JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on October 06, 2020, 05:24:07 PM
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have revised and expanded my article "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm
The article discusses six apparent reactions to gunfire in the Zapruder film. If there are reactions to only four shots evident in the Zapruder film, the lone-gunman theory collapses. Four--really five--of the shot reactions are beyond reasonable dispute, but for the sake of argument I am counting the Z226-232 and Z233-240 reactions as one set in the list below:
Z154-167
Z186-207
Z226-240 (226-232 + Z233-240)
Z313-320
Also, there are five strong blur episodes in the Zapruder film. Several tests have found that people will jiggle the camera while filming each time they hear a gunshot, even if they know the shot is coming.
-
For anyone who might be interested, I have revised and expanded my article "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film":
https://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm
The article discusses six apparent reactions to gunfire in the Zapruder film. If there are reactions to only four shots evident in the Zapruder film, the lone-gunman theory collapses. Four--really five--of the shot reactions are beyond reasonable dispute, but for the sake of argument I am counting the Z226-232 and Z233-240 reactions as one set in the list below:
Z154-167
Z186-207
Z226-240 (226-232 + Z233-240)
Z313-320
Also, there are five strong blur episodes in the Zapruder film. Several tests have found that people will jiggle the camera while filming each time they hear a gunshot, even if they know the shot is coming.
Hi Michael,
A couple of weeks ago I started a thread entitled "The First Shot", presenting evidence that the first of three assumed shots from the TSBD is the one that hit JFK causing his hands to fly to his throat. I don't believe I stipulated three 'audible' shots which maybe I should've done. Are you proposing non-audible shots in this thread?
Also, in your article there is a reaction at Z290-305 that I don't see in your opening post.
-
It should be pointed out, that these new times, as “deduced”, from the Zapruder film, do not jive with the “Acoustic evidence” that Mr. Griffith was arguing for during the last month:
Depending on one sets the last shot at z313 (BBN’s opinion) or the next to the last shot at z313 (Dr. Thomas’s opinion), the “Acoustic evidence” lists the five shots at:
z168
z196
z216
z304
z313
or:
z176
z205
z224
z313
z321
Shouldn’t the “acoustic evidence” jive with the “Zapruder evidence”?
Question:
If Mr. Griffith thinks this can be explained with “Zapruder Film alternation”, which frames does he think were altered?
-
It should be pointed out, that these new times, as “deduced”, from the Zapruder film, do not jive with the “Acoustic evidence” that Mr. Griffith was arguing for during the last month:
Depending on one sets the last shot at z313 (BBN’s opinion) or the next to the last shot at z313 (Dr. Thomas’s opinion), the “Acoustic evidence” lists the five shots at:
z168
z196
z216
z304
z313
or:
z176
z205
z224
z313
z321
Shouldn’t the “acoustic evidence” jive with the “Zapruder evidence”?
Question:
If Mr. Griffith thinks this can be explained with “Zapruder Film alternation”, which frames does he think were altered?
Surely we're not talking about five clearly audible shots.
Pat Speer's comprehensive examination of witness statements concerning the shots concludes:
" While roughly 90% of the witnesses heard three shots or less, and less than 10% heard four shots or more..."
While Brian Locke (The Unofficial JFK Assassination FAQ #19) is even more specific:
"Of the approximately 200 witnesses whose statements were taken by
the WC, 88% said they heard three shots, 5% said they heard more than
three."
88%!!. That's got to mean something!
In my thread "The First Shot" I start with the complete lack of reaction from the car full of SS men in Zapruder (up to z207) compared to the obvious reactions captured in Altgens6. Any shot at either z168 or z176 would have elicited a reaction by z207 and to imagine a little girl running by the side of the road is reacting to a shot while a car load of SS agents look calmly on is a bit much (IMO)
-
Surely we're not talking about five clearly audible shots.
Uh, yes, we are talking about audible shots. The acoustic tests won’t pick up inaudible shots. Only audible ones.
