Yes, and the moon is made of green cheese, too.People also ask
My opinion basically agrees with that report by Brian and Kenneth. There are a lot of other reactions, etc from the film makers, the crowd, etc that suggest an early shot. Why it missed will likely remain a mystery. However I suggest that it could have been fired inadvertently before it was fully aimed. There is potential interference from the box in the window, the electrical conduit pipe next to the window. Plus, the trigger was tested to release at a much lower force than the lowest safe force the military uses for that type of rifle. Premature shots can happen to even the best marksmen, especially the first time they put their finger on the trigger. I find it hard to believe LHO would miss the entire limo unless it was an inadvertent shot that happened before it was fully aimed.Oswald's shot=1 ricocheted offa the overhead signal mast arm guy rod.
I think Tague was nicked by a bullet fragment from the fatal Z-313 headshot and that he "spaced out" the timing.Tague was nicked by (due to) SSA Hickey's first or second accidental shot of at least 4 shots of Hickey's AR15.
Oswald's shot=1 ricocheted offa the overhead signal mast arm guy rod.
This "stuff" about a shot from the sniper's nest dinging off the signal mast arm is pure BS: For this to be possible: (1) The shooter has to be Standing Up and firing Down through the half open window, and (2) Moving the JFK Limo position on Elm St. Both of these Crazy Stipulations warrant this scenario being immediately DQ'd.I have given the measurements & angles umpteen times.... so its your turn.
Google "estimating occult timing," read the 22-page scientific article, and tell me where the limo was when Oswald fired his first shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (hint: it's the middle photo).The main remnant of the headshot cracked the windshield.
Regarding the possibility that Tague was nicked by a fragment from the head shot, find what Herb Husker posted about it at the "JFK Truth Be Told" Facebook page about a month ago.
How much of the 160-grain bullet was accounted for?Oswald's shot-1........ Lots of bits of lead splatter on the back of jfk's head (seen in xrays). A few lead bits possibly found in the jfk limo. Two halves of brass jacket found in limo.
Why did you throw "The Magic Bullet" in there?The name magic bullet is uzually uzed by thems who reckon that it was not possible for one shot to go throo jfk & connolly (in the circumstances).
Regardless, off the top of my head (pardon the pun), it seems to me that about one-half of the bullet was never recovered.
1) How many intentional and unintentional shots do you think were fired at JFK, altogether, and where were they fired from?U should read all of my postings on this forum, & on the education forum.
2) How many of them hit JFK?
3) From which of those shots do you think the two sizeable fragments that were found inside the limo came . . . or do you think they were planted?
The two sizeable bullet fragments found in the limo were from Oswald's first shot which allegedly struck the traffic signal's mast arm?U should read all of my postings on this forum & on the education forum.
I hope you aren't serious.
Dude, I've been studying the JFK assassination for 45 years and I've been lurking at the Ed Forum since 2005, so I've already read all of your xxxxxxx.
You need to accept the fact that the so-called Single Bullet Theory is correct.
Dude, I've been studying the JFK assassination for 45 years and I've been lurking at the Ed Forum since 2005, so I've already read all of your xxxxxxx.I started serious study of the (so-called) jfk assassination say 5 years ago.
You need to accept the fact that the so-called Single Bullet Theory is correct.
Max Holland is very good, especially at showing us, in the Robert Hughes film, the movement of something white (Oswald's t-shirt?) in the Sniper's Nest window about five seconds before the first shot rang out, that Oswald had to be standing and awkwardly leaning forward when he fired his steeply-downward-angled / missing-everything first shot (which we now know was at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133), that the ejection pattern of the three shells found on the Sniper's Nest floor support the scenario that Oswald was standing for his first shot and kneeling for his second and third shots, that overly ambitious, scandal-plagued and revengeful Jim Garrison changed his theory against Clay Shaw from "He organized a homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK" to "He organized the assassination for the CIA" due to a KGB article published in a Communist-owned Italian Newspaper three days after he'd arrested Shaw (which newspaper article -- or a clone of it that was published in a far-Left newspaper in France -- was given to him by JFKA conspiracy theorist Joan Mellen's husband), but I think he's mistaken when he postulates that Oswald's first shot glanced off the traffic signal's mast arm and indirectly nicked James Tague down by the triple underpass.
Max Holland is very good, especially at showing us, in the Robert Hughes film, the movement of something white (Oswald's t-shirt?) in the Sniper's Nest window about five seconds before the first shot rang out, that Oswald had to be standing and awkwardly leaning forward when he fired his steeply-downward-angled / missing-everything first shot (which we now know was at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133), that the ejection pattern of the three shells found on the Sniper's Nest floor support the scenario that Oswald was standing for his first shot and kneeling for his second and third shots, that overly ambitious, scandal-plagued and revengeful Jim Garrison changed his theory against Clay Shaw from "He organized a homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK" to "He organized the assassination for the CIA" due to a KGB article published in a Communist-owned Italian Newspaper three days after he'd arrested Shaw (which newspaper article -- or a clone of it that was published in a far-Left newspaper in France -- was given to him by JFKA conspiracy theorist Joan Mellen's husband), but I think he's mistaken when he postulates that Oswald's first shot glanced off the traffic signal's mast arm and indirectly nicked James Tague down by the triple underpass.Yes Holland's idea that a ricochet offa the signals injured Tague is nonsense.
Where does Max Holland indicate the “movement of something white” in the window? I simply don’t remember where it was indicated to be. If it was in the open (lower 1/4) part of the window, he would have been sitting on the box and leaning forward preparing to aim the rifle.
Max Holland’s video depiction of the sniper firing the first shot from a standing position is lacking a lot. If he had constructed a complete sniper’s nest with all of the boxes in their proper places (including all of the boxes immediately surrounding the nest), he would have found out that there really isn’t enough room for a sniper to kneel between the boxes.
Where does Max Holland indicate the “movement of something white” in the window? I simply don’t remember where it was indicated to be. If it was in the open (lower 1/4) part of the window, he would have been sitting on the box and leaning forward preparing to aim the rifle.
Sitting on the box while firing all three shots would have been his most stable and feasible position given the ergonomics of the sniper’s nest, and he should have known that from his military training and experience. The window box was in a position that could have interfered with an early first shot. That interference might have caused an inadvertent discharge (before it was fully aimed).
The ejection pattern could also be explained by using more force ejecting the first missed shot due to frustration regarding an inadvertent discharge.
How do I post a screenshot here?
You have to post it elsewhere and link to it. I usually use vgy.me. Then paste a direct link in the proper place using the photo icon just below the bold icon in the top left corner of the post reply window.
Holland shows a 5' 9" - 5' 10" "Oswald" in an accurately reconstructed Sniper's Nest. He's kneeling at the back-left side of the stack so that his left forearm is resting on the stack and wedged between it and the wall. I have a screenshot showing this, but I don't know how to post it here.
Regarding the movement in the window, watch "The Lost Bullet."
Your "premature xxxxxxxxxxx" theory is flaccid, imho, as is your theory that Oswald's angst at having prematurely xxxxxxxxxx caused him to rechamber his second round so angrily as to jerk it (pardon the pun) way over to the right.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Just watch "The Lost Bullet."
Max Holland’s video depiction of the sniper firing the first shot from a standing position is lacking a lot. If he had constructed a complete sniper’s nest with all of the boxes in their proper places (including all of the boxes immediately surrounding the nest), he would have found out that there really isn’t enough room for a sniper to kneel between the boxes.
Sitting on the box while firing all three shots would have been his most stable and feasible position given the ergonomics of the sniper’s nest, and he should have known that from his military training and experience. The window box was in a position that could have interfered with an early first shot. That interference might have caused an inadvertent discharge (before it was fully aimed).
The ejection pattern could also be explained by using more force ejecting the first missed shot due to frustration regarding an inadvertent discharge.
Holland did recreate the Sniper's Nest accurately. Watch "The Lost Bullet."
The "sitting box" wasn't close enough to the window to permit him to sit on it while shooting. To sit on and lean forward every minute or so to see if the motorcade had turned onto Houston Street, yes, but not to shoot from.
Do you think Oswald used the stack of boxes at the window at all while he shooting?
If not, why did he go to the trouble of putting them there if he wasn't planning on using them?
The first shot at hypothetical "Z-124" was about a second later than Holland thought it was (at hypothetical "Z-107"), requiring Oswald to swivel a little bit farther to his left than Holland shows him in "The Lost Bullet."
Oswald had to be at the window, not sitting on a box some distance from it, while shooting. If "the sitting box" was closer to the window than it actually was and he was sitting on it for all three shots, no matter how angrily or frustratingly he ejected the spent shell after his first shot, it wouldn't have flown far down to his right (where it was found), but bounced off the tall stack of boxes behind him and ended up pretty close to the window -- just as the shells from his second and third shots did.
Bottom line: Oswald was standing and awkwardly leaning forward during that steeply-downward-angled shot at the fast-moving target below. That's why he missed everything with it, and that's why the shell didn't bounce off the stack of books behind him but flew unhindered all the way down to his right where it bounced of the stack off boxes there.
How stinking far away from the window do you think the sitting box was? Hint, if you are going by Holland’s video, you are going to be way, way, way, off…
Just look at the official photos that were taken of the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and you'll see what I'm talking about. The "sitting box" was too far away from the window (and at the wrong angle for the shots except, perhaps, for the final one) for Oswald to have sat on while shooting his three shots -- the first one of which was steeply-downward-angled because it was fired at hypothetical "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 and before the limo disappeared from Oswald's view behind the foliage of the oak tree.
I have already studied all of the dimensions as measured and documented by the investigators. Have you?
I have already studied all of the dimensions as measured and documented by the investigators. Have you?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Just watch "The Lost Bullet."
Your attempt at defending Holland is admirable but hopeless. Did you notice when they demonstrated how their ejected Hulls came very close to matching the 11/22/63 photos of the hulls on the floor, that "Holland's Hero" had Removed the scope from the rifle? Makes me think we were seeing Take 22. Holland is amusing, but for him to be granted a stage by National Geographic explains why this case remains unsolved after 60+ years. The Cover-Up is ongoing.
Your attempt at defending Holland is admirable but hopeless. Did you notice when they demonstrated how their ejected Hulls came very close to matching the 11/22/63 photos of the hulls on the floor, that "Holland's Hero" had Removed the scope from the rifle? Makes me think we were seeing Take 22. Holland is amusing, but for him to be granted a stage by National Geographic explains why this case remains unsolved after 60+ years. The Cover-Up is ongoing.
So did Max Holland.
I have a lot of respect for Max. But he didn’t get the seat box anywhere near the correct position in the video. The correct position of the seat box would have prevented the sniper from shooting in the locations and positions that Max shows in the video.
I don't have "The Lost Bullet," just some screenshots from it. I don't see the "sitting box" in those screenshots. What I do see is the "Oswald" actor kneeling in the same general area where Secret Service agent Howlett was sitting (rather uncomfortably with just one bun on the box) and assuming a shooting position during the 27 November 1963 reenactment. This part of the 11/27/63 Sniper's Nest reenactment looks feasible to me for Oswald's 2nd and 3rd shots, but not for his first, missing-everything, steeply-downward-angled shot for which he had to be standing and awkwardly leaning forward while firing it (and with the muzzle of the short rifle was inside the building which would explain why so many witnesses said the first shot sounded different from the other two).
"The Lost Bullet" can be watched/viewed here: https://ok.ru/video/23384099394
A 2020 scientific study by Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce in the journal titled "Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction" analyzed the conscious reactions of several witnesses (including JFK and JBC) to the sounds of the first shot and determined that it occurred at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133. This means that Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.Funny how nobody noticed that it took that long.
Funny how nobody noticed that it took that long.
Even more odd is how most ear-witnesses, who were generally in agreement and correct about the number of shots (3), said that the last two shots were close together ("there were two more in rapid succession"; "two more reports followed in quick succession"; "they were very close together"; "two real fast bullets together"; "The second and third shot was pretty close together"; "it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close.";"two very close together"; "the next two was right close together"; two more shots fairly close together;"five and one-half seconds was taken for all three shots"; "after the first shot there was a pause, then two more shots were fired close together.”; "The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other"; "then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”.
This guy has the same short-rifle and scope as Oswald's.
If you'll go to about the 11-minute mark, you can watch him fire, eject the spent shell, and rechamber a new round several times.
If you'll watch closely, you'll see that the ejected shells don't hit the scope.
So much for your "Ongoing Cover Up" theory.
I have a lot of respect for Max. But he didn’t get the seat box anywhere near the correct position in the video. The correct position of the seat box would have prevented the sniper from shooting in the locations and positions that Max shows in the video.
Again, I suggest you do the research yourself instead of assuming Max got that aspect right.
It's funny how the human mind will often misremember a traumatic event, and it's funny how the unexpected sounds of three muzzle blasts and three supersonic "cracks" sounded different to people in different locations in the irregularly shaped echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, especially since the muzzle of the short-rifle that fired them was inside a sixth-floor window for the first steeply-downward-angled shot and outside the window for the second and third, farther-down-the-street, shots.What was traumatic about hearing a pattern of noises? Most didn't even understand that they were shots initially.
What was traumatic about hearing a pattern of noises? Most didn't even understand that they were shots initially.
What is even funnier is that 47 witnesses out of 62 who recalled some pattern to the shots said the last two were closer together (when they were actually the other way around) and only 6 got the relative spacing "right". Any reason for that? They got the number of shots right. Most got the direction of the source generally correct. Why would so many make the same mistake in what is otherwise a very simple and easy to make observation?
Since echos or reverberation (since the reflected sound would have been less than 1/10th of a second after the muzzle blast reaching the observer's ears) depended on where the observer was in relation to the shots, and since the people reporting the same pattern were all over Dealey Plaza and some inside the building 10 feet from the rifle, why would they all make the same mistake in the shot spacing due to confusion about what a shot was? That makes no sense. Besides, none of them reported any difficulty in identifying the shots.
But the shot spacing is not all. Why did 20+ witnesses report seeing JFK react to the first shot? You will find - surprise, surprise - that if the shot pattern was 1.........2.....3 then the first shot had to have hit JFK. So the fact that 20+ witnesses watching JFK reported seeing him react to the first shot fits with the 47 witnesses observations of the last two shots being close together.
I don't have "The Lost Bullet," just some screenshots from it. I don't see the "sitting box" in those screenshots. What I do see is the "Oswald" actor kneeling in the same general area where Secret Service agent Howlett was sitting and assuming a shooting position (rather uncomfortably with just one bun on the box) during the 27 November 1963 reenactment. That part of the 11/27/63 reenactment looks feasible to me for Oswald's 2nd and 3rd shots, but not for his first, missing-everything, steeply-downward-angled shot for which he had to be standing and awkwardly leaning forward while firing it (and with the muzzle of the short rifle inside the building, which would explain why so many witnesses said the first shot sounded different from the other two).
I am ~5’-9” and the seated position provides a comfortable position for the Z224 & Z313 shots.
So now we have people wanting to stamp as fact that the 1st shot missed? Not only do we Not even have a remnant of that bullet, we have no solid image evidence of it striking anything either. This is why guys like Holland putting out baloney like this need to be run up-and-down the flagpole right outta the gate. Over time, people repeat this stuff until it is generally accepted as being fact. And a shooter from a standing position firing Down through a half open window is further baloney. What proof is there of that? None!
I don't know how tall Secret Service agent John Howlett was, but the 11/27/63 reenactment photo shows him sitting on your beloved box (apparently in its correct position) and assuming a shooting position similar to what the "Oswald" actor does in "The Lost Bullet" for the 2nd and 3rd shots, so I guess it's plausible that 5' 9" Oswald fired those shots while sitting on it with one bun on and one bun off, just like Howlett was doing as he was pretending to shoot.
More importantly, given the fact that we now know that Oswald fired his first, missing-everything, shot at hypothetical "Z-124," (half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133) and we know that the window was only about 1/3 open (going from memory here), that Oswald had to stand and awkwardly lean forward while firing the steeply-downward-angled shot, and that this is corroborated by the fact that in a digitally enhanced clip from the Robert Hughes film which is embedded in "The Lost Bullet," we can see something light-colored (LHO's t-shirt?) moving in the window about five seconds before the first shot rang (or banged, boomed, or popped?) out.
There is no reason to assume the seat box was in the correct position in the Howlett photo. In fact it appears to me to not be correct but slightly further away from the window.
I don't care whether or not the seat box was accurately placed in the reenactment. I have no problem with Oswald's having sat on it while firing his 2nd and 3rd shots if it was physically possible for him to do so.
What's important is that Oswald's standing (and awkwardly leaning forward) for his first, missing-everything shot through the slightly open window is indicated by 1) the conscious reactions of several of the witnesses to the sounds of the first shot which indicate that it was fired at "Z-124" -- thereby making it steeply-downward-angled, 2) the digitally enhanced Hughes film, where the standing sniper (Oswald) can be seen moving in the Sniper's Nest window about five seconds before he started shooting, and 3) the ejection pattern of the three shells found on the Sniper's Nest floor.
I'm afraid your notion that the first shot was fired at Z-160 is mistaken.
The seat box was in the way of a standing or kneeling sniper. Therefore it was not feasible for anyone to stand in that position to shoot.
I didn't say Oswald or anyone else was standing there.
Regardless, I wonder if you realize I think Oswald stood and leaned forward awkwardly for his first shot, and that he either sat on your box or kneeled for his second and third shots?
The echoing of the three muzzle blasts and the three supersonic "cracks" created a cacophony of sound which fooled many witnesses into believing two of the three shots were close together.Oh. I didn’t realize you were there.
Do you believe that there was enough space available for a sniper to stand somewhere else besides where the box was positioned? If so, please show us exactly where that space was supposed to be.
It looks to me as though there was enough room for Oswald to either:
1) Stand and lean forward near your beloved seat box for his steeply-downward-angled 1st shot at hypothetical "Z-124," and then kneel down for his 2nd and 3rd shots, or
2) to sit rather uncomfortably on your beloved seat box (one bun on / one bun off) and shoot at Z-160 (LOL), at Z-222 -224, and, of course, at Z-313.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=509
The echoing of the three muzzle blasts and the three supersonic "cracks" created a cacophony of sound which fooled many witnesses into believing two of the three shots were close together.
I doubt that there is enough room for that. And I suspect that is why Max didn’t include the seat box in his demonstration. This might be worth further study. I will have to decide later. But first I think that you need to know that the photo you chose, CE 1301, is a recreation that the DPD arranged two days after the assassination. And the recreation isn’t exactly accurate. The window boxes are noticeably further west than where they were located during the assassination. Correcting this error would definitely reduce the space available for standing/kneeling.
I doubt that there is enough room for that. And I suspect that is why Max didn’t include the seat box in his demonstration. This might be worth further study. I will have to decide later. But first I think that you need to know that the photo you chose, CE 1301, is a recreation that the DPD arranged two days after the assassination. And the recreation isn’t exactly accurate. The window boxes are noticeably further west than where they were located during the assassination. Correcting this error would definitely reduce the space available for standing/kneeling.
Do you think the "Studebaker Exhibit J" photo is more accurate?
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-police-fake-evidence.html
No, it looks like the same arrangement as CE1301 from a closer distance.
CE482 and CE715 and CE716 show portions of the window boxes before they were moved. Those let us gauge the distance they were positioned from the center post dividing the two windows.
I've already posted CE715.
Yes, and then you asked about the accuracy of a different one. Hopefully the difference is apparent.
You seem to be saying there was enough room for Oswald to sit uncomfortably on the box (one bun on / one bun off), but not enough room for him to stand near it.Why would Oswald have set up the boxes on the floor and window sill to support a rifle aimed toward the triple underpass if he was going to fire the first shot downward to the street? That makes no sense.
Why would Oswald have set up the boxes on the floor and windowsill to support a rifle aimed toward the triple underpass if he was going to fire the first shot downward to the street? That makes no sense.
You seem to be saying there was enough room for Oswald to sit uncomfortably on the box (one bun on / one bun off), but not enough room for him to stand near it.
Why would Oswald have set up the boxes on the floor and window sill to support a rifle aimed toward the triple underpass if he was going to fire the first shot downward to the street? That makes no sense.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/2c/Photo_wcd81-1_0159.jpg)
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/39/Photo_wcd81-1_0155.jpg)
Exactly! The only reason we are even talking about a shot being firedU once again fail to show us the needed (almost straight down) angle!!!!
almost straight down
through a half open window is due to Max Holland and his cockamamie theory of a bullet striking that signal light support beam.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a shot striking that signal light support beam.
No physical evidence, no eyewitness evidence, no earwitness evidence, Nothing. ALL of this being the intro to the biggest fish story of them all, the SBT. What we have is nothing more than 1 preposterous fairy tale piled on top of another. One lie leading to another. We have "stories" about the assassination being faked, 2 and 3 different Oswald's, Ruby himself never having shot Oswald, and these stories rightfully get laughed at and ridiculed. Yet, here we have a planned assassination with a shooter using a WW2 bolt action rifle, posed inna standing position and firing down into a signal light support beam? This Max Holland stuff should have been shirt canned right outta the gate. Laughable, yet megaphoned by National Geographic.
The room is very limited. The boxes are quite small (the ones on top are not much bigger than a shoe box), and space available is less than the photos make it appear to be. I am doubtful that there is enough room for a sniper to stand and then kneel quickly without interference from the seat box and/or the conduit. Do I think it is possible? I don’t know. I might decide to test it if I can find a place to set my model back up. The room where I had it before is a home theater now, so it is not available anymore. Plus my wife dislikes clutter. I have to think about it before making this decision.
Other reasons to doubt the idea of standing for a first shot include:
- A sniper concealed from view is very unlikely to stand up and expose himself to shoot.
- An offhand standing position is much less stable than a sitting position with a support.
- The sniper’s nest was obviously set up for shots in the “kill zone” where the target moves almost directly away from the sniper.
- The standing first shot is an idea that Max Holland came up with to support his theory. It makes no sense otherwise.
- Despite the Howlett photo, one does not need to sit half on/half off the box to shoot comfortably. I can say this for certain based on my experience with my model.
- An offhand standing shot is likely to be less accurate than a seated & supported shot. But I doubt that it would be likely to miss the entire limo.
- On the other hand, an inadvertent shot that fired before it was fully aimed could easily miss the entire limo.
- The potential for interference while positioning the rifle is certainly there in the form of the conduit and the window box.
As I said earlier, you can believe what you want to believe. It makes no difference to me. I advise folks to do their own research. However, the answers to the questions we are looking at here were only known for certain by LHO. We can only form our own opinions based on the best information we can find.
It's strange that there was evidently enough room for Oswald to place his feet on the floor while sitting on the "sit box" but not enough room for him leave his feet there and stand up for his sharply-downward-angled shot at "Z-124" and then sit back down for his second and third shots.
Exactly! The only reason we are even talking about a shot being fired almost straight down through a half open window is due to Max Holland and his cockamamie theory of a bullet striking that signal light support beam. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a shot striking that signal light support beam. No physical evidence, no eyewitness evidence, no earwitness evidence, Nothing. ALL of this being the intro to the biggest fish story of them all, the SBT. What we have is nothing more than 1 preposterous fairy tale piled on top of another. One lie leading to another. We have "stories" about the assassination being faked, 2 and 3 different Oswald's, Ruby himself never having shot Oswald, and these stories rightfully get laughed at and ridiculed. Yet, here we have a planned assassination with a shooter using a WW2 bolt action rifle, posed inna standing position and firing down into a signal light support beam? This Max Holland stuff should have been shirt canned right outta the gate. Laughable, yet megaphoned by National Geographic.I agree with everything you have said. But not only do we not have evidence of a first missed shot, there is abundant evidence that JFK was struck by the first shot. The problem is that the first shot was not the shot that JBC felt strike him in the back. The real issue is: when did that second shot strike JBC?
