving forward before he collapses backwards into Nellie's arms. You've described this as "sailing forward".
Let's take a fixed point. For arguments sake let's say the outer part of Jackie's left arm (there is some kind of object on the inside of the limo near Jackie's arm we could use, but it doesn't really matter as what I'm going to point out is very obvious). As we watch the Z-film roll in the clip below we can see the gap between JBC and whatever fixed point we use increases from frame to frame indicating JBC is moving backwards during these frames and not forwards as you insist:
In frames z272-280 JBC is clearly moving backwards but you keep insisting he is moving forwards. I'm interested to hear your explanation for this observation.
Doesn't Connally fall away from the car rail (and towards Nellie) before Z271?Yes he does. Up to about z267 he is leaning to the car right as he is turned toward the rear.
If Connally is just "sailing forward", then one wouldn't expect to see increasing amounts of his front and hat. Or the top of his head to rise.Where do you see that from z271 to z278?:
The following Muchmore frames shows just Connally's head moving towards Nellie. His right shoulder is stable. So by Z285, Connally's torso has fallen back towards Nellie; just his head falls towards her after that.He falls backward from z278 to z285 onto Nellie. That's what my last GIF showed. It is the forward movement from z271-278 that is odd.
By "forward" I mean in the direction the car is moving.
The first shot occurs when JFK is approx 10 feet (ie approx 10 frames) before Z133.
The first shot hits the traffic signal or the pipe supporting the signal, then the lead bullet hits the road behind the limo, & two copper jacket fragments end up on the floor of the limo, one of the fragments glancing JFK's head along the way (ie JFK was hit by all three shots).
There are three possible scenarios for the trajectory of the first shot.
(1) The bullet might have gone throo the signal back-plate (making a long hole), & then ricocheted off the side of the box-frame of the signal.
(2) Or the bullet might have hit the 2 inch pipe holding the traffic signal, &/or one of the two guy rods (each say ¾ inch solid steel), &/or the guy rod attachment collar (solid steel).
(3) Or the bullet might have hit the pipe or rods or collar & then ricocheted off the signal box-frame.
The CIA drive-past footages showing Oswald's view from the 6th floor window suggest that scenarios (2) or (3) are the more likely, based on the position of the limo being a little south of the center of the center lane. The guy rod attachment collar would then be on a sight line to JFK's neck. Or if the JFK actor had been sitting on a slightly raised seat (as did JFK) then the attachment collar would of course be on a sight line to JFK's body a little below the neck.
Scenario (1) would require the limo to be almost hard up to the southern edge of the center lane, ie the limo would need to be say 24 inches further south than in (2), ie 24 inches further left as viewed by Oswald.
Hi Marjan,Yes i am aware of everything that u mentioned. I looked at all of pages 1 to 17 (on my computer) of this thread before i jumped to the last page (page 68 on my computer). Before finding this thread i had earlier this week spent hours going throo Zapruder frame by frame looking at the Agent's reactions etc, just like u guys are doing/did. And I spent hours looking at Agent's & other statements. Every statement had contradictions & errors etc. No the Agents did not react immediately to the first shot. And i recall that one agent even mentions hearing firecrackers earlier on (firecrackers not firecracker).
It's obvious you've not read through this thread before posting.
The first shot is described as being a very loud, explosive noise. In Altgens 6 we see three SS agents turned around looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD. At least two of these agents describe reacting 'immediately' to this very loud noise.
In the Z-film we see that none of the agents making the turn we see in Altgens 6 and we see them until z207.
If the shot happens at z133 it means the agents have not reacted to the first shot for over 4 seconds.
How can you explain that?
Please go back to the beginning of this thread and read a few pages to get an idea of what's going on here.
Thank you.
(nice avatar by the way)
Really? So everybody is "sailing forward" because they're all moving in the same direction as the limo?If you are having trouble believing that the motion is not an illusion, I have measured it for you (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/272_278_measured.PDF):
Brilliant stuff.
So let's move on to the next big point that needs explaining:That is why I compared z268 to z271. Same change. It is subtle, but real. And it occurs between z271 and z272.
"2. why we see the hand movement between z271-272. What causes the appearance of the hand and hat to change between z271 and z272?"
I made this Gif to highlight what nonsense you are talking. It comprises of z271 and z272:
(https://i.postimg.cc/15gk07xg/271-272-JBC-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Z271 is slightly blurred while z272 is much clearer.
This is what is causing "the appearance of the hand and hat to change".
In fact, there is no change as we can see. And remember, this is the moment the bullet is exploding out of JBC's chest and shattering his wrist. Clear evidence no such shot is taking place.
Yes i am aware of everything that u mentioned. I looked at all of that before i saw this thread. I spent hours looking at witness statements. Every statement had contradictions & errors etc.
Before saying any more, i have a question, which Zapruder frame does Altgens 6 correspond to?????????????
I got my first shot on 1/19, and the second shot today.... 8)
Oh wait... never mind... ;)
There may be a slight rightward turn of the shoulders between z271 and 272. Is that what you are referring to? He is too far from Nellie for her to reach him at this point and, besides, her arms are down by her side. There is, therefore, something causing movement of the torso before he can be reached by Nellie. I would be interested in hearing your explanation as to what causes that. If that was JBC's doing, I am sure you will be able to explain why he waited 3 seconds after being hit to move.
There is no doubt that Connally pivots in his seat towards Nellie and away from the camera. The angle of Connally's shirt collar, for example, becomes flatter as his torso pivots and reclines.
The major change I see is that a corner of the Stetson comes out of shade in the latter frame.Do you not see that the hand changes position slightly and the position of the brim of the hat relative to the jacket cuff changes? Prior to z272 the edge of the hat brim aligns with the end of the jacket cuff. In z272 the brim is moved over the cuff by a perceptible amount and continues that way after.
The driver's side visor wobbles more forcefully prior to Z271. The seating of the visor may be worn or loose, and the visor is affected by wind flow.Can you identify a time where that kind of movement occurs between two consecutive frames?
If you are having trouble believing that the motion is not an illusion, I have measured it for you (https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/272_278_measured.PDF):
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z272_278_measured.JPG)
That is why I compared z268 to z271. Same change. It is subtle, but real. And it occurs between z271 and z272.
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/JBC_hand_268_272.gif)
The sunvisor over Greer's head also moves between z271 and z271:
(https://spmlaw.ca/JFK/z271_272_visor.gif)
There are two marks on the windshield in z272 that do not appear in z271 but those may be the result of slightly more blur in z271.
The general agreement is that it's z255My notes tell me that...
I agree that the witness statements are very contradictory so I try to rely on the Z-film and see if the witness statements agree with it.
There is no change in hand position in frames z271 and z272:Not much change in the hand position, I agree. But I can't say there is none. There does appear to be a movement of the hat as in z272 the brim covers part of the jacket cuff.
This proves the shot you propose a z271 does not occur.No. It just proves that the hand did not move much at z271-272.
Now, as I understand it, you are proposing that the bullet exits JBC's chest, shatters on his wrist and two fragments fly off with enough force to crack the windshield and dent the chrome trim yet this is not enough force to move his hand. The force of the shattering bullet leaves fragments in his wrist but this is still not enough force to move his hand.The bullet is exiting under the right nipple in a forward direction. The back of the wrist is against the chest so that the exit point in the jacket pocket and the right jacket cuff are together. The bullet makes a hole in the jacket and a similar hole at the end of the jacket cuff but a very jagged and long hole in the french cuff above the wrist going across the wrist. That is consistent with the bullet striking the back of the radius on an oblique angle, which would cause it to deflect up and to the left.
Anyway...onwards and upwards.How so? The wind argument? How does the wind blow it forward - and the left more than the right (if the right moves at all)?
Back to your devastating list of things that refute the unequivocal evidence of the Z-film.
The first two points have demonstrated you are confused about how relative positions change with a changing perspective and are equally confused about blurring.
Jerry has dealt with your wobbly sun visor
so now we are in the deep weeds of contradictory eye witness testimony - your lawyerly bread and butter.You don't seem to want to deal with his observation. You say he couldn't see JFK's hair. Why? He was standing in the follow-up car and able to see JFK's head. What do you think was blocking his view of JFK?
All I can do with this is examine the quality of the observations of your creaky witnesses.
Up first - Hickey.
You desperately hang on to this guy because he says he sees JFK's hair fly forward at a time you think you can make work in your doomed model. But let's see how accurate his observations are:
"I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering."
This is the moment we see in Altgens 6
"A disturbance in 679X caused me to look forward toward the President's car. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left,"
679X is the follow-up car Hickey is in. There is some kind of disturbance which causes Hickey to look towards JFK, who is slumped over. An accurate description of JFK after the first shot.
"and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them."
Erm...JFK "was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position"
What?
" At the moment he was almost sitting erect" - Excuse me??
Nothing even remotely resembling this is shown in the Z-film. Once JFK is slumped over to his left he most certainly does not straighten up until he's " almost sitting erect". Nothing like this happens. What's he talking about?
Then he hears two shots that are so close together there is " practically no time element between them".
It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head.
This is the bit you hang onto. The first of the two shots that are almost simultaneous makes his hair move forward. The slight ruffling of JFK's fringe you insist cannot be this as Hickey is at an impossible angle to see it as JFK's head is turned slightly to the left. But let's not worry about that.
"The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of the first report and the last."Ok. At least you agree that Hickey's evidence indicates a shot before the head shot. You just think he was mistaken about hearing two shots. And, I gather, you think he didn't hear the shot after the headshot at all.
Which made him fall forward?
JFK is knocked backwards by the shot, everyone can see this except Hickey.
Hickey fails as a witness. Noticing things that are not there.
That leaves us with Greer ;)
My notes tell me that...
Z123(say) -- Oswald's 1st shot hits signals & road, a fragment glances off JFK's head.
Z133 -- first frame of sequence.
Z196 -- there is a hint of a reaction from an agent standing on the followup limo.
Z201 -- the start of a definite reaction.
Z203 -- two standing agents are starting to look back to Oswald (i reckon that this (or soon after) is Altgens-6).
Z255 -- the agents in the followup limo aint visible (u advise that Z255 is Altgens-6).
Z240 -- standing agents are not visible after Z240 (i think).
Z123 (say) to Z203 would be 80 frames at 18.3 fps which is say 4.3 sec.
Z123 (say) to Z255 would be 132 frames which is say 7.2 sec.
Z218 -- Oswald's 2nd shot possibly, the magic bullet.
Z313 -- Hickey's headshot. Possible simultaneous 3rd shot by Oswald (but unlikely). Tague injured by fragment.
Z123 to Z218 is 95 frames which is say 5.2 sec.
Z218 to Z313 is 95 frames which is say 5.2 sec.
Not much change in the hand position, I agree. But I can't say there is none. There does appear to be a movement of the hat as in z272 the brim covers part of the jacket cuff.
No. It just proves that the hand did not move much at z271-272.
The bullet is exiting under the right nipple in a forward direction. The back of the wrist is against the chest so that the exit point in the jacket pocket and the right jacket cuff are together. The bullet makes a hole in the jacket and a similar hole at the end of the jacket cuff but a very jagged and long hole in the french cuff above the wrist going across the wrist. That is consistent with the bullet striking the back of the radius on an oblique angle, which would cause it to deflect up and to the left.
How so? The wind argument? How does the wind blow it forward - and the left more than the right (if the right moves at all)?
You don't seem to want to deal with his observation. You say he couldn't see JFK's hair. Why? He was standing in the follow-up car and able to see JFK's head. What do you think was blocking his view of JFK? Ok. At least you agree that Hickey's evidence indicates a shot before the head shot. You just think he was mistaken about hearing two shots. And, I gather, you think he didn't hear the shot after the headshot at all.
Hi Marjan,The Agent's reactions start at S201 & they are definitely starting to look back by Z207 which is where Zapruder pans away & we dont see them again. Hence the reaction time is Z123(say) to Z203 say, say 80 frames which is 4.4 sec. Altgens-6 is some time after Z207 (perhaps Z230).
You say at z203 " two standing agents are starting to look back to Oswald"
Below is a close up of z207, four frames after z203. It's the last frame we see most of the agents in. I'm sure you'll agree that not one is looking back towards the TSBD, so I don't understand where you are getting the idea from that they are looking back:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFVMWyXq/z207-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
From your notes can you reveal where you are getting the idea from there is a shot before z133.
Oh yeah...I asked you before to explain why none of the agents has reacted to a loud, explosive noise for over four seconds. What are your ideas on that?
The Agent's reactions start at S201 & they are definitely starting to look back by Z207 which is where Zapruder pans away & we dont see them again. Hence the reaction time is Z123(say) to Z203 say, say 80 frames which is 4.4 sec. Altgens-6 is some time after Z207 (perhaps Z230).
In the meantime JFK reacts at Z140, Jackie at Z142, Hickey at Z144, Connally at Z149.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scearce.htm
The Agents might have been mainly concentrating on what was happening or not happening in JFK's limo. What was that? Was it a gun shot? Where from (a shot from overhead would be confusing)(especially with echoes)?
There is no change in hand position in frames z271 and z272:You seem to have difficulty understanding the physical impact of an oblique strike on the radius. You continue to talk about a "tremendous impact" but you have made no attempt to quantify it. I have. I have given you a reasoned estimate of the momentum transfer to the wrist at 2 N. sec. or about the force of a 2 kg weight applied for a tenth of a second. You, on the other hand, insist that the bullet made a left-hand turn by striking the back of the radius on the distal side but have never offered an explanation that explains the physics of that miraculous turn. I am not sure what you think happened to CE399 because you seem to offer no explanation for the near pristine condition of that bullet.
(https://i.postimg.cc/15gk07xg/271-272-JBC-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This is the moment you insist a bullet explodes out of JBC's chest.
The moment you insist the bullet shatters on impact with his wrist bone leaving metallic particles in his wrist.
The moment some of these fragments of bullet are deflected off (at what must be close to 90 degrees) and crack the windscreen and dent the chrome trim...
...yet JBC's hand does not move one inch after such a tremendous impact.
At least you have the balls to take this vital issue on.It is not over if the third and last shot was z313. If that is the case, you would have to agree that there must have been a shot around z271 because of the last two shots being closer together. So this is not, fundamentally, a disagreement so much about whether there was a shot around z271. It is about whether there was a shot after the headshot.
Establishing exactly how the shots occurred during the assassination is of vital importance.
But the model you are proposing - first shot at z195 second shot at z271, third shot at z313 - is over.
It's a pity you don't have the balls to face up to that.
And now you've descended to flat out lying:I thought you were adopting Jerry's assertion that Hickey could not see JFK's head at all.
"You say he couldn't see JFK's hair. "
This is just a lie. It's not a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It's just a lie.
Nowhere in my post did I say Hickey couldn't see JFK's hair. He could obviously see the back of JFK's head.
After having to explain to you how relative positions change as perspective changes, after having to explain to you how blurring affects what is observed, I now have to explain the difference between the back and the front of somebody's head? Really?
Hickey couldn't see the front of JFK's head. Do you really not understand that?
"At least you agree that Hickey's evidence indicates a shot before the head shot."You seem not to have understood my point, which was that you agree that Hickey is stating that he heard a shot just before the head shot - ie. he heard two shots. You just don't think he is reliable. If you didn't agree, you would not be making the point that he is unreliable.
This is just a lie.
You read my post.
It was about how unreliable Hickey's observations are.
He stated JFK sat upright after being slumped to the left. This did not happen. Hickey is wrong about this.I am puzzled why you think he would report on something that did not happen.
He stated JFK fell forward after being hit in the head. This did not happen. Hickey is wrong about this.
He is an unreliable witness because he is reporting crucial things that did not happen.
And he's your star witness.
It's not too late to have a rethink, it just takes a bit of courage.You are, unfortunately, descending into ad hominem argument. It makes your points look desperate when you do that because ad hominems are usually a last resort.
A second shot at Z271 doesn't work with Bill Greer's claim that he turned around after hearing the second shot. In the Altgens photo, he is turned enough to see Connally. Kellerman, likewise, turned his head in that time period to look back.Your argument that you can "see" that Greer is turned around in Altgens 6 is very imaginative and creative. But it is about as persuasive as your interpretation of an inkblot.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/cL4FB13/Sketch-Up-Analysis-of-Greer-head-in-Altgens.png)
I believe the shot Greer and Kellerman (and some of the other other agents, despite their self-serving claims otherwise) physically responded to was the SBT double-hit at about Z223.
I never claimed that. That one of Mason's lawyerisms. (He thinks it makes him appear "clever" but it really shows a defense attorney's contempt for the jury's intelligence.)Another product of your imagination. Hickey could see the top of JFK's head and would have had no difficulty seeing the hair flutter.
The view to the area of the hair flutter is blocked because Kennedy's head is slanted forward, away from Hickey's LoS.
You seem to have difficulty understanding the physical impact of an oblique strike on the radius. You continue to talk about a "tremendous impact" but you have made no attempt to quantify it. I have. I have given you a reasoned estimate of the momentum transfer to the wrist at 2 N. sec. or about the force of a 2 kg weight applied for a tenth of a second. You, on the other hand, insist that the bullet made a left-hand turn by striking the back of the radius on the distal side but have never offered an explanation that explains the physics of that miraculous turn. I am not sure what you think happened to CE399 because you seem to offer no explanation for the near pristine condition of that bullet.
Dealing with your comment, I am not sure what you mean by saying the bullet "exploded" out of his chest. The bullet does not appear to have fragmented in his chest, judging by the apertures made in his jacket. It is evident that the holes in the jacket pocket and on the jacket and shirt cuff are all in the same location and pressed together at z271. His wrist is pressed against his chest and made similar holes in the jacket pocket and jacket cuff.
However, it made a much longer and very jagged aperture in the middle of and across the width of the back side of his shirt french cuff. It made no hole in the palm side. The large jagged hole in the french cuff is consistent with the entry of the bullet, the bullet striking the radius followed by the exit of fragments. This would have caused a force in the direction away from the chest but there was a counter-force of his arm pressing into the chest.
It is not over if the third and last shot was z313. If that is the case, you would have to agree that there must have been a shot around z271 because of the last two shots being closer together. So this is not, fundamentally, a disagreement so much about whether there was a shot around z271. It is about whether there was a shot after the headshot.
I thought you were adopting Jerry's assertion that Hickey could not see JFK's head at all.
Hickey could certainly see the top of JFK's head and it is apparent from the zfilm that the hair on the right side flies up at z273-276. What would block that view? It is rather obvious that Hickey's eyes were several feet above the level of JFK's head. The QM was higher than the president's car and JFK was seated while Hickey was standing.
You seem not to have understood my point, which was that you agree that Hickey is stating that he heard a shot just before the head shot - ie. he heard two shots. You just don't think he is reliable. If you didn't agree, you would not be making the point that he is unreliable.
I am puzzled why you think he would report on something that did not happen.
You are, unfortunately, descending into ad hominem argument. It makes your points look desperate when you do that because ad hominems are usually a last resort.
In the picture I posted from z207 nobody is looking back. You can see that nobody is looking back.No the 1st shot was at Z123(say).
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFVMWyXq/z207-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In their testimonies the agents said they reacted immediately by looking back towards the TSBD. We can see that in this picture:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DfPPnBm6/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The agents are reacting to the first shot in this picture, exactly as they state in their testimonies. They react immediately after the first very loud, explosive sound. Up to z207 there is no reaction because the first shot has not been fired. If the first shot was fired before z133 we would see the agents turning round in the Z-film, but they don't because the first shot hasn't been fired yet.
Altgens 6 shows three agents reacting together to the first shot. Altgens 6 is around z255, so the agents are reacting to a shot just before z255. Before z133 is way too early. Do you think the agents stood in the same position for four seconds before they all, at the same time, decided to react?
Does that seem likely?
Not really.
You are wrong to believe there was a shot before z133.
The Z-film and Altgens 6 prove that.
Will you change your mind now you are faced with this evidence or will you just ignore it?
No the 1st shot was at Z123(say).
The head angles in Altgens-6/Z207 are 140deg/45deg -- 110deg/40deg --40deg/20deg -- 55deg/??deg (blurred).
Hence Altgens-6 could be as soon as say Z217. Has anyone proven that it is near Z255?
But in any case the problem with a later 1st shot is that yes it accords better with the supposedly very slow Agent's reactions (Z123 to Z203 is 80 frames at 18.3 fps or 4.4 sec). But equally a later 1st shot requires that Oswald had a shorter time tween shot-1 (at say Z237) & shot-2 (at say Z218)(ie say minus 19 frames or minus 1.0 sec), which i suppose means that shot-2 (the magic bullet) then becomes shot-1.
"Hence Altgens-6 could be as soon as say Z217. Has anyone proven that it is near Z255?"I am very interested in where was Altgens-6, but Zapruder doesnt show the QM after Z207, so what was the proof for Z255?
Yes, it has been proven that Altgens 6 is near z255.
All you need is a good copy of Altgens 6 and a good copy of the Z-film and you can work it out yourself.
The SS agents do not react slowly, they react straight away. The reason they don't react in the Z-film is because there has been no shot for them to react to.
The Z-film proves there was no 'early' shot. It's clear evidence but you don't seem interested. I find that very strange.
I am very interested in where was Altgens-6, but Zapruder doesnt show the QM after Z207, so what was the proof for Z255?
If Z255 is simultaneous with Altgens-6 then i can live with that, offhand i cant see that that would sink any of my theory (which is other's theory mostly) that......
Z123 -- Oswald fired at Z123(say)(if Z123 existed)(hitting the signals & road) a fragment glancing JFK's head,
Z218 -- Oswald fired at Z218 (or Z223 if u like, duzzenmadder)(the magic bullet)
Z313 -- Oswald possibly fired near Z313 (hitting Tague)(if indeed Oswald fired 3 times, which is unlikely), which by memory gives a gap of 5.2 sec then 5.2 sec totalling 10.4 sec (Connally said 10 sec to 12 sec)
Z313 -- Hickey fired the accidental fatal AR15 headshot at Z313 (hitting Tague).
"I am very interested in where was Altgens-6, but Zapruder doesnt show the QM after Z207, so what was the proof for Z255?"Yes i had a look & Z255 is nearnuff Altgens-6.
The proof comes from an analysis of the occupants of the presidential limo shown in Altgens 6
"Z123 -- Oswald fired at Z123(say)(if Z123 existed)(hitting the signals & road) a fragment glancing JFK's head"
There is no shot at this time. We know this because the SS agents, who we can see until z207, do not react to any shot.
Also, you seem to think JFK is hit by a bullet fragment but in the Z-film he is seen smiling and waving to the crowd. He would not be doing this if he had been hit in the head.
"Z313 -- Hickey fired the accidental fatal AR15 headshot at Z313 (hitting Tague)."
???
When I say it takes courage to change firmly held beliefs in the face of evidence that refutes those beliefs, that wasn't anything to do with an ad hominem argument. It's the truth. But it doesn't matter.I wouldn't say it takes courage. I know you honestly believe that the third shot was after z313. It just requires examining the evidence and keeping an open mind. The problem with your approach is that by using a lot of ad hominem attacks, as you and Jerry tend to do, the tendency is for you to tune out the other side because of who is making the argument rather than seriously considering the arguments based on evidence.
I wouldn't say it takes courage. I know you honestly believe that the third shot was after z313. It just requires examining the evidence and keeping an open mind. The problem with your approach is that by using a lot of ad hominem attacks, as you and Jerry tend to do, the tendency is for you to tune out the other side because of who is making the argument rather than seriously considering the arguments based on evidence.
The problems that I have with the evidence are not because you and Jerry are making the arguments. It is because they do not fit the fundamental facts. They are built on speculation and discarding vast amounts of consistent and independent evidence. In the end, they really do not make sense either, but that is a relatively minor point.
The fundamental facts for which there is abundant cogent evidence are:
1. the shot pattern was 1........2....3 with the last two shots perceptibly closer together, in "rapid succession".
2. there were 3 shots.
We all agree on point 2.
Point 1. tells us that JFK was hit on the first shot. This is well supported by the evidence as you have pointed out.
These two fundamental facts do not establish that there was a shot around z270. That is established in two ways:
a) JBC being wounded on the second shot or
b) the headshot being the last shot.
There is strong evidence for a) and really no evidence that he was hit on any other shot. There is also strong evidence for b) but some evidence that may suggest it is not correct.
Regarding the evidence that the last shot was the head shot: Everyone in the president's car and in the QM including Clint Hill who was between the cars said that the headshot was the last shot. (Clint Hill did not recall a second shot but he accepts from what others in the QM told him that there was a shot while he was running toward the car before the one that he saw hit the president. This is set out in Gerald Blaines book "The Kennedy Detail").
I accept, based on all the evidence, that the head shot was the last shot not only because of this evidence but also because of the evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot. There is consistent evidence that the second shot struck JBC in the back (from Powers, JBC, Nellie, Newman, Hickey, Greer etc) and no evidence that it did not. This necessarily means the headshot was the last.
So this leads inescapably to the conclusion that there was a shot just before the headshot.
In trying to pinpoint when the shot occurred I noticed a number of anomalous little details in the zfilm. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the second shot occurred at z268 or z273 but I do not think so for many reasons which I have given. I believe the evidence indicates that the shot - which other evidence says must have occurred around 2 seconds before the head shot - occurred between z271 and z272. I am not persuaded of that because of those anomalous details seen in the zfilm. I am persuaded because of the fundamental facts and the third shot being the last shot.
So, I am not going to be persuaded by some argument based on interpretation of the zfilm around z270. I am only going to be persuaded by evidence that the third shot was after z313 and missed that is so strong that it outweighs the clear and consistent evidence that we do have that the headshot was the last shot. So, you see, it has nothing to do with courage.
This is your "convenient misremembering" strategy. You just pretend all the arguments that have demolished your model in the previous pages simply haven't happened. To be honest, I prefer it to the lying.You don't seem to have grasped the concept of an ad hominem argument and why it is a poor debate tactic. I say that because you insist that you are not taking an ad hominem approach but still keep making ad hominem remarks.
The Gif below shows z271band z272. You say, " I am not going to be persuaded by some argument based on interpretation of the zfilm around z270". But this isn't 'some interpretation', this is your interpretation:I am saying to you that no amount of argument about what you think z271-272 would look like if a bullet struck JBC in the back and wrist there will persuade me that any of the following are false:
This is the moment the bullet exits JBC's chest and shatters his wrist. The bullet fragments on contact, one passes through his wrist causing a small slit-like wound near the crease of his wrist, some metallic fragments are embedded in his wrist and some fragments deflect off his wrist and still have enough energy to crack the windshield and dent the chrome trim.
If I've got anything wrong here please correct it.
You expect people to believe a bullet shattering his wrist and then fragmenting off to cause the chrome and windshield damage does not have enough force to move his wrist one inch.It is not a matter of the force applied by the bullet. It is the net force that matters. The integral of the net force over time applied to the wrist determines that. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist. Are you suggesting that the wrist would move visibly if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to negate any momentum imparted by the bullet? How is that impossible?
You are asking people to accept a physical impossibility.
You don't seem to have grasped the concept of an ad hominem argument and why it is a poor debate tactic. I say that because you insist that you are not taking an ad hominem approach but still keep making ad hominem remarks.
The first rule of good debate is that you never resort to the ad hominem accusation that someone is lying. If they have contradicted themselves, you point out the contradiction. You never conclude someone is not being honest simply because they do not agree with your argument. For some reason you still persist in taking this approach.
I am saying to you that no amount of argument about what you think z271-272 would look like if a bullet struck JBC in the back and wrist there will persuade me that any of the following are false:
1. the shot pattern was 1.......2....3 with the last two in rapid succession.
2. there were exactly 3 shots
3. the head shot was the last shot and (equivalently)
4. JBC was hit in the back on the second shot.
That is because I honestly believe those four facts are established on all the evidence on an overwhelming balance of probabilities. Those four facts mean there WAS a shot at z270 or so AND it struck JBC.
If you cannot accept that the details seen in the zfilm are consistent with that (particularly the sudden forward movement of JBC relative to JFK and Kellerman beginning at z271, Greer's turn at z281-287, JFK's hair at z273-276, the visor movement at z271-272, the alignment of the hole in the jacket sleeve with the hole in the jacket pocket and the jagged aperture in the french cuff at z271) then they are remarkably coincidental.
Now you will not find many LNers on this board who would disagree with 2, 3 and 4. But they do disagree with 1. You, on the other hand, agree with 1 and 2 but not with 3 and 4.
You have persuaded yourself that the last shot was not the head shot. This means you must also persuade yourself that JBC was not hit on the second shot.
The bottom line is that there is abundant support for each of those four facts. That means there was a shot around z270. It is just that there is no one except me and the Secret Service, it appears, who is persuaded by the evidence that all four are correct.
It is not a matter of the force applied. It is the net force multiplied by the time over which it is applied that matters. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist. Are you suggesting that the wrist would move if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to absorb any momentum imparted by the bullet? How is that impossible?
They are not ad hominem remarks. They are labels I've given to the various strategies you use regularly to avoid reasonable debate.When you accuse someone of "lying" you are referring to the person, not their argument. That is because the difference between uttering something that you consider to be false and lying is entirely related to the bona-fides of the person uttering, not the substance of what was uttered.
If you'd contradicted yourself I would have pointed that out. But you didn't and the word I've given to what you did is "lying" which is the most accurate word I can find for it.
None of these are "facts", as well you know. We may agree on certain interpretations of the evidence but it doesn't make them facts.How do you know they are not "facts". Do you think facts do not exist?
Point 4. is nothing more than your own interpretation of very selective scraps of evidence picked specifically to 'confirm' what you already believe about the shots.I am surprised that you would refer such a fundamental part of the testimony of JBC and Nellie as "selective scraps of evidence". JBC and Nellie both said he was not hit in the back on the first shot and was not hit on the second. They both said they were so sure of this that they would never change their views. They never did. Gayle Newman was just a few feet west of the light pole so she was directly opposite JBC at z271 - about 15 feet away. She gave a statement a few hours after the events (DPD statement November 22, 1963. 24H218) in which she said:
These are the few scraps of evidence you hang onto to promote your theory. There is nothing coincidental about any of it. You have looked at the Z-film around the z270's and picked out anything you see and tried to create a narrative out of it.If they were not coincidental then they are related.
Really, I was under the impression that LNers thought the single bullet theory was correct. Where have you got your information from??? I am surprised by your question.
"The bottom line is that there is abundant support for each of those four facts"I don't think you can say that there is irrefutable evidence against it. Evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot refutes it.
There is very little evidence to support the "fact" ( ;)) that JBC is shot in the back around z271 and irrefutable evidence against it. Your inability to accept that evidence is indicative of your genuine approach to evidence. It should inform your opinions.
"It is not a matter of the force applied. It is the net force multiplied by the time over which it is applied that matters. That tells you how much momentum is imparted to the wrist."You just have to recall your high school physics. Momentum transferred is the impulse ∫Fdt over the duration of the force. The duration of the force would be the time the bullet was in contact with the wrist, which is about .01/300 = .000033 sec or .033 ms. (assuming bullet average speed of 300 m/sec and the contact was over a 1 cm distance on the wrist). The force is the net force applied to the wrist (Bullet force less opposing force pressing wrist to chest).
This is utter BS: and reveals your desperation to avoid the overwhelming evidence that refutes your model.
"Are you suggesting that the wrist would move if it was pinned against his chest with sufficient force for sufficient time to absorb any momentum imparted by the bullet?"Again, it is not just the force. It is the force x time over which the force is applied that determines the transfer of momentum.
I'm suggesting that a bullet fragmenting on contact with his wrist would subject his wrist to the same force it takes to fragment a bullet.
Newton's laws of motion still apply (for most of us anyway)
When you accuse someone of "lying" you are referring to the person, not their argument. That is because the difference between uttering something that you consider to be false and lying is entirely related to the bona-fides of the person uttering, not the substance of what was uttered.
How do you know they are not "facts". Do you think facts do not exist?
Facts exist. We just have to determine what they are. In order to correctly analyze a complicated case it is useful to establish a primary set of facts that are well supported by the evidence. These are the fundamental facts. If those facts are correct, then all the other factual details must fit them. There can be contradictory evidence, but not contradictory facts.
I say that these four statements are facts because there are large bodies of mutually consistent, independent evidence to support these findings and very little evidence that would support a contrary conclusion. But we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence including any new evidence that emerges.
I am surprised that you would refer such a fundamental part of the testimony of JBC and Nellie as "selective scraps of evidence". JBC and Nellie both said he was not hit in the back on the first shot and was not hit on the second. They both said they were so sure of this that they would never change their views.
Gayle Newman was just a few feet west of the light pole so she was directly opposite JBC at z271 - about 15 feet away. She gave a statement a few hours after the events (DPD statement November 22, 1963. 24H218) in which she said:
"After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car. Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head."
David Powers was directly behind JBC and JFK and he could see JBC until the second shot, after which JBC disappeared. He said the third shot struck JFK in the head.
These are not scraps of evidence selectively taken out of context. They are fundamental parts of what these witnesses reported observing with their eyes and ears.
If they were not coincidental then they are related.
Every LNer on this board except you thinks that JBC was hit on the second shot. I happen to differ from their views that the first shot missed and that the shot pattern was 1....2.......3. You are the lone LNer who now thinks that the SBT occurred on the first shot.
I don't think you can say that there is irrefutable evidence against it. Evidence that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot refutes it.
Besides, JBC being hit at z271 is not one of the four fundamental facts that I referred to. That JBC is shot in the back around z271 is an inescapable conclusion, however, if those 4 statements of fact are correct.
You just have to recall your high school physics. Momentum transferred is the impulse ∫Fdt over the duration of the force. The duration of the force would be the time the bullet was in contact with the wrist, which is about .01/300 = .000033 sec or .033 ms. (assuming bullet average speed of 300 m/sec and the contact was over a 1 cm distance on the wrist). The force is the net force applied to the wrist (Bullet force less opposing force pressing wrist to chest).
Again, it is not just the force. It is the force x time over which the force is applied that determines the transfer of momentum.
The pressure on the bone (force per unit area) determines whether the bone yields to the bullet. The force on the bone is the yield pressure x the area. Based on the size of the bullet, the area of the contact between bone and bullet is about .5 x .5 cm = .25 cm2.
To estimate the bullet force: The bullet pressure on the radius was sufficient to cause a fracture of the radius and, according to Larry SPersonivan (3 HSCA 396), the yield pressure of bone is 1010 dynes/cm2. That is the maximum pressure that the bone can apply to the bullet. Assuming a bullet contact area of .25 cm2 on the wrist that means the force was about 2.5 x 109 dynes or 2.5 x 104Newtons. That is equivalent to the force of 2.5 tonnes of weight. But the problem is that it only lasts for a very short time: the time it takes for the bullet travelling at about 300 m/sec to move 1 cm. (.01/300 = .000033 sec. or 3.3 x 10-5 sec.). Let's assume a constant force of 2.5 x 104Newtons for 3.3 x 10-5 seconds: impulse = 8.25 x 10-1 N.sec. That is equivalent to a 82.5 gram weight pulling on the wrist for 1 second.
Now, if the unconstrained wrist had a mass of 825 grams (about 2 lb) the wrist would move at 1 m/sec or about 5 cm or two inches in one frame. And that is if there is no force pressing on the wrist toward the chest. If the wrist was pressed into the chest as it appears, there would be very slight movement away from the chest before the wrist stopped.
As I say, "lying" was just the most accurate label I could think of for that particular strategy. If you'd prefer "deliberate falsification" we can use that instead.I guess I missed something somewhere. What "falsification" are you suggesting that I have done? Or is that just something you throw out as a smokescreen to cover up a lack of reasoned argument? You have not identified one item that I have put forward as evidence that is false. Not a single one. You just make a general statement that I somehow lied. It doesn't bother me. I am just trying to improve your rhetorical skills.
It's got nothing to do with me if the strategies you use to make a mockery of reasoned debate reflect on you as a person.
And if you think I'm not going to point out these strategies in case it hurts your feelings...you must be dreaming.
It's a fact that the majority of witnesses describe three clearly audible shots. From this fact we conclude that, on probability the best interpretation is that did indeed happen. But this interpretation of the evidence doesn't make it a "fact".So.... you don't think there are facts at all, just evidence? Is it not a fact that JFK was hit in the head by a bullet? Or do you think that is debateable too? Some posters actually have questioned that, by the way.
"... we must test these conclusions of "fact" against all the evidence..."
Give it a try sometime
Strategy - Convenient misrememberingThat, of course, is premised on your view that JBC was hit in the back at z223 when she was looking forward. If you conclude, as I have, that JBC was not hit there but was hit at z271 when she was looking right at him, then she was truthful. Conversely, if you use her evidence to determine when he was hit, one would have to conclude that he was not hit until z270 when she turned and looked at him.
Nellie's reliability as a witness is undermined by the fact she describes the shot that hit JBC at a time when she was looking forward (plus many other inconsistencies). This has been dealt with in this thread but you forget that.
When applying JBC's testimony to the Z-film you dismiss almost every salient point he makes in his testimony except the one that suits you. This has also been dealt with in detail in this thread but you forget.No I don't. I accept most of the things that he very confidently recalled before he was hit in the back. I am less accepting of small details he recalled at the time of or after he was hit. That's all.
Strategy - reliance on contradictory eye witness testimonyThere was no contradiction at all. In his first statement (19H490 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0254b.htm)) he mentioned two shots but he did not say that there were only two shots. In his November 24/63 FBI statement (22H842 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0436b.htm)) he said that the shot that struck the President in the head and the previous shot were about 2 seconds apart and he said that the head shot was the third and last shot.
Okay, let's play "contradictory witnesses"
Bill Newman, husband of Gayle, stood right next to her, witnessing what she was witnessing:
"... the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot...And then as the car got directly in front of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple.”
As far as Bill is concerned the second shot was the headshot, contradicting his wife's testimony. Where does this get us?
I'm an LNer??You are not? Who do you think was shooting?
So the momentum transferred to JBC's wrist only applies to one Z-frame, after which it miraculously disappears?That depends on the opposing force. The momentum transfer, according to that calculation, was .825 N. sec. or .825 kg m/sec. That means that a force equivalent to the weight 1.65 kg (16.5 Newtons) for 1/20th of a second or one frame would stop it. So a force of less than 4 lb (weight) applied to the wrist would completely stop any motion of the wrist caused by the bullet impact within one frame. The wrist going from 1 m/sec to 0 in 1/20th of a second would move but only about 2.5 cm or an inch.
So the force that shattered the bullet is not equally applied to JBC's wrist?The force is not equally applied to the wrist but I am assuming that the force for the entire duration of contact was the maximum force. The maximum force would be the force applied to bone that causes bone to break. The force is greatest where it impacts bone and less where it impacts soft tissue.
Here is part of the testimony of Gayle Newman at the Shaw trial (STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW, February 15, 1969) which is available here (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/newmfsh.htm) in which she said
- Q: Mrs. Newman, while you were in Dealey Plaza did anything unusual occur?
A: Yes, sir, the President was shot.
Q: Did you hear any unusual noises?
A: I heard three of what I thought at first were firecrackers -- three shots.
Q: Did you hear the first of these noises?
A: Yes, sir. Now, do you want me to tell you where the President's car was when I first heard the noises?
Q: If you can.
A: The President's car was maybe 100 or 150 feet from us when I first heard the noise and the first two noises were close together, just seconds apart.
Q: Were you looking at the President at the time you heard the first report?
A: Yes, sir, I was.
Q: Were you able to observe any reaction on his part?
A: Yes, sir, at the time of the first noise he threw his hands up.
Q: Could you simulate what you observed?
A: He threw his hands up like this and sort of turned his head.
Q: Did you have occasion to hear a second report?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Before I go into that, were you able to observe Governor Connally after the first report?
A: Yes, sir, I saw Governor Connally with the first shot seemed to turn a little bit like this. (Indicating.)
Q: You said you then heard a second report?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you able to observe any reaction on the part of Governor Connally then?
A: Yes, sir, at the time of the second shot Governor Connally grabbed his stomach.
Q: Did he do anything else?
A: Well, his eyes just got real big and he sort of slumped down in the seat.
Q: Were you able to hear a third report?
A: Yes, sir, we heard a third report, it was a short time, not maybe 10 or 12 seconds after the first two shots.
Q: And what were you able to observe the effects of this shot then?
A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear.
Q: Did you have your eyes upon the President at the time of these shots?
A: Yes, sir, I did. "
The following is lifted from patspeer.comNot very far. It is unfortunate that Templin never gave a statement until over 30 years later. He does not say there were three shots or that there was a shot after the headshot so maybe he did not distinguish the second and third shots. The Newman's gave their statements within two hours and two days and both said the third shot hit JFK in the head.
John Templin
(7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum)
"Well, as the limo drew even with us, well, the president was waving and, of course, grinning. He had just a great big smile on his face, and he drew even with us, and I thought, “Well, this ‘ole country boy finally saw a president.” You know, it’s not like you see a president every day. And especially a kid from the country like I was, it was a big deal for me. And just about, I would say, thirty feet past us, we heard what I personally thought was a motorcycle backfire, and I... the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know. Being human, not knowing that he had been hit. But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually." (When asked to confirm that this was the second shot) "That was the second shot, sir, and some say it was the third shot killed him, but as I recall—and I’ll believe it till my dying day—it was the second shot...was the fatal shot that hit him in the head and killed him."
Where does that get us?
Not very far. It is unfortunate that Templin never gave a statement until over 30 years later. He does not say there were three shots or that there was a shot after the headshot so maybe he did not distinguish the second and third shots. The Newman's gave their statements within two hours and two days and both said the third shot hit JFK in the head.
Is Charles Brehm's FBI report given two days after the assassination any better:So who do you suggest corroborated Brehm? Altgens, the Connallys, Gayle Newman, William Newman, the Secret Service agents, Dave Powers, Ken O,Donnell, Mary Woodward, all contradict Brehm.
"When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
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."
And round and round we go ::)
So who do you suggest corroborated Brehm? Altgens, the Connallys, Gayle Newman, William Newman, the Secret Service agents, Dave Powers, Ken O,Donnell, Mary Woodward, all contradict Brehm.
And Brehm contradicts them. Templin contradicts them.Mary Woodward did NOT say that the second shot was the headshot. She said the headshot was the third and last shot. She makes this clear in this interview at around the 2:15 mark.
So what? What's the point you're making? That the witnesses who suit you count and others don't?
And, as usual, you present witnesses who refute what you're saying:
Mary Woodward (11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News)
"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. My first reaction, and also my friends’, was that as a joke, someone had backfired their car. Apparently the driver and occupants of the President’s car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt...
Then after a moment’s pause there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot."[patspeer.com]
Woodward describes the limo coming to "almost to a halt" before the second shot. We know from the Z-film this happens just before the headshot where she describes "the President start slumping in the car". She describes another shot after this.
Shot - headshot - shot after headshot.
And round and round we go.
Mary Woodward did NOT say that the second shot was the headshot. She said the headshot was the third and last shot. She makes this clear in this interview at around the 2:15 mark.
That's not what she wrote the day after the shooting.She did not EVER say that there was a shot after the headshot. That is not what she said in her article written a few hours after the shooting. She did not go into detail of the head shot in her Dallas Morning News story, perhaps because she was writing for a newspaper. She did not think the first shot hit JFK but noticed him to start slumping after she heard the second shot. Do you actually think "start slumping" describes the headshot? And you accuse me of having confirmation bias!
But years later she's changed her tune.
And round and round we go.
She did not EVER say that there was a shot after the headshot. That is not what she said in her article written a few hours after the shooting. She did not go into detail of the head shot in her Dallas Morning News story, perhaps because she was writing for a newspaper. She did not think the first shot hit JFK but noticed him to start slumping after she heard the second shot. Do you actually think "start slumping" describes the headshot? And you accuse me of having confirmation bias!
Her later interview linked in my last post (https://youtu.be/fLQ4id9AN38)may explain (at 1:45) why she did not see JFK responding to the first shot: she turned to her friends.
- "And at that moment I heard a very loud noise. And I wasn't sure what it was at that point. And I turned to my friends and asked what was that. Is some jerk shooting off firecrackers?"
I have noticed that the more one digs, one finds even more support for the head shot as the last shot. Marilyn Sitzman, standing behind Abraham Zapruder observed the head shot to be the last:(Shaw trial, Feb. 14, 1969 (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/willis_mshaw.htm))
- "Q: Did you have an unobstructed view of President Kennedy at the time of the third shot?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Mrs. Willis, would you please describe for the Gentlemen of the Jury and the Court what you saw as a result and as the effects of this third shot?
A: On the third shot his head exploded and went back and to the left.
Q: Did you observe anything, anything other than the explosion?
A: It exploded like a red halo."
So far you have Charles Brehm saying that he thought there was a shot after the headshot and Mr. Templin saying something similar in 1995. There are at least 19 witnesses who had a clear recollection that the head shot was the last shot.
And remember: if the last shot was the headshot, you would have to agree that there was a shot a couple of seconds before z313 - ie. around z270
I've allowed your various strategies to frustrate my thinking and have been focussed on proving you wrong rather than on demonstrating the validity of my own model.Ok. Progress! So there may have been a shot at z270. Given the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of the 1...........2......3 shot pattern if the last shot was the headshot (as you have not ruled out), there is no other conclusion possible.
So I've taken a step back and reviewed the last few pages.
One thing is for certain - no shot struck JBC around z270. That is unequivocally demonstrated by the Z-film irrespective of anything you might say.
But that doesn't mean there wasn't a shot around this time.
The weak point of my model has always been the third missed shot for which there is no direct evidence in the photographic/film record.
But why have the shot miss after the headshot, why not have it miss before the headshot.
This raises it's own difficulties but it doesn't, in essence, alter the things of which I am certain -
There are three clearly audible shots
The distinctive pattern of those shots
That both men are shot through by the first shot
Ok. Progress! So there may have been a shot at z270. Given the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of the 1...........2......3 shot pattern if the last shot was the headshot (as you have not ruled out), there is no other conclusion possible.
I won't be able to persuade you that there really was a shot at z271-272 that hit JBC in the back. We'll leave that for as it is.
I would be interested, however, in your explanation for CE399. A while back you indicated that the first shot SBT was not achieved by CE399. Where do you think CE399 came from then?
In my view, the evidence against Oswald is overwhelming and the evidence for anyone else being involved is non-existent. I just find that the SBT does not fit the evidence and that 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter does.
I'm of the opinion that the bullet that struck JBC's wrist fragmented on impact, there is a relatively large entrance wound on the lateral side of his arm just above the wrist and a small slit-like exit in the crease of his wrist, plus metallic particles embedded in his wrist.Of course a much simpler explanation that I suggest is a better fit with the trajectory is that CE399 passed through JFK and stuck in JBC's thigh.
This bullet is not CE399
The bullet that struck JFK's head also fragmented, spraying the front of the limo.
This bullet is not CE399
And one bullet missed - who knows what happened to that? Could that somehow be CE399? I doubt it very much.3 shots, 3 hits fits all the evidence including the fact that Oswald fired all 3 shots.
Where did CE 399 come from?
A corridor in Parkland hospital.
How did it get there?
Who knows beyond speculation.
Of course a much simpler explanation that I suggest is a better fit with the trajectory is that CE399 passed through JFK and stuck in JBC's thigh. 3 shots, 3 hits fits all the evidence including the fact that Oswald fired all 3 shots.
It doesn't fit with all the evidence does it though.I say it fits the zfilm. It just doesn't fit what you think the zfilm should show if JBC was hit in the back and wrist at z271-272.
The Z-film is evidence.
It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that bullet passing through JBC, shattering his wrist did not occur in the z270's.Well, it does not show what you think it should show if JBC's wrist was shattered at z271-272.
Not to mention it is a physical impossibility a shot from the TSBD could have passed through JBC and hit his wrist in front of his chest around the z270's because of his seated position.Physically impossible? Not if the bullet deflected on hitting the fifth rib. Keep in mind that it did not penetrate the rib where it struck it in the back. That means it deflected and followed the rib until the last 10 cm of the fifth rib. Then, it passed through the rib and exited just below the right nipple. On exiting the chest it struck the right wrist that was then pressed into the chest. It deflected off the back of the wrist (ie. to the left) It did not exit through the french cuff on the palm side of the wrist.
And as for the neck-to-thigh shot...Dr,. Shires thought the bullet hole in his thigh could have been made by a pristine bullet if it hit at an oblique angle. We don't have enough evidence to say anything more than that the trajectory from the SN through JFK's neck to JBC's left side works. And the wound in the thigh is consistent with having been made by the butt end of CE399. If we knew exactly where and how the bullet fell out of JBC, I would have a better answer for you.
Apart from the physical impossibility of it, try to explain how the bullet, barely slowed down after passing through JFK, doesn't pass through JBC's leg.
How does the bullet just fall out of his leg?
"All the evidence"?It is not all that rapid. It moves from slightly above the edge of the car to out of sight in 55 ms. So it moves maybe as much as 3 inches in 55 ms. which is about 55 inches in a second. I can move my arm that fast quite easily. It looks to me like JBC is moving his arms so he can turn around to see JFK. That's what he said he did. And that is what he does immediately after. The Newmans saw him turn around to look at JFK after the first shot and before the second. After the second, they observed him holding his stomach and falling back.
A first shot through the oak tree in the z190's? I don't think so.
Explain how, in frame z222 we see JBC's shirt cuff above the limo door and in z223, 0.055 seconds later it has disappeared down beneath the door.
Coincidentally, the beginning of the incredibly rapid movement of his arm in the following frames.
Explain the right side of JBC's jacket suddenly bulging forward at the same moment, the part of his jacket we know a bullet passed through.I have. Several times. It doesn't bulge. The lapel moves. In z224 the jacket looks very similar to z222. The question is what happened between z222-223 and why did it go back to looking like z222 in the next frame? The obvious answer, is that the jacket moved or it was a combination of jacket motion and shadow.
"All the evidence"?
I say it fits the zfilm. It just doesn't fit what you think the zfilm should show if JBC was hit in the back and wrist at z271-272.
Well, it does not show what you think it should show if JBC's wrist was shattered at z271-272.Physically impossible? Not if the bullet deflected on hitting the fifth rib. Keep in mind that it did not penetrate the rib where it struck it in the back. That means it deflected and followed the rib until the last 10 cm of the fifth rib. Then, it passed through the rib and exited just below the right nipple. On exiting the chest it struck the right wrist that was then pressed into the chest. It deflected off the back of the wrist (ie. to the left) It did not exit through the french cuff on the palm side of the wrist.
How could the bullet not have made a hole in the palm side of the cuff similar to the hole in the dorsal side if it exited the palm side of the wrist? And how does it deflect over to the left side? How does it deflect around the point of contact on the radius?
Dr,. Shires thought the bullet hole in his thigh could have been made by a pristine bullet if it hit at an oblique angle. We don't have enough evidence to say anything more than that the trajectory from the SN through JFK's neck to JBC's left side works. And the wound in the thigh is consistent with having been made by the butt end of CE399. If we knew exactly where and how the bullet fell out of JBC, I would have a better answer for you.
It is not all that rapid. It moves from slightly above the edge of the car to out of sight in 55 ms. So it moves maybe as much as 3 inches in 55 ms. which is about 55 inches in a second. I can move my arm that fast quite easily. It looks to me like JBC is moving his arms so he can turn around to see JFK. That's what he said he did. And that is what he does immediately after. The Newmans saw him turn around to look at JFK after the first shot and before the second. After the second, they observed him holding his stomach and falling back.
I have. Several times. It doesn't bulge. The lapel moves. In z224 the jacket looks very similar to z222. The question is what happened between z222-223 and why did it go back to looking like z222 in the next frame? The obvious answer, is that the jacket moved or it was a combination of jacket motion and shadow.
The 'ducking' reaction both men perform after the headshot is clearly the moment the 'flurry of shells' hits the windshield and chrome trim)So are you suggesting that the third shot after the headshot and struck the windshield? What did it strike before the fragments hit the windshield?
So are you suggesting that the third shot after the headshot and struck the windshield? What did it strike before the fragments hit the windshield?
The 'ducking' reaction is caused by the fragments from the headshot.Or maybe they were "ducking" because of the spray of brain matter, which sprayed not only over the interior of the car but also onto the hood. Tague said he was not hit on the cheek on the third shot nor was he hit on the first. Greer said he sense a "concussion" on the second shot.
Headshot - fragments - reaction
The 'ducking' reaction is caused by the fragments from the headshot.Not to sidetrack this too much but I have always been confused by Kellermann's usage of the phrase "flurry of shells come into the car." Later, he said "flurry of shots." Shells or shots or what?
Headshot - fragments - reaction
I'm of the opinion that the bullet that struck JBC's wrist fragmented on impact, there is a relatively large entrance wound on the lateral side of his arm just above the wrist and a small slit-like exit in the crease of his wrist, plus metallic particles embedded in his wrist.
This bullet is not CE399
The bullet that struck JFK's head also fragmented, spraying the front of the limo.
This bullet is not CE399
And one bullet missed - who knows what happened to that? Could that somehow be CE399? I doubt it very much.
Where did CE 399 come from?
A corridor in Parkland hospital.
How did it get there?
Who knows beyond speculation.
Not to sidetrack this too much but I have always been confused by Kellermann's usage of the phrase "flurry of shells come into the car." Later, he said "flurry of shots." Shells or shots or what?Kellerman had a unique position. Kellerman was the person most likely to be hit by anything from the shots as he was in the line of fire at z270-313. He is the only person who described the last two shots as a "flurry" or barrage. The impact sound of the second shot impact sound followed by the muzzle blast followed by another shot hitting JFK + spray of matter followed by muzzle blast may have created a sensation for Kellerman of a somewhat continuous barrage.
When asked for more details, he said this:
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.
Two shots or shells, for me, is not a "flurry" of anything.
I would guess that the sounds of the fragments hitting the chrome and the windshield must have sounded like shots. Or shells. Or something. But he said just two "shells."
In any case, as I've said above, trying to discern all of this from the accounts will drive you mad. It's frustrating as hell and I gave up on it a long time ago.
Kellerman had a unique position. Kellerman was the person most likely to be hit by anything from the shots as he was in the line of fire at z270-313. He is the only person who described the last two shots as a "flurry" or barrage. The impact sound of the second shot impact sound followed by the muzzle blast followed by another shot hitting JFK + spray of matter followed by muzzle blast may have created a sensation for Kellerman of a somewhat continuous barrage.
There is a great deal of corroboration for the last two shots being in rapid succession. At that distance (300 feet), there would have been a discernible separation between impact and sound from the muzzle blast. Sound travelled at 1127 fps and the bullet average speed was about 1950 fps (initial 2100 fps and after 300 feet: 1800 fps).
The time difference is tsound - tbullet = d/vsound - d/vbullet = 300/1127 - 300/1950 = .267 - .154 sec. = 113 ms.
Kellerman had a unique position. Kellerman was the person most likely to be hit by anything from the shots as he was in the line of fire at z270-313. He is the only person who described the last two shots as a "flurry" or barrage. The impact sound of the second shot impact sound followed by the muzzle blast followed by another shot hitting JFK + spray of matter followed by muzzle blast may have created a sensation for Kellerman of a somewhat continuous barrage.
There is a great deal of corroboration for the last two shots being in rapid succession. At that distance (300 feet), there would have been a discernible separation between impact and sound from the muzzle blast. Sound travelled at 1127 fps and the bullet average speed was about 1950 fps (initial 2100 fps and after 300 feet: 1800 fps).
The time difference is tsound - tbullet = d/vsound - d/vbullet = 300/1127 - 300/1950 = .267 - .154 sec. = 113 ms.
I believe that Roy Kellerman said that a "flurry of shots entered the car" .... I doubt that Kellerman would have mistaken blood or brain matter for bullets.... I just we could define what Kellerman meant by a "flurry".
Agreed, but I would mix what I believe happened with Andrew's description -Re Greer an Kellermann ducking: probably. However, the Connallys are also ducking down after the headshot and I don't think it was because of the sound of fragments hitting the chrome and the windshield.
the sound of a shot
the sound of the impact
fragments hitting the windshield/chrome trim
another shot
This must have been a very intense moment in the front of the limo. I don't believe Kellerman and Greer would have been ducking out of the way of blood or brain matter, but fragments of bullet ricocheting around the front of the limo is a different matter. Kellerman describing shots entering the car is surely a reference to the fragmented bullet from the headshot entering the front part of the limo.
Outside the limo, although bad enough, wouldn't have seemed half as intense as up front in the limo (imo)
Re Greer an Kellermann ducking: probably. However, the Connallys are also ducking down after the headshot and I don't think it was because of the sound of fragments hitting the chrome and the windshield.
We've all been driving when something hit our windshield. It startles us. If another fragment hit the chrome at the same time as one hitting the windshield then I would suggest that was the "double bang" (one of the bullet; the other the fragments hitting the interior) that Kellermann heard.
No, I don't think there was a shot after the headshot.
I heard an explosion--I was not sure whether it was a firecracker, bomb, bullet, or other explosion. I looked at whatever I could quickly survey, and could not see anything which would indicate the origin of this noise. I noticed that the movements in the Presidential car were very abnormal and, at practically the same time, the movements in the Presidential follow-up car were abnormal. I turned in my seat and with my left arm grasped and shoved the Vice President, at his right shoulder, down and toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough. At the same time, I shouted
"get down!" I believe I said this more than once and directed it to the Vice President and the other occupants of the rear seat. They all responded very rapidly.
I quickly looked all around again and could see nothing to shoot at, so I stepped over into the back seat and sat on top of the Vice President. I sat in a crouched position and issued orders to the driver. During this time, I heard two more explosion noises and observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings. The second and third explosions made the same type of sound that the first one did as far as I could tell, but by this time I was of the belief that they definitely were shots--not bombs or firecrackers. I am not sure that I was on top of the Vice President before the second shot--he says I was. All of the above related events, from the beginning at the sound of the first shot to the sound of the third shot, happened within a few seconds.
In his testimony, Altgens was pretty sure about two shots.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I
could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot
tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another
shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the
last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
When pressed, he reluctantly placed a third in between the two he was sure about.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at
least one shot in between.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Mr. LIEBELER. At least one?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
I would say that—I know there was one in between. It is possible there
might have been another one I don’t really know, but two, I can really
account for.”
Altgens seemed to think he heard more one "firecracker" sound before taking his picture:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my
position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts
fireworks explosions?"
In 1985, he told Richard Trask:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"My first instinct was 'well, they're shooting firecrackers up there',
or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then
I hear it again as the car comes on down. No one has the foggiest
idea that something was taking place."
Seems like he's describing multiple "firecracker" sounds before he takes his picture, but had no clear impression the first of those noises was a gunshot. He probably reasoned, as his picture shows Kennedy reacting, that the "firecracker" before that picture was a gunshot. What's really the second shot is "No. 1" in his testimony.
In his testimony, Altgens was pretty sure about two shots.The one area where we need to fight our "confirmation bias" more than any other is on this issue of the shots. Timing, spacing and even number.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I
could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot
tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another
shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the
last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
When pressed, he reluctantly placed a third in between the two he was sure about.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"I can really only vouch for the two. Now, I know that there was at
least one shot in between.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Mr. LIEBELER. At least one?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
I would say that—I know there was one in between. It is possible there
might have been another one I don’t really know, but two, I can really
account for.”
Altgens seemed to think he heard more one "firecracker" sound before taking his picture:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my
position—I mean the first shot, and being fireworks—who counts
fireworks explosions?"
In 1985, he told Richard Trask:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"My first instinct was 'well, they're shooting firecrackers up there',
or some kind of celebration on behalf of the President. And then
I hear it again as the car comes on down. No one has the foggiest
idea that something was taking place."
Seems like he's describing multiple "firecracker" sounds before he takes his picture, but had no clear impression the first of those noises was a gunshot. He probably reasoned, as his picture shows Kennedy reacting, that the "firecracker" before that picture was a gunshot. What's really the second shot is "No. 1" in his testimony.
The one area where we need to fight our "confirmation bias" more than any other is on this issue of the shots. Timing, spacing and even number.
We stare at the film, pore over testimony, and grab a bit here and another thing there and think we've got it worked out. Then another smart person comes along and points out, "What about this?" and we mumble to ourselves and move on.
It'll drive you mad.
The problem is that interpreting the Z film and other films and photos is just as subject to confirmation bias as interpreting testimony. It definitely is crazy-making to try.
In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.
When I started examining the Z-film the only confirmation bias I had was that the "back and to the left" motion of JFK proved there was a shot from the front. Everything else, all the arguments I've presented in this thread were based on an impartial look at the evidence.
That's how I came up with the model I'm presenting here - a first shot that passes through both JFK and JBC at z223.
Once I'd established the model, then the confirmation bias kicked in.
In the course of my examination I came across something that undermined my 'core belief' that JFK was shot from the front.
I followed that evidence and, when I was convinced the headshot came from behind, I dropped that belief.
I've yet to come across any argument or evidence that I'm wrong about the first shot.
If I do I'll drop that as well.
Confirmation bias or no confirmation bias.
You don't need to interpret the Z Film. The eyewitnesses state exactly where the first shot happened. The Chisms state it happened right before the car gets to them.
John Chism : "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot,"
Jean Newman states it happened right after it passed her.
Jean Newman : "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report"
Calvery, Hicks, and Westbrook state it happened directly in front of them.
Gloria Calvery : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was Standing when I heard the first shot."
Karan Hicks : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gunshot"
Karen Westbrook : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot ."
(https://i.postimg.cc/hPxgPzwR/Shelley-in-New-Orleans-5-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Explain this photo without acting dumb or sounding like one of the Tin Foil Brigade.
Explain this photo without acting dumb or sounding like one of the Tin Foil Brigade.
Ask me nicely
In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.
I agree, but there are witnesses who seem to state that the shot occurred earlier.
The contradictory nature of eye-witness testimony can be used to support almost any theory/model.
Because there are so many witnesses there is an inevitable variance in the witness accounts as we are dealing with human memory which, as is well documented, isn't a perfect recording system.
On top of this is the possibility to interpret an eye-witness account in many different ways if it is not specific.
The Z-film is the "ultimate eye-witness" in a way. It can be viewed over and over again, paused, slowed down, zoomed in etc.
This doesn't make it infallible because interpreting these images, once again, has the human factor involved.
I view the Z-film as 'primary' evidence and eye-witness accounts as 'secondary', if the eye-witness testimony does not support what we are seeing in the Z-film I discard it and not the other way round.
The greatest mystery to me is that there is any argument over JFK and JBC being shot through at the same time.
From the moment I started examining the Z-film it was absolutely clear it showed both men having extreme reactions at exactly the same moment to what I assume is a shot. I can't get over how obvious it is, and I still can't.
By the same token, I felt the same way about JFK's "back and to the left" motion until I changed my mind.
Hi Steve,
Firstly, I couldn't agree with you more about 'confirmation bias' and touched on that issue at the beginning of my last post when I wrote:
"Obviously, Jerry, you will be interpreting things to suit your model as I will be interpreting things to suit mine."
Once a person has established a way of comprehending the evidence (I call this a 'model') it becomes very difficult to avoid confirmation bias. It becomes almost second nature to see things in a way that favours your model. The important part for me has been the construction of the model. In this thread I have looked at what I believe to be a crucial aspect of understanding the JFK assassination - the shots, in particular the first shot. I've avoided eye-witness testimony where possible, as it can be twisted into almost any point of view, and relied in the most part on the Z-film and Altgens 6, I view these as 'primary' evidence. Obviously eye-witness testimony must come into it to some degree but I view this as 'secondary' evidence, the validity of which must be corroborated by the primary evidence where possible.
The evidence has led me to believe the first shot passed through both JFK and JBC at z223 and this is the model I have presented in this thread. Once my model was established it was then the confirmation bias kicked in and I now interpret any evidence through the filter of the model I've established.
I now put my model forward to be tested and torn down but no serious challenge has arisen. The majority of the thread is spent uncovering the weaknesses in other models and I have seen how confirmation bias can turn into flat-out denial. I know that if a better model than mine comes along I'll adopt that and drop my own as it's something I've done before (a thread called "Unseeing the Headshot")
With that in mind, have a look over the partial analysis of Altgens 6 I've put forward in recent threads and feel free to point out the weaknesses of it (or strengths if you're so inclined).
;D
Pretty please Bill.
What are your thoughts on the photo in question?
I'll not get sucked into another one of your bottomless rabbit-holes.