I’m just pointing out that the set of shots Mr. Griffith points out as apparent in the Zapruder film, are not the same ones that he says are apparent from the acoustic evidence. If both claims:
• the Zapruder film shows when the shots occurred
• the Acoustic recording shows when the shots occurred
are accurate, the list of shots from both should match up. They don’t.
-
Hi Michael,
A couple of weeks ago I started a thread entitled "The First Shot", presenting evidence that the first of three assumed shots from the TSBD is the one that hit JFK causing his hands to fly to his throat. I don't believe I stipulated three 'audible' shots which maybe I should've done. Are you proposing non-audible shots in this thread?
I think some shots were more audible than others, but I think all were audible. However, I do not rule out the possibility that one of the snipers used a silencer. Also, keep in mind that one of the other gunmen might have fired from a position a few feet from the opening through which he was firing, which might have altered how people heard the sound of the shot.
Also, in your article there is a reaction at Z290-305 that I don't see in your opening post.
In my post, I only listed the reactions that are beyond rational, honest dispute. I think the Z290-315 reaction is solid, but one could nit-pick it if one wanted to do so. The four reactions I listed are too obvious to honestly, rationally dispute.
And I see Joe Elliott has once again, as he is wont to do, posted a reply with numerous diversionary, disingenuous arguments. The subject of the synchronization of the Zapruder film and the dictabelt recording has been addressed in numerous books and articles on the subject, including by Dr. Thomas.
Again, for about the tenth time, since the Dealey Plaza test firing only had rifles fire from two locations in the plaza, there is the distinct possibility that this limitation affected the number of test shots that were matched with impulse patterns on the tape. Also, given the considerable evidence that the extant police tape, the one used by the HSCA, is a copy and not the original, the copying process might have affected the timing of the occurrence of the gunshot impulse patterns on the recording. Finally, if the Zapruder film has been altered, one would not expect a perfect synchronization between the police tape and the film. Nevertheless, there is a significant degree of synchronization between the two--not a perfect one, but a significant one.
Furthermore, even if one rejects the acoustical evidence, one must still address the fact that the Zapruder film indisputably shows reactions to at least four shots. No honest, rational person can deny this. The reactions are too obvious to be missed, and this is not to mention the five strong blur episodes in the film, which indicate five reactions to gunfire.
-
I think some shots were more audible than others, but I think all were audible. However, I do not rule out the possibility that one of the snipers used a silencer. Also, keep in mind that one of the other gunmen might have fired from a position a few feet from the opening through which he was firing, which might have altered how people heard the sound of the shot.
In my post, I only listed the reactions that are beyond rational, honest dispute. I think the Z290-315 reaction is solid, but one could nit-pick it if one wanted to do so. The four reactions I listed are too obvious to honestly, rationally dispute.
And I see Joe Elliott has once again, as he is wont to do, posted a reply with numerous diversionary, disingenuous arguments. The subject of the synchronization of the Zapruder film and the dictabelt recording has been addressed in numerous books and articles on the subject, including by Dr. Thomas.
Again, for about the tenth time, since the Dealey Plaza test firing only had rifles fire from two locations in the plaza, there is the distinct possibility that this limitation affected the number of test shots that were matched with impulse patterns on the tape. Also, given the considerable evidence that the extant police tape, the one used by the HSCA, is a copy and not the original, the copying process might have affected the timing of the occurrence of the gunshot impulse patterns on the recording. Finally, if the Zapruder film has been altered, one would not expect a perfect synchronization between the police tape and the film. Nevertheless, there is a significant degree of synchronization between the two--not a perfect one, but a significant one.
Furthermore, even if one rejects the acoustical evidence, one must still address the fact that the Zapruder film indisputably shows reactions to at least four shots. No honest, rational person can deny this. The reactions are too obvious to be missed, and this is not to mention the five strong blur episodes in the film, which indicate five reactions to gunfire.