I agree with everything you have said. But not only do we not have evidence of a first missed shot, there is abundant evidence that JFK was struck by the first shot. The problem is that the first shot was not the shot that JBC felt strike him in the back. The real issue is: when did that second shot strike JBC?
The LN crowd for the most part (myself, the original FBI analysis, the Connallys and the Secret Service excluded) have bought into the premise that JBC was not struck anywhere on the first shot and that all his wounds were caused by one bullet: CE399 (despite the difficulty in explaining the condition of CE399). Whether one subscribes to the multiple shooter or single shooter scenario, acceptance of that premise means either:
1. that the first shot went through JFK's neck and caused no further damage to any person or the car; or
2. the Connallys, the "last two shots close together" witnesses, "first shot hit JFK" witnesses, and the "first shot after z186" witnesses were all hallucinating.
Neither of these is plausible, in my view. Although, of the two, the first conflicts with less evidence.
I simply suggest that there is a third alternative that is not only plausible but conflicts with no evidence at all. It is also a better fit with the physical evidence and with the evidence of Greer, Powers, Gayle Newman and Hickey: the premise that CE399 caused all of JBC's wounds is incorrect.
Weren't the shots at Z-222 -224 and Z-313 in the general direction of the Triple Underpass?
| ------- |
Do you think Oswald should have shot at JFK when the limo was on Houston Street, instead?I don't think he should have shot JFK at all.
Have you watched "The Lost Bullet"? Have you watched the SS Re-Creation Filming that was done shortly after the assassination? I'm not gonna permit you to turn this into name calling. Please do your research.Have u watched the lapel flip?
I disagree that there was a shot at z222-224. The first shot was earlier and the second was later [at Z-255].
We know that JFK and JBC have already been hit by Z-225, the first frame in which we can see JFK's head and upper torso after he has emerged from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. JFK's mouth is open in pain and he's already automatically raising his arm. Although JBC isn't yet reacting conspicuously in Z-225, his jacket lapel had already started to flap outward in Z-223. He didn't react to being shot as quickly as JFK did because, unlike JFK, his spinal column wasn't damaged by the bullet.
A couple things here: (1) Basing any conclusion on what you see on the Z Film is a crap shoot. Especially timing issues. That film admittedly has been spliced numerous times. (2) The "lapel flip" stuff is also based on Zapruder. That, and everybody talks about how the women's skirts on the (S) side of Elm was blown out from around their ankles, yet some do Not give this same consideration to a lapel. A lapel attached to a man that is whipping around in his jump seat. Come on people! Shed the blinders.
Do you think a bullet struck JFK in the upper back and exited his throat?
If so, what do you think happened to it after it exited his throat?
(Or do you think the wound in his throat was caused by a bullet from the front?)
The throat wound was an entry wound. This stuff with the Connally Lapel is just 1 more thing mandated from that shot to make the SBT work on paper. That Connally wound was fired from a weapon, "almost on the horizontal" per "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Wiegman said in "Unsolved History JFK, Death In Dealey Plaza", that he felt the "compression" of a bullet on his Face. This would be that same shooter, "Almost on the horizontal".
LOL!
How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important Cover Up?
Hundreds?
Was the bullet wound in JFK's upper back and entrance wound or an exit wound?
If the former, where do you think it ended up?
It melted?
It only went in two or three inches?
How about You telling me where that bullet that allegedly matches the 3rd Hull in the sniper's nest went? And do Not give me that "Lost Bullet" BS: With Trump now having free reign for 4 yrs and RFK Jr looking under every rock in DC, info is gonna spill. And it's no coincidence that Trump has dodged his own assassination 2 times now. They know what's coming.
The only thing "The Lost Bullet" got wrong was assuming that Oswald's first shot hit the traffic signal's mast arm at "Z-107" and that the bullet ricocheted down towards the Tripple Underpass at a strange angle and nicked James Tague.
Based on a 2013 ballistics demonstration in PBS NOVA's "Cold Case JFK" and a 2020 scientific analysis by Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce of the conscious reactions of several witnesses to the sounds of Oswald's first shot, the bullet probably disintegrated when it hit the asphalt street -- not at "Z-107" but a second later at "Z-124."
James Tague could very well have been nicked by a bullet fragment from the Z-313 fatal head shot.
With Worm Brain in in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, we'll be lucky if we don't all die from Ebola or some-such thing.
Your hero, The Traitorous Orange Person, will again be our "president" only because 60-plus years of KGB disinformation and "active measures" has brainwashed about half of our population.
Once again:
How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important Cover Up?
Couple hundred?
Was the bullet hole in JFK's upper back an entrance wound or an exit wound?
If the former, what do you think happened to the bullet?
It was an ice bullet, and it melted?
It was a "dud," and it only went in three or four inches?
It magically changed course and left the limo?
Or do you think it was an implausibly small exit wound?
We know that JFK and JBC have already been hit by Z-225, the first frame in which we can see JFK's head and upper torso after he has emerged from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. JFK's mouth is open in pain and he's already automatically raising his arm. Although JBC isn't yet reacting conspicuously in Z-225, his jacket lapel had already started to flap outward in Z-223. He didn't react to being shot as quickly as JFK did because, unlike JFK, his spinal column wasn't damaged by the bullet.It is not clear what the lapel is doing, if anything. The change in appearance between z223 and z224:
[H]ere we go again with the "ear witness" stuff.
One thing I will give you credit for is going with the "Upper Back" wound. Finally, we have descended from Gerry Ford's lower neck mumbo jumbo.
The only thing "The Lost Bullet" got wrong was assuming that Oswald's first shot hit the traffic signal's mast arm at "Z-107" and that the bullet ricocheted down towards the Tripple Underpass at a strange angle and nicked James Tague.
Based on a 2013 ballistics demonstration in PBS NOVA's "Cold Case JFK" and a 2020 scientific analysis by Brian Roselle and Kenneth Scearce of the conscious reactions of several witnesses to the sounds of Oswald's first shot, the bullet probably disintegrated when it hit the asphalt street -- not at "Z-107" but a second later at "Z-124."
James Tague could very well have been nicked by a bullet fragment from the Z-313 fatal head shot.
With Worm Brain in in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, we'll be lucky if we don't all die from Ebola or some-such thing.
Your hero, The Traitorous Orange Person, will again be our "president" only because 60-plus years of KGB disinformation and "active measures" has brainwashed about half of our population.
Once again:
How many bad guys do you figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important Cover Up?
Couple hundred?
Was the bullet hole in JFK's upper back an entrance wound or an exit wound?
If the former, what do you think happened to the bullet?
It was an ice bullet, and it melted?
It was a "dud," and it only went in three or four inches?
It magically changed course and left the limo?
Or do you think it was an implausibly small exit wound?
BUMP with respect to your claiming "ear witness" evidence to determine when Shot #1 went off. Yeah, you went there.
Is there a way to see the limo from Oswald's perspective at frames 122-24? Just curious what the shot would have looked like if fired in that timeframe.Secret Service recreation: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUtJos-wZXI
Secret Service recreation: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUtJos-wZXIQuote
I'm guessing somewhere about the 10:18 mark in the above film. Something like below (taken from the window).
Steve M. Galbraith,
Click on this link:
https://www.acsr.org/post/estimating-occult-timing-of-surprise-gunshot-sounds-in-silent-film-via-observed-start-of-human-vol
Then scroll down to the PDF link titled "Estimating Occult Timing of Surprise Gunshot Sounds in Silent Film via Observed Start of Human Voluntary Reactions of Concern" and click on it.
Scroll down to page 18.
It's the middle photo.
Maybe you can post it here for us.
-- Tom Mahon
(https://i.vgy.me/yCIvEG.png)
Why would someone in the sniper's nest even attempt to contort their body and fire this alleged shot through a half open window?
If you're suggesting by the way you cropped the photo that the bullet may have hit the traffic signal's mast or light box thingy, all I can say is that it doesn't matter to me if it did or not because the important thing is that, whether the shot was fired at "Z-124" or at Max Holland's "Z-107," it was a steeply-downward-angled shot that necessitated Oswald's standing and awkwardly leaning forward while firing it -- which in itself helps to explain how he managed to miss everything with it.
Why would someone in the sniper's nest even attempt to contort their body and fire this alleged shot through a half open window?Or: why would Oswald choose to shoot at a target moving across his field of view when:
If you buy into a shot coming at this point in time, it would be evidence of a 2nd shooter. "Almost on the horizontal" per "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".Only if the second shot was not where the evidence says it occurred: a perceptible time after the midpoint between the first and third (last) shots.
(https://i.vgy.me/yCIvEG.png)
Thanks. Any idea where this compares to the location of the limo at the last moment in the Robert Hughes film showing the limo turn onto Elm? The limo appears to have turned on Elm and disappeared from view just as that fragment ends. It seems like it would be within a second or two of reaching the point depicted in that photo. I know the 6th floor window is blurry in that film but I would think Oswald would have to already be in a standing position to fire the shot at that moment. Making him more clearly visible. It would take him a moment to aim and fire which means he would have to be in the window doing so before the limo reaches that point. I can't see him moving into position and being able to fire the shot after the Hughes film ends and 124.
Thanks. Any idea where this compares to the location of the limo at the last moment in the Robert Hughes film showing the limo turn onto Elm? The limo appears to have turned on Elm and disappeared from view just as that fragment ends. It seems like it would be within a second or two of reaching the point depicted in that photo. I know the 6th floor window is blurry in that film but I would think Oswald would have to already be in a standing position to fire the shot at that moment. Making him more clearly visible. It would take him a moment to aim and fire which means he would have to be in the window doing so before the limo reaches that point. I can't see him moving into position and being able to fire the shot after the Hughes film ends and 124.
Probably because he realized that the foliage of the oak tree would soon block his view of the target, and the temptation was just too doggone great.
Factoid: He didn't have to subject himself to tortuous "contortion." All he had to do was lean forward a bit while standing.
Or: why would Oswald choose to shoot at a target moving across his field of view when:I don't see any problem with a 2nd shooter "Almost on the horizontal", firing any of the shots. Per, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", that 2nd shooter would be Behind the JFK Limo. A 3rd shooter was allegedly located in front of the JFK Limo.
1. he had already set up the boxes to support a much easier, and likely more accurate, shot with the target moving away from him;
2. he would have had one shot before the car passed under the tree and before it might speed off making additional shots less likely to succeed;
3. he would have to quickly do a change of position from standing and pointing the rifle down to kneeling with the gun pointing horizontally. This would increase the time interval before being able to make additional shots as the car proceeded down Elm and still within range. It would increase the likelihood of missing on subsequent rushed shots without being able to track the target before shooting.
Only if the second shot was not where the evidence says it occurred: a perceptible time after the midpoint between the first and third (last) shots.
Why would a shooter contort himself when the sniper's nest is already set-up with boxes to permit sitting and firing out the 1/2 open window?
Because the temptation was too strong for psychologically disturbed Oswald to resist?
Because he felt an overwhelming urge to shoot at JFK before he disappeared behind the foliage of the oak tree?
It beats the heck out of me, Royell, but he did.
Like your alleged very early 1st shot, you too are bending yourself into a pretzel to try and justify the motivation for that shot being fired in the 1st place. Like Maxy, you have no proof. Nothing. Now you're claiming that Oswald was "mentally disturbed." When do we get to the "wife beater" stuff?
We can see the VP security car starting the turn onto Elm in the last segment of Hughes film on Houston at least 3 seconds before Hughes stopped filming on Houston.
According to the Dale Myers synchronization timeline there was 2.7 seconds between the end of that segment of the Hughes film and the beginning of the Zapruder assassination segment (Z133) film. Based on 18.3 frames per second, “Z124” would be about a half-second before Z133. Subtract a half-second from 2.7 seconds and we have about 2.2 seconds between the end of the Hughes film segment and “Z124”.
(https://i.vgy.me/ve2a2R.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/foks06.jpg)
However I find it very interesting that both Hughes and Dorman stopped filming at very, very close the same time as the “Z124” frame would have been exposed.
(https://i.vgy.me/JLiTFY.jpg)
Hughes’ stoppage was for only six frames (~1/3 of a second). This is very unusual and I think could be a reaction to an early missed shot. In the Max Holland video, he says that Dorman said she stopped filming after the first shot. Her camera did stop filming for about three seconds (49-frames).
We can see the VP security car starting the turn onto Elm in the last segment of Hughes film on Houston at least 3 seconds before Hughes stopped filming on Houston.
But if you look at the zfilm frame 133 the VP car has just started the turn and the VP security car is not yet at the intersection and shows no obvious sign of beginning the turn. If you add 3 seconds or 55 frames to 133 that would put the end of the Hughes film sequence at z188. And Hughes definitely said that he stopped filming the motorcade before any of the shots (Trask, p. 265) and resumed after they ended.
Excellent post Charles. I never could understand how it could have been five seconds after he stopped filming on Houston that the first shot occurred. You have persuaded me that he wasn't sure about anything. So what you are saying is that Hughes was filming during the shots. So let's see how that fits with others.
And Hughes definitely said that he stopped filming the motorcade before any of the shots (Trask, p. 265) and resumed after they ended.
Hughes wrote that letter the same Friday evening of the assassination. He had not yet seen his film. And Hughes also wrote (Trask, p 265) “About half-way through all that, I realized what had happened and began taking pictures again. I may have some movies of the car leaving the scene, but there was so much confusion that I don’t really remember.
I have to disagree with your “resumed after they ended” phrase. About half-way through definitely isn’t the same as “after they ended.”
No matter how we argue what we think Hughes meant when he said such and such, the bottom line is that he said: “I don’t really remember.”
According to Dale Myers’ timeline, Hughes stopped filming the president’s car as it disappeared around the corner in front of the TSBD at -13.16 seconds before the head shot at Z313. I submit that that is the same moment that Hughes wrote that he “quit taking pictures.” I can imagine that that moment might be “remembered” due to the fact that it was the last time he photographed the president’s limo and he apparently intentionally stopped filming for a little over two seconds at that point in time.
“Stopped filming the motorcade” are words that you wrote. Hughes did not write those words. Technically Hughes filmed part of the “motorcade” on Elm Street long after the shots had ended. He also filmed the same part of the motorcade on Houston Street before and during at least one of the shots. He just didn’t “really remember” that sequence and had not yet seen his film when he wrote the letter.
Let’s take a look at that sequence on Houston Street. According to Dale Myers’ timeline, he started his movie camera back up at -11:10 seconds before Z313. He had only been filming for less than one-second when at -10:22 he stopped for 6-frames (~1/3-second). At -9:84 seconds before Z313 he resumed filming on Houston Street for almost 3-seconds then stopped at -7:00.
If we were to believe that what Hughes wrote (“About five seconds after I quit taking pictures we heard the shots”) was correct, then we would have to believe that the first shot occurred only two seconds before Z313. That’s a no-starter, -7:00 equates to Z185. JFK was obviously hit as we see him emerge from behind the sign at about A225. Five-seconds after Z185 (-7:00 before Z313) would be about Z276. Even your idea indicates that shot(s) were fired long before Z276. Clearly, Hughes was correct when he wrote: “I really don’t remember.”
Excellent post Charles. I never could understand how it could have been five seconds after he stopped filming on Houston that the first shot occurred. You have persuaded me that he wasn't sure about anything. So what you are saying is that Hughes was filming during the shots. So let's see how that fits with others.
It is odd that the official account of Hughes says he stopped filming the motorcade on Houston before the first shot. This is what is stated in the Sixth Floor Museum:
- "Original 8mm color home movie filmed by Robert Hughes, showing the presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza before shots were fired and the aftermath immediately following the shooting. Hughes filmed the presidential motorcade until just a few seconds before the first shot, then captured some of the aftermath of the assassination, including police searching for suspects in a railroad yard and outside the Book Depository building. "
If you are right, we should be seeing in Hughes' some reaction of people along Houston and in the motorcade to a shot. But we don't. None. In fact, we can see Robert Jackson sitting on the back of the blue press convertible directly in front of the last car in Hughes film (white and red convertible):
(https://i.postimg.cc/2jQVzphQ/last-frame-on-Houston-1.jpg)
Jackson said that as they rounded the corner he threw a film canister to a reporter waiting at the corner to and they were turned toward the fellow fetching the film off the road when the first shot sounded. We can see Jackson in that last frame and he shows no signs of reacting to a shot.
This frame from the Hughes film shows the VP Security car turning toward the TSBD:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5F0TSvx/VPSecurity-car-at-z145.jpg)
I suggest that it shows the position of the car at this position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRDFLvZ8/Postion-VPSec-z145.jpg)
which has the front of the VP Security Car even with the rounded curb to the left of the car. Looking at the Zapruder film the frame showing the VP security car in that position just even with the round curb is z145:
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvZ4Thp4/145.jpg)
Now in Hughes' film, this frame is exactly two seconds after the frame showing the turning VP Security car at frame z145:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzGB0y2f/White-red-conv-2-seconds-after-z145-at-z182.jpg)
Two seconds after z145 is z182. (It is maybe as much as half a second before the last frame of Hughes on Houston). According to Jackson that is still before the first shot. So all of that puts the first shot after z191. Oddly enough, that fits with what Betzner said (after his z186 photo) and what Phil Willis said (just before his z202 photo).
Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot rang out about seven seconds after Robert Hughes stopped filming on Houston Street.??? 7 seconds the last Hughes frame:
??? 7 seconds the last Hughes frame:
(https://i.postimg.cc/2jQVzphQ/last-frame-on-Houston-1.jpg)
would put the first shot after the head shot!???
WTF are you talking about?Just simple math. Seven seconds is 128 Zapruder frames. The last frame of Hughes on Houston was exposed around the same time as Zapruder frame z190. 190+128=318>313
Just simple math. Seven seconds is 128 Zapruder frames. The last frame of Hughes on Houston was exposed around the same time as Zapruder frame z190. 190+128=318>313
Excellent post Charles. I never could understand how it could have been five seconds after he stopped filming on Houston that the first shot occurred. You have persuaded me that he wasn't sure about anything. So what you are saying is that Hughes was filming during the shots. So let's see how that fits with others.
It is odd that the official account of Hughes says he stopped filming the motorcade on Houston before the first shot. This is what is stated in the Sixth Floor Museum:
- "Original 8mm color home movie filmed by Robert Hughes, showing the presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza before shots were fired and the aftermath immediately following the shooting. Hughes filmed the presidential motorcade until just a few seconds before the first shot, then captured some of the aftermath of the assassination, including police searching for suspects in a railroad yard and outside the Book Depository building. "
If you are right, we should be seeing in Hughes' some reaction of people along Houston and in the motorcade to a shot. But we don't. None. In fact, we can see Robert Jackson sitting on the back of the blue press convertible directly in front of the last car in Hughes film (white and red convertible):
(https://i.postimg.cc/2jQVzphQ/last-frame-on-Houston-1.jpg)
Jackson said that as they rounded the corner he threw a film canister to a reporter waiting at the corner to and they were turned toward the fellow fetching the film off the road when the first shot sounded. We can see Jackson in that last frame and he shows no signs of reacting to a shot.
This frame from the Hughes film shows the VP Security car turning toward the TSBD:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5F0TSvx/VPSecurity-car-at-z145.jpg)
I suggest that it shows the position of the car at this position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRDFLvZ8/Postion-VPSec-z145.jpg)
which has the front of the VP Security Car even with the rounded curb to the left of the car. Looking at the Zapruder film the frame showing the VP security car in that position just even with the round curb is z145:
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvZ4Thp4/145.jpg)
Now in Hughes' film, this frame is exactly two seconds after the frame showing the turning VP Security car at frame z145:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzGB0y2f/White-red-conv-2-seconds-after-z145-at-z182.jpg)
Two seconds after z145 is z182. (It is maybe as much as half a second before the last frame of Hughes on Houston). According to Jackson that is still before the first shot. So all of that puts the first shot after z191. Oddly enough, that fits with what Betzner said (after his z186 photo) and what Phil Willis said (just before his z202 photo).
No. I was referring to his WC testimony (2H158):
According to Jackson that is still before the first shot.
What!!!??? Did you perhaps mean according to your interpretation of the image as showing Jackson’s apparent lack of an obvious reaction?
Why would he be mistaken in thinking he was almost halfway down Houston when the first shot was fired if he was actually on Main? There was a specific event that he referred to as being before the first shot and which is captured on Hughes film.
I believe that that segment of Hughes’ film includes the first shot but ends before the second shot.
The extremely unusual six-frame (~1/3-second) stoppage of the camera in that segment is an indicator of a first shot startle reaction by Hughes (in my opinion). There are numerous other events that seem to me to confirm my belief.Unusual for whom? His film is full of breaks. Film was not to be wasted in those days. He stopped after the President’s car turned.
Couch continued in his testimony, “… I remember I was talking and we were laughing and I was looking back to a fellow on my right - I don’t know who it was - we were joking. We had just made the turn. And I heard the first shot.”He seems to be agreeing with Jackson that the first shot occurred after Jackson had tossed the film as they turned the corner.
No. I was referring to his WC testimony (2H158):
Mr. JACKSON. Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on
Houston Street.
Why would he be mistaken in thinking he was almost halfway down Houston when the first shot was fired if he was actually on Main? There was a specific event that he referred to as being before the first shot and which is captured on Hughes film.
Furthermore, his recollection fits with Betzner, Croft, Willis, occupants of the VP and VP security car and conflicts with nothing.
Unusual for whom? His film is full of breaks. Film was not to be wasted in those days. He stopped after the President’s car turned.
He seems to be agreeing with Jackson that the first shot occurred after Jackson had tossed the film as they turned the corner.
No. I was referring to his WC testimony (2H158):
Mr. JACKSON. Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on
Houston Street.
Why would he be mistaken in thinking he was almost halfway down Houston when the first shot was fired if he was actually on Main? There was a specific event that he referred to as being before the first shot and which is captured on Hughes film.
Furthermore, his recollection fits with Betzner, Croft, Willis, occupants of the VP and VP security car and conflicts with nothing.
Unusual for whom? His film is full of breaks. Film was not to be wasted in those days. He stopped after the President’s car turned.
He seems to be agreeing with Jackson that the first shot occurred after Jackson had tossed the film as they turned the corner.
No. I was referring to his WC testimony (2H158):
Mr. JACKSON. Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on
Houston Street.
Why would he be mistaken in thinking he was almost halfway down Houston when the first shot was fired if he was actually on Main? There was a specific event that he referred to as being before the first shot and which is captured on Hughes film.
Furthermore, his recollection fits with Betzner, Croft, Willis, occupants of the VP and VP security car and conflicts with nothing.
Unusual for whom? His film is full of breaks. Film was not to be wasted in those days. He stopped after the President’s car turned.
He seems to be agreeing with Jackson that the first shot occurred after Jackson had tossed the film as they turned the corner.
No. I was referring to his WC testimony (2H158):
Mr. JACKSON. Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on
Houston Street.