Agreed, I don't see the doubt about one bullet striking both JFK and JBC. Bill Newman stated he could not tell which man was hit first by the first shot in the WFAA interview.
The eyewitnesses are consistent that the first shot stuck JFK. No one was looking at JBC. Mary Woodward gives a good example by referencing the shot never took place until after JFK faced forward, which does not happen until Z207. The earwitnesses are all over the board and in general describe a shooting sequence that is not representative of the cycle time of the carcano.
An early missed shot is nothing more than an attempt to compensate for the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano by stretching out the shooting time.
-----------------------------
The HSCA Analysis of the photos concluded The bullet leaving jFK's throat would have to strike JBC. JFK's position in the car ovr shadows JBC's back
Mr. SAWYER. If we were to start at the other end then and assume that a bullet were fired at the approximate time we have determined from the sixth floor of the depository, would it have of necessity given the wounds in the President, would it of necessity, based on what you have determined as to locations somewhat, also have hit Governor Connally?
Mr. CANNING. The bullet would have had to have been substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit with the alinements that we have found.
Mr. SAWYER. So that if we assume, as apparently is the fact, that this jacketed bullet did not hit anything solid in the way of bone in the President but only traversed the soft tissue of the neck, and presuming the approximate location of the limousine at the time and the posture as nearly as can be determined of the President at that time, that in your view then, absent a deflection of that bullet, it could not have missed Governor Connally.
Mr. CANNING. That is my view, yes.
Mr. SAWYER. I think that is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very true. The contrarian motto is that because everything cannot be known with absolute certainty, nothing can ever be proven. As a result, there must be doubt regarding any fact in human history because it is possible to dream up an alternative scenario (no matter how baseless or improbable the alternative). There are no time machines to disprove these improbable alternatives to their subjective satisfaction. Thus, we must forever reside in a state of uncertainty known as the rabbit hole. Repeat endless. When all else fails put a word in quotation marks to suggest fake "doubt."
I'll not get sucked into another one of your bottomless rabbit-holes.
Yeah, Dan, how dare you try to discuss the JFK assassination on the JFK Assassination Forum? It's only for posting movie clips and nonsensical one-liners.
It's just that a frame like Z162 is "just about in front of me".
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z162.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Groden_Willis5.jpg)
Chism would be watching the car as it neared him. The Willis photo is about two seconds later and the Chisms appear pretty close to the car, so certainly some looking up towards the car before that.
However, Chism seems to recount just two shots:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved
at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point
I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President,"
sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side. At this point,
I saw Mrs. Kennedy stand up and pull his head over in her lap,
and then lay down over him as if to shield him."
In that case, the "first" shot is the one before the head shot. He's describing as the "first shot" the SBT shot in the Z220s. Another thing, too, Chism wasn't sure about the number of shots, allowing for up to three. But he could only really recount what happened during two of those.
If the first of the three shots was the one he lost track of, it's possible he heard it while the car was further up Elm.
His wife, Marvin Faye, is also "first shot" before the head shot:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the
President fell to his left. The President's wife immediately stood over
him, and she pulled him up, and lay him down in the seat, and she
stood up over him in the car. The President was standing and waving
and smiling at the people when the shot happened.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
And then there was a second shot that I heard, after the President's
wife had pulled him down in the seat."
Likewise, Jean Newman. So basically, their statements could be a way to situate the moment of the second shot, rather than the first. The general consensus is that three shots were fired, with the head shot being the last.
The eyewitness accounts are interesting but often not reliable. I look at the film for subjectivity (yes, film and digital recording can be manipulated, but this one seems accurate).
The turning of the heads of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy just as Rosemary Willis begins to slow to stop: that's first shot territory. The simultaneous reactions of both men in the Z220s: that's second shot territory. The head shot: obvious, but the head initially goes forward first, so consistent with SN.
;D
I don't know what I was thinking.
I just got a bit carried away.
::)
So did Oswald
Yeah, Dan, how dare you try to discuss the JFK assassination on the JFK Assassination Forum? It's only for posting movie clips and nonsensical one-liners.
You're silly enough to believe the agents' claim that they physically reacted "instantaneously" to the first shot. And that the third shot came after the head shot.
Mason and you are eating out of the same bowl of Froot Loops.
It's just that a frame like Z162 is "just about in front of me".
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z162.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Groden_Willis5.jpg)
Chism would be watching the car as it neared him. The Willis photo is about two seconds later and the Chisms appear pretty close to the car, so certainly some looking up towards the car before that.
However, Chism seems to recount just two shots:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved
at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point
I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President,"
sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side. At this point,
I saw Mrs. Kennedy stand up and pull his head over in her lap,
and then lay down over him as if to shield him."
In that case, the "first" shot is the one before the head shot. He's describing as the "first shot" the SBT shot in the Z220s. Another thing, too, Chism wasn't sure about the number of shots, allowing for up to three. But he could only really recount what happened during two of those.
If the first of the three shots was the one he lost track of, it's possible he heard it while the car was further up Elm.
His wife, Marvin Faye, is also "first shot" before the head shot:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the
President fell to his left. The President's wife immediately stood over
him, and she pulled him up, and lay him down in the seat, and she
stood up over him in the car. The President was standing and waving
and smiling at the people when the shot happened.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
And then there was a second shot that I heard, after the President's
wife had pulled him down in the seat."
Likewise, Jean Newman. So basically, their statements could be a way to situate the moment of the second shot, rather than the first. The general consensus is that three shots were fired, with the head shot being the last.
The eyewitness accounts are interesting but often not reliable. I look at the film for subjectivity (yes, film and digital recording can be manipulated, but this one seems accurate).
The turning of the heads of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy just as Rosemary Willis begins to slow to stop: that's first shot territory. The simultaneous reactions of both men in the Z220s: that's second shot territory. The head shot: obvious, but the head initially goes forward first, so consistent with SN.
Both Chism and Newman could not have been more explicit in declaring they only heard two shots. It does not require any explanation or interpretation if you just read what they stated. Jean Newman states the first shot occurred after the car was past her not before. The first shot took place when the limo was between where Jean Newman and the Chisms were standing not before it got to them.
Jean Newman:
My name is Jean Newman. I live with my parents, my father's name is G. O. Kimbriel. I work at the Rheam Manufacturing Company.
I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about half-way between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner. I was by myself, there were other people around watching the motorcade. The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down and I thought at the time that it probably scared him, too, just like it did me, because he flinched, like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest.
By this time, the motorcade never did stop, and the President fell to his left and his wife jumped up on her knees, I believe it was, in the back of the car on her knees, I couldn't say that for sure. And I realized then it had been a shot. I looked in the car and she was on her knees, and he wasn't even visible in the car. I looked around then, and everyone was running every which way, I don't know why I didn't run, I just stood there and backed up and looked around to see if I could see anything, but I saw no one whatever with anything that resembled a gun or anything of that kind.
I just heard two shots.
John Chism:
When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President," sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side. At this point, I saw Mrs. Kennedy stand up and pull his head over in her lap, and then lay down over him as if to shield him.
And the two men in the front seat, I don't know who they were, looked back, and just about the time they looked back, the second shot was fired. At this point, I looked behind me, to see whether it was a fireworks display or something. And then I saw a lot of people funning for cover, behind the embankment there back up on the grass.
And at this point, I turned back around and saw the motorcade beginning to speed up, and everybody was laying down but the driver, of course. I didn't notice where it went. My wife and I began seeking cover, and we went to our car, and then we told the policeman about what we knew.
----------------------
This particular statement by John Chism exactly matches to what Kellerman testifies to in his WC testimony about turning after the first shot and before the second, the head shot.
"And the two men in the front seat, I don't know who they were, looked back, and just about the time they looked back, the second shot was fired"
Kellerman Official Report
"We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m....... I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Governor Connally fell_to Mrs. Connally's lap."
WC testimony:
Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.
Senator COOPER. Might I ask a question there?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Senator COOPER. A few minutes ago you said in response to a question that when you spoke to the driver the car leaped forward from an acceleration immediately. Did that acceleration occur before the second shot was fired?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Just about the time that it came in.
Senator COOPER. About the time it came in?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Not before?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No.
Boom -- another insightful contribution.
This particular statement by John Chism exactly matches to what Kellerman testifies to in his WC testimony about turning after the first shot and before the second, the head shot.
"And the two men in the front seat, I don't know who they were, looked back, and just about the time they looked back, the second shot was fired"
For me, Chism's observation about the headshot is validated because it is confirmed by the Z-film:
(https://i.postimg.cc/G24G2wLq/Greer-turn.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
It's such an obvious point that is regularly brushed under the carpet.Really? It must?
A bullet, fired from the SN, passing clean through JFK must hit JBC.
This particular statement by John Chism exactly matches to what Kellerman testifies to in his WC testimony about turning after the first shot and before the second, the head shot.
"And the two men in the front seat, I don't know who they were, looked back, and just about the time they looked back, the second shot was fired"
For me, Chism's observation about the headshot is validated because it is confirmed by the Z-film:
(https://i.postimg.cc/G24G2wLq/Greer-turn.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Boom. Another intimidated Oswald-lover.
Jean Newman can see the front of the car at Z200. Newman's description perfectly coincides with the limousine being at the Z220s and the shot being heard then. That's about where the car had "just passed" her.
If you're arguing two shots only (based on witnesses like Newman), then the "first shot" occurred in the Z220s.
I'm saying some witnesses seem to have lost track of the first shot, probably because it missed and was perceived as a "backfire" or "firecracker" (plus motorcycles were accelerating as they left the turn and the crowd along Elm began shouting).
Could be that in some cases, the authorities asked them about the shots that struck and the witness didn't volunteer the shot that missed. Texans are independent to the level of stupidity; case-in-point: privatizing energy utilities.
How's your Dad's grave being kept up? You couldn't "intimidate" a flea.
No one lost track of the shots? Aren't you a "two shot" fellow? Then that means the three shot witnesses lost track of the shots.No it means the numerous two shot eyewitnesses not only knew what they heard they visually observed the event, the three shot earwitnesses did not.
That study doesn't reflect observers not expecting a sequence of gunshots, and being distracted by crowd and motorcade noise with the President of the United States and First Lady there drawing attention.
“Punishment”. LOL.
Mr O: JFK not being visible from Z208 to Z221 is a fact, not an opinion.The old facts changed to factoids.
You can only guess what is going on behind the sign.
Why, exactly, would the SS and the FBI provide Mr West with a Z207 hit location, which he surveyed in on his plat at their direction?
You know better than them? 47 years later?
Ok.
The old facts changed to factoids.There are frames for z208-211 that do not show the sprocket area. These were made from the original copies of the film that Zapruder had made at the Kodak lab in Dallas when the original film was developed. The original frames for 155, 156, (part of 157), 208, 209, 210, and 211 were damaged by Life magazine.
Someone somewhere has Z208 Z209 Z210 Z211.
Does anyone know who & where?
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/2t4StUgFGAVu7Vl1H-uBvRHL_5PyiEopQixll4gIAcCKjdzbxJjTYm0DzDYpwpW3fZWTFVMK7cv7MZ--IvG_1PLRBiy2Nsd9q_dTgGd7sq-pOFV7Wy4cdw3qQnZLbdTrcA=w1280)
There are frames for z208-211 that do not show the sprocket area. These were made from the original copies of the film that Zapruder had made at the Kodak lab in Dallas when the original film was developed. The original frames for 155, 156, (part of 157), 208, 209, 210, and 211 were damaged by Life magazine.Very interesting, thanx for that.
According to the Sixth Floor Museum (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/abraham-zapruder-film/):
- "Six frames, from two different parts of the original film, were accidentally damaged by Life magazine personnel while they were preparing pictures for publication. Fortunately, three duplicate copies were made of the original film before the damage occurred. Two of those films are stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and the third is in the Museum’s Zapruder Collection. The copy now in the Museum’s collection was apparently also damaged when it was at LIFE and it, too, may be lacking one or two of the “missing” frames. All frames of the film are accounted for at the National Archives."
Zapruder thought there was only two shots.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling,
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KDfuOkztqCA/Uo4BnZ_KRTI/AAAAAAAAACg/Kipp8WE8aH4/s1600/willis7.jpg)
The Willis 5 photo with JFK waving to the crowd in the area of Newman, Chisms, and the secretaries Calvery, Hicks and Westbrook at Z202+.
I recently came across yet another way to corroborate a first shot around z223 thanks to the work of Pat Speer. It concerns the witness statements of the occupants of the Vice-Presidential car and the Vice-Presidential follow-up car. From these statements it is possible to glean an approximate position for each car at the time of the first shot and from these approximate positions it is possible rule out various theories regarding the first shot.
I will look at a number of theories put forward for when the first shot occurred in relation to the Z-Film:
z133 (and before)
z160
z190
z223 (my own proposal for the first shot)
First, a look at the statements:
VICE PRESIDENTIAL CAR
Hurchel Jacks [Driver] - "My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at
the President’s car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out..."
Rufus Youngblood [Passenger Seat] - "The motorcade then made a left turn, and the sidewalk crowds were
beginning to diminish in size. I observed a grassy plot to my right in back of a
small crowd...I heard an explosion…"
"As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was
an explosive noise."
"We had straightened on Elm now and were beginning to move easily
down the incline in the wake of the cars ahead. Suddenly there was an
explosive noise..."
Senator Yarborough [back left] - “as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad
underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast..."
Lady Bird Johnson [back centre] - “we were rounding a curve, going down a hill and suddenly there was a
sharp loud report..."
"...suddenly in that brilliant sunshine there was a sharp rifle shot. It came,
I thought, from over my right shoulder."
Lyndon Johnson [back right] - "After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report."
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL FOLLOW-UP CAR
Joe Henry Rich [Driver] - “We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and that was when I heard the first
shot."
Cliff Carter [passenger seat] - "...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm and was right along side
of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded
like a firecracker."
Jerry Kivett [back right] - "As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 the way to the underpass, traveling
between 10 and 15 miles per hour, I heard a loud noise..."
Warren Taylor [back centre] - “Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are
unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker
—the sound coming from my right rear."
Thomas (Lem) Johns [back right] - "We turned onto Elm Street...We were going downhill...which put the
Texas Book Depository on our right, more or less...But we were going down
this Elm Street, with my door open. I heard at least two shots.."
10 witnesses in 2 vehicles all corroborating each others statements. Not one or two ambiguous statements open to any kind of interpretation. Every single occupant of both cars are stating, basically, the same thing - at the time of the first shot these cars had turned off Houston Street and were travelling down Elm.
I now turn to the work of Mark Tyler to compare how these statements support or refute the various theories put forward.
Z133
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNvWkv4c/z133-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
In the image above the Vice-Presidential car is marked 7 and the follow-up car 8. It is obvious from this image that both vehicles are still on Houston at the time of this proposed first shot and, as such, a shot around z133 (or before) is absolutely refuted by the 10 witness statements.
Z160
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFQMpXmx/z160-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Again, we can clearly see that, although car 7 is well into it's turn, car 8 is still on Houston. The theory of a first shot around z160 is refuted.
Z190
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKLpP4Q5/z190-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It can be said that car 7 is now travelling down Elm but car 8 is still to complete the turn as specified by the occupants of this car and, as such, a shot around z190 is refuted by the witness statements.
Z223
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4XTTyk0/z223-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
My own proposal.
It can be seen from the above image that both cars are now travelling on Elm after having completed the turn off Houston. There can be no doubt that this is the only theory that comes anywhere close to fitting the witness statements of the 10 occupants of these vehicles.
Yet further corroboration, if any was needed, that the first shot was the one that struck JFK in the throat around z223.
But Dan..... If you use a straight edge from the SE corner window of the TSBD ( #35 ) to JFK in his Lincoln, you'll find that a tree blocks any shot from point #35..... And we all know that the arch villian, Lee Harrrrrvey Osssssswald ( BOOOOO, HISS )
performed an impossible feat with that rusty old carcano from that SE corner window..... We KNOW that Oswald did it because LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" told us he did.
If you could Walt, please deal with the arguments being presented.
I thought this was the perfect opportunity to point out that there was a tree between The sixth floor window and JFK at the time he was hit in THE THROAT.
I agree with your reasoning and your conclusion that by z223 there has only been one shot. I know you think that there was a shot at z223 based on the belief that the change in the appearance of JBC's jacket is caused by a bullet.
My own proposal.
It can be seen from the above image that both cars are now travelling on Elm after having completed the turn off Houston. There can be no doubt that this is the only theory that comes anywhere close to fitting the witness statements of the 10 occupants of these vehicles.
Yet further corroboration, if any were needed, that the first shot was the one that struck JFK in the throat around z223.
I agree with your reasoning and your conclusion that by z223 there has only been one shot. I know you think that there was a shot at z223 based on the belief that the change in the appearance of JBC's jacket is caused by a bullet.
But how do you explain the movement of JFK's left arm from a full wave in z193 to a clenched fist in front of his neck at z224. The arm movement and fist clench had to have occurred before the shot, if the shot was a z223. How do you explain that? Pre-cognition? And how would the bullet exiting his neck not strike the fist or arm?
The evidence you have provided is equally consistent with a first shot about a second earlier. Also, the Secret Service film shows that Oswald would have had a clear view of JFK without obstruction by the oak tree by the time he was between the lamp post and the Thornton sign, which is before z200.
No Walt, this is not the perfect opportunity for your incoherent ramblings.
Over 160 witnesses reported THREE CLEARLY AUDIBLE SHOTS (more than 75% of all witnesses who reported on the shots)
I am trying to establish when the first of these THREE CLEARLY AUDIBLE SHOTS occurred.
Obviously, this is not a topic for flakes who have gunmen all over the place firing a range of weaponry, it's for those who accept credible evidence.
It's important to establish when the first of these THREE CLEARLY AUDIBLE SHOTS occurred as there is no consensus on such a fundamental issue.
If you have a comment to make about the evidence I've presented lets hear it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Ls2nnHPg/z225-re-enactment.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Obviously, this is not a topic for flakes who have gunmen all over the place firing a range of weaponry, it's for those who accept credible evidence.
I could not be in more agreement... And the plat of Z223 presents, not merely credible evidence , but irrefutable evidence that there was a tree between the sixth floor window and President Kennedy at the time he was stuck in THE THROAT....(Z 223)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1sxVszv21HxODmtCm4fVgQr3ND_crPOZb)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Kennedy's right hand is cupped and may be in the process of forming a fist (which it appears to be by Z226). But that would only represent the passage of one frame to get the hand cupped. You're talking about Kennedy needing 30 frames or almost two seconds just to cup his hand if he was shot in the mid-Z190s.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rnPYtv1XKkICgLqDcp2eE60UNbcVM-WQ)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
I don't think Moore could see to the President slumping Z228ff. His statement says he saw the President "slump" on the first shot. Kennedy leans forward in the Z170s, within a second of the Connally's rightward head-turns, which they said occurred when they heard the first shot. Moore wasn't side-to the limousine (he was almost directly behind) so his impression of Kennedy having "reached the Thornton Freeway sign" seems not based on anything comparative.
I think you're assuming the car occupants would be staring directly out the vehicle's front window and only be aware of what's in the immediate front of the car. Instead, I believe they were more likely to be anticipating where their car was headed or be looking towards the Presidential limousine and how the crowd was receiving the President.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1xzY6Qm3OAebgdzvLMMisi220FQ98ysy4)
Lady Bird Johnson says her car was "rounding a curve" at the moment of the first shot. By Z223 the VP car is well pass the curve.
Clifton C. Carter said his car was "right along side of the Texas School Book Depository" when he heard the first shot. Since his statement was made in May 1964, and he morphed events, it may have been the second shot (not the first) that he heard when his car was alongside the Depository.
"At approximately 12:30 p.m., our car had just made the lefthand turn off
Houston onto Elm Street and was right along side of the Texas School
Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded like a
firecracker. Special Agent Youngblood, who was seated on the righthand
side of the front seat of Vice President Johnson's car immediately turned
and pushed Vice President Johnson down and in the same motion vaulted
over the seat and covered the Vice President with his body. At that instant
Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough, who were riding in the back seat
along with the Vice President, bent forward. Special Agent Youngblood's
action came immediately after the first shot and before the succeeding shots.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
I distinctly remember three shots. There was an interval of approximately
5 to 6 seconds from the first to the last shot, and the three shots were
evenly spaced."
I don't think Youngblood got over the front seat between shots 1 and 2. I think Carter filled in some of what he saw with regards to Youngblood from news reports that exaggerated Youngblood's reactions.
Agents Johns heard "two shots" -- so his "first" shot could have been the Z220s SBT shot (the 2nd of most LN scenarios). Agent Jacks' vehicle isn't absolutely "straightened up from making the left turn" at Z160, but he said he was looking "looking directly at the President's car at that time". So his line-of-sight was down Elm; at Z160, the vehicle Jacks was in was perpendicular to Houston and more on Elm than Houston.
I have presented a multitude of arguments in this thread demonstrating the first shot occurred at z223. The radical bulging of the right side of JBC's jacket caused by the bullet exiting his chest is just one piece of evidence confirming my "belief".I prefer basing conclusions on the evidence.
The latest argument, based on the work of Pat Speer and Mark Tyler, refutes all other theories regarding when the first shot occurred, including your own (unless you've changed it again).
This has been explained at length in this thread and has nothing to do with pre-cognition.Yes. The assumption is that he just happened to move his hands into that position immediately before being shot. Big assumption.
"The evidence you have provided is equally consistent with a first shot about a second earlier."I said that the evidence you provided (the motorcade witnesses) is consistent with a shot about a second earlier. Other witnesses such as Phil Willis (just before z202), Mary Woodward (just after z192), Linda Willis (z195-z205), Rosemary Willis (the head turn to the TSBD at z204), Jack Ready (rearward turn begins z200), together with the fact that JFK was never completely obscured by the tree and was completely clear of the tree well before z200 indicate that that the shot occurred around z195 give or take a few frames.
So you're now changing your theory to a first shot around z205?
What are you basing that on?
I prefer basing conclusions on the evidence.
Yes. The assumption is that he just happened to move his hands into that position immediately before being shot. Big assumption.
I said that the evidence you provided (the motorcade witnesses) is consistent with a shot about a second earlier. Other witnesses such as Phil Willis (just before z202), Mary Woodward (just after z192), Linda Willis (z195-z205), Rosemary Willis (the head turn to the TSBD at z204), Jack Ready (rearward turn begins z200), together with the fact that JFK was never completely obscured by the tree and was completely clear of the tree well before z200 indicate that that the shot occurred around z195 give or take a few frames.
I note that in your post #152 on this thread, you quoted from Pat Speer's analysis:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 293 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 293, 88 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together. Another 13 heard the last two shots fired closely together, and yet another could only swear to hearing two shots, but thought there may have been a third, which was wholly consistent with the last two being fired closely together. This means that 173 of the 205 witnesses described the shots in a relatively consistent manner. Of the remaining 32, 18 heard four or more shots, and another 3 made statements indicating there was a shot after the head shot."
At that point, based on Pat Speer's analysis, you had considered that the evidence was consistent with a first shot as early as z195. What has changed?
No you don't.Yes. You need to look at all the witnesses. The same witnesses that Speer analysed and concluded supported a shot in the z190 to z224 range and the additional witnesses that I referred to (such as Phil Willis, Linda Willis and Rosemary Willis' head turn, all of which put the first shot before z202; such as Ready; such as the Secret Service film showing that JFK was quite visible when he passed the lamppost just a few feet east of where Mary Woodward was standing.
You base it on sketchy, disparate witness testimony and perverse interpretations of the video evidence.
The latest evidence I've presented is based on 10 corroborating witness statements from two vehicles that place them on Elm St at the moment of the first shot and compared that with the comprehensive mapping program created by Mark Tyler to show the vehicle positions at various points.
Do you have any issue with the method I've used?
The witness statements are consistent with z195 you say?You are misreading the statements of the occupants of the VP security car.
Well, let's take a look:
(https://i.postimg.cc/h4bchfhQ/z195-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
As you can clearly see, the VP follow-up car is still half way through the turn onto Elm St. and is thus refuted by the witness statements of ALL the occupants of that vehicle.
Your little theory is refuted (yet again)
The post you are referring to [#151, not #152] makes no reference to a shot as early as z195. Is this one of your more outlandish tactics to steer the discussion away from the Speer/Tyler evidence being discussed, as it refutes your own theory?So how do you interpret: "with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224"? Is z190 not earlier than z195?
Yes. You need to look at all the witnesses. The same witnesses that Speer analysed and concluded supported a shot in the z190 to z224 range and the additional witnesses that I referred to (such as Phil Willis, Linda Willis and Rosemary Willis' head turn, all of which put the first shot before z202; such as Ready; such as the Secret Service film showing that JFK was quite visible when he passed the lamppost just a few feet east of where Mary Woodward was standing.
You are misreading the statements of the occupants of the VP security car.
Occupants of the VP follow-up car (5th in motorcade, your #8 car) described the moment of the first shot:
- Joe Rich. (driver), WC 18 H 800: "I was staying right on his bumper" (of the VP car). "we turned off Houston Street onto Elm Street"
- Clifton Carter, WC 7 H 474: "our car had just made the lefthand turn off Houston onto Elm Street and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building"
- SA Kivett, WC 8 H 778: "The motorcade was heading slightly downhill toward an underpass. As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 of the way to the underpass.."
- SA Johns, WC 18 H 764: "at this time were were on a slight downhill curve to the right"
- SA Taylor, (18 H 782): "our automobile had just turned a corner"
The position you have shown for the VP Security car certainly fits those descriptions at the position you have shown at z195. Most of the comments provide a "before bracket" (after their car had turned off Houston); after the motorcade was heading toward the underpass about 1/3 of the way there. But the comment by Clifton Carter gives a precise location: they had made the turn off Houston and the car was "along side" the TSBD. That certainly fits the position you have shown for the VP Security car at z195.
The Occupants of Mayor Cabell’s car (6th in motorcade, your #11 car for some reason) further support this position. They recalled hearing the first shot as follows:The car that you have shown is directly facing the TSBD at z195 just as Mrs. Cabell described. She said she just looked up and saw the rifle sticking out of the 6th floor window directly in front of her. Here is a view of that moment from the SN as shown in the 1963 Secret Service film:
- Milton Wright (driver), WC18 H 802: "had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection".
- Earle Cabell, WC 7 H 479, said that he was turned around talking to Rep. Roberts and Mrs. Cabell with the TSBD situated to his back.
- Mrs. Cabell, WC 7 H 486, "we were making the turn" ... "I was directly facing [the TSBD]"
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Position_of_Cabell_car_first_shot.JPG)
So how do you interpret: "with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224"? Is z190 not earlier than z195?
[BTW, I was referring to your post which is shown as #152 when I view it. In any event, it is your post on: November 02, 2020, 12:39:46 PM]
"You are misreading the statements of the occupants of the VP security car."Again, you are misreading what they said. Not a single occupant of the VP security car used the word "completed". That is your word.
Am I really?
Joe Henry Rich [Driver] - “We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" Turn completed
Cliff Carter [passenger seat] - "...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm" Turn completed
Warren Taylor [back centre] - “Our automobile had just turned a corner" Turn completed
Thomas (Lem) Johns [back right] - "We turned onto Elm Street...We were going downhill" Turn completed
4 of the 5 occupants specifically state the turn onto Elm from Houston was completed. This is not the case for z195. That is clear for all to see. However, it is the case for z223.
The other occupant, Kivett, makes it clear they were going down the incline on Elm St at the time of the first shot.
Again, you are misreading what they said. Not a single occupant of the VP security car used the word "completed". That is your word.
All they said was that they made the turn off Houston (onto Elm). And Clifton Carter said the car was along side the TSBD. Now we know that the turn is about 120 degrees so turning off Houston onto Elm does not mean that they had completed the 120 degree turn. According to Carter, they had only turned 90 degrees. And Mrs. Cabell, whom you ignore, corroborates this. Who is "cherry picking" here?
There is further confirmation in the statement of Hurchel Jacks who was driving the VP car:
"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn".
So it is not apparent that the VP security car, more than a car-length behind had "just straightened up from making the left turn" at the same time.
Kivett talks about the "motorcade" position, which does not not tell you where the VP Security car was.
As I said, all the VP security car occupants give important evidence that the car was not still on Houston, as the early first-shot-miss proponents suggest. Carter, Cabell and Jacks give more details of the precise location and position and it all fits with positions of the cars much closer to z195 than z223.
"My name is Milton T. Wright, Texas Highway Patrolman, Badge No. 790.
On November 22 I was assigned to drive a 63 Mercury Comet convertible
that contained the Mayor and his wife and a U. S. Congressman. We turned
onto Houston Street, the parade was going real well and speed was
beginning to pick up and the crowd was beginning to thin right at this point.
The car I was driving had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30
feet from the intersection when I heard the first shot. When the second shot
was fired I noticed a number of people running away from the Motorcade
and I saw several Dallas motorcycle policemen had their guns drawn.
Then the motorcade speeded up and we went toward the hospital at a high
rate of speed. I could see the President's car but I could not see anyone in
the back seat. The only people I could see were the Agents. At the hospital
we unloaded the Governor first and then the President. Then we were
instructed to keep the news media away from the car."
Since he only references two shots, Milton Wright may be describing the Z220s shot as the "first shot" (that would make it the 2nd shot in most LN scenarios). Mrs. Cabell, who recalled three shots, doesn't say the first shot occurred when the car as far onto Elm as Wright says.
You're really going to make me explain the English language to you?No! The word "completed" is yours. With the exception of Carter, the occupants do not provide any further details of how far they had turned. Normally, on a 90 degree turn, if you make a turn off one street onto another you are very close to completing the turn. But not this turn onto Elm which was a 120 degree turn. Carter described the security car being along side the TSBD. I suggest that means the car was turned 90 degrees, not 120, so that it was parallel to the TSBD front. To the extent that "along side" might be somewhat ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by Mrs Cabell who gave a very specific position of her car: she was directly facing the TSBD at the moment of the first shot and just had to look up to see the rifle in the SN directly in front of her. I say that the Cabell car had to have been in this position for her to be directly facing the SN when she looked up:
I will turn/I will make a turn - This is something that will happen in the future.
I am turning - This is something happening in the present moment
I have turned/I have made a turn - This is something that has already happened. Another way to phrase this is to say THE TURN HAS BEEN COMPLETED
You then insist that Mrs Cabell corroborates this statement - please demonstrate how this is the case.You obviously have not taken in my previous posts. READ HER EVIDENCE and tell us where you think he car was and the zframe that it corresponds to.
No! The word "completed" is yours. With the exception of Carter, the occupants do not provide any further details of how far they had turned.
Normally, on a 90 degree turn, if you make a turn off one street onto another you are very close to completing the turn. But not this turn onto Elm which was a 120 degree turn. Carter described the security car being along side the TSBD. I suggest that means the car was turned 90 degrees, not 120, so that it was parallel to the TSBD front.
:D You sound like a petulant child.So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn? How do you interpret Carter's statement that the car was "along side " the TSBD? Are you saying that both the VP and VP security cars had "just straightened up" from the turn onto Elm at the same time?
If you don't like the word "completed" then choose another word that means the VP security car has finished turning and is now travelling on Elm Street. You refuse to accept what the witnesses are actually saying. If they were still in the process of turning they would be saying things such as "as we were making the turn" or "while we were turning"...but they don't.
The all use the past tense of the verb "to turn" indicating the process of turning had been (I'd better not use the word "completed" as you seem to have a problem with it)...finished.
When Rich says "we turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" you need to believe he is saying they are still in the process of turning. But he's not, he's saying that, at the moment of the first shot, the VP security vehicle had turned off Houston Street and was now on Elm Street.
When Carter says "...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm", he's not saying they were still in the process of turning. He is saying that the turn had been "made". The turn had been done. The turn was over. It was...(I shouldn't say it)...COMPLETED!!Why do you not deal with Mrs. Cabell's statement that she was directly facing the TSBD at the time of the first shot and looked directly up to see the TSBD? Maybe you could comment on the statements of Phil Willis and Linda Willis. What zframes do you put JFK between Linda Willis and the Stemmons sign? It is not difficult to do.
You cannot escape this evidence. All you can do is try to obfuscate and misrepresent.
We've been here before and I know from experience there is no point carrying on this debate.
When you wrote - "According to Carter, they had only turned 90 degrees." - I knew you were "untruthing" yet again.
You put those words in Carter's mouth but it turns out he said nothing of the sort. Instead it turns out to be some kind of perverse logic on your behalf. No surprise there.
The Tyler mapping program shows that at z195 the VP security car is still in the process of turning off Houston and onto Elm. This demonstrates that the first shot did not occur at this point.
I know you won't accept this and that you will just try to twist the evidence beyond reason, as you have already done.
The rest of your post is just the usual nonsense and not worth dealing with.
A first shot at z195 has been refuted.
So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn?
How do you interpret Carter's statement that the car was "along side " the TSBD?
Are you saying that both the VP and VP security cars had "just straightened up" from the turn onto Elm at the same time?
Why do you not deal with Mrs. Cabell's statement that she was directly facing the TSBD at the time of the first shot and looked directly up to see the TSBD?
Maybe you could comment on the statements of Phil Willis and Linda Willis. What zframes do you put JFK between Linda Willis and the Stemmons sign? It is not difficult to do.
Perhaps you could resist making your ususal infantile comments while doing that.
No.Let me get this straight.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed. This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.
At the time of the first shot the VP security car was travelling down Elm Street with the TSBD to it's right-hand side.Well, according to your diagram, which is 1.7 seconds after z195, Mrs. Cabell would not have looked directly up at the SN. She was past that point already. Besides, it would take a few frames - 150 ms. at least, which is 3 frames - to react and a frame or two to look up and see the rifle, so you really have to compare z228 at the very earliest.
This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195
No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed. This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.
What is there to deal with?
If you look at z223 you will see Cabell is still in a position to be facing the TSBD at the time of the first shot. The car she is in has just started to make the turn onto Elm.
What's your point?
The statements of Phil and Linda Willis are refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence. As such they must be deemed unreliable.So if evidence does not agree with one's analysis, the evidence is wrong, not the analysis. Ok. I get it.
Let me get this straight.
You said: When Rich says "we turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" you need to believe he is saying they are still in the process of turning. But he's not, he's saying that, at the moment of the first shot, the VP security vehicle had turned off Houston Street and was now on Elm Street.
So I asked:
So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn?
And you said:
No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed.
But the problem is all Rich said was: "We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm
Street and that was when I heard the first shot." Now you admit that the car could turn off Houston and be on Elm without making the full 120 degree turn but you still insist that Rich is saying that he completed the 120 degree turn.
Well, according to your diagram, which is 1.7 seconds after z195, Mrs. Cabell would not have looked directly up at the SN. She was past that point already. Besides, it would take a few frames - 150 ms. at least, which is 3 frames - to react and a frame or two to look up and see the rifle, so you really have to compare z228 at the very earliest.
Again, I am not saying that the motorcade evidence in itself excludes a first shot at z223. It just doesn't exclude a first shot at z195.
I notice you have not addressed the fact that according to Pat Speer's analysis, which you seemed to agree with in November last year, the motorcade evidence allows a first shot in the z190-z224 window.
So if evidence does not agree with one's analysis, the evidence is wrong, not the analysis. Ok. I get it.
I understand how the English language works.Let me ask you this: Does Rich's statement that the car had turned off Houston onto Elm mean he had completed the full 120 degree turn and therefore eliminates the possibility that the car was pointing along or parallel to the front face of the TSBD?
Rich does not say - "As I was turning off Houston onto Elm"(as at z195)
He uses the past tense - "We turned off Houston onto Elm" (as at z223)
I have explained this point at length. You are in denial.
At z223 Cabell has not past the point where she can look directly up at the SN.
This is denial on your behalf.
It has been comprehensively demonstrated that the Tyler/Speer evidence refutes a first shot at z195.
You are just in denial about it.
On November 7th I wrote this:Yet you quoted with approval Speer's statement:
"My journey through the evidence has led me to this point -
1st shot z223
2nd shot z313
3rd shot yet to be firmly established but it must follow the "shot, pause, two shots closer together" pattern."
...
On one side of the scales is this colossal amount of evidence supporting a first shot at z223.
On the other are the statements of Phil and Linda Willis.
You do the math(s)
Let me ask you this: Does Rich's statement that the car had turned off Houston onto Elm mean he had completed the full 120 degree turn and therefore eliminates the possibility that the car was pointing along or parallel to the front face of the TSBD?
Yet you quoted with approval Speer's statement:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 293 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 293, 88 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together."
I am just wondering why you want to cherry-pick 10 of them who you think made definitive statements that are inconsistent with a first shot earlier than z223. What happened to the 159 witnesses who gave evidence that Speers considered to be consistent with a first shot between z190-z224?
IYes. But it is also consistent with a first shot at z195!! That's my whole point!!
Speers website is amazing and I regard him as a researcher's researcher.
As you seem to be having some kind of meltdown, it seems to have escaped your attention that z223 falls into the z190 - z224 range consistent with the 159 witnesses you mention.
I've answered this question 3 times now. The turn was completed. 4 times now.You have not answered the simple question. I was just asking about Rich, the driver of the VP security car. Your logic escapes me. You admit that one can make the turn off Houston onto Elm and still not have completed the full 120 degree turn. Yet that is all Rich says. But you continue to insist that he is saying he completed the 120 degree turn.
You are starting to move from denial into something more disturbing.
Go back and look at the statements of the occupants of these two vehicles. They all make definitive statements as to the positions of their respective vehicles at the moment of the first shot:
You have not answered the simple question. I was just asking about Rich, the driver of the VP security car. Your logic escapes me. You admit that one can make the turn off Houston onto Elm and still not have completed the full 120 degree turn. Yet that is all Rich says. But you continue to insist that he is saying he completed the 120 degree turn.
Yes. But it is also consistent with a first shot at z195!! That's my whole point!!
"You admit that one can make the turn off Houston onto Elm and still not have completed the full 120 degree turn."I asked:
Point out where I've "admitted" this.
Point out any instance I have used the phrase "120 degree turn".
The Tyler/Speer evidence is not consistent with a first shot at z195.Dan, I am just quoting the z190-z224 range from the Pat Speers excerpt that you quoted in your reply post on November 02, 2020, 12:39:46 PM (#152). The author stated that the witness evidence was consistent with a shot as early as z195. Are you not relying on the same witnesses? Or did you find some that Speers missed?
This has been comprehensively demonstrated.
Your attempts to deny this fact have ranged from humorous to disturbing.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn off Houston onto Elm.
The occupants of the VP security car make it clear the vehicle has completed the turn and is now travelling on the incline down Elm Street.
Dan, I am just quoting the z190-z224 range from the Pat Speers excerpt that you quoted in your reply post on November 02, 2020, 12:39:46 PM (#152). The author stated that the witness evidence was consistent with a shot as early as z195. Are you not relying on the same witnesses? Or did you find some that Speers missed?
The majority of the witness statements regarding the shots fall within the z190-z224 range.I understand all that. But included in those 159 witnesses are people like Linda Willis, Phil Willis, Jack Ready, TE Moore who put the first shot at least a second earlier, one of whom, Phil Willis, gave a definitive statement that the first shot was just an instant before he pressed the shutter on his z202 photo. You say Phil Willis is only one witness, but he isn't. Linda Willis supports him. She was standing between her mother and Croft. When you plot the sightlines from her to the edges of the Stemmons sign on the Roberdeau map, it covers a region from just after z192 to just before z207. TE Moore also corroborates Phil Willis. He said that by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign the first shot sounded. JFK was opposite that sign at z200. There are others along Elm who provide similar corroboration.
However, the first shot occurred at a specific frame within the z190-z224 range.
The beauty of the Tyler/Speer evidence is that it relates to a very specific moment - just after both the VP and VP security cars have completed the turn off Houston onto Elm St - and that this moment can be compared to Z-frames.
At z195 the VP security car is still the process of turning and, as such, z195 can be ruled out as the moment of the first shot.
It comes as no surprise to me, after the multitude of arguments I have presented in this thread for a first shot at z223, that mine is the only theory supported by the Tyler/Speer evidence.
;D And no, I didn't come up with any witnesses Pat Speer had missed. I don't think anyone has.
I understand all that.
My work here is done Thumb1:It is interesting that in his animation of the motorcade (https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html), Mark Tyler has the first shot sound at about z185. He also shows that at z201 the President's car is where Karen Westbrook and Gloria Calvery placed it just after the time of the first shot. (Calvery, 22H638: "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.").
It is interesting that in his animation of the motorcade (https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html), Mark Tyler has the first shot sound at about z185. He also shows that at z201 the President's car is where Karen Westbrook and Gloria Calvery placed it just after the time of the first shot. (Calvery, 22H638: "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.").
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Tyler_z201.JPG)
Tyler's analysis does not exclude a first shot at z195. He says (MC63 Handbook, p. 21):
"As we can see from the Zapruder film there are two obvious signs
of the victims being struck by bullets during these times:
• Z225-Z230
• Z313-Z318
These two events are unambiguously the result of gunshot wounds.
Due to the Stemmons Freeway sign, the Zapruder film doesn’t reveal
the exact moment that the two victims were hit so the shot
could have been fired from any point during Z185-Z220. If the movements
we see at Z225-Z230 are the initial reactions then the gunshot
was probably fired during Z210-Z220. However if this is a reaction
to a second shot, then the first shot could have been fired
earlier, such as Z185-Z200 (which may have missed the victims in
the car)."
What he does not address is the time of the first shot if the movements seen at z225-230 are not the initial reactions: ie.the initial reactions to the first shot began while JFK is behind the Stemmons sign. He is also assuming that the reaction of JBC to the shot that JFK is obviously reacting to is to being hit in the back by it and not, as JBC himself said, to the recognition of it as a rifle shot, thinking an assassination was unfolding and fearing for the President.
Oh, why did you have to come back?Again, you are relying completely on your interpretation that the occupants of the VP security car, in saying that they had made the turn onto Elm, could not possibly have been referring to the position of their car as shown in the Tyler animation at z201. Particularly when Carter said that their car was along-side the TSBD - which is exactly the position seen in Tyler's animation at z201. For some reason, you want to belittle others for disagreeing with your interpretation.
My last post would've been a great way to end this thread.
But here you are, back for yet another lesson in basic English.
"He also shows that at z201 the President's car is where Karen Westbrook and Gloria Calvery placed it just after the time of the first shot."
When Calvery says the car was almost directly in front of her, there are two key components to the description - "directly in front of her" and "almost".
In English, this is the equivalent of saying "not quite directly in front" OR, to be super-precise, it is the same as saying "The President's car was not directly in front of her".
When we look at Tyler's mapping program, we can see that the limo is directly in front of Calvery from, roughly speaking, z190 to z214.
Unfortunately for you, z195 falls within this range and, as we can see from the graphic, at z195 the limo was directly in front of Calvery.
So, even on this tiniest of details, your model is refuted. Yet again. For about the 12th time.
"Tyler's analysis does not exclude a first shot at z195."
This isn't about Tyler's analysis, or Speer's analysis or even my own analysis.
The Tyler/Speer evidence I have presented speaks for itself.
It cannot realistically be denied, which is why you have provided no credible argument against it.
Every turn and twist you have tried you have been thwarted because this evidence speaks for itself.
It is very strong evidence and should be embraced as such but you would rather deny it because it doesn't fit with what you've decided. This, in my opinion, is a disgraceful way to approach the evidence.
But keep coming back.
It's a pleasure to continually serve you up in front of the rest of the forum.
Calvary couldn't be referring to a more oblique view she had of the President as the limousine neared her.
BTW, Rachey and Skelton support a first show miss. Rachey said "She observed President KENNEDY'S car pass her point of observation and almost immediately thereafter heard three explosions". Z201 is about eight seconds after the car passed her position; compare with about five seconds for a shot fired in the Z150s.The President's car was opposite Virgie Baker (Rachley) about a full car-length before Zapruder started filming at z133. That is about 21 Zapruder frames, so around z112 if Zapruder had been filming then. The time between z112 and z195 is 4.5 seconds. Baker said that when the first shot sounded, the car had passed by and she could not see the President very well. She said that the car had started slightly into the curve on Elm (WC testimony, 7H509). So that might put it a bit farther along than z150.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/cd/45/rI3VSEP5_o.gif)That's right Jerry. Just following the evidence. Perhaps you could show us where you think JBC makes that rearward turn to look at JFK......
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Here's Connally merely "showing concern" -- doing what Mason says: "thinking an assassination was unfolding and fearing for the President".
The Governor's wrist goes limp, he's gasping for breath and his right shoulder drops in comparison to his left shoulder. Have you ever seen anyone exhibit such gyrations in order to turn around to check on the person behind?
According to Mason's Ash Heap Theory, Connally isn't shot in the chest and wrist until after this animation ends.
Again, you are relying completely on your interpretation that the occupants of the VP security car, in saying that they had made the turn onto Elm, could not possibly have been referring to the position of their car as shown in the Tyler animation at z201. Particularly when Carter said that their car was along-side the TSBD - which is exactly the position seen in Tyler's animation at z201. For some reason, you want to belittle others for disagreeing with your interpretation.
Mark Tyler was very aware of all these statements and states that the first shot could have been as early as z195. So, in your view, has Tyler taken a disgraceful way to approach the evidence?
The credible argument against the first shot being as late as z223 is based on evidence: Phil Willis, Linda Willis, the shot pattern (with the last shot being the head shot), SA Jack Ready, Rosemary Willis, as well as Croft and Betzner. So you can't say I haven't presented an argument against a first shot at z223 based on credible evidence. I can't help it if you don't find it credible and somehow think that no one could possibly have an honest belief that this evidence is credible and reliable.
Here is 4.5 seconds before Z195:
(https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/FIG05_120408.jpg)
The president at that point is about 70 to 80 feet away from Virgie Baker's position on the Tyler map.
This is about 7 1/2 seconds before Z195. That's a long time to match with Baker's statement: "She observed President KENNEDY'S car pass her point of observation and almost immediately thereafter heard three explosions".It is about 5 1/2 seconds before Z195 from the time the car is directly in front of Rachley where Roberdeau has her to z195. Here is 4.5 seconds before z195, which on Tyler's animation has the President's car just past the position of Rachley:
Connally actually made a successful turn and did see the President? You're some evidence-follower.Notice I did not say that he did see the President. Those are your words. Perhaps a remedial reading course would help you, Jerry.
Connally made the effort to turn right before reaching the sign. He said he was facing forward or a bit left of forward (I figure his eyes were turned that way) when he was struck. The Zapruder film shows Connally almost facing forward by Z226.And where do you see him even trying to look in the back seat? Where? Just give us a frame....
Ok. So Roberdeau is more accurate than Tyler.
These exhibits aren't absolutes, but her location ("1") on CE 354 was marked. While near the east point of the curb, she would be in the street. This may be where she was when she heard the first shot ("Okay, after he had gone by, I got out into the street, I guess, along in here in the middle of the lanes.").
I see. Yet you go on to claim Connally did get a look at the President before turning back.Where do I claim that? I said Connally's statements are not entirely clear on what he saw. But what is clear is that he was trying to see the President.
As he approached the sign, Connally tried to look back with just his torso and neck, which limited his rotation. I suppose his legs at that point were positioned to prevent an easy rightward turn. Earlier in the motorcade, he had made a rightward turn to look back when his legs were in a better position for such a turn.Oh, so he can't move his legs to see if the President has been assassinated? Here is where you are suggesting he is trying to see the President:
At the end of this clip, Connally appears to "looks back" at Kennedy (The Governor's head is not fully turned and the President had leaned to his left), but if Connally is wounded through the torso, he's probably seeing stars. Of course you believe what preceded this "look back" in the animation was merely Connally showing "concern" (although your Theory has Connally wounded in the thigh which your Theory claims he did not sense; priceless).Yet you think he has been shot by then..... Hmm... Maybe getting shot in real life is not what you see in the movies. As I see it, he sails forward and he falls back onto his wife. That is exactly what Nellie described happened when he was shot.
Or what Connally is doing in the animation is, as you put it: "thinking an assassination was unfolding and fearing for the President". Connally doesn't get shot in the back and wrist, per your Theory, until after the animation ends, when there's not even an eye blink to signify he's been shot.
At 1:23 in this copy...Kennedy clearly hit...Connally still holding his hat [impossible if he was injured by the same bullet] The governor is looking as straight back at JFK as anyone in front of him could possibly get.
Look at the images of Connally Gerry has posted above.We have two very different approaches.
His wrist is at such an unusual, almost unnatural angle because it has been shattered.
His wrist can no longer support his hand.
The probability of damage to the nerves running to his fingers is incredibly high.
Note that Connally's fingers are curled except for the index finger, which is straight.
This is indicative of damage to the Ulnar nerve, possibly from the fragment of bullet that exited the underside of his wrist.
IMO, Connally couldn't have let go of his hat if he'd wanted to.
CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.Again, you are injecting opinion based on no evidence and ignoring the evidence that we have.
We have two very different approaches.
Me:I place no weight on opinions that conflict with the evidence. I stick to the evidence.
You: Sometimes you base conclusions on evidence (ie. first shot struck JFK and shot pattern) but sometimes you disregard evidence in favour of your own opinion and theory.
Opinions still have to be based on evidence. Even if you had expertise in how the body reacts to bullet wounds, you still need evidence to support your conclusions.
For example, according to the medical reports there was no damage to the ulnar nerve in the wrist. The damage was on the radial side (Dr. Gregory, 4H124):
"Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence
but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile.
That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in
this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon
leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could hare been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion,
undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular
surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it
aside."
No other nerve damage was found (again, Dr. Gregory 4H127):
"The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was enlarged.
The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the condition of the major
nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so these nerves were identified and
explored and found to be intact, as were adjacent tendons. So that that wound
was then sutured, closed."
Moreover, the radius was shattered about 2 inches above the wrist joint (Gregory, 4H118):
"The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption
began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on
the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.
There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the
midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less
than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease."
Again, you are injecting opinion based on no evidence and ignoring the evidence that we have.
"I stick to the evidence."You sound angry, Dan. Calm down. It's just a discussion thread.
:D :D :D :D :D
You don't give a f%ck about the evidence.
You have demonstrated that time after time after time on this thread.
The latest is the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented, really strong evidence that supports my first shot at z223 and refutes your first shot at z195. I asked you:The question is not whether it is credible and reliable. The question is: what does it mean? The evidence is credible and reliable. It just doesn't prove that the VP Security car had completed the 120 degree turn. It is perfectly consistent with the VP security car having made 90 degree turn and is roughly parallel to the TSBD (as per Carter: "along side" the TSBD), which fits a first shot at z195.
"Do you find the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented credible and reliable?"
You didn't bother to reply.I do have a full time day job, Dan. Sometimes it takes time to reply.
You offered up your own, paltry evidence that could be used to argue against a first shot at z223 so I asked:I have explained Croft, Betzner and Ready before. Many times. Do you actually read my responses?
"How do Betzner, Croft and Ready undermine z223 in a credible way?"
You didn't bother to reply.Ok. That's a relief. It is not Jerry's opinion either. He was in troll mode.
Probably because you're embarrassed by how weak your cherry-picked nonsense is.
This is how good evidence should be treated.
I assumed nerve damage and that it was to the Ulnar nerve, and gave this as the reason why it was not "impossible" for JBC to hold on to his Stetson after such a serious wrist injury.
You have provided evidence that there was indeed nerve damage but it was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar, as I had assumed.
I stand corrected on that point - the damage was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar nerve.
I have taken that on board and accept it as it seems like solid evidence to me.
"Opinions still have to be based on evidence."
Give it a try some time. Thumb1:
I was responding to a post by Jerry and left some of his post in my own -
"CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.
Note---You Tube now considers the Zapruder film "Age Restricted" What next? :-\"
This was actually posted by Jerry and is his opinion, not mine.
How he knows it was "a giant bowl of jelly" is beyond my comprehension.
You sound angry, Dan. Calm down. It's just a discussion thread.
There is a difference between basing conclusions on evidence and interpreting the evidence the same way you do. I do the former. I don't always agree with your interpretation of the evidence. But I am still basing conclusions on evidence, not opinion.
A good illustration is the placement of the second shot. It is based on evidence of the shot pattern and the third shot being the last shot. Now I know that you disagree with the third shot being the last, but you cannot say that there is no evidence to support the third shot being the last. If the third shot was the last and the neck shot was the first (which, as we both agree, follows the evidence), then there had to be a shot after z255 and before z313 in order to fit the 1......2...3 shot pattern. I used the evidence of Greer and Hickey as well as Nellie to identify in the zfilm points that were necessarily before or after the second shot. Greer and Hickey provide the "after" bracket and Nellie provides the "before" bracket. That narrows the second shot to after z268 and before z273. I put it between z271 and z272. That happens to be 2.3 seconds before the head shot.
Now what evidence do you use to rebut a shot at z271? You use your opinion that JBC could not have received his injury to this chest at that point and his wrist shows no sign of being hit. When I pointed out the change in appearance of his wrist and wrist position, you suggest that it was not enough of a change for having his wrist shattered: again your opinion not evidence.
The question is not whether it is credible and reliable. The question is: what does it mean? The evidence is credible and reliable. It just doesn't prove that the VP Security car had completed the 120 degree turn. It is perfectly consistent with the VP security car having made 90 degree turn and is roughly parallel to the TSBD (as per Carter: "along side" the TSBD), which fits a first shot at z195.
Jack Ready said that immediately after the first shot he turned to the rear. At z195 he is facing forward with his right hand on the front handhold. He needs to remove that right hand in order to turn to the rear. At z200 he removes his hand from the right front hand-hold and continues to turn to the right for the next 1/3 of a second until he disappears from the zfilm at z207.
As far as Betzner is concerned: according to Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p. 160): "Betzner took his third picture and then, "...started to wind my film again, and I heard a loud noise. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."
He describes a very short time. It does not take much time - certainly not 2 seconds - to start to wind the camera. Not conclusive in itself, but it fits much better with a z195 shot than with z223. And it fits with Ready, P. Willis, L. Willis, R. Willis, the shot pattern (if the head shot was the third shot) etc.
Croft said that he took another photo after the one at z161-2 and that he took it at the very moment of the shot "that killed the President". According to Trask, p. 225:
"Quickly winding his camera, Croft takes another picture of the vehicle as it passes by his position. As he makes this fourth photo, he hears a shot, and believes that this picture was "taken simultaneously with the shot which killed the President."
The reference is to an 'Airtel to: Director, FBI, from SAC, Denver, file #62-109-60-1388, 11/23/1952, through FOIA request #263, 250, 6/1985.'
Unfortunately, the camera (an Argus C3, which is, apparently, known for this kind of malfunction), did not expose the film and the film when developed was blank.
The timing issue is simply this: how long does it take to quickly wind an Argus C3 camera and take another picture as the President is moving farther away? 2 seconds or 3.5 seconds? If it can be done in 2 seconds, which I suggest it can, why would he take 3.5 seconds? Keep in mind Phil Willis' statement that he took his photo at z202 just after the first shot.
.... injecting opinion based on no evidence and ignoring the evidence that we have.Oh...you mean like the Report did?
You're obviously unfamiliar with the significance of laughing emojis.
You do nothing of the sort.
You start with a conclusion then try to scrape together whatever scraps of evidence you can to support your conclusion.
How do I know this?
Because in the very next paragraph of your post you reveal your approach to evidence:
You have your conclusion in place, that the second shot occurs just before the headshot, and you scrape together any evidence that may support your conclusion if interpreted in a very specific way.
This is a shoddy approach, which is why your theory has been so easy to refute.
You have never "pointed out the change in appearance of his wrist and wrist position" because there is no change in the appearance or position of JBC's wrist at the time you propose it is shattered. This is more of your untruthing.
......
It demonstrates conclusively that where the bullet exited JBC's jacket is way below his wrist position around z271/272
You are advocating something miraculous, something beyond logic and common sense.You keep making my point. Your objections are not based on evidence. They are based on your opinion that the evidence is false and your opinion of what is causing that behavior seen in the zfilm. You appear to do this because you have formed a conclusion about what happened based on something other than evidence, so the evidence is wrong (ie that the head shot was the last shot and JBC was hit on the second shot).
Not to mention the impossible bullet trajectory you propose through JBC's body!
The turn is completed. The occupants of the VP security car are unanimous on this detail.The car is parallel to, or along side, the TSBD by z200. So by the time Carter hears the shot (z197) and reacts, it is around z200.
At z195 the car is still in the process of turning and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.
As has already been pointed out to you, the car is not "along side" the TSBD at z195, again refuting your theory.
At no point does Ready turn to the rear in the Z-film.But he is not seen after z207. What does it mean if he is last seen turning to the right at z207 and 2.5 seconds later when he is next seen, he is completely turned to the rear? The fact is that he had to remove his hand from the handhold to begin his turn to the rear and there is no evidence that he stopped turning from z200 to whenever it was that he completed the turn to the rear. We know it was completed sometime before z254 (Altgens 6) because he is fully turned to the rear at that point.
None of the agents who turn to the right rear (as shown in Altgens 6) make any kind of significant move in the Z-film. Ready does indeed change his hand-hold but that means nothing, you have invented a meaning for it.I take that as an acknowledgement that the evidence indicates that the first shot was just before z202, but that you think the evidence is wrong.
In no way does this undermine the case for a first shot at z223.
"Not conclusive in itself"
You can say that again.
In no way does this undermine the case against z223
Again, this is a meaningless point.
You have no idea how long it took for Croft to wind his camera and take the fourth shot.
In no way does this undermine the case for z223
So where does that leave us?
Phil Willis and his daughters.
This is your amazing collection of evidence that undermines a first shot at z223.
And how credible is salesman Mr Willis, the man who wasted no time copyrighting his precious slides and setting up Phil Willis Enterprises specifically to sell his slides, slides which he gave grandiose titles in order to enhance their significance?
Oh...you mean like the Report did?The evidence is that the two men were struck by separate bullets. Not a single witness said that JFK and JBC were hit at the same time and several witnesses, including the Connallys said they were not. Dave Powers said that JFK moved left on the first shot, away from the far right position he had been in; that Connally disappeared from his view on the second and the third hit JFK in the head. Gayle Newman said that JBC appeared to react to being hit on the second shot.
You believe CE 399 was actually fired at the motorcade created seven wounds in two guys and recovered in its nearly undamaged condition?
Charles has recently started this thread, "Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)", in which he writes:
Stavis Ellis, motorcycle escort cop with the DPD, described his sighting of where the first shot hit in his interview with Larry Sneed in Larry’s book “No More Silence”. Ellis’ position was just ahead of the lead car, which was just ahead of the JFK limo. Here’s the relevant passage:
We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.
We have all seen the Murray photo of the detectives looking at the concrete surrounding manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street. They were investigating what appeared to be a mark left by a bullet that grazed the concrete. This area is inline with the position of James Tague who was grazed on the cheek by a piece of this bullet or a piece of the concrete curb adjacent to him. That curb was apparently also hit by a part of the bullet, which apparently skipped from the manhole area to that curb.
So the physical evidence was there. The above has been a theory that I began to believe once I found enough other evidence of a first shot miss. And I cannot help believing that Stavis Ellis saw the concrete dust from this shot!
The evidence and arguments against a first shot miss theory are presented in this thread and demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that there was no first shot miss.
(https://i.vgy.me/jscfOT.png)
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
In my time researching this subject I have always allowed the evidence to inform my opinion and there are many times I have changed how I view this case. My best interpretation of the evidence and compelling arguments have always steered my opinion and there are times my most fundamental, core beliefs about this case have been overturned ("Unseeing the Headshot" thread)
I would wager that you have never done any such thing and the sheer hypocrisy of your last post is impressive. If anyone believes they are right all the time it's you. Time and time again in this thread your piss-poor "missed first shot" theory has been crushed by solid evidence and not once has it crossed your mind to reassess your position.
But feel free to keep peddling your nonsense and I will feel free to do what I've already done numerous times in this thread and smash it to pieces in front of everyone on this forum.
Have a nice day ;)
:'(
I didn't mean to upset you ;D
Further evidence (as if it were needed) that the first shot did not miss and was, in fact, the one that caused JFK's extreme reaction, elbows up, clenched fists near his neck, slumping over.
The abundance of witness observations that JFK reacted to the first shot made it evident to the members of the WC that the first shot struck JFK. Although they stated that it was possible that the first shot missed, not a single member of the WC actually thought that this had occurred. The consensus that emerged from the WC Report, and which continued until the late 1980s as far as I can tell, was that the second shot missed. See Gary Mack's statement at 132:08 of this video ("The Men Who Killed Kennedy"):
It is interesting that Dr. Shaw, who treated JBC's chest wound and was familiar with all the wounds, was skeptical that any shot missed:
This is consistent with the bullet fragmenting on contact with the radius, it would also account for the relatively large entrance wound compared to the small, slit-like exit wound at the crease of the wrist. This makes it impossible for CE399 to be the bullet that caused all the wounds to JFK and JBC.Shaw also says that the bullet through JFK's neck exiting by his tie knot on a right to left path should have hit JBC on the left side of his back. Of course, that depends on when the first shot occurred and the orientation of the back. If one asked Shaw what his opinion would be if the first shot occurred when JBC was turned sharply to the right, as seen prior to z200, I wonder what he might have said.
Once CE399 is taken out of the equation the single bullet theory becomes, not only plausible, but highly probable.To take CE399 out of the equation, you have to assume it was planted. It can't be a missed shot and it can't be the head shot. There is no evidence that it was planted and little rationale for planting it. Planting it would promote a theory that Oswald DIDN'T fire all the shots. Surely, the "conspirators" who "planted CE399" in such a scenario, would not have wanted the evidence to point away from Oswald.
Shaw also says that the bullet through JFK's neck exiting by his tie knot on a right to left path should have hit JBC on the left side of his back. Of course, that depends on when the first shot occurred and the orientation of the back. If one asked Shaw what his opinion would be if the first shot occurred when JBC was turned sharply to the right, as seen prior to z200, I wonder what he might have said.
To take CE399 out of the equation, you have to assume it was planted. It can't be a missed shot and it can't be the head shot. There is no evidence that it was planted and little rationale for planting it. Planting it would promote a theory that Oswald DIDN'T fire all the shots. Surely, the "conspirators" who "planted CE399" in such a scenario, would not have wanted the evidence to point away from Oswald.
It is also the case that he makes the fundamental error of Magic Bullet theorists that Connally is sat directly in front of JFK. We know that isn't the case. And, as you have pointed out, it depends on the orientation of the back at the moment of the shot and, also, the alignment of the limo with the SN.Whether the SBT trajectory works depends on:
I completely agree with what you're saying here.I agree with everything except your view that the SBT is correct.
I don't want to get into a scenario where evidence is being planted but I'm in a bind - for me, the evidence that both men were shot through at the same time (z223) is beyond compelling.
I do not accept CE399 caused all the "bony damage" attributed to the various wounds.
I find there is evidence that the bullet fragmented on contact with Connally's wrist bone.
I'm left to conclude (for the moment, at least) that the Single Bullet theory is correct but that CE399 was not that bullet.
Whether the SBT trajectory works depends on:
1. the time of the first shot. This determines the angle of the path from the SN to JFK's neck to the car direction.
2. the position of JBC relative to JFK. This includes the right-left and back-front position as well as
3. the orientation of JBC's back and left leg to the bullet path from the SN extended past JFK's throat exit point.
1. The angle of the path relative to the car direction is about 9.5 degrees at z223:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/angle_z223.JPG)
At z195 the angle is about 14 degrees:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/angle_z195.JPG)
The problem with most drawings depicting the SBT is that they don't get the angle right. This CNN drawing from 2013, for example, uses an angle of 7.5 degrees. This is 2 degrees less than the actual angle at z223 and represents the angle at around z300.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/CNN_SBT.JPG)
2. The CNN drawing also shows the relative positions incorrectly. While JBC was slightly inboard of JFK with JFK resting his right arm on the top of the car, JBC's jump seat was not that far inboard. Here is a photo taken on Houston just before turning onto Elm:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_Houston.jpg)
According to the H&E blueprint, the right edge of the jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside of the door which was about .5 inches inboard of the inside panel next to JFK. So that puts JBC 3 inches inboard of JFK if JFK was sitting with his hips next to the right side of the car. That still puts JBC's right armpit well to the right of JFK's neck exit wound without taking into account the further right to left path of the bullet in traveling from JFK to JBC. Even if JBC was 6 inches inboard, it is still not nearly enough. His midline has to be left of JFK's midline by the distance from his midline to right armpit plus the additional right to left distance the bullet covered after leaving JFK's neck. That is about 12 inches. No one puts him anywhere near that far left (except Thomas Canning who put him over the drive shaft in his HSCA diagram).