Shots z145 and z186 are refuted by Zapruder. The reaction of the SS agents up to z207 demonstrates this.
There is nothing unusual about Hickey's head turn, he is barely looking to the right by z207
The HSCA's analysis of JFK's rapid head turn just before going behind the Stemmons sign is wrong. There is no 'hand freeze' and no rapid turning of the head.
To imagine JFK is hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments and doesn't react is not realistic.
-
Question for Mr. Griffith:
How was the Zapruder film lettered?
Were some Zapruder frame simply removed?
Were some Zapruder frames not removed but altered?
Were some Zapruder frame removed but replaced by a new image that was not an altered frame ?
Were some new frames created afresh (again, not an altered frame) and inserted into the Zapruder film?
These are simple questions that you want to dodge.
-
Question for Mr. Griffith:
How was the Zapruder film lettered?
Were some Zapruder frame simply removed?
Were some Zapruder frames not removed but altered?
Were some Zapruder frame removed but replaced by a new image that was not an altered frame ?
Were some new frames created afresh (again, not an altered frame) and inserted into the Zapruder film?
These are simple questions that you want to dodge.
I don't accept the Zapruder film has been altered. Any argument I have ever seen in favour of this has been easily dismissed nonsense, my personal favourite being Costella's "Blunder of the Century".
That's for a different thread though.
-
So, Mr Griffiths, where did these 6 shots come from?
Evidence, please. Thx.
-
I don't accept the Zapruder film has been altered. Any argument I have ever seen in favour of this has been easily dismissed nonsense, my personal favourite being Costella's "Blunder of the Century".
That's for a different thread though.
I think this is too rich for another thread. I assume you are talking about Dr. John Costella, PhD:
Yes, it seems that the blunder of the century was Mr. Zapruder while rotating his camera to track the limousine failed to keep it perfectly upright as he panned across the Stemmons Freeway sign, making it appear that the Stemmons sign was rotating.
I wonder if Dr. Costella understands that it is the Earth that is rotating and not the Sun racing across the sky.
And, of course, in the middle of his explanation, he gets distracted by wondering where the hell the umbrella is. I don’t know. Why do polar bears disappear when it starts snowing? Maybe the black umbrella blends in with the black limousine in shadow.
-
So, Mr Griffiths, where did these 6 shots come from?
Evidence, please. Thx.
Evidence, hell. I’ll just settle for a consistent narrative as to the number of shots and when they occurred, when using the “Acoustic Evidence” and when using the Zapruder film. Mr. Griffith has to learn how to keep from contradicting himself from week to week before he can start to learn how to use real evidence.
-
Evidence, hell. I’ll just settle for a consistent narrative as to the number of shots and when they occurred, when using the “Acoustic Evidence” and when using the Zapruder film. Mr. Griffith has to learn how to keep from contradicting himself from week to week before he can start to learn how to use real evidence.
Yeah, right. Are you ever going to get around to dealing with the reactions to six shots documented in my article?
You have a habit of talking about everything but the subject at hand and then pretending that you have addressed it.
-
Yeah, right. Are you ever going to get around to dealing with the reactions to six shots documented in my article?
You have a habit of talking about everything but the subject at hand and then pretending that you have addressed it.
I raised a few issues in reply #6
-
Yeah, right. Are you ever going to get around to dealing with the reactions to six shots documented in my article?
You have a habit of talking about everything but the subject at hand and then pretending that you have addressed it.
I did deal with the “six shots” documented in your article. I pointed out that the timing of the shots you argue for this week, from the Zapruder film, is different than the timing of the shots you were arguing for last week based on the Acoustic evidence. A minimum qualification, for me to take someone’s arguments seriously, is that they cannot contradict themselves.