Why would he be mistaken in thinking he was almost halfway down Houston when the first shot was fired if he was actually on Main? There was a specific event that he referred to as being before the first shot and which is captured on Hughes film.
Furthermore, his recollection fits with Betzner, Croft, Willis, occupants of the VP and VP security car and conflicts with nothing.
Unusual for whom? His film is full of breaks. Film was not to be wasted in those days. He stopped after the President’s car turned.
He seems to be agreeing with Jackson that the first shot occurred after Jackson had tossed the film as they turned the corner.
You guys like quoting Couch. Yet, you Fail to recognize that he felt it was important to include in his WC Testimony that he saw an 8"-10" BLOOD POOL along the Elm St Extension/TSBD. Also, when testifying as to this BLOOD POOL, Couch also testified that people gathered around this same BLOOD POOL were commenting on shots being fired through the SHRUBS. Those same SHRUBS ran along the Elm St Extension directly across the street from the TSBD. We see DPD Officer Joe Marshall Smith running down the Elm St Ext on the Couch Film. Officer Smith gave WC Testimony that he ran down the Elm St Ext immediately after the Kill Shot due to a woman in "hysterics" coming up to him and saying, "they are shooting the president from the BUSHES". Smith then ran down the Elm St Ext checking these Bushes/Shrubs as filmed by Couch. So we have an 8"-10" Blood Pool, along with 2 separate reports of shots being fired through the BUSHES/SHRUBS. All of this being within mere feet of the TSBD.
Cherry cola.
10.2 secs? So just ignore the 2/3rds of the witness who heard the shots fired rapidly and the last 2 shots so close that they were described as “back to back”?
10.2 secs? So just ignore the 2/3rds of the witness who heard the shots fired rapidly and the last 2 shots so close that they were described as “back to back”?
ignore Lee Bowers camera interview (recorded by Mark Lane)reenactment of the shots them rapping his hand on the desk in like 3 seconds.
Talk about “ full of beans” LOL
I thought your position was that the first shot occurred 1/3 second before this first frame of Hughes last clip on Houston:
if he was actually on Main?
Where in my post are you interpreting anything at all about them being on Main? Read it again please. Couch said the same thing that Jackson said except Couch said they “had just made the turn.” Both said they were looking back at Featherston scrambling for the roll of film.
Do you really believe that they were still looking back at Featherston scrambling for the roll of film when they were half way down the block? Do you really believe that they were still looking back at Featherston scrambling for the roll of film over 3-seconds later (when you believe the first shot occurred?Jackson said it was "approximately" that time (when they "all looked back at him and were laughing") that they heard the first shot. He said that they were approximately half a block on Houston Street so I take it from that it was just a moment after the dropped film incident. He is relating the last moment that he recalled before the first shot. If so, then it occurred a moment after the last frame in Hughes' film, which shows the 3rd camera car almost up to the end of the first building on Houston:
But it is not just him. It is Betzner, Linda Willis, Occupants of the VP (just completed the turn) and VP Security car (completing the turn - along side TSBD), witnesses along Elm St. (e.g. Billie Clay said she was standing 150 feet west of TSBD entrance:"Just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot." Sue Dickerson "I was standing at the curb on the north side of Elm Street about equal distance between the point where the President was shot and the west end of the Texas School Book Depository building.") Croft (enough time after his z161 photo for him to wind the film and press the shutter again) and Phil Willis (just before his z202 photo).
Why would he be mistaken in thinking he was almost halfway down Houston when the first shot was fired…
Because the human memories are not infallible.
If you look at the Dale Myers’ timeline, Hughes film ends at frame 680. That frame 680 equates to Z185 (-7.00-seconds before Z133) around the same time that you believe that the first shot happened.Definitely after, not before. I suggest z193 as the time of the first shot. Ready said he turned to his right upon hearing the first shot - he releases his right hand from the front hand-hold between z198 and z199).
Judging by the crosswalk stripes on Houston, camera car 3 has only moved forward less than one car-length (~20-feet?) from where it was when the Hughes film stopped for ~1/3-second (frame 630). It is obviously not “halfway down the block.” Jackson was apparently mistaken.?? - It is well past the intersection when the last Hughes sequence on Houston ends and it happened after that. Here is the last Hughes frame.
I thought your position was that the first shot occurred 1/3 second before this first frame of Hughes last clip on Houston:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fk4QNbqF/first-frame-after-break2.jpg)
Where do you think the 3rd camera car is at that point? Since it is not yet in the frame, it must be still on Main St. It might be starting its turn onto Houston, but the entire car is still on Main St.Jackson said it was "approximately" that time (when they "all looked back at him and were laughing") that they heard the first shot. He said that they were approximately half a block on Houston Street so I take it from that it was just a moment after the dropped film incident. He is relating the last moment that he recalled before the first shot. If so, then it occurred a moment after the last frame in Hughes' film, which shows the 3rd camera car almost up to the end of the first building on Houston:
(https://i.postimg.cc/2jQVzphQ/last-frame-on-Houston-1.jpg)
According to Dale Myers, that last Hughes frame was exposed at the same time as Zapruder z185. That fits with my analysis as well (a bit more than 2 seconds after z145). It is not just Hughes and Jackson saying that this was before the first shot. Betzner said it was after his z186 photo. The occupants of the VP car said that they had completed the turn (it is still turning at z181). Phil Willis said it was an instant before his z202 photo. Occupants of the VP security car and witnesses along Elm provide a similar time for the first shot. I would suggest that the convergence of all the evidence on a post z186 first shot is highly unlikely to be by random chance.
But it is not just him. It is Betzner, Linda Willis, Occupants of the VP (just completed the turn) and VP Security car (completing the turn - along side TSBD), witnesses along Elm St. (e.g. Billie Clay said she was standing 150 feet west of TSBD entrance:"Just a few seconds after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed the position where I was standing, I heard a shot." Sue Dickerson "I was standing at the curb on the north side of Elm Street about equal distance between the point where the President was shot and the west end of the Texas School Book Depository building.") Croft (enough time after his z161 photo for him to wind the film and press the shutter again) and Phil Willis (just before his z202 photo).
Definitely after, not before. I suggest z193 as the time of the first shot. Ready said he turned to his right upon hearing the first shot - he releases his right hand from the front hand-hold between z198 and z199).
?? - It is well past the intersection when the last Hughes sequence on Houston ends and it happened after that. Here is the last Hughes frame.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2jQVzphQ/last-frame-on-Houston-1.jpg)
Again, we don't see camera car 3 in the first Hughes frame after the 1/3 second break.
Some three shot witnesses were more insistent on what they recalled regarding the first shot, and its timing relative to the second shot.
One of those was James Tague who was standing about 20 feet out from the underpass as the limo turned onto Elm.
What do researchers on this forum think about his recollections as reported on Black Op Radio? I'm not sure if an audio file will play so I'll just include the link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W170KQsU229-rzyNMPW39vFJ2sxCFYlk/view?usp=sharing
Some three shot witnesses were more insistent on what they recalled regarding the first shot, and its timing relative to the second shot.Interesting in a couple of respects:
One of those was James Tague who was standing about 20 feet out from the underpass as the limo turned onto Elm.
What do researchers on this forum think about his recollections as reported on Black Op Radio? I'm not sure if an audio file will play so I'll just include the link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W170KQsU229-rzyNMPW39vFJ2sxCFYlk/view?usp=sharing
Unusual for whom? His film is full of breaks. Film was not to be wasted in those days.
Extremely unusual for anyone period. No one would intentionally stop filming for 1/3 of a second only to resume filming the same stinking thing. If you believe otherwise, please show us an example.
[Tague] describes his reaction to the first shot as thinking someone had set off a firecracker and was scanning the crowd looking for such a person. He does not say he felt anything strike him.
There are 18 different sequences in the short film, 8 prior to the assassination and 4 during the sequences showing the motorcade on Houston. So it seems that Hughes had a habit of arbitrarily stopping and starting the film. Pretty difficult to arbitrarily assign one of them to hearing the first shot (which Hughes also said was not the case).
Interesting in a couple of respects:
1. He says “almost five seconds” “maybe four seconds” elapsed between the first and second shots.
2. He describes his reaction to the first shot as thinking someone had set off a firecracker and was scanning the crowd looking for such a person. He does not say he felt anything strike him. (He testified to the WC that he felt something strike his cheek on the second shot.)
4 - 5 seconds fits with a first shot at z180 to z198 and second at z271 leaving 2.3 seconds to aim and fire the last shot at z312-313.
You and I interpret Tague’s testimony differently wrt the first shot’s z-frame. This is a good example where not only can witness testimonies differ, but researchers can exacerbate the situation by interpreting any given testimony in a different way.
My effort to mitigate this: I understand that witness testimony can be quite variable. Witness variability was a problem I ran into early on when looking into the shooting timeline using ear witness testimony regarding how they all recalled hearing the first shot. To avoid this issue the PRT analysis was done without using any testimony, but rather based on human reactions, and the results came back saying a shot was triggered about z124. Someone I know challenged me by saying that even if witnesses have large variability in what was recalled, there still should be a subset of witness testimony that agreed with a first shot around z124.
The only way around this conundrum that I could think of was to put a tighter constraint on the witness testimony used, but not in a way that would bias any particular answer. This was done by using three shot witness testimonies that included both audible (hearing the first shot) and visual (positioned the presidential limo at the time of hearing that first shot with a fixed background landmark or photo view/camera reaction). This significantly reduces the sampling population but the thought was that testimonies “anchored” using 2 separate senses (sight and sound) would be more reliable with reduced variability.
So for that challenge, the technique tried consisted of (1) Using the “anchored” visual testimonies to estimate the limo’s position at the time of the first shot, and then augment that by (2) Using the power of averaging on those testimonies to help converge on a final estimate for the limo’s position on Elm at the time of a the first shot.
The results of this approach was very interesting. At the time of the first shot, the average limo location appeared to be around a z133 timing position (if using Phil Willis and his slide #5) or alternately slightly before a z133 timing position, right around z124, (if using Phil Willis and his #4 slide).
The approach was summarized at this link. I would recommend skipping over the background and just click on the link that appears at the bottom of that page to see how the results converged. This approach used only a stricter testimony pool without any reaction time science.
https://sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home
So let me get this straight. People for 60+ years have gone on-and-on about there being some kinda "echo" effect there in Dealey Plaza with sound bouncing every which way, yet in the face of this, some of you wanna rely on 11/22/63 Ear Witness Accounts/Testimony to go ahead and justify an extremely early 1st shot. And that extremely early 1st shot would require the shooter to: (1) fire his rifle from a Standing Position, (2) Fire his rifle downward through a 1/2 Open Window, (3) the fired bullet then striking a traffic light support beam, (4) the fired bullet then caroming off, (5) the fired bullet then striking a street curb, and (6) resulting in an injury to some guy standing about a football field away? Do you hear yourselves? Do you have any idea as to how ridiculous all of this sounds?
Well done Brian. Your “anchored first shot” presentation is excellent. Thanks!
You and I interpret Tague’s testimony differently wrt the first shot’s z-frame. This is a good example where not only can witness testimonies differ, but researchers can exacerbate the situation by interpreting any given testimony in a different way.How do witnesses differ from Tague?
My effort to mitigate this: I understand that witness testimony can be quite variable.Yes. Witness evidence can vary. That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.
How do witnesses differ from Tague?
There is no evidence that Tague was struck on the first or third shots. We only have Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot.
As far as Tague's recollection of the time between the first and second shots, [Tague said "almost five seconds... maybe four seconds" between the first and second shots?]. That fits with what many other witnesses recalled:
- Robert Jackson: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0084b.htm) "3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure."
- Earl Cabell: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0243b.htm) "There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession"
- Lady-Bird Johnson: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0288a.htm) "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession"
- Luke Mooney: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0145b.htm) "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot".
- Bonnie Ray Williams: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0092a.htm) "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember."
- Senator Ralph Yarborough (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0224b.htm): "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots"
- SA Winston Lawson (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0181a.htm): "There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two".
- Reporter Robert MacNeil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPr10mnumh4): "And there was a bang and we said: “What was that? Was that a shot? Was that a backfire?” And there was time for us to exchange. And then were two shots close together bang bang"
Yes. Witness evidence can vary. That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.
So let me get this straight. People for 60+ years have gone on-and-on about there being some kinda "echo" effect there in Dealey Plaza with sound bouncing every which way, yet in the face of this, some of you wanna rely on 11/22/63 Ear Witness Accounts/Testimony to go ahead and justify an extremely early 1st shot. And that extremely early 1st shot would require the shooter to: (1) fire his rifle from a Standing Position, (2) Fire his rifle downward through a 1/2 Open Window, (3) the fired bullet then striking a traffic light support beam, (4) the fired bullet then caroming off, (5) the fired bullet then striking a street curb, and (6) resulting in an injury to some guy standing about a football field away? Do you hear yourselves? Do you have any idea as to how ridiculous all of this sounds?
How do witnesses differ from Tague?
There is no evidence that Tague was struck on the first or third shots. We only have Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot.
As far as Tague's recollection of the time between the first and second shots, [Tague said "almost five seconds... maybe four seconds" between the first and second shots?]. That fits with what many other witnesses recalled:
- Robert Jackson: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0084b.htm) "3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure."
- Earl Cabell: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0243b.htm) "There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession"
- Lady-Bird Johnson: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0288a.htm) "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession"
- Luke Mooney: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0145b.htm) "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot".
- Bonnie Ray Williams: (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0092a.htm) "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember."
- Senator Ralph Yarborough (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0224b.htm): "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots"
- SA Winston Lawson (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0181a.htm): "There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two".
- Reporter Robert MacNeil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPr10mnumh4): "And there was a bang and we said: “What was that? Was that a shot? Was that a backfire?” And there was time for us to exchange. And then were two shots close together bang bang"
Yes. Witness evidence can vary. That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.
Was MacNeil seated inside a bus when the shots were fired? The location and surroundings of an "ear" witness are important when considering their testimony regarding the shots being fired.Yes. MacNeil was on the first press bus that was behind the 3 camera cars, 3 congressman cars and the VIP car. Here is a photo by Thomas Dillard of that bus from the 3rd camera car during the motorcade on Main St.
Yes. MacNeil was on the first press bus that was behind the 3 camera cars, 3 congressman cars and the VIP car. Here is a photo by Thomas Dillard of that bus from the 3rd camera car during the motorcade on Main St.
(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/24639/preview)
He said that they had just turned the corner into Dealey Plaza when they heard the first shot. After the shots he asked the bus driver to stop and he got out and eventually got a ride on the white and red convertible behind camera car 3. The bus may have just entered Dealey Plaza by the end of the shots and probably stopped on Houston but I don't see how it was possible for the bus to have been there at the time of the first shot.
Yes. MacNeil was on the first press bus that was behind the 3 camera cars, 3 congressman cars and the VIP car. Here is a photo by Thomas Dillard of that bus from the 3rd camera car during the motorcade on Main St.
(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/24639/preview)
He said that they had just turned the corner into Dealey Plaza when they heard the first shot. After the shots he asked the bus driver to stop and he got out and eventually got a ride on the white and red convertible behind camera car 3. The bus may have just entered Dealey Plaza by the end of the shots and probably stopped on Houston but I don't see how it was possible for the bus to have been there at the time of the first shot.
Andrew, you've probably seen this but the work Michael Russ did on his motorcade research would support your point about an error in MacNeil’s testimony.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/animation.htm
It appears Russ had the Bus (#15 Bus 1 - Continental Trailways White House Press bus) not in the Plaza yet after the third shot rang out. This is when his animation replays.
If MacNeil’s testimony was that the Bus was in the Plaza during the first shot, there is a major mismatch. I tend to think Russ was reasonably close in his work, so I think your conclusion here is good.
Take a look at the "You Tube" NBC Darnell Film I previously referenced. At the 0:08 point you can clearly see 2 buses back on Houston St. The bus(es) being on Houston St. when Shot #1 rang out is Wrong. Also on this NBC Darnell Film, at the 0:03 point you can see both DPD Officer Smith and DPD Motorcycle Officer Baker. Smith running down the Elm St Ext and Baker running toward the TSBD. Darnell allegedly was Not filming while shot(s) were being fired. Ergo, the Darnell footage we are seeing which shows these 2 buses on Houston St is at least 10 seconds after the Final Shot/3rd shot? Officer Baker's timeline probably is the best way to judge how long after the Kill Shot that we are seeing those 2 buses on Houston St in the NBC Darnell Film.
The only major anomaly in Andrew’s theory (imo) is still what many of us on this forum seem to be observing in the Z224-Z230 range which is the apparent simultaneous reactions of JFK and JC to being HIT by a bullet.
If that’s the case then the 2nd shot in Andrew’s theory being at Z270 ish? must be the missed shot and was this also the shooter still using his scope or had he switched to using iron sights at this point.
Tague vacillated over the years about being hit at shot two or shot three. I think near the end he did settle in that it was probably shot three.I don't know what you are referring to but his WC testimony (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0282a.htm) is pretty clear that there was a shot after the one that hit him and he was not hit on the first shot.
I’d like to touch base on the debate over shot spacing. I think the shot spacing issue from testimony is interesting and could use more study to explain why there was a lot of testimony suggesting a compressed time for the last two shots.I have compiled them all here (https://spmlaw.ca/isl/uploads/2021/04/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). I have added one more: NBC reporter Robert MacNeil so there are 63 witnesses, 48 of whom specifically recalled the 1.......2...3 pattern.
The timing studies/estimates I have done indicate the shots were triggered at about z124, z219, z310. They were roughly equally spaced about 5 seconds apart. These times were based mostly on the forensics of film evaluation, considering both voluntary and involuntary human reactions, but not based on testimony. I am confident in the shot timing as estimated based on human reactions and prefer not to use witness testimony.
Separate from the conflicting analysis I get when not using witness testimony, there are a couple other reasons I have not been sold on the claim of an actual compressed time between shot 2 and 3 vs 1 and 2.
1) There is a lot of testimony contrary to the shot 2 to 3 time compression vs 1 to 2.
- I haven’t done a survey on this topic, but the general feeling I got when listening to witnesses in person on video recently when doing some general witness reviews is that there are nearly as many that think the spacing was about equal vs compressed.
I don't know of anyone other than Emmett Hudson who changed his recollection of the spacing of the shots. It would be helpful if you could actually give us references to their statements. It is not really persuasive to suggest that witnesses were vague and not sure by giving us your vague and unsure impressions about what they may have said.
Net, I am not sure what the true ratio is for witnesses of equal spacing vs compressed spacing for the last two shots.
2) Nearly everybody changed their testimony which might give a clue as to how time perception may have changed during the last two shots. This dynamic should probably get more attention as recent studies indicate anxiety can make people underestimate how much time actually passes. I wonder if this may have played a role in the perceived time estimation between shots 2 and 3.
- Nearly everyone that afternoon reported they heard an initial loud bang, some had a concern at that point but many were just annoyed and wanted to know what the hell it was. Many thought it was a firecracker, but most soon realized it was followed by two shots. So technically their testimony initially was (firecracker, shot, shot). I don’t know of anyone who later on still maintained that initial perception of (firecracker, shot, shot) so everyone based on what they were told, or individually figured out, changed their testimony to (shot, shot, shot) i.e. three shots.
All the changing of testimony doesn’t make one feel warm and fuzzy, but in this case is probably justified and might shed light on how they perceived the spacing between the last two noises (two shots) vs the spacing between first two noises (a firecracker and a shot).
On the Zapruder film it seems that most of the ducking to the ground happened after the third shot, and that is when fear really set in. Between shot two and three was a transition to anxiety as the realization set in of gunshots going off around them, not firecrackers. Uncertainty and anxiety are believed to play a role in the perception of time passage.
A study at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London was designed to understand the effect anxiety and fear have on how we perceive time.
The researchers found that when people feel anxious, they underestimate how much time passes. In other words, anxiety makes time pass quicker. On the other hand, some people tend to slightly overestimate it when they feel afraid.
Could this mean 5 actual seconds between shots 2 and 3 was perceived by some to be like 2 or 3 seconds?
Tague was probably nicked by a bullet fragment from the Z-313 fatal head shot and spaced out on the timing, later.
Roselle's and Scearce's 2020 study (have you read it?) did not involve analyzing "earwitness accounts" in the traditional meaning of the term, but analyzing the caught-on-film timing of the conscious (i.e., not "startle") head movements made by seven witnesses (including JFK, Jackie, JBC and Nellie) in reaction to the unexpected sounds and vibrations of the first, missing-everything, shot.
If you want to view this pristine Darnell Film, go to You Tube and search out, "NBC 5 Archive Collection | Assassination Aftermath In Dealey Plaza | Darnell Film" By - SixthFloorMuseum
I think it's still a copy that the 6FM has.
Hickey riding in the (L) rear back seat of the Queen Mary means he probably could Not see this minor JFK hair flip. I think that Hickey is describing what he saw JFK's hair do when the Kill Shot struck. What IS evident from this Z Film snippet is how COMPLETELY FAR AROUND Gov Connally could turn in order to physically face JFK. For Gov Connally to turn this far around and actually face JFK, means there had to be the necessary space between the Limo side door and his jump seat in order to spin his knees around. That Connally jump seat was positioned well inboard the JFK Limo.Remember, Hickey was standing in the back of the Secret Service car. And JFK was turned to his left so Hickey could see the left side of JFK's head from about 4 feet above from his standing position. That would enable him to see the top of the right side of his head. So I don't see why he did not see what he said he saw and that was (18H762 CE1024):
I can think of few things more utterly subjective than interpreting "reactions" in a blurry, silent film.
Remember, Hickey was standing in the back of the Secret Service car. And JFK was turned to his left so Hickey could see the left side of JFK's head from about 4 feet above from his standing position. That would enable him to see the top of the right side of his head. So I don't see why he did not see what he said he saw and that was (18H762 CE1024):
- "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."
I find it odd that he imagined but did not see something that is seen in the zfilm at or very close to the time the second shot may well have occurred (according to the shot pattern recalled by the vast majority of witnesses and as further supported by the turn to the rear that Greer made just after the second shot).
John, there was a little more involved in the technique than casually looking at reactions in a blurry, silent film.
If this is how you have interpreted how the analysis works then I have done a terrible job in conveying to readers how and why it works. That is my fault and your comment makes me wonder how many other folks may also have questions about it. I need to remedy that.
Perhaps some additional context should be added to help other readers, and I’ll add it in three areas:
1) A little more on how it works, its use and possible misuse.
2) Some background on how it evolved, actually spurred on by this forum, and how it was reviewed.
3) Reasons why the results are credible and the method reliable.
1) The technique was developed as a new forensic technique useful for misc occasions, not just the JFK case. It uses the observations on film of the start of surprise voluntary reactions in order to estimate when a surprising, sound occurred (specifically when the sound reached them). To use the technique in a shooting case using silent film you definitely should have some prior reason to believe that gunfire (or loud surprising sound like gunfire to elicit reactions) occurred in the particular event being evaluated. If you didn’t have any expectation of a surprising sound happening in the film being reviewed, this might not be the technique to use.
Since it relies some on statistics and on historic reaction time science modeling, it can, like any forensic method, have some variations and misreads when misusing a technique. Although you could do it, using only one data point is a misuse in my mind. That’s part of the reason the technique recommends averaging, using multiple observations, if at all possible, to reduce error, and I would recommend not using any sample point if someone was unsure about a particular observation. But if you review enough film slowly frame by frame, and at actual rate, you can get a pretty good sense of when you see a surprise reaction.