3. There is no way that JBC's turn at z223-224 puts his right armpit to the left of JFK's midline. JFK has moved to the left and is no longer pressing against the right side of the car. JBC is no longer turned to his right as he was from z190-200.
So it seems pretty clear that the SBT trajectory has big problems. Much easier to imagine the bullet through JFK's neck going, as Dr. Shaw stated, to JBC's left side.
I agree with everything except your view that the SBT is correct.
Dan, the diagram map that was posted by Andrew Mason shows a red LOS line going thru the tree at Z195😳
If there are ONLY 3 shots and the 1st shot is a hit at 195 as theorized, and hits ONLY JFK then the 2nd shot that hits Connaly defacto must be at approx z223-225 as it’s quite apparent that Connalys right shoulder is being abruptly rotated counterclockwise.
I’m dubious of 2 separate shots fired unless someone has some evidence of an suppressed shot fired which of course means 2 shooters at least.
And the tree is an obstacle that the SE window shooter is very likely aware of so even if it can be proved that the leaves were less dense in 63 , it’s stiil questionable to choose to take a shot between z186-z210 when the tree branches are an obstruction rather than taking a shot just prior to it just afterwards when there is a clear LOS.
The trajectory for the single shot hitting both JFK and Connolly does NOT have to be a perfect straight line.
There is possibility of slight deflections possible for a bullet going thru 2human bodies.
The only problem really is the apparent anomaly of the insignificant amount of deformation of CE 399.
Willis has the 1st shot fired not earlier than Z205 which is the approximate verified time of his photo taken relative to the Z film location of the JFK limo.
I’m considering the idea also of the3rd shot missed fired 0.5 sec AFTER 313 head shot because my theory is that a semi auto rifle was used and that the shooter after seeing his 1st shot not the kill shot desired, took another 4.8 secs to carefully aim and then squeezed off 2 shots in rapid succession.
The 3rd /last shot was a miss because of muzzle rise just enough that caused that shot to hit the curb near Tague.
The questionable chain of handling of CE399 and how it was “found” and the presence of metallic element uncharacteristic of MC bullet found in the curb section suggest a different type bullet was fired.
Does your browser have a script-blocker? In Firefox, it would be an "Add-on".
Mason's web server might be in Canada; that may be a factor for you.
Are you using an older tablet? For example, I see Mason's images OK on desktop computer, but my iPad won't display it. The tablet is only five years old; when Apple withdrew support for it, the OS couldn't update, so it can't process things like modern scripting or the "webp" format.
There may be a dozen other reasons why you can't see the images, but it's probably some limiting factor on your end.
I checked with my CIA handler and she said they weren't monitoring your internet and hadn't compromised it yet. 8)
Dan, the diagram map that was posted by Andrew Mason shows a red LOS line going thru the tree at Z195😳According to the evidence, the last shot struck JFK in the head at z313 and the shot pattern was 1........2...3 (the second shot coming after the midpoint between 1 and 3 and 3 following 2 in rapid succession). So, according to the evidence, there was only one shot by z225 the second coming after z250.
If there are ONLY 3 shots and the 1st shot is a hit at 195 as theorized, and hits ONLY JFK then the 2nd shot that hits Connaly defacto must be at approx z223-225 as it’s quite apparent that Connalys right shoulder is being abruptly rotated counterclockwise.
I’m dubious of 2 separate shots fired unless someone has some evidence of an suppressed shot fired which of course means 2 shooters at least.
And the tree is an obstacle that the SE window shooter is very likely aware of so even if it can be proved that the leaves were less dense in 63 , it’s stiil questionable to choose to take a shot between z186-z210 when the tree branches are an obstruction rather than taking a shot just prior to it just afterwards when there is a clear LOS.I am not sure why the FBI thought that JFK was not visible from the SN until z210. That opinion was based on a reenactment using the wrong car and showing the tree as it appeared in late May 1964 after gaining new growth and foliage that were not there in November 1963. Mind you, they were not able to figure out that Phil Willis' photo was taken at z202, almost a half second before z210, so I wouldn't put much faith in their expertise in such matters.
The trajectory for the single shot hitting both JFK and Connolly does NOT have to be a perfect straight line.
There is possibility of slight deflections possible for a bullet going thru 2human bodies.
The only problem really is the apparent anomaly of the insignificant amount of deformation of CE 399.That's not an insignificant problem!
Willis has the 1st shot fired not earlier than Z205 which is the approximate verified time of his photo taken relative to the Z film location of the JFK limo.The Willis photo was taken at z202. This can easily be determined by aligning one of the Secret Service agents (Clint Hill) with the sightline from Zapruder to Willis.
Jump seatsAnother view: CE873:
| (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0447b.jpg) | (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0448a.jpg) |
According to the evidence, the last shot struck JFK in the head at z313 and the shot pattern was 1........2...3 (the second shot coming after the midpoint between 1 and 3 and 3 following 2 in rapid succession). So, according to the evidence, there was only one shot by z225 the second coming after z250.
I am not sure why the FBI thought that JFK was not visible from the SN until z210. That opinion was based on a reenactment using the wrong car and showing the tree as it appeared in late May 1964 after gaining new growth and foliage that were not there in November 1963. Mind you, they were not able to figure out that Phil Willis' photo was taken at z202, almost a half second before z210, so I wouldn't put much faith in their expertise in such matters.
It is apparent from the Secret Service film done about 2 weeks after the assassination in early December 1963 that JFK was visible before he reached the Thornton Freeway sign and just after he passed the lamppost that was about 10 feet before the sign:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_SN_after_tree.JPG)
JFK was halfway between the lamppost and the Thornton sign at z195, as can be seen from this diagram which uses the sightline from Zapruder to JFK at z195:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/angle_z195.JPG)
There would be a change in direction in passing through JFK only if the bullet is subjected to a significant asymmetrical lateral force. There was nothing in passing through JFK that could have provided that except bone, and it struck no bone. So the bullet would have traveled pretty straight until exiting. It did nick the left side of JFK's tie knot on exit which would have applied a slight and very brief asymmetrical force to the bullet but that would be to the left, not the right. All the ballistics experts said that the bullet would not have changed direction after exiting JFK.
There was a change in direction of the bullet in passing through JBC, but you first have to get the bullet to go into JBC's right armpit from JFK's midline exit location.
That's not an insignificant problem!
The Willis photo was taken at z202. This can easily be determined by aligning one of the Secret Service agents (Clint Hill) with the sightline from Zapruder to Willis.
If, as Willis said, the sound of the first shot caused him to press the shutter, you have to work back from z202. At that point a bullet would have traveled 175 feet from the SN to JFK. That would have taken 175/2000 = 87 ms. But the sound would have taken 175/1130 = 155 ms to reach Willis' ears. The human neuromuscular system takes, on average, about 150 ms to begin a physical response to a stimulus let alone complete the response. So that would put the shutter click about 155+150 ms after the bullet emerged from the rifle. That would put the trigger pull 5-6 frames (each frame: 55 ms) before z202. That is about the latest possible position of JFK when the shot was fired if Willis was right. At that point, JFK is quite visible.
There are two possible scenarios - 3 shots that hit or two hit and one miss.The 3 shot-3 hit scenario is the only scenario that anyone said happened. No one described the SBT scenario as having occurred and several said it did not occur. So one could exclude the SBT on the basis of the evidence. Then that leaves just one possible scenario: the one observed by the Connallys, Dave Powers, Gayle Newman. 3 shots, 3 hits.
Both scenarios face difficulties and neither can be proven conclusively.
The 3 shot-3 hit scenario is the only scenario that anyone said happened. No one described the SBT scenario as having occurred and several said it did not occur. So one could exclude the SBT on the basis of the evidence. Then that leaves just one possible scenario: the one observed by the Connallys, Dave Powers, Gayle Newman. 3 shots, 3 hits.
There is abundant evidence that all 3 shots were fired from the SN
The 3 shot-3 hit scenario is the only scenario ...That is what the FBI said in Dec 1963.
There is abundant evidence that all 3 shots were fired from the SN.That is what the FBI said in Dec 1963.
Isn't "shot-spanning" about the most unreliable metric you could deceitfully contend is factual? Yes, there is a database of a majority of witnesses that say the shot-spanning pattern was as you say, but how reliable are ear-witnesses to an unexpected event? And how subjective are their reconstructions? You had this explained to you in law school, right?The distribution of witnesses as to the shot pattern looks like this:
The May 1964 re-enactment positioned each frame so it precisely matched where the President was in the Zapruder film. The greater problems were with the "scope" view; they failed to position the "Kennedy" participant as close to the exterior of the car as the President was in the Zapruder film and the "Connally" participant was not seated lower than "Kennedy" as the Governor was seated relative to Kennedy was in the Zapruder film. Correcting for that goes a long way to improving the feasibility of the Single Bullet Theory.
The Warren Report described the May 1964 re-enactment, and the positioning of the President and Governor:They say all the differences were accounted for. So either there was something else they did wrong or they were not correctly accounted for. Simply put: the May 1964 reenactment does not accord with the Secret Service film.Of course, Mason doesn't want you to know any of that, so rather than make lemonade, he focuses on the "foliage growth" and "wrong car".
- "Any differences were taken into account". (p.97, USGPO)
- "The agents ascertained that the foliage of an oak tree that came between the gunman and his target along the motorcade route on Elm Street was approximately the same as on the day of the assassination." (p.97, USGPO)
- "it is apparent that President Kennedy was somewhat to the Governor's right. The President sat on the extreme right, as noted in the films and by eyewitnesses" (p.195, USGPO)
The Report didn't blanket-approve Phil Willis' "simultaneous" claim, as you have swallowed so wholeheartedly. The Report said Willis "asserts [his photo] was simultaneous with the first shot ... If Willis accurately recalled."(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/90/70/rJD4nXSc_o.jpg) (https://images2.imgbox.com/8f/f6/ORdobElJ_o.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The President was obscured by tree foliage at Z195.
(The real position for Z195 must drive Mason nuts,
so he's jumping through loops!)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ba/c9/AGMZAV9w_o.gif)
Mason's amateurish attempt to equate a Z210ish position with his Z195 fantasy shot. He even used a faulty map to alter the shot trajectory from the Depository and to "morph" the car further along than it really was at Z195.
In my quote referred to, I did not say Rowland saw combed hair and a light scar. In his testimony he seems to claim the ability to discern such detail-level (although I should have said dark scar).
You think Rowland is somehow credible? His same-day affidavit is one thing but the detail added months later.
So when Rowland says something "appears to be", he offering up a possibility. Keep that in mind when discussing the "rifle" he "appears" to have seen. He appeared to have seen women on the Underpass bridge.
And you didn't notice I had stopped doing that? Aren't you glad?
Well he certainly improved on his affidavit:
"saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the
windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a high-powered
rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it."
Now remember when Rowland says "appears to be" or "I thought"' he's merely offering up a possibility.
Rowland said he "saw what I thought was a man ... holding what appeared to be a high-powered rifle."
His wife testifies that he tells her this before the assassination. Multiple officers state he tells them about this man with the rifle in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
And guess what?
There was indeed a man on the 6th floor with a scoped rifle!
What are the odds he was making some lucky guess?
Do you believe in the "The Miracle on Elm Street"?
Rowland probably saw a man at the SW window but the "rifle" may have been a tool from the reflooring project or even someone raising a pop bottle that caused a sun glint, making Rowland think the man was holding some shiny object, like a "rifle".
Rowland first said the guy in the SW window was about 12-15 ft back of the window, then changed that to about 3-5 ft because, he said, no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window
So you missed the class in law school about the unreliability of witnesses to unexpected events?No. But you seem to have. Elizabeth Loftus, whose work in assessing eye-witness reliability is often referred to by courts, reports that witnesses are consistently more than 50% accurate on observations. If the observation is one made by more than 50% of the witnesses, the reliability approaches 98%. See Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, p. 27: (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.PDF)
Did the WC say the photo was taken at exactly Z210 or did they say "approximately" Z210? Does one-half second (Z202 to Z210) fall into an approximation?They said:
My map shows where Z195 was in relation to the Thornton sign and the tree-trunk to signpost line, and it has the President behind foliage.All I am concerned about is finding the frame in which JFK is between the lamp post and the Thornton sign. So I put him there on a scale drawing of DP and extended a line from Zapruder past that point to see where it intersected. It appears to make a tangent to the rounded wall of the north reflecting pool. So I looked in the zframes to see where JFK was on a line between Zapruder and the rounded edge of the cement wall of the north reflecting pool.
It doesn't accord with your lack of skill at photogrammetry when it comes to the SS reenactment film.
"6 feet shorter"? Sounds like one of your porkies.Not a guess. But you decide. The President's car was 256 inches or 21 feet long. The car used in the SS film looks like a Ford Mercury Comet convertible (modified from original post):
What's wrong with using where the rear bumper is? And comparing on a map where the tree-trunk to lamp-post line is to where it is in the SS reenactment film? We then position the President on the map where he is in the Zapruder film and see where he is relative to the tree-trunk to lamp-post line which in turn show us where he is in the SS reenactment film.I don't know what scale you are using or how big you think the car is or where you got your map. You can provide all those details and you can show us what frame you think corresponds to the position of JFK as seen in the SS film:
What you did was just arbitrarily pick a film capture showing Kennedy clear of the foliage and associate it with Z195. You cherry-pick everything because of your Ash Heap Pet Theory.
Does that mean he didn't see a man with a rifle or that he just guessed at how far back in the room the guy was?
The statement I made was simple enough...
It certainly was, as was my question.
Why the need for your question in the first place..
To clarify the intention of your post.
The post is self-explanatory
Indeed it is, but you're reason for misrepresenting Rowland's words is not clear.
Is this the same thing Jerry was doing, twisting Rowland's testimony in order to discredit him as a witness, which in turn somehow casts doubt on whether Rowland even saw a man with a rifle.
Like Jerry, do you also believe Rowland saw a man holding a pop bottle with a telescopic sight on it?
Try to focus
And show us where I 'misrepresent' Rowland's words
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Mr. SPECTER Is there any other aspect of the affidavit which you gave, which you have just observed, which is at variance with your current recollection of what you saw and heard on that date?
Mr. ROWLAND - Here it states we were at the west entrance of the sheriff's office, that is just a general approximation, we were 25 feet from there, in fact.
Mr. SPECTER - Are there any other portions of it which vary from your current recollection?
Mr. ROWLAND - I don't remember saying definitely that he was back about 15 feet. In fact, I think I said, as I said now, 3 to 5 feet, because from my point of view if he was back 15 feet I couldn't have even seen him.
He actually did say 15 ft in this TexHist statement
He did not say 3-5 ft in this TexHist statement
(https://i.postimg.cc/768Msbqk/15-FT-ROWLAND-TX-HISTORY.png)
You posted:
"Rowland first said the guy in the SW window was about 12-15 ft back of the window, then changed that to about 3-5 ft because, he said, no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window."
Here you are saying the reason Rowland changed his guesstimate from 15ft to 3-5ft is because "no one would be able to see the figure so far back from the window."
In his WC testimony Rowland states the reason this guesstimate has changed is because he never even said that in the first place:
"I don't remember saying definitely that he was back about 15 feet. In fact, I think I said, as I said now, 3 to 5 feet,"
I'm not saying you've misrepresented his words intentionally but you have most certainly misrepresented what Rowland said about this trivial detail regarding his description of the man with the high-powered, scoped pop bottle on the 6th floor.
I see no misrepresentation on my part
Rowland's testimony conflicts with what he stated previously: He actually did say 15 ft in this TexHist statement, and did not say 3-5 ft.
That sort of switcheroo reminds me of the perps on The First 48
The liars keep forgetting what they said.
Why do you think Rowland is lying.?
Isn't he confirming there was a white, slender male on the 6th floor with a rifle just before the motorcade came by?
Isn't this confirming the LNer narrative?
Wrong window
The high numbers of that study improved based on the "salience of an item" or how prominent it appeared to observers (the test is almost all visual, BTW). In Dealey Plaza, the "first shot" that was treated by many as an ordinary "backfire" or "firecracker" was not that salient to some of those, and so did not trigger the mental preparation to gauge the "shot spanning" of unanticipated shots.If you will notice, items with the lowest salience score still scored more than 60% in terms of accuracy and completeness. The salience of the shot spacing is the proportion of observers who reported on a detail without being asked. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.pdf) There were 178 witnesses who commented on the shots (according the the HSCA study by D. M. Green, 8 HSCA 128) and 62 who commented on the shot spacing. If you remove all those who only commented on the shot spacing when asked, the salience might be down around 10%, which has an expected accuracy of 78%. In this case that looks about right: 47/62 = 76%.
Bugliosi--a renowned lawyer who could teach you a thing or two--says "they were in no position to compare the space between the second and third shots with that of the first and second."And if Bugliosi knew anything about studies to back this notion up, I am sure he would have cited them. He didn't.
"When a complex incident is witnessed, not all of the details
within that incident are equally salient, or memorable, to the
viewer or hearer. Some things just catch our attention more
readily than others."
How does Mrs. Loftus' words apply to all that was going on the seconds before and after the first shot? Crowd shouts and vehicle acceleration noise, trying to see the Kennedys and other dignitaries in the motorcade, a friend or family member getting your attention. All that outweighs something perceived by some, not all, as a "backfire" or "firecracker".So, if that was the case, they would be guessing at the shot spacing because it was not something that they observed. The distribution would be fairly flat in that case because there should be no preference for a particular pattern if they were guessing. It isn't.
The chart was produced by you? Now we know it's full of cherry-picks!I put all the witnesses who commented on the shot spacing in my paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). If you think I missed any, let me know.
Dave Reitzes' tabulation didn't show such a skewed cluster:I don't know where he gets his numbers. Perhaps he should identify who they are. I went through the statements of each witness in Stuart Galanor's tabulation (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm) to compile my list.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the
second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported
that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that
the first two shots were timed more closely together."
The Commission didn't seem to accept (as you have) without question Phil Willis' "instantaneous" claim. The Report justified its belief that the President was not wounded earlier than Z210:They did not know it was taken at z202. If they had figured that out, they would have said so. It was not until the HSCA that this was reported.
Your map shows a green line exactly midway between the lamp post and the Thornton sign. And you seem to be associating this film capture with the map. Are you saying that this film capture you've been posting shows the "Kennedy" surrogate exactly midway between the lamp post and the Thornton sign?No. I am showing you that JFK was in the clear when the car was anywhere between the lamp post and the Thornton sign. In that frame he is almost up to the Thornton Freeway sign and the front of the car is past the sign. In this frame, JFK is quite visible and he is about midway between the lamp post and sign:
See if I can get you to shave a little more off that "6 feet shorter".I thought it looked like the car used by the Cabells in the motorcade, which was a 1963 Mercury Comet convertible. But you may be right about it being a Lincoln. What is your source for that? As I said, it doesn't really matter because the issue is the location of JFK, not the car.
Some of these pictures are from Robin Unger's Photo Gallery, showing a Lincoln Continental was used for the reenactment. The SS-X-100 Presidential Limousine was said to be about 3 1/2 feet longer than the stock 1961 Continental it was built up from.
I've seen your photogrammetry skills. And maybe if you didn't use the blurriest SS reenactment photos you could find (to make it seem like the foliage didn't impede the view to the car) you might have determined the car's model.
First of all, this is not "evidence". It is opinion and theory. Second, these opinions and theory are based on certain assumptions which are not in evidence. These assumptions include: 1) the change in hand positions from z200 to z224 was a coincidental voluntary movement of the hands unrelated to being struck by a bullet; 2) the nerves exiting the cervical and upper thoracic spine near the bullet path sent uncontrolled impulses to the arms that caused them to move up toward the neck; 3) that the auditory reflex could operate in these circumstances; 4) that the response of the arms to these uncontrolled nerve impulses would be what is seen in z226
As demonstrated convincingly elsewhere in this thread, the first shot was the one that passed through JFK's neck, thus the first shot was at z223.
Any proposal for an earlier shot must ignore all the above evidence.
First of all, this is not "evidence". It is opinion and theory. Second, these opinions and theory are based on certain assumptions which are not in evidence. These assumptions include: 1) the change in hand positions from z200 to z224 was a coincidental voluntary movement of the hands unrelated to being struck by a bullet; 2) the nerves exiting the cervical and upper thoracic spine near the bullet path sent uncontrolled impulses to the arms that caused them to move up toward the neck; 3) that the auditory reflex could operate in these circumstances; 4) that the response of the arms to these uncontrolled nerve impulses would be what is seen in z226
The auditory response is not applicable to this case, since it the bullet struck before any sound would have reached JFK. So we are generally stuck with the 110 ms minimum for a physical response. That is 2 zframes.
The fact is that we do not see JFK before z224 so we don't know when his reaction began. The HSCA was of the view that JFK's physical reaction to "some severe external stimulus" began before JFK disappeared from view at about z207. (6 HSCA 16)
So, even if there was necessarily a visible physical reaction within 110 ms. of the bullet passing through JFK's neck, one cannot tell from his movements after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign that this is not a continuation of a reaction that began well before z224.
If you want to argue against the effects of "cavitation" let's hear it.You can see hand movement from z200-207. That is before you say there was a first shot at z223. One sees that JFK's hands have moved from the high waving position in z200 to hands in front of his torso at z224. That could not have occurred between z223 and z224 (55 ms). So you must be assuming that it occurred prior to the first shot.
If you want to argue against the scientific expertise of Drs. Artwohl and Strully let's hear it.
If you want to argue against the scientific studies put forward by Cantor for reaction times let's hear it.
The "instantaneous", radical and extreme reflex reactions of JFK to being shot through the throat are recorded on the Z-film. If you want to argue that, let's hear it.
These assumptions include: 1) the change in hand positions from z200 to z224 was a coincidental voluntary movement of the hands unrelated to being struck by a bullet;
Show where I have made this assumption.
3) that the auditory reflex could operate in these circumstances;I didn't say you made that assumption. But you did take the trouble to mention it. You seemed to be saying that the "auditory stimulus response" allows a reaction to be quicker than 110 ms.
Show where I have made this assumption.
So we are generally stuck with the 110 ms minimum for a physical response.Your statement absent the auditory reflex. Even Olympic track starts use a 100 ms limit to the human response to an auditory stimulus.
What are you basing this on?
What do you understand from the following passage:Do you have any evidence that this has ever occurred in materially less than 110 ms?
"As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet's path took place first; -- right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps and sequential contraction of all muscles in the forearms, hands, chest, abdominal walls and paraspinal muscle groups, with muscles in the lower extremities, farthest from the shock wave, responding last. All neural structures in the neck were stimulated at the same moment…”
You can see hand movement from z200-207. That is before you say there was a first shot at z223. One sees that JFK's hands have moved from the high waving position in z200 to hands in front of his torso at z224. That could not have occurred between z223 and z224 (55 ms). So you must be assuming that it occurred prior to the first shot.
When you write - "One sees that JFK's hands have moved from the high waving position" - you are talking about JFK's right hand (not hands). Nowhere in my post have I used JFK's right hand/arm to demonstrate the "instantaneous" reflex reaction caused by the effect of the bullet and accompanying cavitation traumatising the area of the Brachial Plaexus through which the bullet transits. I made this clear when I posted:So you agree that the movement of the right arm from the high position in z200 to the claw position seen in z225 is just a coincidence.
"The best way to gauge when JFK begins to react is to focus on his left arm."
LEFT ARM
",,,reaching back into the limo holding his left hand, which appears to rest on his stomach area, his left elbow down by his side. He releases his left hand as he begins to wave with his right. His left hand stays resting on his stomach area, his left elbow down by his side. His left arm/hand stays in this position as he goes behind the sign and is still in this position as he emerges from it:[/b]
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Hands_183.jpg) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Hands_224.jpg) |
"As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet's path took place first; -- right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps and sequential contraction of all muscles in the forearms, hands, chest, abdominal walls and paraspinal muscle groups, with muscles in the lower extremities, farthest from the shock wave, responding last. All neural structures in the neck were stimulated at the same moment…”I doubt very much that the temporary cavity was much bigger than the bullet diameter. The bullet went through the strap muscles of the upper back, which are very strong muscles because they control the head and keep it vertical. One would need some evidence that a bullet through a body at this point will cause reflex movement of the arms. I don't see any evidence of that. It is just a theory and without testing the theory it really doesn't amount to anything.
Within a fraction of a second all the muscles described by Dr Strully contract. It is this contraction of these muscles that we see in the Z-film and the analysis of the left arm presented above demonstrates conclusively that this reflex reaction can be visually seen to be taken place by z225/6.
This means the stimulus that caused this radical reaction occurred a fraction of a second before this.
Perfectly in accordance with a strike at z223.
Finally, it can be stated conclusively that such a strike at z195 would have caused JFK's arm's to fly up before he even went behind the Stemmons sign. Any strike earlier than z223 is utterly refuted by the effect of the bullet and accompanying cavitation on the nerves of the Brachial Plexus.
So you agree that the movement of the right arm from the high position in z200 to the claw position seen in z225 is just a coincidence.
There is a small but noticeable change in the orientation of the left hand. Prior to the sign it appears to be relaxed and directed across his body. In z224 it is in a claw position pointing up and you can see his watch:I doubt very much that the temporary cavity was much bigger than the bullet diameter. The bullet went through the strap muscles of the upper back, which are very strong muscles because they control the head and keep it vertical. One would need some evidence that a bullet through a body at this point will cause reflex movement of the arms. I don't see any evidence of that. It is just a theory and without testing the theory it really doesn't amount to anything.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Hands_183.jpg) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Hands_224.jpg)
What a piss-poor response. I honestly don't know why you bothered.So, then I don't know why you can't answer it. You can't see the difference in his hand positions between z200 and z224, including his left hand?
"I doubt very much that the temporary cavity was much bigger than the bullet diameter."Experts have to persuade non-experts, like judges. Your model and theory is not persuasive for a number of reasons. A recognized ballistics expert, Vincent DiMaio's (Gunshot Wounds, Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques, 1999 at Ch. 3) says:
Is that your expert opinion?
"One would need some evidence that a bullet through a body at this point will cause reflex movement of the arms."As I said, this is all good theory. It just needs some empirical evidence to support it.
Then one should read my posts.
So, then I don't know why you can't answer it. You can't see the difference in his hand positions between z200 and z224, including his left hand?
Experts have to persuade non-experts, like judges. Your model and theory is not persuasive for a number of reasons. A recognized ballistics expert, Vincent DiMaio's (Gunshot Wounds, Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques, 1999 at Ch. 3) says:
"The size of both the temporary and the permanent cavities is determined not only by the amount of kinetic energy deposited in the tissue but also by the density and elastic cohesiveness of the tissue."
DiMaio shows that the temporary cavity of a jacketed bullet starts being confined to the matter very close to the bullet path and increases with bullet yaw. A non-jacketed bullet that expands on impact transfers more energy on entry than a jacketed bullet. He provides a profile of the temporary cavities from different bullets:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Fig3_2_Di_Maio.JPG)
"A full metal jacketed rifle bullet will produce a cylindrical cavity until it begins to yaw. At this time, the bullet’s cross-sectional area will become larger, and the drag force will be increased. The result is an increase in kinetic energy loss and thus an increase in the diameter of the temporary cavity (Figure 3.2A). "
You want us to believe that your video of a bullet passing through ballistic gel represents the path of a 6.5 mm jacketed bullet would do when passing near JFK's thoracic spine about an inch after entering. Your video looks nothing like the path of a jacketed rifle bullet in the first profile in DiMaio's drawing Fig. 3.2
Your theory seems to be that the bullet created enormous lateral force between the bullet path and the nerves exiting the spine at T1-T2, which is maybe an inch into the body at that point. The 6.5 mm round nose bullet is very stable and the entry wound shows no signs of yaw. You need to show that the lateral force near the bullet entry point would displace the spinal nerves located about an inch away.
As I said, this is all good theory. It just needs some empirical evidence to support it.
Answer what?I said that both hands move and change orientation between z200 and z224. So you are attributing that to simple coincidence. You don't seem to want to admit that this is necessarily what you are saying.
That JFK's right hand is moving between z200 and z224?
You neglected to mention this paragraph which you must have read as it's just before the ones you've posted:Which, he goes on to explain, develops as the bullet yaws. How much did this bullet yaw in passing through the first inch or so of JFK's back/neck? Did it yaw much at all anywhere in his body? The WC ballistics scientists didn't think so.
"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity rifle bullet.
As the bullet enters the body, there is a “tail splash,” or backward hurling of
injured tissue. This material may be ejected from the entrance. The bullet
passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum
diameter is up to 11 to 12.5 times the diameter of the projectile."
Every diagram Di Maio has drawn shows cavitation many times wider than the path of the bullet.Many times? You have to quantify that. Is it twice the diameter? 3 times? Not much more than that initially, judging by the diagram if the maximum is 11-12.5 times.
Thank you for providing evidence to support my argument.
What nerves exiting the spine between T2 and T2?First of all, one could measure the pressure around the bullet path of a 6.5 mm bullet passing through similar biological material as a function of distance from the bullet track and distance along the track. One could then measure the pressure required to excite the nerves near the neck. From that one could the see whether it is even possible to stimulate those nerves from a bullet passing near them and, if so, quantify how close it would have to be and how far along the path it would have to be.
Who mentioned nerves exiting the spine between T1 and T2?
"...which is maybe an inch into the body at that point."
What ??
Would empirical evidence include the position of the wound on JFK's upper back/lower neck?
Would it include the fact the bullet traversed his body through the Brachial Plexus?
Would it include the fact the nerves of the Brachial Plexus supply the motor functions of the arms/hands?
Would it include the fact that cavitation occurs?
Would it include the extreme and unbelievably rapid of JFK's reactions as captured in the Z-film?
If not, what kind of empirical evidence are you after?
I said that both hands move and change orientation between z200 and z224. So you are attributing that to simple coincidence. You don't seem to want to admit that this is necessarily what you are saying.
Which, he goes on to explain, develops as the bullet yaws. How much did this bullet yaw in passing through the first inch or so of JFK's back/neck? Did it yaw much at all anywhere in his body? The WC ballistics scientists didn't think so.
Many times? You have to quantify that. Is it twice the diameter? 3 times? Not much more than that initially, judging by the diagram if the maximum is 11-12.5 times.
You are saying that the temporary cavity after travelling about an inch into JFK's back was large enough to jolt the nerves exiting the spine. That requires a cavity extending at least an inch outward from the bullet. That's a cavity with a diameter of 50 mm or about 8 times the diameter of the bullet. If the maximum is around 11 to 12.5 times when the bullet is going sideways, how do you get that large a cavity?
First of all, one could measure the pressure around the bullet path of a 6.5 mm bullet passing through similar biological material as a function of distance from the bullet track and distance along the track. One could then measure the pressure required to excite the nerves near the neck. From that one could the see whether it is even possible to stimulate those nerves from a bullet passing near them and, if so, quantify how close it would have to be and how far along the path it would have to be.
The argument I'm putting forward is extremely simple.What is your evidence that a reflex reaction takes 440 ms. (8 x 55 ms) to move from the z224 position to the position in z232? Keep in mind that the hand doesn't move that much - rather his left elbow rises and his torso slides down and forward. In any event, that is plenty of time for the elbow to lift and the hand to change position slightly, let alone for the torso to drop a few inches.
It is an explanation for the unbelievably rapid movement of JFK's left arm
In z224 his left arm is down by his side:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8kqYWY5/z224-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Six Z-frames later (z232) his left arm has extended upwards to a very extreme position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L4q3YHHs/z232-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This movement takes place in approximately 0.33 seconds - one third of a second.
In one third of a second JFK's left arm has gone from a resting position down by his side to a position where his left elbow is extended upwards to, what appears to be, it's fullest extent.
The rapidity of this movement is indicative of a reflex reaction to a stimulus of the nerves controlling the function of the arms.
These nerves are collectively known as the Brachial Plexus. It is no coincidence that the bullet which passes through JFK, passes through the Brachial Plexus at the approximate position represented in this graphic by the red dot:Do you have evidence that increase in pressure over six inch long section of nerves in the brachial plexus can do this? How much pressure? Do you even have any evidence of the amount of pressure applied to those nerves during the passage of the bullet through the upper torso? Do you have evidence as to how long such pressure must be applied before there is a response?
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvJphB7x/brachial-plexus-jpg-2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Artwohl makes the following point:What evidence is there that nerves were struck or damaged in JFK due to the passage of the back/neck bullet?
“JFK’s reaction to the neck wound was, for all intents and purposes, instantaneous to the hit at Z-223/224. As the bullet passed through his neck, the pressure cavity caused an immediate and wide spread stimulation of all the nerves in the immediate vicinity, that is of the brachial plexus, the large group of nerves that emerge from C5-T1. These are the nerves that supply motor function to the arms.”
The measurable, extremely rapid movement of JFK's left arm is evidence the nerves of the Brachial Plexus were damaged by a bullet that passed through this large group of nerves. This damage may have been caused by the bullet itself, severing a nerve, and the effect of cavitation, which may have contributed to further stimulation of the nerves.
This film with synchronized sound also shows the crowd of witnesses running up the knoll--
Dan, the diagram map that was posted by Andrew Mason shows a red LOS line going thru the tree at Z195😳" the tree branches are an obstruction"
If there are ONLY 3 shots and the 1st shot is a hit at 195 as theorized, and hits ONLY JFK then the 2nd shot that hits Connaly defacto must be at approx z223-225 as it’s quite apparent that Connalys right shoulder is being abruptly rotated counterclockwise.
I’m dubious of 2 separate shots fired unless someone has some evidence of an suppressed shot fired which of course means 2 shooters at least.
And the tree is an obstacle that the SE window shooter is very likely aware of so even if it can be proved that the leaves were less dense in 63 , it’s stiil questionable to choose to take a shot between z186-z210 when the tree branches are an obstruction rather than taking a shot just prior to it just afterwards when there is a clear LOS.
The trajectory for the single shot hitting both JFK and Connolly does NOT have to be a perfect straight line.
There is possibility of slight deflections possible for a bullet going thru 2human bodies.
The only problem really is the apparent anomaly of the insignificant amount of deformation of CE 399.
Willis has the 1st shot fired not earlier than Z205 which is the approximate verified time of his photo taken relative to the Z film location of the JFK limo.
I’m considering the idea also of the3rd shot missed fired 0.5 sec AFTER 313 head shot because my theory is that a semi auto rifle was used and that the shooter after seeing his 1st shot not the kill shot desired, took another 4.8 secs to carefully aim and then squeezed off 2 shots in rapid succession.
The 3rd /last shot was a miss because of muzzle rise just enough that caused that shot to hit the curb near Tague.
The questionable chain of handling of CE399 and how it was “found” and the presence of metallic element uncharacteristic of MC bullet found in the curb section suggest a different type bullet was fired.
Willis has the first shot fired not later than frame z202. Frame z202 was exposed at the same time as Willis' photo #6 (slide #8) that he said was taken an instant after the first shot sounded. If he reacted as quickly as possible to the shot sound reaching him (100ms) and the bullet struck 200 feet from the muzzle (100 ms. after leaving the muzzle) and the sound (1130 fps) arrived 200/1130 = 177 ms. after the bullet left the muzzle), this would put the first shot fired 277 ms. before z202 was exposed . That is 5 frames. So this puts the trigger pull of the first shot NO LATER THAN z197. And this puts the bullet striking JFK 177 ms or a bit more than 3 frames before z202 was exposed
Willis has the 1st shot fired not earlier than Z205 which is the approximate verified time of his photo taken relative to the Z film location of the JFK limo.
What is your evidence that a reflex reaction takes 440 ms. (8 x 55 ms) to move from the z224 position to the position in z232? Keep in mind that the hand doesn't move that much - rather his left elbow rises and his torso slides down and forward. In any event, that is plenty of time for the elbow to lift and the hand to change position slightly, let alone for the torso to drop a few inches.
Do you have evidence that increase in pressure over six inch long section of nerves in the brachial plexus can do this? How much pressure? Do you even have any evidence of the amount of pressure applied to those nerves during the passage of the bullet through the upper torso? Do you have evidence as to how long such pressure must be applied before there is a response?
That is why this is not evidence. It is just a theoretical possibility without supporting evidence from which anyone could conclude that it could happen, let alone that it did.
What evidence is there that nerves were struck or damaged in JFK due to the passage of the back/neck bullet?
There's no point having this conversation. You deliberately "misunderstand" my point as it is yet another nail in the coffin of your own pet theory (which is now more nail than coffin).
Just to clarify for those who may read this thread and who don't already have an entrenched position/agenda that needs defending -
Take a minute to examine this picture:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j59VbkDv/z232-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Look at how extreme the posture is, how both elbows are extended to, what appears to be, their fullest extent. In the Z-film, the upper part of JFK's body noticeably stiffens for a moment as his arms shoot up. There are very few who would argue against this extreme movement/posture being a reaction to the throat shot.
The point being made is that 0.44 seconds before this image [not 0.33, as I incorrectly posted] JFK's left arm is down by his side:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8kqYWY5/z224-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
What can explain, not just the incredible rapidity of the movement of his left arm from down by his side, but the extreme posture of his fully extended elbows?
The most coherent explanation is that this is a reflex reaction to being shot through the throat. But how would this explain the radical movement of the arms? This is explained by Artwohl and Strully:
“JFK’s reaction to the neck wound was, for all intents and purposes, instantaneous to the hit at Z-223/224. As the bullet passed through his neck, the pressure cavity caused an immediate and wide spread stimulation of all the nerves in the immediate vicinity, that is of the brachial plexus, the large group of nerves that emerge from C5-T1. These are the nerves that supply motor function to the arms.”
"Before all else, it is necessary to remember that this assassination reveals a sequence of neural responses initiated in the neck by the shock wave and cavitation induced by the bullet in its traverse of the neck. This traumatized all structures in a 6 inch radius in all directions from the path of passage through the neck. This spread of forces occurred in a fraction of a second, traumatizing all neural structures in the immediate vicinity within a fraction of a second as determined by the speed of the missile according to ballistic studies.
As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet's path took place first; -- right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps and sequential contraction of all muscles in the forearms, hands, chest, abdominal walls and paraspinal muscle groups, with muscles in the lower extremities, farthest from the shock wave, responding last. All neural structures in the neck were stimulated at the same moment…”
It is no coincidence that the bullet passes through the Brachial Plexus, the nerves that supply motor function to the arms. To imagine the extremely rapid movement and radical posture of JFK's arms is caused by anything other than damage to the nerves of the Brachial Plexus seems unlikely, to say the least.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvJphB7x/brachial-plexus-jpg-2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
As far as Andrew's theory is concerned - a first shot at z195. As shown elsewhere in this thread, the first recorded reaction of JFK to being shot is z225, this accords perfectly with an "instantaneous" reflex reaction to a bullet passing through the Brachial Plexus at z223. However, a shot at z195 would require JFK to "wait" for more than one and a half seconds before the radical reaction we see recorded in the Z-film. This is an eternity in terms of reaction times to being shot and does not explain the extreme posture of JFK's extended elbows.
There's no point having this conversation. You deliberately "misunderstand" my point as it is yet another nail in the coffin of your own pet theory (which is now more nail than coffin).I am not misunderstanding your point, deliberately or otherwise. You are saying that you can tell that JFK's reaction to being shot through the neck BEGINS after z224. I am simply pointing out that you cannot see JFK before z224 so how do you know that he is not reacting there? We can see his contorted face in z225 and that his hands have moved from the positions seen in z193 to those seen in z225. You simply cannot say that the zfilm shows that he was not reacting before z224. You can try to reason, as you have, that what is seen after he emerges is the first reaction but it is not based on evidence. It is based on conjecture that JFK had to react that way within a few frames of being hit.
As far as Andrew's theory is concerned - a first shot at z195. As shown elsewhere in this thread, the first recorded reaction of JFK to being shot is z225, this accords perfectly with an "instantaneous" reflex reaction to a bullet passing through the Brachial Plexus at z223. However, a shot at z195 would require JFK to "wait" for more than one and a half seconds before the radical reaction we see recorded in the Z-film. This is an eternity in terms of reaction times to being shot and does not explain the extreme posture of JFK's extended elbows.BUT YOU CANNOT SEE JFK FROM Z207 TO Z224!!! You want everyone to believe you can see that he is not reacting before z224!! I understand your argument. But it is not based on evidence. It is based on a theory that has no evidentiary support. As far as JFK's reaction after being hit, I simply point out that the reaction depends on what JFK experienced. If he did not feel any pain or impact but just felt a growing sensation of loss of function, his reaction could have developed over a period of one second or so. I also point out that you can see the beginning of a reaction with his hand movements before z207.
A lot of people on this forum have explained to Andrew over numerous years and in numerous ways the folly of this theory, yet here it still is. This is all about a proposed shot at Z250 or somewhere in that area that never happened.A lot of people on this forum have explained to Jack over numerous years and in numerous ways the folly of this theory that there were only two shots, yet here it still is. This is all about shots at Z223 and z313 but no shots in between.
Dan, If you are going to wrestle with a pig in the mud, always remember the pig likes it.
A lot of people on this forum have explained to Andrew over numerous years and in numerous ways the folly of this theory, yet here it still is. This is all about a proposed shot at Z250 or somewhere in that area that never happened.
When I stub my toe, there's enough lapse to allow for a choice swear word before I feel the painSwearing could be a natural form of pain relief:
Dan, If you are going to wrestle with a pig in the mud, always remember the pig likes it.JFK was clear of the tree from the SN when he was between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign. He was opposite the Thornton sign at z200 and opposite the lamppost at z190. You just need to use the Secret Service film:
:D
Thanks Jack, for the strangest advice I've ever been given, but well put.
Andrew's theory, as I understand it, is a first shot at z195, a second shot at z271(ish) and a third shot at z312/3.
We both agree the first shot hits JFK but a shot as early as z195 has to be taken through the oak tree, which is a non-starter.
It is also notable that none of the Secret Service agents reacts to the very loud, "explosive" sound of the first shot before z207, yet three of them testify that they turned to their right rear immediately after hearing the shot (as seen in Altgens 6).Ready releases his right hand from the front hand-hold by z199 and begins his turn to the right. He had to do that to turn to the right rear as he said he did immediately after the first shot. Was he clairvoyant in anticipating the first shot at z223?
As for the shot around z271, that has been blown out of the water in a multitude of different ways in this thread.Yet you do admit that if the last shot was the headshot at z313, there had to have been a second shot around z271. You just think it missed. The evidence indicates that it hit JBC.
I am not misunderstanding your point, deliberately or otherwise. You are saying that you can tell that JFK's reaction to being shot through the neck BEGINS after z224. I am simply pointing out that you cannot see JFK before z224 so how do you know that he is not reacting there? We can see his contorted face in z225 and that his hands have moved from the positions seen in z193 to those seen in z225. You simply cannot say that the zfilm shows that he was not reacting before z224. You can try to reason, as you have, that what is seen after he emerges is the first reaction but it is not based on evidence. It is based on conjecture that JFK had to react that way within a few frames of being hit.
BUT YOU CANNOT SEE JFK FROM Z207 TO Z224!!! You want everyone to believe you can see that he is not reacting before z224!! I understand your argument. But it is not based on evidence. It is based on a theory that has no evidentiary support. As far as JFK's reaction after being hit, I simply point out that the reaction depends on what JFK experienced. If he did not feel any pain or impact but just felt a growing sensation of loss of function, his reaction could have developed over a period of one second or so. I also point out that you can see the beginning of a reaction with his hand movements before z207.
JFK was clear of the tree from the SN when he was between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign. He was opposite the Thornton sign at z200 and opposite the lamppost at z190. You just need to use the Secret Service film:These pics prove JFK was still behind dense foliage at z195. End of story.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/clear_from_tree_before_Thornton_sign.JPG)Ready releases his right hand from the front hand-hold by z199 and begins his turn to the right. He had to do that to turn to the right rear as he said he did immediately after the first shot. Was he clairvoyant in anticipating the first shot at z223?
Yet you do admit that if the last shot was the headshot at z313, there had to have been a second shot around z271. You just think it missed. The evidence indicates that it hit JBC.
A lot of people on this forum have explained to Jack over numerous years and in numerous ways the folly of this theory that there were only two shots, yet here it still is. This is all about shots at Z223 and z313 but no shots in between.
Dan, If you are going to wrestle with a pig in the mud, always remember the pig likes it.
:D
Thanks Jack, for the strangest advice I've ever been given, but well put.
Andrew's theory, as I understand it, is a first shot at z195, a second shot at z271(ish) and a third shot at z312/3.
We both agree the first shot hits JFK but a shot as early as z195 has to be taken through the oak tree, which is a non-starter. There is no evidence from JFK's reactions that he is hit before he passes behind the Stemmons sign at z207. The idea that JFK would "wait" for over a second and a half before the incredibly rapid movement of his arms into the extreme position we see in the Z-film is also a non-starter.
A shot as early as z195 is also refuted by the witness testimony of the 10 occupants of the VP and VP follow-up cars who unanimously agree the first shot took place after both cars had completed the turn off Houston onto Elm Street. It is also notable that none of the Secret Service agents reacts to the very loud, "explosive" sound of the first shot before z207, yet three of them testify that they turned to their right rear immediately after hearing the shot (as seen in Altgens 6).
As for the shot around z271, that has been blown out of the water in a multitude of different ways in this thread.
No one has ever explained why there was more than two shots. Prove there was three shots.Are you asking me to prove to you that there were three shots? That is obviously not going to be possible. If you want to conclude that this distribution means only two shots:
The reason you don't understand there was only two shots is because you have a limited grasp of the evidence. All the evidence points to two shots. Shooting time, bullets, shells, witness testimony, wounds. The WC conclusion includes the phrase about two shots and witness testimony as does the HSCA sound analysis. It is the only answer there is and ever will be. You can either accept it or not, makes no difference to me.
Andrew's theory will change and morph in an attempt to accommodate your new information. The Z270ish includes all the way down to Z250 where JBC's wounds are somehow the result of being shot while he was laying on Nellie's lap or something like that.?? You obviously do not understand what I have been saying. I am saying:
Swearing could be a natural form of pain relief:
"Research into the hypoalgesic effect of swearing has shown that the use of profanity can help reduce the sensation of pain. This phenomenon is particularly strong in people who do not use such words on a regular basis.
...
The effect has been described as being a form of stress-induced analgesia, with swearing due to a painful stimulus being a form of emotional response.[2][3] However, it is as yet unclear how swearing achieves the physical effects that have been described in the research. Swearing in response to pain may activate the amygdala which in turn triggers a fight-or-flight response. This then leads to a surge in adrenaline, a natural form of pain relief"
Wikipedia: Hypoalgesic Effect of Swearing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoalgesic_effect_of_swearing)
But, you first have to experience pain and then you have to be able to swear. Neither may have applied to JFK experiencing his neck wound.
Are you asking me to prove to you that there were three shots? That is obviously not going to be possible. If you want to conclude that this distribution means only two shots:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.jpg)
you are welcome to do that. But don't expect others to agree with you.
It does not matter what the others think. It is like a 3D picture, once you understand it, the answer is every where. There were only two shots and this can be shown many different ways. People will believe what they want but they cannot change the answer.If there were only two shots, it is difficult to understand how all three men immediately below the SN on the fifth floor could not only hear three loud explosions from the floor above, but Harold Norman could hear the bolt action reload and a shell hit the floor three times, each time after a loud explosion sound. And even more difficult to understand how so many not only recalled hearing 3 distinct shots, recalled the same distinct pattern to the three shots. How is that even possible?
I already know you cannot prove there was three shots. Nobody can because there was never three shots fired. I am asking you to think for yourself and not be such a lemming.
It is not complicated, the answer to how many shots were fired is in the shell evidence and the WC testimonies about the shells.So you think that Oswald was so unprepared that he forgot to remove an empty shell from the MC before setting up the SN? I am sure you have an explanation. By the way, it was noted by the FBI in operating the MC that occasionally a shell would get pinched when being ejected.
It does not matter what the others think. It is like a 3D picture, once you understand it, the answer is every where. There were only two shots and this can be shown many different ways. People will believe what they want but they cannot change the answer.
I already know you cannot prove there was three shots. Nobody can because there was never three shots fired. I am asking you to think for yourself and not be such a lemming.
It is not complicated, the answer to how many shots were fired is in the shell evidence and the WC testimonies about the shells.
If there were only two shots, it is difficult to understand how all three men immediately below the SN on the fifth floor could not only hear three loud explosions from the floor above, but Harold Norman could hear the bolt action reload and a shell hit the floor three times, each time after a loud explosion sound. And even more difficult to understand how so many not only recalled hearing 3 distinct shots, recalled the same distinct pattern to the three shots. How is that even possible?
So you think that Oswald was so unprepared that he forgot to remove an empty shell from the MC before setting up the SN? I am sure you have an explanation. By the way, it was noted by the FBI in operating the MC that occasionally a shell would get pinched when being ejected.
Sorry Jack, over 160 ear-witnesses heard three clearly audible shots.
That simply cannot be ignored.
Thanks for the intelligent response. The number of shots defines the assassination. See what I mean about Mason. He knows better than what he posted.
The sheer number of earwitnesses as compared to eyewitnesses skews the analysis. The earwitnesses were standing in an echo chamber. The eyewitnesses were able to relate what they saw to what they heard.
I think Nellie, JBC, Jackie, SA Greer, and SA Kellerman, would be in a better position to know. All five of the occupants of JFK's limo reference just two shots. Six if you count Clint Hill riding on the trunk.
The number of shots defines the assassination.
I couldn't agree more. The number of shots and the direction they came from are of fundamental importance. It's amazing how little consensus there is over something so fundamental.
I don't agree that those in the limo were any more "eye-witnesses" that those in the follow-up cars or the dozens of people stood on Elm Street who were specifically focused on JFK.
In my opinion, the six people you name in no way stacks up against the 160+ witnesses who heard three shots. I don't think it makes any difference whether you were in the limo or not.
If people were confused by echoes they would have heard an even number of shots, not an odd number.
There are plenty of people who heard more or less than three shots but the number pales into insignificance compared to those who reported hearing three shots.
I'm not sure how the injury to Tague occurs in a realistic way with just two shots, but that's just my opinion.
It's clearly something we'll have to agree to disagree on but I hope you can see where I'm coming from in accepting there were three, clearly audible shots.
I understand, three shots is an accepted fact but should it be. Studying witness statements is a quagmire because of witnesses with multiple statements.Yeah. An incomprehensible quagmire. Just look at this and try to figure out how many shots there were:
The eyewitness vs earwitness comparison becomes a tedious argument, but there is physical evidence that helps explain what happened.I am not sure what evidence you are referring to. It was determined by the FBI that all three shells had been fired by the C2766 rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. This was determined by matching the bolt-face and firing pin impressions on the shells with the bolt face and firing pin of C2766 (per: Frazier, 3H416-417). (A snap cap does not recoil back against the bolt face). All three shells are shown to have bolt-face impressions matching C2766. This cannot happen if the shells are from unfired cartridges. Here is an excerpt from the WC testimony of Supt. Nicol's of the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (3H505):
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0243a.htm
The shell casings actually provide physical evidence of how many shots were fired. Who noted the evidence was Josiah Thompson. In his book "Six Seconds in Dallas" he states he viewed over thirty shells that had been fired in the carcano (chapter VII footnote 4 of Six Seconds in Dallas). All the shells had an indentation in the side of the shell casing except for CE543. In the book is a photo of the shells together and notation showing the position of the indentation on CE544, CE545, and CE141 (the unfired cartridge), but not on CE543.
Of the three shells and cartridge shown, the most telling is CE141 for the reason that indentation is there but the cartridge was never fired. Why that is important is in the FBI memo from Hoover to Rankin, the indentation in the side of the shell casings is referred to as a "chamber mark." It is a mark that is produced by the rifle itself due to a manufacturing defect. The "chamber mark" is only produced by the rifle when it is fired and expanding the shell or in the case of CE141 when the chamber of the rifle is expanded due to the heat generated from the rifle having been fired. CE543 does not have the "chamber mark" and among other things exhibit evidence of having been dry fired or basically was being used as a snap cap.
Yeah. An incomprehensible quagmire. Just look at this and try to figure out how many shots there were:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.jpg)I am not sure what evidence you are referring to. It was determined by the FBI that all three shells had been fired by the C2766 rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. This was determined by matching the bolt-face and firing pin impressions on the shells with the bolt face and firing pin of C2766 (per: Frazier, 3H416-417). (A snap cap does not recoil back against the bolt face). All three shells are shown to have bolt-face impressions matching C2766. This cannot happen if the shells are from unfired cartridges. Here is an excerpt from the WC testimony of Supt. Nicol's of the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (3H505):
Mr. NICOL. Based upon the similarity of the firing-pin impressions and the breech-block markings, as well as ejector and extractor marks, it is my opinion that all three of the exhibits, 545, 543, and 544, were fired in the same weapon as fired Exhibit 557.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you take photographs of the various shells under the microscope?
Mr. NICOL. I took photographs of the specimen which I referred to, or was referred to, as Q-48, which would be this.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. That is Commission Exhibit 545.
Mr. NICOL. These were also taken under the comparison microscope in the same fashion as the other specimens.
Mr. EISENBERG. And these were taken by you?
Mr. NICOL. These were taken by me.
(3H508):
Mr. DULLES. What is 543?
Mr. EISENBERG. 543 is a shell found in the TSBD building.
Mr. NICOL. This is a photograph I took of the head-a portion of the head of Q-6, or Commission Exhibit 543.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 619, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 619.
(The photograph described was marked Commission Exhibit NO. 619 and received in evidence.)
Mr. NICOL. It might be well to introduce these, too. These are the same as the ones which are mounted, except that I have cut them for the purpose of matching them.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to introduce these two photographs-also taken by you, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which are similar, or taken from this photograph. That will be 620 and 621, Mr. Reporter.
Mr. DULLES. Exhibits 620 and 621 as described will be admitted.
(The photographs described were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 620 and 621 and were received in evidence.)
The microscope photos showing these markings on CE543 provided by Nicol (CE619-621) show conclusively that CE543 had been fired.
AND, since there was no empty shell in the rifle when it was found, this means the all three must have been ejected from the rifle chamber.
Nicol also found that the shells had several markings that indicated that, as full cartridges, each had been loaded and ejected at least 2 times before firing and CE543 had been loaded and ejected at least 3 times. This was determined that CE543 had a magazine follower impression made by the Mannlicher magazine on the last bullet in the clip. So this means that CE543 had, at one time, been inserted as the last bullet in the magazine at some time. Since it was not the last bullet in the clip on 22Nov63, this means that at some time it had been part of a clip of bullets in the magazine and then had been removed without firing.
You have never been able to navigate the witness statements. It is a big enough quagmire for you that you felt the need to lie about BRW and James Jarman. Making any headway on why you did this? How about post BRW 11/22 Affidavit and James Jarman's 11/24 affidavit. That would clear it up.
--------------------------------------------------------
The WC thought the likelihood that CE543 was an empty shell so much that it is included in the conclusion along with media influence. But you know this because it has been posted for you numerous times.
Summary from the Warren Commission Report (pages 110-111)
...."It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....
------------------------------
The same Joseph Nicol testified he thought CE543 had been dry fired based on evidence of multiple firing operations.
Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.
Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence. Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group. of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its--how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review this testimony, Mr. Nicol, this is a mark which occurs on the base of the cartridge case, is that correct?
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have anything you would like to add to your testimony on the rifle bullets or the rifle cartridge cases, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I don't think so.
You make a snap cap by pulling the bullet out of the shell with a pair of pliers, pour out the powder, point the rifle in a safe direction and fire the cartridge with the just the primer exploding, similar to a cap gun. Noisy but Bippity Boppety Boop you have a snap cap.
Major Anderson testified about the LHO's Marine Corp training and dryfiring.
--------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by live firing, sir?
Major ANDERSON - By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?
Major ANDERSON - Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates
Mr. SPECTER - Would you outline the marksmanship training, if any, which a Marine recruit receives in the normal course of Marine training?
Major ANDERSON - He goes through a very intensive 3 weeks training period. During this 3 weeks for the first week he receives a basic training in the care and cleaning of the weapon. He learns sighting and aiming. He learns manipulation of the trigger.
He is exposed to various training aids. He goes through a series of exercises in what we call dry firing in which he assumes all of the positions that he is going to use in the full firing of the rifle over the qualification course
You felt the need to lie about BRW and James Jarman. Making any headway on why you did this? How about post BRW 11/22 Affidavit and James Jarman's 11/24 affidavit. That would clear it up.
--------------------------------------------------------
The WC thought the likelyhood that CE543 was an empty shell so much that it is included in the conclusion along with media influence. But you know this because it has been posted for you numerous times.
Summary from the Warren Comission Report (pages 110-111)
...."It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....
------------------------------
The same Joseph Nicol testified he thought CE543 had been dry fired based on evidence of multiple firing operations.
Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.
Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence. Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group. of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its--how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just to review this testimony, Mr. Nicol, this is a mark which occurs on the base of the cartridge case, is that correct?
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have anything you would like to add to your testimony on the rifle bullets or the rifle cartridge cases, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I don't think so.
You make a snap cap by pulling the bullet out of the shell with a pair of pliers, pour out the powder, point the rifle in a safe direction and fire the cartridge with the just the primer exploding, similar to a cap gun. Noisy but Bippity Boppety Boop you have a snap cap.
Major Anderson testified about the LHO's Marine Corp training and dryfiring.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by live firing, sir?
Major ANDERSON - By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?
Major ANDERSON - Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates
Mr. SPECTER - Would you outline the marksmanship training, if any, which a Marine recruit receives in the normal course of Marine training?
Major ANDERSON - He goes through a very intensive 3 weeks training period. During this 3 weeks for the first week he receives a basic training in the care and cleaning of the weapon. He learns sighting and aiming. He learns manipulation of the trigger.
He is exposed to various training aids. He goes through a series of exercises in what we call dry firing in which he assumes all of the positions that he is going to use in the full firing of the rifle over the qualification course
Dr E Forrest Chapman also states CE543 had been dryfired.
Dr E Forrest Chapman, Michigan Forensic Pathologist, one of three or four civilians allowed to examine evidence from the National Archives.
However, there is strong evidence that CE 543 was not, and could not have been, fired from Oswald's rifle on the day of the assassination. The only marks linking CE 543 to Oswald's rifle are marks from the rifle's magazine follower. According to Dr. Michael Kurtz and others, the case couldn't have received these marks from the magazine follower on the day of the assassination, because the last bullet in the clip must have been the unfired missile in the rifle's chamber (Kurtz, Crime of the Century, pp. 50-51). Dr. Kurtz also notes that CE 543 "lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle" (Crime of the Century, p. 51). Dr. E. Forrest Chapman studied the shell casings in 1973 and concluded (1) that CE 543 had most likely been dry loaded into a rifle, (2) that it had not been fired from the alleged murder weapon at the time of the shooting, and (3) that the indentation on the base of the case was characteristic only of a case that had been fired empty. Says Dr. Kurtz,
Dr. E. Forrest Chapman, forensic pathologist, who in 1973 was given access to the assassination materials in the National Archives, noted that Case 543 was probably "dry loaded" into a rifle. Since the dent [on the case] was too large for the case to have contained a bullet on November 22, it was never fired from Oswald's rifle. The empty case, however, for some unknown reason could have been loaded into a rifle, the trigger pulled, and the bolt operated. Dr. Chapman discovered this phenomenon through experiments of his own.
Dr. Chapman also noted that Case 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics. The FBI also reproduced this effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the FBI for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543.
Dr E Forrest Chapman also states CE543 had been dryfired.
Dr E Forrest Chapman, Michigan Forensic Pathologist, one of three or four civilians allowed to examine evidence from the National Archives.
However, there is strong evidence that CE 543 was not, and could not have been, fired from Oswald's rifle on the day of the assassination. The only marks linking CE 543 to Oswald's rifle are marks from the rifle's magazine follower. According to Dr. Michael Kurtz and others, the case couldn't have received these marks from the magazine follower on the day of the assassination, because the last bullet in the clip must have been the unfired missile in the rifle's chamber (Kurtz, Crime of the Century, pp. 50-51). Dr. Kurtz also notes that CE 543 "lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle" (Crime of the Century, p. 51). Dr. E. Forrest Chapman studied the shell casings in 1973 and concluded (1) that CE 543 had most likely been dry loaded into a rifle, (2) that it had not been fired from the alleged murder weapon at the time of the shooting, and (3) that the indentation on the base of the case was characteristic only of a case that had been fired empty. Says Dr. Kurtz,
Dr. E. Forrest Chapman, forensic pathologist, who in 1973 was given access to the assassination materials in the National Archives, noted that Case 543 was probably "dry loaded" into a rifle. Since the dent [on the case] was too large for the case to have contained a bullet on November 22, it was never fired from Oswald's rifle. The empty case, however, for some unknown reason could have been loaded into a rifle, the trigger pulled, and the bolt operated. Dr. Chapman discovered this phenomenon through experiments of his own.
Dr. Chapman also noted that Case 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics. The FBI also reproduced this effect. Commission Exhibit 557 is a test cartridge case, fired empty from Oswald's rifle by the FBI for ballistics comparison purposes. It, too, contains the dent in the lip and deep primer impression similar to Case 543.
You might have already mentioned this but how many shell casings do you think were found on the 6th floor?
You have never been able to navigate the witness statements. It is a big enough quagmire for you that you felt the need to lie about BRW and James Jarman. Making any headway on why you did this? How about post BRW 11/22 Affidavit and James Jarman's 11/24 affidavit. That would clear it up.Bonnie Ray Williams initially said that he heard 2 shots but later said he heard 3. He also testified to the WC that he heard 3 shots. So the best you can do with Williams is say that he wasn't sure whether there were two shots or three shots.
The WC thought the likelihood that CE543 was an empty shell so much that it is included in the conclusion along with media influence. But you know this because it has been posted for you numerous times.They were not suggesting that CE543 was not fired as a full cartridge (shell+bullet+powder) in Oswald's rifle C2766. That is all we are talking about. You were suggesting it had never been fired in the MC with a bullet and gunpowder. Frazier and Nicol based their conclusion that the three shells had been fired in the MC on the bolt-face impressions as well as the firing pin impression. That can only occur if the shell contained a bullet and gunpowder when fired.
Summary from the Warren Commission Report (pages 110-111)
...."It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....
The same Joseph Nicol testified he thought CE543 had been dry fired based on evidence of multiple firing operations.They are talking about loading and unloading the full cartridge with the bolt action and the marks made on the shell from those actions. They are not talking about the bolt-face impression when the shell recoils back against the bolt-face which only occurs upon firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.
Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence. Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group. of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its--how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.
You make a snap cap by pulling the bullet out of the shell with a pair of pliers, pour out the powder, point the rifle in a safe direction and fire the cartridge with the just the primer exploding, similar to a cap gun. Noisy but Bippity Boppety Boop you have a snap cap.Yes. But a snap cap does not have a bolt-face impression because there is no recoil back against the bolt-face.
Bonnie Ray Williams initially said that he heard 2 shots but later said he heard 3. He also testified to the WC that he heard 3 shots. So the best you can do with Williams is say that he wasn't sure whether there were two shots or three shots.Excellent choice for witnesses. Both witnesses completely prove a shot there was only two shots and a shot at Z250+ is fantasy.
I wasn't aware that Jarman gave a statement on November 24/63. He gave one on November 23/63 and did not deal with the shots. In his WC testimony he said there were three shots, "and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one".
Just curious: how do you think I lied about Williams and Jarman?
They were not suggesting that CE543 was not fired as a full cartridge (shell+bullet+powder) in Oswald's rifle C2766. That is all we are talking about. You were suggesting it had never been fired in the MC with a bullet and gunpowder. Frazier and Nicol based their conclusion that the three shells had been fired in the MC on the bolt-face impressions as well as the firing pin impression. That can only occur if the shell contained a bullet and gunpowder when fired.
They are talking about loading and unloading the full cartridge with the bolt action and the marks made on the shell from those actions. They are not talking about the bolt-face impression when the shell recoils back against the bolt-face which only occurs upon firing.