Modifying individual frames of the Zapruder film won’t throw off the timing as to when the shots occurred. We should still get some correspondence between the acoustic evidence and the Zapruder evidence, on when the shots occurred, if both analyzes are correct. You keep avoiding questions about this:
Were:
1. Some frames modified?
2. Some frames removed and replaced with brand new frames created somehow?
3. Inserted brand new frames that were created somehow?
4. Removed some frames?
Or some combination of this?
And don’t forget to answer Dan’s points.
-
So, Mr Griffiths, where did these 6 shots come from?
Evidence, please. Thx.
What does it matter where the shots came from in terms of establishing their existence? If there were six shots, or even just four shots, we know there had to be at least two gunmen. It is impossible to tell from the Zapruder film exactly where the shots originated, but we can clearly see reactions to six shots in the film, and four of those sets of reactions are beyond any rational, honest dispute. Again, four or more shots means there had to be at least two gunmen.
One of the few worthwhile contributions of the HSCA photographic evidence panel is that they discussed the science behind blur/jiggle analysis. Tests have proved that people will jiggle the camera in response to gunfire, even if they know the gunfire is coming, every single time.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z155.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z189.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z226.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z289.
Each of these blur/jiggle events is accompanied by visible reactions by bystanders and/or by limo occupants, and each of them occurs at a time when witnesses said they heard gunfire.
And, of course, these four events do not include the Z313-320 headshot.
-
What does it matter where the shots came from in terms of establishing their existence? If there were six shots, or even just four shots, we know there had to be at least two gunmen. It is impossible to tell from the Zapruder film exactly where the shots originated, but we can clearly see reactions to six shots in the film, and four of those sets of reactions are beyond any rational, honest dispute. Again, four or more shots means there had to be at least two gunmen.
One of the few worthwhile contributions of the HSCA photographic evidence panel is that they discussed the science behind blur/jiggle analysis. Tests have proved that people will jiggle the camera in response to gunfire, even if they know the gunfire is coming, every single time.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z155.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z189.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z226.
A strong blur/jiggle episode starts at Z289.
Each of these blur/jiggle events is accompanied by visible reactions by bystanders and/or by limo occupants, and each of them occurs at a time when witnesses said they heard gunfire.
And, of course, these four events do not include the Z313-320 headshot.
A sound loud enough to cause a blur/jiggle around z155 would definitely have been picked up by the car full of SS agents in the follow up car. Zapruder shows this is not the case. The shot around z155 should be dismissed.
-
A sound loud enough to cause a blur/jiggle around z155 would definitely have been picked up by the car full of SS agents in the follow up car. Zapruder shows this is not the case. The shot around z155 should be dismissed.
Those SS agents were hung over and tired. They had been out partying very late the night before. They were hung over and operating on little sleep.
There are several good indications of an early shot in the film:
* Kennedy starts to turn his head rapidly from left to right at Z154.
* There is a significant blur episode at Z155.
* Connally starts to turn his head rapidly to the right at Z162.
* Several witnesses said the first shot was fired during the limo's turn onto Elm Street or just after it completed the turn.
* Rosemary Willis, running along the grass to the left of the limousine, starts to look back down Elm Street at around Z160, and by Z187-190 she has stopped and is looking back toward a point to the rear of the limousine.
-
Those SS agents were hung over and tired. They had been out partying very late the night before. They were hung over and operating on little sleep.
Clint Hill didn't look too hung-over or tired. I find it completely unacceptable to suggest that little Rosemary Willis was reacting to a potential gunshot whilst a car full of SS agents looked blearily on. Altgens 6 shows some of the agents showing a distinct reaction. 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/RhX0cHkB/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/1t7TwRvd/Zap-SS-Close-Gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
This is clear evidence the first shot did not take place before z207. As is the testimony of Rufus Youngblood who confirms it was the first shot that caused unnatural movements in the cars ahead if him.
Forget head movements, they are happening all the time.
Forget Rosemary Willis, she's a little girl trying to keep up with Jackie Kennedy.
You're assuming every jiggle/blur in Zapruder is a gunshot and this is absolutely refuted by the film itself.