Another misuse can occur if looking at a situation with a sequential grouping of sounds, the technique would only be applicable analyzing for the first surprising sound in a grouping of sounds, as recent earlier sounds in a group can forewarn of subsequent sounds occurring and that would alter the analysis since “surprising” is no longer applicable after a first sound.
One clue that supports the reactions are surprise and have a common source is how close together these (surprise) reactions are, i.e. how they begin relative to each other. For surprise reactions you would expect to see them start at nearly the same time (within a second or so of each other). This is based on what has been determined what the population as a whole would do.
2) Now about the technique background as applied to JFK. In fact, I think I first connected up with Ken Scearce on the subject in this forum a long time ago when first starting to investigate reaction observations. Ken said my comments were very interesting and he had similar observations. I asked him to send me what he was talking about. When I got his notes, my jaw dropped as I was surprised to see that he had observed the same exact 7 people around the Presidential limo that I was commenting on, and the start of reactions he observed were basically identical to mine and ours were all within a couple of frames of each other. This is when I thought there is something here for the JFK case. To note, it was more than just seeing the same reactions, there was the proximity of seeing all the reactions start happening at about the same time, between Z140 and z150, which is within the 1 second timing I mentioned earlier for what the population would be expected to do on voluntary surprise reactions.
3) Reasons the results are credible and the method reliable.
A reliable theory has a few properties that are key. A basis that is accepted by technical experts, the ability to Predict results in the context, and Testability. I don’t know about other theories put forward, but this one has all three.
- A basis that is accepted by technical experts. This method has been reviewed and approved by two journals peer review groups, and published by one of them. Both journals told me it was good but I needed to trim out a lot of fat, I was too wordy (imagine that). The first journal that published it was the crime scene reconstruction journal. The second journal, a psychology journal, said that it was good, suggested some minor additions, but encouraged going to another journal since they debated about it and decided not to publish is because it was "not the subject matter they wanted at the time". I think once you include the Kennedy assassination topic that makes people nervous. An independent review by some professionals I know were aligned as well. Net, it has been accepted by a number of technical experts.
- The ability to Predict results in context. You have seen this method predicts a very narrow point in time (z124) as opposed to a large range over much later frames.
1) This result is newer but it predicted that there should be a subset of lower variability testimonies that aligns right with it. It predicted what the anchored testimony results would be almost to the frame.
2) It also predicted that Elsie Dorman should have a camera reaction (a startle reaction this time) at the predicted first shot frame. Analysis at the link below showed that this is indeed what appeared to happen, again at basically the exact predicted frame time. The link also appeared to show when the second shot was fired. https://sites.google.com/view/dorman-zapruder-sync-on-elm-st/home
3) As follow up to its prediction of first shot trigger time, it indirectly suggested the idea of a minimum limo miss into pavement, which in turn would imply that the Tague mark was not the result of the first shot but another bullet fragment. Subsequent analysis of the Tague incident supports a prediction of a third shot head fragment as causing the Tague incident. 4) Another piece of work is not yet complete but the perception time results here would also predict there was no first shot at z160 as proposed from the acoustic analysis (the film blur was voluntary panning effects and comes from some extended jiggle analysis which supports that conclusion).
The technique does all sorts of predictions that appear to agree with observations.
-The method is Testable. Testability in a scenario separate from the JFK assassination would be a sign of a credible and reliable method. Unfortunately, this was also done. This one is kind of a Twilight Zone moment for me. One Sunday morning in August 2019 I got an email from the Editor of the Journal that published the method saying it was accepted but had a few suggestions to add and he wanted to remove some fat. He previously said it would be nice if it could be used for future cases given the proliferation of security cameras, many without audio. Later that day the news came out that there was a mass shooting in Dayton overnight with 27 injured and 9 dead. A few days later the police had a news conference and said they were looking for any information and showed a silent surveillance video from the balcony of the bar near where the shooting happened. They said their estimate was 30 seconds from the beginning of the shooting to the end where you could see the last shot from a policeman’s gun into the dead offender. With 7 people visible on the silent patio video showing reactions, I used this technique of reactions of the people on the patio to estimate the offenders first shot and using the policeman’s last shot, estimated the shooting at 32.67 seconds. I sent this to Dayton law enforcement and said it was a shooting duration based on a developmental method. A few days later police found a surveillance video further down and across the street that had sound. The shots you could audibly hear on that video yielded an actual shooting event duration of 32.616 seconds. Our method was testably very close and better than the initial police estimate. It was also spookily off by 0.054 seconds.
Net, the method was testable, and succeeded, in another unfortunate set of circumstances.
(https://i.vgy.me/R4NesN.gif)
There's a woman who doesn't start out in the big "circle" but walks into it from the near left. She's wearing a white or light-blue dress. When the clip begins at Z-162, her head is already turned far to her right in the direction of the TSBD.
Question: Was she just saying to her (not visible) husband, "I'll be right back, honey," or was she reacting consciously to Oswald's first (missing everything) shot at "Z-124"?
I believe you are describing the first woman who snaps her head from front to back, then back to the front again. The complete reaction is better seen in the clip that Jerry first posted back last June, but isn’t yet included here. In my opinion, a head snap that is as quick as her’s and in this circumstance, should be considered a reaction to a loud noise from the direction of the TSBD. The large circle in the clip you commented on is there to show the lady in the gold jacket. I will continue to see if I can find the clip that shows the head snap more completely.
There's something big and "black" (a guy's suit) in the lower left-hand corner. The woman I'm referring to walks from left to right directly behind it.
Very interesting Brian, thanks for posting this. I am wondering if you ever saw some animated GIFs of spectator reactions in the Zapruder film that Jerry Organ posted here back in about June of 2024. Here is a frame from one of his GIFs with a circle around a lady who snaps her head around and appears to look in the direction of the TSBD. I thought I saved the animated version but cannot find it at the moment. So, I will try to find the posts that have the animated version.
(https://i.vgy.me/VkbR1K.jpg)
After Jerry Organ posted that animation I noticed a lady with a gold jacket who appears to jump out of her skin and then raise her hand to cover her mouth at about the same time as the first woman snaps her head around. And Jerry noticed some others who appear to stand on their toes to get a look at the limo. Here are a couple of animated GIFs of those folks circled by Jerry.
(https://i.vgy.me/gjWSkj.gif)
(https://i.vgy.me/R4NesN.gif)
I believe all of these reactions happen very close to each other. So, I am wondering if they might be something you would be interested in testing and/or commenting on. There are a few others that are documented in Jerry’s post. I will post a link to it when I locate it. Thanks for all you do.
Edit: After further review, the lady who snaps her head around towards the TSBD can be seen at the extreme left of the frame of the animated GIFs. I remembered incorrectly and was thinking she was out of the frame.
Note: As I was typing this up I saw that Tom Mahon made the same observation about a lady in the gif. He beat me to posting it. Tom you have a faster reaction time than I do, but I don’t want to discuss my current reaction times :(
Charles this is a great question and I had not seen this before but am interested in it.
I can make some comments on it related to PRT study and in fact some of these reactions may be something expected and I have been looking for!
First off, the study uses the very first indication of a start of motion for the person’s reaction, which indicates the end of a perception time and the beginning of a cognitive voluntary reaction. The method cannot use mid part or latter parts of reactions.
On a side note, it also looks like a lady in the foreground with a blue dress, that comes into view about z180 and is moving forward (going in front of the lady in gold), has recently had her head turned sharp to the right, looking back away from where she is walking direction and is in the process of swinging her head back to a more normal forward direction. If she had an earlier head turn back to the right it would have been before the start of the gif at z161 here.
Although these are blurry, I would like to start with the assumption they are voluntary reactions to a z124 shot, with start of reactions around say z161. The blue lady would be a little earlier and the gold lady might be a little later but this could represent their reactions. This is also near when Connally started his head turn left-to-right reaction (after just doing an initial right-to-left head turn starting at z150).
Here is what I would expect, although not all people have to have a voluntary reaction to a stimulus, for the ones that do, the Perception time model would expect the following distribution of reactions to be seen. The time that surprise voluntary reactions start are not a fixed number they are from a distribution. I’ll scale it with z-frame numbers below. If the muzzle blast hit that general area on Elm around z125.7, this is roughly the % of folks who reacted that would react in each time increment below and comes from a rough histogram I used on page 8 in a presentation linked below.
Frame range ~% of Population start reacting
z125.7 -> z144.0 43.6 %
z144.0 -> z162.3 47.7 %
z162.3 -> z180.6 7.8 %
z180.6 -> z188.0 0.9 %
The model would say we should see reactions to a TSBD z124 triggered shot, with the muzzle blast reaching Elm around z125.7, to start occurring over the time frame from z131 to z188 with the start of reactions frequency log normally distributed between those numbers.
Net, we should see some reactions start happening at the time of your gif and it looks like about 10% of the population would start reacting between z160 and z181.
If you want to get more into the weeds on all this, I will give you a link to the slide presentation I did.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I_sgOpgeT3A3-D7oLwYBE71vsTi_Wrew/view
Only look at time 17:05 – 20:39 in this presentation for discussion related to estimating when you would expect to see reactions from the first shot in the Plaza.
This presentation covers in more detail how, using human voluntary and involuntary reactions, I got my current trigger time estimates for 3 shots from the TSBD. I wanted to refine my estimates for the total assassination shooting timeline and add some new thoughts on shots 2 and 3.
I don't know what you are referring to but his WC testimony (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0282a.htm) is pretty clear that there was a shot after the one that hit him and he was not hit on the first shot.
I have compiled them all here (https://spmlaw.ca/isl/uploads/2021/04/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). I have added one more: NBC reporter Robert MacNeil so there are 63 witnesses, 48 of whom specifically recalled the 1.......2...3 pattern.
I don't know of anyone other than Emmett Hudson who changed his recollection of the spacing of the shots. It would be helpful if you could actually give us references to their statements. It is not really persuasive to suggest that witnesses were vague and not sure by giving us your vague and unsure impressions about what they may have said.
The distribution looks like this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qpJx35q/Statistical-corroboration-pattern-shots.jpg)
Listen to reporters Robert Jackson and Robert MacNeil speaking 50 years later. They still comment on the spacing:
Jackson at 1:30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGzCNg1OEww) and MacNeil at 00:22 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPr10mnumh4&t=15s)
I think it is helpful to take a step back and just try to apply common sense. That still may not result in the correct conclusion but it gives some context to consider. Here we are discussing Oswald hitting his target twice and missing once. But he just doesn't miss his target. He misses the entire car. No one standing alongside the road in that area or in the motorcade is hit. No one apparently even sees a bullet strike the road. Someone a good distance away is injured by a fragment.
So what explains Oswald missing the target so badly on a first early shot, but hitting his target twice on even longer shots? I don't think a steeper shooting angle completely explains that. Perhaps it can be argued that Oswald had to rush the first shot. That's still a wide miss not to even strike the car. Still the most common sense explanation to me is that Oswald tracked the limo through the scope into the path of the tree (the largest and most obvious obstruction between himself and the target). He lost sight of the target just as it moved under the tree, he fired the shot at that moment, and perhaps the bullet fragmented off a tree limb at a level several feet above the street and traveled into the distance over the heads of the immediate bystanders. That squares with a lot of the results. 1) missing the target so badly; 2) no one in the immediate vicinity of the limo being hit; and 3) someone a great distance away being struck by a fragment. In regard to the latter, if the bullet fragments at ground level or from the head shot, it is much more likely to have struck someone in the limo or standing alongside Elm Street rather than to Tague's location.
A woman by the name of Marvin (sic) Faye Chism said she saw a bullet strike the pavement near the limo shortly after it had turned onto Elm Street.
If Oswald was standing and awkwardly leaning forward for that steeply-downward-angled "Z-124" shot at JFK's head as he was riding in the rapidly moving limo (from Oswald's POV) -- standing and leaning forward because it was a steeply-downward-angled shot and the window was only about 1/4 open -- it could explain how he managed to "miss everything."
James Tague was probably nicked by a bullet fragment from the fatal Z-313 head shot.
The linked paper contains quotes of all the statements about the shot spacing with sources. In addition, there were many who said they heard a shot and then two more shots without explicitly providing a relative spacing.
If your graph is accepted by the research community as being complete and correct, then I don’t know how to explain it.
It is basically opposite of the non-testimony forensic evidence I’ve seen that shows that there was an early shot and equal spacing.
Dave Wiegman appeared to have the shot spacing engrained in his memory.Interesting that his equally spaced shots are about 6.8 seconds from beginning to end.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WuZnGGsRlPViCK5mnxjM3d6Acsvag8H7/view?usp=sharing
On this clip there were 3 that recalled equal spacing, Harold Norman, the man after him, and the last man.You have to be careful to review all of a witness’s statements. Norman also said that JFK “slumped or something” in response to the first shot. 3H191.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/139KZKSTu7bW9GRo18ed8kq3X9rWd3NUT/view?usp=sharing
I’m curious as to why you added McNeil to your list of witness with reliable shot spacing testimony. Didn’t we just determine he was not even in the Plaza during the shooting and his estimate on the first shot timing was nearly 10 seconds in error?MacNeil heard the shots and recalled the pattern. There is no suggestion that the shots could not be heard on Main St. prior to Houston. In fact, L.C. Smith (19H516) said he was standing at the front door of the Sheriff’s office on Main Street when he heard the first shot. He said he ran to the corner and when he got there he heard two more shots.
A US Marine trained shooter doesn't miss the entire car at a shorter distance because he was "leaning forward." That's a very wide miss at a shorter distance. If the bullet hits the road, it fragments in the presence of many law enforcement personnel in close proximity or bystanders on Elm St. The fragments do not take flight above their heads and strike Tague standing in the distance. I can't prove it and don't rely on junk science to support it, but the most obvious explanation is that Oswald tunnel visionrd the shot through the scope into the treeline and missed for that reason.
A US Marine trained shooter doesn't miss the entire car at a shorter distance because he was "leaning forward." That's a very wide miss at a shorter distance. If the bullet hits the road, it fragments in the presence of many law enforcement personnel in close proximity or bystanders on Elm St. The fragments do not take flight above their heads and strike Tague standing in the distance. I can't prove it and don't rely on junk science to support it, but the most obvious explanation is that Oswald tunnel visionrd the shot through the scope into the treeline and missed for that reason.
If you'd watched the PBS NOVA special, "Cold Case JFK," you'd realize that the Haag father & son team (I can't remember their first names at the moment) proved that a bullet like Oswald's when fired from a high-powered rifle like Oswald's disintegrates into "nothingness" when it strikes asphalt.I didn’t see anything in the Cold Case JFK documentary about bullets hitting asphalt. But there is a nice video on YouTube showing the damage that a .306 rifle bullet does to asphalt and it looked like this:
The linked paper contains quotes of all the statements about the shot spacing with sources. In addition, there were many who said they heard a shot and then two more shots without explicitly providing a relative spacing.
If the witnesses were unreliable or just guessing one would expect roughly equal distribution of the three shot spacing possibilities.
The witnesses were consistent on the number of shots - as seen in this distribution based on the study conducted for the HSCA:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3psZ1yH/Statistical-corroboration-no-shots.jpg)
And what forensic evidence would that be?Interesting that his equally spaced shots are about 6.8 seconds from beginning to end.
You have to be careful to review all of a witness’s statements. Norman also said that JFK “slumped or something” in response to the first shot. 3H191. MacNeil heard the shots and recalled the pattern. There is no suggestion that the shots could not be heard on Main St. prior to Houston. In fact, L.C. Smith (19H516) said he was standing at the front door of the Sheriff’s office on Main Street when he heard the first shot. He said he ran to the corner and when he got there he heard two more shots.
I didn’t see anything in the Cold Case JFK documentary about bullets hitting asphalt. But there is a nice video on YouTube showing the damage that a .306 rifle bullet does to asphalt and it looked like this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/05Htj9Pg/IMG-1678.jpg)
See:
No damage of any kind was found on any asphalt in DEALEY Plaza.
Andrew I’ll bunch these replies to all your comments (like shots).
-Thanks for the graph, its a good layout. I think that data is similar to what I have seen on pie charts created by Josiah Thompson, and separately by BBN data for the HSCA.
-The primary forensic evidence here is the Zapruder film and the Dorman film. If these are not considered forensic evidence then never mind. Then forensic techniques are applied to the evidence. One is a forensic technique based the science of human reactions. This is supported by what is seen when synchronizing the continuous real time evidence of the Dorman film with the Zapruder film. If “anchored testimony”, which is separate from generic testimony, is evidence then that says the exact same thing as the first two.
- I suspect the equal spacing testimonies will not all agree on what they recall is the exact duration, to within hundreds of milliseconds of the spacing, which is what some researches demand. I think most of them seem to have a little shorter estimate than the estimated 5 or 5.2 seconds that I have, but maybe that effect is to be expected. Likewise unequal spacing commenters likely didn't all agree on the spacing to within hundreds of millisecond accuracy either. As such me commenting on your last three comments would have to get into interpretation of the generic witness statements, and what some researches think vs what other researchers think, about what the people making their statements really meant. I will let other testimony gurus argue about that.
My paragraphs all have equal spacing. Well, I admit that does not guarantee that I am right.
B ROS: -Thanks for the graph, its a good layout. I think that data is similar to what I have seen on pie charts created by Josiah Thompson, and separately by BBN data for the HSCA.
Josiah Thompson, based on physical forensic evidence, felt there was only two shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Page 146, Six Seconds in Dallas.
“Such a conclusion would mate perfectly with the description of the events earlier laid down, namely, that only two shots fired that day in Dealey Plaza came from the Depository.”
Explain Josiah’s belief with the pie chart and an early missed shot.
B ROS: -Thanks for the graph, its a good layout. I think that data is similar to what I have seen on pie charts created by Josiah Thompson, and separately by BBN data for the HSCA.
Josiah Thompson, based on physical forensic evidence, felt there was only two shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Page 146, Six Seconds in Dallas.
“Such a conclusion would mate perfectly with the description of the events earlier laid down, namely, that only two shots fired that day in Dealey Plaza came from the Depository.”
Explain Josiah’s belief with the pie chart and an early missed shot.
Andrew I’ll bunch these replies to all your comments (like shots).The adjective “forensic” by itself means that it pertains to courts of law. But the term “forensic evidence” has come to refer specifically to the application of scientific methods to evidence for the purpose of establishing facts in a court of law. For evidence to qualify as “forensic evidence” the science must be accepted by a court as being reliable and generally accepted by scientists in the particular field. Not all scientific methods applied to evidence are accepted. So the films themselves are simply photographic evidence.
-Thanks for the graph, its a good layout. I think that data is similar to what I have seen on pie charts created by Josiah Thompson, and separately by BBN data for the HSCA.
-The primary forensic evidence here is the Zapruder film and the Dorman film. If these are not considered forensic evidence then never mind.
Then forensic techniques are applied to the evidence. One is a forensic technique based the science of human reactions. This is supported by what is seen when synchronizing the continuous real time evidence of the Dorman film with the Zapruder film. If “anchored testimony”, which is separate from generic testimony, is evidence then that says the exact same thing as the first two.
I don’t see any obvious nearly simultaneous reactions that would allow one to identify the time of the first or second shots. JFK and JBC turn their heads from looking left to looking right within about half a second and Jackie follows after about a second. But that is also when Mary Woodward and her group shouted to get their attention. The reaction is consistent with that being the common stimulus. And it is not the reaction that many witnesses observed JFK to make to the first shot.
In the case of
- I suspect the equal spacing testimonies will not all agree on what they recall is the exact duration, to within hundreds of milliseconds of the spacing, which is what some researches demand. I think most of them seem to have a little shorter estimate than the estimated 5 or 5.2 seconds that I have, but maybe that effect is to be expected. Likewise unequal spacing commenters likely didn't all agree on the spacing to within hundreds of millisecond accuracy either. As such me commenting on your last three comments would have to get into interpretation of the generic witness statements, and what some researches think vs what other researchers think, about what the people making their statements really meant. I will let other testimony gurus argue about that.
My paragraphs all have equal spacing. Well, I admit that does not guarantee that I am right.You also had more than three paragraphs.
So let me get this straight. A Carcano bullet striking an Asphalt Street will inflict No Damage to the street. A Carcano bullet striking a Skull will Explode the skull. Really?
I didn’t see anything in the Cold Case JFK documentary about bullets hitting asphalt. But there is a nice video on YouTube showing the damage that a .306 rifle bullet does to asphalt and it looked like this:
(https://i.postimg.cc/05Htj9Pg/IMG-1678.jpg)
See:
No damage of any kind was found on any asphalt in DEALEY Plaza.
MAHON - Guess you skipped over this.Yes. I missed the part where they found a divot in the asphalt in Dealey Plaza of any kind, let alone one shown to have been made by a bullet. Perhaps you can enlighten us and dispel my ignorance.
I don’t have Thompson’s latest book, but if I’m not mistaken Thompson believes there were 4 shots, now having the last one fired from the Depository striking around z327.
I had to look back at my notes, but what I was referring to was related to the graph of Thompson’s data sourced from his first book, Six Seconds in Dallas, p.25, where he tabulated the number of shots. Awhile back I had used that data along with related data provided by BBN to the HSCA (report 4043), to look at what were the number of shots summarized for/by the folks who claimed there were at least 4 shots taken with one from the grassy knoll.
What bothered me at the time was that the HSCA had a report on the number of shots, but really didn’t seem to mention it, and rather chose to made the big splash with the statement from data on the acoustic static, where you could hear no shots, but claimed there was about a 95 probability that there were 4 shots. Both the HSCA and Thompson agree on 4 shots.
However both of their shot data summaries indicate, when tabulated to compare < 4 shots to > 4 shots, that nearly 95% of their reported witness data who reported audibly hearing shots, reported less than 4 shots. What it appears the HSCA concluded to do was to promote the diametric opposite of what the shot count data they had in hand indicated.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aHTdtI3rELdqrwSJZSPqZooEQ5Ctz8HC/view?usp=sharing
The "party line" has consistently been 3 shots fired from the sniper's nest. The foundation for this party line being the 3 Hulls laying on the floor of the sniper's nest. It would seem that Thompson is Now willing to challenge the bona fides of a 3rd hull. Looks like he is bucking to replace Cyril Wecht.
Josiah had questioned the physical evidence back in 1966 long before Cyril Wecht. Josiah’s analysis is based on physical evidence and the corroborating analysis of the FBI. The book Phantom shot proves what Josiah wrote in Six Seconds in Dallas. The book Six Seconds in Dallas proves the two shot witness analysis in Phantom Shot.
The adjective “forensic” by itself means that it pertains to courts of law. But the term “forensic evidence” has come to refer specifically to the application of scientific methods to evidence for the purpose of establishing facts in a court of law. For evidence to qualify as “forensic evidence” the science must be accepted by a court as being reliable and generally accepted by scientists in the particular field. Not all scientific methods applied to evidence are accepted. So the films themselves are simply photographic evidence.
One may be able to demonstrate, for example, that X number of people turned their heads (or some other movement) in a certain direction within a certain time period. If X was large enough and if they all moved within a short enough period of time, the opinion of a qualified person might be accepted to assess the likelihood that they are reacting to some sort of common stimulus. But if the evidence disclosed more than one possible stimulus, an opinion on what the head turning signified would not be admissible forensic evidence.