Dry firing to me means pulling the trigger with no ammunition in the chamber. I think they are talking about dry-firing as operating the gun's bolt-action to load and eject full cartridges without firing them.
Yes. But a snap cap does not have a bolt-face impression because there is no recoil back against the bolt-face.
Excellent choice for witnesses. Both witnesses completely prove a shot there was only two shots and a shot at Z250+ is fantasy.No. It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were. Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots. How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3?
BRW proves the WC and HSCA's contention that the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. BRW originally states there was only two shots and then he later adds a third shot.
WC: "Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"....What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots? Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination.
HSCA: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
No doubt you don't want to post James Jarman's statement from 11/24. He repeatedly states in it and his WC statement that the second shot is the headshot and then a shot after the car accelerates to leave.
11/24 James Jarman:
"He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building."
WC: Mr. Jarman.
A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
It is obvious why you lied about these witnesses and what they stated. The odd thing is that you would have chosen them in the first place.
No. It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were. Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots. How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3?
What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots? Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination.
First of all, it helps when you provide a cite. The cite is WCD 5, 334-335. For some reason it is not included in the WC index or in Stuart Galanor's list of witnesses (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm) and their statements.
In this statement, James Jarman does not say that the second shot was the head shot. Where do you get that? And he clearly states that there were three shots. Again, why do you think he is saying there were only two?
The vehicle started to speed up about a second after the head shot (about 3 seconds after the second shot, if the second shot was around z271 or 2.3 seconds before the last shot). He never describes the head shot. He did not say that the car speeded up between the second and third shots. We know that the car did not speed up before the head shot. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and Jarman does not say that it wasn't.
No. It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were. Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots. How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3?
What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots? Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination.
First of all, it helps when you provide a cite. The cite is WCD 5, 334-335. For some reason it is not included in the WC index or in Stuart Galanor's list of witnesses (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm) and their statements.
In this statement, James Jarman does not say that the second shot was the head shot. Where do you get that? And he clearly states that there were three shots. Again, why do you think he is saying there were only two?
The vehicle started to speed up about a second after the head shot (about 3 seconds after the second shot, if the second shot was around z271 or 2.3 seconds before the last shot). He never describes the head shot. He did not say that the car speeded up between the second and third shots. We know that the car did not speed up before the head shot. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and Jarman does not say that it wasn't.
"There is abundant evidence that the head shot"
There is conflicting evidence that the head-shot was the last shot.
James Altgens was 15 feet away from the limousine at the time of the head shot and was definite about the headshot being the last shot.
LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases.
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on it--of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of shock, but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away, because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head.
The witness statements stand on their own merit and do not require your explanation. The only explanation for the adding a shot to their original statements, that makes sense at all, is the WC's and HSCA's explanation about media influence. Keep telling yourself media influence. It was media influence creating the phantom third shot. Media influence.Third party information can have an influence, but studies have shown that it is not that dramatic. See: Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, 1978, Ch. 4 "Retaining Information from Memory".
There is a 5.3 second spacing between BRW's first and second shot. He specifically states he heard two shots. There is a 5.3 second spacing between Jarman's first and second shot. Jarman adds a shot as the car accelerates to leave. He states there was a shot as the car accelerates to leave. "Speeded up" like in accelerating to leave. I have no idea what you are referring to.He said the car speeded up after the second shot. That is a true statement because z338 is after the second shot. But it doesn't mean that it speeded up after the second and before the third shot. We know that head shot was the last shot. We know the car did not speed up before the last shot. The Connally's recalled three shots and the third shot struck JFK in the head. They heard it and they felt it. The Secret Service as well as Powers and O'Donnell in the follow-up car all said the third and last shot was the head shot.
Thanks again for referencing to these two witnesses, they resolve the issue for you about a shot at Z250+. There wasn't one.It would be a fair criticism to say I am relying on a fantasy third shot if it was something I had made up. But, of course, I didn't make it up. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and that the last two shots close together, in rapid succession, 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' (Hudson, WCD5 30 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=33)). It is more of a fantasy to believe that this could happen if there were only two shots.
Just curious, your whole identity seems to revolve around this fantasy shot. What theory will you be proposing now? How about there was an echo. You would actually be correct, new territory. LHO took the first shot with the rifle barrel retracted inside the building and the second shot was taken with the barrel outside the window.
Third party information can have an influence, but studies have shown that it is not that dramatic. See: Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, 1978, Ch. 4 "Retaining Information from Memory".
But it does not matter. Let's suppose that Williams was persuaded by the accounts of others to say there were three shots. That would mean he was not confident that there were only two shots originally. So the question is: on what basis can you conclude that his first statement was accurate?
If a large proportion of witnesses confidently recalled only 2 shots and only a small proportion confidently recalled 3 then I would agree with you that his original statement is more likely to be accurate. But the opposite is the case here. Numerous witnesses not only recalled 3 distinct shots but they described the distinctive pattern of those shots. The best you can do with Williams is not take his evidence of 3 shots or 2 shots into account.
He said the car speeded up after the second shot. That is a true statement because z338 is after the second shot. But it doesn't mean that it speeded up after the second and before the third shot. We know that head shot was the last shot. We know the car did not speed up before the last shot. The Connally's recalled three shots and the third shot struck JFK in the head. They heard it and they felt it. The Secret Service as well as Powers and O'Donnell in the follow-up car all said the third and last shot was the head shot.
It would be a fair criticism to say I am relying on a fantasy third shot if it was something I had made up. But, of course, I didn't make it up. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and that the last two shots close together, in rapid succession, 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' (Hudson, WCD5 30 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=33)). It is more of a fantasy to believe that this could happen if there were only two shots.
No. It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were. Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots. How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3?
What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots? Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination.
First of all, it helps when you provide a cite. The cite is WCD 5, 334-335. For some reason it is not included in the WC index or in Stuart Galanor's list of witnesses (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm) and their statements.
In this statement, James Jarman does not say that the second shot was the head shot. Where do you get that? And he clearly states that there were three shots. Again, why do you think he is saying there were only two?
The vehicle started to speed up about a second after the head shot (about 3 seconds after the second shot, if the second shot was around z271 or 2.3 seconds before the last shot). He never describes the head shot. He did not say that the car speeded up between the second and third shots. We know that the car did not speed up before the head shot. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and Jarman does not say that it wasn't.
Excerpt from Charles Brehm's FBI statement 11/24/63
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.
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.
As I say, there is contradictory evidence regarding whether the head shot was the last shot or not.
Note, Brehm was ex-military and "had experience with bolt-action rifles".
Brehm was military and he is also a two shot witness. A lot of the eyewitnesses were interviewed by the press immediately after the assassination and their first statements appear in the press.That is the problem with relying on a single outlier witness. You have to look at all the evidence. There are many more witnesses who were clear from the start and never wavered on the number of shots or the shot pattern.
Brehm after a short period of time on 11/22, during an interview states "there is some discussion now" about how many shots were fired and adds a third shot to his recollection. The third shot he adds is sometimes at the end, sometimes between the neck and head shot and sometimes the first shot.
Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63: TWO SHOTS
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.
Two hours after the interview for the Dallas Herald Times, Brehm was interviewed by WBAP TV where he stated there were two shots. Later that day Brehm was interviewed by KLIF Radio and by now he was starting to question the number of shots and states "there is some discussion now" about how many shots were fired. By the next day a third shot became part of the story but the head shot was still reported as the second shot. The FBI report on 11/24 is the result of the transformation from Charles Brehm believing there was two shots to being told and stating he heard three shots.
That is the problem with relying on a single outlier witness. You have to look at all the evidence. There are many more witnesses who were clear from the start and never wavered on the number of shots or the shot pattern.
One thing that you, and I and Dan O'meara seem to be in complete agreement on, however, is that the first shot struck the President. That is a very important fact that is based on two independent pillars of evidence:
1. the many witnesses, like Brehm, Nellie Connally, Dave Powers, Clint Hill, Faye and John Chism, Gayle and Wm. Newman, Ike Altgens, SA Hickey, SA Kinney, SA Landis, who saw JFK react to the first shot (together the fact that not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot, let alone for 3 seconds afterward).
2. the many witnesses including Betzner, occupants of the VP car and VP security car, Mary Woodward, who put the first shot well after z180.
But it is also the only conclusion that is possible with the 1........2....3 shot pattern recalled by over 40 witnesses (which is also consistent with the many witnesses who described a shot and then two more shots without explicitly stating the relative spacing) if the head shot was the last shot.
The medias influence began at 12:34 with Walter Cronkite reading Merrimans Smith's News flash.Yes. And after that everyone simply repeated what Merriman Smith said, even if they hadn't heard the news reports. They all lost their minds and became unable to recall that number of shots that acctually occurred.
"Three shots were fired at President Kennedy's motorcade today in downtown Dallas."
So let's see who you think they are. Can you not give us a specific number rather than an estimate?
Over 40 eyewitness accounts of just two shots and another 30 to 40 eyewitness accounts of a second shot head shot.
Only two of the three shells were found to have been fired in the rifle. Evidence of just two bullets.No. The FBI said that all three shells had been fired in the MC. See: Frazier, 3H416:
FBI determined cycle time of the carcano was 2.3 seconds leaving only an even cadence of shots possible.Or, the first shot occurred more than a second earlier than 225 making the shot spacing 4:2.3
First shot Z220+, second shot Z312, end of story.Calvary, Hicks, Reed and Westbrook were standing opposite JFK between z215-225. Westbrook was opposite JFK at z225.
The first shot was fired while the limo was between where Jean Newman was standing and the Chisms who were located at the corner of the Stemmons Freeway sign. The first shot occurred directly in front of Calvery, Hicks, Reed, and Westbrook, the secretaries from the TSBD, who were interviewed by the FBI in February and March of 1964.
Both the Chisms and Jean Newman stated there was just two shots. The secretaries never were asked. Woodward places the first shot after Z204 and JBC places the first shot when he is adjacent to the Chisms.Yes, he definitely was sure he heard only two shots: "As it passed in front of him he heard at least two shots and possibly three but no more." (FBI statement 18Dec63, 24H525)
John Chism : "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot,"
Jean Newman : "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report"All said that the first shot occurred just before the car that JFK was in passed by them. So it was sometime before z215 if the car, let alone JFK, was not yet opposite where they were standing.
Gloria Calvery : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was Standing when I heard the first shot."
Karan Hicks : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gunshot"
Karen Westbrook : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot ."
Woodward said the earsplitting noise happened after JFK turned forward and not before. JFK does not turn forward until Z204+Gov. Connally said he turned to look at JFK after the first shot and before he was hit in the back. He felt the impact of the second shot and it was enough after the first shot that he had time to recognize it as a rifle shot and realize an assassination was unfolding and to turn around to check on JFK. So you cannot use Connally as a two shot witness.
Mary Woodward
"After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.
========================================================
The only children on the right side of the street during the shooting was first the Chisms and then the Newmans.
Mr. SPECTER. When you turned to your right. Governor Connally, immediately after you heard the first shot. what did you see on that occasion?
Governor CONNALLY. Nothing of any significance except just people out on the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, just saw men, women, and children.
Yes. And after that everyone simply repeated what Merriman Smith said, even if they hadn't heard the news reports. They all lost their minds and became unable to recall that number of shots that acctually occurred.
So let's see who you think they are. Can you not give us a specific number rather than an estimate?
No. The FBI said that all three shells had been fired in the MC. See: Frazier, 3H416:
"Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry-yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge
cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces
having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the
test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of
microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits
543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded
that these three had been flred in this particular weapon."
How would CE543 and the other shells havet a bolt-face impression if they had not recoiled back against the bolt face from gunpowder exploding and driving a bullet from the chamber and down the barrel?
Or, the first shot occurred more than a second earlier than 225 making the shot spacing 4:2.3
Calvary, Hicks, Reed and Westbrook were standing opposite JFK between z215-225. Westbrook was opposite JFK at z225.
Yes, he definitely was sure he heard only two shots: "As it passed in front of him he heard at least two shots and possibly three but no more." (FBI statement 18Dec63, 24H525)
All said that the first shot occurred just before the car that JFK was in passed by them. So it was sometime before z215 if the car, let alone JFK, was not yet opposite where they were standing.Gov. Connally said he turned to look at JFK after the first shot and before he was hit in the back. He felt the impact of the second shot and it was enough after the first shot that he had time to recognize it as a rifle shot and realize an assassination was unfolding and to turn around to check on JFK. So you cannot use Connally as a two shot witness.
This is actually pathetic.The best you can say about Chism is that he was not sure whether there were two or three shots.
Chism. ---Great example of a witness being influenced by the media reporting. The amazing part is time and time again with these witnesses changing their statements and adding a shot and you still don't get it at all.
11/22 two shots. 12/18 a possible third shot added.
Do you not understand what the WC and HSCA committees meant by media influence? Do you actually think they included the language in their conclusions, about the media influencing the witnesses into inflating the number of shots, for grins and giggles?
Frazier. First Nicol was your go to guy. Now it is Frazier? A little bit phony?Nicol was clear that his conclusion that all three shells had been fired in the MC was based not only on the firing pin impressions but also on the breech-block markings as well as the ejector and extractor marks (3H505):
It did not take you long to give up on Nicol. It probably was the part where Nicol was testifying about the exact same thing only Eisenberg asked Nicol about dryfiring and he agreed. Nobody took the time to ask Frazier about dryfiring or it would have been the same result.
You ignore the fact that the five people around him all state there was two shots. His own recollection of there being only two shots and his reaction to being shot indicate he was hit by the first shot. Ignore Jackie and Nellie stating he was hit by the same shot as hit JFK.I don't know who you are referring to. The people closest were Jackie, Gov. Connally, Nellie Connally, SA Greer and SAIC Kellerman.
You completely ignore the part where JBC thought he was wounded by a second shot he never heard at Z235. A direct contradiction to this oddball theory you are constantly promoting. That would put the first shot at Z190 or earlier. That would be a direct contradiction to your assessment that JFK would not continue to smile and wave after having been struck in the throat by a bullet.That is true. Both Connallys thought that the second shot struck JBC around z235 after looking at the frames of the zfilm. However, Nellie told Dr. Shires a few hours after the events that JBC was turned around to the right when hit. All the Connallys were doing is looking at the frames and trying to figure out when it looked like he had been hit in the chest.
The biggest contradiction to your bizarre theory would be that JBC being wounded at Z235 would be the shot pattern you are always promoting of the last two shots being closer together is now no longer possible. The first two would now be closer together. A complete reversal of your theory because you are certain JBC was wounded by a separate shot and JBC believed it was at Z235. Maybe it would be better to believe the other five witnesses, in or on the car, that there was only two shots.When did I ever suggest that JBC was hit in the chest at z235. I have always maintained he was shot just after z270, likely between z271 and z272.
If you are not able to figure it out is very obvious there is nothing I can do to help you. Good luck with it.
The best you can say about Chism is that he was not sure whether there were two or three shots.
It is a bit of a stretch to assume that all 132 witnesses who said there were exactly three shots, many describing the shot pattern, were all influenced by the media reports of three shots. First of all, the witnesses who were deposed on 22Nov63 at the Dallas Police headquarters would not have had an opportunity to receive detailed media reports. Second, there were no media reports that I am aware of that provided any details of the shot pattern.
Here is a clip of Jay Watson of WFAA TV interviewing William Newman. Mr. Newman recalled hearing only two shots. He was asked by Jay Watson about hearing a third shot at about 1:00 of this clip:
Newman: I didn't hear a third... I don't recall a third shot. There may have been. We, my family hit the ground and I don't recall a third shot.
Watson: I heard three. I know that.
Newman: Well.... I don't recall a third shot, there may have been."
Even when Watson stated that he was there and he heard three shots, Newman does not change his recollection.
William Newman was not even influenced by his wife, Gayle's, clear recollection of 3 shots - the first causing JFK to react, the second causing Gov. Connally to grab his stomach and fall back on his wife and the third striking JFK in the head. See this clip beginning at 2:30: Nicol was clear that his conclusion that all three shells had been fired in the MC was based not only on the firing pin impressions but also on the breech-block markings as well as the ejector and extractor marks (3H505):
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Based upon the similarity of the firing-pin impressions and the
breech-block markings, as well as ejector and extractor marks, it is my opinion
that all three of the exhibits, 545, 543, and 544, were fired in the same weapon
as fired Exhibit 557.
Nicol also provided the microscope views of the breech-face impressions (CE619-621). The breech-face impressions are not possible from dry-firing. Nicol also said that CE543 had been put through the load/unload sequence 3 times because of the ejector and extractor marks on it (3H509):
"Mr. NICOL. ... Associated with this is another mark that occurs on all three of the positions, however not in any particular relationship to the group of lines, and perhaps not as definitive. And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its-how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice."
I don't know who you are referring to. The people closest were Jackie, Gov. Connally, Nellie Connally, SA Greer and SAIC Kellerman.
Jackie Kennedy. This from her WC testimony (5H180):
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed.
Gov. Connally: 3 shots. He heard the first and did not feel it in his back. He recognized it as a shot, realized that an assassination was unfolding and turned to see how JFK was before he felt the impact of the second shot. He heard and felt the effects of the third.
Nellie Connally: 3 shots. First hit JFK and he reacted. Second hit her Husband. She heard and felt the effect of the third.
William Greer: 3 shots. He turned immediately after the second and saw JBC falling back. He turned around to the front and then back again when the third shot hit.
Roy Kellerman: (18H724-5): "I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Governor Connally fell into Mrs. Connally's lap." It was also reported in this FBI report of 22Nov63 (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd/wcd_0086a.gif) that Kellerman said as follows: "He stated he distinctly heard three shots. He advised he did not see the Governor get hit, nor did he observe the second bullet hit the President."
Those are the five witnesses. All five reported (only initially, in the case of Jackie) observing 3 shots. At least two (Connallys) reported that all three struck in the car and no one said the three did not all strike in the car.
That is true. Both Connallys thought that the second shot struck JBC around z235 after looking at the frames of the zfilm. However, Nellie told Dr. Shires a few hours after the events that JBC was turned around to the right when hit. All the Connallys were doing is looking at the frames and trying to figure out when it looked like he had been hit in the chest.
When did I ever suggest that JBC was hit in the chest at z235. I have always maintained he was shot just after z270, likely between z271 and z272.
All that is required by you is a little actual research. These witnesses are all great examples of the medias influence. All these witnesses are two shot witnesses. Maybe do not edit their statements to get your desired result and quote what they actually stated.
JBC and Nellie now are considered reliable witnesses right up until they completely contradict this bizarre fantasy theory. The reason there is not any supporting witness statements or evidence of any kind to a shot at Z272 is because there wasn't one. Don't let that stop you though.
Actually this is unbelievable, about 10 years after having this very issue of JBC stating he was shot at Z235 pointed out to you, and you stating he really was wrong and he was shot at Z272, and you haven't been able to come up with a better conclusion than to keep repeating JBC and Nellie knew exactly what was going on except when he was shot?
How about believe the other people in and around the car, he was struck by the first shot and there was a total of only two shots fired. You have already proven there was never three shots fired.
What makes you think the Connally's are two shot witnesses?
All that is required by you is a little actual research. These witnesses are all great examples of the medias influence. All these witnesses are two shot witnesses. Maybe do not edit their statements to get your desired result and quote what they actually stated.I have given you Jackie and Kellerman's quotes. If you think I have edited them or selected something out of context, feel free to provide your comments. Here is what Greer testified before the WC (2H118):
JBC and Nellie now are considered reliable witnesses right up until they completely contradict this bizarre fantasy theory. The reason there is not any supporting witness statements or evidence of any kind to a shot at Z272 is because there wasn't one. Don't let that stop you though.Witnesses may be reliable on some things and not reliable on other things. Recollection of event that they observed is easier to get correct than trying to reconstruct something they did not observe ie. what JBC looked like from Zapruder's position when he was hit.
Actually this is unbelievable, about 10 years after having this very issue of JBC stating he was shot at Z235 pointed out to you, and you stating he really was wrong and he was shot at Z272, and you haven't been able to come up with a better conclusion than to keep repeating JBC and Nellie knew exactly what was going on except when he was shot?The conclusion that there was a shot around z272 is based on evidence that is independent of the Connallys. It is based on the evidence that:
I have given you Jackie and Kellerman's quotes. If you think I have edited them or selected something out of context, feel free to provide your comments. Here is what Greer testified before the WC (2H118):
Mr. GREER I know there was three that I heard-three. But I cannot remember any more than probably three. I know there was three anyway that I heard.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an independent recollection at this moment of having heard three shots at that time?
Mr. GREER I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again, to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after.
And Greer's recollection fits the zfilm exactly. He turns around for the first time at z278-282 to z292 during which time JBC is starting to fall back onto Nellie. He turns the second time from z304-318 during which the head shot occurs.
Nellie Connally heard and experienced three distinct shots: (4H149):
Mr. SPECTER. How many did you hear in all?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I heard three.
Governor Connally heard two and felt the impact another distinct shot (4H136):
"It is not conceivable to me that I could hare been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn’t hear it. I didn’t hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot. "
Witnesses may be reliable on some things and not reliable on other things. Recollection of event that they observed is easier to get correct than trying to reconstruct something they did not observe ie. what JBC looked like from Zapruder's position when he was hit.
The conclusion that there was a shot around z272 is based on evidence that is independent of the Connallys. It is based on the evidence that:
1. the first shot struck JFK in the neck.
2. the second shot struck JBC in the back/armpit.
3. the third shot struck JFK in the head
4. the shot pattern was 1........2...3
If one accepts that evidence, and there is abundant independent evidence to support each point, then a shot after the midpoint between the first and last shots is the only conclusion that one can reach. It is not a theory. It is simply a conclusion that has to be reached if the evidence is accepted. You just don't accept all the evidence. That's fine. So criticize my acceptance of the evidence if you wish. But you can't criticize the conclusion that inevitably follows from that evidence.
Gov Connally's own words about as to what he stated when he was shot as referenced by Nellie and Jackie. Nellie's own statement, made through Julian Read, immediately after the assassination. Leaves no doubt about what occurred.It is at least interesting that Jackie said that she heard the first loud noise but what drew her attention was JBC shouting after that loud noise. That fits with what Nellie said, that JBC shouted "Oh, no, no" after the first shot and before she saw him recoil as the second shot was heard. Nellie never wavered on that.
Amazing how 11 and 12 year old children can be taught in hunter safety about being careful about selecting a shot because one bullet can pass through two animals, but grown men cannot accept the reality of SBT on a forum about the JFK assassination. Especially given the bullet passing through JFK had no where else to go but into JBC.You really have to read what I write. I never said that the bullet after exiting JFK's neck did not hit JBC. I am just saying it did not hit him in the back or anywhere on the right side of his midline. That is based not only on the right-to-left trajectory if the bullet and the fact that JBC's midline was not anywhere close to 13 inches left of JFK's, but also on the clear evidence of the Connallys that JBC was not struck in the back by the first shot. JBC said that JFK had moved when he turned to see him after the first shot and was not able to see how he was before he felt the impact of the second shot. Nellie said that JFK was already reacting to being shot in the neck before the second shot hit that her husband.
Greer is a two shot witness right up until his testimony to the WC. Kellerman states the car accelerates after the second shot and before a third.You are quite right that Greer does not mention a third shot in his earlier statements. He described hearing the first when the car had almost passed the western edge of the TSBD and he described then hearing the second, after which he turned and saw JBC fall back onto his wife. But, he did not say that those were the only shots he heard.
"...there is abundant independent evidence to support each point..."Who recalled seeing JBC react to being shot in the back who said that it was NOT on the second shot? Unless such witnesses exist, I don't know how you can say that I "cherry picked" witnesses. ALL the witnesses who recalled JBC reacting to being hit said it was the second shot (JBC, Nellie C, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman). Not a single witness said that JBC appeared to have been hit on the first shot.
Apart from a couple of sketchy interpretations of cherry-picked witnesses there is no evidence for point 2 and an overwhelming abundance of evidence against a shot at z272.
There is conflicting evidence for point 3.I agree there are some witnesses (three by my count) who say that the head shot was not the last shot but only one was very clear or sure about that:
(https://i.postimg.cc/GmJdtXft/connallyheadturn70p18vmbxj.gif)
Governor CONNALLY. I did not see her. This almost sounds incredible, I am sure, since we were in the car with them. But again I will repeat very briefly when what I believe to be the shot first occurred, I turned to my right, which was away from both of them, of course, and looked out and could see neither, and then as I was turning to look into the back seat where I would have seen both of them, I was hit, so I never completed the turn at all, and I never saw either one of them after the firing started, and, of course, as I have testified, then Mrs. Connally pulled me over into her lap and I was facing forward with my head slightly turned up to where I could see the driver and Roy Kellerman on his right, but I could not see into the back seat, so I didn't see either one of them.
JohnM
Who recalled seeing JBC react to being shot in the back who said that it was NOT on the second shot? Unless such witnesses exist, I don't know how you can say that I "cherry picked" witnesses. ALL the witnesses who recalled JBC reacting to being hit said it was the second shot (JBC, Nellie C, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman). Not a single witness said that JBC appeared to have been hit on the first shot.
I have no idea what the "overwhelming abundance of evidence" is that there was no shot at z272. There is none that I have found but maybe you have. Let me know what it is.
I agree there are some witnesses (three by my count) who say that the head shot was not the last shot but only one was very clear or sure about that:
- Jacqueline Kennedy initially thought there were 3 shots but to the WC was able to recall only two, and thought her husband was hit in the head on the second;
- John Chism said there were 2 or 3 shots and that JFK was hit in the head on the second; and
- Emmett Hudson said there were 3 shots and that JFK was hit in the head on the second. He said this for the first time in his WC testimony only on July 22, 1964, 8 months after the event. Hudson also told the WC that the shots were evenly spaced so this would mean that the third shot occurred at least 5 seconds after the head shot or around zframe 403, contrary to his FBI statement that the last two shots were in rapid succession "just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt-action rifle" or words to that effect.
There are many more witnesses who provided clear recollections that the head shot was the last shot, including the Connallys, Dave Powers, Secret Service agents, Hickey and McIntyre, as well as photographers Altgens and Zapruder, and bystanders Linda Willis, Mary Woodward and Gayle Newman.
"...there is abundant independent evidence to support each point..."
Apart from a couple of sketchy interpretations of cherry-picked witnesses there is no evidence for point 2 and an overwhelming abundance of evidence against a shot at z272.
There is conflicting evidence for point 3.
All this cherry picked analysis and dubious posting and you still end up with all the eyewitnesses in and around the car stating JBC was hit by the first shot and no one, not even JBC, claiming there was a shot at Z272. Even JBC thought he was wounded by Z235. Yet here you are, still misquoting the witnesses and claiming a shot that never happened.I asked Dan to provide the "overwhelming evidence" that there was no shot around z272. I guess the question was too hard.
I asked Dan to provide the "overwhelming evidence" that there was no shot around z272. I guess the question was too hard.
The fact that Gerald Blaine in his book: The Kennedy Detail says that Secret Service agents told him that there was a shot just after Clint Hill jumped, doesn't really constitute the best evidence but at least it should show you that I am not the only person in the world who has concluded there was such a shot (Blaine, The Kennedy Detail, ch. 12 "Six Seconds in Dallas"):
"He leapt off the running board of Halfback, as he’d done countless times
before, his body reacting as it had been trained. In that terrible, unforgettable
moment, Clint Hill had but one purpose: he had to reach Mrs. Kennedy and the
president, and shield them. His powerful legs propelled him toward the pink hat
that seemed to be moving farther and farther away each time his foot landed on
the pavement. If only he could reach the back of the car, his legs knew the exact
height of the rear step; his hands knew exactly where to grasp the hand grip. As
he bounded toward the limousine, which had slowed to about seven miles an
hour around the corner but was starting to pick up speed, he had to run at the
breakneck speed of nearly fifteen miles an hour to adjust for the speed and the
distance between the two cars. As his feet propelled him toward the moving car,
Clint Hill was so focused on reaching his target that he didn’t even hear the
second shot."
I asked Dan to provide us with the witnesses who recalled seeing JBC react to being shot in the back who said that it was NOT on the second shot. So I guess this question was also too hard. Again, just so you don't think I am the only person in the world who has concluded this, Gerald Blaine and Clint Hill agree with this scenario: See this youtube interview/discussion with Clint Hill and Gerald Blaine conducted by the late Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum (beginning at 32:45):
Blaine is nothing but hearsay.Everything except the WC and HSCA testimony is hearsay. That just means it is not admissible as evidence in court. It doesn't mean it is not evidence with some probative value. Unless Blaine and Hill are lying, the evidence that there was a second shot after Hill stepped off the running board comes from other Secret Service agents who told them that there was a shot just after Hill stepped off and before the shot that hit the President in the head. This may have been SA Hickey, who said that the last two shots were very close together and the first of those last two appeared to just miss JFK because the hair on the right side of his head flew up at the time the second shot sounded. The hair flies up at z273-276. If that was caused by the second bullet, it had to have struck JBC. So, if Hickey was not hallucinating, he - together with the zfilm - provides non-hearsay evidence of a shot at just before z273.
The overwhelming evidence is the fact there is no evidence at all of a shot at Z272. Most definitely not JBC or the other people in the car, alongside the road, in the SS car thought there was a shot at Z272. Nothing, nowhere, Nada.
Who recalled seeing JBC react to being shot in the back who said that it was NOT on the second shot? Unless such witnesses exist, I don't know how you can say that I "cherry picked" witnesses. ALL the witnesses who recalled JBC reacting to being hit said it was the second shot (JBC, Nellie C, Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman). Not a single witness said that JBC appeared to have been hit on the first shot.
I have no idea what the "overwhelming abundance of evidence" is that there was no shot at z272. There is none that I have found but maybe you have. Let me know what it is.
I agree there are some witnesses (three by my count) who say that the head shot was not the last shot but only one was very clear or sure about that:
- Jacqueline Kennedy initially thought there were 3 shots but to the WC was able to recall only two, and thought her husband was hit in the head on the second;
- John Chism said there were 2 or 3 shots and that JFK was hit in the head on the second; and
- Emmett Hudson said there were 3 shots and that JFK was hit in the head on the second. He said this for the first time in his WC testimony only on July 22, 1964, 8 months after the event. Hudson also told the WC that the shots were evenly spaced so this would mean that the third shot occurred at least 5 seconds after the head shot or around zframe 403, contrary to his FBI statement that the last two shots were in rapid succession "just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt-action rifle" or words to that effect.
There are many more witnesses who provided clear recollections that the head shot was the last shot, including the Connallys, Dave Powers, Secret Service agents, Hickey and McIntyre, as well as photographers Altgens and Zapruder, and bystanders Linda Willis, Mary Woodward and Gayle Newman.
Pat Speer's analysis of his comprehensive collection of witness statements regarding the shots, reveals the following witnesses who either directly stated there was a shot after the head shot or whose statements can be interpreted as such:Perhaps you should apply the same standard to your own postings that you advocate for others.
Harry Holmes, D.V. Harkness, Robert Hughes, Cecil Ault, Hugh Aynesworth, Ruby Henderson, Roy Kellerman, Bill Greer, James Chaney, Douglas Jackson, Sam Kinney, Emory Roberts, George Hickey, Senator Yarborough, Cliff Carter, Thomas Johns, Milton Wright, Dave Wiegman, James Underwood, Malcolm Couch, Tom Dillard, Bill Decker, Stavis Ellis, J. W. Foster, S. M. Holland, Royce Skelton, Jack Franzen, Mrs. Jack Franzen, Malcolm Summers, Abe Zapruder, Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Charles Brehm, June Dishong, Ernest Brandt, John Templin, Mary Woodward, Aurelia Alonzo, Margaret Brown, Ann Donaldson, Georgia Ruth Hendrix, Marilyn Willis, Pierce Allman, Amos Euins, Dolores Kounas, James Worrell, James Jarman and Hank Norman.
Everything except the WC and HSCA testimony is hearsay. That just means it is not admissible as evidence in court. It doesn't mean it is not evidence with some probative value. Unless Blaine and Hill are lying, the evidence that there was a second shot after Hill stepped off the running board comes from other Secret Service agents who told them that there was a shot just after Hill stepped off and before the shot that hit the President in the head. This may have been SA Hickey, who said that the last two shots were very close together and the first of those last two appeared to just miss JFK because the hair on the right side of his head flew up at the time the second shot sounded. The hair flies up at z273-276. If that was caused by the second bullet, it had to have struck JBC. So, if Hickey was not hallucinating, he - together with the zfilm - provides non-hearsay evidence of a shot at just before z273.
Perhaps you should apply the same standard to your own postings that you advocate for others.
"Apart from a couple of sketchy interpretations of cherry-picked witnesses there is no evidence for your" assertion.
When you use witnesses like Zapruder and Hickey, and Woodward I have to wonder whether you have read their evidence. Hickey, for example was quite clear that the second shot did not hit JFK and the third was the head shot.
Perhaps you should apply the same standard to your own postings that you advocate for others.
"Apart from a couple of sketchy interpretations of cherry-picked witnesses there is no evidence for your" assertion.
When you use witnesses like Zapruder and Hickey, and Woodward I have to wonder whether you have read their evidence. Hickey, for example was quite clear that the second shot did not hit JFK and the third was the head shot.
Everything except the WC and HSCA testimony is hearsay. That just means it is not admissible as evidence in court. It doesn't mean it is not evidence with some probative value. Unless Blaine and Hill are lying, the evidence that there was a second shot after Hill stepped off the running board comes from other Secret Service agents who told them that there was a shot just after Hill stepped off and before the shot that hit the President in the head. This may have been SA Hickey, who said that the last two shots were very close together and the first of those last two appeared to just miss JFK because the hair on the right side of his head flew up at the time the second shot sounded. The hair flies up at z273-276. If that was caused by the second bullet, it had to have struck JBC. So, if Hickey was not hallucinating, he - together with the zfilm - provides non-hearsay evidence of a shot at just before z273.
Andrew, I've been reading your stuff since you started this theory in the early 2000's at John McAdams newsgroup, and it still makes me shake my head in dismay that you are still arguing about this. You should know by now that eyewitness accounts aren't always accurate, and this is why police officers do not rely totally on eyewitness accounts. This seems to be all that you use are eyewitness accounts to attempt making a case. I stopped relying on the eyewitness accounts years ago when I saw for myself that they're totally unreliable--especially when it comes to the SS agents riding behind the limousine. One of them actually said he saw a bullet strike "The boss" in the back. IF that were true, why then didnt he say something about it to the other agents or he himself take off running to the limousine so they could run to JFK and cover him-therefore save his life? Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me. They were all too busy looking around trying to see where the sound of the rifle came from instead of doing their job! Obviously, the agent was lying through his teeth. The governor and Mrs. Connally's observations are in error as well. The Z film proves this. Mrs. Connally was facing straight ahead when JFK and her husband were struck. She did not therefore see her husband struck by the bullet, she saw what happened AFTER he was struck. Clint Hill...you watch him in the Zapruder film. He may have seen JFK's arms fly upward, but there's no way he saw where JFK put his hands, because at no time does JFK ever go near his throat with his hands. On top of this, Clint Hill casually turns his head towards the area where the guy with the umbrella is standing and keeps his head turned in that direction in the film until he disappears from the sprocket area. I remember reading years and years ago that "An open umbrella to the Secret Service is like a red flag to a bull". So upon reading that and seeing what Clint Hill is doing after the second shot has been fired--and knowing from the Zapruder film the unnatural position JFK was in with both arms splayed outward at the elbows, and Mrs. Kennedy then reaching over and placing both hands on his left arm and holding him--that, alone, should have alerted the SS agents that something was wrong with "The Boss", and since Hill said he saw JFK's hands "at his throat" (which is impossible from his position) after hearing the sound of the shot--even he didn't react as he should have sooner than he did. The fact is, is that you are going by what these agents said they did here and there (and unfortunately for us, no film footage caught them gawking around instead of running to protect the president when they should have) in their testimony which in my opinion is absolutely worthless because they didn't do their jobs that day, were gawking around the plaza, or just casually sitting in their seats watching the president react to be shot in the back and head when they had nearly 5 seconds to react and rush to the limousine and save JFK's life. Your frame 276 rifle shot makes zero sense. There is no reaction by the governor, the occupants of the car, or Zapruder's camera jiggle to support such a bullet striking the governor at that point.
Andrew, I've been reading your stuff since you started this theory in the early 2000's at John McAdams newsgroup, and it still makes me shake my head in dismay that you are still arguing about this. You should know by now that eyewitness accounts aren't always accurate, and this is why police officers do not rely totally on eyewitness accounts. This seems to be all that you use are eyewitness accounts to attempt making a case. I stopped relying on the eyewitness accounts years ago when I saw for myself that they're totally unreliable--especially when it comes to the SS agents riding behind the limousine. One of them actually said he saw a bullet strike "The boss" in the back. IF that were true, why then didnt he say something about it to the other agents or he himself take off running to the limousine so they could run to JFK and cover him-therefore save his life? Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me. They were all too busy looking around trying to see where the sound of the rifle came from instead of doing their job! Obviously, the agent was lying through his teeth. The governor and Mrs. Connally's observations are in error as well. The Z film proves this. Mrs. Connally was facing straight ahead when JFK and her husband were struck. She did not therefore see her husband struck by the bullet, she saw what happened AFTER he was struck. Clint Hill...you watch him in the Zapruder film. He may have seen JFK's arms fly upward, but there's no way he saw where JFK put his hands, because at no time does JFK ever go near his throat with his hands. On top of this, Clint Hill casually turns his head towards the area where the guy with the umbrella is standing and keeps his head turned in that direction in the film until he disappears from the sprocket area. I remember reading years and years ago that "An open umbrella to the Secret Service is like a red flag to a bull". So upon reading that and seeing what Clint Hill is doing after the second shot has been fired--and knowing from the Zapruder film the unnatural position JFK was in with both arms splayed outward at the elbows, and Mrs. Kennedy then reaching over and placing both hands on his left arm and holding him--that, alone, should have alerted the SS agents that something was wrong with "The Boss", and since Hill said he saw JFK's hands "at his throat" (which is impossible from his position) after hearing the sound of the shot--even he didn't react as he should have sooner than he did. The fact is, is that you are going by what these agents said they did here and there (and unfortunately for us, no film footage caught them gawking around instead of running to protect the president when they should have) in their testimony which in my opinion is absolutely worthless because they didn't do their jobs that day, were gawking around the plaza, or just casually sitting in their seats watching the president react to be shot in the back and head when they had nearly 5 seconds to react and rush to the limousine and save JFK's life. Your frame 276 rifle shot makes zero sense. There is no reaction by the governor, the occupants of the car, or Zapruder's camera jiggle to support such a bullet striking the governor at that point.
Andrew, I've been reading your stuff since you started this theory in the early 2000's at John McAdams newsgroup, and it still makes me shake my head in dismay that you are still arguing about this. You should know by now that eyewitness accounts aren't always accurate, and this is why police officers do not rely totally on eyewitness accounts.Well, at least you acknowledge that the witness evidence supports the 3 shot 3 hit, 1........2...3 shot pattern scenario. We just differ on the importance and usefulness of that witness evidence.
Well, at least you acknowledge that the witness evidence supports the 3 shot 3 hit, 1........2...3 shot pattern scenario. We just differ on the importance and usefulness of that witness evidence.
Since you have concluded there were three shots, why do you think the witnesses were overwhelmingly right on the number of shots but overwhelmingly wrong on their recall of what the shots struck, and overwhelmingly wrong on the pattern of the shots?
Unlike others who agree with the WC's ultimate conclusion, I don't think that I am better able to determine what the witnesses observed than the vast majority of the witnesses themselves.
"...the witness evidence supports the 3 shot 3 hit..."I'll let Steve Barber speak for himself. But my understanding is that he believes the first shot missed and the head shot was the third and last shot.
No, it doesn't.
A few posts prior I provided a list of almost 50 witnesses whose various statements support a shot after the head shot.
There is no evidence that either JFK or JBC were hit after the head shot, meaning only the first two shots caused the injuries.
We are both aware that there is contradictory witness testimony regarding this aspect of the shooting but you don't seem prepared to acknowledge this fact.
I'll let Steve Barber speak for himself. But my understanding is that he believes the first shot missed and the head shot was the third and last shot.
As far as your third shot after the head shot is concerned, the Connallys, Hickey, Greer, Altgens, Mary Woodward, Gayle Newman, Dave Powers and Clint Hill disagreed with you. These witnesses had distinct recollections either that the head shot was the last shot (Connallys, Hickey, Altgens, Woodward, Newman, Powers) or that, together with the zfilm, establish the head shot as the last shot (Greer and Hill). Your arguments to the contrary do not persuade me that there was a shot after the head shot.
I have yet to find any witness other than Emmett Hudson in his July 1964 testimony (which contradicts his earlier statements in several key respects) who made a statement that the head shot was definitely not the last shot.
You have offered Pat Speer's list of witnesses but none, except Hudson, said that the head shot was not the last shot.
According to Speer, anyone who recalled the headshot but recalled hearing only two shots would be classified as a witness supporting a shot after the head shot.
John Connally, Altgens and Hill only heard two shots.That is true for Connally and Hill, but not Altgens. In any event not recalling hearing three shots doesn't mean that they did not provide clear evidence that there was no shot after the head shot.
The total statements of Hickey, Greer and Woodward support a shot after the head shot. Hickey and Woodward's statements have been dealt with a few posts back which you mustn't have read.I strongly disagree. How you can ignore Hickey's clear statement that the second shot did not appear to strike JFK but the third did is a remarkable example of confirmation bias: trying to fit the evidence to a theory. I have no idea how you think Greer provides evidence of a shot after the head shot. Neither of his statements prior to his WC testimony mention three shots but make it clear that he saw Gov. Connally start to fall when he looked back after the second shot. We can see him turn to look back from z280 or so to z292 as JBC begins to fall back onto his wife. Woodward did not describe the head shot in her Dallas Morning News report but that does not mean she did not see it or recall which of the shots it was. She gave several interviews later. Here is one from 1993 where she describes the headshot being the third and last shot (beginning at 2:00):
Again, it is clear you've not read the post I am referring to. In it I post a statement from Harry Holmes:Where does this statement come from? Do you have a cite with a date? His WC statement is very different (7H291):
"Anyway, about the first or second crack, I wouldn’t know which, there was just a cone of blood and corruption that went up right in the back of his head and neck. I thought it was red paper or a firecracker. It looked like a firecracker lit up which looks like little bits of red paper as it goes up. But in reality it was skull and brains and everything else that went up perhaps as much as six or eight feet. Just like that. Then just a minute later another crack..."
He is clearly describing a shot after the head shot
As demonstrated above, this is not true. Off the top of my head I know Brehm and Templin also state unequivocally there was a shot after the head shot.Brehm said he saw hair fly up on the right side of JFK's head on the second shot. Driver SA Kinney reported seeing the same thing. This is interesting because this could be used to support Hickey's recollection that the hair on the right side of JFK's head flew up on the second shot but did not appear to hit him. Now, you might say that would be an odd thing to recall seeing and not describe seeing the head explode. But that assumes that they were focused on the President at the time of the third shot. Maybe they weren't. Unfortunately, they were never questioned.
That is true for Connally and Hill, but not Altgens. In any event not recalling hearing three shots doesn't mean that they did not provide clear evidence that there was no shot after the head shot.
Connally (4H141):
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
On the other hand, I think I could argue with equal logic that obviously his prime target, and I think really his sole target, was President Kennedy. His first shot, at least to him, he could not have but known the effect that it might have on the President. His second shot showed that he had clearly missed the President, and his result to him, as the result of the first shot, the President slumped and changed his position in the back seat just enough to expose my back. I haven’t seen all of the various positions, but again I think from where he was shooting I was in the direct line of fire immediately in front of the President, so any movement on the part of the President would expose me.
Altgens: (7H518)
I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot-that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.
Hill recalled hearing only two shots but the last shot he heard was the head shot. This fits with what Greer said and what is shown in the zfilm, that the shot after JBC fell back and as Greer was turned rearward the second time, there was a third and final shot which we can see was the head shot.
I strongly disagree. How you can ignore Hickey's clear statement that the second shot did not appear to strike JFK but the third did is a remarkable example of confirmation bias: trying to fit the evidence to a theory.
I have no idea how you think Greer provides evidence of a shot after the head shot. Neither of his statements prior to his WC testimony mention three shots but make it clear that he saw Gov. Connally start to fall when he looked back after the second shot. We can see him turn to look back from z280 or so to z292 as JBC begins to fall back onto his wife. Woodward did not describe the head shot in her Dallas Morning News report but that does not mean she did not see it or recall which of the shots it was. She gave several interviews later. Here is one from 1993 where she describes the headshot being the third and last shot (beginning at 2:10)
Where does this statement come from? Do you have a cite with a date? His WC statement is very different (7H291):
I had my binoculars on this car, on the Presidential car all the time. I realized something was wrong, but I thought they were dodging somebody throwing things at the car like firecrackers or something, but I did see dust fly up like a firecracker had burst up in the air.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see the dust?
Mr. HOLMES. Off of President Kennedy and I couldn’t tell you which one of the cracks of the firecracker resulted in this.
Brehm said he saw hair fly up on the right side of JFK's head on the second shot. Driver SA Kinney reported seeing the same thing. This is interesting because this could be used to support Hickey's recollection that the hair on the right side of JFK's head flew up on the second shot but did not appear to hit him. Now, you might say that would be an odd thing to recall seeing and not describe seeing the head explode. But that assumes that they were focused on the President at the time of the third shot. Maybe they weren't. Unfortunately, they were never questioned.You're now dragging Brehm into the "fringe ruffle" nonsense?
As far as Templin is concerned, there are no statements taken from him at any time remotely close to the events in question. Do you have a cite for any statement of his that you think fits the third shot miss scenario?
Anyone who reports only hearing two shots doesn't know when the "missing" shot was fired.
That's obvious.
The interpretation is based on Speer's work. It has already been dealt with in this thread and, rather than rely on a single, confused statement, it takes all his statements into account.
Woodward has already been dealt with in this thread.
Greer's many vague statements about the shooting can be interpreted in various ways, Speer's has this to say:
"As Greer, in his original statement, failed to mention how many shots he heard, and as he only told the Warren Commission he heard three shots after being asked a direct question, it seems possible he was trying to skirt the issue. Still, he let what was probably his true impressions sneak into his testimony. He testified that after Kellerman told him to “take off,” he couldn’t remember how many “shots or noises” he heard--when officially there could be but one. He also let it slip that after he turned back around from looking at Connally, which he does not do till frame 318, he heard another shot “right immediately after.” Sounds like the man heard four shots. That he later told an HSCA investigator he could recall hearing but two shots suggests the possibility he realized his predicament, and had convinced himself that he'd heard but two shots and their echoes."
No More Silence, p.351-374, published 1998
You're now dragging Brehm into the "fringe ruffle" nonsense?
It's a reference to the head shot - when large chunks of scalp flew upwards.
"According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President’s hair fly up and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together." [11-24-63 interview with the FBI, 22H837-838]
"...the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know. Being human, not knowing that he had been hit. But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually." (When asked to confirm that this was the second shot) "That was the second shot, sir, and some say it was the third shot killed him, but as I recall—and I’ll believe it till my dying day—it was the second shot...was the fatal shot that hit him in the head and killed him.
(When asked if he heard a third shot) "Yes sir, I did, but I had already turned my attention to where I thought maybe the shots were coming from—behind us. I didn’t know exactly where"
[7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]
Note that, yet again, Templin is specifically equating the head shot with hair flying up ("I could see his hair depart from his head")
Obviously we are now in the tit-for-tat world of contradictory eye-witness evidence.
The original point being a shot after the head shot is most certainly not ruled out by the eye-witness testimony, far from it, there is just as much, if not more, witness testimony supporting a shot after the head shot than there is for 3 shots, 3 hits.
Anyone who reports only hearing two shots doesn't know when the "missing" shot was fired.Are you saying that anyone who receives a bullet to the torso and feels it will necessarily recall hearing a muzzle blast arriving at their ears 100 ms. later? What is it about Connally's testimony that he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot that you find difficult to accept?
That's obvious.
The interpretation is based on Speer's work. It has already been dealt with in this thread and, rather than rely on a single, confused statement, it takes all his statements into account.So Brehm admitted that he was not looking at JFK at the time of the third shot. Having seen JFK's hair fly up and then seeing him with head damage to the right side of his head after the third shot, it would not be surprising for him to conclude that JFK was hit on the second shot. That is completely consistent with what Hickey observed, which is consistent with the second shot just missing and causing JFK's hair to fly up and the third shot striking him in the head.
Woodward has already been dealt with in this thread.
Greer's many vague statements about the shooting can be interpreted in various ways, Speer's has this to say:
"As Greer, in his original statement, failed to mention how many shots he heard, and as he only told the Warren Commission he heard three shots after being asked a direct question, it seems possible he was trying to skirt the issue. Still, he let what was probably his true impressions sneak into his testimony. He testified that after Kellerman told him to “take off,” he couldn’t remember how many “shots or noises” he heard--when officially there could be but one. He also let it slip that after he turned back around from looking at Connally, which he does not do till frame 318, he heard another shot “right immediately after.” Sounds like the man heard four shots. That he later told an HSCA investigator he could recall hearing but two shots suggests the possibility he realized his predicament, and had convinced himself that he'd heard but two shots and their echoes."
No More Silence, p.351-374, published 1998
You're now dragging Brehm into the "fringe ruffle" nonsense?
It's a reference to the head shot - when large chunks of scalp flew upwards.
"According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President’s hair fly up and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together." [11-24-63 interview with the FBI, 22H837-838]
"...the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know. Being human, not knowing that he had been hit. But the second shot was probably another forty to fifty foot further down, and it blew the right side of his head off, as near as I could tell. I was close enough that I could see that. I could see his hair depart from his head actually." (When asked to confirm that this was the second shot) "That was the second shot, sir, and some say it was the third shot killed him, but as I recall—and I’ll believe it till my dying day—it was the second shot...was the fatal shot that hit him in the head and killed him.
(When asked if he heard a third shot) "Yes sir, I did, but I had already turned my attention to where I thought maybe the shots were coming from—behind us. I didn’t know exactly where"
[7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]
Note that, yet again, Templin is specifically equating the head shot with hair flying up ("I could see his hair depart from his head")I notice that you did not provide the cite for the Holmes statement that contradicts his WC testimony and you have not provided any cite for any statement by Templin.
Obviously we are now in the tit-for-tat world of contradictory eye-witness evidence.
The original point being a shot after the head shot is most certainly not ruled out by the eye-witness testimony, far from it, there is just as much, if not more, witness testimony supporting a shot after the head shot than there is for 3 shots, 3 hits.
Three obvious observations. You are ignoring the vast majority of the eyewitness testimony, the shell evidence, bullet evidence, and why would anyone shoot at two men lying down on the seats and then to add insult to injury miss the whole car?It is a fair point about why the shooter would fire after an obvious hit on the head shot. But your argument is that there were only two shots, which ignores the eyewitness testimony and the shell evidence showing shell impressions indicating that all three shells had been fired as complete cartridges in Oswald's MC.
Altgens:You are conveniently leaving out the part: "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between."
"There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty."
Are you saying that anyone who receives a bullet to the torso and feels it will necessarily recall hearing a muzzle blast arriving at their ears 100 ms. later? What is it about Connally's testimony that he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot that you find difficult to accept?
So Brehm admitted that he was not looking at JFK at the time of the third shot. Having seen JFK's hair fly up and then seeing him with head damage to the right side of his head after the third shot, it would not be surprising for him to conclude that JFK was hit on the second shot. That is completely consistent with what Hickey observed, which is consistent with the second shot just missing and causing JFK's hair to fly up and the third shot striking him in the head.
I notice that you did not provide the cite for the Holmes statement that contradicts his WC testimony and you have not provided any cite for any statement by Templin.
Cite where Connally states, or even hints, that "he felt the bullet impact on his back well after he heard the sound of the first shot..."It is more than a hint. In his WC testimony he stated that he had time to realize it was a rifle shot, fear an assassination was occurring and turn around to see JFK and then start turning back to the left before he felt the impact of the bullet. In his HSCA testimony he explained his thinking in that interval between hearing the first shot and feeling the impact of the bullet that hit him in the back. Here are a few excerpts from his testimonies:
So, when Brehm says Kennedy was hit badly in the head on the second shot causing his hair to fly up (as his scalp blew apart), you're trying to associate this with the slight ruffle of JFK's fringe you believe is a shot whizzing by his head.But you just provided a statement from Brehm saying that he did not see the President's head explode because he was turned away from the President trying to see where the shots originated at the time of the third shot. So if all he saw was the hair on JFK's head fly up on the second shot, turned away, and then saw the right side of his head only when President fall over with blood coming out of an obvious wound to the right side of his head after the third shot, it is not unreasonable to think that he may have thought that damage occurred on the second shot that he saw lift his hair. Keep in mind that Brehm was standing to JFK's left and would have seen only the left side of JFK's head until JFK fell over onto his wife.
Time and time again witnesses describe JFK's hair flying up/forward when they are describing the head shot. It's clear that Hickey is also describing the head shot when he describes JFK's hair flying forward (and a shot after the head shot).
But you can't afford to lose Hickey from your paltry witness list.
Both the Holmes and Templin statements are cited.You have quoted them but you did not cite them. The cite provides the source of the quotes. The source should also provide the date on which the quoted statements were made. This is pretty basic stuff.
This proves you never really read the posts you respond to.
It is more than a hint. In his WC testimony he stated that he had time to realize it was a rifle shot, fear an assassination was occurring and turn around to see JFK and then start turning back to the left before he felt the impact of the bullet. In his HSCA testimony he explained his thinking in that interval between hearing the first shot and feeling the impact of the bullet that hit him in the back. Here are a few excerpts from his testimonies:
4 H 135
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn’t conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot. In the first place, I don’t know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far. And after I heard that shot I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
4 H 144
Senator COOPER. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet?
Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade.
1 HSCA 46
Mr. DEVINE. Did you recognize any of the sound as being a rifle shot or hand gun shot?
Mr. CONNALLY. I thought it was a rifle shot.
Mr. DEVINE. Then you turned around and started to turn back
around to look over your left shoulder to see what?
Mr. CONNALLY. To see if the President was all right, because immediately the thought flashed through my mind that if this was a rifle shot, which I believed it to be, that it was probably an assassination attempt and I was trying to see if anything had happened in the automobile.
But you just provided a statement from Brehm saying that he did not see the President's head explode because he was turned away from the President trying to see where the shots originated at the time of the third shot. So if all he saw was the hair on JFK's head fly up on the second shot, turned away, and then saw the right side of his head only when President fall over with blood coming out of an obvious wound to the right side of his head after the third shot, it is not unreasonable to think that he may have thought that damage occurred on the second shot that he saw lift his hair. Keep in mind that Brehm was standing to JFK's left and would have seen only the left side of JFK's head until JFK fell over onto his wife.
You have quoted them but you did not cite them. The cite provides the source of the quotes. The source should also provide the date on which the quoted statements were made. This is pretty basic stuff.
JBC is adamant the space of time between hearing the shot and realising he was hit was a "split second":You are cherry picking statements and ignoring the totality of what he said. He also estimated that the shots took place over 10-12 seconds. He also said that there was enough time for him to realize it was a shot and turn around an try to see JFK and then decide to turn the other way before he felt the actual impact of the bullet.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.
This is lifted from Pat Speer's website -
(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) "When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…"
A very, very brief span of time
Two or three people involved
Automatic rifle
My God it was fast
A split second
Snapped fingers three times rapidly
Unbelievably quick
Two shots, a split second apart or a shot and then the realisation he has been hit a split second later?
"But you just provided a statement from Brehm saying that he did not see the President's head explode..."You seem to be overlooking his statement that after the second shot he had diverted his attention to looking for the source of the shots:
??
What are you reading?
Brehm states Kennedy was hit badly in the head on the second shot. The only time JFK was hit badly in the head was the head shot. Brehm is describing the second shot as the head shot. He then turns to see where the shots are coming from and hears a shot after the head shot.
I have cited and dated both statements.All you have to do is provide a proper cite. A reference to a book or website in which the alleged statement appears does not provide any details of when how, when and to whom the statement was made. And we can't get that information when those resources are not readily available. For all we know, the alleged statements could have been triple hearsay made at some undetermined time eg. that someone said they heard that he had said at one time.
All you have to do is read the post.
It is a fair point about why the shooter would fire after an obvious hit on the head shot. But your argument is that there were only two shots, which ignores the eyewitness testimony and the shell evidence showing shell impressions indicating that all three shells had been fired as complete cartridges in Oswald's MC.
You are conveniently leaving out the part: "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between."
Go ahead and again quote Joseph Nicol on the subject of ryfiring the rifle. He seems to be suddenly missing from your posts now. Interesting how that always happens after these people's testimonies are read to you.Your understanding of "dry firing" and Nicol's are different. Nicol explained that dry firing is simply working the bullets from the clip through the chamber and unloading without pressing the trigger. There is evidence that Oswald did this. That was Nicol's explanation of why there appeared to be markings on the shell indicating that it had been put through the load/unload process at least 3 times. But he also said that it had been fired in the chamber based on the bolt-face impression on CE543.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a large number of eyewitness accounts, shell and bullet evidence, cylce time of the rifle, unbelievably, it appears you are still certain about there having been three shots. Here is your chance again to prove there even was a third shot. If nothing else, make up your own evidence and torture a few witness statements and you can then, if nothing else, prove it in your own mind.
You must not know this but Altgen's two shot news flash was read by Don Pardo on NBC shortly after Walter Cronkite read Merriman's Smith's three shots. In fact Cronkite then read Altgen's news flash minutes later, he read everything but stopped when he was going to read two shots. Even Walter understood the implications. There was an argument on Air Force One back to Washington between the news people, SS, and passengers as to whether there was two shots or three.So we are supposed to ignore the 130+ witnesses who maintained there were 3 shots? Why? Just because some people weren't counting the shots? There are too many who independently reported hearing 3 shots. Are we also supposed to speculate that the 45+ who recalled the last two shots closer together were independently imagining the same thing?
Your understanding of "dry firing" and Nicol's are different. Nicol explained that dry firing is simply working the bullets from the clip through the chamber and unloading without pressing the trigger. There is evidence that Oswald did this.
No there isn’t.Marina Oswald (1 H 54):
Exactly. She didn’t see him do anything. She heard a noise.The evidence may not convince you but it is still evidence that tends to support a reasonable inference that the mechanical noise was likely from Oswald practicing with the bolt action. Or do you think it was more likely something else?
Your understanding of "dry firing" and Nicol's are different. Nicol explained that dry firing is simply working the bullets from the clip through the chamber and unloading without pressing the trigger. There is evidence that Oswald did this. That was Nicol's explanation of why there appeared to be markings on the shell indicating that it had been put through the load/unload process at least 3 times. But he also said that it had been fired in the chamber based on the bolt-face impression on CE543.
So we are supposed to ignore the 130+ witnesses who maintained there were 3 shots? Why? Just because some people weren't counting the shots? There are too many who independently reported hearing 3 shots. Are we also supposed to speculate that the 45+ who recalled the last two shots closer together were independently imagining the same thing?
Actually this explains a lot. You would have to be a complete imbecile to perform some imaginary type of practice by cycling live rounds through a rifle with the bolt cocked and ready to fire, and additionally this is not dryfiring. Nicol was explaining the weight of an empty shell, the extractor marks and dryfiring not cycling the shells through the chamber. That is all you.Yet Nicol is talking about doing what you say only an imbecile would do:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
This is what the HSCA thought of their own report that you are always referencing as supposedly above reproach. The very report that you place such great emphasis on. They are telling you that over time the witnesses added to their statements information that was taken from media accounts. They thought the witnesses added to the number of shots. Not just once but in two different reports. If the HSCA did not believe their own report why do you?The HSCA analysis was seriously flawed. No one reported having difficulty hearing distinct shots. Echos will vary with observers who are all over the place. If ear-witnesses were fooled by echos, they would have over-estimated or "inflated" the number of shots as they suggest. The HSCA was trying to argue that there were more shots than the witnesses recalled hearing.
"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
So Harold Norman , the witness right beneath the gunman is a liar? He really just heard 2 shots?The WC did not conclude that the first shot missed. The majority was of the view that it did not miss.
Was Norman forced to state a sequence where he heard a shot , saw the president slump and then heard 2 more shots?
Why did Norman appear in several videos and even a mock trial to replicate consistently how he heard all 3 shots fired in approx 4 secs. You can verify this by timing his “boom clack clack” phrase repetition.
To me the only reason the WC imtroduced the idea of an early 1st shot at z170 approx was that they knew it wasn’t plausible that 3 shots could have been fired in a 4.8 sec interval of time as indicated by reactions of JFK and Connally at Z223 and the obvious hit at Z313 .
Obviously the WC knew they couldn’t get away with suggesting that only 2 shots were fired, otherwise they WOULD have. They would have gleefully avoided a 3 shot scenario in favor of a 2 shot in 4.8 sec. The overwhelming majority of witness hearing 3 shots forced the WC to their absurd 1st shot missed at Z170 theory so they could get an 8.3 sec spread to convince the public that the use of an MC bolt action rifle by a lone gunman was plausible.
So Harold Norman , the witness right beneath the gunman is a liar? He really just heard 2 shots?
Was Norman forced to state a sequence where he heard a shot , saw the president slump and then heard 2 more shots?
Why did Norman appear in several videos and even a mock trial to replicate consistently how he heard all 3 shots fired in approx 4 secs. You can verify this by timing his “boom clack clack” phrase repetition.
To me the only reason the WC imtroduced the idea of an early 1st shot at z170 approx was that they knew it wasn’t plausible that 3 shots could have been fired in a 4.8 sec interval of time as indicated by reactions of JFK and Connally at Z223 and the obvious hit at Z313 .
Obviously the WC knew they couldn’t get away with suggesting that only 2 shots were fired, otherwise they WOULD have. They would have gleefully avoided a 3 shot scenario in favor of a 2 shot in 4.8 sec. The overwhelming majority of witness hearing 3 shots forced the WC to their absurd 1st shot missed at Z170 theory so they could get an 8.3 sec spread to convince the public that the use of an MC bolt action rifle by a lone gunman was plausible.
Yet Nicol is talking about doing what you say only an imbecile would do:
"And it was on the basis of the match of these patterns that I would conclude that this cartridge had been introduced into a chamber at least three times prior to its final firing. So that this would represent, you might say, a practice or dry-run loading the gun and unloading it for purpose of either determining its-how it functions, or whether it was in proper function, or just for practice.'
How many times can a cartridge be "fired" so that it has two such firings before the "final firing"?
Normally "dry-firing" would be firing the gun without any ammunition in the chamber. But Eisenberg seems to be using the term 'dry-firing' as 'dry loading and unloading'. He is suggesting that ejector marks found on the shell could have been produced by "dry-firing" as opposed to "actual firing" (3 H 510):
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Now, when a cartridge is actually fired, only the shell is ejected. So he is suggesting that it was ejected as something other than an empty shell.
The HSCA analysis was seriously flawed. No one reported having difficulty hearing distinct shots. Echos will vary with observers who are all over the place. If ear-witnesses were fooled by echos, they would have over-estimated or "inflated" the number of shots as they suggest. The HSCA was trying to argue that there were more shots than the witnesses recalled hearing.
Most observers recalled that the last two shots were closer than the first two but still distinct. Many indicated that the space between 2 and 3 was about half that between 1 and 2.
If you are arguing that the last two shots were really a shot and an echo, the witness perception of the time between them would vary widely depending on their positions. That isn't the case. And if there was more than a second between them, which most said was the case, the reflecting surface providing the echo would have to be more than 565 feet farther away from the source than the observer was (so that the reflected sound travelled 1130 feet longer to reach the observer). What large reflecting surfaces in Dealey Plaza were 565 farther away from an observer than the 6th floor TSBD SN? The only one I can think of was the Post Office Building south of Commerce St.
Also, if the witnesses heard an echo from the shots and there were only two shots, they would have been fooled into reporting 4 shots because there is no reason to believe that they would hear the echo only on the second of two shots.
Finally, most witnesses were within 300 feet of the SN. So any echo at least 1 second after the shot will have travelled at least an additional 1130 feet or more than 4 times farther (1330/300=4.4) which means it would be much less loud than the initial sound (1/20th at most). The witnesses did not observe this. They heard similar shots.
So Harold Norman , the witness right beneath the gunman is a liar? He really just heard 2 shots?