[/quote]
-
Clint Hill didn't look too hung-over or tired.
MOST of the SS agents had been out partying very late the night before. Even the WC acknowledged this. Yes, Hill and one or two others did not party the night before, but most of them did.
I find it completely unacceptable to suggest that little Rosemary Willis was reacting to a potential gunshot whilst a car full of SS agents looked blearily on.
Well, that's too bad, but that's what we see in the film. Rosemary Willis had not been out partying the night before.
In Altgens 6 shows some of the agents showing a distinct reaction. 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:
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:
This is clear evidence the first shot did not take place before z207.
That is not clear evidence at all. If anything, it shows that the SS agents were slow to react to the sound of gunfire and did not begin to react until the second or third shot, whereas others reacted far earlier. Again:
* Kennedy starts to turn his head rapidly from left to right at Z154.
* There is a significant blur episode at Z155.
* Connally starts to turn his head rapidly to the right at Z162.
* Several witnesses said the first shot was fired during the limo's turn onto Elm Street or just after it completed the turn.
As is the testimony of Rufus Youngblood who confirms it was the first shot that caused unnatural movements in the cars ahead if him.
Forget head movements, they are happening all the time.
Forget Rosemary Willis, she's a little girl trying to keep up with Jackie Kennedy.
Even when presented with filmed evidence, you can't admit the truth. People don't suddenly and rapidly turn their heads for no reason. That is not natural. They make rapid head movements in response to external stimuli.
You're assuming every jiggle/blur in Zapruder is a gunshot and this is absolutely refuted by the film itself.
No it is not "absolutely refuted." Where do you get that? All the strong blur episode in the film come at times when there are other indications of gunfire--either reactions by people or eyewitness accounts that shots occurred at those times.
Even if we, for the sake of argument, throw out the Z154-167 reactions, that still leaves four other clear sets of gunfire reactions:
2. Z186-207
3. Z226-232/Z233-240 (to be extra cautious, I'm combining these two into one)
5. Z290-305
6. Z313-320
Are you actually going to deny those very visible, obvious sets of reactions?
-
Even when presented with filmed evidence, you can't admit the truth. People don't suddenly and rapidly turn their heads for no reason. That is not natural. They make rapid head movements in response to external stimuli.
It's you who can't admit the truth. You skirt over the testimony of agents Landis, Ready and Hickey as to their immediate response as recorded in Altgens6 and confirmed by agent Youngblood's testimony to seeing abnormal movements in the Presidential follow up car after the first 'explosive' noise. Instead you think they just reacted slowly. We see the agents not reacting up to z207, over three seconds after a supposed shot at z145. Three seconds to react to the sound of gunfire?
It is the lack of reaction by these SS agents in Zapruder that refutes the idea of a shot at z145, not to mention the copious 'ear-witness' testimonies describing the first shot as being the one to which JFK reacted by throwing his hands up to his throat.
Even if we, for the sake of argument, throw out the Z154-167 reactions, that still leaves four other clear sets of gunfire reactions:
2. Z186-207
3. Z226-232/Z233-240 (to be extra cautious, I'm combining these two into one)
5. Z290-305
6. Z313-320
Are you actually going to deny those very visible, obvious sets of reactions?
I agree, let's throw out the Z154-167 reactions. On to the Z186-207 reactions from a shot you posit around z186.
The main argument of the HCSA panel for a shot here (apart from the dubious jiggle analysis) is JFK's reactions before he passes behind the Stemmons sign - a 'hand freeze' and a very sharp head turn from right to left.
Firstly, the hand freeze simply doesn't happen. JFK is waving then slowly brings his hand down in a normal way:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRv1ZQF2/Z169-226-JFK-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
As far the rapid head turn, this is easily refuted.
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/fRMbvMCT/z207.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJyHcXqz/z225.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTc1r8Tv/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.