I don’t see any obvious nearly simultaneous reactions that would allow one to identify the time of the first or second shots. JFK and JBC turn their heads from looking left to looking right within about half a second and Jackie follows after about a second. But that is also when Mary Woodward and her group shouted to get their attention. The reaction is consistent with that being the common stimulus. And it is not the reaction that many witnesses observed JFK to make to the first shot.
Another restriction on expert evidence is that it has to be needed to interpret evidence. If ordinary people can understand and interpret the evidence, the opinion of an expert would not carry any more weight than that of an ordinary person.
Example: In the case of JFK showing signs of reaction when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign and JBC showing signs of a reaction a few frames later, there are several problems in using science to relate the two reactions.
First of all, one can conclude that JFK is reacting to his throat wound there but we can’t tell when the reaction began from the film.
The second problem is that the film doesn’t tell us which of the first two shots JFK is reacting to. If it was the first shot (as many witnesses reported that JFK reacted that way to the first shot) there is evidence from the Connallys that JBC was not reacting to being hit in the back but was reacting to hearing it and fearing an assassination of JFK was occurring.
You also had more than three paragraphs.
Generally I like Thompson. But you gotta question how a guy goes from: (1) Frogman, (2) Professor, (3) Best Selling Author, (4) Private Investigator (for decades), (5) Best Selling Author (again). Very strange trail. Also, when Thompson wrote his "Six Seconds In Dallas" blockbuster, he did several interviews for that book. Sitzman, Bill Newman, Skinny Holland, etc. Snippets from those interviews are used in his "Six Seconds........" book. I have read the text of the full interview of Sitzman. It's obvious that the Sitzman interview and most likely every other interview Thompson did for that book was tape recorded. Why have we Not heard these tape recorded interviews? Actually hearing eyewitnesses tell their story is very important in appraising the credibility of the eyewitness. This is especially important with the Sitzman interview. She detailed: (1) running up-n-down the Knoll after getting down from the Zapruder Perch, and, (2) seeing a Black Couple get up/off the bench they were sitting on and running up The Steps as the JFK Limo went under the Triple Underpass. None of this is on a single 11/22/63 image
The HSCA dictabelt 4 shot saga was a knee jerk reaction to what was presented late in the hearings by Gary Mack and friends. Since has been proven to be totally false.
WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"
HSCA Conclusion: "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 concerning the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
The HSCA Sound Analysis report lists the exact same conclusion but still no real explanation other than they were surprised. This leaves the question why does being “surprised” cause someone to report more shots and not less?
HSCA Sound Analysis Conclusion: 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 have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination . HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
Six Seconds in Dallas is the source of Josiah’s belief only two shots were fired from the Depository. The belief was the result of his observation of marks on the shell casings while filming for Life magazine. The big question is what did the FBI know as Josiah’s observations had also been previously noted and corroborated in the FBI’s analysis of the shell casings, but not to the extent of what Josiah had observed. It is entirely likely this is why the WC and HSCA felt the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. Something that is never really explained.
The HSCA dictabelt 4 shot saga was a knee jerk reaction to what was presented late in the hearings by Gary Mack and friends. Since has been proven to be totally false.
Like or dislike Josiah and his interviews is not really the issue. He simply made an astute observation of key evidence and documented it with his book. It is not even subject his personal interpretation. An observation verified by the FBI. The question becomes is there a conspiracy to be advanced if there were only two shots? Look at how much time and energy are wasted arguing over the location of a shot no one has ever identified. CBS News, courtesy of Walter Cronkite, read Merriman Smith's news bulletin stating three shots. Minutes later Don Pardo read James Altgen's news flash of two shots having been fired on NBC. Altgens was an eyewitness, Smith was an earwitness. Thompson's observation verifies Altgens was right and Smith was wrong.
If there were only 2 shots, how do you explain the 3 hulls on the floor of the sniper's nest?
Factoid: A psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist sharpshooter by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots at him over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
So now we are up to 10.2 seconds? Change the elapsed time, change the position of the JFK Limo on Elm St, change the physical posture of a shooter inside the snipers nest. Where does it stop? The alleged Facts are constantly in flux due to 1 shooter/3 shots simply does Not work. Never has, Never will.
Recent discussions regarding the sniper (possibly awkwardly) standing versus sitting or kneeling for an early shot taken about 9 seconds before Z133 (Z124H) prompted me to use my 3D model to test a sitting positon similar to my Z223 model. I found that a slight rotation at the waist of about 5 degrees along with head, neck and arm adjustments allows a smooth transisiton through Z124H to Z223 and Z313 positions. Attached are four views from Z124H - Z223 including the models point of view from his left eye.
I think you meant to say, "About 9 seconds before Z313," not Z133.The window is open 19". I determined that by photo overlay of the model with Tom Alyea's film of the boxes just before 2pm. Also, Dillard's view is consistent with the 19". I also discovered that the Sixth Floor Museum has their window about 5" lower! Possibly to accommodate the webcam.
Regardless, was the window really open that much?
The window is open 19". I determined that by photo overlay of the model with Tom Alyea's film of the boxes just before 2pm. Also, Dillard's view is consistent with the 19". I also discovered that the Sixth Floor Museum has their window about 5" lower! Possibly to accommodate the webcam.
Recent discussions regarding the sniper (possibly awkwardly) standing versus sitting or kneeling for an early shot taken about 9 seconds before Z133 (Z124H) . . ."
In your recreation, would the muzzle of the short-rifle have been inside or outside the building while firing the first shot?I'm not sure. I will have to try to measure it somehow tomorrow. What length would that short-rifle be?
Factoid: A psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist sharpshooter by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots at him over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
Good choice of words.
factoid:
an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.
I'm not sure. I will have to try to measure it somehow tomorrow. What length would that short-rifle be?
Recent discussions regarding the sniper (possibly awkwardly) standing versus sitting or kneeling for an early shot taken about 9 seconds before Z133 (Z124H) prompted me to use my 3D model to test a sitting positon similar to my Z223 model. I found that a slight rotation at the waist of about 5 degrees along with head, neck and arm adjustments allows a smooth transisiton through Z124H to Z223 and Z313 positions. Attached are four views from Z124H - Z223 including the models point of view from his left eye.
(https://i.imgur.com/vBSR2YD.gif)
Yes, the elapsed time has changed from Tink Thompson's 6.8 seconds (or was it 6?) to Roselle's and Scearce's scientifically established 10.2 seconds. Get over it.
Yes, the limo's position at Oswald's first, missing everything shot at "Z-124" is different from everyone else's hypothesized position. Get over it.
Yes, the physical posture of Oswald changed from his standing and awkwardly leaning forward for his first shot to his kneeling and supporting his left arm on the top box during his second and third shots. Get over it.
Yes, the scenario in which Oswald fired three shots over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza is plausible, and it's the only one that can rationally explain 1) How Oswald managed to miss everything with his first shot, 2) Why it sounded so differently from the other two shots to many witnesses, and 3) Why the three hulls found on the Sniper's Nest floor ended up in the locations in which they were photographed.
Get over it.
When you begin with a guy inna basement using a mock automobile back seat and a pointer to demonstrate his SBT, it's obvious that everything that rests upon this faulty foundation is destined to crumble/change. The above lays this bare.
4. Standing straight up (no awkward leaning is needed) and aiming the rifle at the Z133 target works. But the issues with the standing idea are that it is significantly less stable than a seated and supported position.
Recent discussions regarding the sniper (possibly awkwardly) standing versus sitting or kneeling for an early shot taken about 9 seconds before Z133 (Z124H) prompted me to use my 3D model to test a sitting positon similar to my Z223 model. I found that a slight rotation at the waist of about 5 degrees along with head, neck and arm adjustments allows a smooth transisiton through Z124H to Z223 and Z313 positions. Attached are four views from Z124H - Z223 including the models point of view from his left eye.
(https://i.imgur.com/vBSR2YD.gif)
Given the fact that the Single Bullet Hypothesis is correct, how would you have demonstrated it if you were Specter?
Put a couple of guys in an identical (LOL) car and have a sniper in the 6th floor window shoot at them with Oswald's short-rifle?
Also, in the Hughes film where motion was seen in the sniper's window, do you guys recall if the motion observed was left/right, up/down, or just some generic motion, and if Oswald was standing at that point given widow sizes would his head have been positioned in the upper windowpane as seen from street level?
Thank you for proving my point that that's how Oswald managed to miss everything with his first shot -- which was even harder than you experienced in your reenactment because it was half-a-second earlier at "Z-124," and therefore at an even steeper downward angle.
Thank you for proving my point that that's how Oswald managed to miss everything with his first shot -- which was even harder than you experienced in your reenactment because it was half-a-second earlier at "Z-124," and therefore at an even steeper downward angle.
I agree with you here. That cartoon visual aid is not close to demonstrating the extremely steep angle relative to the Light Signal/Support Beam of the alleged 1st shot. This is why Max Holland was forced to discretely have the shooter Standing Up and leaning forward as he fired shot #1. Maxy tries to "slight of hand" this in his "Lost Bullet" presentation, but he's no David Copperfield. Some of us caught it at Jump St.
So you wanna argue with Forensic SCIENCE? SCIENCE vs a Theory slapped together by an aspiring Lawyer inna basement? This is where you are.
By my rough calculations based on Don Roberdeau’s map, and a guesstimated Z124 position, giving any doubt to the largest possible difference, I came up with about 4’ closer to the building. This calculates to about a whopping 1.6 degrees steeper angle. Which is insignificant as it relates to the difficulty of the shot in my opinion. :-\
I am a fan of modeling and simulation so really like what you, Charles, and Tom are trying to do to further understand the shooting dynamics.
I have not done anything along the line of the rifle handling so can’t help any, but I did find a Carcano M91/38 (without scope) at an estate auction. Perhaps some day I can experiment with representative handling positions and shooting logistics at a low nook window here at home.
On thing I had thought about, and maybe you guys can comment on, is try to envision what Oswald might be doing leading right up to when the shooting started.
Putting myself in his place I envisioned that, although he knew the motorcade route would come by the depository, he may not have known what the motorcade arrangement was. In that I mean at the time the limo turned onto Houston, he might not have known for sure, exactly what the limo looked like, what vehicle it was to be in line i.e. where positioned in the precession, or where JFK would be seated in that vehicle.
Perhaps it took him a short while, maybe halfway down Houston, to discern all this and locate exactly where his target was, and how JFK was positioned in whatever seat. I have wondered if a time delay for this could contribute to not shooting earlier on Houston which is what many people often ask about.
Now if Oswald was seated on a box at this time, it seems like he would have to lean forward quite a bit to look around the east vertical window casing to examine the motorcade coming down Houston. Alternately, if he stood up from that seated position his body might naturally tend to lean forward a bit giving him a better view of the motorcade coming down Houston in order to make his determinations. I guess either would work, but it seems examining the motorcade would be easier if he was initially standing.
If so, the question then for the first shot is when would he have made a decision to stay mostly standing at that early point, crouch down, or be reseated? I would think that about the time the limo started to turn on Elm, JFK was quite close and the adrenalin would really be kicking in and that might be when he made a decision on an early first shot and how he would proceed, mostly standing, crouching down some in transition to sitting, or sitting.
Perhaps the work you guys are doing will further help determine this.
Also in the Hughes film where motion was seen in the sniper's window, do you guys recall if the motion observed was left/right, up/down, or just some generic motion, and if Oswald was standing at that point given widow sizes would his head have been positioned in the upper window pane as seen from street level?
Thanks for the effort you guys are putting forth here.
When you say forensic science, do you mean the fact that that kind of bullet always starts tumbling when it exits something soft like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck, and the fact that the entry wound in JBC's back was oblong in shape?
Your attention should be focused on the angle from the 1/2 open window to the Signal Light/Support Beam. This is what Holland claimed the bullet struck/glanced off of.
Charles: The Hughes film was enhanced here:
Brian, if you run across another of those rifles for sale or want to sell your’s, please let me know via private message.
I am guessing that LHO probably had seen photos of JFK’s motorcades in the newspapers and had a general idea of what to expect. As far as potentially shooting at JFK on Houston goes, that would have given SS agents a chance to see him and shoot back. I believe that LHO set up and executed a very well designed ambush from behind. So, I would guess that an ambush from behind was his plan all along (especially considering the way the sniper’s nest was set up for comfortable shots after clearing the tree on Elm Street).
When sitting straight up on the seat box LHO was hidden from view from Houston Street (and Hughe’s camera). Just by leaning forward a little bit (same lean angle as for aiming a shot down Elm Street towards the triple underpass) LHO could see down onto Houston Street (and Brennan could see LHO). I believe that is why Brennan thought LHO left his spot in the window several times, but I believe that LHO simply sat up straight and was hidden from view from Brennan’s angle. I have proven all that stuff to myself using my models.
As far as standing to begin with, he didn’t need to do that to get a good view of the motorcade on Houston Street. Sixty feet above the street level versus sixty three feet above street level isn’t going to make a significant difference. Plus he was out of sight to most of the spectators and the motorcade participants in his sitting position, and it makes no sense for him to stand up and expose himself to view. Snipers typically choose to stay hidden as much as possible.
No one to my knowledge is willing to specify where in the window they see the motion. If they did and we could also discern the motion, we might have an idea whether he was sitting or standing. Best evidence that I know of is the witnesses who saw him seconds before the shots and indicated from their descriptions of what they could see of him that he was sitting.
Charles: The Hughes film was enhanced here:
Go to the ~1:20 mark. It's a short clip. The conclusion was that there was motion in the window about 7 seconds before the first shot is fired. It's hard to make out but it seems that the figure was standing at that point. It's incredibly frustrating because had Hughes continued filming we would have been able to see the shooting.
This was from the PBS investigation "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?"
By my rough calculations explained in the earlier post, the end of the traffic light mast (where the actual traffic light is hung) is roughly inline with a pseudo Z124 JFK location. Again, others can probably provide more accurate plots of these locations than I can at this point.
Steve, Thanks for posting that Hughes clip. I'll look over it repeatedly to see if I can discern anything notable.
I'm with you, it was really bad luck the filming stopped when it did. Just a few more seconds and we would likely have answers to a whole slew of questions.
Recent discussions regarding the sniper (possibly awkwardly) standing versus sitting or kneeling for an early shot taken about 9 seconds before Z133 (Z124H) prompted me to use my 3D model to test a sitting positon similar to my Z223 model. I found that a slight rotation at the waist of about 5 degrees along with head, neck and arm adjustments allows a smooth transisiton through Z124H to Z223 and Z313 positions. Attached are four views from Z124H - Z223 including the models point of view from his left eye.
(https://i.imgur.com/vBSR2YD.gif)
Looking at Andrew’s last examples of Z frames raises a probability ? of how likely JC having been supposedly hit at Z224 by a 6.5 mm ball nosed bullet passing thru his chest cavity cracking rib bone then thru his wrist and shattering that bone, could have remained erect, let alone turn around to look at JFK for that duration of about 3 secs?Good point. If z230-270 is not where JBC turns to try to look at JFK before he was hit in the back, the only other possible place is the half a second while JBC was obscured by the Stemmons sign.
Would it take 3 secs for JC to finally feel pain enough to fall back in Mrs Cs lap?
Or is it more likely that if JC was hit at Z270 or so , the pain would have been more immediately felt in just 0.5 secs and thus JC falling back was closer in sync with that pain?
I don’t have Thompson’s latest book, but if I’m not mistaken Thompson believes there were 4 shots, now having the last one fired from the Depository striking around z327.
I had to look back at my notes, but what I was referring to was related to the graph of Thompson’s data sourced from his first book, Six Seconds in Dallas, p.25, where he tabulated the number of shots. Awhile back I had used that data along with related data provided by BBN to the HSCA (report 4043), to look at what were the number of shots summarized for/by the folks who claimed there were at least 4 shots taken with one from the grassy knoll.
What bothered me at the time was that the HSCA had a report on the number of shots, but really didn’t seem to mention it, and rather chose to made the big splash with the statement from data on the acoustic static, where you could hear no shots, but claimed there was about a 95 probability that there were 4 shots. Both the HSCA and Thompson agree on 4 shots.
However both of their shot data summaries indicate, when tabulated to compare < 4 shots to > 4 shots, that nearly 95% of their reported witness data who reported audibly hearing shots, reported less than 4 shots. What it appears the HSCA concluded to do was to promote the diametric opposite of what the shot count data they had in hand indicated.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aHTdtI3rELdqrwSJZSPqZooEQ5Ctz8HC/view?usp=sharing
There seems to be some confusion about the minimum limo miss at ~ z124 I have been talking about and the traffic mast causing the miss at ~z107.
The minimum limo miss is described at this link below with the middle picture representing the limo at ~z124.
At this point the limo has significantly passed the traffic mast. This type of minimum miss strike location also matched what Faye Chism said.
This link below was used to estimate the instantaneous rifle deviation, i.e. how far off from being perfectly aimed using the iron sights it would momentarily have to be off target to miss the limo, when the first shot missing the president’s head was estimated at 36”. The picture at the top was found to just to help convey the geometry of the measurement points. The result was that the aim only had to be off target by about a half an inch to miss the limo.
I later made an estimate using oa at 107 ft to get some angle estimates. If it helps, one estimate of the angle down from horizontal at the sniper nest to the trajectory going to limo was about 33.7 deg, and upwards from ground/limo to the nest would be about 32.8 deg.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hZEgKoRdXBBpzrLArLUZh9JsNA3oIE_E/view?usp=sharing
I haven't seen his latest book either. But Thompson concluded in his book "Six Seconds in Dallas" that the last two shots occurred at exactly the same time (z312-z313 and z312-314) from different locations so that is how he explains that most heard only three shots. This might be a handy reference (Six Seconds in Dallas at p. 137):
(https://i.postimg.cc/DycXR4gV/Summary-of-shots-SSID-p137.jpg)
Thanks Brian, yes I used the Roberdeau map which is a straight down view that shows the line from the window to the Z124 position crossing the traffic light. However, that is not the same as a view from the sniper’s window. My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
I also misspoke regarding what angle I was describing when I said down from level at the sniper’s nest window to the limo. I should have said up from straight (vertically) down. I was also only considering how far away from the building (perpendicular to the south wall) in an effort to find the difference required in aiming the Z133 shot versus the Z124 shot. So this wasn’t an effort to be anything other than a rough idea. Here is how it calculated using only a perpendicular distance from the building where 60’ is the height of the window above the street and 71’ is the horizontal distance from the building:
(https://i.vgy.me/jqe2a2.jpg)
I suppose I should have used both the perpendicular distances and the distances down the street to the the actual distances. If I had done that I think that it should have been ~75’ for the Z124 shot, and ~81’ for the Z133 shot. Again these are only for a rough idea and not intended to be totally accurate.
I tested James’ virtual model’s position in my actual model that I can personally be in and aim a rifle with similar dimensions to the Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The results are:Charles, thank you for your input. I don't have a 3D rifle model and even if I did it would be very difficult to place and manipulate in the hands of my model action figures. I made a temporary scope and placed it 2” above and parallel with the bore line-of- sight. Then I could articulate the model such that the scope would meet with the right eye. Unfortunately, that was not enough to guarantee the butt of the rifle was reasonably positioned or even if the eye had a clean view through the scope. I really appreciate your help and am glad you were able to use your physical model to help with this thread.
1. If I kneel on my left knee up close to or against the box below the window and lean towards the metal conduit and the window, I can see the Z133 target similar to what James’ model shows.
2. When I try to aim the rifle at the Z133 target, it places the butt of the stock well above my right shoulder (similar to how the line of sight goes well above James’ models’ right shoulder.
3. Therefore, for me, it was impossible to get my eye over the top of the stock and inline with the sights on the rifle. So, I do not see this idea as a realistic possibility.
4. As I have said before, standing straight up (no awkward leaning is needed) and aiming the rifle at the Z133 target works. But the issues with the standing idea are that it is significantly less stable than a seated and supported position. Also, it takes time to reposition to a seated position from a standing position. And the space available between the stacks of boxes is very limited which makes the process of repositioning even slower and more awkward. Plus the descriptions from witnesses who said they saw him just seconds before the shots all indicate he was seated (even if one of them did assume otherwise). When sitting in the actual model it becomes obvious how comfortable the seated (on the seat box) position shots (during the time after the limo emerges from behind the tree) are. And that the design of the nest was apparently made for those shots. If you do not believe me on this point, please, please, please, make one for yourself and I believe you will then agree.
Charles, thank you for your input. I don't have a 3D rifle model and even if I did it would be very difficult to place and manipulate in the hands of my model action figures. I made a temporary scope and placed it 2” above and parallel with the bore line-of- sight. Then I could articulate the model such that the scope would meet with the right eye. Unfortunately, that was not enough to guarantee the butt of the rifle was reasonably positioned or even if the eye had a clean view through the scope. I really appreciate your help and am glad you were able to use your physical model to help with this thread.
40.2 inchesTom, I was working on this this morning when I saw Charles' attempt to reproduce my Z124H frame 3D implied positioning of a rifle proved my model was not realistic. In short, my model would put the butt of the rifle well above the right shoulder. So, determining if the rifle was in or out of the building is moot. Sorry.
I know my measurements are necessarily estimates so are good for estimated, not exact, results.
How I made the estimates I gave you for the first shot may look a little different than yours, so there would be some variability expected. I used Google Earth Pro, which I think was free, to draw a 3D path option available.
Starting with a click at the snipers nest I went to the road around were I expected the bullet hit and clicked there. At each subsequent click it gives you a total path length so I then clicked on the base of the TSBD below the snipers nest and then back up to the snipers nest. This path method is supposed to give cumulative 3D distances along the path or triangle sides here, and using distances in the same manner you did, I used the triangle side lengths in https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-plane/triangle-law-of-cosines.php in case paths I draw don’t have a right angle in them.
The clicks may be off a little, but I believe the method is accurate enough to get close. If I ever find out otherwise, I will change methods. For the picture here the path lengths it came back with were 107.2 ft direct bullet flight, 89.52 ft from there back to the base of the building, and 58.1 ft. back up to to the start just below the window to basically close the triangle.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/d/1cAmr-dHk6t5JzlWfUwTtmdS-sbt1L8A6)
Steve, Thanks for posting that Hughes clip. I'll look over it repeatedly to see if I can discern anything notable.
I'm with you, it was really bad luck the filming stopped when it did. Just a few more seconds and we would likely have answers to a whole slew of questions.
I had a chance to look at the Hughes film here and also the version on Max Holland's National Geographic show.
It looked like there might be motion but all I could make out was basically a blob. I could not get resolution of a person or a body position. If only we had a few more seconds of film.
On the Max Holland show, he also was trying some sniper shot modeling and positioning using a 6th floor window replication. It was filmed patchy with respect to the order of the shots but I tried to cut, order and paste the first shot, second shot and third shot positions that he was looking at. The patched together version is at the link here with the three shots added over an ~10 second duration. It starts with a rifle bang right as the first shot was fired and the sniper begins to grab the bolt action getting ready for a second shot. The second shot is ~5 seconds after the first and then the video shifts to be behind the sniper as he cocks for the third shot ~5 seconds later. The pauses in the sniper’s motion after the shots would represent the time the sniper would use to reposition the rifle and aim for the next shot. Again, this is just juxtaposing some of Holland's video snippets in order with gunfire sound for a slightly longer than 10 second shooting duration, which didn't appear that unreasonable.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Yrbfx0ic3IXXfAhGqiAiIotHC-G3J7s/view?usp=sharing
As if Holland lengthening the firing time to over 10 seconds and being forced to move the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St wasn't enough, now we have the shooter taking 3 different physical positions when firing each of the 3 shots.