Was Norman forced to state a sequence where he heard a shot , saw the president slump and then heard 2 more shots?
Why did Norman appear in several videos and even a mock trial to replicate consistently how he heard all 3 shots fired in approx 4 secs. You can verify this by timing his “boom clack clack” phrase repetition.
To me the only reason the WC imtroduced the idea of an early 1st shot at z170 approx was that they knew it wasn’t plausible that 3 shots could have been fired in a 4.8 sec interval of time as indicated by reactions of JFK and Connally at Z223 and the obvious hit at Z313 .
Obviously the WC knew they couldn’t get away with suggesting that only 2 shots were fired, otherwise they WOULD have. They would have gleefully avoided a 3 shot scenario in favor of a 2 shot in 4.8 sec. The overwhelming majority of witness hearing 3 shots forced the WC to their absurd 1st shot missed at Z170 theory so they could get an 8.3 sec spread to convince the public that the use of an MC bolt action rifle by a lone gunman was plausible.
If the concept of echo is confusing to you, perhaps you shouldn't write about it. You are right, the math is simple but if you think it is pseudo math, perhaps you shouldn't write about math either.
The child like pseudo math aside, if you choose to ignore the conclusions of the HSCA about their own report that is your business. Offering your opinion on the subject does not change the fact that both the HSCA and WC believed the witnesses had been influenced to inflate the number of shots. You have never presented a single piece of evidence that they were wrong.
If the concept of echo is confusing to you, perhaps you shouldn't write about it. You are right, the math is simple but if you think it is pseudo math, perhaps you shouldn't write about math either.
You forgot childlike. Pseudo math is being kind and it is definitely a childlike understanding.You are right. The physics of echos child-like simple. But you may have missed the grade 9 science lesson on the speed of sound in air and how echos work: echo delay=path difference ÷ speed of sound. The path difference is just: reflected path - direct path.
You are right. The physics of echos child-like simple. But you may have missed the grade 9 science lesson on the speed of sound in air and how echos work: echo delay=path difference ÷ speed of sound. The path difference is just: reflected path - direct path.
If you disagree or think the math is wrong, point out the error and dispense with the infantile pejoratives.
No, it is a complex issue. You have approached it with simple mindedness. You have been unable to understand the shooting sequence, maybe it would be best to concentrate on that.It is complex to design an acoustically pleasant auditorium (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/refdel.html), but it is not complex to determine the spacing between distinct echos.
It is complex to design an acoustically pleasant auditorium (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/refdel.html), but it is not complex to determine the spacing between distinct echos.
Since you think, despite the overwhelming evidence of 3 shots, that there were only two shots I would prefer to take advice on how to understand the shot sequence from the witnesses who were there.
No, understanding the echos is complex. The only thing that is simple is your approach.I agree that any explanation as to how an echo would cause people to perceive an extra shot at least a second after the actual shot would be difficult to explain. But difficultly in explaining, which you seem to be experiencing, is not the same as complexity.
What is the overwhelming evidence?(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.jpg)
I agree that any explanation as to how an echo would cause people to perceive an extra shot at least a second after the actual shot would be difficult to explain. But difficultly in explaining, which you seem to be experiencing, is not the same as complexity.
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.jpg)
Is the wait for your overwhelming evidence of three shots going to be a long one?The evidence for three shots is the witness evidence. Your position is that the evidence is wrong. That's not evidence. If you don't accept that evidence of exactly three shots then you are left trying to figure out how many shots from the other witnesses I guess.
----------------
You don't believe the HSCA Sound analysis conclusion. Instead, have advanced your own personal analysis of one lone echo. Absolutely brilliant.
"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
-------------------
You don't believe the HSCA witness statement assessment and subsequent conclusion, but you do believe what was compiled in the report. Any real reason why?
HSCA Conclusion
"'While recognizing the substantial number
of people who reported shots originating from the knoll the committee
also believed the process of collecting witness testimony was such
that it would be unwise to place substantial reliance upon it. The
witnesses were interviewed over a substantial period of time some of
them several days even weeks after the assassination By that time
numerous accounts of the number and direction of the shots had been
published. The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
It looks like you have it all figured out anyway despite these shortcomings. Go get em Tiger, make them believe.
The evidence for three shots is the witness evidence. Your position is that the evidence is wrong. That's not evidence. If you don't accept that evidence of exactly three shots then you are left trying to figure out how many shots from the other witnesses I guess.
The fact is that doubts raised about the accuracy of the "three shot witnesses" does not allow you to conclude that there were only two shots. You still need evidence that there were only two shots. And the problem is that there are many witnesses whose recollection of the second shot was not dependent upon sound such as the Connallys who experienced the three impact events. There were also witnesses who heard, saw or felt the effects of the second shot (Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman, Connallys) after the first and before the headshot.
Besides, there are many problems with just eliminating all these witnesses because of some question raised about echos. They were spread out over the entire area from the triple underpass to the corners of Houston/Elm and Commerce/Houston. When you have witnesses at all three locations reporting the same number of shots: three, then the suggestion that they may have been fooled by echos is difficult to understand. And if they were fooled by echos, why were they not fooled into reporting 4 shots (if there were only two)?
We are still waiting for the evidence of only two shots. Is it going to be a long wait?
You made the statement of overwhelming evidence now it is time to provide it. There is evidence of two shots. Just not three like you claimed. I am sure of you think back you will remember your claim of "overwhelming evidence of three shots." It was a big proclamation on your part.I am not sure what you consider evidence. 132 witnesses saying that they heard three distinct shots is the evidence. There were 3 shells found. Amos Euins looked up at the 6th floor window and saw the rifle fire the last two shots. Harold Norman heard three "bang, click"s. He heard three shells hit the floor. Those who reported only two shots are 17 in number. Hmmm. Let's see.... That is why the WC concluded there were exactly three shots. You disagree with the 132, the three shells, the three bang,clicks. You disagree with the many who recalled the same 1.....2..3 pattern to the shots. But disagreement isn't enough. Disagreement with evidence does not provide evidence for a contrary view. If it were, you could say there is evidence of 6 shots or any number because there is "no evidence" of only three shots. There isn't.
It might be easier to admit you have absolutely no evidence at all of a third shot, unless an overactive imagination is considered evidence. Fairly safe to assume you never will produce any evidence of a third shot. Really weak to make an all encompassing claim and then pretend you did not.I am not sure what universe you are in. Is this a parallel universe where there were no shots and JFK was not assassinated?
A Mason:They are all three shot witnesses in this universe, which is the one I am operating in. They all provided evidence of exactly three shots.
"Since you think, despite the overwhelming evidence of 3 shots, that there were only two shots I would prefer to take advice on how to understand the shot sequence from the witnesses who were there."
-----------------------------------------------
If you have a problem with the HSCA assessment of their own reports, how about proving that what they clearly stated and obviously believed was wrong. Remember every three shot statement has two shots in it. A very large number of eyewitnesses only reported two shots. The witnesses you mentioned Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman, Connally's all are two shot witnesses. Maybe you were unaware of this. Maybe post less a little less and do a little more research.
Just a side note but there can't be three shots without there having been at least two shots. As soon as you prove there was three shots you will have already proven two shots. It is starting to appear your claim is all bluster and no substance. Even the witnesses you cite don't support your narrative.I don't quite grasp your logic. Perhaps it is the universe thing.
I am not sure what you consider evidence. 132 witnesses saying that they heard three distinct shots is the evidence. There were 3 shells found. Amos Euins looked up at the 6th floor window and saw the rifle fire the last two shots. Harold Norman heard three "bang, click"s. He heard three shells hit the floor. Those who reported only two shots are 17 in number. Hmmm. Let's see.... That is why the WC concluded there were exactly three shots. You disagree with the 132, the three shells, the three bang,clicks. You disagree with the many who recalled the same 1.....2..3 pattern to the shots. But disagreement isn't enough. Disagreement with evidence does not provide evidence for a contrary view. If it were, you could say there is evidence of 6 shots or any number because there is "no evidence" of only three shots. There isn't.
I am not sure what universe you are in. Is this a parallel universe where there were no shots and JFK was not assassinated?
They are all three shot witnesses in this universe, which is the one I am operating in. They all provided evidence of exactly three shots.
I don't quite grasp your logic. Perhaps it is the universe thing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbMwHSbL/3-SHOTS-FIRED.png)
billchapman
Good for you Bill. You are the first person ever to agree with Andrew that there was a shot at Z270+. Good to be remembered for something.
Zero shots fired if Marina had let Oswald in from the cold
(https://i.postimg.cc/B6FLcd17/50-TEMPEST-TEACUP-BULLETS.png)
billchapman
They would have been looking for an apartment that day. The whole event revolved on such a simple thing.
So to summarize your post there is no proof. Nothing new there.
It turns out overwhelming evidence is really no evidence at all, just your opinion. No evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. The video of the assassination only exhibits evidence of two shots. You have not proven otherwise or even created a question about the possible existence of a third shot. A shot at Z270+ is just a pipe dream. Belief in a third shot at all is just fantasy.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the report you believe to be overwhelming evidence was compiled by the HSCA who then dismissed it by stating the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. The WC gave the same assessment of the witness statements.
The question of the possibility of there being a third shot totally relies on the statements of earwitnesses, influenced by the media, into inflating the number of shots. The large majority of eye witnesses stated there was just two shots.
The fact you cannot prove otherwise should be a clue, but with your history of promoting this nonsense, I am sure you will not come to reality.
"No evidence at all that there ever was a third shot."
Not quite, there are a couple of early reports that a bullet was found near the concrete part of a manhole cover that had been hit by a bullet which ricocheted into the grass nearby.
William Allen and Jim Murray took a series of photographs which appear to show Buddy Walthers and an unknown "agent" searching this area. The following is taken from an article entitled, "Mysterious Bullet Found on the Infield in Dealey Plaza?":
"Author Richard Dudman, writing in the December 21, 1963 New Republic (p. 18), reported:
On the day the President was shot, I happened to learn of a possible fifth [bullet]. A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass."
The following is taken from Pat Speer's website:
"(As quoted in Red Roses from Texas, by Nerin Gun, published February 1964) "Buddy Walthers, the policeman from the Sheriff's office, states for his part that the shots—or at least one shot--came from the balustrade of the motorway bridge. He ran towards it; that was when, with a Secret Service man, he found a rifle bullet in the grass near the bridge--the "fourth bullet"? (Later) "Why is the existence of a fourth rifle bullet denied? Detective Bill Walthers declares that he found it. He described to me himself how he found the bullet and a picture taken immediately after the shooting by a Dallas Times photographer shows this detective and a Secret Service man in the act of retrieving a bullet from the turf at the roadside."
Dudman reports a police inspector (who can only have been Walthers), personally telling him a bullet had been found by the men examining the area. Gun reports Walthers personally describing how he found the bullet. He also describes the unknown "Secret Service man" who was pictured multiple times with Walthers at the area by the manhole cover. Walthers must have been aware of the two photographers stood close by taking pictures of him discovering the bullet so why wouldn't he feel free to report it. However, by the time of his WC testimony he has changed his tune completely.
The photos show Walthers reaching to the ground then standing with his hand clenched as if he has picked something up. He still has his hand clenched as the unknown Agent crouches to search the same area. Then we see Walthers with his hand open but the Agent has his hand closed shut as if Walthers has passed what he has found over to him. The Agent is then seen apparently putting something in his back pocket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDd5ttRh/Walthers3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/vTR6w6Cs/Walthers2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/13Wn5dbM/Murray-Unger3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/sXWvmgx0/Walthers5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/mg6kGHF5/Walthers7.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)(https://i.postimg.cc/pdwdmMCQ/Murray-Unger1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Photos - Unger gallery and Baylor university
Not according to Buddy Walters himself.
Mr. Liebeler.
There has also been a story, some sort of story that you were supposed to have found a spent bullet.
Mr. Walthers.
Yes; that's what the story was in this book, and man, I've never made a statement about finding a spent bullet.
Mr. Liebeler.
And you never found any spent bullet?
Mr. Walthers.
No; me and Allan Sweatt 2 or 3 days after the assassination did go back down there and make a pretty diligent search in there all up where that bullet might have hit, thinking that maybe the bullet hit the cement and laid down on some of them beams but we looked all up there and everywhere and I never did find one. I never did in all of my life tell anybody I found a bullet other than where it hit.
I mentioned that Walthers had changed his tune by the time of his WC testimony.
But, according to Gun, Walthers himself described finding this bullet and Dudson also describes a police inspector (who can only have been Walthers) describing the same thing, the discovery of a bullet in the area being searched by various officers ( which can only be the area around the manhole cover).
Why Walthers changed his tune is unknown but the photos do appear to show him reaching down to the ground and picking something up.
This bullet strike would also be the favourite candidate for the fragment of bullet that chipped the kerb near Tague cutting his cheek. Notions of bullet fragments from the head shot doing this are completely unrealistic. The cut on Tague's cheek must be accounted for and a direct, fragmenting bullet strike to the concrete part of the manhole cover is, by far, the most realistic option.
You are questioning the integrity of the wrong person in this tale. Tague was as sleazy as it gets. The only person who mentions blood on Tague's cheek is Tague. If you have ever seen the texture of the cement of the overpass structure, there is another alternative explanation because by Tague's own account he pressed himself up against it.
On the flip side. If the story was true and based on other discussions on this board, the chain of custody of this supposed bullet would be an issue. The story of the reporter is what seems far fetched.
The only person who mentions blood on Tague's cheek is Tague.
Although blood isn't mentioned, a cut is:
Mr. Belin: You talked to any other witnesses there?
Mr. HAYGOOD: Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something, and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his cheek just to the right of his nose.
"If you have ever seen the texture of the cement of the overpass structure, there is another alternative explanation because by Tague's own account he pressed himself up against it."
This seems a bit made up and is nothing to do with what Tague immediately reported to both Haygood and Walthers.
On the flip side. If the story was true and based on other discussions on this board, the chain of custody of this supposed bullet would be an issue.
Considering the bullet seemed to go missing with the Secret Service/FBI agent that nobody from the Secret Service or the FBI could identify, there's not much of a chain of custody.
The story of the reporter is what seems far fetched.
There are two separate, independent reports from two journalists that the discovery of a bullet was made by the men searching the area photographed by Allen and Murray who appear to actually capture the moment Walthers picks something off the ground.
Both Dodson and Gun are completely credible witnesses.
There is absolutely nothing far-fetched about what either of them reports.
Obviously, the discovery of a bullet near the manhole cover blows the two shot theory completely out of the water so I understand why you're not a fan of these credible reports accompanied by photos.
So to summarize your post there is no proof. Nothing new there.Jack, I asked you to specify which universe you were operating in. It is obviously not the one the rest of us are in.
It turns out overwhelming evidence is really no evidence at all, just your opinion. No evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. The video of the assassination only exhibits evidence of two shots. You have not proven otherwise or even created a question about the possible existence of a third shot. A shot at Z270+ is just a pipe dream. Belief in a third shot at all is just fantasy.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, the report you believe to be overwhelming evidence was compiled by the HSCA who then dismissed it by stating the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. The WC gave the same assessment of the witness statements.
The question of the possibility of there being a third shot totally relies on the statements of earwitnesses, influenced by the media, into inflating the number of shots. The large majority of eye witnesses stated there was just two shots.
The fact you cannot prove otherwise should be a clue, but with your history of promoting this nonsense, I am sure you will not come to reality.
Tague claims he was hit on the second shot, but his statement is he turned his head away from the motorcade for the second shot.Which is, possibly, why he was struck on the right cheek.
Jack, I asked you to specify which universe you were operating in. It is obviously not the one the rest of us are in.
Which is, possibly, why he was struck on the right cheek.
Your time would be better spent on the "overwhelming evidence" of a third shot. Even Tague's statement does not support your bizarre theory. Interesting, he has a second shot head shot.I have given you the abundant and overwhelming evidence of three shots. You just disagree with it. That doesn't mean it does not exist.
I have given you the abundant and overwhelming evidence of three shots. You just disagree with it. That doesn't mean it does not exist.
As far Tague's evidence is concerned, I have no idea what you are referring to. Here is what he said under oath (7 H 555):
Mr. LIEBELER Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn’t say
definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER . Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
I am sure you don't understand.I agree. I am sure I don't understand why you think there is "No evidence at all that there ever was a third shot".
Game over Andrew and John. Bill Chapman is in the house. Bill is a much-respected researcher and JFK historian. Bill does not need proof there was three shots. Bill knows there was three shots because Bill knows there was three shots.
If Norman heard Oswald eject a casing 3 times in fairly quick succession then that suggests that Oswald ejected the first casing at about the same time as the jfklimo started to turn from Houston into Elm.
We know that Oswald's shot-1 was at latest at pseudo Z113 -- this was when the jfklimo had passed by his window & had just passed the overhead signals -- shot-1 ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm.
I have always wondered whether Oswald pulled the trigger when the jfklimo was starting its turn into Elm -- ie a dry fire -- koz he forgot to eject the old empty casing.
If he hadnt forgotten to eject the old casing then he would have ejected it well before the jfklimo came into view in Houston.
Anyhow, now i come to what i really wanted to mention -- Oswald might not have known what the jfklimo looked like -- did he know that it might have the plastic bubble rain cover on -- did he know that the bubble was not bullet proof -- did he know that there was a divider/roll'bar that partly hid jfk from the SN until the limo was almost starting its turn into Elm -- did he know that jfk would be in the rear right seat.
If he fired a dry shot early on then he would have been flustered & likely to forget about or misjudge the problem of the overhead signal arm blocking a shot hence the ricochet at Z113.
Then in any case he fired shot-2 ok at Z216, hitting jfk & Connally at Z218-219.
Then he stood up & stepped back & saw Hickey blow jfk's brain out at Z313 -- anyhow i wonder why didnt Oswald fire his shot-3, albeit a long shot.
If Norman heard Oswald eject a casing 3 times in fairly quick succession then that suggests that Oswald ejected the first casing at about the same time as the jfklimo started to turn from Houston into Elm.Harold Norman
I'm really interested in hearing the logic behind this statement.
I suspect for many researcher's this may qualify as one of the most ludicrous sentences ever posted on this forum but I believe you have a rational explanation for it and I would really like to hear it.
Then he stood up & stepped back & saw Hickey blow jfk's brain out at Z313
Hmmm...
My hopes for a rational explanation regarding your first sentence have been greatly diminished.
Harold Norman
"He stated that about the time the car in which the president was riding turned on to Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the window.”………..
“Just after the President passed by I heard a shot and several seconds later, I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle………..
………..“About the time that he got past the window where I was, well, it seems as though he was, I mean you know, brushing his hair. Maybe he was looking at the public…I can’t remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard a 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.” ……..
And I said “I know I’m right” because I could hear something sound as though the shells were hitting the floor and I could hear the ejection of the rifle, clicks like that, you know.”………
…..(Later in the same broadcast) “Well, I was looking out the window and the first shot was fired. Well, y'know, I didn't think much of it, because it, shook the building a little bit. Really, it was just that powerful. Then after the second shot was fired, well, I saw the people. They were all falling on the ground. And I told one of the fellows. I say, “That shot came from this building.” And then by that time I heard the third shot. And one of the guys told me, he said, “I believe you’re right.” And I say “I know it did." And then I could, you know, also hear the hulls, empty hulls, the cartridges, hitting the floor, and I could hear the ejection of the rifle, whatever it was……..
………….."When the President came around, he was waving, seemed to be happy. About that time I heard a shot, and one of the guys said "Somebody's shooting at the President." ……
…………..And I could even now hear the empty cartridge hit the floor I mean after the shots had been fired. …..
…………(When asked how many shots he heard) “Three. I’d say just about like this BOOM…click click…BOOM…click clickBOOM. Something similar to that.”
…………..(On the shooting) "just as the motorcade came around...3 shots was fired...Boom, clack-clack, boom, clack-clack, boom. One at a time……….
………..(When asked if heard any cartridges fall) "I heard three." …….
…………."Well, I heard a shot when the motorcade came by. The first shot, it made the President slump. Then I heard two more shots." (When asked if he heard a total of three shots) "Yes, sir." (When asked how he could tell the shots came from above) "Yes, sir...Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call them--hit the floor and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle being pushed back and forward." (When asked how many hulls he heard hit the floor) "Three." (When asked by the defense to describe the rhythm of the sounds) "As I recall, the rhythm of the sounds of the shots was Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click."
(1-19-92 interview with Gerald Posner, reported in Case Closed, 1993) "When the first shot came, I heard boom, then click-click, boom, click-click, boom. I could hear the sound of the click. I could hear the sound of the shells hitting the floor. I could hear everything. Three shots. No doubt in my mind."
………..The shots came from above and there was a gun and the shots were sounding, "Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click." So there was three shots fired right up over us when we were sitting on the fifth floor.”……….
……….. And all of a sudden, we hear something. 'Boom, ack, ack, boom, ack, ack, boom.' …………
……….And that was three of the shells I heard on the floor. And when the police officer asked about it, we told them about it and they went up there and that is what they found up there on the sixth floor. Three empty cartridge shells up there."
………..He laughed and walked away.' A few minutes later, Norman said, he heard three shots fired from the sixth floor window directly above the one he was using to view the parade."
Edited April 14, 2012 by Pat Speer.
Norman in places supports an early shot.
Brennan's statements support that Oswald stood up & back from the window before the headshot.
Any genuine researcher will look at the totality of evidence and let that form their opinion.There are 7 windows across the TSBD. Oswald was in 7th window 6th floor. Norman was i think in 6th window 5th floor.
A Tinfoil nutjob will look for the tiniest bit of evidence that might support their bonkers theory.
I'll use the testimony Marjan has posted to demonstrate what I mean.
In every example Norman gives of the shots he heard from above his position, he describes three "Booms", that is to say three shots coming from above him. Nowhere does he describe two shots coming from above him and one shot from elsewhere. It must also be noted that Norman, like every other single witness watching the the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, fails to spot Hickey's fatal headshot. Not a single witness spots this. Isn't that incredible?
Marjan would have us believe the first shot occurred before Zapruder started filming JFK's limo in the motorcade (z133). He places it at an imaginary z113. As the headshot occurred at z313 this would leave an 11 second gap between these two shots. Now imagine Norman's description of the shots - Boom, click, click, Boom, click, click, Boom, click, click. Just run it through your mind and see if you can get it to last 11 seconds.
Here are few of Norman's statements Marjan posted, which he has failed to take into account-
“About the time that he got past the window where I was, well, it seems as though he was, I mean you know, brushing his hair. Maybe he was looking at the public…I can’t remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard a 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.” …
After the first shot the President slumped. Does this support a shot at z113?
“Just after the President passed by I heard a shot..."
Norman heard the shot after the President had passed his position. This also rules out a shot at z113.
"When the President came around, he was waving, seemed to be happy. About that time I heard a shot...
Mary Woodward and Victoria Adams also agree the first shot took place just after JFK had been waving - long after z113.
"Well, I heard a shot when the motorcade came by. The first shot, it made the President slump. Then I heard two more shots."
The first shot made the President slump? Again, this completely refutes a shot at z113.
Harold Norman's testimony does not support a shot as early as z113. A genuine researcher would see that immediately.
"Brennan's statements support that Oswald stood up & back from the window before the headshot."
Really?
Where can I find this testimony?
There are 7 windows across the TSBD. Oswald was in 7th window 6th floor. Norman was i think in 6th window 5th floor.
JFK was just west of the overhead signals at Z113, ie opposite/below say the 4th windows (the middle windows).
Hence JFK was 2 windows west of (ie past) Norman. Norman heard the first shot just after the President passed.
U say that this completely refutes a shot at Z113. Nope.
U say that ….. Any genuine researcher will look at the totality of evidence and let that form their opinion. Yes -- I did so.
U say that Norman says that 3 shots were from above him. Norman based this partly on the bolt & shell clicks & clacks. But, Speer says that at various dates Norman gave the following 6 descriptions of the clicks & clacks. As u can see 4 of the 6 ended with Boom. Hence in 4 of the 6 Norman heard only 2 sets of clicks & clacks. Hence in 4 of the 6 the last Boom was Hickey's auto burst. We can assume this koz if the last Boom was a shot-3 from Oswald then we would expect to find a spent shell in the Carcano – but it had a full bullet not a spent shell.
1. BOOM…click click…BOOM…click clickBOOM.
2. Boom, clack-clack, boom, clack-clack, boom.
3. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click."
4. boom, then click-click, boom, click-click, boom
5. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click. Boom! Click, click.
6. 'Boom, ack, ack, boom, ack, ack, boom.
There are 7 windows across the TSBD. Oswald was in 7th window 6th floor. Norman was i think in 6th window 5th floor.So -- Norman was in the 7th window on 5th floor.
This shows exactly how little you know about this subject.
Norman's position, directly under the assassin's position, is a basic piece of knowledge. Any genuine researcher would know this.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the basics of this case.
I imagine this is because, all you're interested in is trumpeting your Tinfoil BS: theory, and any facts, no matter how basic, that are not directly related to the nonsense you spout, are of no interest to you.
Do some research for a change and Google "Tom Dilliard photo".
U say that ….. Any genuine researcher will look at the totality of evidence and let that form their opinion. Yes -- I did so.
What a joke.
It certainly does appear that the 1st loud noise that is in fact a rifle shot , happened at Z223 approx.
However there does seem to be the quick turn of Jackie’s head at Z170 approx and so what might be the cause of such quick motion?
My theory is that this Z160-170 motion of Jackie’s head turning and JFKs head seems to turn also as his hand is waving, is possibly a suppressed shot from Daltex bldg.
There was on a time passed by, many years ago a rather involved discussion about a Daltex shot and there was some speculative examination of photos and a window on the 3rd floor which seemed to have a small hole as though might be from breaking the glass .
However it was never quite proved beyond reasonable doubt such hole really existed , and Mr. Myttons analysis was a leading cause of that doubt.
What is very coincidental is that the 3rd floor window of Daltex bldg, with the “anomaly” (hole) is perfectly the right height and angle for a shooter to get a straight down elm st shot that can clear the windshield of the SS agent follow car just behind JFK limo.
There is also the coincidence of a known mob guy who was allegedly seen on the 3rd floor of Daltex carrying a brief case, just minutes before the JFK limo arrived to Houston st, and this man had no alibi for his whereabouts .
It certainly does appear that the 1st loud noise that is in fact a rifle shot , happened at Z223 approx.
....
In this thread there is a mountain of evidence supporting the conclusion that the first of these three clearly audible shots was at z222/z223.
The moment when Woodward and friends call out making Jackie and JFK turn to their right, is recalled by Vickie Adams in her WC testimony. Adams is watching the motorcade from the fourth floor and states:That would seem to be the case. Woodward's recollection was that JFK and Jackie responded to their shouts and acknowledged them and that they were the last group he ever acknowledged. If that is true, then she must have been referring to the reactions beginning around z175 as JFK waves and Jackie turns.
"I watched the motorcade come down Main, as it turned from Main onto Houston, and watched it proceed around the corner on Elm, and apparently somebody in the crowd called to the late President, because he and his wife both turned abruptly and faced the building, so we had a very good view of both of them."
Both Adams and Woodward insist the first shot occurred shortly after this moment, ruling out an earlier shot.
I would agree with you that there is a mountain of evidence that the first shot was after z190. We also know that it was before z224/225 because JFK was showing obvious signs of being hit there. But there is not a mountain of evidence that it was at z222/z223. In fact, there is consistent evidence that it was earlier.
There is the evidence of TE Moore that the first shot sounded by the time JFK reached the Thornton Freeway sign. He was opposite that sign at z200. Linda Willis said that JFK was between her and the Thornton sign when the first shot sounded. That puts it at z195-z205. Phil Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant AFTER the first shot - that the sound of the shot caused him to reflexively react and press the shutter. There is also the evidence of the occupants of the VP Security car that the first shot occurred just before they completed the turn onto Elm - one (Clifton Carter 7 H 474) described their position as "right along side" of the TSBD. They were in that position around z190 but were well past that by z222.
That would seem to be the case. Woodward's recollection was that JFK and Jackie responded to their shouts and acknowledged them and that they were the last group he ever acknowledged. If that is true, then she must have been referring to the reactions beginning around z175 as JFK waves and Jackie turns.
You seem to have difficulty reading what I wrote. I agreed with you that there is a "mountain of evidence" (your term) that the first shot was after z190 and that JFK was struck by it. I said "there was consistent evidence" that it was earlier than z222/z223. That is not a theory nor an exaggeration. It is a fact that there is consistent evidence that it was earlier than z222/z223.
Just look at the "mountain" of evidence he presents - a couple of cherry-picked eyewitness statements.
One of the other members of the forum nicely summed up this disingenuous approach:You remind me of a certain person who, unable to provide an intelligent response when confronted with evidence, simply dismisses it as fake.
As for your shot in the mid z190's.Yet, you have been unable to explain why the Secret Service film made in early December 1963 showing JFK to be clear of the tree when he was between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign is not accurate. That puts JFK clear of the tree between z190 and z200.
As everyone knows this would require the assassin to shoot through the oak tree, something that has similarly been dissected in this thread.
I know.You did post it. You said that was the only point where they turn to look to their right and wave. The problem is that we can't see Jackie's face and can't tell where she is looking or whether she is waving. My comment was to point out another way to verify that this was the turn descibed by Woodward based on them being the last people JFK acknowledged.
That's why I posted it. ::)
Mason's Bizarre Pet Theory only has troll-value. But hey, the poor schmuck gotta take what the good Lord laid out for him.My "Bizarre Pet Theory" is nothing more than the FBI and WC's view until March 1964. It is also Dan's "theory" that the first shot struck JFK. If you combine that with the generally accepted view that the head shot was the third and last shot you get this:
Nah. We've been doing the Moore thing with Mason for years now. Here's one from 2021.
"I don't think Moore could see to the President slumping Z228ff. His statement says he saw the President "slump" on the first shot. Kennedy leans forward in the Z170s, within a second of the Connally's rightward head-turns, which they said occurred when they heard the first shot. Moore wasn't side-to the limousine (he was almost directly behind) so his impression of Kennedy having "reached the Thornton Freeway sign" seems not based on anything comparative."So your Bizzare Pet Theory is that Moore was wrong, along with about 20 others who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as he is seen after frame z224?
Mason's more Energizer Bunny than Zombie.
You think you're getting through to Dan more than I am?The location for shot #1 is with JFK between the lamppost and the Thornton sign. The Thornton sign was z200, so a bit less. The other two are shown in that photo a bit too far ahead. Here is another configuration for the same model:
Gee, Andrew, if you're going to hitch your pony to the FBI "String Theory" than you have to acknowledge the strings represent (by my rough figuring) ~Z200, ~Z310 and ~Z340. Unless you're now in accord with these frames for your three shots, I would say the model isn't corresponding well with your Weirdo Theory.
I'm pointing out that your use of Moore doesn't address that he's standing far back from the President, is not side-to the limousine when it nears the sign, and that as the car goes further downhill from Moore, the "Queen Mary" and agents standing on it are going to increasingly obscure any view he has of the president.Right. You are not quibbling about the point that Moore says JFK had reached by the time of the first shot. You are saying he could not have seen what he said he observed.
Now a witness who was more sideways-to the limousine and the Thornton sign was Jeanette Hooker, who "estimated that the President's car was almost to the R. L. THORNTON Freeway when she heard three gunshots." The front of the car is roughly perpendicular to the Thornton sign by Z190.
You seem to have difficulty reading what I wrote. I agreed with you that there is a "mountain of evidence" (your term) that the first shot was after z190 and that JFK was struck by it. I said "there was consistent evidence" that it was earlier than z222/z223. That is not a theory nor an exaggeration. It is a fact that there is consistent evidence that it was earlier than z222/z223.
You remind me of a certain person who, unable to provide an intelligent response when confronted with evidence, simply dismisses it as fake.
Yet, you have been unable to explain why the Secret Service film made in early December 1963 showing JFK to be clear of the tree when he was between the lamppost and the Thornton Freeway sign is not accurate. That puts JFK clear of the tree between z190 and z200.
Your idea of "consistent evidence" for a shot earlier than z222/z223 is a handful of sketchy eyewitness statements that you've scraped together.Suggesting that the first shot occurred at z222/223 is just an attempt to make the SBT look plausible. If it was much earlier, it is difficult to explain the delay in JBC's reaction if he was hit by the same bullet. So you have convinced yourself that it must be true.
My idea of "consistent evidence" is presented in this thread and it overwhelmingly supports a shot at z222/z223.
I am more than comfortable to have the weight of evidence I've gathered in this thread to be measured against your own paltry efforts.
Why do you think the assassin would not have been able to fire and hit JFK before the position shown in that photo?. JFK has moved about 15 feet past the point where he was in the clear.
There can be no doubt a shot between z190 and z200 would have been taken through the oak tree.
The picture below shows what the assassin was "visualising" moments before he took his shot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJwrkCc9/View-from-SN-2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Suggesting that the first shot occurred at z222/223 is just an attempt to make the SBT look plausible. If it was much earlier, it is difficult to explain the delay in JBC's reaction if he was hit by the same bullet. So you have convinced yourself that it must be true.
The first rule of fact-finding is: don't fool yourself. This is also an important rule that scientists follow. It is easy to do if you want a particular result.
The second rule of fact-finding is, after making preliminary findings, test them. This means you must fit your findings with the rest of the evidence.
If you test the z222/223 first shot hypothesis against the evidence that: 1.the head shot was the third and last shot and 2. the last two shots were closer together, it does not fit at all. It also doesn't fit with the evidence of Phil Willis or Linda Willis.
Why do you think the assassin would not have been able to fire and hit JFK before the position shown in that photo?. JFK has moved about 15 feet past the point where he was in the clear.
I've discovered a way in which we are the same, yet opposite...That is EXACTLY the problem. You looked at the zfilm and were convinced that both men were reacting to being shot (JFK in the neck and JBC in the back) at the same time. That is a conclusion. That is based on an interpretation of what you think you are seeing. And you did that before you reviewed the evidence as to what the witnesses said:
I am not "suggesting" the first shot occurred at z222/z223.
I have provided a mountain of evidence in this thread demonstrating that it is indeed the case.
I became interested in the JFK case during the first lockdown after randomly coming across Ant Davison's version of the Zapruder film.
It's quite a stunning thing. I watched over and over again on a very large screen at super slo-mo and couldn't help but notice both JFK and Connally violently reacting at exactly the same moment.
[Note - I'm not referring to CE399 as the bullet. I don't believe that had anything to do with the actual shooting. I strongly suspect the bullet that exited Connaly's chest shattered on impact with his wrist bone and that the main bullet fragments found in the limo are the bullet in question.]So what caused the thigh wound? What caused the damage to the windshield? What caused the "concussion" effect that Greer said he sensed on the second shot just before he turned rearward for the first time? What caused the injury to Tague, which he said occurred on the second shot?
That is EXACTLY
I didn't know Connally's name at the time and had never heard of the Single Bullet Theory or Magic Bullet Theory.
Apart from the headshot, two things really stood out - how much the limo slowed down before the headshot and that both men reacted violently, presumably to being shot, at exactly the same moment.
It's so obvious I still can't believe people deny it. Rather than view the evidence with their own eyes they just hide behind arguments like "Oh, Specter just invented it because he had to".
In this thread I've presented an incredibly detailed analysis of the Z-film regarding this aspect and it has merely confirmed my original observation - both men were shot through, by the same bullet.
[Note - I'm not referring to CE399 as the bullet. I don't believe that had anything to do with the actual shooting. I strongly suspect the bullet that exited Connaly's chest shattered on impact with his wrist bone and that the main bullet fragments found in the limo are the bullet in question.]
Which brings us to how we're the same yet opposite.
Because I have allowed the evidence to inform how I look at this aspect of the case I find I'm the only CTer who accepts that both men were shot through at the same time, by the same bullet.
Because how you have allowed how you look at this aspect of the case to inform the evidence you choose, you find you are the only LNer who doesn't accept both men were shot through at the same time, by the same bullet.
Both of us standing alone in our respective camps.
"The Book of Fact Finding", by Andrew Mason.
:D :D :D
The only book that consists solely of it's title and the name of it's author!!
That you have the audacity to write this sentence - "This means you must fit your findings with the rest of the evidence." - says it all.
The mass of evidence I have presented in this thread weighed against the testimony of Phil Willis. Really?
Phil Willis, the man who created Phil Willis Enterprises with the express intent of cashing in on the assassination by copyrighting his poorly taken photos. Photos he gave grandiose titles to in order to enhance their value. The man who had a financial incentive to convince everyone he had taken a photo of the moment of the first shot.
That Phil Willis?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJwrkCc9/View-from-SN-2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The first shot took place just as the limo cleared the oak tree, just slightly further down the road than the white vehicle in the picture above.
Below is a pic from the moment the first shot occurred:
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJKNzfF4/z222fbi.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
At the bottom of the view from the SN we can see the limo has just cleared the oak tree.
This is the moment the assassin "visualised" his first shot.
There was no need to fire through the oak tree.
I've discovered a way in which we are the same, yet opposite...
I am not "suggesting" the first shot occurred at z222/z223.
I have provided a mountain of evidence in this thread demonstrating that it is indeed the case.
I became interested in the JFK case during the first lockdown after randomly coming across Ant Davison's version of the Zapruder film.
It's quite a stunning thing. I watched over and over again on a very large screen at super slo-mo and couldn't help but notice both JFK and Connally violently reacting at exactly the same moment.
I didn't know Connally's name at the time and had never heard of the Single Bullet Theory or Magic Bullet Theory.
Apart from the headshot, two things really stood out - how much the limo slowed down before the headshot and that both men reacted violently, presumably to being shot, at exactly the same moment.
It's so obvious I still can't believe people deny it. Rather than view the evidence with their own eyes they just hide behind arguments like "Oh, Specter just invented it because he had to".
In this thread I've presented an incredibly detailed analysis of the Z-film regarding this aspect and it has merely confirmed my original observation - both men were shot through, by the same bullet.
[Note - I'm not referring to CE399 as the bullet. I don't believe that had anything to do with the actual shooting. I strongly suspect the bullet that exited Connaly's chest shattered on impact with his wrist bone and that the main bullet fragments found in the limo are the bullet in question.]
Which brings us to how we're the same yet opposite.
Because I have allowed the evidence to inform how I look at this aspect of the case I find I'm the only CTer who accepts that both men were shot through at the same time, by the same bullet.
Because how you have allowed how you look at this aspect of the case to inform the evidence you choose, you find you are the only LNer who doesn't accept both men were shot through at the same time, by the same bullet.
Both of us standing alone in our respective camps.
"The Book of Fact Finding", by Andrew Mason.
:D :D :D
The only book that consists solely of it's title and the name of it's author!!
That you have the audacity to write this sentence - "This means you must fit your findings with the rest of the evidence." - says it all.
The mass of evidence I have presented in this thread weighed against the testimony of Phil Willis. Really?
Phil Willis, the man who created Phil Willis Enterprises with the express intent of cashing in on the assassination by copyrighting his poorly taken photos. Photos he gave grandiose titles to in order to enhance their value. The man who had a financial incentive to convince everyone he had taken a photo of the moment of the first shot.
That Phil Willis?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJwrkCc9/View-from-SN-2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The first shot took place just as the limo cleared the oak tree, just slightly further down the road than the white vehicle in the picture above.
Below is a pic from the moment the first shot occurred:
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJKNzfF4/z222fbi.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
At the bottom of the view from the SN we can see the limo has just cleared the oak tree.
This is the moment the assassin "visualised" his first shot.
There was no need to fire through the oak tree.
I don't know if it is or not. But the Secret Service reenactment car (a stock Lincoln Continental) is too far to camera-right in most of its run-throughs. Z213 and the Altgens Photo show the Presidential limousine drivers-side tire was a few inches away from one of the road stripes.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_AP6311220989Crop1.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1SMbD_KiwFWuXU72I6axl00lvBZ777N5c)
Mason uses a video clip from the Secret Service reenactment that's muddy (indistinct) and has the car away from the road stripe beside the driver. This creates the impression that Kennedy was to the right of the intervening foliage and exposed, and a shot could be made through the sparse foliage. Below is a clip from one of the run-throughs in which the SS car is near to the road stripe and thus more behind the foliage ...
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ba/c9/AGMZAV9w_o.gif)
This is more true to the May 1964 reenactment (although the "Kennedy" surrogate was a little higher and more inboard than JFK was in the Presidential limousine, factors the Commission took into account).
(https://images2.imgbox.com/8f/f6/ORdobElJ_o.jpg)
The better-resolution video and pictures show that Kennedy was not well-exposed to a shot at Z195, Mason's fantasy frame for a first shot (that, get this, left Kennedy's throat, went pass Connally's left side and nuzzled into his left thigh. LOL).
I don't know if it is or not. But the Secret Service reenactment car (a stock Lincoln Continental) is too far to camera-right in most of its run-throughs. Z213 and the Altgens Photo show the Presidential limousine drivers-side tire was a few inches away from one of the road stripes.JFK was in the clear at this point as shown in the Secret Service film from early December 1963:
Mason uses a video clip from the Secret Service reenactment that's muddy (indistinct) and has the car away from the road stripe beside the driver. This creates the impression that Kennedy was to the right of the intervening foliage and exposed, and a shot could be made through the sparse foliage. Below is a clip from one of the run-throughs in which the SS car is near to the road stripe and thus more behind the foliage ...There are two big differences between the May 1964 and the December 1963 re-enactments. The main difference is the tree foliage. The other difference is the car height and the vertical position of JFK. Both were more accurately depicted in the earlier reenactment. The foliage is fuller and denser in 1964 than it was at the time of the assassination. The photographers" (Betzner and Willis) provide z186 and z202 brackets for the time of the first shot. The SS reenactment shows that the first shot at about z195 is consistent with those brackets.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ba/c9/AGMZAV9w_o.gif)
This is more true to the May 1964 reenactment (although the "Kennedy" surrogate was a little higher and more inboard than JFK was in the Presidential limousine, factors the Commission took into account).
(https://images2.imgbox.com/8f/f6/ORdobElJ_o.jpg)
The better-resolution video and pictures show that Kennedy was not well-exposed to a shot at Z195, Mason's fantasy frame for a first shot (that, get this, left Kennedy's throat, went pass Connally's left side and nuzzled into his left thigh. LOL).The first shot JFK neck to JBC thigh "fantasy" is a much better fit to the trajectory, witness evidence, shot spacing evidence and the condition of CE399 than is the CE399 second shot SBT fantasy.
I must have accidentally posted while I was just starting my response. Sorry about that!
That is EXACTLY the problem. You looked at the zfilm and were convinced that both men were reacting to being shot (JFK in the neck and JBC in the back) at the same time. That is a conclusion. That is based on an interpretation of what you think you are seeing.
And you did that before you reviewed the evidence as to what the witnesses said:
- JBC and Nellie were quite clear that JBC was not hit in the back by the first shot. Your response: doesn't fit-ignore.
- JBC said he turned around to see JFK after the first shot before he was hit in the back. JBC turns from z230 to z270. There is no other time when JBC makes the slightest attempt to look at JFK. Your response: doesn't fit-ignore.
- Nellie said that she did not look back at JFK after her husband was hit in the back. She is looking back at JFK from z255 or so to z270. Your response: doesn't fit-ignore.
- Nellie said that JBC yelled "Oh No, No, No" before he was hit on the second shot. He appears to utter those words around z245. Your response: doesn't fit-ignore.
- Phil Willis said he took his photo (z202) in reflexive response to hearing the first shot. Your response: doesn't fit-ignore.
- Linda Willis said that JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot occurred. She was standing behind and just to the left of Phil Willis who took this photo at z202 when JFK had just passed between him and the Stemmons sign:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Willis_5_from_negative.jpg)
So I suggest that I am being generous in saying that JFK was past the Stemmons sign from Linda's point of view by z205. Your response: doesn't fit-ignore.
So what caused the thigh wound? What caused the damage to the windshield? What caused the "concussion" effect that Greer said he sensed on the second shot just before he turned rearward for the first time? What caused the injury to Tague, which he said occurred on the second shot?
JFK was in the clear at this point as shown in the Secret Service film from early December 1963:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_clear_1526.jpg)
If one looks at the position of the car in Willis #5:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Willis_5_from_negative.jpg)
it is about 1-1.5 feet right of the left lane marker. A 1961 Lincoln Continental was 78.6 inches wide and the lanes were 12' or 144" wide. That leaves about 4-4.5 feet of lane to the right side. I would suggest that the above photo from the Secret Service film has an accurate position of the car in the lane at that point.
There are two big differences between the May 1964 and the December 1963 re-enactments. The main difference is the tree foliage. The other difference is the car height and the vertical position of JFK. Both were more accurately depicted in the earlier reenactment. The foliage is fuller and denser in 1964 than it was at the time of the assassination. The photographers" (Betzner and Willis) provide z186 and z202 brackets for the time of the first shot. The SS reenactment shows that the first shot at about z195 is consistent with those brackets.
But even the May 1964 reenactment shows JFK to be clear of the tree (despite the longer and denser foliage) at z207:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Frame_207_reenactment_24May64_copy.JPG)
In fact, the entire trunk of the car behind the JFK stand-in is visible.The first shot JFK neck to JBC thigh "fantasy" is a much better fit to the trajectory, witness evidence, shot spacing evidence and the condition of CE399 than is the CE399 second shot SBT fantasy.
The photographers" (Betzner and Willis) provide z186 and z202 brackets for the time of the first shot.Willis provided the after-bracket. You just don't accept his evidence. That's fine. I do. The reason I accept it is that it fits with the rest of the evidence and there is no evidence-based reason to reject it. In particular it fits with Linda Willis' recollection and Rosemary Willis' head turn at z204-207:
Willis does not provide a bracket for the first shot.
He was financially incentivised to convince people he had captured the moment of the first shot. He set up Phil Willis Enterprises with the express purpose of financially gaining from the assassination. He concocted a story about reacting to the first shot as a way to validate his photo and make it more valuable. His testimony regarding reacting to a first shot is undermined by his ulterior motive. As such, your main evidence for a shot before z202 disappears.
The first shot JFK neck to JBC thigh "fantasy" is a much better fit to the trajectory, witness evidence, shot spacing evidence and the condition of CE399 than is the CE399 second shot SBT fantasy.
As they are both fantasies it doesn't really matter which is the "much better fit".
Willis provided the after-bracket. You just don't accept his evidence. That's fine. I do. The reason I accept it is that it fits with the rest of the evidence and there is no evidence-based reason to reject it. In particular it fits with Linda Willis' recollection and Rosemary Willis' head turn at z204-207:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z202_z206_RWillis.gif)
Do you think that he paid Rosemary to do that? or that he paid Linda to say that? Or TE Moore to say that it occurred by the time JFK had reached the Thornton sign? etc....
Without Willis you have almost zero evidence for a shot before z200. You accept it because you have to.
Because you have the last shot as the headshot and the first shot as the one that causes JFK's hands to move towards his throat you have no option but to believe the first shot must have been somewhere between z190-z200. As Zeon pointed out, you simply don't have enough time for the three shots otherwise.
It's the worst kind of research - you have to make the evidence fit, so you grab on to the few crumbs you can find in the copious testimonial record and ignore everything else.
Willis had a financial incentive to have people believe he had taken a photo of the first shot. The truth is the camera was probably still held up in front of his face when the first shot happened one second later. Just one second after his picture was taken the actual shot happened!
His evidence should be treated with the utmost caution as he had an ulterior motive for claiming he took the pic as a reaction to the first shot - it made his picture more valuable.
But you grab on to him with both hands because you have almost nothing else.
I have presented a wealth of evidence that refutes a shot before z222/223. Unlike you I don't need to grab onto anything I can find.
You have the assassin firing through the oak tree - you will never get around that.
Did Daddy Willis pay his daughters to go along with his money-making scheme? I doubt it.
"In particular it fits with Linda Willis' recollection..."
In another post you wrote:
"Linda Willis said that JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign when the first shot occurred. She was standing behind and just to the left of Phil Willis who took this photo at z202 when JFK had just passed between him and the Stemmons sign:"
Linda's got a really good memory of the moment of the first shot, she had the presence of mind to note where her father was and where she was in relation to him, and where JFK was in relation herself and a recognisable stationary object.
It's a really impressive recall. It's almost as if she had a picture of it.....hold on a second:
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5r7XH3P/Willis5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
She did have a picture of it!
And little Rosemary...come on, Andrew. That's been dealt with about a dozen times on this thread. Are you really that desperate?
Of course you are.
And good old T E Moore, stood hundreds of feet away directly behind the motorcade as it drove down Elm, with all those cars in between himself and the limo and no way of accurately gauging where the limo was in respect to the Thornton sign. Weak sauce indeed.
Why not use eyewitness testimony from someone who was really close up to the limo at the time of the first shot. Mary Woodward, perhaps, and her multiple statements that the first shot occurred after the President had turned forward after waving at her and her friends.
Yet more evidence refuting a shot before z200.
I know by now you will simply plow on with your tatty collection of dubious eyewitness accounts because you have no choice.
It is clear that you have presented all the arguments you have and they have all been dealt with in this thread.
If you have something new, let's hear it.
Ok, if a shot at z205-207 is plausible because it’s ALMOST clear of any significant foliage of the tree that would obstruct/ deflect the shot, then what’s the reason for the complete miss that did not even strike any part of the JFK limo let alone hit JFK or anyone else in the limo?My point is that on November 22, 1963 JFK was visible from the SN well before z205. I put the first shot around z195 based on evidence, some of which is:
If the theoretically 1st shot at Z207 DID hit JFK, then did it go thru and also hit Connally? Or did ALL shots hit, 2 hitting JFK and 1 hitting Connally?According to the evidence, all shots hit either JFK, JBC or both. Since the first bullet passed through JFK without hitting any bone and was travelling right to left, and since all the evidence indicates that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot, and since there is no evidence of the bullet striking the car, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the bullet struck JBC somewhere left of his right armpit. He was turned to the right at z190-200. The trajectory appears to be consistent with the bullet through JFK striking JBC in the left thigh:
| (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_4.jpg) | (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_3.jpg) |
The shot spread time from Z205-Z313 is approx 5.8 secs which is still a bit too close to be probable for an MC bolt action rifle to be the ONLY weapon used.I suggest the best fit with all the evidence is that the shots were very likely at: z195, z271, z313. That spacing is: 4.18 seconds and 2.31 seconds for a total of 6.5 seconds to reload, aim, shoot, reload aim, shoot. after pressing the trigger for the first shot. The FBI tests with the MC showed that this was certainly possible with that rifle. The shortest overall time (using the scope to sight) was 4.6 seconds with 2.3 seconds between shots. They said it might be a bit less if one had practiced with operating the bolt-action for that rifle as Oswald had.(Robert Frazier, 3H446).
A 3 shots hit scenario, including 1 of them striking the head, within a 5.8 sec time frame, is a feat which to date has NOT been demonstrated by any trial reenactment by any person using an MC 6.5mm bolt action rifle
Phew!You thought I had a stroke and you were worried. I appreciate the thought...
You had me worried there for a second.
The mass of evidence I have presented in this thread confirm my original observation. That's it.But you don't acknowledge the contrary evidence. The only "evidence" that supports your view is that you think JFK and JBC are beginning their reactions to the first shot at about the same time.
If the preponderance of evidence would have pointed elsewhere, then I would have a different point of view.
Unlike you, the evidence forms my opinion.
For you to suggest I have ignored any of these points is either profound memory loss or a downright lie.Since the evidence from JBC is that he was NOT hit in the back by the first shot but recognized it as a rifle shot and turned around to check on JFK's condition, you seem to be awfully confident that his reaction and his right turn from z228-270 is to being hit in the back. What is the evidence that says he is wrong about that? Where have you acknowledged and dealt with this contrary evidence?
The Connally's evidence has been dealt with in minute detail in this thread in discussions that you yourself took part in.Reliability is not determined by pointing to a possible (I use that term lightly) motive. You need evidence that he acted on that motive.
The reliability of the Willis evidence has also been dealt with in this thread (and not just in the post you were responding to).
You really have no shame.
As I am convinced the bullet fragmented on contact with Connally's wrist, it can only have been a bullet fragment (or fragments) that caused Connally's thigh wound.You may be convinced, but Dr. Gregory who examined the wound said it appeared to be made by the butt end of an intact missile (4 H 128). Dr. Shires debrided the wound down to the region of the femur. (CE392 at 17 H 20) The direction of the wound was along the femur not across the thigh as a fragment from the right wrist would have travelled.
The windshield damage was caused by fragments from the headshot.The unreliability of his testimony relates to when he said he slowed down and sped up. We can see in the zfilm that he did not speed up before he head shot.
The unreliability of Greer's testimony has been demonstrated in Technicolor in this thread.
Tague was unsure whether it was the second or third shot. It was most likely caused by a bullet that missed it's target.You seem to be ignoring Tague's testimony after that statement (7 H 555):
The "Willis Family Testimony" was a discussed consensus of the group. Unfortunately for Andrew's theory, the mother Marilyn places the headshot as the second shot. Andrew always neglects to post this information.Some of those answers are attributed incorrectly to Mrs. Willis. Here is a copy of the note from Thompson's book:
From Pat Speer's website:
Marilyn Willis was the mother of the Willis girls and the wife of Phil Willis. She watched the shooting from the wall back behind the witnesses in the image above. (6-19-64 FBI report, CD1245 p. 44-45) “Mrs. Willis advised when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds following this she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy’s head “blow off and ringed by a red halo.” She stated she believes she heard another shot following this.” (11-29-66 Interview with Josiah Thompson, as recounted in Six Seconds in Dallas, 1967) (When asked if she felt Kennedy was hit by the first shot, Connally the second, and Kennedy the third) "Yes, that's right." (When asked if she'd felt this right away) "Oh, yes, from the very first thing." (When asked if it seemed clear) "That's right. The Warren Commission didn't seek us out and finally Linda and I were interviewed a long time later. But at home we all agreed. We stayed home there for a week just glued to the television. And we agreed all along as to how and what happened." (When asked again about when they all agreed) "The night that it happened."
Some of those answers are attributed incorrectly to Mrs. Willis. Here is a copy of the note from Thompson's book:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Willis_family_interview_29Nov66.JPG)
But your point is well taken. For what it is worth, it appears that all members of the Willis family were convinced - either from what they had observed, or from being convinced by each other, or both - that all three shots struck in the car, that JFK was hit by the first and third and that JBC was hit by the second shot.
The correct quote from Josiah Thompson's book was provided by Pat Speer. As usual, it is anybody's guess what you are going on about.Ok. So it was you that incorrectly attributed a couple of Mr. WIllis' answers to his wife.
Ok. So it was you that incorrectly attributed a couple of Mr. WIllis' answers to his wife.
It looks like the Willis family rained on your parade. If you have a problem with their answers and who said what, maybe you should take it up with them.?? I don't have any problem with their answers. If you have been following anthing I have been saying for the last 20 years or so you would know this.
?? I don't have any problem with their answers. If you have been following anthing I have been saying for the last 20 years or so you would know this.
I have been saying that the SBT is inconsistent with the evidence and that the evidence establishes that none of the three shots missed the limo. All members of the Willis family said as much, although I would attribute greatest weight to their recollection of the location of JFK at the time of the first shot.
You thought I had a stroke and you were worried. I appreciate the thought...But you don't acknowledge the contrary evidence. The only "evidence" that supports your view is that you think JFK and JBC are beginning their reactions to the first shot at about the same time.
Since the evidence from JBC is that he was NOT hit in the back by the first shot but recognized it as a rifle shot and turned around to check on JFK's condition, you seem to be awfully confident that his reaction and his right turn from z228-270 is to being hit in the back. What is the evidence that says he is wrong about that? Where have you acknowledged and dealt with this contrary evidence?
Reliability is not determined by pointing to a possible (I use that term lightly) motive. You need evidence that he acted on that motive.
As far as shame is concerned: you are the one suggesting, without a shred of evidence, that a World War II U.S. veteran and former member of the Texas legislature deliberately sacrificed his sterling reputation by lying under oath to the Warren Commission for an opportunity to make a few extra tourist dollars to try to enhance the value of his (already very important and valuable) photo. And you think I am the one who should feel shame?
You may be convinced, but Dr. Gregory who examined the wound said it appeared to be made by the butt end of an intact missile (4 H 128). Dr. Shires debrided the wound down to the region of the femur. (CE392 at 17 H 20) The direction of the wound was along the femur not across the thigh as a fragment from the right wrist would have travelled.
The unreliability of his testimony relates to when he said he slowed down and sped up. We can see in the zfilm that he did not speed up before he head shot.
But we can see in the zfilm that he turned around to see JBC twice before the head shot, just as he said he did before the third and last shot. And that fits exactly with what Hickey and Powers said they observed. It also fits with Nellie's recollection that she looked at JFK and saw him clutching at his upper body before the second shot and did not look back after the second shot. I am struggling to find any evidence at all that conflicts with a second shot at that time.
You seem to be ignoring Tague's testimony after that statement (7 H 555):
Mr. LIEBELER Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn’t say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER . Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?
Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the
Hertz clock. It was 12:29.
Also, Tague was hit by a lead fragment of a bullet that deflected off the concrete curb. The undamaged curb showed presence of lead and antimony but no copper (FBI report 21 H 476).
Also, Greer said he sensed a "concussion" effect on the second shot but not on any other shot. That dent in the windshield frame must have produced some kind of impact sound a few inches above his right ear:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/ce349.jpg)
Sure it is, right down to the second shot head shot and a third shot sometime later.One doesn't need to figure anything out. Others who were there observed the last shot as the head shot:
Good luck with it. Someday you will figure it out. I have faith in you.
Do you mean post #605: "The possibility exists Nellie is mistaken" or post #616: "Nellie Connally is mistaken in believing JBC cries out before being hit." or your suggestion in post #625 in response to me pointing out that "we have only JBC's evidence to go by, which is that he felt the impact and saw that he had been shot but did not recall hearing the sound of the shot." saying "I'll need some kind of evidence for this baloney, otherwise we'll go with the common sense explanation - there was no second shot to hear."
The accusation that I don't acknowledge or deal with deal contrary evidence, coming from you, is laughable.
Other than the recently mentioned T E Moore, who Jerry dealt with, name a single piece of evidence I have not acknowledged or dealt with.
The evidence relating to the Connallys is present throughout the thread but is most specifically dealt with in a discussion we had between Reply#587 and Reply#642.
The only "evidence" that supports your view is that you think JFK and JBC are beginning their reactions to the first shot at about the same time.You are unintentionally making my point. All you do is repeat how convinced you are that JBC is reacting to being shot in the back beginning about z228. To deal with Nellie and JBC's clear evidence that he was not hit in the back by that first shot you need other evidence that he was hit in the back.
This is from Reply#587
The close-up of the Z-film below focusses on JBC. It begins with him looking to his right, towards the people lining Elm St. He has a quick look to his left then resumes looking to his right. By z167 JBC has completed his turn to the left and is looking towards the crowds to his right. He stays in this position, looking towards the crowd to his right, as he passes behind the Stemmons sign:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3wrdQQr/JBC-close-3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The pic below shows JBC as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign. He seems composed and untroubled, certainly in no physical discomfort. It appears he is in the same position as when he passes behind the sign.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6XW7Zvw/ZAP-JFK-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
So after his turn to the left (@ z160's), JBC is looking to his right (from z167 onwards), towards the crowds on his right. He stays in this position as he passes behind the sign and is in the same position as he emerges from behind the sign, looking composed and untroubled.
From this seemingly relaxed position JBC undergoes a rapid and extreme reaction. He is holding his Stetson hat which is resting in his lap. Between frames z222 and z228 the Stetson suddenly leaps up to his face. This action takes approximately one third of a second. It is incredibly quick. Up to this point the hat has been resting in his lap then suddenly, at exactly the same moment JFK is making his incredibly rapid movements, JBC also "decides" to make an incredibly rapid movement of his own:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydtwF0TS/JBC-close-z222-230.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This movement is so rapid it's difficult to see exactly how high the Stetson gets. In the zframe below (z228), the whitish blob in front of JBC's face is the Stetson.
Do you acknowledge the evidence that JBC makes this incredibly quick movement as soon as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign?No. It is quick, but quite credible. He said he heard the shot and recognized it as a rifle shot, turned around to see JFK, fearing an assassination taking place. That is what it looks like he is doing from z228 to z270.
One doesn't need to figure anything out. Others who were there observed the last shot as the head shot:
- Phil Willis and Linda Willis observed it.
- Ike Altgens observed it.
- The Connallys observed it.
- Clint Hill observed it.
- SA Wm. Greer observed it.
- SA George Hickey observed it.
- SA Glen Bennett observed it.
- Dave Powers observed it.
- Kenneth O'Donnell observed it.
- Gayle Newman observed it.
- Abraham Zapruder observed it.
- Mary Woodward observed it.
- etc.
I guess "one" is you and you are right you have never figured anything out or you would not have chosen this group of witnesses to make some bizarre point.The "bizarre point" is that they all said the head shot was the last shot. If you think that is strange and unusual you need to read more.
The "bizarre point" is that they all said the head shot was the last shot. If you think that is strange and unusual you need to read more.
“One” has managed to compare witnesses with statements indicating a missed first shot, with a missed second shot, with a missed third shot, with two shot witnesses and with witnesses who state the second shot is the head shot, with witnesses who state they discussed the event and came to agreed conclusion. How about clue in and dump this idiot nonsense.Ok. But there is a lot of evidence that the head shot was the last shot. You don't happen to find that evidence persuasive but many do. The only thing "bizarre" about a conclusion based on acceptance of that evidence is you calling it bizarre and idiot nonsense.
Do you mean post #605: "The possibility exists Nellie is mistaken" or post #616: "Nellie Connally is mistaken in believing JBC cries out before being hit." or your suggestion in post #625 in response to me pointing out that "we have only JBC's evidence to go by, which is that he felt the impact and saw that he had been shot but did not recall hearing the sound of the shot." saying "I'll need some kind of evidence for this baloney, otherwise we'll go with the common sense explanation - there was no second shot to hear."
This is not dealing with their evidence. You need to show evidence that conflicts with their clear statements that he was was hit on the second shot. Gayle Newman said he was directly in front of her when hit by the second shot - she was 15 feet away from him - and said he "kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car" (24 H 218)
You are unintentionally making my point. All you do is repeat how convinced you are that JBC is reacting to being shot in the back beginning about z228. To deal with Nellie and JBC's clear evidence that he was not hit in the back by that first shot you need other evidence that he was hit in the back.
There are, of course, the statements of JBC and Nellie to the WC stating that they think that JBC was hit in frames z230 to z234.
Had you raised that evidence, which as far as I can see is the only evidence that JBC was hit that early, I would have shown how that evidence conflicts the rest of the evidence that shows that the second shot and third shots were in rapid succession. It also conflicts with Nellie's statements that JBC said "Oh, no, no" before the second shot (he is saying it around z245) and that she never looked back after the second shot. She turns to look at JFK in the z250's until z270. It also conflicts with evidence that JBC turned around to see JFK after the first and before the shot that hit him in the back. There is no attempt to turn around to see JFK before z230.No. It is quick, but quite credible. He said he heard the shot and recognized it as a rifle shot, turned around to see JFK, fearing an assassination taking place. That is what it looks like he is doing from z228 to z270.
On the one hand, it is genuinely staggering that you openly refuse to acknowledge JBC's movement as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of this key piece of evidence regarding the shooting of JBC. It is there for all to see.When have I ever refused to acknowledge JBC's movement as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign? It is plain as day. Have you not read anything I have written?
On the other, it's not surprising, in fact I knew you were going to do it, which is exactly why I asked the question. Having dealt with your feeble attempts to bolster your dead theory for some time, I've noticed something about your approach to handling the numerous pieces of evidence that end your dead theory. Your replies can often contain falsehood and misrepresentation, but at all times there is denial.Of course. He was not hit in the back by it and he never felt the bullet striking his thigh. He was momentarily processing the sound that he had just heard and begins reacting at z228 - not to being hit by it but by recognizing it as a rifle shot and fearing and assassination was underway.
You have revealed the depths of your denial to anyone reading this thread.
Just to reiterate the key piece of evidence you are refusing to acknowledge:
The z-frame below [z223] shows JBC as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign. He seems calm and composed. There is not the slightest hint he is in discomfort as he looks towards the thinning crowds to his right. This is how he looked as he passed behind the Stemmons sign.