-
Quote a test showing people will only jiggle their camera while filming each time they hear a gunshot.
Have you read *anything* about the assassination? This is one of the more well-known, well-covered issues in the literature. So is your argument that Zapruder jiggled his camera *three times* "just because" and that he jiggled it three other times in response to gunfire, because your bankrupt theory does not allow for more than three shots? I mean, sheesh, at some point doesn't your brain kick in and say, "Wait a minute! This theory is just absurd!"?
Anyway, moving on from a lost cause (getting Beck to admit anything that conflicts with the lone-gunman theory), although I firmly believe the Zapruder film has been edited, I also believe it contains clear evidence of more than three shots, and that this is why the film, even after being edited, was suppressed.
One key piece of evidence in the film is JFK's dramatic reaction that begins at Z226, a good 20 frames after he has clearly begun to react to a previous external stimulus.
Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's upper body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of his forward jolt and of the movement of his hands and elbows are quite startling when one watches the sequence from Z226-232 in slow motion. Second only to the head shot, this reaction is the most obvious in the Zapruder film, with Connally's Z236-232 reaction running a close third.
But here's the fatal problem for the lone-gunman theory: Kennedy clearly, clearly begins to react to a different external stimulus at around Z188, when his cheeks puff. At Z200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze and his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion. He also begins to rapidly turn his head to the left toward his wife. By Z207 he has his hands up to his face. The HSCA PEP acknowledged these movements. They are obvious to anyone who is willing to allow their eyes to see them.
However, we see the obvious result of a bullet striking him in the back starting at Z226 when he is visibly knocked forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. This is clearly the back shot.
So, we have one non-fatal shot reaction from Z188-207, as even the HSCA photo evidence panel acknowledged. Then we have the second non-fatal shot reaction, the second-most obvious shot reaction in the film, from Z226-232. Then we have the head shot at Z313. And even the Warren Commission admitted there was one missed shot. That's four shots right there, and that's not counting Connally's dramatic shot reaction from Z233-240 and the clear indications of shot reactions starting at around Z154.
-
It's you who can't admit the truth. You skirt over the testimony of agents Landis, Ready and Hickey as to their immediate response as recorded in Altgens6 and confirmed by agent Youngblood's testimony to seeing abnormal movements in the Presidential follow up car after the first 'explosive' noise. Instead you think they just reacted slowly. We see the agents not reacting up to z207, over three seconds after a supposed shot at z145. Three seconds to react to the sound of gunfire?
It is the lack of reaction by these SS agents in Zapruder that refutes the idea of a shot at z145, not to mention the copious 'ear-witness' testimonies describing the first shot as being the one to which JFK reacted by throwing his hands up to his throat.
I agree, let's throw out the Z154-167 reactions. On to the Z186-207 reactions from a shot you posit around z186.
The main argument of the HCSA panel for a shot here (apart from the dubious jiggle analysis) is JFK's reactions before he passes behind the Stemmons sign - a 'hand freeze' and a very sharp head turn from right to left.
Firstly, the hand freeze simply doesn't happen. JFK is waving then slowly brings his hand down in a normal way:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRv1ZQF2/Z169-226-JFK-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
As far the rapid head turn, this is easily refuted.
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/fRMbvMCT/z207.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJyHcXqz/z225.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTc1r8Tv/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.
The reaction from Z226-232 (actually z225 is the very first reaction) is from the first audible shot, the shot which is assumed to have hit him high up in the back.
One last note on the reactions from z188-207, if hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments around z186, to imagine JFK hasn't reacted to this by reaching for his head in the full second we see him before he goes behind the Stemmons sign is totally unrealistic (IMO)
-
Don't get your knickers in a twist, Mike!
:D
I've not heard that phrase for ages.
-
Have you abandoned your own thread Michael?
-
The reaction from Z226-232 (actually z225 is the very first reaction) is from the first audible shot, the shot which is assumed to have hit him high up in the back.