Thanks for the link to the video Brian. Nice work. You say you saw what might be some movement that you describe as a blob. Could you discern where specifically in the window you think you saw this?
As if Holland lengthening the firing time to over 10 seconds, and being forced to move the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St wasn't enough, now we have the shooter taking 3 different physical positions when firing each of the 3 shots shots. BS:
I think its basically just two positions, you may be counting the cameraman's change in position if referring to Hollands video clips. I guess an easier solution would be Josiah Thompson's of having three shooters at three different positions.
I think its basically just two positions, you may be counting the cameraman's change in position if referring to Hollands video clips. I guess an easier solution would be Josiah Thompson's of having three shooters at three different positions.
I went back and looked at the Holland version again since he said it was the highest resolution to date.
I would not be able to say with certainty I saw a person, that's for sure. I think any motion I was looking at would have been just above where the box edge was sticking up (presumably that was the outer box that was fairly bright), where something looked to be near, or just above the window cross bar, slightly above that brighter box rest. There seemed to be some change in light background intensity around there and I don't know if that was motion or if could be some variation in illumination of stacked boxes in the background that varied with the lighting or "pixel noise" that others have talked about, I don't know, but the blob seemed to be more centered and above the box at the ledge, and not right at either edge of the window. Could having the limo being further around to the left relative to the window case at that time, while turning in the intersection and harder to continuously track at that time cause Oswald to temporarily lean right or move further west behind the rifle rest boxes and position him for better viewing in a standing or crouching position that morphed into a first shot position, I have no idea.
Bottom line is I don't think I can add anything to help you out on this question. Sorry, I wish I could.
That sniper's nest is a Black Hole, which is what it was primarily intended to be. Mis-direction. Look for the shooter, "almost on the horizontal". The one that Wiegman was referencing when he said that he felt the Compression of a bullet on his face.
Charles, Yes that's about right. I might slide the circle upwards a little more to move the circle up a little bit. Up just a bit from the bright spot on the bottom (which I assumed was the side of a box) and the circle top going up a little more, further above the white bottom of the window catching some more of that semi-light area up there. I guess if someone was standing straight up back there, their head might extend into next upper part of the window, but this adjusted circle area is where I though I saw something that might be considered movement.
Now I am getting the feeling this is some sort of Rorschach test on me. I do not want you coming back saying I am psychologically deranged or the like. You may determine that is the case, buts let not make it public just yet ???.
That sniper's nest issa Black Hole, which is what it was primarily intended to be. Mis-direction. Look for the shooter, "almost on the horizontal". The one that Wiegman was referencing when he said that he felt the Compression of a bullet on his face.
IMHO, you're full of you-know-what and KGB disinformation whether you realize it or not.
That is Not me. That is the eyewitness account of Wiegman. He clearly said that he felt the compression of a bullet on his face. Do you believe that Oswald was: (1) still firing shot(s) when Wiegman was getting out of Camera Car #1 at the corner of Houston/Elm? and (2) still firing shot(s) at ground level? Or is Wiegman also full of "KGB Disinformation"? Which is it?
Yes, I remember Wiegman saying that in a video. As I recall he said he was closing in on the TSBD around the third shot and felt the compression on his face.
Malcome Kilduff said basically the same thing. Identical shots and he felt the muzzle blasts on his face. He said three similar shots and if allowing for a perception time of zero seconds before speaking, recalled some words spoken took about 3.5 seconds between the first and second shot, and I think he assumed Connally was hit by his own bullet. He also initially had one of those (firecracker, shot, shot) testimonies.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoWef3EAmnc&t=1511s
I was commenting on this bit:
"That sniper's nest is a Black Hole, which is what it was primarily intended to be. Mis-direction."
(https://i.vgy.me/8FaMJA.jpg)
You are into the elapsed time of the shots. I am looking at the Horizontal aspect of Wiegman at ground level, 5 cars behind the JFK Limo, feeling the compression of a bullet on his face. What Wiegman is describing was Not the result of a shot fired from the TSBD 6th Floor. This would be the work of a 2nd shooter.
At z313 the Cabell car, Kilduff car, and Wiegman car were the three closest cars to the sniper’s nest, and Kilduff was right in front of Weigman. If Kilduff felt the muzzle blast compression from the snipers nest directly on his face as he so vividly recalled in the Geraldo video, and Wiegman said the same thing in the "Death in Dealey Plaza" program, why would what Wiegman encountered immediately behind Kilduff be completely different from what Kilduff encountered?
At z313 the Cabell car, Kilduff car, and Wiegman car were the three closest cars to the sniper’s nest, and Kilduff was right in front of Weigman. If Kilduff felt the muzzle blast compression from the snipers nest directly on his face as he so vividly recalled in the Jeraldo video, and Wiegman said the same thing in the "Death in Dealey Plaza" program, why would what Wiegman encountered immediately behind Kilduff be completely different from what Kilduff encountered ?
That is Not me. That is the eyewitness account of Wiegman. He clearly said that he felt the compression of a bullet on his face. Do you believe that Oswald was: (1) still firing shot(s) when Wiegman was getting out of Camera Car #1 at the corner of Houston/Elm? and (2) still firing shot(s) at ground level? Or is Wiegman also full of "KGB Disinformation"? Which is it?Many commented on the wind blasts at Houston and Elm. No one standing on the street said they felt an anything like bullet shock wave or muzzle blast. . Also, the Kilduff car was not a convertible. It was the National press-pool car, a grey/blue two-door 1960 Chevrolet Bel Air sedan hardtop.
Many commented on the wind blasts at Houston and Elm. No one standing on the street said they felt an anything like bullet shock wave or muzzle blast. . Also, the Kilduff car was not a convertible. It was the National press-pool car, a grey/blue two-door 1960 Chevrolet Bel Air sedan hardtop.
I can understand that what you and Royell are saying about Kilduff not feeling the repercussion so much as hearing it, that seems reasonable because of his car, but Kilduff was pretty insistent about the loudness and direction of the shots on his right ear. And as you mention Weigman, saying he also felt it, was in his open car and got out after the third shot.
As far as feeling a shock wave, I’m in agreement with you, I’m skeptical that anyone, anywhere in the entire plaza would feel the shock waves.
I’m not a ballistic expert, but how I think about it is that there would seem to be three aspects to a carcano shot, and maybe some folks refer to these aspects differently, so I'll describe my nomenclature.
I think about the carcano muzzle blast as kind of a composition of effects. First the hot gasses in the barrel expanding rapidly from the heat of reaction and the gasses moving out of the barrel very fast pushing the bullet by pressure build up, the gasses kind of acting like small molecular bullets with mass and velocity moving forward pushing the bullet to exit. Other rifles might have a muzzle brake to redirect the gasses backwards acting like jet airplane thrust reversers to mitigate the recoil effect of the gun on the shooter.
Then after exit the fast moving carcano gasses hit the atmosphere and dissipate quickly but generates the loud sound wave I think of when referring to a muzzle blast. This wave propagates outward spherically in all directions, dissipating in loudness as it expands, but is the loud sound people hear from the shot. This is what would hit Zapruder and cause a startle jiggle (from a loud sound startle reaction, not a direct force pushing on the camera). The last aspect is what I was referring to as the shock wave, when the bullets fly faster than the speed of sound they create a separate cone shaped sound wave that propagates out behind at an angle from the bullet/trajectory of the bullet at an angle (Mach angle) depending on the supersonic speed of the bullet. It’s a distinct crack sound and perception depends on people’s distance from the trajectory and how close the bullet goes by your ear, but in most situations is typically not as loud as the muzzle blast one hears.
Does this jive with any of the ballistic experts studying the case? The question is "would the muzzle blast around the base of the depository building when people have their face towards the building, have enough energy to generate a feeling sensation on the face as well as a loud sensation on the ear drum?" . I don't know but assume its possible based on Wiegman's comments based on his comments while being on Houston near Elm.
Thanks Brian. LOL, on the Rorschach test. I just plan to see how your description fits with how my model looks from Hughes’ camera angle with standing versus sitting snipers. That’s all. Thanks again for the description.
Due to the supersonic speed of the bullet, the sharp crack of the shockwave would be heard before the sound of the muzzle blast. Think of the ka part of a “ka-pow” type of loud sound that is often associated with hight powered rifles. As far as feeling it on the face goes, I think some people might be able to feel the sound wave. I once felt the sound of a space shuttle launch (~7-miles away from me) in my chest.
I’m not a ballistic expert, but how I think about it is that there would seem to be three aspects to a carcano shot, and maybe some folks refer to these aspects differently, so I'll describe my nomenclature.
I think about the carcano muzzle blast as kind of a composition of effects. First the hot gasses in the barrel expanding rapidly from the heat of reaction and the gasses moving out of the barrel very fast pushing the bullet by pressure build up, the gasses kind of acting like small molecular bullets with mass and velocity moving forward pushing the bullet to exit. Other rifles might have a muzzle brake to redirect the gasses backwards acting like jet airplane thrust reversers to mitigate the recoil effect of the gun on the shooter.
Then after exit the fast moving carcano gasses hit the atmosphere and dissipate quickly but generates the loud sound wave I think of when referring to a muzzle blast. This wave propagates outward spherically in all directions, dissipating in loudness as it expands, but is the loud sound people hear from the shot. This is what would hit Zapruder and cause a startle jiggle (from a loud sound startle reaction, not a direct force pushing on the camera). The last aspect is what I was referring to as the shock wave, when the bullets fly faster than the speed of sound they create a separate cone shaped sound wave that propagates out behind at an angle from the bullet/trajectory of the bullet at an angle (Mach angle) depending on the supersonic speed of the bullet. It’s a distinct crack sound and perception depends on people’s distance from the trajectory and how close the bullet goes by your ear, but in most situations is typically not as loud as the muzzle blast one hears.
Does this jive with any of the ballistic experts studying the case? The question is "would the muzzle blast around the base of the depository building when people have their face towards the building, have enough energy to generate a feeling sensation on the face as well as a loud sensation on the ear drum?" . I don't know but assume its possible based on Wiegman's comments based on his comments while being on Houston near Elm.
Wiegman was Not, "...on Houston near Elm" when he felt the compression of a bullet on his face. We can discuss where we think he probably was, but it was Not, "...ON Houston near Elm.
I made a couple of short clips showing my model of the sniper's nest from approximately the same angle as Hughes' camera on 11/22/63. These might help us when trying to locate any movement in the window (as the makers of the enhanced Hughes film clip suggest).
First is a clip showing the sniper standing up to fire a first shot at a Z133 target. Then sitting back down to fire the shots at the Z224 and Z313 targets. The blue tape on the metal pole represents the approximate height (~18" above the open part of the window) of the next higher cross member of the window frame. Note that I do not operate the bolt of the rifle. So some time needs to be added to allow for that. One of the reasons for not operating the bolt is that this rifle is left-handed and I am holding it on the right shoulder to simulate LHO shooting right handed (this applies to both clips).
(https://i.vgy.me/uh3Us8.gif)
Next is a clip showing the sniper sitting for all three shots. This is the way I currently believe makes the most sense to me. Note that the first shot occurs as the rifle is first brought up and is being aimed down in order to begin tracking the movement of the limo. This first shot is inadvertent as a result of bumping the muzzle end on the window box. The sniper then quickly recovers and completes the last two shots. I simply do not currently believe that he could have missed the entire limo if his first shot was intentional.
(https://i.vgy.me/SjufVO.gif)
I am using his comments I heard on a TV special, Death in Dealey Plaza, where he said he felt the third shot, and actually felt the compression on his face, knew then it was not any cherry bomb, and decided he needed to run forward as the car was not going fast enough. So he then got out of the car and began running and turned on his camera. The quote was related to a time before he had gotten out of the car and was just at, and shortly after, the third shot.
On the Michael Russ motorcade diagram, he was still on Houston but getting close to turning on Elm at z313. That is the basis of my comments.
Your view of the President's car emerging from under the oak tree relative to the lamp post is a bit off when compared to the Secret Service film taken on December 2, 1963:Hi Andrew,
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTvrzbhB/JFK-emerging-from-oak-tree.gif)
The frame I used for comparison is from the film is taken just before the car position in this photo found at CE875 at 17H884. (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0455b.htm)
The shock wave is due to the rapid compression of air by the bullet and spreads out from the nose of the bullet in a cone shape at the speed of sound as the bullet passes through the air. The angle of the cone is called the Mach angle where the sine of the Mach angle is equal to the speed of sound divided by the bullet speed (or 1/mach no.):
Due to the supersonic speed of the bullet, the sharp crack of the shockwave would be heard before the sound of the muzzle blast. Think of the ka part of a “ka-pow” type of loud sound that is often associated with hight powered rifles. As far as feeling it on the face goes, I think some people might be able to feel the sound wave. I once felt the sound of a space shuttle launch (~7-miles away from me) in my chest.
Many years ago I created a 3D stabilized version of the Z-film (need Red/Blue glasses for 3D effect) and I used the stabilized data to study 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. If you take any stock in involuntary "jiggling" in response to loud sounds (which is definitely a thing), this chart might interest you.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/Zshake_yd-d.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/Zshake_yd-d.png)
A reflexive response to a loud noise is an up and down motion (y axis). I filtered out the X and focused on the Y because this jiggle motion is significant versus "panning", which is not associated with a gunshot jiggle. All the other jiggle analyses seemed to ignore this aspect.
Look at the "signature" reflexive response to z313. That is your control.
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.
Note that there's a telltale jiggle that peaks at z230, which suggests that Zapruder was responding to a sound at z225. The sound appeared to reach Zapruder 1/6th of a second after the bullet struck JFK at z222, behind the Stemmons sign.
Note the splices at z158 & z213.
Note the massive edit at z333 just when we would expect to see a hole in the back of JFK's head.
That’s a great job on the window set up. I really do like the idea of modeling to get a sense of the actual dynamics. It seems to have given you the idea of bumping boxes with the gun as a first shot control issue which I don’t think would come to mind to me by just looking at photographs of the snipers nest.
I am not predisposed to any particular shooting position for the first shot, but am pretty confident in the trigger time.
Your sitting position and bumping the box could be what happened to cause a miss. It could also be a part of a multivariable dynamic with a flow of adrenalin and rushing to get in a very tempting close first shot after picking up on the target just below, with the angular velocity of the target at that time something beyond what he ever trained on. It might not have been as simple as one specific cause.
One thing that I still wonder about is in that configuration, sitting the whole time, it appears to me Oswald, because of the wall right there by him would lose sight of his target perhaps as early as half way down Houston and not be able to pick up on it again until the limo was between say, him and the line-of-sight Hughes had to him. This could be, but it seems that would have caused a really rushed first shot if picking up on the target again was so late. When standing or seating in your model, would the view facilitate seeing the limo the whole time, which if standing could still could facilitate a semi standing, crouching, or quick returning to seating position just before firing.
I guess my main concern, which is not a show stopper, is when in the seated position would one readily have a view extending to the east side of Houston Street the whole way from Main to Elm? I’m guessing the Secret Service re-enactment filming position was not controlled to replicate sniper’s nest window opening, box orientations, etc, but it did keep the limo in view the whole time after entering the Plaza.
I envision him staying concealed until all of the SS agents have gotten so close to the building that they would have to be looking almost straight up to see him. Then quickly raising the rifle and preparing to shoot from behind them. A well-designed ambush.
Devil's Advocate: There were Secret Service agents in LBJ's car.
The shock wave is due to the rapid compression of air by the bullet and spreads out from the nose of the bullet in a cone shape at the speed of sound as the bullet passes through the air. The angle of the cone is called the Mach angle where the sine of the Mach angle is equal to the speed of sound divided by the bullet speed (or 1/mach no.):
(https://i.postimg.cc/1z7yDds8/Bullet-Mach-wave.jpg) (https://www.montana.edu/rmaher/publications/maher_ieeesafe_0407_109-113.pdf)
In the case of the bullet fired by the M/C rifle (muzzle speed Mach 2 around 2200 feet/sec), the Mach Angle would be 30 degrees (sin(30)=1/M=1/2). The energy in the wave is continuous as it is caused by the bullet plowing through air whereas the muzzle blast is a one-time release of energy caused by the compressed gas from the ignited gunpowder exploding out of the muzzle.
So, it appears to me that Wiegman and Kilduff and the Cabells were not within the cone and could not have heard the crack of the shock wave. Only people west of the SN and relatively close to the bullet path could have heard it.
Many years ago I created a 3D stabilized version of the Z-film (need Red/Blue glasses for 3D effect) and I used the stabilized data to study the camera shake.Love it! Viewed with my Red/Cyan clip-on.
If Zapruder responded to any loud noises during shooting the Z film, then telltale jiggles would show up as involuntary camera shake. If you take any stock in involuntary "jiggling" in response to loud sounds (which is definitely a thing), this chart might interest you.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/Zshake_yd-d.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/Zshake_yd-d.png)
A reflexive response to a loud noise is an up and down motion (y axis). I filtered out the X and focused on the Y because this jiggle motion is significant versus "panning", which is not associated with a gunshot jiggle. All the other jiggle analyses seemed to ignore this aspect.
Look at the "signature" reflexive response to z313. That is your control.
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.
Note that there's a telltale jiggle that peaks at z230, which suggests that Zapruder was responding to a sound at z225. The sound appeared to reach Zapruder 1/6th of a second after the bullet struck JFK at z222, behind the Stemmons sign.
Note the splices at z158 & z213.
Note the massive edit at z333 just when we would expect to see a hole in the back of JFK's head.
That looks like a very good description related to shock waves and expanding as a cone. I agree with your conclusion that those individuals around the intersection would not have encountered the shock waves.I agree. The supersonic compression of air stops being generated when the bullet stops. If a person is ahead of the bullet when it stops and ahead of a line from the bullet in the direction of the shock wave trajectory, that person cannot sense the shock wave:
What I think is interesting and implied by what you describe is that for any three shots (time wise) from the depository, Greer and Kellerman, even though they would have been basically right in line with the bullet trajectories, probably would not have heard shock waves either. If the bullets or fragments went subsonic just before reaching them, it seems those two would have been engulfed inside a truncated expanding shock cone, and as such never heard the shock wave. Just a consequence of the geometry.
That looks like a very good description related to shock waves and expanding as a cone. I agree with your conclusion that those individuals around the intersection would not have encountered the shock waves.Brian u are usually good at logic/science, apart from your decision to engage with some of the morons on this forum.
What I think is interesting and implied by what you describe is that for any three shots (time wise) from the depository, Greer and Kellerman, even though they would have been basically right in line with the bullet trajectories, probably would not have heard shock waves either. If the bullets or fragments went subsonic just before reaching them, it seems those two would have been engulfed inside a truncated expanding shock cone, and as such never heard the shock wave. Just a consequence of the geometry.
Brian u are usually good at logic/science, apart from your decision to engage with some of the morons on this forum.
But your comment means that u/me/we/us cant hear an/any/all explosions.
In other words, there is no such thing as a shock wave.
What we have is sound. And if the leading edge of the sound is powerfull then we might call it a shock wave.
So, at what distance duzz a shockwave stop being a shockwave.
Answer, there is no answer, koz there is no such thing as a shockwave, its just sound.
Trump got a bloody ear from a shockwave, a nearmiss, lucky.
Thunder is a sonic boom. A sonic boom is a shock wave created when an object moves faster than the speed of sound. Thunder is a sonic boom caused by lightning, which heats the air around it to extremely high temperatures.
Explanation
Lightning
Lightning can reach temperatures of 54,000°F, which is five times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Air expansion
The sudden increase in temperature causes the air to expand rapidly, creating a shock wave.
Shock wave
The shock wave travels along the lightning bolt, creating millions of sonic booms.
Sound
The sound of thunder is a combination of these sonic booms, which we hear as a rumble or a loud bang.
Distance
Thunder from a nearby lightning strike sounds like a sharp crack or loud bang, while thunder from a distant strike sounds like a continuous rumble.
Sonic booms can also be created by aircraft that travel faster than the speed of sound. This is known as "breaking the sound barrier".
So when exactly did Wiegman HEAR the 1st shot? If Weigmans not in the zone of the sound pressure (shock) wave then maybe he just felt wind which was gusting up to 20mph at times that day.
Has Wiegman just heard the first shot, the second shot, or the third shot when, still in the car, he starts panning his camera back to the right (with a lot of blur) and everyone is looking intently down Elm except for one of the two guys who's wearing light-colored work clothes and who's looking back towards the TSBD (see 1:04 in the film)?
According to Dale Myers’ film synchronization Wiegman began filming at Z259 which is 2.95 seconds before the shot at Z313.
So, does Wiegman start panning back to his right in response to hearing the first shot, the second shot, or the third shot?
If that's the case, then Wiegman, still in the car, must have started panning back to his right in response to the third shot.
You guys are proving there was a 2nd shooter. If Wiegman is, "panning back to his right in response to the third shot", why is Wiegman NOT panning his camera UPWARD toward the 6TH floor sniper's nest? Wiegman is seated in a convertible, sitting atop the frame of the automobile. Wiegman is seated, "almost on the horizontal". Wiegman is panning his camera, (his Eyes are searching for,) the sound which his Ears hear, "almost on the horizontal". A 2nd shooter from behind was placed, "almost on the horizontal", in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (1988) BBC. Wiegman's filming/panning is consistent with his hearing that 2nd shooter, "almost on the horizontal".
I don’t know why he starts panning back to his right. But since he doesn’t even start filming until Z259, I believe that the first two shots had already happened before he even began filming.
I would put the beginning of Wiegman a bit later based on the Mark Tyler animation (Motorcade 63). Here is the first frame of Wiegman:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHLBjCV9/Wiegman-start.jpg)
Mark Tyler's suggests that frame z280-81 corresponds to the position in which cars 11 (Cabell), 12 (Nat. Press) and 13 (Camera car 1) are at or very close to the positions shown at the beginning of Wiegman:
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4VP7rJn/Tyler-z281-Wiegman-starts.jpg)
(https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html)
Question about the Darnell film. Is there anything in the record about the cop who is seen running on that extension street away from the DB entrance? Not Baker with the helmet but the other one? I'm sure there's nothing significant about it but am just curious.
Also, I know the hope is to someday get a pristine copy of that footage but the current copy on YTV is pretty clear so I can't imagine a pristine copy will make a difference. Speculating, with all I know about the case, I do believe there's a possibility that it's LHO in the doorway standing up there on the left.
Great reply, thanks. Yeah, just saw that footage and it is clear. And yeah, I remember that story about the flashing fake badges. No one ever really has a good answer for that. Why would a cop like that lie? He didn't and submitted his report as is. A lot of folks are always looking for the "big reveal" in this case but you don't need to find those big reveals. This is a perfect example of just flashing a badge here and there a diversion, then fading into the crowd and it's over and done with.
I know LHO didn't do it and I also know that the rear shots came from that other building and from somewhere on the hill. And nothing will ever convince me that the shot sequence could be pulled off in the very little time required with a bolt-action rifle.