And let us not forget - according to your dead theory, by this frame Connally has already been shot in the leg, having been shot in the leg before he passed behind the Stemmons sign [ :D ] Just one of the many pieces of evidence you have to retreat into denial from.
After having emerged from behind the sign JBC's calm demeanor quickly vanishes as he begins to thrash around. From a seemingly relaxed position his arm rockets upwards so that his Stetson is suddenly in front of his face. This action takes 0.33 seconds to complete. One third of a second!A rifle shot, obviously.
As has been demonstrated elsewhere in this thread, at the exact moment JBC begins his incredibly rapid arm movement, behind him JFK also begins his own incredibly rapid arm movement - at the same split second.
What could cause both men to suddenly move with incredible rapidity at exactly the same moment?
When have I ever refused to acknowledge JBC's movement as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign? It is plain as day. Have you not read anything I have written?
Of course. He was not hit in the back by it and he never felt the bullet striking his thigh. He was momentarily processing the sound that he had just heard and begins reacting at z228 - not to being hit by it but by recognizing it as a rifle shot and fearing and assassination was underway.
You assume that he necessarily would have immediately felt a bullet striking his thigh. He said he never felt the thigh wound.
It may surprise you but bullets are not often felt unless it hits a nerve or hits bone with a lot of force. Don't take it from me, listen to someone who knows what it feels like to be shot (she talks about her chest wound at about 5:05):
See also her TikTok video (download first and then play if it stops midway) (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/feeling_being_shot_5June22_TTok_copy.mp4)
This woman was shot during a bank robbery in the chest and wrist. She felt neither impact but did immediately feel the effect of the wrist wound because the bullet hit a nerve. She did not feel the chest wound at all and didn't even notice it until minutes later when someone noticed she was bleeding in the chest.
A rifle shot, obviously.
??I said "No. It is quick, but quite credible".
Reply#1089 towards the top of the last page.
I presented the film/photographic evidence that as JBC emerged from behind the Stemmons sign he appeared calm and relaxed and in an instant he made an incredibly quick thrashing movement.
I asked you:
"Do you acknowledge the evidence that JBC makes this incredibly quick movement as soon as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign?"
You replied- "No."
There's no point in back-tracking now.
Between Z222 and Z226, Kennedy and Connally are simultaneously reacting involuntarily to a shot (SBT) that struck about Z221/Z222. Their conscious reactions may begin at Z226 (if Kennedy's right hand towards the throat Z225-Z226 is voluntary). Z227 is blurred; the two men appear to reaction voluntarily at Z228.Very persuasive Jerry. Really. I now see what you guys have been saying and I have to say that I have finally realized I have been wrong about the SBT. I am now convinced that really did happen the way you have been saying. I don't know how I missed it. I apologize to Dan and you and Jack and all the others for being so intransigent about wanting to follow the witness evidence. More to follow.
Not this thing about the "look of horror".
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1OEOuvgazA8c9RdNDiDt8YWP-PeuKfplJ)
The cupped right hand could be involuntary, given the nerve trauma near the cervical spine. Or it could be Kennedy was about to rest it that way on the car rail, as he had done during the motorcade.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1WCKxX5-klHSp5xu3iQJaJIA8CHjUe8CX)
The President had been waving with his right arm as he approached the sign; he begins to lower that arm as the car takes him behind the sign. Between Z224 and Z225, the right arm continues lowering. The hand diverts towards the throat Z226/Z226.
Very persuasive Jerry. Really. I now see what you guys have been saying and I have to say that I have finally realized I have been wrong about the SBT. I am now convinced that really did happen the way you have been saying. I don't know how I missed it. I apologize to Dan and you and Jack and all the others for being so intransigent about wanting to follow the witness evidence. More to follow.To think that today of all days Andrew would give in....
I said "No. It is quick, but quite credible".
You are trying to relate his actions to an event at z223 or z224. If he was reacting at z228 to a shot at z223 or z224 it would be incredible as in not believable. According to the evidence he is reacting quickly, but believably so, to a shot about 1.5 seconds earlier that, according to his evidence, he heard but did not feel.
To accept your theory that JFK is NOT reacting to his neck wound prior to z226 one would have to explain the dramatic change from a smiling wave 1.5 seconds earlier to having curled hands and a look of horror on his face before he was shot. Was the clairvoyant President steeling himself for the bullet he was about to receive?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1q5awR3H0RJCh6pnpBbRSpLrBZzbsuBLm)She said the first shot occurred when the President's car was between her and the Stemmons sign. Do you think the people in front of her blocked her view of the car or the Stemmons sign? Do you think she had no idea where the car was when she heard the first shot? She said it was between her and the Stemmons sign. Do you think she had no idea where JFK was in the car when the car was between her and the Stemmons sign?
You think Linda Willis could see through people? She remembered a sign but it must have been the Thornton sign. Linda would have become familiar with her father's famous photo with just the Stemmons Frwy sign in it.
Rosemary's quarter-second visual check. Most people seeking the source of a strange noise look longer than that. Rosemary begins slowing and looking to her right (and away from the limousine) long before your cherry-pick. GIF animation is slowed down to quarter-speed.Well, she is coming to the end of the sidewalk and someone may have called to her to stop. She does not stop until z199. But she does turn her head noticeable backward at z204-207. We don't have any sprocket view until z212 and she is still looking back. She then turns back to watch the President's car from z214-217. It is hardly surprising that she would quickly look away and then return to looking at the main attraction?
Did somebody pay this witness?
I'm showing people who are sane and rational--and not wedded to your lamebrain pet theory--that Linda Willis's view of the limousine and most of the Stemmons Frwy Sign was blocked during the time frame you claim. Linda had a much better view when the limousine was between her and the Thornton Sign, a few seconds before her father snapped his No.5 picture.Not up to your usual rigour, Jerry. I expected a fancy overhead diagram showing how two people 15-20 feet ahead of her would block an entire 21 foot limousine 30 feet in front of them for the entire time it was passing in front of them. Go for it. Here's mine:
I think she merely misremembered the particular sign she saw because she had become more familiar with her father's famous photo that has the Stemmons sign prominently featured. She certainly can't see anything of the President in the Z190s and beyond, let alone him grab at his throat. I don't believe she lived near Dealey Plaza or went there regularly as a teenager.We are supposed to accept your speculation that she got mixed up on the sign? Do you have any evidence?
Z212 doesn't even show Rosemary's head as it was in Z212 because of the splice. Z213 is too blurred to determine anything. Personally I believe I see a good amount of flesh tone on Rosemary's hood in Z213.I am not the only one who sees Rosemary turning her head from z214-217. Roberdeau makes special mention of the turn:
Why don't you just admit that as the blur resolves, Rosemary's head is already turned towards the car?
When they go from three shots from the Depository to four-or-five shots with the head shot coming from the knoll, how else to explain it?You are referring to an interview given nearly 40 years after the events. This is after she has read and, apparently, been persuaded by all sorts of conspiracy kooks and even acted a part in Stone's movie JFK. Besides, we are not using her evidence for the direction or number of shots.
I let a lot of Mason's posts go by. Mason and you engage much more than I do.
The father also went CT-Simple. He originally thought all three shots came from the Depository. Years of cajoling from Loons would make anyone doubt what they saw. Doctors at Parkland recall Lifton trying to get them to confirm something they never saw.
I watched a few interviews with Linda Willis and she's totally into conspiracy and shots from the front. She said her father in 1964 noticed a train was removed from the No.5 photo. I doubt if that allegation came out earlier than the 1990s. But Linda has evolved what-to-her is an authentic memory of that. Not unusual as the human mind is not a digital camera.
I thought the Willis's were a nice common-sense Texan family. But hasn't the whole state gotten more CT-simple over the decades?
Did anybody interview her before 1979? Probably her first interviews were not influenced by CTs.
In any event, too bad for Mason and you that Rosemary slows down and looks to her right seconds before your theories would like.
Adults--even SS agents--would be more inclined to dismiss the first shot as a backfire or firecracker. Rosemary was very young and the loud report would have been more novel to her.
In any event, too bad for Mason and you that Rosemary slows down and looks to her right seconds before your theories would like.One does not have to rely on anything Rosemary said to use her sudden turn at z204-207 (which is the only time she is looking back at the TSBD) together with other evidence to see that the turn is in response to the first shot. That other evidence includes her father's statement that his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot, together with Jack Ready's statement that he turned immediately after hearing the first shot (he begins turning at z199).
Why?
What does Rosemary Willis have to do with any theory I'm proposing?
It's you and Andrew who are cherry-picking from her various dubious statements in order to prop up your own defunct theories.
It's embarrassing to watch.
Adults--even SS agents--would be more inclined to dismiss the first shot as a backfire or firecracker. Rosemary was very young and the loud report would have been more novel to her.Jerry likes to explain away the evidence he does not like. As far as the Secret Service agents reacting, one can see Jack Ready remove his right hand from the front handhold at z199 and begin his turn around that is complete by z256 as seen in the Altgens photo. He said he turned immediately in response to the first shot.
This is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever posted.
If you'd bother to read some of the testimonies of the Secret Service agents in the Presidential back-up car you'd find some of them reacted immediately to the first shot. The reason they are not seen reacting in the Z-film is because the first shot isn't until z222/z223, at which time they are no longer in the film [see OP of this thread]
Your defense of little Rosemary's superior shot-recognition capabilities is beyond desperate.
We have seen film proof that both JFK and JBC are making extremely rapid movements just as they emerge from behind the Stemmons sign [Reply#1087, page 136].He goes from smiling and waving at z193-z196 to a very different position and expression in z224, a time span of about 1.5 seconds:
Scientific proof had been presented that a detectable reflex reaction can occur within 2 Z-frames [Reply#1103]
What frame does JBC first show signs of reacting?
It seems clear, to me at least, that JBC is showing no signs of a physical reaction in z223, the picture below.
This appears to be the same position and posture he has before he passes behind the Stemmons sign.
After this frame JBC's physical appearance and appearance begin to rapidly change:First of all, Itek is interpreting just the film with the knowledge that Connally had been hit. I do not see that they were aware that he said he and Nellie said he was hit in the back by a different shot than the one that struck JFK. I do not see that Itek was aware that the Connallys said that JBC reacted to the first shot, that did not hit him in the back, by turning around to check on JFK. I also don't see where they have any expertise in identifying what a reaction to a chest bullet wound should look like let alone what this one should look like.
In 1976 the Itek Corporation, specialists in photographic analysis, looked at the issue of exactly when Connally was showing a reaction to being hit. The following is their report.
By frame 232-234 there is strong evidence that the Governor is reacting to a significant effect on his body; or from other data, to a bullet wound. He placed the time of his reaction at 234. We studied the film in this area to determine if there were any striking changes in his physical appearance which could be interpreted as the onset of a reaction. Five photo analysts studied the original film from frames 222-240. They all concluded independently that somewhere between 223-226 there are signs of the beginning of a significant change in the governor's position and appearance. Some of their comments are paraphrased below.
— As Connally first clears the obscuring sign on frame 221, his facial features are not discernable or distinct. Frames 222 and 223 show no unusual action and Connally's face and features remain frozen (normal). With frame 224, I observe a slight grimace, a minor body twist, a slight arching of the back and a rearward head motion. These reactions continue on frame 225 which includes a slight hiking up in the seat. By frame 226 Connally's head is turned forward which I judged to be a rapid reaction. Frame 227 yields no information due to the high amount of smear, but the following frames 228, 9 and 30 indicate a rapid reaction of the hand holding the Stetson which was flicked up and down quickly.I agree. It is just that, according to the evidence, JFK was reacting to being hit by the first shot and JBC was reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot (and realizing that an assassination was taking place) and turning to check on JFK.
— I observe a rotation of the Governor's body from right to left beginning at frame 223. It isn't obvious that this is significant relative to the study objective, however I also observe what I would consider an involuntary and unusual motion of his right hand and arm at 225. Before 225, his hand is hidden from Zapruder's view, down below the edge of the door. At 225-226 it can be seen to travel rapidly upward until it is about level with his chin in 228. From 228-230 he flips his hat rapidly. At 229 it appears upside down in his hand with the thin edge of the brim extending toward Zapruder. By 230 the hat has flipped so that one can now see into it. This all takes place within less than 1/3 of a second so it would appear to be somewhat unusual.
— At frame #223 he is turned in the jump seat sitting well into the car. I noticed a facial expression changing between #223 and 224 to a grimacing look. His body has moved forward (toward the edge of the car) with his right shoulder twisting to his left and downward. Between frames #225 and 226 a rapid motion of the Governor's right hand begins, i.e. #225 - his hand inside of car, #226 - his Stetson hat appears over the edge of the car, #228 - the hat is up in front of his chin concealing it. At #229 and 230 he flips his hat from edge on to a view of looking at the inside of it.
Source: "John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis" — Itek Corporation, May 2, 1976, pp. 36-39 Emphasis in original.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm)[/b]
The Zapruder film reveals when JFK begins his extreme and rapid reaction.
As he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign his LEFT ARM is down by his side. It is down by his side as he passes behind the Stemmons sign. The pic below shows his LEFT ARM down by his side in z193 [the last clear frame before he passes behind the Stemmons sign] alongside z224, the first clear frame of JFK as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign.
From being down at his side, JFK's LEFT ARM suddenly rockets upwards. It is an incredibly rapid movement. The gif below shows the beginning of this incredibly rapid movement:
z224 shows the left arm down by the side. The left elbow is hidden below the edge of the door.
z225 shows a slight movement of the left arm but the left elbow is still below the edge of the door.
z226 shows the left arm is definitely beginning to rise as the left elbow comes above the edge of the door.
From being down by his side in z224, JFK's LEFT ARM shoots up to this extreme position in z232
This movement occurs in 0.44 seconds. It is an extreme and rapid reaction that begins at z225.
The Z-film proves both men had extreme and rapid reactions beginning at the same moment from a resting position.
Yeah Andrew. That's what's being said.Your premise that you want me to accept by answering "yes" is that his reaction beginning at about z227-228 is "incredibly quick" to a stimulus at z222/223. But that is not the evidence as to when the first shot occurred. The evidence is that it occurred somewhat earlier, some time shortly before z202 and after z186. A reaction beginning at z228 to a stimulus (sound) that occurred about 2 seconds earlier is not incredibly quick but is understandable. He first had to hear and process the sound, recognize it as a rifle shot, appreciate the significance of a rifle shot during a presidential motorcade, realize concern for the President's safety and begin a motor response of turning around to look at the President.
"Do you acknowledge the evidence that JBC makes this incredibly quick movement as soon as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign?"
The answer to this question is either Yes or No.
You have chosen No.
You've written it down Andrew.
It's on the record.
You point-blank refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with your dead theory.I am reluctant to accept opinions that conflict with well corroborated bodies of evidence. You need evidence, not interpretations of what you think is causing the things seen in the zfilm. The Connallys provide that evidence.
Now I've pointed out your denial, you have started back-tracking.
Both men are making incredibly rapid movements as they emerge from behind the Stemmons sign.It seems to me that JFK's reaction may have begun well before the sign and possibly as he is disappearing behind it (z198 and after). This is what the photographic panel of the HSCA found. That in itself does not persuade me but at least you can't say that I am the only person in the world who has considered this to be possible. I can't tell from the film when he begins to react. I base my conclusion about when it happened on other evidence (Phil Willis, Linda Willis, Jack Ready, Rosemary Willis' turn etc).
This cannot be denied. It is there for all to see in the Z-film.
The obvious candidate for causing the men to react so violently at exactly the same moment is a bullet passing through both of them [or that they were shot by different bullets at exactly the same moment].
But is it exactly the same moment and does this violent reaction begin after they have emerged from behind the sign?
You can't use a shot hitting JBC in the right armpit on the first shot to prove that his reaction is due to being hit in the right armpit on the first shot. That is circular reasoning. All the evidence says that JFK was hit by the first shot and that he is reacting to the effects of that injury in the z220s. But the evidence is that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot, not the first, and he felt the impact at the time and immediately knew he was shot. According to all the evidence there was only one shot at the point when they begin to react. The second was some time after the midpoint between the neck shot and the head shot. So JBC's reaction at z228 - z250 is to something other than being hit in the back by a bullet.
If he was reacting at z228 to a shot at z223 or z224 it would be incredible as in not believable.
Rather than just your biased opinion about this why don't you provide some evidence backing up this point.
You argue a physical reaction within 4/5 z-frames would be "incredible". What is your evidence for this?
Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)JBC did not hear a car backfire 20 feet away. He heard a rifle shot 200 feet away. His reaction is not necessarily a startle reaction. He said it was a deliberate reaction based on recognition of the significance of the sound - a rifle shot - during a presidential motorcade.
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away.
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Compare_z193_z224.gif)
"...a look of horror on his face..."
:D :D :D
Some of the things you come up with are priceless.
"...having curled hands..."
What on earth are you talking about?
Jerry likes to explain away the evidence he does not like. As far as the Secret Service agents reacting, one can see Jack Ready remove his right hand from the front handhold at z199 and begin his turn around that is complete by z256 as seen in the Altgens photo. He said he turned immediately in response to the first shot.Not to mention Connally's dramatic head swing.
He goes from smiling and waving at z193-z196 to a very different position and expression in z224, a time span of about 1.5 seconds:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Compare_z193_z224.gif)
I am not alone in seeing a material difference. It is inconceivable that if he was hit at z222/3 while smiling and waving that he could have assumed the position seen in z224 (particularly since his hands are already in the same place in z223). The fact that it occurs very close to the time of the first shot leads to one of two conclusions: 1. he is reacting to being shot earlier 2. he was bracing himself for the shot before it hit. I would suggest 1. is the more reasonable.
First of all, Itek is interpreting just the film with the knowledge that Connally had been hit. I do not see that they were aware that he said he and Nellie said he was hit in the back by a different shot than the one that struck JFK. I do not see that Itek was aware that the Connallys said that JBC reacted to the first shot, that did not hit him in the back, by turning around to check on JFK. I also don't see where they have any expertise in identifying what a reaction to a chest bullet wound should look like let alone what this one should look like.
I agree. It is just that, according to the evidence, JFK was reacting to being hit by the first shot and JBC was reacting to hearing it, recognizing it as a rifle shot (and realizing that an assassination was taking place) and turning to check on JFK.
Not to mention Connally's dramatic head swing.
You're having one of your 'senior moments', Andrew.Yes, but you are basing JBC's reaction time on the same bullet striking him at z222/223. And that is based on JFK beginning his reaction at z226 and not before. I am simply pointing out that JFK is already reacting at z223 so the shot was earlier.
The post you were responding to was about John Connally, not John Kennedy. JBC, not JFK.
The Itek Corporation are specialists in photographic analysis, no less than five photo analysts examined the Z-film and all, independently, came to the conclusion "that somewhere between 223-226 there are signs of the beginning of a significant change in the governor's position and appearance".Right. We can all see that. His reaction is developing as JBC realizes what he has just witnessed hearing. JFK changes his reaction as well a few frames earlier. He experiences the effects of not being able to breathe. That does not tell you when the bullet hit. A person breathes about once every 4 seconds. We know this wound interfered with his breathing.
You'll excuse me if I lean on this analysis as opposed to your own 'expert' opinion.Unlike JFK who is not calm and composed in z224. There is a dramatic change in his expression and body. JBC is still processing what he has just heard.
The bottom line is that, as JBC emerges from behind the Stemmons sign he is. apparently calm and composed. There are no signs of distress. He is in the same position and posture as he passes behind the Stemmons sign.
The analysis by the Itek Corporation and my own analysis of the Z-film in this thread demonstrate, beyond doubt, it is after this moment JBC suddenly starts to make very extreme and very rapid movements.That is where JBC begins to show a reaction. Mind you, he has already turned forward and may have been looking around. But to suggest that he starts reacting at z228 to being hit in the back is where we strongly disagree.
THE Z-FILM SHOWS THE MOMENT THIS REACTION BEGINS.
Of course, in your own analysis, in the picture of JBC above, he has been shot over one and a half seconds before this z-frame, leading you to make the hilarious suggestion that Connally didn't notice being shot.I have been saying forever that he was NOT shot in the back there. I am saying it is likely that the bullet through JFK struck his thigh. He said he never felt the thigh wound. It should not surprise you to learn that people often do not feel being shot.
And that's the pickle you're in. Because you've put all your eggs in the Phil Willis basket you have a first shot in the mid z190's - this leads to certain, ridiculous notions, which you have to pretend don't exist.Such as JBC not feeling the thigh wound? Not only would that not be unusual, that is exactly what the evidence says: he did not feel the thigh wound.
So, you agree with my analysis that the Z-film shows the moment JFK begins his radical, extreme and rapid reactions to being shot, beginning around z225.That is what the evidence says. All the evidence says that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot. The second shot has not yet occurred when JBC starts his reaction at z228. Nellie said he uttered "oh, no, no" before the second shot that she saw him recoil from. JBC admitted that he said it not because he was hit but because of the tragedy that he realized was unfolding.
And that JBC began his extreme and rapid movements at the same time.
Good for you.
You just think JBC is having this intense physical reaction and screaming "Oh, no, no, no" because he is upset that the day is going to be spoiled and not because he's been shot.
I think you can add that to the list of certain ridiculous things you have to accept.
Blah, Blah, Blah, same old wore out information that absolutely leads nowhere.
Quite a discussion. Neither of you can even provide any evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. Let alone when this phantom shot occurred.
All the evidence indicates there were only two shots. Eyewitness testimony is all about just two shots. The physical evidence is all about two shots. Both the WC and HSCA state the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. You can't place the bullet wound in JBC's back unless the bullet first passes through JFK's neck.
It does not take much imagination to understand the assassination when you realize the answer is there were only two shots fired.
| (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.jpg) |
|
The Connally Head Swing!
Was that a 1960's dance craze?
Please enlighten us - when was the Connally Head Swing?
Looking at Z-223 to Z224 frames , the right elbow of JFK appears to me to BEGIN to move from a comfortable rest position at Z223 to START an upward movement at Z224.There is, of course, another explanation to what is seen: what JBC and Nellie said he did after the first shot. He said he turned in response to hearing the first shot. His right hand is down by his right side holding the stetson. In order to turn right, which he starts doing at about z231, he had to raise his right arm and lean forward so he had room to turn.
There might be some more analytical measuring methods that already exist , in videos of other threads to show just how closely in sync is the START of the motion of JFK s right elbow with the START of Connallys right shoulder beginning to turn counterclockwise , an effect caused by angular momentum imparted by the bullet impact to Connelly right side.
So it seems improbable that the shot was fired earlier than at z223 and the body movements in both men are due to delayed nervous system response. The reason being , that it violates a basic physics principle of one mass impacting another mass, which results in immediate transfer of momentum from one to the other.
[...]
So it seems improbable that the shot was fired earlier than at z223 and the body movements in both men are due to delayed nervous system response. The reason being , that it violates a basic physics principle of one mass impacting another mass, which results in immediate transfer of momentum from one to the other.
Yes, but you are basing JBC's reaction time on the same bullet striking him at z222/223. And that is based on JFK beginning his reaction at z226 and not before. I am simply pointing out that JFK is already reacting at z223 so the shot was earlier.
Right. We can all see that. His reaction is developing as JBC realizes what he has just witnessed hearing. JFK changes his reaction as well a few frames earlier. He experiences the effects of not being able to breathe. That does not tell you when the bullet hit. A person breathes about once every 4 seconds. We know this wound interfered with his breathing
Unlike JFK who is not calm and composed in z224. There is a dramatic change in his expression and body. JBC is still processing what he has just heard.
That is where JBC begins to show a reaction. Mind you, he has already turned forward and may have been looking around. But to suggest that he starts reacting at z228 to being hit in the back is where we strongly disagree.
I say that you cannot conclude that JFK has not started his reaction well before z224. You say he looks the same in z193 and z224. We'll have to simply say we don't agree.
I have been saying forever that he was NOT shot in the back there. I am saying it is likely that the bullet through JFK struck his thigh. He said he never felt the thigh wound. It should not surprise you to learn that people often do not feel being shot.
Such as JBC not feeling the thigh wound? Not only would that not be unusual, that is exactly what the evidence says: he did not feel the thigh wound.
That is what the evidence says. All the evidence says that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot. The second shot has not yet occurred when JBC starts his reaction at z228. Nellie said he uttered "oh, no, no" before the second shot that she saw him recoil from. JBC admitted that he said it not because he was hit but because of the tragedy that he realized was unfolding.
Blah, Blah, Blah, same old wore out information that absolutely leads nowhere.
Quite a discussion. Neither of you can even provide any evidence at all that there ever was a third shot. Let alone when this phantom shot occurred.
All the evidence indicates there were only two shots. Eyewitness testimony is all about just two shots. The physical evidence is all about two shots. Both the WC and HSCA state the witnesses were influenced by the media into inflating the number of shots. You can't place the bullet wound in JBC's back unless the bullet first passes through JFK's neck.
It does not take much imagination to understand the assassination when you realize the answer is there were only two shots fired.
Every compiled witness list has a completely different outcome. The one presented here by Andrew is especially suspect.
No, actual physical evidence there really was a third shot. This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements. An example would be Thomas Cannings testimony about SBT. How about explaining why there is not a shred of evidence of a third bullet.
This is nothing but endless banter over witness statements that leads nowhere. Especially, giving credibility to a child’s statement over the statements of all the adult eyewitnesses along the street, has to be a take all.
A group of people in an echo chamber claiming to hear something has very limited value as compared to what people heard and saw. Most eyewitnesses are two shots or an added shot sound after the second shot headshot.
SA Samuel Kinney , driver of the Secret Service car, is a good example. He could not have been closer.
“I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about four minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass . The first shot was fired, I glanced 'At the taillight of SS-100-X, , *I glanced at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left . Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head . With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.”
There is no doubt he thinks the first shot was the throat shot and the second shot was the headshot and then claims a shot with absolutely no reference or description to the shot sequence. Two shots and guess what, physical evidence of two bullets.
This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements.There is no legal requirement for corroboration of any kind. In any event, witness evidence can be corroborated by independent evidence of any kind, including other witness evidence. Witness evidence as to salient facts is generally reliable to begin with. (If the witness has a personal interest in a particular fact that may not be the case, but that is not the case here.) But when 80% of a large number of witnesses independently report having made the same observation, it would be highly unlikely for the witnesses to be wrong in the same way. If they are not independent, that is another matter. So, whether the vast majority of witnesses were wrong one just has to determine whether most of them were independent.
I couldn't agree more.
Eye or ear-witness testimony must be corroborated by other evidence.
The strength of your argument, as I understand it, is that there are many witnesses who alter their various statements from 2 shots to 3. This cannot be denied. Also, there is the amount of bullet remains recovered from the crime scene (Dealey Plaza and the limo). There does, indeed, appear to be a bullet missing which is mysterious, to say the least.Why would that be mysterious? We have evidence that bullet fragments hit the windshield and frame and at least one fragment happened to strike James Tague. So we know that not all fragments ended up in the car. There were two jacket fragments found in the car, one in the front compartment and one in the back. They were not necessarily from the same bullet - we really don't know whether the fragments are from 2 or 3 bullets.
This is the problem, endless gibberish about what people are reading into witness statements.
I couldn't agree more.
Eye or ear-witness testimony must be corroborated by other evidence.
That's what I've done throughout this thread.
The film/photographic record (in particular the Z-film), expert analysis, scientific studies, medical reports and on and on. All used to either corroborate, refute or simply clarify witness testimony.
The counter-arguments have consisted of cherry-picked and often contradictory eye-witness testimony treated as if it were absolute fact, not requiring corroborating evidence from any other source (other than further dubious, cherry-picked eye-witness testimony). Phil Willis is the perfect example of this.
The irony is that, after bemoaning what people read into eye-witness testimony, you do exactly that!
Your analysis of Kinney's statement is a classic example of reading into eye-witness testimony to support a self-serving interpretation.
In order to bolster your 2-shot theory you select a witness who testifies to hearing 3 shots!!
Kinney's testimony is contradictory but you have "no doubt" as to what he was actually saying. Your self-serving interpretation of Kinney's statement could hardly be a more classic example of reading into witness testimony.
The strength of your argument, as I understand it, is that there are many witnesses who alter their various statements from 2 shots to 3. This cannot be denied. Also, there is the amount of bullet remains recovered from the crime scene (Dealey Plaza and the limo). There does, indeed, appear to be a bullet missing which is mysterious, to say the least.
As far as my own theory is concerned, there is a missing shot that I can't account for and a 2-shot scenario would have no impact as to the evidence I have presented for a first shot at z222/z223.
I have come across hints and possibilities of evidence for a missing shot, but nothing compelling.
So with all the analysis what is the answer? More analysis of witness statements? There is not one thing written about defining the number of shots. It is all about where the shots occurred. SA Kinney’s statement was chosen based on yours and Andrew’s beliefs. Three shots with one undefined. The same could be said of Marilyn Willis’s statement. Are SA Kinney and Marilyn Willis right or wrong? If all the analysis was performed an answer should be possible.
Maybe you need to look farther, the shells are where the answer lies. All the rest of this seems to be a fool's game of pretending to try and confirm what can’t be confirmed.
This thread is about when the first shot occurred.It is a mistake to exclude evidence of the other shots in determining when the shots occurred. For example, based on the following evidence:
That's it.
If you have a contribution to make towards that, go for it.
I have presented a very strong case for this happening at z222/z223 using all kinds of evidence to sup5port it.
If you want a discussion about how many shots there were, start your own thread.
I can't recall a single contribution you've made regarding the topic of this thread.
It is a mistake to exclude evidence of the other shots in determining when the shots occurred. For example, based on the following evidence:
1. that there were exactly three shots and the third and last shot struck JFK in the head;
2. that the shot pattern was 1..........2.... .3 with the last two in rapid succession
3. from the three men on the 5th floor below the SN that all three shots came from the SN using a bolt action rifle.
4. that the rifle that was used to fire those shots was found on the 6th floor and found to belong to Oswald;
5. from the FBI tests, that 2.3 seconds is about that fastest time a shooter using Oswald's rifle could reload aim and shoot
leads to the conlusion that the first shot had to be at least a second before z222/223. A first shot at z222/223 would leave 90 frames for all 3 shots leaving at least 2.3 seconds between shots 2 and 3 (42 frames) and only 2.6 seconds (48 frames) between 1 and 2, which does not fit the 1........ 2...3 shot pattern.
I am not saying you have to accept all that evidence. I am just using that body of evidence to illustrate how evidence not relating directly to the time of the first shot affects the conclusion as to when the first shot occurred.
I am not saying you have to accept all that evidence.There is abundant evidence to support each of the points. You will have to define what you mean by "cherry-picked". Are you saying that the evidence relating to the head shot being the last shot is "cherry picked" or that the evidence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern is cherry-picked? What is the standard you are using to dismiss evidence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern that has the following distribution:
I know - you're saying I have to accept the cherry-picked, self-serving, tiny sliver of evidence you misinterpret to prop up your dead theory whilst ignoring the vast majority of evidence relating to when the first shot occurred.
Previously you posted:I thought I had answered this question, many times. At z223 JFK's right hand can't be seen. But it can be seen in z224 and z225 and it is part of what appears to be a significant change in facial expression, arm position, and hand posture compared to z193-z197. That has to be related to having received a bullet in the neck. So this tells us that the reaction to the bullet that traversed the neck started enough before z225 for the human body to react that way. That is likely more than 100 ms. which is the minimum time for the arms to move from their positions seen around z193 to that seen in z224 and for the facial expression to change from smiling to what is seen in z225. There is no basis on which anyone can conclude that JFK is not reacting in z225 or that his facial expression changed materially between z224 (when we see only his arms) and z225 (when we first see his face after emerging from being the sign).
"I am simply pointing out that JFK is already reacting at z223 so the shot was earlier."
And I asked this question, which you've ignored:
JFK's obvious reaction to being shot through the throat is for his hands to fly up towards the area of his throat, which is completely understandable.
IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT JFK'S RIGHT HAND IS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF THIS REACTION AT Z223?
I also asked this question, which you ignored:Yes. But the reaction to the first bullet consisted of more than just the position of the right arm. You are not acknowledging that his right hand is materially different in z224 and z225 than it was in z193.
DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILM EVIDENCE THAT JFK'S LEFT ARM IS DOWN BY HIS SIDE IN Z193 AND Z224?
If the 1st shot is impacting JFK at Z190, then should not we be able to see some kind indication of movement by JFK at that moment of impact?I would put the first shot passing through JFK a bit later than z190. Unfortunately z193 is the last clear frame before he passes behind the Stemmons sign so it is not possible to compare positions from frame to frame there.
If the entrance wound of the 1st bullet is actually at the neck rather than the back of JFK, then the volume of mass thru which the bullet traversed is small, and the resistance to the bullet much less than if the bullet had entered the back.
So maybe it’s possible that a small caliber bullet traveling at 2000 ft/sec could pass thru such small volume (neck) so fast as to impart such minimal transfer of energy that no movement of JFKs head forward would occur?
There is abundant evidence to support each of the points. You will have to define what you mean by "cherry-picked". Are you saying that the evidence relating to the head shot being the last shot is "cherry picked" or that the evidence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern is cherry-picked? What is the standard you are using to dismiss evidence of the 1........2...3 shot pattern that has the following distribution:There are numerous witnesses who support the head-shot as the last shot.
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_pattern_shots.jpg)
You seem to think I cherry-picked the evidence that puts the shot after z186 and before z202. Perhaps you can list the photographers other than Betzner and Willis whose evidence brackets the first shot (Betzner's taken before and Willis' just after) and whose evidence I ignored.
You think I "cherry-picked" Rosemary Willis (who turns her head toward the TSBD on hearing the loud noise and said she saw birds fly from the TSBD) or Jack Ready (who said he turned immediately on hearing the first shot). Who else said they did things in response to the first shot that I omitted to mention?
Rather, it is you who insists that the only evidence that matters is your interpretation of what you think you are seeing after z222. You dismiss all the other evidence. That is not even cherry-picking. That is simply ignoring all the evidence because all of the evidence conflicts with some subjective impression you have. Fact finding is not religion. Facts have to be based on evidence. They rarely, if ever, conflict starkly with large independent bodies of evidence.
I thought I had answered this question, many times. At z223 JFK's right hand can't be seen. But it can be seen in z224 and z225 and it is part of what appears to be a significant change in facial expression, arm position, and hand posture compared to z193-z197. That has to be related to having received a bullet in the neck. So this tells us that the reaction to the bullet that traversed the neck started enough before z225 for the human body to react that way. That is likely more than 100 ms. which is the minimum time for the arms to move from their positions seen around z193 to that seen in z224 and for the facial expression to change from smiling to what is seen in z225. There is no basis on which anyone can conclude that JFK is not reacting in z225 or that his facial expression changed materially between z224 (when we see only his arms) and z225 (when we first see his face after emerging from being the sign).
Yes. But the reaction to the first bullet consisted of more than just the position of the right arm. You are not acknowledging that his right hand is materially different in z224 and z225 than it was in z193.
There are numerous witnesses who support the head-shot as the last shot.And you don't have to accept that the head shot was the last shot. You can choose your interpretation of Brehm's evidence over the evidence of the Connallys all the Secret Service agents Hill, Greer, Bennett, Hickey, Landis as well as Altgens, Zapruder, Woodward, Powers etc. and imagine, for some reason, that after hitting the bullseye the shooter would try another shot and miss the entire car. All I am saying is that IF the head shot was the last shot, the shot pattern necessarily puts the first shot at least a second earlier than z222/223 (which also fits the rest of the evidence including Phil Willis etc).
There are also numerous witnesses who support a shot after the head-shot.
When there is contradictory witness testimony, as there is about whether the head-shot was the last shot or not, it is imperative to call on other types of evidence to make the best determination.I don't ignore Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Jackie Kennedy, possibly Royce Skelton (remind me of the "numerous" other witnesses) whose statements could be interpreted as hearing a shot after the head shot. I am not persuaded that they provide evidence of a third shot after the head shot, let alone reliable evidence. In any reasonable analysis of all the evidence, the vast preponderance of evidence weighs against a shot after the head shot. You don't have to agree with that. That is why we have juries.
But you've not done that.
You have simply accepted the head-shot as the last shot and ignored all other witness testimony to the contrary. And it is this poor methodology that has led to the downfall of your dead theory.
We both agree about the shot pattern as there is plenty of witness testimony to support it.It is not rocket science. There is strong evidence (from those who saw or heard a bolt action rifle in the SN) that all the shots came from a bolt action rifle. A bolt action rifle was found on the 6th floor. No other rifle was found. A bullet (CE399) was fired by Oswald's bolt action rifle. We have abundant evidence that the last two shots were in rapid succession. I am not saying that this means the last shot was 2.3 seconds after the second. I am saying that 2.3 seconds is the minimum time between those shots from the bolt action rifle. Therefore the first shot had to be at least a second before z222/223 to fit the pattern. If the second could have been more than 2.3 seconds before the head shot, then the first shot would have to have been somewhat more than a second before z222 to fit the 1..........2....3 shot pattern.
For you, this means the second shot was 2.3 seconds [how long it takes to operate the MC] before the head-shot, around z271/z272.
Your utterly bizarre attempts to support this notion have been thoroughly destroyed in this thread.
But the main problem for you is that you cannot have a shot around z223 as this would not follow the shot pattern. A shot around z223 would have a pattern of three equally spaced shots.That is not correct. The shot pattern evidence supports but does not necessarily put a first shot earlier than z202. There is a lot of other evidence that does that. The evidence that a first shot could not have been as late as z223 corroborates the abundant evidence that the first shot was just before z202.
It is for this reason, and this reason alone, you have to insist on a shot in the mid-z190's - so it can fit the shot pattern.
And that's it.
So you have the assassin shooting through the oak tree just because it fits the shot pattern.The Secret Service film shows that JFK was visible by the time JFK was opposite or just past the lampost and just before the Thornton Freeway sign. That is between z190 and z200. Besides, it was easy for the shooter to track JFK while he was passing under those outer branches of the oak tree so firing as soon as he was clear (or maybe even a bit earlier) was certainly doable.
And this is where your cherry-picking kicks in - any witness that even remotely supports a shot in the mid-z190's is cherry-picked at the expense of all other witnesses, which is why Phil Willis is gold dust as far as you're concerned.Please let us know what other witnesses I have to expend in order to accept Phil Willis, Rosemary Willis, Linda Willis, Hugh Betzner, etc.
At the beginning of your post you ask me to define cherry-picking. There's no need as your cherry-picking is on full view in this post.Ready is standing on the right front running board with both hands on the right handhold. In order to turn right he first has to remove his right hand from the hand hold. He does that beginning at z199 and starts his turn. We do not see him after z207 in the zfilm but in Altgens 5 at z256 he is completely turned around.
Who else said they did things in response to the first shot that I omitted to mention?
Landis and Hickey for a start.
Jack Ready is standing front right of the follow-up car. His job is to scan to the front and right as they travel along. In the Z-film Ready is seen looking to his left after which he resumes looking to the front/right. As he passes out of the Z-film around z207, he is scanning front/right. There is not a hint that he is making a head turn to his right rear, as he said he did after hearing the first shot.
You cherry-pick Ready instead, and leave Landis and Hickey out.You might want to reread their statements.
Does this define cherry-picking for you? Choosing the action of one person because you can twist an interpretation out of it but leaving out two others who don't fit the bill?
And let's not forget - little Rosemary running alongside the follow-up car has supposedly heard the shot, slowed down and looked around at the TSBD while a car full of Secret Service agents fail to react!!
It shows how desperate you are.
Landis and Hickey also said they immediately turned to their right rear after the first shot and there is absolutely no sign of either agent doing this in the Z-film.
There is a very simple way to determine whether JFK was reacting before he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign.I might agree with you if I thought you were correct. But you appear to assume that, if he is reacting prior to z227 to being shot, his reaction prior to z227 would have to be the same as the reaction from 227 and after. Why? I see a preliminary reaction which looks like he is sensing something is wrong (up to z226) then a panic kind of reaction where he brings his hands up to his throat and slides down and forward on his seat and as if he is struggling to breathe (z227 to about z255) and then a third reaction which is a steady leftward and forward lean as Jackie reaches out to hold his left arm.
You would have JFK's right hand showing his is reacting to being shot as it emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, whereas it is my contention that JFK's right hand is lowering back to it's usual position after waving.
We first see JFK's right hand at z224.
If you are right then his right hand should be moving upwards, towards his throat, in the next frame, z225
If I am right then his right hand should lower in z225 as his hand returns to it's usual position.
Above is evidence that JFK's right hand lowers between z224 and z225, refuting your contention that he is reacting to being shot and supporting my contention that his hand is still in the process of lowering as his reaction to being shot has not begun between these two frames.
It is in the next frame, z226, that JFK's right hand moves towards his throat.I don't say it is not possible. I just say that he is already reacting behind the sign so it doesn't apply here.
That is likely more than 100 ms.
In Reply#1103 I provided scientific evidence that a reflex reaction can be detected within 2 Z-frames. This evidence was published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):
I asked you if you accepted this scientific evidence but it appears you have not.
You have JFK's reaction occurring about 30 Z-frames after being shot, 15 times longer than the scientific evidence allows for.But you are assuming, again for some unknown reason, that he is not already reacting behind the Stemmons sign! (Also, you are assuming that a shot in that location would trigger a reflex response. There is no evidence that it touched any nerves, but that is a minor point perhaps).
And you don't have to accept that the head shot was the last shot. You can choose your interpretation of Brehm's evidence over the evidence of the Connallys all the Secret Service agents Hill, Greer, Bennett, Hickey, Landis as well as Altgens, Zapruder, Woodward, Powers etc. and imagine, for some reason, that after hitting the bullseye the shooter would try another shot and miss the entire car. All I am saying is that IF the head shot was the last shot, the shot pattern necessarily puts the first shot at least a second earlier than z222/223 (which also fits the rest of the evidence including Phil Willis etc).
I don't ignore Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Jackie Kennedy, possibly Royce Skelton (remind me of the "numerous" other witnesses) whose statements could be interpreted as hearing a shot after the head shot. I am not persuaded that they provide evidence of a third shot after the head shot, let alone reliable evidence. In any reasonable analysis of all the evidence, the vast preponderance of evidence weighs against a shot after the head shot. You don't have to agree with that. That is why we have juries.
It is not rocket science. There is strong evidence (from those who saw or heard a bolt action rifle in the SN) that all the shots came from a bolt action rifle. A bolt action rifle was found on the 6th floor. No other rifle was found. A bullet (CE399) was fired by Oswald's bolt action rifle. We have abundant evidence that the last two shots were in rapid succession. I am not saying that this means the last shot was 2.3 seconds after the second. I am saying that 2.3 seconds is the minimum time between those shots from the bolt action rifle. Therefore the first shot had to be at least a second before z222/223 to fit the pattern. If the second could have been more than 2.3 seconds before the head shot, then the first shot would have to have been somewhat more than a second before z222 to fit the 1..........2....3 shot pattern.
That is not correct. The shot pattern evidence supports but does not necessarily put a first shot earlier than z202. There is a lot of other evidence that does that. The evidence that a first shot could not have been as late as z223 corroborates the abundant evidence that the first shot was just before z202.
The Secret Service film shows that JFK was visible by the time JFK was opposite or just past the lampost and just before the Thornton Freeway sign. That is between z190 and z200. Besides, it was easy for the shooter to track JFK while he was passing under those outer branches of the oak tree so firing as soon as he was clear (or maybe even a bit earlier) was certainly doable.
Please let us know what other witnesses I have to expend in order to accept Phil Willis, Rosemary Willis, Linda Willis, Hugh Betzner, etc.
Ready is standing on the right front running board with both hands on the right handhold. In order to turn right he first has to remove his right hand from the hand hold. He does that beginning at z199 and starts his turn. We do not see him after z207 in the zfilm but in Altgens 5 at z256 he is completely turned around.
You might want to reread their statements.I might agree with you if I thought you were correct. But you appear to assume that, if he is reacting prior to z227 to being shot, his reaction prior to z227 would have to be the same as the reaction from 227 and after. Why? I see a preliminary reaction which looks like he is sensing something is wrong (up to z226) then a panic kind of reaction where he brings his hands up to his throat and slides down and forward on his seat and as if he is struggling to breathe (z227 to about z255) and then a third reaction which is a steady leftward and forward lean as Jackie reaches out to hold his left arm.
- Landis said that he first looked at the President as he was looking forward at the time. He said he saw JFK moving and thought the President was turning to look in the direction of the sound. Then he turned right to look at the TSBD. But we don't see Landis after z207 and he is still looking forward toward the President.
- Hickey said he was seated and that he stood partially up and then turned to the rear to see if he could observe anything. He does appear to be rising up beginning about z199 to z207. But we also don't see him after z207.
I don't say it is not possible. I just say that he is already reacting behind the sign so it doesn't apply here. But you are assuming, again for some unknown reason, that he is not already reacting behind the Stemmons sign! (Also, you are assuming that a shot in that location would trigger a reflex response. There is no evidence that it touched any nerves, but that is a minor point perhaps).
The usual twisting and turning, misrepresentation and waffle.Fact finding is an iterative process. One has to examine all the evidence and try to fit it all together, set preliminary findings, go back and compare the evidence to those findings, make revised findings, go back and examine again etc until you reach firm conclusions of fact or conclude that firm conclusions cannot be reached.
At least you admit that your basis for a first shot in the mid-z190's is that you started off by accepting the head-shot was the last shot and worked backwards using the shot pattern.
Start off with a conclusion then find the evidence to back it up - an incredibly poor methodology IMO.
I don't ignore Charles Brehm, Emmett Hudson, Jackie Kennedy, possibly Royce Skelton (remind me of the "numerous" other witnesses)You're kidding, right? Ernest Brandt who heard 8 shots over 5 minutes? Jean Hill who heard 4 to 6 shots? Doesn't really fit the shot pattern that we both agree on. .
More witnesses who report hearing a shot after the head-shot?
Off the top of my head:
Jean hill, Mary Moorman, Ernest Brandt, J W Foster and Harry Holmes.
And let's not forget, the majority of witnesses you list to support the last shot as the head-shot only heard two shots!2 shot witnesses only if you buy Jerry's notion that the first horrible ear shattering noise did not register as a shot.
By definition, they don't know when the other shot was as they didn't hear it.
The point is this - there is plenty of witness testimony to support both positions.I don't know why you would say that, especially when you acknowledge there is plenty of evidence to support my position. What evidence have I not examined?
Unlike you, I have examined every piece of evidence I can find relating to when the first shot occurred and concluded it was around z222/z223.
Because I accept the shot pattern we both accept, this rules out the head-shot as the last shot.I hope you realize that you just admitted doing the very thing you accused me, wrongly, of doing.
You have spent nearly all your time on this thread trying to make bogus arguments against the evidence I have presented because it shows your own theory up for what it is - dead.Just because you are not persuaded doesn't mean an argument is bogus. It is, as you acknowledge, based on real evidence. A bogus argument is an argument based on a complete falsehood, like the argument that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
Fact finding is an iterative process. One has to examine all the evidence and try to fit it all together, set preliminary findings, go back and compare the evidence to those findings, make revised findings, go back and examine again etc until you reach firm conclusions of fact or conclude that firm conclusions cannot be reached.
So, after showing you why the preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that the head shot was the third and last shot, I am puzzled why you suggest that I just arbitrarily assumed that was the case and that I worked backward with the shot pattern to determine when the first shot occurred.
You're kidding, right? Ernest Brandt who heard 8 shots over 5 minutes? Jean Hill who heard 4 to 6 shots? Doesn't really fit the shot pattern that we both agree on.
2 shot witnesses only if you buy Jerry's notion that the first horrible ear shattering noise did not register as a shot.
Altgens, for example is not a 2 shot witness at all. He simply wasn't sure how many shots there were between the first and last but he was sure about two things: his #5 photo was after the first and before any other shots and the headshot was the last shot.
And apart front Altgens, they are all 3 shot witnesses.
I don't know why you would say that, especially when you acknowledge there is plenty of evidence to support my position. What evidence have I not examined?
I hope you realize that you just admitted doing the very thing you accused me, wrongly, of doing.
Just because you are not persuaded doesn't mean an argument is bogus. It is, as you acknowledge, based on real evidence. A bogus argument is an argument based on a complete falsehood, like the argument that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
I know you're puzzled, Andrew.Yes.
So let me clarify - as I stated, there is plenty of witness testimony for both positions. You have arbitrarily chosen to accept the witness testimony of those who support the head-shot as the last shot. There is no evidence, other than witness testimony, that supports the head-shot as the last shot.
Unless I'm mistaken.
Am I mistaken?
What evidence have you used to determine between the two groups of contradictory witness testimony?I do what juries and judges do when asked to determine facts from evidence. I weighed the evidence and applied reasoning to conclude that it is far more likely that the head shot was the last shot.
Oh dear, you really are puzzled, aren't you Andrew.It was a late night....you are right. I confused Brandt with Millican. Brandt, of course, is the other witness along the north side of Elm wearing a hat (a fedora, not the hard hat). He did not give any statements to the WC. But he did give interviews much later. He says that he was 15 feet away from JFK when the first shot occurred and that JFK reacted as we see him reacting to the neck shot. This certainly conflicts with an early first shot miss. But he said he never saw the head shot so I am not sure what "incredibly precise recollections of the shooting" with "a shot after the head shot" you are referring to. At least in this interview given in November 2012 (http://www.meineigenheim.org/tests/Ernest_Brandt/index2.html), he said he did not see the head shot:
Ernest Brandt is, by far, one of the best witnesses for a 3-shot scenario with a shot after the head-shot.His incredibly precise recollections of the shooting are compelling, to say the least. I believe you're talking about A J Millican.
And so what If Jean Hill was confused by echoes. The shot and echoes she heard came after the head-shot.No one was confused by echos. There was reverberation caused by reflection of sound from many different surfaces in Dealey Plaza. Jean Hill was obviously not counting the shots. She was simply saying that she had the impression there were more than 3 but fewer than 7 shots.
So, Jean Hill's slightly confused memory of shots and echoes after the head-shot is the only point you can raise in your counter-argument against the partial list of witnesses I have provided who directly testify there was a shot after the head-shot.
That's it.
You're kidding, right?No. I base my conclusion on an assessment of all the evidence as I have explained many times. Besides, my urine flow is rather strong, actually.
You think the collective witness testimony regarding a shot after the head-shot can be dismissed by making such a piss-weak point?
Of course you do.
How many shots did Clint Hill hear?How many did he recall hearing or how many shots did he accept had occurred? He recalled hearing only two but he accepts, based on what other agents told him, that there was a shot just after he stepped off the car. At that point he was highly focused on trying to reach the President's car. He was also lower down and between motorcycles and the QM engine. See: Gerald Blaine, The Kennedy Detail, ch. 12 "Six Seconds in Dallas":
How can I know what evidence you haven't examined.Exactly.
But, to take an educated guess based on the bogus arguments you come up with, I would say you haven't examined any evidence beyond the witness testimony. And looking at your complete lack of knowledge concerning Ernest Brandt, you haven't examined the witness testimony too thoroughly either.You got me there on Brandt. But, if I were you, I wouldn't hang my conclusion that there was a shot after the head shot on a guy who admits he was ducking for cover and never saw the head shot at all.
Yes.
There is visual evidence that Connally was hit before the head shot because he has fallen back onto his wife before the head shot. There is also trajectory evidence that shows that the bullet passing straight through JFK's neck without deflection could not possibly have hit JBC in the right armpit at any time. That is not based on anything other than a 3D recreation of the car position and relative position of the two men. There is also physical evidence that the bullet did not strike anything capable of causing a perceptible deflection in passing through JFK's neck and striking the tie know on the left side, let alone a significant deflection to the right. All that together means that Connally must have been hit on a shot that was after JFK's neck shot (#1) and before the headshot (#3) ie. #2.
There is also the absence of any kind of explanation why a shooter, after clearly hitting the bullseye would keep shooting and an absence of any bullet evidence or impact evidence of a shot that missed. But I digress.
I do what juries and judges do when asked to determine facts from evidence. I weighed the evidence and applied reasoning to conclude that it is far more likely that the head shot was the last shot.
It was a late night....you are right. I confused Brandt with Millican. Brandt, of course, is the other witness along the north side of Elm wearing a hat (a fedora, not the hard hat). He did not give any statements to the WC. But he did give interviews much later. He says that he was 15 feet away from JFK when the first shot occurred and that JFK reacted as we see him reacting to the neck shot. This certainly conflicts with an early first shot miss. But he said he never saw the head shot so I am not sure what "incredibly precise recollections of the shooting" with "a shot after the head shot" you are referring to. At least in this interview given in November 2012 (http://www.meineigenheim.org/tests/Ernest_Brandt/index2.html), he said he did not see the head shot:
"But John stayed right there on the curb and he saw that 3rd shot hit Kennedy’s head and he saw Kennedy’s head explode. But I didn’t see that." (http://www.meineigenheim.org/tests/Ernest_Brandt/index2.html)
No one was confused by echos. There was reverberation caused by reflection of sound from many different surfaces in Dealey Plaza. Jean Hill was obviously not counting the shots. She was simply saying that she had the impression there were more than 3 but fewer than 7 shots.
How many did he recall hearing or how many shots did he accept had occurred? He recalled hearing only two but he accepts, based on what other agents told him, that there was a shot just after he stepped off the car. At that point he was highly focused on trying to reach the President's car. He was also lower down and between motorcycles and the QM engine. See: Gerald Blaine, The Kennedy Detail, ch. 12 "Six Seconds in Dallas":
"He leapt off the running board of Halfback, as he’d done countless times
before, his body reacting as it had been trained. In that terrible, unforgettable
moment, Clint Hill had but one purpose: he had to reach Mrs. Kennedy and the
president, and shield them. His powerful legs propelled him toward the pink hat
that seemed to be moving farther and farther away each time his foot landed on
the pavement. If only he could reach the back of the car, his legs knew the exact
height of the rear step; his hands knew exactly where to grasp the hand grip. As
he bounded toward the limousine, which had slowed to about seven miles an
hour around the corner but was starting to pick up speed, he had to run at the
breakneck speed of nearly fifteen miles an hour to adjust for the speed and the
distance between the two cars. As his feet propelled him toward the moving car,
Clint Hill was so focused on reaching his target that he didn’t even hear the
second shot. "
This thread is about when the first shot occurred.
That's it.
If you have a contribution to make towards that, go for it.
I have presented a very strong case for this happening at z222/z223 using all kinds of evidence to support it.
If you want a discussion about how many shots there were, start your own thread.
I can't recall a single contribution you've made regarding the topic of this thread.
This thread is about when the first shot occurred.
This thread went off the rails within 6 hours of its beginning. Apparently proving there ever actually was a third shot is a little frightening
I can't recall a single contribution you've made regarding the topic of this thread.
Au contraire. Again, the witnesses tell the story as to the exact location of the first shot, it only requires that you believe them.
2 and ½ years later and 134 pages of repetitious postings and basically it still is still the same worn- out story, trying to see what unseeable event transpired behind the sign. Somehow you have convinced yourself you know the exact location of the first shot based on the Zapruder film itself.
Here are the witness statements again as to the exact location of the first shot.
It is best to just read the witness statements. They give the location of the car in relationship to where they were standing when they heard the first shot. Jean Newman states it was just after it had passed her and the Chisms state it was just before them. Mary Woodward states it was when JFK looks forward again which is after Z204. The four secretaries state it happened in front of them.
Mary Woodward: After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt...I don't believe anyone was hit with 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...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned halfway around, then fell on top of her husband’s body…
Ann Donaldson (11-22-63 first person account published in the Washington Evening Star, Second Extra Edition. Note: this article was apparently picked up from a Jackson, Mississippi paper.) "I was standing 70 feet from President Kennedy when he was assassinated today and saw him fall under the bullet that killed him. Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy threw herself over his body as the President's car speeded up as soon as the driver realized what had happened. The crowd began to scream and wail and people standing nearby began to throw their children on the ground for safety. I heard two shots. The first shot sounded like a firecracker and the President heard it. He turned to look, as did everyone else, and then the second shot sounded.
-------------------------------
Chisms, Newman, and Secretaries
John Chism : "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot,"
Jean Newman : "The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report"
Gloria Calvery : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was Standing when I heard the first shot."
Karan Hicks : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gunshot"
Karen Westbrook : "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot ."
------------------------------------
JBC describes his location in his WC statement:
The only children on the right side of the street was first the Chisms and then the Newmans.
Mr. SPECTER. When you turned to your right. Governor Connally, immediately after you heard the first shot. what did you see on that occasion?
Governor CONNALLY. Nothing of any significance except just people out on the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, just saw men, women, and children.
--------------------------------------
Where is the doubt about SBT?
In Nellies WC Statement she references JBC cried out Oh No No No after being struck by the first shot. The same as what Jackie stated.
Mrs. CONNALLY. …….Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mrs. CONNALLY. -----------------------------------As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no."
Again and again and again it is stated there were only two shots. How about actually proving there were three shots, other than presenting a selected few dubious statements.
I've asked, what evidence other than witness testimony is there for a head-shot.The Zapruder film is witness testimony? We have physical evidence that he was shot. We can also see the blood in the later frames. According to the physical evidence (no reliance on JBC or Nellie or any witness), the bullet entered his right armpit and exited under his right nipple. It was impossible for any bullet to pass through him like that after he was reclined back as he certainly was by z300. The only conclusion, based on the fact that he was shot from the back to the front, that he has been shot in the chest before the head shot. I don't think one needs Nellie to say that she did not shoot him in the back while he was lying down on top of her. Maybe you do. I don't.
There is visual evidence that Connally was hit before the head shot because he has fallen back onto his wife before the head shot.
This is witness testimony.
There is also trajectory evidence that shows that the bullet passing straight through JFK's neck without deflection could not possibly have hit JBC in the right armpit at any time. That is not based on anything other than a 3D recreation of the car position and relative position of the two menWhy not? After concluding from the Zfilm that he was shot before the head shot, the only question then is whether he was hit by the same shot that passed through JFK. That can be resolved by eliminating the SBT, which I can do simply based on the trajectory through JFK not coming close to JBC's right armpit. There is also a complete absence of any evidence that he was hit in the back on the first shot. That is not relying on any witness.
This is not evidence that the head-shot was the last shot
There is also physical evidence that the bullet did not strike anything capable of causing a perceptible deflection in passing through JFK's neck and striking the tie know on the left side, let alone a significant deflection to the right.Again, why not? This evidence relates to the trajectory.
This is not evidence the head-shot was the last shot
I must have had a late night as well because I meant Templin.Templin was not a WC witness either so perhaps you can provide a reference to the statements you rely on. But you still have a big problem. John Templin was standing with Ernest Brandt and Brandt said he witnessed two shots before ducking for cover and missed seeing the head shot, which John Templin saw. So Brandt is still a witness for three shots, the first two not being the head shot.
So, that's Templin, Brehm, Moorman, Hill, Holmes, Foster, Jack Franzen, Malcolm Summers, Emmett Hudson, who all believe there was a shot after the head-shot.For the umpteenth time, I do not ignore it. First of all, I don't think the evidence, apart from Brehm perhaps, provides evidence of a shot after the head shot. In any event, I am just not persuaded by any of it (see below) it in light of the much better, clearer and consistent evidence of the many witnesses close by, including the Connallys, Secret Service, Dave Powers, Mary Woodward, Gayle Newman, Altgens etc.
Speer lists dozens of other witnesses whose testimony can reasonably be interpreted as supporting a shot after the head-shot.
It is ironic that someone like Marylin Willis first stated there was a shot after the head-shot but eventually ended up singing from Papa Willis' hymn sheet.
Why do you ignore all this witness testimony?
There is a large section on Pat Speer's website about how echoes played a large part in what people reported.Clint or Jean? You are confusing me. Clint Hill recalled only two shots. Jean Hill wasn't sure how many shots there were and thought there were more than 3 but fewer than 7. How else can you interpret "4-6 shots"?
Bottom line - Hill reports hearing at least one shot after the head-shot
So Hill heard two shots, that's all you had to say.
Altgens only heard two shots.You need to re-read his evidence (7 H 517-518).
How many shots did Landis hear?In both his Nov. 27/63 and Nov 30/63 statements he said he recalled hearing only two shots, the head shot being the last shot. His Nov. 30 statement is a bit confusing because he although he refers to another shot after the first: "It must have been another second or two before the next shot was fired" but later says the time lapse between the first and second shots must have been about four or five seconds.
Based on your 3D "analysis" and some gut feeling you share with Kooks that Connally was not far enough left to account for the SBT. Sure, you know better than the WC, Itek, the HSCA, PBS-Frontline and professional 3D artists since Dale K. Myers.You have yet to show the view from Zapruder's position of the two men in the car as you have positioned them. Myers refuses to show us what distances he uses in determining their positions. Itek stated that their analysis was based on the gap between the right jump seat and the car door being 15 cm (6 HSCA 49) even though they refer to the Hess & Eisenhardt drawing showing that this distance is only 2.5" or 6.4 cm. They concluded that Connally was sitting 4 to 8 inches (10.2 to 20.3 cm) inboard of JFK.
When it comes to your 3D recreation, it's lacks reality. You have shown no improvement in SketchUp for years, so you either stopped practicing or never had the knack to begin with.
When it comes to your 3D recreation, it's lacks reality. You have shown no improvement in SketchUp for years, so you either stopped practicing or never had the knack to begin with.I do have a day job, Jerry. Besides, I use the free version. How about I send mine to you and you can fix it up?
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2LMbB3z/Bronson-Speer.png) (https://postimages.org/)lamborghini aventador doors open (https://suwalls.com/cars/lamborghini-aventador-with-doors-open)
Above is a crop from Bronson with various witnesses (poorly) labeled.
The pic is lifted from Pat Speer's site where he equates this pic to approximately z225
The limo has just passed Templin, Brandt and Newman.
It is just passing Burney and Dishong.
It is almost in front of the Chisms
Charles Brehm is further down the road.
As I was reading Jack's post I realised something I should've realised a lot earlier in this thread.
Although witness statements are often contradictory and unreliable when it comes to certain details, there is surely a basic fact the people who were stood on both sides of Elm Street could be sure of - whether or not the limo had passed their position when they heard the first shot.
These are the witness statements from right to left.
John Templin - I would say, thirty feet past us, we heard what I personally thought was a motorcycle backfire, and I... the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat,
Ernest Brandt - And of course, all I could see above the back seat was his shoulders, his neck, and head…I think the limousine was probably about 60 or 70 feet past us, three or four seconds I guess from the time. It wasn't moving real slow but yet not real fast either, y'know. And--60 or 70 feet past us, then BAM!
Jean Newman - The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report...
Peggy Burney - The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot.
June Dishong - His arm in the air waving… He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots?
Faye Chism - “As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot,
John Chism - And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot,
Charles Brehm - I happened to be about fifteen feet away from the President when the first shot hit him...the first shot rang out and I was positive when I saw the look on his face and saw him grab his chest and saw the reaction of his wife that he had been shot.
Templin, Brandt, Newman, Burney and Dishong all state that the limo had just passed them when the first shot sounded.
Brehm states he was looking at JFK's face after the first shot, the limo had not yet reached his position.
The Bronson pic above seems to have pretty much captured the position of the limo as described by the witnesses standing close by on Elm Street. Below is a stripped down version of Dom Roberdeau's map which gives an approximate idea of where the limo was in terms of Z-frames:
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBXdKMKP/Roberdeau-Fixed.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Yet again, all theories about when the first shot occurred, other than my own, are refuted by the above evidence.
Yet again, all theories about when the first shot occurred, other than my own, are refuted by the above evidence.
No.
Nice try. A better location for the first shot would be Z210 to Z214 based on Zapruder Frames. The whole discussion could have taken place on two pages instead of 145 pages over three years.
Every Z frame is considered to be approximately 1 foot of movement. The difference between a first shot at Z214 compared to Z223 is negligible and has no value in understanding the assassination.
What does matter is the fact there were only two shots versus the media reported three shots, which all but erases any doubt about the possibility of a conspiracy.
The JFK assassination can be reduced to Merriman Smith reported there were three shots, Walter Cronkite read Smith’s bulletin that there were three shots, the media’s influence took over and people changed their statements into concluding there were three shots.
The Bronson photo is considered to be Z229.
Roberdeau believed the occupants were already reacting to having been shot at Z224. Z223 is not the location of the first shot.
Thanks to you, Jack, it's another big fat "yes"
Yet another piece of confirmation that the first shot was at z222/z223.