What about all the witnesses who said they heard a shot just after the limo finished its turn onto Elm Street? What about all the visible reactions between Z154 and Z207? Even if you reach and strain and say they are all in response to one external stimulus, that still gives us four shots. Or, are you going to deny all of them?
I find it incredible that you are placing so much reliance on the testimony of SS agents, most of whom were hungover from the their late-night partying the night before.
One last note on the reactions from z188-207, if hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments around z186, to imagine JFK hasn't reacted to this by reaching for his head in the full second we see him before he goes behind the Stemmons sign is totally unrealistic (IMO)
Okay, well, I can't force you to admit that you can see Z154-207 reactions that are plainly visible. They are so visible that even the HSCA PEP felt compelled to acknowledge them. And there are two strong blur episodes during this timeframe. I won't recount them again. They are discussed in my article. The Z186-207 reactions are discussed in the HSCA PEP's report.
"IF" hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments? "IF"? Look, we know he was hit in the back of the head by several bullet fragments because they are on the autopsy skull x-rays. They surely did not get there as a result of mythical "shearing" by an FMJ bullet.
You see, the problem is that you are bound by a ridiculous theory that only allows for three shots, even though the Zapruder film plainly, clearly, obviously shows reactions to at least four shots, at the bare minimum.
-
What about all the witnesses who said they heard a shot just after the limo finished its turn onto Elm Street? What about all the visible reactions between Z154 and Z207? Even if you reach and strain and say they are all in response to one external stimulus, that still gives us four shots. Or, are you going to deny all of them?
I find it incredible that you are placing so much reliance on the testimony of SS agents, most of whom were hungover from the their late-night partying the night before.
Okay, well, I can't force you to admit that you can see Z154-207 reactions that are plainly visible. They are so visible that even the HSCA PEP felt compelled to acknowledge them. And there are two strong blur episodes during this timeframe. I won't recount them again. They are discussed in my article. The Z186-207 reactions are discussed in the HSCA PEP's report.
"IF" hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments? "IF"? Look, we know he was hit in the back of the head by several bullet fragments because they are on the autopsy skull x-rays. They surely did not get there as a result of mythical "shearing" by an FMJ bullet.
You see, the problem is that you are bound by a ridiculous theory that only allows for three shots, even though the Zapruder film plainly, clearly, obviously shows reactions to at least four shots, at the bare minimum.
In his work, "The Unofficial JFK Assassination FAQ #19", John Locke makes the following observation:
"Of the approximately 200 witnesses whose statements were taken by
the WC, 88% said they heard three shots, 5% said they heard more than
three. "
In the comprehensive study of witness statements analysed at his website, Pat Speer concludes:
"While roughly 90% of the witnesses heard three shots or less, and less than 10% heard four shots or more"
I know from my own experience that the vast majority of the witness statements I've read indicate three audible shots, many referring to a specific pattern - shot, pause, two shots closer together.
The overwhelming majority of 'ear-witnesses' to the shooting describe hearing three shots. It is this that informs my opinion and it is this that you must ignore.
Your method seems to be based on jiggle analysis and it seems you would like to cherry-pick your ear-witnesses to suit. The majority of the reactions you describe are normal head turns, something we should totally expect to see. The observation of reactions by the HSCA have been debunked and some of the reactions you describe don't even occur (such as agent Hickey's sharp turn to face right)
The reactions of the car load of 'hung-over' agents, who you would have us believe took three whole seconds to react to the sound of gunfire, is not a starting point for me. It's simply confirmation that the early audible shots you would like to believe happened did not, in fact, take place.
-
You see, the problem is that you are bound by a ridiculous theory that only allows for three shots, even though the Zapruder film plainly, clearly, obviously shows reactions to at least four shots, at the bare minimum.
It's good to see you've abandoned your own ridiculous theory and rightly so. It was very poorly thought through, was easily refuted and seemed to depend heavily on dramatic pronouncements.