We just saw the FBI finally admit they had 26 "Confidential Informants" mixed into that J6 crowd.
Do you think those confidential informants were instructed by their "Deep State" FBI handlers to incite the violence and/or participate in it, Storing?
If Trump had Not won the election, he would have been doing time in prison.
The Traitorous Orange Xxxx (rhymes with "bird") known as Donald J. Trump SHOULD be doing time in prison.
Did you see that round table discussion the Orange Man held in So Cal yesterday? It was like watching Rocky lV. By the end of the discussion, that crowd was cheering for Trump.
Yes, it's amazing how many Americans have been so zombified by 60-plus years of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and Sun Tzu-like "Inside Man"/ "Outside Man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies that they now rabidly support Vladimir Putin's favorite agent (be he witting or unwitting) -- The Traitorous Orange Xxxx (rhymes with "bird") known as Donald J. Trump.
*Today's SVR and FSB
Still hooked on that Trump/Russian Asset stuff? Did you learn nothing from the election? Please keep it up.
Thanks, that’s interesting. However it appears to me that, in his handbook, page 17, Mark Tyler explains that this is just a rough estimate. Here’s a quote:I would suggest that Myers’ synchronization is “rough”. He doesn’t seem to know what the term “margin of error” or “significant figures” mean. He throws around numbers with three significant figures like .671 degrees per frame without acknowledging any uncertainty.
4.3.3 Zapruder & Wiegman
Circa Z447 (see appendix E.11) is a very interesting point in the
animation as it roughly synchronizes the Wiegman film with the
Zapruder film.
And this is from appendix E.11:
(https://i.vgy.me/RVXr3J.jpg)
I believe that Dale Myers’ methodology is considerably more involved and exact. I certainly don’t remember all the details but he did document his methodology very well. Take a look for yourself if it interests you.
Are you still zombified by KGB* disinformation and "active measures," or are you just a KGB* agent, Storing?
*Today's SVR and FSB
Do Storing and I get to talk into the light bulb microphones like the Stasi while plotting to keep Trump in power? If you have any family or friends, explain your KGB theories to them and listen to their advice on mental health.
I would suggest that Myers’ synchronization is “rough”. He doesn’t seem to know what the term “margin of error” or “significant figures” mean. He throws around numbers with three significant figures like .671 degrees per frame without acknowledging any uncertainty.
His synchronization
Tyler has a margin of error of about 7 zframes for his placement of the start of Wiegman’s film in front of the TSBD (from z280 to z287) and the Zapruder frames and
I would suggest that Myers’ synchronization is “rough”. He doesn’t seem to know what the term “margin of error” or “significant figures” mean. He throws around numbers with three significant figures like .671 degrees per frame without acknowledging any uncertainty.
Tyler has a margin of error of about 7 zframes for his placement of the start of Wiegman’s film in front of the TSBD (from z280 to z287).
Myers says that the beginning of Wiegman’s sequence in front of the TSBD was 3.66 seconds before the headshot which would put it at z246. The problem is that the Altgens photo taken at z255 shows only back to the VP security car. The Cabell car is not yet in the picture. Yet Wiegman’s sequence begins with the Cabell car having almost completed the turn and the National Press car well into the turn.
So I would suggest that Myers methods are highly questionable and his conclusions not reliable. Failure to state the margin of error, overstating significant figures of accuracy and his generally condescending manner are big red flags for me.
Well it looks like you added to your post while I was responding to it…. ::)Yeah. Sorry about that. I stopped to watch the hockey game and appear to have posted it before I was finished.
Believe whatever you wish to believe Andrew. Here is what I was referencing. I was just trying to inform someone who was trying to figure out which shot he thought Wiegman’s film showed a reaction to. That’s all I was trying to do. However, I will put my bet on Dale Myers’ synchronization graphic being more accurate than Tyler’s. If you look at the first Wiegman frame in Myers’ graphic, it doesn’t even look like the frame you posted. Are you and Mark Tyler even looking at the same “first frame” that Dale Myers is referencing?
And, as I said before, Mark Tyler even tells us his estimate is rough. Why is this difference in the two synchronizations so important to you? Does it really make a significant difference to anything at all?]Only if you want to know how the other films synchronize to the Zfilm and you don’t want to be 30 or 40 frames off.
Yes. Myers says:
“ Sequence 11 depicts the motorcade in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and is the focus of this study. The sequence begins when Camera Car 1, in which Wiegman is riding, is in front of the Texas School Book Depository. … The portion of the Sequence 11 used in this study encompasses frames numbered W001 through W316 and covers a time period of 13.17 seconds; beginning 3.66 seconds before the fatal head shot and ending 9.45 seconds after the head shot. ”
Only if you want to know how the other films synchronize to the Zfilm and you don’t want to be 30 or 40 frames off.
The graphic I posted above clearly shows W001 at -00:02.95 seconds before the head shot at Z313. I don’t know where your figures came from or why there appears to be a difference. Perhaps Dale Myers could provide an answer if one of us were to ask him.
Myers doesn't identify what frames W001 to W015 are. In all of Wiegman's films on Youtube, the sequence in front of the TSBD starts with what looks like Myers' W015.
Furthermore, there seems to be a difference between the data that Myers posts on his site pages:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1tF4t7C/Myers1-wiegman1.jpg) (https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics_9.htm)
and the data that Myers posts in his .pdf version:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Fg0sCjp/Myers-pdf-wiegman2.jpg)
(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/download/report_hi.zip)
He says in the first page that W001 was 3.66 seconds before the head shot and then in the pdf version he says that it was 2.95 seconds before.
If the first is correct, there are an additional 14 frames after W001 at 24 frames per second (as he says on his site page) then the frame that I showed (which appears to be his W015) is 14/24=.58 seconds closer to the head shot (i.e. 3.66-.58=3.08 seconds or 56.3 frames before or z257).
If the second is correct, there are an additional 14 frames after W001 at 25.8 frames per second (as he says in his pdf version) then the frame that I showed (which appears to be his W015) is 14/25.8=.54 seconds closer to the head shot (i.e. 2.95-.54=2.41 seconds or 44 zframes before z313 or or z269).
The first cannot be reconciled with Altgens photo at z255. The second is better but it means that the Cabell car made the entire turn from not being visible in the intersection at z255 (Altgens) - to the position it is seen in W015 - already pointing down Elm St. in 14 zframes or .76 seconds.
I note that in his pdf version Myers does not use the 24 frames per second speed of Wiegman. Without any evidence of actual testing, he says that the speed is 25.8 frames per second in order to match the previous conclusion that Wiegman ends at z447.
Sorry if I don't find his methods or conclusions persuasive.
I don't have any particular conclusion about Wiegman. The particular section in front of the TSBD starts after the first shot. Whether it starts before the second shot depends on when you think the second shot occurred. Wiegman doesn't say.
Sorry if I don't find his methods or conclusions persuasive.
Actually either you don’t understand his methods. Or you are just trying to dismiss his work because you came to different conclusions than he did. I suspect that both are probably the case here.
In the section of the pdf version that you posted, Myers says that frame 6 is the first clear frame. I infer from that that there are the expected number of frames between W001 and W015. If you look at the graphic in that pdf you will notice that Myers does not show all the frames of any of the films. He apparently skips frames, as he sees fit, to show only what he intended to show (how the films synchronize with each other).You would think he would provide a source for the Wiegman film so that we can see the frames he is referring to. They are not part of any version I have seen.
The first cannot be reconciled with Altgens photo at z255. The second is better but it means that the Cabell car made the entire turn from not being visible in the intersection at z255 (Altgens) - to the position it is seen in W015 - already pointing down Elm St. in 14 zframes or .76 seconds.Good point. This shows the position of Altgens at z255 when Altgens actually took the photo standing in the left lane a few feet from the curb:
Sorry, but you are wrong. Actually, all the cars had to do was move a little over 1-car-length each (they were traveling at about 10-mph at that time, according to the Mark Tyler animation). In the image below I have drawn red dots and lines showing how, when they move only about one car-length each, the line of sight from the passenger compartment of Camera Car 1 lines up with the area of the left rear tire of the Cabell car and lines up with the highway sign pole on the island between Elm Street Extension and Elm Street (just as they do in the W015 frame).
Also, in this image we can see the yellow highlight of Altgen’s camera’s field of view. The Cabell car has not yet reached it, but slightly more than one car-length further and it is fully inside Altgen’s camera’s field of view. My red marks are only to give you a rough idea of things and are not intended to be exact. But I have no doubt that the cars moving at ~10-mph would have traveled that far.
(https://i.vgy.me/j5Hm2D.jpg)
I don't have any particular conclusion about Wiegman. The particular section in front of the TSBD starts after the first shot. Whether it starts before the second shot depends on when you think the second shot occurred. Wiegman doesn't say.
But you are right about the last part. I don't understand his methods. That's because he bases everything on his 3D computer model that he does not disclose. He just gives us distances and angles from his model. And his 3D model is made from photographs so it must be accurate with no margin of error. Right. I wrote and mailed a letter to Myers in July 2002 (sent it to his publisher as I didn't have his email address) asking about the problems I was having with the trajectory from the SN from his model. I was hoping he would tell me what angles and distances (relating to the men in the car) he was using. He emailed back (then using dalekmyers@earthlink.net) saying he was limited in what he could say:
"I am currently working on several areas related to the computer
project, "Secrets of a Homicide," and therefore am limited in what
I can discuss in detail at this time."
and just said he noted problems with my drawings but did not offer to provide the actual distances and angles he was using:
"I do note a number of problems in your drawings, most of which,
revolve around projecting 2D lines of sight onto images that represent
3D environments. "
So, no, we don't know how Myers did his analysis because he just gives us the numbers that he thinks we should just accept because his model is perfect (at least to 3 significant figures and negligible margin of error).
You would think he would provide a source for the Wiegman film so that we can see the frames he is referring to. They are not part of any version I have seen.
Good point. This shows the position of Altgens at z255 when Altgens actually took the photo standing in the left lane a few feet from the curb:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yd4RFXxs/Altgens-Tyler-z255.jpg)
The position of the Cabell car is some distance from the right side of Altgens' field of view and appears to be about a car-length, not 2 zframes, from the position it is in here:
(https://i.postimg.cc/28V5SLjw/Wiegman-start.jpg)
I was responding to your statement that I was wrong when I said "The first cannot be reconciled with Altgens photo at z255.". The "first" refers to Myers' web page which has W001 3.66 seconds before the head shot which puts W015 at z256-257. I didn't say his "second" could not be reconciled with Altgens. I just said it required the Cabell car to go from not being visible in Altgens to having completed the turn onto Elm in .76 seconds.
The position of the Cabell car is some distance from the right side of Altgens' field of view and appears to be about a car-length, not 2 zframes, from the position it is in here:
(https://i.postimg.cc/28V5SLjw/Wiegman-start.jpg)
2 zframes!!!??? Read your earlier post where you yourself said “…14 zframes or 76 seconds”.
The image I posted is cropped from an image that is designated to be at Z255.4 on Mark Tyler’s timeline. This is only ~.0166666667 seconds after your Z255.1 image and I submit is essentially the same as far at the positions of the cars and the position of Altgens go. In that cropped image, with the red marks and line, I show that it only takes about a car length difference for the car to be in the same alignment as in W015.It is a bit difficult to stop Tyler's animation at the right spot. He uses the 255.1 frame in the cover to his manual. I wasn't sure what frame you were using. There is not much difference, I agree. Besides, there is also some uncertainty in exactly when Altgens took his #6 photo - it could be z254-z256 based on Jackie's hand on JFK's right sleeve and the car-right flag flutter. I would suggest that z254-z255 is probably more accurate.
It seems obvious to me that Myers’ timeline probably simply evolved from an initial finding to what it is in the graphic of the synchronization of the films. And that he probably just hasn’t revised his initial finding on his web page that you submitted. I haven’t looked for it on his web page, but unless you have seen it recently, he may have revised it by now. Even if I am wrong, I think Dale Myers would have a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. And it appears to me that the time indicated in the graphic, (W001 = Z259; W015 = Z270) which I indicated to begin with, is reasonably accurate and does not suffer from the problem you are imagining. When you adjust for the same beginning of the Wiegman film, if there is much difference between Myers’ timeline versus Tyler’s timeline; I believe that it would be due to Tyler’s (as he put it) “rough” synchronization method. You can dismiss Dale Myers’ work if you wish. I couldn’t care less. But I don’t think the problem you are imagining exists.Myers' work appears to be, from an animation point of view, well done. But the problems arise because it is not possible to check his work, being based on a model that he keeps secret and will not share. He presents it as highly accurate but doesn't show any error range. This is not the way a scientific analysis should be presented. I would be interested to know how his model compares to the Knott Laboratory model created by using actual measurement data obtained by a laser scan of Dealey Plaza.
I was responding to your statement that I was wrong when I said "The first cannot be reconciled with Altgens photo at z255.". The "first" refers to Myers' web page which has W001 3.66 seconds before the head shot which puts W015 at z256-257. I didn't say his "second" could not be reconciled with Altgens. I just said it required the Cabell car to go from not being visible in Altgens to having completed the turn onto Elm in .76 seconds.
It is a bit difficult to stop Tyler's animation at the right spot. He uses the 255.1 frame in the cover to his manual. I wasn't sure what frame you were using. There is not much difference, I agree. Besides, there is also some uncertainty in exactly when Altgens took his #6 photo - it could be z254-z256 based on Jackie's hand on JFK's right sleeve and the car-right flag flutter. I would suggest that z254-z255 is probably more accurate.
Myers' work appears to be, from an animation point of view, well done. But the problems arise because it is not possible to check his work, being based on a model that he keeps secret and will not share. He presents it as highly accurate but doesn't show any error range. This is not the way a scientific analysis should be presented. I would be interested to know how his model compares to the Knott Laboratory model created by using actual measurement data obtained by a laser scan of Dealey Plaza.
I don't have any particular conclusion about Wiegman. The particular section in front of the TSBD starts after the first shot. Whether it starts before the second shot depends on when you think the second shot occurred. Wiegman doesn't say.
But you are right about the last part. I don't understand his methods. That's because he bases everything on his 3D computer model that he does not disclose. He just gives us distances and angles from his model. And his 3D model is made from photographs so it must be accurate with no margin of error. Right. I wrote and mailed a letter to Myers in July 2002 (sent it to his publisher as I didn't have his email address) asking about the problems I was having with the trajectory from the SN from his model. I was hoping he would tell me what angles and distances (relating to the men in the car) he was using. He emailed back (then using dalekmyers@earthlink.net) saying he was limited in what he could say:
"I am currently working on several areas related to the computer
project, "Secrets of a Homicide," and therefore am limited in what
I can discuss in detail at this time."
and just said he noted problems with my drawings but did not offer to provide the actual distances and angles he was using:
"I do note a number of problems in your drawings, most of which,
revolve around projecting 2D lines of sight onto images that represent
3D environments. "
So, no, we don't know how Myers did his analysis because he just gives us the numbers that he thinks we should just accept because his model is perfect (at least to 3 significant figures and negligible margin of error).
You would think he would provide a source for the Wiegman film so that we can see the frames he is referring to. They are not part of any version I have seen.
Good point. This shows the position of Altgens at z255 when Altgens actually took the photo standing in the left lane a few feet from the curb:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yd4RFXxs/Altgens-Tyler-z255.jpg)
The position of the Cabell car is some distance from the right side of Altgens' field of view and appears to be about a car-length, not 2 zframes, from the position it is in here:
(https://i.postimg.cc/28V5SLjw/Wiegman-start.jpg)
I was responding to your statement that I was wrong when I said "The first cannot be reconciled with Altgens photo at z255.". The "first" refers to Myers' web page which has W001 3.66 seconds before the head shot which puts W015 at z256-257. I didn't say his "second" could not be reconciled with Altgens. I just said it required the Cabell car to go from not being visible in Altgens to having completed the turn onto Elm in .76 seconds.
It is a bit difficult to stop Tyler's animation at the right spot. He uses the 255.1 frame in the cover to his manual. I wasn't sure what frame you were using. There is not much difference, I agree. Besides, there is also some uncertainty in exactly when Altgens took his #6 photo - it could be z254-z256 based on Jackie's hand on JFK's right sleeve and the car-right flag flutter. I would suggest that z254-z255 is probably more accurate.
Myers' work appears to be, from an animation point of view, well done. But the problems arise because it is not possible to check his work, being based on a model that he keeps secret and will not share. He presents it as highly accurate but doesn't show any error range. This is not the way a scientific analysis should be presented. I would be interested to know how his model compares to the Knott Laboratory model created by using actual measurement data obtained by a laser scan of Dealey Plaza.
His "error ratio" is the lowest possible amount of error. He couldn't very well say to within less than a frame. The cameras were not all operating at the same speed or making exposures at the same time.
He presents it as highly accurate but doesn't show any error range.
On page 28 of the pdf Myers qualifies his error range for this project:
In synchronizing the amateur films for this project, an error ratio of plus-or-minus (+/-) one
frame (approximately one tenth of a second) was deemed acceptable, and therefore considered
synchronous.
Also, he does qualify the following on page 30 of the PDF:
Each of the nine amateur films used in this analysis was prepared from original sources.103
103. With the exception of the F.M. “Mark” Bell, and John Martin, Jr., films, which used the best available sources.
His "error ratio" is the lowest possible amount of error. He couldn't very well say to within less than a frame. The cameras were not all operating at the same speed or making exposures at the same time.
That is not a margin of error with respect to the measurements he uses to reach his conclusions: ie. positions of people and vehicles, speeds of vehicles, angles of vehicles and rates of change of angles, limitations of film resolution, uncertainties of film speed etc.
In order to determine a margin of error you need to follow accepted rules.
Example: You make a measurement 10 different times. You then use an appropriate statistical method for determining the most likely value and the error range. Assuming the samples formed a normal distribution about a mean value one would use the average of those 10 readings and work out the standard deviation (the square root of the sum of the squares of the difference between each value and the mean). The margin of error would be two standard deviations, which is the range within which 95% of the values occur. That would then be the error range for that measurement.
Of course, that assumes that you are not basing the measurements on assumptions that introduce further uncertainty. If you are making the measurements based on values that themselves have a margin of error, then you need to factor those error margins into your work. And you need to show how you calculated these things by providing the data so that the reader can check your work.
The variance (mean square of the difference of values from the mean) is 5.29 so the standard deviation is 2.3 (square root of the variance).
I have a 10-shot string. I have measured the velocity for each shot with a chronograph. The velocities (fps) are: 834, 832, 828, 828, 832, 829, 833, 827, 829, 829. The standard deviation is indicated to be 2.3 by the chronograph software program. The average is indicated to be 830. It is actually 830.1 if done manually. The spread is indicated to be 7.
Given the above please show us how to calculate the margin for error. And be sure to show the calculations so we can check your work. Thanks…
The variance (mean square of the difference of values from the mean) is 5.29 so the standard deviation is 2.3 (square root of the variance).
The margin of error comes in when Myers purports to make ridiculously accurate measurements such as this (on page 171 of his PDF version of "Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination"):
I don’t think that standard deviation is the same as margin for error. I am also struggling to understand how any of this applies to the accuracy of synchronizing the various films. If I remember correctly, you stated that Mark Tyler’s work is supposed to be with a margin of error of seven frames. Did Mark Tyler provide all the data and calculations demonstration that you are demanding of Dale Myers’ work?
The margin of error comes in when Myers purports to make ridiculously accurate measurements such as this (on page 171 of his PDF version of "Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination"):
- "The true position of Camera Car 1 was determined by using computer models to align a model
of the 17.5 foot long 1964 Chevrolet Impala with Hughes’ field-of-view. The result shows the
right rear bumper of Camera Car 1 is 2.95 feet north of, and 0.66 feet west of the line-of-sight
drawn between the Hughes’ camera and the northwest corner of the Records Building; not
on the line of sight as Thomas reported."
First of all, there is some margin of error in the placement of Hughes' camera in the middle of the intersection (*1) and the exact line of sight to the corner of the building. Then there is the error in the model of Dealey Plaza and the car model that he used. Then there is the inaccuracy in plotting an exact position of everything in the grainy Hughes film. There has to be some uncertainty in "2.95 feet north and .66 feet east". Myers admits of none.
Myers then concludes (p. 171):
- "When correctly scaled computer models of Camera Car 1 are aligned to Hughes frame H633
and Zapruder frame Z220, the distance between those two exposures was determined to be
59.8 feet; not 73 feet as reported by Thomas."
Keep in mind that he is trying to compare the difference in position of Camera Car #1 around this Hughes frame:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qxvcrn42/H631.jpg)
to its position in Z220:
(https://i.postimg.cc/907yn65F/zf063.png)
and this is his conclusion:
"Considering that the known speed prior to Hughes frame H633 was 11.83 ft/sec (8.1 mph) and
the known speed at Zapruder frame Z220 was 13.89 feet/sec (9.5 mph), it was determined that
Camera Car 1 was traveling at an average speed of 12.86 feet/sec (8.8 mph) and therefore
traversed the 59.8 foot distance between Hughes frame H633 and Zapruder frame Z220 in
4.65 seconds; not the 6.2 to 8.3 second guesstimate ventured by Thomas".
To suggest that it is 4.65 seconds and could not be 4.5 or 5.0 seconds he needs to give us a reasonable estimate of the total possible error in all the measurements he uses to reach that conclusion. He admits of none.
*1 Here is what Myers wrote in footnote 198 page 171:
- 198. Thomas reported that Robert Hughes’ precise location at the time that he filmed the motorcade is “not known” and that his best
estimate based on examining his film and a photograph taken by Charles Bronson is that Hughes was standing 8 feet south of the center
line of Main Street and 14 feet west of the center line of Houston Street. Thomas’s positioning of the Hughes camera is essentially correct.
Using computers to align the Hughes’ camera field of view with computer models of Dealey Plaza, I pinpointed Hughes’ location as 8.83
feet south of the center line of Main Street and 15.5 feet west of the center line of Houston Street.
You are entitled to your own opinions of course. But your argument reminds me of Iacoletti’s refusal to believe that there has ever been any evidence of anything….
Myers further displays his ridiculous grasp of significant digits by claiming that Tippit was shot at precisely 1:14:30 pm. I'm surprised he didn't say how many milliseconds.
Nice strawman, Charles. Next?
Myers further displays his ridiculous grasp of significant digits by claiming that Tippit was shot at precisely 1:14:30 pm. I'm surprised he didn't say how many milliseconds.
.Myers has done a creditable job and is very skilled at animation techniques. I am just saying that he is overstating the accuracy of his conclusions and does not provide details that are needed in order to check his results.
Personally it appears to me that Dale Myers has done an outstanding job. You entered this discussion with the notion that Dale Myers had the beginning of the Wiegman film out of sync with the others. I think we have seen that the issue is a matter of Dale Myers using the original film versus a more commonly available edited copy. Not an error by Dale Myers, but actually a more accurate depiction of what actually happened (due to Dale Myers’ thoroughness). That bodes well for my confidence level in his works.
You are entitled to your own opinions of course. But your argument reminds me of Iacoletti’s refusal to believe that there has ever been any evidence of anything….
Myers has done a creditable job and is very skilled at animation techniques. I am just saying that he is overstating the accuracy of his conclusions and does not provide details that are needed in order to check his results.