Breaking the various witness statements down to a most basic, salient fact - had the limo passed the witness position at the time of the first shot.
Collating this basic element from multiple witness statements then comparing the witness positions to the known position of the limo at various Z-frames and Hey Presto! - The Nessan Conjunction.
This could have been settled at the beginning if people like yourself were open to reason.
This thread has consisted mainly of dealing with people peddling their own pet theories and none have stood up to the barrage of evidence and arguments presented in this thread. But none - not one - will change one iota of their theories, regardless of how smashed to pieces these theories are. Not a single person has ever changed a single detail about their theories, even in the face of evidence unequivocally destroying that theory.
And here we go again. 145 pages and suddenly we have a new contender for when the first shot occurred - z210 to z214
Have you always thought this Jack or are you just pulling this out of thin air?
A better location for the first shot would be Z210 to Z214 based on Zapruder Frames.
So, "based on Zapruder Frames" a better location for the first shot would be z210 to z214.
Obviously, at this time in the Z-film both JFK and JBC are obscured by the Stemmons sign, so I have to ask - what is it in the Z-frames you are basing this moment as the first shot on.
Remember, you said "based on Zapruder Frames".
Also, at z210 to z214 the limo has not passed witnesses Templin, Brandt, Newman, Burney and Dishong, who all stated the limo had passed them before the first shot rang out.
So your new proposition for when the first shot occurs fails the Nessan Conjunction.
Then why are you disputing that the first shot occurred at z222/z223?
Yawn.
Start your own thread about it. it's really easy to do.
This is quite an important detail as far as the Nessan Conjunction is concerned. Why do you propose the Bronson pic is at z229
What is he basing that on?
There is a lot of evidence that the second shot struck Connally: the Connallys, Gayle Newman for example. Dave Powers, Wm. Greer also indicate that the second shot struck in the car. And James Tague also said he was hit on the second shot which means the second shot hit something before and a fragment struck the curb. Geo. Hickey said that the second shot seemed to miss JFK because he saw JFK's hair on the right side of his head fly up on the second shot. Keep in mind that JFK had moved quite far to the left by this time (z270), as Dave Powers mentioned. His right arm was definitely not on the outer edge of the car.
For Andrew Masons trajectory lines to work, for a 2nd shot that independently struck Connally , Mr. Masons diagram of the position of JFK having his right side arm and shoulder further inward so as to allow a shot just past JFK , seems not as substantiated by the Z film frames as does Jerry Organs diagrams that show JFKs right arm resting on the outer edge of the door.
[b]Thanks to you, Jack, it's another big fat "yes"
Yet another piece of confirmation that the first shot was at z222/z223[/b]
No
All of these witness statements were originally posted on page 10. For whatever reason you chose to ignore them.
The actual location of the actual shot will never be known because the sign obscured the view. The number of shots is important, but the actual precise location of the first shot is not. He was shot after Z210 and definitely before Z224. Everything after that is just interpretation.
I know he was not shot at Z223 because he is reacting to having been shot at Z223.
An average person’s reaction time to stimuli is estimated to be approximately 0.5 seconds or 10 Z frames. You are equating JFK reacting to having been shot as being the same time as him being shot. It is a general rule of have a ½ second reaction time from wanting to react and actually reacting.
The Limo’s dimensions are 21.25 feet long with a 13- foot wheelbase. Based on the Bronson photo there is approximately 15 feet between the Chisms and Jean Newman. Use everything you can to estimate not just the Z frames. The Z frames were the most helpful.
Roberdeau’s map, that you posted, has the Z224 “JFK already reacting by Z224-Z225 to bullets impact” wording. It is surprising you did not notice this wording as it was located right by the Z225 symbol. I would think you would have to have edited his statement out before you posted the map. Remember this is where he is reacting to having been shot, not where he was shot.
Unfortunately, the conversation always revolves around all the shots not just the first. You need to go back and read the first pages of the thread. You believe you are controlling the conversation to just the first shot, but you are not, based on the early missed shot theory being an attempt to create longer time for the firing of three shots. Simply put, the proponents of this theory are trying to compensate for the time to work the bolt. Only Two shots having been fired is the answer and answers all questions and scenarios. Understanding this simple concept is actually a letdown given there are 60 years of imaginative conspiracy theories that are definitely more interesting than LHO fired two shots -- end of story.
Someone once had a thread about the number of shots. The fact there is absolutely no proof of three shots pretty much ended the thread after a few pages. It was all about witness statement interpretations because there is not any physical evidence of a third shot.
Believing in three shots is faith based and that is all. Shot three as a miss is actually strange given the amount of witnesses who state there wasn’t a shot after the headshot.
Mason's Voodoo Geometry.
You are in an occupation where lying and distorting reality is rewarded.Actually, in my profession, lying and distorting reality will get you disbarred.
All I can figure is that you may be referring to the 2004 documentary "JFK Beyond the Magic Bullet". I don't think it involved Mack, Myers or an "Altgens bullet".I noticed that they moved the trajectory from the SN so that the SN is directly behind the limo for the SBT:
Here is a clip from one of the shot attempts by the group Anatomical Surrogates Technology for the program "JFK Beyond the Magic Bullet".
You asked for : "You have yet to show the view from Zapruder's position of the two men in the car as you have positioned them."I was not insinuating anything. I just thought your angle to the SN was wrong. Your drawings seemed incorrect because the angle to Zapruder is 40 degrees at z223 and if you apply that to your diagram it does not look like Zapruder's z223 view. I was just trying to figure out where they are wrong. Now that you have provided it, it appears that your limo model is inaccurate. You have the rear seating compartment too far forward and a bit too long. The roof support bar and glass side panel too is too far forward of JBC.
Nothing about some view from the SN window. Here then is the approximate view from the SN window for the frame Z223.
You won't be getting anything from me if you don't stop insinuating I would change models for different views in the same graphic. I have never done that, and such an underhanded tactic speaks to your "profession" as a defense attorney.
I was not insinuating anything. I just thought your angle to the SN was wrong. Your drawings seemed incorrect because the angle to Zapruder is 40 degrees at z223 and if you apply that to your diagram it does not look like Zapruder's z223 view. I was just trying to figure out where they are wrong. Now that you have provided it, it appears that your limo model is inaccurate. You have the rear seating compartment too far forward and a bit too long. The roof support bar and glass side panel too is too far forward of JBC.
This shows the problem with your car model by comparing it to the actual measured dimensions provided by Hess & Eisenhardt:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_compare_HE_dwg.JPG)
You have the angle of the car to a line from the SN at 8.1 degrees, which is a bit too low (at z223) by about a degree, but since there is some uncertainty of about a degree as to the exact direction of the car heading at that point, I won't quibble. At that direction, the angle of the sightline of Zapruder at z223 to the direction of the car is at most 40 degrees (I measure 39.3 degrees). Your drawing puts that sight line (a 40 degree sightline to the left side of JBC's head passing just to the rear of the glass panel in front of JBC at z223) well to the right side of the head in your model. In order to make the green line to Zapruder's position pass to the left side of JBC's head you would need to move JBC to the right quite a bit as shown in the green arrow:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_overhead_corrections.JPG)
You would be correct but for the fact that Jerry has the side glass panel and roof support too far forward by about 4.5 inches. I have marked the edge of the actual side glass and roof support with the red line.
Andrew, the glass panel you are referencing is sloping at an angle towards the centerline of the car. Therefore, from Zapruder’s angle, the rear edge of it appears to angle towards the front of the limo (from the bottom upwards) instead of appearing vertical. You have drawn your lines to the bottom corner of that glass panel. However JBC’s head is well above (in elevation) the bottom of the panel. Therefore you need to adjust your lines towards the front of the limo accordingly.
You would be correct but for the fact that Jerry has the side glass panel and roof support too far forward by about 4.5 inches. I have marked the edge of the actual side glass and roof support with the red line.
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_overhead_corrections_2.JPG)
A 40 degree line from Zapruder through the top rear corner of the side glass goes several inches to the left side of JBC's head. In Jerry's model, this sight line is shown by the lower green line, which slices through the left side of JBC's head (a difference of about 5 inches). A similar sight line from Zapruder through the bottom rear corner goes through the right jacket lapel of JBC. In Jerry's model it slices through the torso at the right shoulder. Jerry's model has to move about 5 inches to the car right to fit the sight lines.
Of course all of this would put the shot through JFK hitting JBC in the spine, which did not occur. According to the preponderance of evidence, however, the first shot was after z186 and before z202. At z195, the angle from the SN to the car direction was over 13 degrees and JBC had his shoulders turned to the right. And a first shot through JFK at that point, with JBC correctly positioned about 5 inches farther right than Jerry's model shows, has the bullet from JFK going to the left side of JBC.
You would be correct but for the fact that Jerry has the side glass panel and roof support too far forward by about 4.5 inches. I have marked the edge of the actual side glass and roof support with the red line.
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_overhead_corrections_2.JPG)
A 40 degree line from Zapruder through the top rear corner of the side glass goes several inches to the left side of JBC's head. In Jerry's model, this sight line is shown by the lower green line, which slices through the left side of JBC's head (a difference of about 5 inches). A similar sight line from Zapruder through the bottom rear corner goes through the right jacket lapel of JBC. In Jerry's model it slices through the torso at the right shoulder. Jerry's model has to move about 5 inches to the car right to fit the sight lines.
Of course all of this would put the shot through JFK hitting JBC in the spine, which did not occur. According to the preponderance of evidence, however, the first shot was after z186 and before z202. At z195, the angle from the SN to the car direction was over 13 degrees and JBC had his shoulders turned to the right. And a first shot through JFK at that point, with JBC correctly positioned about 5 inches farther right than Jerry's model shows, has the bullet from JFK going to the left side of JBC.
Thanks@Jerry Organ. That was the video I had seen and that’s a clarifying point you made about the JFK torso not in the slouch position. That slight difference would most probably align the throat/neck exit hole a lot closer to Myers computer model.
I’m not sure it’s been resolved if the movement of JFKs body and arms from Z223-226 is caused by the momentum transfer of a bullet striking him at that instant or whether it’s a neurological delayed reaction from a bullet that struck earlier at Z195-210 or if it’s a combination of both.
Your explanation doesn't make any sense to me. Also, the lower green line appears to be at about the mid-point of the side glass pane, not the top rear corner.
The issue appears to me to probably be with the scaled drawing. I will check it closer tomorrow. The view of Jerry's model at Z223 matches up well with the actual Zapruder frame 223. I overlaid one of the two images over the other and when sliding the opaque setting from 0% to 100% all the pertinent points match up.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/2b/f0/CgxATcSm_o.jpg)If you compare your side view of the two men seated in your model, though, the model does not match the real-life limo. In the image below I have matched the locations of the front and back edges of the left rear door. Although the view is a bit lower in the model with the men, the relative sizes are the same and the car direction appears to be the same. But there is a significant discrepancy of the jump seat positions between your model with the men and the other two images, as demonstrated by the yellow lines:
One is a "photo match" in which the SketchUp camera conforms to the field-of-view of the photograph.A five inch difference is not nitpicking.
The other (the blurry crop) has SketchUp's default field-of-view.
Sometimes a photograph will happen to nearly-coincide with SketchUp's default FoV but more often there is quite a difference.
Same 3D model and proportions in all the SketchUp views I present (albeit the FoV may change). You don't have to take my word for it; you're free to keep wasting everybody's time with silly nitpicks.
I have taken Jerry's image and overlaid his Z223 frame with his image of his model (at 54% opacity) with the figures inside. Also, I overlaid Jerry's overhead image of his model with an image of the scaled drawing (at 59% opacity). It appears to me to be a good match in both cases with the exception of the overall length of the limo in the scaled drawing. I explained the issues with the scaled drawing in an earlier post.It appears that Jerry's car is either too short or too wide. I would suggest it is too wide. He has much to large a space between the jump seats and the doors.
(https://i.vgy.me/3brmY1.jpg)
Andrew, this should help to demonstrate what I explained in that earlier post. If Jerry objects to my posting this modified copy of his work, I will be glad to remove it. Just let me know.
Edit:The H&E drawing does not show the windshield. That part in front is the dashboard.
One other major difference between the scaled drawing and the actual limo (and model) is the shape of the windshield. The drawing shows a more vertical windshield similar to the one on the old "Queen Mary" limo. The actual limo (and model) has a more sloped windshield that has the top of it basically directly over the steering wheel. I think that the same company built both limos. So, I wonder if that scaled drawing started out as a drawing of the "Queen Mary" limo and was modified. Just a thought...
I am presenting a method by which the location and timing of the first shot can be pin-pointed with a large degree of accuracy:
Focusing on the witness testimony of those closest to the limo at the time of the shooting.
Stripping their various testimonies down to one salient point - had JFK passed their position or not at the time of the first shot.
Establishing the position of these witnesses on a schematic that also shows us the position of JFK at various Z-frames.
By doing this we come to the realisation that all previous theories regarding when the first shot happened are refuted with the exception of my own theory - a first shot strike of JFK at z222/z223.
It is customary for someone opposing this method to critique it - what are it's weaknesses, it's strengths, where might I be going wrong with the theory, what can be improved.
Instead you simply write the word, "No".
No counter-evidence to support an argument, no evidence offered whatsoever, just your opinion, seemingly based on nothing.
I simply didn't realise the importance of them at the time.
This whole thread could've ended around then because I believe this evidence regarding when the first shot happened is really strong and very difficult to argue against [in a sane way, that actually involves providing evidence to support a counter-argument, rather than just blurting out an unsupported opinion.]
It's such a simple and obvious way to pinpoint where and when the first shot occurred that i'm embarrassed it took me so long to see it.
But it's better late than never, and I have you to thank for opening my eyes to this very powerful confirmation of my proposal for when the first shot occurred.
Do you know what, Jack? Your big pronouncements, unsupported by any evidence, are starting to get a little boring.
He was shot after Z210 and definitely before Z224
What evidence are you providing to support this statement? In a previous post you wrote:
A better location for the first shot would be Z210 to Z214 based on Zapruder Frames.
No evidence to support this claim, just a big pronouncement.
I knew this was utter garbage because both JFK and JBC were behind the Stemmons sign at this time, so I wrote:
So, "based on Zapruder Frames" a better location for the first shot would be z210 to z214.
Obviously, at this time in the Z-film both JFK and JBC are obscured by the Stemmons sign, so I have to ask - what is it in the Z-frames you are basing this moment as the first shot on?
Remember, you said "based on Zapruder Frames".
Unsurprisingly you failed to answer.
The question still stands - what are you basing this big pronouncement on?
Yet another big pronouncement with no evidence to back it up.
And more utter nonsense.
JFK can't even be seen in z223!!
Yet Jack can see behind the sign, he can see JFK and JBC get shot behind the sign and he can see JFK reacting behind the sign!
Amazing.
What is this big pronouncement based on?
And yet another big pronouncement with no evidence to back it up
It is a general rule of have a ½ second reaction time from wanting to react and actually reacting.
Is it?
Is it really?
I've never heard of this "general rule".
Is it something you've just made up, by any chance?
I found this information in a few seconds on Google:
“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.” [https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]
150 milliseconds for touch - that's 3 Z-frames.
Do you do any research?
More importantly, the bullet passes through the Brachial Plexus [something I researched] directly damaging JFK's central nervous system, causing a rapid reflex action:
"A reflex, or reflex action, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus. A reflex is made possible by neural pathways called reflex arcs which can act on an impulse before that impulse reaches the brain. The reflex is then an automatic response to a stimulus that does not receive or need conscious thought."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex
Also, in Reply#1103, I provided scientific evidence that a reflex reaction can be detected within 2 Z-frames. This evidence was published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):
I have provided scientific expertise to back up my claim that a physical reflex response can be detected in 2 Z-frames.
What have you provided?
And just to help you out, here's a little research done on your behalf.
Your half second "general rule" is not a reference to how quick a reflex action is, it's a reference to how quickly the human mind becomes consciously aware of a sensory experience:
"Human thought takes time to form, and so the “right now” that we’re experiencing inside our skulls is always a little later than what’s going on in the outside world. It takes 500 milliseconds, or half a second, for sensory information from the outside world to be incorporated into conscious experience."
[https://nymag.com/speed/2016/12/what-is-the-speed-of-thought.html#:~:text=Human%20thought%20takes%20time%20to,be%20incorporated%20into%20conscious%20experience.]
From the above information we can conclude that a person shot through at z222/z223 could be showing a physical reflex action by z225/z226 but they wouldn't be consciously aware of being shot until around z331/z332.
??
Once again, what does Roberdeau base this on?
Unfortunately, the conversation always revolves around all the shots not just the first.
Not in a thread entitled THE FIRST SHOT!
What a lovely story.
What about the witnesses who state there was a shot after the head-shot?
If you want to critique the method I'm using [that you inspired] to locate the moment of the first shot, let's hear it.
If you have a claim to make, why not back it up with some kind of evidence.
It appears that Jerry's car is either too short or too wide. I would suggest it is too wide. He has much to large a space between the jump seats and the doors.The H&E drawing does not show the windshield. That part in front is the dashboard.
I have taken Jerry's image and overlaid his Z223 frame with his image of his model (at 54% opacity) with the figures inside. Also, I overlaid Jerry's overhead image of his model with an image of the scaled drawing (at 59% opacity). It appears to me to be a good match in both cases with the exception of the overall length of the limo in the scaled drawing. I explained the issues with the scaled drawing in an earlier post.
Andrew, this should help to demonstrate what I explained in that earlier post.
I have taken your clever idea of superimposing Jerry's model over the H&E diagram and fitted the model length to the car:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JO_HE_together_limo.jpg)
The position of the doors and the length of the rear seating compartment in Jerry's model is farther forward that shown in the H&E diagram. The question is, then, which is correct - the drawing or the model.
It appears that Jerry's car is either too short or too wide.
No, it is not. If and when you realize that the H&E scaled drawing is flawed you should also realize that the H&E scaled drawing simply cannot be used the way you have tried to use it without distorting the actual location of the components. Here is a quick and simple test that will prove to anyone willing to try that the H&E drawing is flawed. There is a dimension located on the trunk lid showing the distance from the handholds to the front of the trunk lid. That dimension is shown as 37.00". If you measure it on a 100% size print of the drawing, it measures to be 44mm. Now, there is a dimension (that I have previously indicated in an earlier post, is out of scale with a red circle) which shows as 38.35" for the distance between the front of the front seat and the front of the jump seat. The two dimensions (37.00" & 38.35") are fairly close to the same length. If we use mathematics to see what the ruler should show for the 38.35", we get 45.6mm. The issue is that when we actually measure this distance on the print, it is 52mm. That is a significant difference of about 14%. And 14% of 38.35" is 5.4". There is a similar issue with the other dimension (27.4") that I circled in red in the earlier post. When you consider that adding up the individual dimensions shown does come close to the overall dimension of 256.10" and that two of the individual dimensions are significantly out of scale, it becomes obvious that the drawing does not show the true length of the limo. And your insistence on using the overall length of the limo as the basis for comparing the drawing to the image of Jerry's model is what is causing your delusion.
The H&E drawing does not show the windshield. That part in front is the dashboard.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is a photo of the "Queen Mary" that shows a side elevation view and the steep slope of the windshield. Both the "Queen Mary" and the JFK Limo were built by the same company (H&E). It is reasonable to believe that they could have started out with the drawing from the "Queen Mary" and revised it accordingly. The shape of the windshield on the JFK Limo drawing supports this idea.
(https://i.vgy.me/bQihJX.png)
Doesn't the size of those hand openings on the parade bar give you a hint?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1bsicNagDJFtv9i0r-iQC0n73kUFjygk3)
There are problems with the "Official" drawing.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1F2uSDei7EWk4PP_srcpJQ1Ajpu_ocVh4)
You appear to have carried those mistakes through to your own method of measurement. That's how we now have Mason's Voodoo Geometry.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/ad/0d/qzmX2Tae_o.jpg)
My model could be off since I have no personally-made measurements of the limousine, and the measurements that others made I have no precise way of knowing from what points or if they measured along an axis.
However, there's a pretty good correspondence of my 3D model with the White House/HSCA diagram's "Seat Fronts" measurements (if those measurements were made from the front edge of the seats; we don't know for sure). Presumably the man who measured at the White House used a level and plumb bob. This would allow him to measure over the seat-backs to get all the front edges of the seats. The level would keep everything on an even axis, necessary for an accurate top-down isometric drawing. Nowadays it's largely done by laser.
Referring to the bottom drawing, the measurements from the top-of-the-front-seat (if, in fact, it was?) show some correspondence between the front seat and where the jump-seat cushion and jump-seat seat-back meet. Then I wondered if maybe the 29" length might have been from the front-top of the jump-seat seat-back to the where the backseat's cushion and seat-back meet.
The jump-seat's measurement of 22" is, on my model, roughly from the back edge of the top of the jump-seat to the front edge of the jump-seat's cushion. A 22" length for a cushion alone isn't feasible.
I notice the WH/HSCA limo drawing seems to have no seat-back slopes drawn in for the jump-seat and backseat. So maybe the intent was to have measurements from the "front" and "back" of all the seats but things got thrown off because the seat-back slopes were not factored in?
I'm afraid we're going to be throwing darts at this thing for awhile because I don't see the Museum that has the limousine allowing private researchers access. However I wouldn't build a model solely on the WH/HSCA limo drawing.
Knowles also did a diagram of the "Queen Mary" (Exh. CE-871). It sounds like Sgt. Knowles would have used the level and plumb bob method. He obviously measured something with precision. I'm wondering if he used a diagram of the limousine before the parade bar was placed. Maybe that drawing was made when the Signal Corps installed the radio and phone when they first got the 100-X. The parade bar in Exh. CE-872 looks like an afterthought.
The 3D model was a stock Continental found on the SketchUp Warehouse. I had to cut it apart and "stretch" it, and then add the parade bar and custom backseat, etc. I don't know who originated the model but I would bet it was simply scanned from the outside. The model as I found it had no seats or steering wheel.
The rear deck is not finished towards the rear. I would like to have another look at the hand-holds, too. I can't vouch for its accuracy but there a Ford-Authorized 3D model of 100-X available for purchase.
I am presenting a method by which the location and timing of the first shot can be pin-pointed with a large degree of accuracy:
No – this is presenting an opinion. The Thorburn Flex, ITEK Auditory Assessment, and Cranor- and the Jiggle Analysis are all interesting but unless you have a starting point and can determine where the shot actually took place they are just conjecture. Zapruder is a two shot witness which is exactly what was determined by jiglle analysis. The witnesses provide the rough location but that would be it. JFK and JBC are not reacting to the same wounds. There are people who are shot and do not know it. President Reagan when shot by Hinkle was one of them.
Then why are you disputing that the first shot occurred at z222/z223?
Because I think it was a little earlier because you can use the Zapruder film with the aid of a few pieces of information and the witness statements to clarify where it actually took place. In my mind there is no real difference between Z214 and Z222. It is understanding that the shot took place here at this point and not that ridiculous early missed shot theory, thit is what is important.
If it is important, I just used the Zapruder film to locate JFK and the people standing on the side of the road. In Willis no 5 (Z202), JFK is about even with Jean Newman. In Z207 he is past Jean Newman and almost even with the secretaries. Again, every Z frame is approximately 1 foot of travel. Again, the car is 21 feet long, it can be used to estimate distances in the pictures. By Z214 he is even with the secretaries. You can use the sign to estimate his movement and location. The sign is 21 feet long using the car as a scale. Definitely not perfect but functional enough.
Reaction time extends to witness statements. If they are stating, he was just past them when they heard the shot, they too a have reaction times to having heard the sound. JFK had a reaction time. Jean Newman’s “just past her” means what? Same with the secretaries in front of them? The Chisms’, before them instead of even with them? Don’t like 10 Z frames, use 6 frames. 6 feet. The whole reaction time is nothing but a guess. JFK was in a brace. JBC is not thought to have reacted until he takes his first breath. There is no telling if they immediately knew they had been shot.
Once again, what does Roberdeau base this on?
Because you can visibly see that they are reacting to having been shot.
What about the witnesses who state there was a shot after the head-shot?
You mean the missed shot that either occurred before, during, or after that no one can pinpoint but forever is discussed? The only question that should be asked is what did the eyewitnesses initially state. There is evidence of two shots but not three. A large group of eyewitnesses state there were two shots. There is evidence on the shells that only two of them were fired but not all three. The rifle could be examined tomorrow and determine if there is an anomaly in the chamber that caused the indentation on the side of the shells but not on CE543. Maybe that is not necessary, because the FBI already determined that the indentations came from the chamber of the rifle. The indentation exists on CE141 the unfired cartridge found in the chamber of the rifle. That is the biggest piece of information of all.
The immediate eyewitness statements are a wealth of information. No hidden agendas. By the end of the day, the media’s influence had changed all that.
Well done. I tend to believe the measurements are probably correct. I used to draw mechanical drawings as part of my work. And I began doing this (by hand) well before computer aided design became common. Drawings are an important form of communication for all parties involved in a project. I can only guess that this drawing was used to communicate the dimensions which the investigators of the assassination requested. It doesn’t seem to me to be the type of drawing that the actual workers who built the limo would need or use. And I can only guess that whoever created this drawing for the assassination investigators might have taken an early version of their design drawings and placed some requested measurements on it for those investigators while not being concerned that the actual drawing scales off accurately to those dimensions. I believe that H&E was in the process of reworking that limo during the WC investigation. Therefore someone at H&E might have taken those measurements from the actual limo. I think that the reworked limo is at the Ford Museum in Michigan now. And I wonder what some actual measurements of the limo might tell us now.As someone else who's dealt with technical and construction drawings, I can confirm that you cannot always rely on them to actually be to scale, especially if they were made by a draftsman using pen and pencil on paper. The primary reason for this is simple: if a change has to be made that requires extensive redrawing, it was often easier just to change the value of a couple of dimensions rather than spend half a day erasing and redrawing. It also saves on a lot of mess, since erasing on a large scale never looks good. I'd warned Andrew about this years ago on a.a.jfk.
In The Lost Bullet, Tina Towner and Amos Euins put the first shot much closer to the traffic light, so ...
How does this negate the statements of Templin, Brandt, Newman, Burney and Dishong who were stood feet away from the limo at the time of the first shot. All state the limo had passed their position at the time of the first shot.
Euins and Towner could hardly have been further away, up at the corner of Elm and Houston.
Which statements do you give more credence to?
It contradicts what they say. No one used the word "negate."
Further away from what? The limo at the time of the first shot? They'd disagree with you.
Certainly not Buell Frazier, who thought all the shots came from the Knoll. Just out of curiosity, do you think the first shot was the SBT shot?
(https://img86.pixhost.to/images/16/348938650_vlcsnap-2023-04-23-17h06m51s068.jpg)
If you take any stock in involuntary "jiggling" in response to loud sounds (which is definitely a thing), this chart might interest you.
When I stabilized the Z film years ago I used the data to analyze the camera shake. If Zapruder responded to any loud noises during shooting the Z film, then telltale jiggles would show up as involuntary camera shake.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/Zshake_yd-d.png
There appear to be a few possible candidate spikes that might have been the 1st shot. However, there were a lot of frames spliced out of the beginning of the Z-film and Zapruder can't recall ever taking his finger off the trigger. The 1st shot might be in that footage, which got spliced out. BTW, where is the original film? Zapruder only got a copy back.
Personally, I think jiggle analysis is a load of bollocks.CBS tested the idea in the late '60s and found that it had validity. The problem is there are any number of causes of panning errors. Alvarez's Blur kind of analysis can filter out where shots can't be. CBS had the photography experts at the consulting firm EEG look at the problem, and they found an alternate way of looking at the data to come up with a smaller set of possible shot locations. However, no one seems to like the results.
CBS tested the idea in the late '60s and found that it had validity. The problem is there are any number of causes of panning errors. Alvarez's Blur kind of analysis can filter out where shots can't be. CBS had the photography experts at the consulting firm EEG look at the problem, and they found an alternate way of looking at the data to come up with a smaller set of possible shot locations. However, no one seems to like the results.
(https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKWHP/1961/Month%2006/Day%2015/JFKWHP-1961-06-15-D/JFKWHP-ST-141-2-61.jpg)
I wonder if this might be Ronald Knowles? ( "Installation of White House Army Signal Agency Equipment in New Limousine ... 15 June 1961" Link (https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHP/1961/Month%2006/Day%2015/JFKWHP-1961-06-15-D?image_identifier=JFKWHP-ST-141-3-61) )
I find some of the human-interest stories around the JFK assassination quite interesting. Put aside the endless cycle of conspiracy wars and just read a book like "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" or "The Vantage Point". The Kennedy family history and RFK Campaign are very rich in history.
Looking into it just now, it's a Ford Licensed product, meaning "Ford Motor Company has specified allowed uses for this content, including editorial and non-commercial use." I guess a modeller can submit their product and request an endorsement, probably involving a fee to Ford. Seems to be no special access to the vehicle or information from Ford, and one site says the "modeling based on photos available on Google." The model is "real-world scale" and 616 cm long. However that is 242.5" which is a bit short. Superficially, though, the model at first seems authentic.
It may be that a stock Lincoln Continental is more accurate because it's directly scanned in high-poly. But then one has to take that model and coach it into the 100-X. I think I'm getting pretty close to a reasonably accurate model.
The Hess & Eisenhardt company closed down last year. Maybe somebody from the company has the 100-X plans at home or is selling it online. That would be quite a thing to have.
No – this is presenting an opinion.
I am not presenting an opinion.
The witness statements regarding whether or not JFK had passed them at the time of the first shot is not my opinion.
The irony is that, as we shall see, all you do is offer your own hugely biased opinion without a scrap of evidence to back it up.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkhFDcfR/Zapruderclosewinesses.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The statements of the witnesses pictured show, unanimously, that JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot [as usual, statements lifted from Pat Speer's website]:
JUNE DISHONG: [taken from a letter written on the day of the assassination]
"His arm in the air waving… He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car. Jackie circled him with her arm. Another shot. Panic among the people. Woman with children. Parents pushing them to the ground. No one knows where the shots are coming from. A cry. The President has been shot. A third shot, people scatter. I can't believe what I have seen.
Dishong specifically states that JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.
PEGGY BURNEY: [A first person account published in the Dallas Times-Heraldthe day after the assassination]
"When the President's car made the curve around the corner, he was smiling and waving...he was happy and Jackie was happy and smiling as they passed. The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. The President ducked; instinctively I told myself 'something is happening,' but nobody knew what."
Burney could not be any more specific - the Presidential limo was 15ft beyond her position when she heard the first shot - this is not my opinion.
JEAN NEWMAN: [ From a statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department on the day of the assassination]
"I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about halfway between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner… The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too."
Newman is certain JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.
ERNEST BRANDT: [Oral History interview performed for the Sixth Floor Museum, 5-12-94]
"He was kind of casually smiling…acknowledging the crowd and waving casually. Nothing had happened by the time the limo was exactly opposite us, from the curb straight out to the street. Nothing had happened. But I was still watching Kennedy from the back...And of course, all I could see above the back seat was his shoulders, his neck, and head…I think the limousine was probably about 60 or 70 feet past us, three or four seconds I guess from the time. It wasn't moving real slow but yet not real fast either, y'know. And--60 or 70 feet past us, then BAM! the first shot was fired and boy it just reverberated around Dealey Plaza something terrible."
[11-22-95 article in the Dallas Morning News]
"Ernest Brandt, a salesman, watched from the curb as President John F Kennedy's motorcade turned down the Elm Street slope toward Stemmons Freeway... "Kennedy's limo was about 15 to 20 feet past us when the first shot was fired. I was still looking at him and I saw his arms come up."
[July 2000 hand-written, 3-page letter from Brandt to researcher Don Roberdeau published in part on Roberdeau's Men of Courage website and posted in total on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in 2009]
"President Kennedy was about 15 feet from me when the FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED!!! He was SLIGHTLY PAST ME at a "ONE O'CLOCK POSITION" in relation to my location on the NORTH SIDE of the Elm street curb.
Brandt could not be more explicit - he was looking at JFK from behind at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.
JOHN TEMPLIN: [7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]
"Well, as the limo drew even with us, well, the president was waving and, of course, grinning. He had just a great big smile on his face...And just about, I would say, thirty feet past us, we heard what I personally thought was a motorcycle backfire, and I... the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know.
Templin is certain JFK had passed his position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.
All five witnesses are unequivocal that JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot.
The best representation of where these witnesses were stood in relation to where the limo was at specific Z-frames is Don Roberdeau's map.
As I have already posted, when we map their positions in Dealey Plaza compared to the limo position at various Z-frames it becomes apparent that the first shot cannot have taken place any earlier than z222/z223.
Again, this is not my opinion.
Unlike your own various proclamations, that are completely unsupported and often appear to be figments of your imagination.
Here's a few of unsupported claims:
A better location for the first shot would be Z210 to Z214 based on Zapruder Frames.
This will be the third time I've asked you to support this claim.
Why will you not support your claims?
Because I think it was a little earlier because you can use the Zapruder film with the aid of a few pieces of information and the witness statements to clarify where it actually took place.
What in Zapruder makes you think this? What pieces of information? What witness statements?
Why won't you provide any support for your claims?
In Willis no 5 (Z202), JFK is about even with Jean Newman. In Z207 he is past Jean Newman and almost even with the secretaries.
What are you basing this on?
Is it just a case of 'that's what it looks like to you'?
Because you can visibly see that they are reacting to having been shot.
You previously made a statement that you could see JFK reacting to a shot in z223 - when JFK isn't even visible!!
How can you make such a statement?
What is it you're seeing that makes you think JFK is reacting as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign?
If you believe all five witnesses were wrong when they said JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot, that's up to you.
If you believe there is something wrong with the method I'm using above to locate the position of the first shot, let's hear it.
But try and support your arguments with something a little more solid than 'that's what it looks like to me'.
If nothing else you seem to have convinced yourself as to where the shot took place. If you want the shot to be at Z223, you certainly can have it. All you have to do is ignore some witness statements, place credibility on distance estimation provided by others, and ignore what is readily seen in the Zapruder film. It really does not matter as long as you place it by those witnesses that I provided you with. The book ends to when the shot was fired are Jean Newman and the Chisms. After that anyone can look at the Zapruder film, Willis 5, Bronson 3, and other snapshots and make their own assessments. It will always be just a guess and nothing more because the sign obscured the moment it took place.
You appear to have carried those mistakes through to your own method of measurement. That's how we now have Mason's Voodoo Geometry.Ok. I do owe you an apology, Jerry. Your model is fairly accurate. It is really your positions of the two men, that I question.
Again, nothing but unsupported opinion.It will always be just a guess and nothing more because the sign obscured the moment it took place.
It will always be just a guess and nothing more because the sign obscured the moment it took place.
What evidence leads you to this opinion?
If it's just a case of "it looks that way to me", you needn't respond.
It will always be just a guess and nothing more because the sign obscured the moment it took place.
What evidence leads you to this opinion?
Your "evidence". No other conclusion can be reached. It was all just your opinion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kcnsb3NY/Powersmotorcade-2-close.png) (https://postimages.org/)The positions are virtually the same as shown on my previous post. The sight line from the left edge of the right hand-hold to the corner of the glass side panel passes through the front 1/4 to 1/3 of JFK's head. The sight line from the edge of JFK's left shoulder passes to the left side of JBC's head and intersects the right sunvisor just a tad right of its centre:
Just Mason strapping on his defense attorney cowboys and misrepresenting everything. How can my 3D model be "wrong" when it's not meant to show how the men were seated in the Sisco Photo or a still from the Powers film?ok. How is this for the positions of the men in Altgens #5 on Houston:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kcnsb3NY/Powersmotorcade-2-close.png)
In this one Powers still, Kennedy is leaning towards his left (as in the Sisco Photo). Notice how high up his right shoulder is.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_alt5Groden.jpg)
Now compare the angle of the President's shoulders in the Altgens05 Photo when Kennedy is seated upright, seconds before the turn onto Elm.
Does Mason not know the President was assassinated on Elm Street, and not Main?He wasn't assassinated on Houston either. Houston is just around the corner from Main.
Your "evidence". No other conclusion can be reached.
??
WTF is that supposed to mean??
You've stated you believe the first shot happened between z210 and z214, when JBC and JFK were behind the Stemmons sign.
You say you know this "based on Zapruder frames". Obviously this is utter nonsense and I keep asking you to clarify this statement
This will be the fourth time I've asked you to provide some kind of evidence to support this incredibly weak proposal.
Rather than do that [and I'm not saying you're a lazy researcher] you say it's the evidence I have provided for a first shot at z222/z223 that has led you to this 'revelation' and that "no other conclusion can be reached",
Really?
You made this statement:
"...I think it was a little earlier [than z222/z223] because you can use the Zapruder film with the aid of a few pieces of information and the witness statements to clarify where it actually took place."
I've asked you what in the Z-film are you using to come to this watery opinion?
What "few pieces of information" are you using?
What witness statements have you re-interpreted to reach this bogus conclusion?
Instead of providing one tiny scrap of evidence to support any of this [and, again, I'm not saying you're a lazy researcher], you simply say it's the evidence I have provided that demonstrates the first shot was at z222/z223.
And that there's no other way this evidence can be interpreted.
Even though it clearly demonstrates the first shot was around z222/z223.
I get the impression you're not going to do any work regarding the subject of this thread - when the first shot occurred.
You're just spouting some silly opinions based on nothing.
Maybe you've got nothing better to do and that's fair enough.
Or, and I think this is far more likely, you're completely out of your depth here and shouldn't really have stuck your beak in.
Get out of bed and start your own thread about how many shots there were.
It's not a massive effort and you might even enjoy it.
If you do, my first questions would be - why did the conspirators need to fake three shots? Why not just have two shots?
Your hand-holds are 11 inches wide by my measurement, based on the full width of the car being 76.8 inches as set out in the H&E drawing. The actual hand-holds are 10 inches as I measure them in various photos.
I would allow a small margin of error when using sightlines involving the handrails on my model; I have not been able to measure them at the Henry Ford Museum.
Thanks for your revisions to the dimensions on the H&E drawing. I did check the width of a 1961 Lincoln Continental here (https://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/lincoln/continental_lincoln_2gen/continental_lincoln_2gen_sedan/1961.html#gsc.tab=0) and the width is 78.6 inches. So much for the drawings!
Well done. I tend to believe the measurements are probably correct. I used to draw mechanical drawings as part of my work. And I began doing this (by hand) well before computer aided design became common. Drawings are an important form of communication for all parties involved in a project. I can only guess that this drawing was used to communicate the dimensions which the investigators of the assassination requested. It doesn’t seem to me to be the type of drawing that the actual workers who built the limo would need or use. And I can only guess that whoever created this drawing for the assassination investigators might have taken an early version of their design drawings and placed some requested measurements on it for those investigators while not being concerned that the actual drawing scales off accurately to those dimensions. I believe that H&E was in the process of reworking that limo during the WC investigation. Therefore someone at H&E might have taken those measurements from the actual limo. I think that the reworked limo is at the Ford Museum in Michigan now. And I wonder what some actual measurements of the limo might tell us now.
Thanks for your revisions to the dimensions on the H&E drawing. I did check the width of a 1961 Lincoln Continental here (https://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/lincoln/continental_lincoln_2gen/continental_lincoln_2gen_sedan/1961.html#gsc.tab=0) and the width is 78.6 inches. So much for the drawings!
I have done a comparison of my model vs. Jerry's and they are very close. My side window back edge is correct but the window should be wider. But Jerry's comparison is bogus. He has the arrow on my model going back to the back of the rear seat whereas on his it goes to about JFK's upper back. Here is the corrected comparison:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Compare_JO_AM_side_corrected.JPG)
The H&E drawing at 6 HSCA 50 shows the length as 255.1" CE872 is difficult to read but looks like 21' 3" which would be 255".
At first glance, it appears that two digits might be reversed, the drawing shows 76.8”. However, there are more issues with the drawing than just that.
According to this web page: https://www.mvlimo.com/limo-history-jfks-limo-1961-lincoln-continental/ (https://www.mvlimo.com/limo-history-jfks-limo-1961-lincoln-continental/), the stock Lincoln was lengthened by 41.3”. According to your link (and others), a stock 1961 Lincoln Continental is 212.4” long overall. The sum of those two dimensions is 253.7”. The drawing shows 256.1” for the overall length. If we assume the actual lengthened dimension of 41.3” is correct, we have a length to width ratio of 253.7/78.6 = 3.2277. If we measure the actual dimensions of the drawing (as it prints at 100%) using a 3/4” = 1’-0” scale rule, we get 188.5” long by 56.5”. Therefore, the measured length to width ratio is 188.5/56.5 = 3.3362. This equates to the drawing’s length to width ratio being 1.03436 times what it appears that it should be. In other words, the drawing shows the limo being longer than it should be by 3.436%. And 3.436% of 253.7” is 8.717”, or close to 9” too long compared to what is believed to be a more accurate aspect ratio.
I do wonder if either Ford or someone who used to work at H&E still has drawings that they might have prepared for this Limo…
The H&E drawing at 6 HSCA 50 shows the length as 255.1" CE872 is difficult to read but looks like 21' 3" which would be 255".
I'm assuming you're talking about the moment JFK is shot for the first time causing his fists to go up to his throat. The question is, if we assume there are three shots from the TSBD, which shot is this - first, second or third?
IMO the shot that caused JFK to raise his fists to his throat occurred at z223. The opening post of this thread is an assertion that no shot took place before z207. Less than one second after this (z223) Kennedy is hit. This leads me to conclude the first shot fired from the TSBD is the one that hits Kennedy in the throat. Quite a number of "ear-witnesses" describe a pattern to the shots - shot, pause, two shots closer together. If this is the case the second shot must be the head-shot with the third shot coming shortly after that.
So we should look for evidence of a second shot after the midpoint between the first and last. With the first just before z202 and after z186 and the third shot at z312-313, that puts the midpoint around 250-255. In order to make a perceptible difference one would expect a second shot around 270 to fit that pattern. If all shots were fired by the same shooter, which is what the three men on the fifth floor said occurred, the second shot would have to be no closer than 2 seconds before the last.
Problems :
A.The spacing of the 3 shots would be 1..2…..3
Which is opposite what 2/3rds witnesses heard as 1……2..3.
B. A bullet which passed thru JFKs neck and throat and then where did it go?To answer that, one needs to look at the relative positions of the two men relative to the SN at the time of the first shot. At z186-202, the angle of the car direction to the SN was 13-14 degrees right to left. At that time, JBC was turned right. The wound characteristics of the thigh wound indicate that it was a punctate wound from the butt end of an intact missile. A small amount of lead was found embedded in the left femur. CE399 was damaged on only one side on its butt end.
C. A solitary gunman 2nd independent shot to JBC is difficult to explain how JBC is being hit at Z224-226 , (because of the abruptly turning shoulder of JBC in sync with JFKs movement of arms and hands to throat ). JFK is still obstructing the SE gunmans LOS to JBC at Z225-226.He was hit later. The shot pattern and Altgens tells us that there was only one shot prior to z255.
D. Presuming the notion that the gunman at SE window had approx 5 minutes to study ElmThe Secret Service film shows that the tree was not that much of an obstruction and that JFK was likely in clear view by z195.
St , the tree obstruction and light pole, then why would he choose to shoot in the Z 195-205 range thru branches of a tree even if the foliage was minimal?
E. The Z film does not appear to indicate that JFK is being hit at Z 195-205You are assuming an instantaneous reaction? Many bullets are not even felt. JFK may be reacting in z226 and after because of the effect of the neck shot.
F. If JFK 1st shot hit from Z210-220, then it’s even more improbable to be just 1 gunman using an MC rifleWell, a first shot at z210-220 does not fit the shot pattern unless the second shot was less than 2 seconds before the head shot.
if we assume there are three shots from the TSBD,
Were there three shots from the TSBD???..... ASSUME.....
Most witnesses said the second and third shots sounded as if they were very close together....almost as if it was a single shot.
Z350 - Z312 = 38 frames ...... Divided by 14 fps= 2.71 seconds
Nearly 3 seconds apart would NOT sound like a single shot
So we should look for evidence of a second shot after the midpoint between the first and last. With the first just before z202 and after z186 and the third shot at z312-313, that puts the midpoint around 250-255. In order to make a perceptible difference one would expect a second shot around 270 to fit that pattern. If all shots were fired by the same shooter, which is what the three men on the fifth floor said occurred, the second shot would have to be no closer than 2 seconds before the last.
To answer that, one needs to look at the relative positions of the two men relative to the SN at the time of the first shot. At z186-202, the angle of the car direction to the SN was 13-14 degrees right to left. At that time, JBC was turned right. The wound characteristics of the thigh wound indicate that it was a punctate wound from the butt end of an intact missile. A small amount of lead was found embedded in the left femur. CE399 was damaged on only one side on its butt end.
He was hit later. The shot pattern and Altgens tells us that there was only one shot prior to z255.
The Secret Service film shows that the tree was not that much of an obstruction and that JFK was likely in clear view by z195.
You are assuming an instantaneous reaction? Many bullets are not even felt. JFK may be reacting in z226 and after because of the effect of the neck shot.
Well, a first shot at z210-220 does not fit the shot pattern unless the second shot was less than 2 seconds before the head shot.
If all shots were fired by the same shooter, which is what the three men on the fifth floor said occurred,
Hey Walt!
Good to see you're back on the scene.
And good to see you still blundering around, believing every thing you say is a fact just because you've said it.
Yes Walt, this thread is based on the assumption there were three, clearly audible shots fired from the SN.
This assumption is based on the following:
Over 160 witnesses [more than three quarters of the 200+ witnesses who gave information about the shots] reported hearing three, clearly audible shots.
At least two witnesses report seeing a man with a rifle pointing towards JFK at the time of the shooting from the SN window. A few others reported seeing just the rifle sticking out [I find the suggestion this is a "decoy" laughable].
Harold Norman, stood directly beneath the SN at the time of the shooting reports the shots as coming from directly above him.
The first officer on the scene [officially] was Mooney, who reported discovering three spent shells in the SN, indicating three shots from that position.The notion that Mooney is some kind of stooge can be dismissed as it is he who also reports Fritz arriving on the scene and picking up the shells before they are photographed by Studebaker [thus destroying the chain of custody and, potentially, tampering with evidence]. Tom Alyea reports the same thing.
I've no doubt you don't have a scrap of credible evidence to support where you think the shots were fired from, but that's never stopped you before. Why go to the trouble of collecting facts when you can just make them up.
A typical Walt "fact".
It is absolutely not true, not the case, not a fact that "most witnesses" said the second and third shots were "almost as if it was a single shot". Of the 200+ witnesses asked, about a quarter of these reported a shot pattern where the second two shots were a lot closer together than the first two two shots. Of this group, a handful of witnesses described the second two shots as being almost simultaneous.
I am persuaded that the last two shots were really close together, which isn't really convenient for the model I'm proposing.
The first shot is the "throat shot" that passes through both men at z222/z223. Over 40 witnesses describe JFK reacting to the first shot as we see in the Z-film - stiffening up, hands raised to throat area and slumping towards Jackie.
The second shot is the head shot at z312/z313, with a final shot very shortly after this.
But why take this final shot? JFK's head has just exploded.
And why hurry the shot?
Nowhere have I said that we are to assume the rifle used was the MC.
I don’t recall any of them ever saying that.
I don’t recall any of them ever saying that.You are right. They just said that the shots came from the floor directly above them (the SN). One then needs to use a little bit of reasoning to conclude from this that this means the shots were fired from the same rifle. e.g.:
You are right. They just said that the shots came from the floor directly above them (the SN). One then needs to use a little bit of reasoning to conclude from this that this means the shots were fired from the same rifle. e.g.:
- Norman said that the shots were followed by a bolt action reload and shell hitting the floor.
- At no time were two people seen in the SN.
- The setup made it impossible for two shooters to be in the SN firing at the same time.
- Only one rifle was seen in the SN.
- Only one window in the SN was open.
- Unsurprisingly, no rifle other than the MC was ever found.
In other words, unless you are suggesting that there were two shooters and two rifles firing from the SN, which is absurd, the evidence from the three men is that all three shots were fired by the same shooter.
Hi Dan....Thanks for the warm ( and insincere) welcome
Please post actual proof the the three shells ( originally TWO) that allegedly were fired from the SE corner window, were IN FACT fired from that site.
Nor do I......but perhaps Mr O'meara will post proof that all three men reported that the three shots were all fired by the same shooter. Or how those three man KNEW a "MAN" ( not a woman) had fired the shots
If we rely on Harold Normans “boom clack clack” description of the sound of the rifle fired, then how can we ignore his spacing the 3 shots all fired in about a span of only 4 secs judging from his recorded interviews?
That’s just too quick to be the MC rifle imo
Also (imo) Norman seems to space the last #2 and # 3 “boom clack clacks” slightly closer together than #1 and #2.
My own personal and yet to be proved theory is that a semi auto rifle was used by the SE window gunman and that it was Z224 that was the 1st shot that went thru both JFK and JBC
However, there still some problem finding a semi auto rifle that might make some after shot sound that could be mistaken as “clack clack”
The closest semi rifle I’ve found that has a kind of “clack” noise that follows the firing of the shot is the M1941 Johnson 7.62 mm semi auto rifle.
The speculative sequence of shots for a semi auto rifle:
1st shot is fired at Z223-224 in a selected zone that the gunman having had at least 5 minutes at the SE window chose as the best range and clear of the tree.
This fits well with reaction time of 1.5 secs for SS agents turning their heads to the TSBD as photographed by Altgens no. 6 photo which is approx Z255.
The gunman did not see the desired head shot result from his 1st shot so took another 4.8 secs to aim. He was aided by Greer( accidentally) slowing the Limo down , and so he fired his last 2 shots in rapid succession as this was his last opportunity.
The 2nd shot was fired at Z313 followed by an 0.5 sec 3rd shot that went slightly high just missing JFKs head. This was due to the muzzle rise effect when firing 2 shots rapidly with a semi auto rifle.
Since James Tague said it was the 2nd OR the 3rd shot which he thought hit the curb nearby him, then it’s a plausible speculation it could be a 3rd shot that went slightly high that hit the curb with enough impact to chip the curb.
Where that bullet went is a mystery. Perhaps it’s still there somewhere near the Triple overpass buried in the ground or went into a storm drain.
The bullets fired from the semi auto rifle might have had a different composition of metal jacket and were pointed shaped. This might be the reason for metal trace elements found in the curb which do not match the MC 6.5 mm ball nosed copper jacketed bullet.
Also the bullet found on the JFK stretcher by the man who found it initially, was described by him as appearing to be more pointed shaped than the shape of the CE 399 bullet which he was later shown and asked to confirm( which he did not ) in report that was made by FBI agent Odum, who 50 years later denied ever making such report.
There was no scent of perfume or sound of high heels. ::)
Also, the boxes by the window weren't put away.
Norman said that the shots were followed by a bolt action reload and shell hitting the floor.
At no time were two people seen in the SN.
The setup made it impossible for two shooters to be in the SN firing at the same time.
Only one rifle was seen in the SN.
Only one window in the SN was open.
Unsurprisingly, no rifle other than the MC was ever found.
Seconds before the motorcade enters Dealey Plaza, Roberts and Fischer saw a man in the SN window [who was apparently not Oswald].
Euins and Brennan report a man pointing a rifle from the SN window towards the limo at the time of the shots.
Other witnesses saw what appeared to be a rifle sticking out of the same window.
At this time Hank Norman is directly beneath the SN.
Norman reports hearing the shots coming from directly above him and hears the shells hitting the floor.
The first officers at the SN report seeing three shells on the floor in the SN.
Other than an actual video of the shots being taken, I'm not sure what further evidence could be offered to verify that three shots were fired from the SN.
However, as I've already stated, Mooney and Alyea report that Fritz picked up the shells and may well have pocketed them.
Deputy Sheriff Jack Faulkner, in his initial report, states that when Fritz arrived on the sixth floor he was given the shells.
Fritz also pocketed the round ejected from the MC.
As such, it is impossible to verify that the shells that were allegedly discovered in the SN are the same shells photographed by Studebaker or that they were the shells involved in the three shots taken from the SN.
You state there were originally two shells allegedly fired from the SN window.
WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT?
Proof??..... A very strong indicator that there were only two spent shells and one live round in evidence on the evening of 11/22/63 is the FACT that the FBI took photos of the evidence ....and the photos they took show only TWO spent shells...and one live round.
The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) tore the thin scab of the festering wound of the first hit by admitting that the first hit came while the sixth-floor gunman's view was blocked by the oak tree. The PEP, to their great credit, admitted that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows that JFK starts to react to being shot by Z200 and that this shot was fired at or before Z190.
The PEP noted that at around Z200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze and his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion. JFK's head rapidly moves from the right toward his wife on his left. JFK's hand not only stops suddenly in the middle of a wave, but it also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays at that level until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. Clearly, he's starting to reach for his throat.
At virtually the same instant, Jackie suddenly and rapidly starts to turn her to the right toward JFK. At Z207, Howard Brennan snaps his head to the right.
We now know that the Secret Service analysis of the Zapruder film, conducted with the aid of a surveyor in Dealey Plaza a few days after the assassination, concluded that Kennedy was first hit at around Z199.
And, there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, indicating that Zapruder involuntarily reacted to the sound of a shot and proving that the shot was fired shortly before Z189.
PEP member William Hartmann noted that since Willis Slide 5 was snapped at Z202, this showed that the shot must have been fired at or shortly before Z190.
Of course, the problem with this Z186-190 first hit for the lone-gunman theory is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been blocked by the oak tree from Z166-Z210. Even the WC admitted that its supposed lone gunman would not have fired during this time, which is why the Commission claimed that the first hit did not occur until after Z210.
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view
And we can dismiss with a giggle the absurd idea that the alleged lone gunman missed the entire limousine with his first and closest shot. The limo was 6.5 feet wide and 21 feet long. It boggles the mind to think how the same guy who allegedly performed a shooting feat that Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate could have missed the entire gigantic limo with his first and easiest shot. Yet, this is exactly what many WC apologists now claim.
And what has this got to do with how many shells were discovered in the SN?
The answer to this question is that it has nothing to do with how many shells were originally discovered in the SN.
The initial reports of officers who were on the 6th floor when Mooney discovered the SN and the shells, explicitly state that there were three shells.
Tom Alyea, who was with Fritz when he arrived at the SN also reported three shells.
Three shells were originally discovered in the SN.
Your assertion that there were originally two shells is wrong - it's another Walt "fact".
Although none of this is anything to do with when the first shot was fired [the topic of this thread], it is part of the assumption I have based this thread on - that three, clearly audible shots were fired from the SN.
Three shells were originally discovered in the SN. Hank Norman, directly beneath the SN heard three shots being taken directly above him and shells hittiing the floor.
Witnesses saw a man in the SN window pointing a rifle towards the Presidential limo at the same time Norman reports hears the shots being fired from above him [that is to say, he hears shots being fired from the same position the eye-witnesses see the man with the rifle].
Three shots - three shells.
The assumption I'm making is a sound one.
In this thread I have collected an overwhelming amount of evidence demonstrating the first shot occurred at z222/z223. It was the "throat shot" that caused JFK's hands to fly up towards his throat.
Knowing when the first shot happened doesn't throw any light on who took the shots and why, but I've always felt that such a fundamental piece of information relating to the assassination should be known, and not the subject of multiple, dubious theories.
No – this is presenting an opinion.First of all, one has to get the locations of the witnesses correct. You have identified Dishong correctly as the fourth person to the left of the Stemmons sign in the zfilm. You are showing Burney standing immediately to the left of June Dishong. However, Roberdeau shows her farther left, two persons left of Templin. So I would be interested to know how you have determined that Burney was beside Dishong.
I am not presenting an opinion.
The witness statements regarding whether or not JFK had passed them at the time of the first shot is not my opinion.
The irony is that, as we shall see, all you do is offer your own hugely biased opinion without a scrap of evidence to back it up.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gkhFDcfR/Zapruderclosewinesses.jpg)
The statements of the witnesses pictured show, unanimously, that JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot [as usual, statements lifted from Pat Speer's website]:
JUNE DISHONG: [taken from a letter written on the day of the assassination]
"His arm in the air waving… He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car. Jackie circled him with her arm. Another shot. Panic among the people. Woman with children. Parents pushing them to the ground. No one knows where the shots are coming from. A cry. The President has been shot. A third shot, people scatter. I can't believe what I have seen.
Dishong specifically states that JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.Yes. It is your opinion. She said the first shot occurred "as they go by". That does not necessarily mean it was after JFK had passed her position. And your opinion seems to be at odds with Karen Westbrook's statements.
PEGGY BURNEY: [A first person account published in the Dallas Times-Heraldthe day after the assassination]
"When the President's car made the curve around the corner, he was smiling and waving...he was happy and Jackie was happy and smiling as they passed. The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. The President ducked; instinctively I told myself 'something is happening,' but nobody knew what."
[/b
Burney could not be any more specific - the Presidential limo was 15ft beyond her position when she heard the first shot - this is not my opinion.Yes. It is your opinion and it is based on a position for Burney that is at odds with Roberdeau. And your opinion seems to be at odds with Betty Thornton's and Jane Berry's statements.
JEAN NEWMAN: [ From a statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department on the day of the assassination]Jean Newman appears to have been standing opposite the President at z204 as she was to the immediate right of Brandt. She stated that the President had just passed her at the time of the first shot. I don't know what "just" means, but it is not clear that this means he had traveled 18' past the point when he was directly in front of her.
"I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about halfway between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner… The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too."
Newman is certain JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.Newman's statement is not completely inconsistent with a first shot as late as z222 but it is at odds with the statements of people to her left (Thornton, Berry and, maybe, Burney).
ERNEST BRANDT: [Oral History interview performed for the Sixth Floor Museum, 5-12-94]I am not sure why you place much weight on such specific details from a witness whose first statements were made 30+ years after the events and whose statements put the first shot in a range of 75 feet. The first statement in 1994 puts the first shot as 60 or 70 frames after z210! Besides, he was farther down the street from Berry, Thornton and, possibly, Burney who said that the car was passing them at the time of the first shot.
"He was kind of casually smiling…acknowledging the crowd and waving casually. Nothing had happened by the time the limo was exactly opposite us, from the curb straight out to the street. Nothing had happened. But I was still watching Kennedy from the back...And of course, all I could see above the back seat was his shoulders, his neck, and head…I think the limousine was probably about 60 or 70 feet past us, three or four seconds I guess from the time. It wasn't moving real slow but yet not real fast either, y'know. And--60 or 70 feet past us, then BAM! the first shot was fired and boy it just reverberated around Dealey Plaza something terrible."
[11-22-95 article in the Dallas Morning News]
"Ernest Brandt, a salesman, watched from the curb as President John F Kennedy's motorcade turned down the Elm Street slope toward Stemmons Freeway... "Kennedy's limo was about 15 to 20 feet past us when the first shot was fired. I was still looking at him and I saw his arms come up."
[July 2000 hand-written, 3-page letter from Brandt to researcher Don Roberdeau published in part on Roberdeau's Men of Courage website and posted in total on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in 2009]
"President Kennedy was about 15 feet from me when the FIRST SHOT WAS FIRED!!! He was SLIGHTLY PAST ME at a "ONE O'CLOCK POSITION" in relation to my location on the NORTH SIDE of the Elm street curb.
Brandt could not be more explicit - he was looking at JFK from behind at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.That does appear to be his recollection 30+ years after the fact - he explicitly recalled the President being 15' to 60' to 70' feet past him. Not very precise.
JOHN TEMPLIN: [7-28-95 Oral History interview for the Sixth Floor Museum]I agree. But this statement is at odds with statements of witnesses to his left on Elm St.
"Well, as the limo drew even with us, well, the president was waving and, of course, grinning. He had just a great big smile on his face...And just about, I would say, thirty feet past us, we heard what I personally thought was a motorcycle backfire, and I... the president kind of threw his shoulders up a little bit and kind of laid his head back on the back of the seat, and I thought, well, he’s just playing and playing the crowd and acting silly, you know.
Templin is certain JFK had passed his position at the time of the first shot - this is not my opinion.
The best representation of where these witnesses were stood in relation to where the limo was at specific Z-frames is Don Roberdeau's map.There are obvious problems with the Roberdeau positions a(eg. Wesbrook, Jacob, Simmons). Your position for Burney shows that. You seem to disagree with Roberdeau's position for her. And even Roberdeau's positions have changed in different versions. What version are you using?
As I have already posted, when we map their positions in Dealey Plaza compared to the limo position at various Z-frames it becomes apparent that the first shot cannot have taken place any earlier than z222/z223.
The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) tore the thin scab of the festering wound of the first hit by admitting that the first hit came while the sixth-floor gunman's view was blocked by the oak tree. The PEP, to their great credit, admitted that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows that JFK starts to react to being shot by Z200 and that this shot was fired at or before Z190.
The PEP noted that at around Z200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze and his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion. JFK's head rapidly moves from the right toward his wife on his left. JFK's hand not only stops suddenly in the middle of a wave, but it also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays at that level until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. Clearly, he's starting to reach for his throat.
At virtually the same instant, Jackie suddenly and rapidly starts to turn her to the right toward JFK. At Z207, Howard Brennan snaps his head to the right.
We now know that the Secret Service analysis of the Zapruder film, conducted with the aid of a surveyor in Dealey Plaza a few days after the assassination, concluded that Kennedy was first hit at around Z199.
And, there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, indicating that Zapruder involuntarily reacted to the sound of a shot and proving that the shot was fired shortly before Z189.
PEP member William Hartmann noted that since Willis Slide 5 was snapped at Z202, this showed that the shot must have been fired at or shortly before Z190.
Of course, the problem with this Z186-190 first hit for the lone-gunman theory is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been blocked by the oak tree from Z166-Z210. Even the WC admitted that its supposed lone gunman would not have fired during this time, which is why the Commission claimed that the first hit did not occur until after Z210.
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view
And we can dismiss with a giggle the absurd idea that the alleged lone gunman missed the entire limousine with his first and closest shot. The limo was 6.5 feet wide and 21 feet long. It boggles the mind to think how the same guy who allegedly performed a shooting feat that Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate could have missed the entire gigantic limo with his first and easiest shot. Yet, this is exactly what many WC apologists now claim.
First of all, one has to get the locations of the witnesses correct. You have identified Dishong correctly as the fourth person to the left of the Stemmons sign in the zfilm. You are showing Burney standing immediately to the left of June Dishong. However, Roberdeau shows her farther left, two persons left of Templin. So I would be interested to know how you have determined that Burney was beside Dishong.
We do know that Karen Westbrook was the woman in the blue scarf just under the left edge of the Stemmons sign in the Zfilm:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/westbrook_position.JPG)
So let's look at the person who was standing 3 persons to the right of Dishong: Karen Westbrook who also gave a statement (22 H 679 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0355a.htm)). Westbrook said "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot. So not only was the President not yet directly in front of her, the car he was in was not yet quite directly in front of her. She identified frame z202 as about the time of the first shot in her Youtube Six Floor Museum interview at about 20:55:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Westbrook_first_shot.JPG)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJghyNiPOoU&t=19s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJghyNiPOoU&t=19s)
Yes. It is your opinion. She said the first shot occurred "as they go by". That does not necessarily mean it was after JFK had passed her position. And your opinion seems to be at odds with Karen Westbrook's statements.
Again, this is an equivocal statement. If the car was in the process of passing, does she mean the front of the car or the back or the middle? And what is the 15 feet in reference to? She was about 15 feet from the car as it passed (12' right lane + 4' of the middle lane). Did she mean the car side was about 15 feet beyond me when it passed? And all of this is critical because if Burney was opposite JFK at about z202 (as per Roberdeau), the car had started to pass her 15' before z202 or at about z187 (12 mph=18/sec or 1'/frame).
Your placement of Burney is not without controversy. Gloria Calvery is identified by Karen Westbrook as the person immediately to Westbrook's left (grey dress, light hair). Calvery gave an FBI statement similar to that of Westbrook ("almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot"). Karan Hicks was identified (with some uncertainty) by Westbrook as the woman to the left of Gloria Calvery. She gave a statement very similar to that of Westbrook and Calvery.
Betty Thornton was standing opposite JFK about z201 according to Roberdeau. Betty Thornton gave a statement to the FBI on 22Nov63 (22 H 677 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0354a.htm)). She said "As the car in which the President was riding passed by, I heard what I thought were firecrackers being discharged". That is consistent with a first shot occurring as some part of the car was opposite her (z186 to z207) and inconsistent with a shot occurring after the entire car had traveled 15 feet past where she was standing, which is what you are suggesting.
Jane Berry was standing to the left of Thornton, opposite JFK at z200 if Roberdeau is correct. Jane Berry gave a statement (CD5 (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/Berry_0001a.gif) in which she said "Just as the car was passing by her, she heard a rifle shot". This is consistent with some part of the car being opposite her when the first shot was heard (ie. the first shot between z185 and z206). It is inconsistent with a first shot at z222.
Yes. It is your opinion and it is based on a position for Burney that is at odds with Roberdeau. And your opinion seems to be at odds with Betty Thornton's and Jane Berry's statements.
Jean Newman appears to have been standing opposite the President at z204 as she was to the immediate right of Brandt. She stated that the President had just passed her at the time of the first shot. I don't know what "just" means, but it is not clear that this means he had traveled 18' past the point when he was directly in front of her.
Newman's statement is not completely inconsistent with a first shot as late as z222 but it is at odds with the statements of people to her left (Thornton, Berry and, maybe, Burney).
I am not sure why you place much weight on such specific details from a witness whose first statements were made 30+ years after the events and whose statements put the first shot in a range of 75 feet. The first statement in 1994 puts the first shot as 60 or 70 frames after z210! Besides, he was farther down the street from Berry, Thornton and, possibly, Burney who said that the car was passing them at the time of the first shot.
That does appear to be his recollection 30+ years after the fact - he explicitly recalled the President being 15' to 60' to 70' feet past him. Not very precise.
I agree. But this statement is at odds with statements of witnesses to his left on Elm St.
All your witnesses except Brandt and Templin (who gave their first statements over 30 years after the event) are equivocal as to whether JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot.
There are obvious problems with the Roberdeau positions a(eg. Wesbrook, Jacob, Simmons). Your position for Burney shows that. You seem to disagree with Roberdeau's position for her. And even Roberdeau's positions have changed in different versions. What version are you using?
Mary Woodward gave a statement on 6Dec63 (24 H 520 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0269b.htm)). Her position is identified from photos (Altgens 6) and the zfilm - she is two people right of "hard hat" AJ Millican (Millican is the guy standing beside the lamp post) wearing a light grey dress. She was directly opposite JFK at about z192.
Woodward stated that she and others in her group cheered the President and that both he and Jackie turned and waved to them as they went by. That turn and wave starts at z172 and is complete by z180. She then said that one or two seconds after they turned and waved, the first "horrible, ear-shattering noise" sounded. One second would put the first shot from z190 to z198. Two seconds puts the shot from z208 to z216. Since we can pinpoint to within 8 frames of where the President turned and waved to them (z172-180), we can see that the car (21 feet long with 6 feet of car behind JFK) traveling at 1 foot per frame is starting to pass in front of where she was standing (opposite JFK at z192) at around z177. It continues to pass her for 21 frames ie. until z198, so the impression that they turned and waved as the car passed by is consistent with the zfilm.
The woman wearing the blue scarf is Sharon Simmons, not Karen Westbrook.So... Karen Westbrook misidentified herself and her friends from the back and the front (her face is seen in the Betzner photo) ? Where do you think Westbrook was?
The various identifications are summed up in Pat Speer's website in the Chapter 7b "More Pieces in the Plaza".
So... Karen Westbrook misidentified herself and her friends from the back and the front (her face is seen in the Betzner photo) ? Where do you think Westbrook was?
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0pPwbmP/Zapruder-Calvery-Named.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)If you are correct, that makes it even more unlikely that the first shot was at z222. You have her opposite JFK at about z198. She said "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion". If she was right, that puts the first shot sound enough before z198 to give the impression that the car was not quite directly in front of her. If you subtract 1.5 frames to find the time the bullet hit, that would mean the bullet hit before z195.
If you are correct, that makes it even more unlikely that the first shot was at z222. You have her opposite JFK at about z198. She said "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion". If she was right, that puts the first shot sound enough before z198 to give the impression that the car was not quite directly in front of her. If you subtract 1.5 frames to find the time the bullet hit, that would mean the bullet hit before z195.
The PEP's analysis involving JFK's sharp head turn to the left has been completely debunked in this thread - Reply#60, page 8It looks like the left hand has moved toward the chest from z224 to z225.
JFK makes no sharp head turn and is, in fact, still looking to his right as he passes behind the Stemmons sign.
There is no hand freeze, he simply starts waving and then begins to lower his right hand to it's original position.
The notion that he is reaching for his throat before he passes behind the Stemmons sign has also been debunked in this thread. In the graphic below it can be seen that between z224 and z225 JFK's hand is lowering. That is to say, his hand is moving away from his throat:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0wWzgwb/z224handlower.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This is completely untrue. Jackie had turned to her right well before this. Around the z170's JFK, Jackie and JBC all turn to their right in reaction to Mary Woodward and her colleagues shouting out to the President. Something both Woodward and Vickie Adams describe in detail.Jackie turns her head from looking left in z173 to looking somewhat right by z193 looking toward the crowd on the right but not looking at JFK. She then turns farther right until about z212 so that she is looking right at her husband (seen by her hat in z212) and holds this position after she emerges from behind the Stemmons sign:
Sound in air travels at 1127 fps at 68F temperature. The average bullet speed over the 175 feet from the SN to JFK at z198 is 2100 fps. So the bullet would take 175/2100=83 ms to reach JFK and the sound would take 175/1127=155 ms. Time difference between arrival of bullet and arrival of sound is 155-83=72 ms. Time between frames = 1/18.3=55 ms.
'"If you are correct, that makes it even more unlikely that the first shot was at z222. You have her opposite JFK at about z198. She said "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion". "
If Westbrook heard the first shot at Z198 ....and that bullet hit JFK ( highly unlikely from the TSBD, because of the tree) then JFK would have been reacting to being hit at the time Westbrook observed him, because bullets travel faster than the speed of sound.
If you are correct, that makes it even more unlikely that the first shot was at z222. You have her opposite JFK at about z198. She said "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion". If she was right, that puts the first shot sound enough before z198 to give the impression that the car was not quite directly in front of her. If you subtract 1.5 frames to find the time the bullet hit, that would mean the bullet hit before z195.
It looks like the left hand has moved toward the chest from z224 to z225.
Jackie turns her head from looking left in z173 to looking somewhat right by z193 looking toward the crowd on the right but not looking at JFK. She then turns farther right until about z212 so that she is looking right at her husband (seen by her hat in z212) and holds this position after she emerges from behind the Stemmons sign:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Jackie_turn.gif)
A group of five witnesses to her right - Templin, Brandt, Newman, Burney and Dishong - unanimously agree that JFK had passed their position at the time of the first shot.Chism did not say that the limo was in front of him at the time of the first shot. He said "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; and I heard what sounded like one shot..." So the "just about in front of me" refers to the car position when JFK turned from z172 to z180 (which must be the turn to which he is referring). That was, in his perception, "just about in front" of him. And, as I pointed out, the witnesses to whom you refer, other than Templin and Brandt who first spoke about it 30 years after the fact, do not say that JFK had passed them at the time of the first shot.
Westbrook's reported phrase, that the "car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion", simply means that her position was close to the limo at the time of the first shot. It does not give us any information as to whether the limo had passed her position or not. You have chosen it to mean the limo had not yet reached her position. That's your choice. You do this in spite of the group of witnesses to her right who have the limo already past their position at the time of the first shot. Something that agrees with John Chism's claim that the limo was in front of him at the time of the first shot.
That you prefer your own twisted interpretation of a single piece of evidence to suit your own needs, over the mass of evidence contradicting you dead theory, isn't anything new.
With all due respect John, you're wrong.I have to agree with you on this. Thanks for the explanation.
In her Oral History, Karen Westbrook identifies herself as the woman in the blue headscarf in the pic below [who I have labeled Sharon Simmons].
She identifies the blonde woman to her left as Gloria Calvery [Gloria Holt]
She identifies the woman with the dark hair as "one of the Carol's" [Stella Jacobs]
.....Westbrook's identification of herself in the Z-film is clearly incorrect. This is no big deal, she is looking at a picture of a woman wearing a headscarf from behind. Her identification appears to rest solely on the fact she was wearing a headscarf that day.
Chism did not say that the limo was in front of him at the time of the first shot. He said "And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; and I heard what sounded like one shot..." So the "just about in front of me" refers to the car position when JFK turned from z172 to z180 (which must be the turn to which he is referring). That was, in his perception, "just about in front" of him. And, as I pointed out, the witnesses to whom you refer, other than Templin and Brandt who first spoke about it 30 years after the fact, do not say that JFK had passed them at the time of the first shot.
His left hand has fractionally moved upwards, towards his chest. It is down by his side as he passes behind the Stemmons sign and it is in the same position, down by his side, when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign in z224. In z225 there is the first hint of the movement that will have his left arm rocketing up to an incredibly extreme physical position.
The pic on the left below shows JFK's left arm position at z183, before he passes behind the Stemmons sign. The pic on the right shows the left arm in the same position after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, in z224.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FH9hMNDW/z183z224leftarmcomparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
From the resting position, down at his side, JFK's left arm suddenly rockets upwards into a really extreme physical position. His elbows are extended upwards to, what appears to be, their fullest extent. I would urge any reader of this to replicate this position to get an idea of how extreme it is. Even more extreme is the amount of time it takes his left arm to go from a resting position into this extreme posture - it is a fraction of a second.
It is surely a rapid reflex reaction to damage caused directly to the central nervous system by the bullet that transits through JFK's neck. JFK's reaction to this shot is quite startling - his hands clench into fists which he jams under his chin area as his elbows fly up in the air in quite an extraordinary fashion, his whole upper body becoming temporarily rigid before relaxing slightly. It is a really extreme and rapid reaction:
(https://i.postimg.cc/446tFwtR/JFK-JBC-react-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
It really is an extraordinary and profound reaction. There can be little argument it is a reaction to being shot. The pic below shows how extreme the reaction is:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qv9T9cV2/z232-MPI-3.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/NK7SXH00)
This pic is from z232. As we have seen, at z224 JFK's left arm is down by his side yet at z232, half a second later his left elbow is thrust up to what appears to be it's maximum extension (as I say, try replicating this position, I know I can get my left elbow barely any higher than JFK's and that's really trying).
Half a second to get his left elbow from a resting postion at his side to, what I am assuming is, it's maximum extension. Trying to do this with a conscious effort is barely possible but in JFK's case, this is done from a resting position with no expectation that this reaction will be happening. From a completely relaxed state to rigidity in less than half a second.
So when does this extreme reaction begin?:
In the clip below (z224-226) we see his left hand still resting on his stomach area, his left elbow down by his side but obscured by the top of the limo door (z224). In the next frame there is a slight movement of his left arm and hand (z225). In the final frame his elbow comes into view from behind the limo door, his hand clearly moving to his throat (z226):
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzKmSt4Y/z224-226-gif-1.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
It is clear from the above frames that this extreme movement of JFK's left arm can be seen most obviously in z226, when his left elbow, which has been hidden from view by the limo door up to this point, suddenly comes into view. We can say with little doubt that JFK's extreme reaction has begun by z226. I believe there is a first hint of movement seen in z225.
The Z-film shows an extraordinary and extreme reaction to being shot. It begins at z225. Before this point in the film there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that even hints at such an extreme reaction. As JFK begins his last wave he turns and smiles towards the people to his right. His finishes waving and is bringing his hand back down and turning slightly forward as he passes behind the sign. Perfectly normal actions. His left arm is down by his side for, what may well be, the duration of the Z-film from z133 to z225. Within less than half a second his left elbow rockets up from a relaxed position down by his side to it's maximum extension. I believe it is a reflex reaction to a massive trauma of the Brachial Plexus - the nerves that control function of the arms and hands - that the bullet is known to have passed through.
Whatever the case, there is nothing in the Z-film that is remotely comparable to the extreme reaction to being hit by the first shot prior to z224. Arguments about slight head turns or what might have gone on behind the sign are redundant as we get to see the full extent of JFK's reaction by monitoring the position of his left arm.
IT IS ALL SHOWN IN THE Z-FILM.
Ultimately, you are correct - JFK's left arm does show a sight movement in z225.
But I'd already pointed that out.
Again, I'd already pointed that out.
Thanks for agreeing though.
I agree that the women in the Darnell clip are Jacobs, Holt, and Simmons. That, however, doesn’t make them the same people as the figures in the Z film.
I am just pointing out what he said. You are the one telling us that he didn't mean what he said.
Obviously, just because you agree about the identification of the women in the Darnell clip (for whatever random reason), that doesn't make them the same women in the Z-film.
Identifying the women in the Darnell clip doesn’t identify anybody in the Z film. There’s nothing “certain” about it as you tried to claim.
In Altgens 6 we see Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD, presumably in response to the sound of gunfire:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DfPPnBm6/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."
Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."
Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "
Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6. However, when we take a closer look at Zapruder we see no meaningful reaction from them (Hickey looks briefly over the side of the car but then returns to his original position). The partial footage of the Z-film below focuses on the follow-up car. It runs from z133 to z207. At no point do we see any meaningful reaction from the agents mentioned above:
(https://i.postimg.cc/FsLLmk09/Zap-SS-Close-Gif-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
A first shot in the z130's or z160's is ruled out by this evidence.
Even a shot around z190 seems unlikely.
Thanks for telling us all about what John Chism was percieving.I am just pointing out what he said. You are the one telling us that he didn't mean what he said.
Maybe you should give him a call and let him know as well.
Here is the photo I used to show when JFK was first clear of the tree:
The President was obscured by tree foliage at Z195.
All I did was point out that others to their left, such as Berry, Thornton, and Woodward gave more specific statements that do not agree with your interpretation. Even the Chisms, who put the first shot just after JFK turned and waved (z172-180) don't agree with your interpretation. You still haven't explained why you reject Roberdeau's position for Burney, by the way. And why do you put so much weight on people who gave statements 30+ years later as to the exact position of the car (Templin, Brandt, Dishong, Burney) while ignoring the statements of witnesses given close to the time of the event?
All five witnesses - Templin, Brandt, Newman, Burney and Dishong - report that the limo/JFK had passed their position by the time of the first shot.
Four of the five make unequivocal statements regarding this.
In Reply#1245 you try to deal with this latest disaster for your own theory. But there's no need, your theory died long before this.
You accept Templin and Brandt's statements as you can try to brush them off with the 30+ years schtick. But a look at Speer's website, at the sheer volume of their statements and the incredible detail in them, shows they are not so easily brushed off.
As for the other three - Newman, Burney and Dishong - your attempts to twist their statements to your own needs is so bizarre it's disturbing.
As I say, you don't need to try so hard. You can let go now.
JEAN NEWMAN:It is not a matter of nit-picking each statement. It is a matter of looking at all the evidence. The fact remains that your witnesses were trying to recall exact details for the first time years after the event. It is not nit-picking to compare statements made within days of the event.
"I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about halfway between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner… The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too."
"The motorcade had just passed me"
"...the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed me, there was a loud report..."
These are unequivocal statements.
JFK had passed her position when the first shot rang out. There is no other (reasonable) way to interpret these statements.
You say you don't know what "just" means. It doesn't matter. Newman is saying JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot.
"Just" indicates that he had only passed her position by a short distance when she heard the first shot. But it doesn't matter what the distance is, all that matters is that JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot.
That's it.
PEGGY BURNEY:
"When the President's car made the curve around the corner, he was smiling and waving...he was happy and Jackie was happy and smiling as they passed. The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. The President ducked; instinctively I told myself 'something is happening,' but nobody knew what."
"The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot."
Again, this is an unequivocal statement. I literally can't break this statement down into a simpler form. The limo carrying JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot. It wasn't in front of her, or yet to pass her - it had already passed.
Your attempts to re-interpret this statement are truly bizarre. I would urge the reader to check out Reply#1245.
There is no (reasonable) way to interpret this statement as anything other than what it is - an unequivocal statement that the limo carrying JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot.
JUNE DISHONG:
"His arm in the air waving… He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car. Jackie circled him with her arm. Another shot. Panic among the people. Woman with children. Parents pushing them to the ground. No one knows where the shots are coming from. A cry. The President has been shot. A third shot, people scatter. I can't believe what I have seen.
"He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots?"
Of the three statements, this is the only one that is not crystal clear.
But I will have to highlight your attempt to re-interpret this statement as it shows how devious you can be with witness statements. You wrote:
"She [Dishong] said the first shot occurred "as they go by". That does not necessarily mean it was after JFK had passed her position."
Dishong did not say the first shot occurred "as they go by". This is a complete falsehood on your behalf.
Dishong clearly states that JFK "drops his arm as they go by". He has finished waving to the crowd and his arm drops as he passes Dishong's position.
After this there is a gunshot.
Her statement, in the context of the witness statements of those stood by her, should be read as follows:
After waving at the crowds to his right, JFK lowers his hand as he passes Dishong's position, after which she hears the first shot. Her mention of "possibly 20 ft" must refer to the distance of JFK/limo past her position at the time of the first shot.
Which brings us to another point. These various statements should be read together. They corroborate each other and form an interlocking matrix of information.
Your attempts to nit-pick each statement individually only reveals a certain desperation.
Just let go.
Thanks for telling us all about what John Chism was percieving.
Maybe you should give him a call and let him know as well.
All five witnesses - Templin, Brandt, Newman, Burney and Dishong - report that the limo/JFK had passed their position by the time of the first shot.
Four of the five make unequivocal statements regarding this.
In Reply#1245 you try to deal with this latest disaster for your own theory. But there's no need, your theory died long before this.
You accept Templin and Brandt's statements as you can try to brush them off with the 30+ years schtick. But a look at Speer's website, at the sheer volume of their statements and the incredible detail in them, shows they are not so easily brushed off.
As for the other three - Newman, Burney and Dishong - your attempts to twist their statements to your own needs is so bizarre it's disturbing.
As I say, you don't need to try so hard. You can let go now.
JEAN NEWMAN:
"I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about halfway between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner… The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too."
"The motorcade had just passed me"
"...the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed me, there was a loud report..."
These are unequivocal statements.
JFK had passed her position when the first shot rang out. There is no other (reasonable) way to interpret these statements.
You say you don't know what "just" means. It doesn't matter. Newman is saying JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot.
"Just" indicates that he had only passed her position by a short distance when she heard the first shot. But it doesn't matter what the distance is, all that matters is that JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot.
That's it.
PEGGY BURNEY:
"When the President's car made the curve around the corner, he was smiling and waving...he was happy and Jackie was happy and smiling as they passed. The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. The President ducked; instinctively I told myself 'something is happening,' but nobody knew what."
"The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot."
Again, this is an unequivocal statement. I literally can't break this statement down into a simpler form. The limo carrying JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot. It wasn't in front of her, or yet to pass her - it had already passed.
Your attempts to re-interpret this statement are truly bizarre. I would urge the reader to check out Reply#1245.
There is no (reasonable) way to interpret this statement as anything other than what it is - an unequivocal statement that the limo carrying JFK had passed her position at the time of the first shot.
JUNE DISHONG:
"His arm in the air waving… He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots? So hard to tell above the clamor of the crowd. The president bent forward into his wife’s lap as his arm slipped off the side of the car. Jackie circled him with her arm. Another shot. Panic among the people. Woman with children. Parents pushing them to the ground. No one knows where the shots are coming from. A cry. The President has been shot. A third shot, people scatter. I can't believe what I have seen.
"He drops his arm as they go by, possibly 20 feet. Suddenly--a sound. Gun shots?"
Of the three statements, this is the only one that is not crystal clear.
But I will have to highlight your attempt to re-interpret this statement as it shows how devious you can be with witness statements. You wrote:
"She [Dishong] said the first shot occurred "as they go by". That does not necessarily mean it was after JFK had passed her position."
Dishong did not say the first shot occurred "as they go by". This is a complete falsehood on your behalf.
Dishong clearly states that JFK "drops his arm as they go by". He has finished waving to the crowd and his arm drops as he passes Dishong's position.
After this there is a gunshot.
Her statement, in the context of the witness statements of those stood by her, should be read as follows:
After waving at the crowds to his right, JFK lowers his hand as he passes Dishong's position, after which she hears the first shot. Her mention of "possibly 20 ft" must refer to the distance of JFK/limo past her position at the time of the first shot.
Which brings us to another point. These various statements should be read together. They corroborate each other and form an interlocking matrix of information.
Your attempts to nit-pick each statement individually only reveals a certain desperation.
Just let go.
As I recall, high school pictures of Jacob and Simmons were dug up by somebody (Linda Zambanini?). And Holt’s brother supposedly identified her in the Darnell still.
How did you determine which people in a long line of people lining Elm street are “together”?
Lots of women were wearing headscarves. But Westbrook specifically said she was wearing a blue scarf and that she still has it.
@ Andrew Mason: The 3 witness accounts you just posted in bold print all indicate they are seeing JFK MOVING as they heard the 1st shot fired. Its “ducking, “slumping” , leaning over” etc that many witness said occurred either at the 1st shot or between shot 1 and 2.Exactly. JBC said after the first shot he turned around to his right to check on the President. What he is doing from z226 to z270 appears to be consistent with his turn to try to see JFK.
Harold Norman has the similar sequence of hearing the 1st shot, then seeing JFK “slump” then hearing the next 2 shots.
There has to be SOMETHING at Z226 causing JBC right shoulder to move rapidly FORWARD and rotating his body in the direction as would be expected by a bullet impacting him to right of his centerline of mass.
Also what about the wrist wound of JBC?All exit wounds are covered by clothing. The wrist is covered by a French cuff. The bullet struck the back of the radius through the French cuff and would have deflected away from the point of contact. The only blood that would result from the bullet striking the wrist would be minimal. After the wound is made the bleeding wound be significant but not the making of the wound itself.
I don’t see how that could be at Z 275-278 when his right hand is up and gripping his hat because the bullet would have likely gone thru the hat as well as splatter some blood on the hat.
It works much better at Z226 because theoretically there is a position for JBCs right hand holding the hat upside down with the rim of the hat held on top of his left thigh, the well of the hat hanging down off the LEFT side of his thigh.That scenario does not fit several large bodies of evidence, particularly the 1 .....2...3 shot pattern, JFK being hit on the first shot and JBC on the second with the head shot being the third and last shot
In that position the bullet striking the top of his wrist and exiting the bottom of his palm goes directly into his right side inner thigh muscle Without any splattering of blood on the hat or any hole in the hat.
So your whole “common sense” argument boils down to you believing Dishong’s “family” (who weren’t there) in identifying June from the rear over Westbrook’s (who was there) identification of herself. That and your presumption that going to see the motorcade together somehow requires standing in a line shoulder-to-shoulder with each other with nobody in between.Dishong is identified by her own description of what she is wearing and by her previous self-identification to family members from photos in Life.
But even if you could somehow prove that is Dishong and that the other woman is not Calvery, it tells you nothing about who the blue scarf lady is.
Andrew , the way it appears to me, at approx Z 226 , JBC right shoulder is moving FORWARD and his torso is rotating counterclockwise.At z226 he is leaning to the right. The right shoulder movement is at the same time as he raises his right arm and leans forward, which he has to do in order to turn around to the rear. He seems to be straightening up and giving himself room to turn around to see JFK.
That’s NOT JBC turning ClOCKWISE , which is the way he must turn to look over his right shoulder.
Imo, JBC is HIT at Z 226 approx. This causes the forward and counterclockwise turn of his body which continues up UNTIL about Z 250-260
It is at that point when JBCs left hand with hat starts to go up and then at THAT point is when he starts to try to turn In the CLOCKWISE turn (reverse rotation) which is him attempting to look over his right shoulder at JFK, and after which he falls into Mrs Connallys lap.
In Dans scenario , as I understand it, the
shot sequence is 1st shot Z 224, 2nd shot =head hit at Z 313, (4.8 secs later) and then a 3rd shot which MISSED at 1-2 secs AFTER 313.
That fits the 1….2..3 sequence.
If I’m mistaken about Dans sequence and
it’s a 2nd shot BETWEEN Z 226 and Z 313 then that 2nd shot would be approx Z285 so that is just 1 sec Before Z313 . That never the less would ALSO fit the 1….2..3 sequence
Andrew, your scenario however, does NOT (imo) account for JBCs right shoulder rotating counterclockwise beginning AT 226 and continuing in that same rotation until about Z 250.
At z226 he is leaning to the right. The right shoulder movement is at the same time as he raises his right arm and leans forward, which he has to do in order to turn around to the rear. He seems to be straightening up and giving himself room to turn around to see JFK.
You are reading a lot into some very tiny movements and ignoring the big picture:,
- Again, where do you see JBC turning around and trying to see JFK?
- The second shot striking JFK in the head does not fit the evidence that JBC was hit on the second shot. This comes from the Connallys, Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman.
- Besides there is strong evidence that the head shot was the last and very little evidence to the contrary. See my post #1151 in this thread.
So your whole “common sense” argument boils down to you believing Dishong’s “family” (who weren’t there) in identifying June from the rear over Westbrook’s (who was there) identification of herself. That and your presumption that going to see the motorcade together somehow requires standing in a line shoulder-to-shoulder with each other with nobody in between.
But even if you could somehow prove that is Dishong and that the other woman is not Calvery, it tells you nothing about who the blue scarf lady is.
The Connally’s and Greer are two shot witnesses.Greer said he heard three shots and felt a concussion at the time he heard the second shot. Nellie Connally heard and observed the effects of each of three shots striking in the car. Gov. Connally heard the first and third shots. He did not hear the second shot but he felt its impact.
Gayle Newman in her 50th anniversary family interview admitted she never actually heard a third shot. Her husband repeatedly had stated he only heard two shots on live TV within minutes of the assassination. Gayle can be seen reading Merriman Smith’s three shot news flash being held by the TV anchor in the same interview.She said she couldn't tell if she heard the third shot because the visual effect of it dominated her perception of the event. She never said a third shot did not occur. See 13:37 of the interview:
The bullet wound in JBC’s back can only be explained by the bullet first passing through JFK. No other explanation is possible.The explanation offered by the Connallys is certainly possible. But I suppose you think they were spouting drivel as well.
You all know this. Why are you passing all this drivel again?
My "common sense" argument boils down to demonstrating that Westbrook's identification of those around her, and thus herself, is wrong. Completely wrong.
The woman stood next to Blue Headscarf is clearly not Gloria Calvery. She does not have flame-red hair and is the wrong height and the wrong body-type.
Westbrook's clearly faulty recollection about a long-lost headscarf!
That's good enough for you, is it?
It's slightly grating to compare the impossible standard of proof you hold others to, against what you are willing to accept as convincing.
When comparing the Darnell trio against the Z-film trio it must be noted that there is not a single physical difference between any of them -
One wearing a headscarf, the other two not.
The same relative shade of hair colour between the other two.
The same hairstyles of the other two.
The same clothing type of all three.
The same relative shade of clothing between all three.
All three captured in images taken in the same general location.
On the left Stella Jacob comforts Gloria Holt who, as we see in Darnell, is clearly distraught. On the right June Dishong looks on and behind her is the woman stood next to her in the Z-film, presumably Dishong's work colleague, Peggy Burney.
I also have to note your weak attempt to bring Judy Johnson into the debate in an earlier post.
In her CE 1381 Johnson states that she leaves the TSBD building with Holt and Jacob and that they are joined by Betty Dragoo, Carolyn Arnold and Bonnie Richey.
In their 1381's Dragoo, Arnold and Richey consistently mention being stood with each other and Johnson, but not one of them mentions Holt or Jacob. We can conclude from this that, although Holt and Jacob left the TSBD with Johnson, they did not stand with this group while watching the motorcade.
And this is confirmed by the 1381's of those in question:
Stella Mae Jacob - "I left the Depository building & walked down toward the Stemmons underpass west of the building approximately fifty
yards."
Gloria Jeanne Holt - "I left the Depository building & walked down toward the Stemmons underpass west of the building approximately fifty
yards."
Each woman confirms that they were with the other two. Simmons confirms they were stood on the sidewalk. Each woman confirms that their location was well down Elm street - fifty yards/midway between the TSBD building and the underpass.
The only three women shown in the Z-film who are stood together in the approximate positions described are the three who happen to be identical in every measurable detail to the three women you accept are Simmons, Holt and Jacob in Darnell.
On the other hand, Westbrook remembers she was wearing a headscarf.
She actually did say exactly that: "I wish I still had that headscarf because that headscarf is how I can identify myself in the Zapruder film." [YouTube video at 17:45]
Highly dishonest. She didn't say her identification of herself was based on the figure wearing a headscarf.
Thanks. I was having trouble locating the spot where she mentioned the scarf. Fair enough, but she didn’t say that was the sole basis for her identification. And it is the only visible blue scarf in the line of people, so she must remember wearing a blue scarf. We don’t know the color of Simmons’ scarf. Dan is calling Westbrook’s recollection “faulty” merely because he believes it’s someone else.
The fact is that there are several women in the zfilm wearing headscarves. If she is identifying herself by the headscarf alone there would have to be something distinctive about it. But there doesn't appear to be.
It should be noted that the family of Gloria Calvery identified her as the 9th person east of the Stemmons sign in the zfilm.
Based on Karen Westbrook's height, she would be the third person east (left) of Gloria Calvery (12th person from the Stemmons sign). Coincidentally that person is wearing a light scarf and a black coat....
It’s the only blue one I see.It is not apparent that she remembered the colour. Maybe she wished she had the scarf to see whether it was light blue like that seen in the zfilm. In fact, since the colour is the only distinguishing feature of the scarf, that is probably what she meant.
You mean her son Chris, who was born in 1977.He knew what she looked like and I expect had seen many pictures of her from around that time.
Only if you assume that “was with” necessarily means side by side. If that is even Calvery. Also, if Westbrook remembers standing next to Calvery, then that doesn’t work.I don't recall her saying that she remembered who stood beside her independently of seeing the zfilm. She thought she recognized the person beside her (ie. the person who she thought was herself) as "Gloria Calvert" (sic) in the zfilm.
Greer said he heard three shots and felt a concussion at the time he heard the second shot. Nellie Connally heard and observed the effects of each of three shots striking in the car. Gov. Connally heard the first and third shots. He did not hear the second shot but he felt its impact.
She said she couldn't tell if she heard the third shot because the visual effect of it dominated her perception of the event. She never said a third shot did not occur. See 13:37 of the interview:
The explanation offered by the Connallys is certainly possible. But I suppose you think they were spouting drivel as well.
It is not apparent that she remembered the colour. Maybe she wished she had the scarf to see whether it was light blue like that seen in the zfilm. In fact, since the colour is the only distinguishing feature of the scarf, that is probably what she meant.
He knew what she looked like and I expect had seen many pictures of her from around that time.
If that’s the case, then the scarf couldn’t have been her only basis for identifying herself, as there are several scarf-wearing figures in Zapruder.The colour would help identify her as there is only one of that light blue colour. If she wanted to see the scarf to help identify her in the Zapruder film, she must have been unsure of the colour.
Pictures of the oh-so-distinctive back of her body?She had a distinctive large build and there is no one else that fits that build. He also identified her in the Betzner photo which shows her face. He may have had a higher resolution frame than this:
"thus herself" does not actually follow.
And the way you know about Gloria Calvery's height and hair is from a photo identified by . . . Karen Westbrook. So your "common sense" tells you that Westbrook is correct except when she isn't.
The woman in the Z film still (which isn't necessarily correctly color-balanced) does have reddish hair, and the "flaming red hair" as you call it was in a photo taken a month later and isn't necessarily natural. Westbrook knew Calvery and worked with her every day. Your "expertise" is based on a single photo that wasn't taken at the time.
So, your "certainty" is your own illusion.
There's nothing "clearly faulty" about her scarf. That's a circular argument.
What I actually said was that she is more of an authority on where she stood than some Internet blowhards (including you and me -- but especially Tommy Graves).
I don't hold anybody to an impossible standard of proof. That's just what people who make handwaving speculative arguments like to use to try to divert from the weaknesses of their arguments.
This is laughably disingenuous. How do you know those figures in the Z film are a "trio"? "Same general location"? You mean Dealey Plaza? Or near the pergola? That applies to everybody on Elm street. "Same relative shades"? You're equating a color image with a black and white image. On what basis are you comparing "shades"? "Same hairstyles"? There's nothing particularly distinctive about their hairstyles and you're comparing opposite sides of their heads. This is the epitome of handwaving, even for you. You don't see "any differences", therefore they are necessarily the same people. There is not nearly enough information for your remarkable claim that they are "identical in every way".
The notion that any of the figures in Cabluck are distinctive enough to match to specific names is even more laughable.
Lots of TSBD employees were standing near the intersection of Elm and Houston. Nobody mentioned everybody they were standing with. You're cherry-picking away anything that doesn't match what you want to believe. Including the fact that both Holt and Jacob said they were standing on the south side of Elm street.
Do you really think they independently used the exact same word-for-word descriptions?
Except the people in question aren't even close to the halfway point between the TSBD building and the underpass.
The women in Darnell are recognizable. The figures in Zapruder are not -- your handwaving and completely unsubstantiated "identical in every measurable detail" claim notwithstanding.
Incidentally, neither Jacob, Holt, or Simmons said in CE 1381 that the three were standing side-by-side. And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know which figures in a long line of people are "together".
Highly dishonest. She didn't say her identification of herself was based on the figure wearing a headscarf.
The colour would help identify her as there is only one of that light blue colour. If she wanted to see the scarf to help identify her in the Zapruder film, she must have been unsure of the colour.
I did notice in high resolution zfilm frames that the colour of the dress or coat worn by the 12th person east of the Stemmons sign (three east of the woman identified by Calvery's son as his mother Gloria Calvery) is a rather distinctive pattern that appears to be dark blue and dark green:
Since that would appear likely to be Karen Westbrook if the person indicated by the arrow is Gloria Calvery, perhaps someone could ask her if she recognized that garment. I hadn't been able to see that pattern in other frames of the zfilm that I have, which make it look black.
She had a distinctive large build and there is no one else that fits that build. He also identified her in the Betzner photo which shows her face. He may have had a higher resolution frame than this:
in which case he may have been able to see if she was wearing glasses.
To have you label my research "disingenuous" and "dishonest" is a sick joke.
I have always honestly striven to provide my best interpretation of the evidence, what I feel is the most reasonable and common sense interpretation. And I have always provided as much evidence as I can muster about whatever aspect of the case is under discussion.
I don't duck or avoid anything.
You, on the other hand, just snipe from the sidelines in a most cowardly fashion.
The sole factor in Westbrook's identification of herself in the Z-film is a headscarf she once owned. That's it. There is nothing else.
That you are unaware of this is just sloppy and lazy research.
That you are satisfied this enough evidence to provide any kind of identification shows how piss-poor your own standards are.
Utter dishonesty on your behalf. She doesn't have reddish hair or red-like hair or a hint of red - she has blonde/fair hair.
A completely different colour to Gloria Calvery's flame-red hair
On the subject of dishonesty as a researcher, I notice you fail to address the argument that Gloria Calvery is far taller and far more heavily built than Carol Ann Reed.
Westbrook's identification of the two women to her left is clearly mistaken.
More dishonesty.
Nowhere have I stated that, just because I don't see any differences, these are necessarily the same people. What a really underhanded misrepresentation of what I actually said, which was:
"Any physical comparison that can be made between the three women in each image reveals they are identical in every way. There are no differences."
If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not.
One with dark, bushy hair, one with shoulder length fair hair.
Two wearing dark coloured coats, one wearing a lighter coloured dress.
The point being that this analysis only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
But if there is a physical difference between the women in these two images, NAME IT.
More dishonesty.
Nowhere have I said that I "know" which figures in a long line are together.
A pathetic Strawman if there ever was one.
Jacob, Holt and Simmons went to watch the motorcade together. It is a completely reasonable assumption that people going to watch something together will stand together.
Simmons specifically states she was stood with Holt and Jacobs at the time of the assassination.
Really unbelievable.
Out of all the available CE 1381's you cherry-picked Judy Johnson's to make some kind of point.
I then provided an analysis of ALL the CE 1381's relevant to this point - Johnson, Richey, Dragoo, Arnold, Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
You're absolutely correct John.
And you are correct that Holt and Jacob mention the south side of Elm Street.
A dishonest researcher will leave it at that, the women in question are not halfway between the TSBD building and the underpass, and they are not stood on the south side of Elm. End of story.
A more honest researcher would look at all the information given in the CE 1381's and then come to a conclusion.
What would an honest researcher conclude in this situation John?
You overstate your speculations and assumptions as facts or as having more certainty than they actually do, and you ignore or handwave away conflicting evidence.
She didn't say that. This is your assumption.
Why would I be aware of something you made up in your head?
You mean, how dare I dispute your assumptions.
Looks reddish to me. And it must have looked reddish to Westbrook who knew that Calvery had red hair.
Different time, different place, different film stock. And there's no good reason to believe that Holt's hair color in Darnell is the same as your "blonde/fair" figure in Zapruder because it's a black and white image.
There's nothing dishonest about that. Even if that isn't Reed (or Calvery), it doesn't just follow that it's not Westbrook.
There's nothing "clear" about that. Your "evidence" is contrived conjecture.
That's quite a claim. But that's all it is. Apparently you consider your assertion that they are "identical in every way" to be enough to declare certainty about their identities.
It's silly (and yes, dishonest) to claim a "match" between a black-and white "color" and a color color.
It's dishonest to shift the burden of proof. There is not enough information contained in the images to make that determination. I could pick any three random rear views of people in Zapruder and claim that they are "identical" to three others in a different black and white photo. That doesn't make it so.
You're trying to "match" three people standing side-by-side based on this assumption (which is all it is). You also seem to somehow assume as fact that these particular figures in Zapruder are "together".
No, not in CE 1381. She just said she was with them.
Yes, the point is that it conflicts with your "certain" conclusion.
An analysis with plenty of your own conjecture and ignoring whatever doesn't fit.
Without bothering to mention those particular discrepancies at all? There's nothing honest about that.
That none of that analysis justifies the wild leap at the end that the Darnell trio must be the same people.
It can't be that difficult, Simmons says she was stood with Holt and Jacob and she's wearing a headscarf.
They were stood on the sidewalk between the TSBD building and the underpass.
So, where are they John?
Rather than the snide, baseless accusations, why not get off your arse and do some work?
Show us where they are.
Simmons didn't say she "stood with" Holt and Jacob, nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film. Assumptions stated as facts.
What conflicting evidence did you ignore (before I brought it up)? Judy Johnson's statement. "South side of elm" in Jacob's and Holt's statements.
What part of "not enough information" are you struggling with? Your answer isn't just automatically a fact because you "see no differences" in a different image from different kind of film, taken at a different location, at a different time, from a different angle. Westbrook was there. Could she still be wrong? Yes. Could you be wrong? Yes. Have you actually proven anything? No.
Those interested in the Simmons, Holt and Jacob and others identification controversy might check my posting in the Photographic Board a few years ago. The first few pages anyway. In my opinion, it ties the Zapruder, Tina Towner, and Darnell films along with Deputy Lummie Lewis’s recorded investigation report of the three Darnell women. Opinions are not unanimous.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1901.msg50860.html#msg50860
Yet another reason, albeit a rather minor one, to conclude that there was only one shot to that point, as the 1........2...3 pattern necessarily requires. As couple of dozen witnesses, including Brehm, observed, JFK reacted to the first shot.
One would think that Charles Brehm, a combat veteran, would not still be clapping hands at a 2nd shot at Z224-226 shot is there had been a 1st shot 3 seconds prior .
Yet another reason, albeit a rather minor one, to conclude that there was only one shot to that point, as the 1........2...3 pattern necessarily requires. As couple of dozen witnesses, including Brehm, observed, JFK reacted to the first shot.
Interesting choice of a witness to bolster this theory. Brehm is originally a two shot witness. Brehm is a perfect example of “the medias influence inflating the number of shots” that the Warren Commission and HSCA both state in their conclusions.
Even when Charles Brehm later adds a third shot to the narrative. The second shot he mentions is the head shot.
DALLAS TIMES HERALD: November 22, 1963
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.
FBI REPORT: November 24, 1963. 22H837
When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. ... He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.
Yeah Jack,I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.
You never did explain - Why did the conspirators fake three shots? Why not just leave it at two shots? Why go to the extra trouble of faking an extra shot when it would have no bearing on anything?
I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.
I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.
Conspirators faked a shot? You are the first to think of that. Maybe start by explaining who were the conspirators. The Warren Commission and HSCA both referenced “the media’s influence into inflating the number of shots” when talking about the shots. We will call the media the conspirators, to fill the need to have a conspiracy.
According to a large number of the eyewitnesses there were only two shots. How can someone fake a shot not heard by all? By this reasoning the fake shot was just for the benefit of the earwitnesses except there are earwitnesses who only heard two shots. Maybe the fake shot was a misinterpretation by some witnesses of an echo as an actual shot. The HSCA sound analysis report called Dealey Plaza an echo chamber.
Are you saying it's just some massive mistake that so many people concluded three shots were fired or are you saying it was a deliberate ploy to make people think three shots were fired when there was only two?
Three empty shells were found by the first officers at the SN indicating three shots. If only two shots were fired then one of the shells was planted there to give the impression three shots had been fired.
Why would anyone want to give the impression three shots were fired if only two were fired?
Obviously both the WC and the HSCA felt it was the “medias influence” caused the “massive mistake” but apparently mainly among the earwitnesses. It is obvious in comparing multiple statements and the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative.
The third shell CE 543 shows signs of having been dryfired and this issue was the subject of the testimony of Major Anderson and Joseph Nicol. Additionally, CE 543 lacks the indentation on the side of the shell that is present on all the other shells fired in the rifle, as noted by Josiah Thompson in his book “Six Seconds in Dallas”.
The FBI report presented to Rankin by Hoover refers to the indentation on the side of the shell as a “Chamber Mark” which is caused by the rifle itself. The chamber mark is even present on the unfired shell CE 141, indicating the chambering mark was left on the unfiired shell casing due to expansion of the chamber due to the heat generated by firing the other two shells.
I don’t know who “anyone” is. Feel free to identify the conspiracy you are referring to. I am surprised you are having such a difficult time with understanding the media’s influence. The whole concept of it is well documented.
I have the sneaky suspicion that you've not even thought about this.The human brain cannot distinguish a discrete echo if the time difference between the direct sound wave front and the reflected sound wave is less than 1/10th of a second. [That's why a 1" difference between the record and play heads on a tape recorder will give nice feedback reverberation at 15 inches/sec but distracting echo at 7 1/2 or 3 3/4 ips]
Conspirators faked a shot? You are the first to think of that. Maybe start by explaining who were the conspirators. The Warren Commission and HSCA both referenced “the media’s influence into inflating the number of shots” when talking about the shots. We will call the media the conspirators, to fill the need to have a conspiracy.
According to a large number of the eyewitnesses there were only two shots. How can someone fake a shot not heard by all? By this reasoning the fake shot was just for the benefit of the earwitnesses except there are earwitnesses who only heard two shots. Maybe the fake shot was a misinterpretation by some witnesses of an echo as an actual shot. The HSCA sound analysis report called Dealey Plaza an echo chamber.
I understand what you mean by the influence of the media.
For some, as yet unspecified reason, the media felt there were three shots and many people went along with that.
Even the WC and The HSCA went along with it.
So, in this sense there is no conspiracy. It's some kind of 'mass hallucination'.
But then you start to detail how shell CE 543 doesn't belong there. Are you saying CE 543 was deliberately planted to give the impression there were three shots?
As you say, "the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative", but I'm still not really sure if you're saying the three shot scenario that is espoused as the official narrative is the result of a misunderstanding or the result of a deliberate attempt to give the impression three shots were fired.
Which is it?
The human brain cannot distinguish a discrete echo if the time difference between the direct sound wave front and the reflected sound wave is less than 1/10th of a second. [That's why a 1" difference between the record and play heads on a tape recorder will give nice feedback reverberation at 15 inches/sec but distracting echo at 7 1/2 or 3 3/4 ips]
In order for someone to perceive discrete echo and not just indistinct reverberation a distinct reflected wave has to travel 113 feet farther to the listener's ear than the other sound waves (i.e. sound waves directly from the SN and from other nearby reflecting surfaces). If the direct sound travels only 100 feet to the listener, a sound wave that travels twice as far before arriving at their ears will be 1/4 the intensity of the original, so it will not be nearly as loud.
People near the corner of Houston and Elm were within 100 feet of the SN and nearby reflecting surfaces. So none of these reflecting surfaces would produce a distinct echo. Someone standing farther down Elm St. might hear sound from the SN and reflecting surfaces near the corner of Elm and Houston and then hear reflections from the pergola structure west of the TSBD. But the reflected path difference will be, at best, the distance from their ears to the reflecting structure, which will be less than 100 feet. This may cause confusion as to the direction of the sound source, but that is all.
There are many people in these areas (near the corner of Houston and Elm and down Elm Street) who heard exactly three shots. They were not confused by echos. They would have heard a sustained reverberation from the many reflecting surfaces around the TSBD.
People in the middle of Dealey Plaza between the TSBD and the Post Office building might have heard a distinct echo from the large Post Office building south of Dealey Plaza. But I expect that it would have been obvious that it was an echo.
Assumptions stated as facts.
In her CE 1381 Simmons states:
"At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street...I was with Jeannie Holt...and Stella Jacob..."
Simmons was standing on the sidewalk and she was with Holt and Jacob.
She was standing...with Holt and Jacob
Standing with Holt and Jacob
Stood with Holt and Jacob
You falsely accuse me of overstating assumptions as fact and give this as an example.
Please explain what assumption I have made here.
And I've assumed Simmons was wearing a headscarf during Zapruder?
Please cite where I've made that assumption.
You assume, as fact, that Westbrook is the woman in the blue headscarf simply because Westbrook says so.
And she was there so she must know best.
You weren't even aware she'd lost the headscarf in question.
Or that she never refers to it as being blue.
Another false accsation.
I have dealt with Judy Johnson's statement in full.
Remember, you cherry-picked this single statement and ignored the statements of Arnold, Richey, Dragoo, Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
I did an analysis of ALL the relevant CE 1381's.
The "south side of Elm" was also fully dealt with.
Not enough information??
We have a picture of the three women in question.
We are given the information that they are stood on the sidewalk of Elm between the TSBD building and the underpass.
We know they're not on the south side of Elm because we have the Zapruder footage.
We know there's no-one stood to the west of Bill Newman on Elm Street because we have have the Bell and Nix films.
We know there is no-one between Bill Newman and the woman in the blue headscarf who fits the bill because we have stills from the Bronson footage.
We know, for a fact, based on the above evidence, that the women in question must be in this picture:
Logic dictates that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are in this picture.
And they couldn't be easier to locate:
Done.
No amount of lies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations can alter the above identification.
It is certain.
If you disagree with the identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob as the three women in the Z-film then shows us where they are.
You've been asked this already.
There is a wealth of photographic and film evidence at your disposal.
SHOW US WHERE THEY ARE.
Give us a break, what a bunch of tripe. The HSCA Sound Analysis report does a great job of explaining the possible echoes. It is good to see you have moved on from interpreting witness statements.Bolt-Beranek were not trying to see if people were confused by echos as to the number of shots. They were trying to determine how many shot sounds could be heard on the dictabelt recordings and where they were coming from. They tried to do this by comparing the sound pattern of a rifle shot from various locations in Dealey Plaza recorded from a microphone moving through Dealey Plaza at 11 mph to see if they could match the sound pattern on the dictabelt.
Bolt-Beranek were not trying to see if people were confused by echos as to the number of shots. They were trying to determine how many shot sounds could be heard on the dictabelt recordings and where they were coming from. They tried to do this by comparing the sound pattern of a rifle shot from various locations in Dealey Plaza recorded from a microphone moving through Dealey Plaza at 11 mph to see if they could match the sound pattern on the dictabelt.
The Bolt Beranek team actually measured the difference in times of reflected sound and muzzle blast and published the results. Although they refer to the reflected sound as "echos" what the human ear observed was reverberation. The results confirm exactly what I said: that the reflected sound heard by witnesses in Dealey Plaza did not give the impression of distinct shot sounds/
This is a list of the reflecting surfaces and echo paths:
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pages/HSCA_Vol8_0014a.gif) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0014a.htm)
Surfaces 1-16 were all around the corner of Houston and Elm. Echo paths 1-17 involved reflections from surfaces 1-16 . The time difference between the arrival of the direct muzzle blast and the arrival of the reflected sound was published in this table and show that the time delay in arrival of the reflected sounds was less than 100 ms for paths 1-17:
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pages/HSCA_Vol8_0014b.gif) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0014b.htm)
So none of these "echos" were distinguishable by witnesses as distinct sounds. (See the Wikipedia article on sound echos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo)).
That "was with" necessarily means standing side-by-side, 3 in a row.
Please, Dan.
"If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not."
Wrong. I'm chiding you for categorically stating that Westbrook was "wrong", merely because you think the backs of these persons' bodies somehow "match" a different picture of three people at a different time and location.
What I actually said is that she is a better authority about where she was standing than armchair amateur photo "analysts" like Graves and Doyle.
I hadn't watched her interview in a long while and I misremembered some details. So what?
You "dealt with it" (by handwaving it away) after I brought it up as contradictory evidence . You didn't mention it at all in your original argument.
I ignored nothing. I just mentioned evidence that you ignored to begin with.
Only after challenged.
Only after I brought it up.
Yes, we know you think they "look the same". Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more certain.
I disagree that you have proven anything to a "certainty". This is the usual "I'm automatically right until you prove me wrong" argument. I don't have to prove where they are. You certainly haven't.
Again, read Major Anderson and Joseph Nicol’s testimony. Nobody planted a shell. LHO’s Marine rifle training consisted of a great deal of dryfiring as a way to practice. The shell was ejected from the rifle before he took up the position to fire.
WC: “It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots,"
Merriman Smith’s news bulletin of three shots fired at the motorcade was the first bulletin read by Walter Cronkite. Few people knew James Altgen’s bulletin of two shots was read by ABC minutes later. Cronkite read Altgen’s bulletin right up to the number of shots and quit reading.
An argument took place between the Secret Service, Merriman Smith, and Charles Roberts of Newsweek on Air Force 1 on the ride back to DC as to whether there were three shots or two. Roberts believed it was two as did a number of the SS.
The best explanation is provided by the WC conclusion.
WC Conclusion
NUMBER OF SHOTS
The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.
The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
Page 111
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.
Do you understand your question? What misunderstanding are you alluding to? The idea there were three shots having been fired and the wounding of JBC by a separate shot, in a rapid time frame, which is beyond the capabilities of the Carcano and is the whole basis for the belief there was a conspiracy. Nobody planted a shell. Explain how two shots fired by LHO could ever be misconstrued into a conspiracy.
The evidence I've put forward, and the arguments that have emanated from that evidence, reveal there are no alternatives to the identification in question. Once we have no other alternatives we have certainty.
In Reply#1303 I demonstrate, beyond question, that I've not assumed Simmons was stood with Holt and Jacob, that in her CE 1381 Simmons specifically states she was standing with Holt and Jacob.
As for your other example of where I've stated an assumption as fact you come up with this - "nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film".
Nowhere have I made this so-called assumption and ask you to provide where I have, knowing you can't. Instead you come up with this devious response, citing one of my earlier posts:
"If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not."
As stated, this comparison was made solely to support a more general argument based on witness statements and the photographic/film record. I have provided photographic evidence that the woman Westbrook identifies as Calvery, is clearly in error. The two women have completely different hair colours and, more importantly, that Gloria Calvery is far taller and a bigger build that the Carol Reed identified by Westbrook in the Z-film.
This last point is undeniable and when confronted with it you side-step the issue with this sly observation:
Even if that isn't Reed (or Calvery), it doesn't just follow that it's not Westbrook.
You have based your own identification of Westbrook in the Z-film on her recollection of a headscarf she once owned.
Whe I wrote this I didn't think I could be any more specific:
As you say, "the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative", but I'm still not really sure if you're saying the three shot scenario that is espoused as the official narrative is the result of a misunderstanding or the result of a deliberate attempt to give the impression three shots were fired.
Which is it?
The "official narrative" is that three shots were fired.
Your theory is that two shots were fired.
This is a discrepancy.
Two shots versus three shots.
I am simply asking - how do you think this discrepancy has arisen?
The idea there were three shots having been fired and the wounding of JBC by a separate shot, in a rapid time frame, which is beyond the capabilities of the Carcano and is the whole basis for the belief there was a conspiracy.
It certainly doesn't form the basis of why I think there is a conspiracy.
I am absolutely convinced both JFK and JBC were shot through by the same bullet but that this bullet was not CE 399.
I strongly suspect CE 399 was introduced into the chain of custody for the bullet found on the stretcher in Parkland and, as such, plays no part in the actual shooting.
I am aware that, without CE 399, there is a disturbing lack of ballistic evidence regarding the assassination.
Unadulterated BS:
Westbrook could literally be any of the backs that we see in Zapruder.
Unadulterated BS.
Nowhere in Simmons’ statement does she say who she stood with. Or next to.
There’s nothing “devious” about it. By specifically looking in Zapruder for three people, one wearing a headscarf and two not, you are assuming that Simmons must be wearing a headscarf and standing in a line with two people who are not, hence your “identification”.
You’re also equating your perception of “light” and “dark” to specific colors in Zapruder, and just declaring that they “match”.
You’re looking at two images, taken at different times and places, both identified by Westbrook as Gloria Calvery, and just declaring her to be “correct” about one and “wrong” about the other, merely on the basis of which one you prefer to believe.
It’s not a “sidestep” at all. The entire debate is over whether Westbrook correctly identified herself in the Z film. Not where Carol Reed might be.
Unadulterated BS. You are the one claiming to have identified her to a “certainty”, not me.
All I said was that Westbrook is more of an authority on who she is than your “logic”.
In this first example you have sneakily left out the sentence before which reveals the "identification" in question isn't about Westbrook at all.
It's also amusing that you now seem happy to abandon your beloved identification of Westbrook as wearing her famous blue headscarf.
Now it could be "any of the backs that we see in Zapruder."
Even Ernest Brandt's?
In her CE 1381 Simmons states she was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street and that she was with Holt and Jacob.
She was standing with Holt and Jacob at the time of the assassination.
As I have explained, the comparison between the two images "only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob". So nothing is being stated as a fact.
Lie.
I've never said this.
Please. The only thing you have “schooled” the forum on is your propensity for projection.To be fair, Dan did not just arbitrarily conclude that she was wrong. He gave the evidence and reasons in detail. After examining all the evidence, I have to conclude that Westbrook was wrong and that the three women nearest he Stemmons sign are not Westbrook's group. The only people who fit Stella Jacob, Jeanne Holt and Sharon Simmons anywhere along both sides of Elm St. are the three women nearest the Stemmons sign. Not only that, the only person who fits the description of Gloria Calvery is the woman with the large build in the dark blue scarf, 9th person from the Stemmons sign.
Of course it’s about Westbrook. This whole pissing contest arose because you categorically stated that Westbrook was “wrong” in her identification of herself.
Please. The only thing you have “schooled” the forum on is your propensity for projection.
Of course it’s about Westbrook. This whole pissing contest arose because you categorically stated that Westbrook was “wrong” in her identification of herself.
Another dishonest strawman. I never claimed to identify anybody, you did.
Interesting hypocrisy here. What is your basis for this identification? Oh yeah, he identified himself in the Z film. Just like Westbrook.
No, as I keep pointing out, “was with” does not necessarily mean standing next to. You keep trying to blur the distinction to make your assumption a fact. It’s not about exact words, it’s about you mischaracterizing what she said to try to bolster your opinion.
You either have a memory impairment or this is more dishonesty. You said your “identification” was a certainty. Now look who’s using an “exact words” defense.
Exact quote, Dan:
“We know from the photo/film record that they can only be the three women in the Z-frame crop at the top. This identification is certain.”
You most definitely claimed certainty, whether you remember it or not. Not that your “they look the same to me”, and “prove me wrong” arguments constitute certainty in any regard.
No life preserver needed, he loves it….
The “tripe”, as Dan puts it, is all the flaws in his handwaving arguments. The rest of this latest tirade is a long winded version of “I’m right because I say so” — a giant exercise in ego, rather than any “positive identification”.
“Somebody said so” is a lousy reason to believe any claim, but when it comes to who Karen Westbrook is, “Karen Westbrook said so” beats “Dan O’meara said so” any day of the week.
By adding the three secretaries to the line by the sign and moving the other four secretaries by Templin. What happens to the rest of the women from Woodward to the four secretaries? There are now to many people listed for the number of people standing on the curb. Specifically, Woodward, Brown, Donaldson, Thornton, Berry. There are two or three more secretaries than people on the curb.
By adding the three secretaries to the line by the sign and moving the other four secretaries by Templin. What happens to the rest of the women from Woodward to the four secretaries? There are now to many people listed for the number of people standing on the curb. Specifically, Woodward, Brown, Donaldson, Thornton, Berry. There are two or three more secretaries than people on the curb.Jane Berry, Betty Thornton claim to have been directly in front of the TSBD so I am not sure why they are thought to be to the right of AJ "hardhat" Millican. June Dishong and Peggy Burney did not give statements at the time but Dishong has been identified as the fourth person left of the Stemmons sign in the Zfilm wearing a red and blue plaid shirt. There is nothing I have seen to indicate that she was with Burney.
"tirade" LOL
Presenting how I reached my conclusions, including the range of evidence and the arguments emanating from that evidence [REPLY#1296 [page 163]], is hardly a tirade.
The reader will notice that, for pages of this thread, the single argument John has brought to this debate is "Westbrook said so". Remember, this is supposed to be some kind of senior researcher in this case and someone who believes he is the self-styled arbiter of factual accuracy. He has not provided a single scrap of evidence to support his identification of the woman in the blue headscarf as being Westbrook and has conducted himself in a deceitful manner throughout the whole debate.
More BS from the master of the BS argument. I'm not the one who claimed any "certainty" about anybody's identity, you are. And your sole argument is that their bodies look like the Darnell black-and-white trio to you. Everything else is just verbosity.
All I said was that "Westbrook said so" beats "Dan O'meara said so". I'm not so arrogant as to claim that a subjective self-serving opinion is a "certainty" like you are.
I never claimed to be "some kind of senior researcher" or a "self-styled arbiter of factual accuracy". That's just you whining about your inaccuracies being called out.
That Z170-Z207 section of the Z film kind of refutes Andrew Masons theory of a Z195- thru JFK neck shot, because JFKs head was turned so far to the right, that if a shot went thru the neck, then it likely would not have exited the center of trachea but rather to left of center.
@Andrew MasonRight and Left refer to JFK's right and left sides. According to the HSCA, the bullet entered about 45-50 mm right of JFK's spine travelling on a right to left angle. It exited very close to the midline, just 2.5-5 mm to the left of JFK's centre. See: the HSCA report and analysis, 6 HSCA 43 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0025a.htm)
Your “left” of center is not my left of center if you are talking about the front of JFK ( face up autopsy photo)
My left of center was in relation to the back of JFK as the shot enters and I guess from the front it would be exiting RIGHT of center of the neck ( so my mistake on description).
So the question still remains is JFKs head was is turned so far to the right side of the limo, at Z195-207, then would not the bullet exit hole in the throat /neck be right of center as viewed from the front of JFK ( face up photo)?
Is there any existing photo of the actual exit hole in the throat before the tracheotomy incision obliterated it?
I've bumped this thread for anyone who is genuinely interested in when the first shot actually happened.
It is based on the presumption that there were three, clearly audible shots fired [as confirmed by over 160 "ear-witnesses"] and that these shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
As far as I'm aware, every single piece of evidence regarding this aspect of the case has been considered and it overwhelmingly demonstrates that the first shot occurred around z222 and that both JFK and Connally were shot through by the same bullet.
Note - I do not accept the Single Bullet Theory because I do not accept that CE399 was the bullet that passed through both men. However, once it is accepted that a bullet passed through JFK's neck with hardly any resistance it must be accepted that this bullet hit Connally. It could not miss Connally!
It's my personal opinion that this bullet shattered when it struck Connally's wrist.
And, just for full disclosure, I do not believe Oswald took the shots, although this has no bearing on the subject of this thread - when the first shot actually took place.
Many theories have been put forward for when this first shot occurred and all are refuted by the evidence presented in this thread. All except for a first shot around z222.
The highly respected Knott Lab Laser Scan Study has recently concluded that the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE. CASE CLOSED!!
Did they explain what happened to the bullet that passed through JFK?
Or are you still a fan of the gun-toting poodle theory?
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKm4smMs/z312trajectory.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The highly respected Knott Lab Laser Scan Study has recently concluded that the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE. CASE CLOSED!!(https://i.postimg.cc/wBxCkbYy/Screenshot-510.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBxCkbYy/Screenshot-510.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The highly respected Knott Lab Laser Scan Study has the bullet exiting JFK's throat below the knot in his tie!!
Oops ;)
Back to the drawing board kids.
You FAILED to comprehend the presentation. This DQ's you from further discussion involving Knott Lab.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBxCkbYy/Screenshot-510.png) (https://postimages.org/)Here are photos of the damage to the tie and shirt.
The highly respected Knott Lab Laser Scan Study has the bullet exiting JFK's throat below the knot in his tie!!
Oops ;)
Back to the drawing board kids.
Weird thing is that the 2003 experiment where they actually fired a Z224 approx. shot at 2 replica models aligned as per Dale Myers computer position had the trajectory exit below the throat of JFK model. In fact it was even lower than the tie knot, exiting from right side of JFK chest and thus going thru lung. Maybe that’s why they didn’t save the lungs for future analysis?
Nevertheless , Z224 seems to be first shot HEARD because of the lack of reactions of the SS agents and especially Clint Hill who had his eye on JFK the whole time from Z140 to Z224, yet he did not react until Z255.
But if Royell is suggesting a 2nd shooter at ground level , where is the most likely place and was that shot a miss or a hit?
Here are photos of the damage to the tie and shirt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NGb8wDYq/shirt-button-tie.jpg)
The Knott Labs position of the bullet exit relative to the body and shirt looks about right. It struck the bottom left part of the knot so it may be a bit low relative to the tie knot. In any event, lifting the exit position up a bit isn't going to make it intersect with the right armpit.
That’s a MAJOR error if that’s where Knuts lab has the bullet exiting the left side of JFKs chest.
That’s a long list of ear witness that Dan posted that supports the 1st shot heard at Z224 but how many ear witness heard the 3rd shot AFTER the head shot at Z313?
If only a very small minority thats not significant enough to warrant conclusion that a 3rd shot was fired 2 secs after Z313, then all 3 shots must have been fired in about 4.8 secs.
There is ONE CBS time trial shooter who managed 3 hits in 5.1 secs according to the camera recording of him. I do not recall anyone ever having interviewed this guy and there was never any other time he was asked to repeat this performance. There was no camera zoomed in on the target to verify the shots hitting as the man fired the rifle so it’s a little bit suspicious imo, especially since no other person has ever replicated this 5.1 sec time when using an MC rifle and trying to hit a moving human size / shape target at that range from 75- 100 yds approx.
If the shooter is sitting in the box by the pipes which Charles has shown is plausible it really does not make much sense the shooter standing up intentionally trying to shoot an
aimed shot as early as Z130 or Z140.
If the premise is that boxes were arranged as they were to be a firing platform then the shooter was going to simply lean over once the limo has passed by and to start shooting from this platform.
So the only other option is for a missed 1st shot that precedes Z224 is the shooter inadvertently squeezing the trigger AS he leaned over from the box he was sitting on, and that the rifle angle was not aimed at the limo.
As much as I agree that scenario is plausible it’s not probable imo. A 1st shot at Z130-Z140 to give the necessary gap longer between 1st and 2nd shot fitting the pattern of 1…2..3 would lengthen the Total time for completion of all 3 shots in 9-10 secs which is WAY longer than Harold Norman heard, and the smaller gap between 2nd and 3rd shots being 4.8 secs which is WAY longer than “back to back”.
I don’t disagree with Dans idea that the 2nd shot could be 313 , and that the shooter in his crazed mind being “exuberant” that he had scored head shot fired one more shot rapidly without aiming ( thus possibly only 1.5 sec later if using the MC rifle)
It’s just that there are so few witness recalling any shot after Z313.