My main concern with Myers is with his portrayal of the SBT which involves the accuracy of his placements of the two men in the car as it passed down Elm St. He is using the same zfilm frames to do this that Itek used for their HSCA analysis. But Itek was careful to provide an error range. Itek concluded that Connally was between 4.5 and 7.5 inches inboard of JFK. (6” ± 1.5”). Myers doesn’t provide a figure and essentially dismisses error. He says that he lined them up based on the zfilm and the implication is that the error was negligible:
- “The large, and often overlapping, still and motion picture record of the motorcade between Main and Houston Streets and the point at which Zapruder began filming, provided an accurate and definitive record of the positions of JFK and JBC during this pre-shooting portion of the recreation.”
Myers has done a creditable job and is very skilled at animation techniques. I am just saying that he is overstating the accuracy of his conclusions and does not provide details that are needed in order to check his results.
My main concern with Myers is with his portrayal of the SBT which involves the accuracy of his placements of the two men in the car as it passed down Elm St. He is using the same zfilm frames to do this that Itek used for their HSCA analysis. But Itek was careful to provide an error range. Itek concluded that Connally was between 4.5 and 7.5 inches inboard of JFK. (6” ± 1.5”). Myers doesn’t provide a figure and essentially dismisses error. He says that he lined them up based on the zfilm and the implication is that the error was negligible:
- “The large, and often overlapping, still and motion picture record of the motorcade between Main and Houston Streets and the point at which Zapruder began filming, provided an accurate and definitive record of the positions of JFK and JBC during this pre-shooting portion of the recreation.”
Andrew, why are you quoting what Dale Myers wrote about a different portion (Houston Street) of the animation!!?? ???
First of all Dale Myers DOES provide some figures and does NOT essentially dismiss error. The following is part of what he indicates regarding potential error in the rotational positioning of the figures as they are seen in the Zapruder film on Elm Street. It seems to me that the distance inboard of JBC versus JFK would be subject to similar margins of error, or perhaps even smaller ones.
The ability to accurately position both men is directly related to the clarity of the original film. At the earliest portion of the Zapruder film, the limousine is at its farthest point from Zapruder's lens. The images of both JFK and JBC are very small in the frame and consequently distorted by film grain. As the limousine draws closer to the camera, they grow larger within the frame and therefore are distorted less by film grain.
From about Zapruder frame 240 through 360, the effect of film grain on the ability to position the occupants in the car accurately is negligible. At their farthest point from Zapruder's camera, it was possible to rotate both JFK and JBC up to 6-degrees in any direction without a perceivable mismatch with the original film. This amount of error dropped to about 4-degrees by Zapruder frame 190 and within 3-degrees by Zapruder frame 223. Therefore, the estimated margin of error lies between 3 and 6-degrees, depending on which point in the film is under discussion. The larger figure was used to calculate potential errors in plotting trajectories.
The clearest frames of the Zapruder film were sought for positioning JFK and JBC in order to minimize any errors. Key frame positions were generally placed at half-second intervals throughout the recreation, although tighter keying patterns (1-5 frame intervals) were employed during Zapruder frames 220-238, and 312-330.
The resulting animation was spot checked against the original Zapruder film to insure an accurate representation. Where "drifting" was detected, additional key frames were used to nail down the action.
It took six weeks to complete the key frame process, after which a test render was produced. The resulting animation was a computer generated "hand-held" version of the Zapruder film. In essence, the key frame process had created a motion file of Zapruder's camera in 3D space. Stepping through each frame of the animation revealed how Zapruder held his camera while trying to follow the limousine as it moved down Elm Street.
Because that was the only place I could find where he commented on the relative horizontal positions of the two men.
Andrew, why are you quoting what Dale Myers wrote about a different portion (Houston Street) of the animation!!?? ???
First of all Dale Myers DOES provide some figures and does NOT essentially dismiss error. The following is part of what he indicates regarding potential error in the rotational positioning of the figures as they are seen in the Zapruder film on Elm Street. It seems to me that the distance inboard of JBC versus JFK would be subject to similar margins of error, or perhaps even smaller ones.He is not talking about the error in the inboard distance between the two men. He is talking about the angle of rotation of each of the two men in their seats. This is really inconsequential. The difference in horizontal position of JBC's right armpit between facing car forward and facing 10 degrees to the right is negligible: If the armpit wound is 20 cm from the spine (6 HSCA 48) a turn of 10 degrees to the right moves the wound left by 20(1-cos(10))=.3 cm or 3 mm. A turn of 3 degrees moves it .02 cm or .2 mm. That cannot be the error in the horizontal placement of JBC relative to JFK.
Because that was the only place I could find where he commented on the relative horizontal positions of the two men.
He is not talking about the error in the inboard distance between the two men. He is talking about the angle of rotation of each of the two men in their seats. This is really inconsequential. The difference in horizontal position of JBC's right armpit between facing car forward and facing 10 degrees to the right is negligible: If the armpit wound is 20 cm from the spine (6 HSCA 48) a turn of 10 degrees to the right moves the wound left by 20(1-cos(10))=.3 cm or 3 mm. A turn of 3 degrees moves it .02 cm or .2 mm. That cannot be the error in the horizontal placement of JBC relative to JFK.
Myers does not give us the relative vertical or horizontal distances between the neck exit wound on JFK and the right armpit entrance wound on JBC. We are just supposed to accept his animation as accurate without being able to check it. If I have missed it somewhere, please point it out to me.
[Note: Myers cannot be talking about the range of the angle that the two men could occupy relative to Zapruder while still fitting the positions seen in the Zapruder frames from z190 to z223. If that was the case, the distance would be huge: a 3 degree angle represents 1/120th of the circumference of a circle of radius equal to the distance from JBC to Zapruder at z190. That distance is about 120 feet. So a 3 degree angle subtends an arc of 2pi(120)/120=6.28 feet!!!]
Plus-or-minus two frames, in which Zapruder frame, be it hypothetical (i.e., before Z-133) or actual (i.e., Z-133-on) do you think the first shot was fired?I can only tell you what the evidence says. The evidence is that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot by moving left and/or clutching at his upper chest, and/or slumping, and /or assuming a blank look..
I can only tell you what the evidence says. The evidence is that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot by moving left and/or clutching at his upper chest, and/or slumping, and /or assuming a blank look..
According to Phil Willis, [there] was an instant before he took his photo which was at z202. According to Croft it was after his z161 photo. Croft said he has m d enough time to wind his camera and click the shutter again at the moment of the smfirst shot. According to Hugh Betzner it was just after he took his z186 photo. According to the occupants of the VP car I they had just completed the turn onto Elm. It is still turning when last seen at z181. According to Mary Woodward it was just after the President passed by where she was standing (3 feet past the lamppost near the Thornton Freeway sign).
So, if one puts that altogether, and it is all consistent, the first shot was somewhere between z186 and z202. It may be around z193 based on the change in JFK that appears to begin there.
Because that was the only place I could find where he commented on the relative horizontal positions of the two men.
He is not talking about the error in the inboard distance between the two men. He is talking about the angle of rotation of each of the two men in their seats. This is really inconsequential. The difference in horizontal position of JBC's right armpit between facing car forward and facing 10 degrees to the right is negligible: If the armpit wound is 20 cm from the spine (6 HSCA 48) a turn of 10 degrees to the right moves the wound left by 20(1-cos(10))=.3 cm or 3 mm. A turn of 3 degrees moves it .02 cm or .2 mm. That cannot be the error in the horizontal placement of JBC relative to JFK.
Myers does not give us the relative vertical or horizontal distances between the neck exit wound on JFK and the right armpit entrance wound on JBC. We are just supposed to accept his animation as accurate without being able to check it. If I have missed it somewhere, please point it out to me.
[Note: Myers cannot be talking about the range of the angle that the two men could occupy relative to Zapruder while still fitting the positions seen in the Zapruder frames from z190 to z223. If that was the case, the distance would be huge: a 3 degree angle represents 1/120th of the circumference of a circle of radius equal to the distance from JBC to Zapruder at z190. That distance is about 120 feet. So a 3 degree angle subtends an arc of 2pi(120)/120=6.28 feet!!!]
In my humble opinion you're full of high-fructose beans.All I have done is point out the evidence.
Question: How many shots do you think were fired altogether, and how many (if any) were fired from the sixth floor Sniper's Nest?Again, I can only refer you to the evidence. Here is the distribution of witness recollections as to the number of shots:
I have. And when I put the two men in their seats this is what I get:
We are just supposed to accept his animation as accurate without being able to check it. If I have missed it somewhere, please point it out to me.
Andrew, Dale Myers gives us detailed descriptions of how he created his animation. It seems to me that the best way to check his work would be to follow in his footsteps and create your own computer model and animation.
Yet you would have criticized him if he'd had the gosh-darned gall to say "between 1:14 and 1:15."
Myers does explain in detail how he arrived at the figures
Itek concluded that Connally was between 4.5 and 7.5 inches inboard of JFK. (6” ± 1.5”).
Myers doesn’t provide a figure and essentially dismisses error. He says that he lined them up based on the zfilm and the implication is that the error was negligible
I was just responding to your comment. I don’t see how he determines their horizontal distance from reading either paragraph.
Because that was the only place I could find where he commented on the relative horizontal positions of the two men.
So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that Dale Myers is commenting on the relative horizontal positions of the two men in the following passage.
The large, and often overlapping, still and motion picture record of the motorcade between Main and Houston Streets and the point at which Zapruder began filming, provided an accurate and definitive record of the positions of JFK and JBC during this pre-shooting portion of the recreation.
However, you do not believe that Dale Myers is commenting on the relative horizontal positions of the two men in the following passage in the Key Framing section.
The film is returned to the first frame showing the president and the same process used to match the limousine to the film is used to position President Kennedy (JFK) and Governor John B. Connally (JBC).
https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm#errors (https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm#errors)
Am I understanding your opinion correctly?
Itek said 6.4 +/- 2.2 inches. But that was also based on stereo viewing Z frames 183 and 188. Nobody posits a shot at that time.I was going by memory. But at in the footnote 6HSCA49 they quote Itek as saying that JBC was 10.2 to 20.3 cm inboard of JFK. The would be 4 to 8 inches or 6” ± 2”.
All I have done is point out the evidence.
Again, I can only refer you to the evidence. Here is the distribution of witness recollections as to the number of shots:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d3psZ1yH/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.jpg)
The possibility that the sample mean (3 shots) differs from the actual number is practically zero. This is further corroborated by the physical evidence of shells found (three).
To determine where the shots originated one has to look at all the evidence. When one does that, there is convergence on all shots coming from the same location.
The location is identified by direct observation by witnesses who saw the rifle in the window, by the three witnesses on the fifth floor who heard the shots coming from directly above them, and by the physical evidence found on the sixth floor.
If there were three shots from the Sniper's Nest and the first shot was between Z-186 and Z-202 (as you said in an earlier post), when were the second and third shots?The original scenario as portrayed in the model that was built by the FBI for Warren Conmission based on the witness evidence seems about right:
I have. And when I put the two men in their seats this is what I get:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0cYmfG8/AM_model3D_z195.jpg)
I was just responding to your comment. I don’t see how he determines their horizontal distance from reading either paragraph.
Myers appears to be matching the appearance of his models to two dimensional images and concluding that the 3D positions are accurately established when the models match the 2D photographic images. There is inherent error in doing that because one cannot measure the missing dimension in a 2D photo. He admits of none. That’s a problem.
You appear to be making the same mistake made by the HSCA in accepting Thomas Canning’s placement of JBC.
If you are following the yellow dashed line, you should be able to see that in the Betzner 3 photo, we do not see any part of JBC. We can conclude that, in Betzner 3, JBC must be to the left of the yellow dashed line and out of sight behind the man in the foreground. Therefore your positioning of JBC in your image must be in error (otherwise we should see JBC’s right shoulder in the Betzner 3 photo).
We can also see in Betzner 3 that JFK is well to the right of the yellow dashed line. In your image, JFK has been placed such that his left shoulder is very close to the yellow dashed line. This suggests that JFK was further to his right than what you have portrayed in your image.
There’s no place like reality. There’s no place like reality.… provided you are using the correct reality.
You appear to be making the same mistake made by the HSCA in accepting Thomas Canning’s placement of JBC.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTrtFt6H/Position_JBC_Canning_HSCA.jpg)
The assumption was that the man in front of Betzner was blocking the view of JBC’ s right shoulder, so his right shoulder was left of your yellow line. But Altgens’ #5 photo on Houston shows that JBC’s right shoulder was below the line of sight due to the height of the top of the back seat.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yq1tc7zb/Altgens5-sightlines.jpg)
… provided you are using the correct reality.
The assumption was that the man in front of Betzner was blocking the view of JBC’ s right shoulder, so his right shoulder was left of your yellow line. But Altgens’ #5 photo on Houston shows that JBC’s right shoulder was below the line of sight due to the height of the top of the back seat.
BS:
All one has to do is look at the back of Mrs. JBC (in that Altgens’ 5 photo) and they can easily see that the seat backs of the jumper seats are not high enough to block the view of JBC’s shoulder. Do you really think the HSCA and Thomas Canning would make such an error as you suggest? Give me a break Andrew!
provided you are using the correct reality.
There is only one reality and you definitely need to find those red ruby slippers and keep clicking your heels together…
WTF does any of this have to do with whether or not all three shots were fired in 10.2 seconds?
Does anyone here really believe that the first shot was fired at Z-192, or some-such thing?
Since you quoted my post I will respond to you. Andrew entered the discussion in response to an answer I gave regarding a question that someone (maybe you) asked regarding before just which shot Wiegman began filming. I cited Dale Myers’ work. Andrew tried to Pooh Pooh on Myers’ work. Things evolved from that (as I figured they would) to arguing about Andrew Mason’s idea regarding the timing of the shots, etc. So it actually does have something to do with “whether or not all three shots were fired in 10.2 seconds”.
I don't need a recitation of the nerdish, mathematics-and-geometry-obsessed history of this thread. All I need is an answer to this question: How does this thread help us determine whether or not all three shots were fired in 10.2 seconds?
Is it impossible to determine, by looking at the photographic images available to us, whether or not all three shots were fired in 10.2 seconds?
If so, what's the use of this thread?
You have the ability to delete the whole thread if you wish….
What, if anything, has Andrew Mason said to you or shown to you in this thread that has caused you to doubt the validity of Dale Myers' synchronization of the Hughes' film, the Zapruder film, and the Towner film, etc.?
It isn’t about any doubts. Rather, it is about keeping an open mind and potentially learning something from others’ points of view. Andrew indicated he thought Dale Myers’ work was faulty regarding the start of the Weigman film. I looked into the matter and discovered the reason for the perceived issue was that Dale Myers searched for and used the original Wiegman film which includes some 14 additional frames at the beginning of the film that the more common (edited) copies do not include. If anyone else was paying attention, they might have learned something that they didn’t know before. This is the type of thing that I think makes participating in this forum worthwhile. I have personally learned a lot and hope to continue doing so.
Your "...wiegman film which includes some 14 additional frames at the BEGINNING of the film that the more common (Edited) copies do Not include.", sounds alot like the rumor of there being an (UNedited) Zapruder Film in which the BEGINNING shows the JFK Limo turning onto Elm ST. I do Not know when the Myers timeline "work" was done, but the Wiegman Film for decades was ballyhoo'd as being filmed "Continuously". That "continuous" Wiegman filming stuff was proven to be False. If the Myers assigned timelines are based on the Wiegman being shot "continuously", those timelines are worthless. As the saying goes, "The Wiegman Film has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese". Swearing allegiance to the "Continuous" Wiegman Film was also one of the nails that drove Gary Mack into the clutches of the Sixth Floor Museum.
It isn’t about any doubts. Rather, it is about keeping an open mind and potentially learning something from others’ points of view. Andrew indicated he thought Dale Myers’ work was faulty regarding the start of the Weigman film. I looked into the matter and discovered the reason for the perceived issue was that Dale Myers searched for and used the original Wiegman film which includes some 14 additional frames at the beginning of the film that the more common (edited) copies do not include. If anyone else was paying attention, they might have learned something that they didn’t know before. This is the type of thing that I think makes participating in this forum worthwhile. I have personally learned a lot and hope to continue doing so.
Dale Myers’ film synchronization was first published in 2007, revised in 2008, and revised again in 2010.
Richard Trask tells us on page 381 of his book “Pictures of the Pain”:
In Fort Worth WBAP received the Wiegman film from the hospital, and by about 2-1/2 hours after the shooting, the rough film was out of the processor and ready for a network feed. In New York at about 4:05 Eastern Time anchorman Bill Ryan introduced: “…And now for a late report from Fort Worth-Dallas, we go to station WBAP-TV and newsman Charles Murphy.” Murphy began a voice-over as the film rolled through its 2 minute and 46 seconds sequence.
“Here now are late unedited, unscreened films of the shooting scene in Dallas. This is the scene near the Stemmons Expressway - in front - no this is in front of the City Hall in Downtown Dallas, a mile east of the shooting scene. Heavy crowds lined the downtown street to view the presidential party. As in all of the Texas stops, there were many teenagers attracted there by the First Lady and the President. This is Main Street in Dallas. Is this moving west? - This is moving west towards the fatal moment. The motorcade is traveling about 20 to 25 miles per hour. Slowly westward down Main Street in the heart of Dallas. The time about 12:20 during the noon hour. Heavy crowds from downtown offices lining the route. That looks like the School Depository Building on the right, I’m not sure. This, this is the scene of confusion. Something has happened here. The cameraman running towards the scene for the presidential car ahead of him. We caught just a blurred glance of the old School Depository Building from which the sniper fired the shot. This is the reaction from the crowd. All is confusion at the scene. Here a woman shelters herself. Now racing towards the hospital…”
Continuing to describe the scenes at the hospital, Murphy closes at the end of the film clip with, “Later films as they are developed, as they arrive here will be shown.” As the film was very jerky and atypical of on-air broadcast quality, Bill Ryan back in New York felt compelled to explain, “As Murphy pointed out to you there, that was unscreened, which meant that he saw it for the very first time, as you saw it, unedited films of what happened - some of what happened in the the motorcade. If I might explain to you that blurry and blurry and confusing scene. Obviously what happened when the shots were fired, the cameraman was riding in one of the cars behind the President, very wisely kept his camera running, even as he jumped from the car and ran towards the President’s car and then over towards the people who were shielding themselves ducking down, trying to avoid what was going on. It was the only way the cameraman could have gotten you a picture of what went on. He very wisely took no time to try and align the spring on the camera, or anything else. Just keep it rolling, get as much picture as possible, and get as close as possible to the scene of action. That is what the cameraman did, that is why it looked somewhat unorthodox in terms of what we are used to seeing, and that is why it is such a precious piece of film, because the cameraman thought.”
For the remainder of the day and into the next, this remarkable film was periodically rebroadcast cast, though in a cut-down format with some 13 seconds of Wiegman’s quick, jiggling run to the grassy knoll being cut out of the original 37-seconds-sequence at Dealey Plaza.
Trask cites a reference of: (56) Videotape of NBC coverage, 11/22/1963 (TNN 255:4)
Dale Myers cites a reference of: Wiegman Film - Courtesy of NBC News Archives
Rumor!?? ??? I don’t think so.
Fine.
Question:
Do you think Andrew's analysis is logical and supports his idea that the first shot was around Z-192?
It is not the jump seat back that blocks the shoulder. It is the top of the back of the back seat. Nellie's shoulder is not blocked in Altgens #5 because we can see around the back seat.
The assumption was that the man in front of Betzner was blocking the view of JBC’ s right shoulder, so his right shoulder was left of your yellow line. But Altgens’ #5 photo on Houston shows that JBC’s right shoulder was below the line of sight due to the height of the top of the back seat.
BS:
All one has to do is look at the back of Mrs. JBC (in that Altgens’ 5 photo) and they can easily see that the seat backs of the jumper seats are not high enough to block the view of JBC’s shoulder.
Do you really think the HSCA and Thomas Canning would make such an error as you suggest? Give me a break Andrew!Actually I do. And so did Thomas Canning. I corresponded with him in 2003 and made the same point about the Altgens' #5 blocking the view of JBC's right shoulder. This was from his email response of April 11, 2003:
It is not the jump seat back that blocks the shoulder. It is the top of the back of the back seat. Nellie's shoulder is not blocked in Altgens #5 because we can see around the back seat.
Actually I do. And so did Thomas Canning. I corresponded with him in 2003 and made the same point about the Altgens' #5 blocking the view of JBC's right shoulder. This was from his email response of April 11, 2003:
- "The explanation for the eclipse of Conally's shoulder by the limo body or by the back of the jump seat is quite persuasive; I am moved to suggest that my testimony could well be revised to refer to the right side of Connaly's head and not his shoulder would be appropriate." (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J47Bu2Hha7hSrQHpoZx42hrSyrIF0fxJ/view?usp=sharing)
However, he went on to insist that such a shift would not change his conclusion and suggests that the bullet from the SN would first have to have passed through JBC's body in order to strike his left thigh. But that is a separate issue. He admitted that had he been aware of the seat back eclipsing the right shoulder he would have revised his opinion!. The full exchange of correspondence can be viewed here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EfAdkgnUBFVDpO8gerIJRqkdFwfW0-nI/view?usp=drive_link).
Connally was Not hit in the "top of the shoulder". He was hit in the armpit area. As we know, the armpit is lower than the "top of the shoulder". And then there is the consideration of the Downward incline of Elm St vs the level surface of Houston St which is pictured. Apples to Oranges. This is what focusing on numbers will do to you. You miss the obvious.
As the JFK Limo travels Downhill on Elm St, the Top of that backseat becomes progressively higher in relation to the progressively Lower Connally armpit. That posted photo from the "LEVEL" Houston St is worthless with respect to the Top of the Backseat in relation to the Connally armpit.
As the JFK Limo travels Downhill on Elm St, the Top of that backseat becomes progressively higher in relation to the progressively Lower Connally armpit. That posted photo from the "LEVEL" Houston St is worthless with respect to the Top of the Backseat in relation to the Connally armpit.The point made by Canning had nothing to do with being able to see the entrance wound. It had to do with how far left JBC was. Canning thought he was farther left because we cannot see his right shoulder in Betzner's photo, assuming that the man in front of Betzner blocked the shoulder. I am simply pointing out that this was not the case. JBC's shoulder extended out to the right if the man in front and would have been visible in Betzner but for the back seat blocking it.
These are from the position of the car at z193 with JFK just past the lamp post.
It would be nice if you could provide an image of your model with the JFK & JBC models, in the same position as you have shown, from two additional angles.
1. Directly above similar to the plan view of the dimensioned limo plan.
2. From the same angle as the Betzner 3 photo.
Please provide these if you will. Thanks.
| (https://i.postimg.cc/fyWY2tfd/z193-from-Betzner-level.jpg) | (https://i.postimg.cc/T1kgZdt4/z193-above.jpg) |
These are from the position of the car at z193 with JFK just past the lamp post.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyWY2tfd/z193-from-Betzner-level.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/T1kgZdt4/z193-above.jpg)
The slope of Elm Street in Dealey Plaza is approximately 3.8% downhill from east to west meaning for every 100 feet traveled west on Elm Street, the elevation drops by roughly 3.8 feet. That is equal to roughly 2.176-degrees. The sixth floor window line of trajectory is in the neighborhood of 21-degrees. A difference of over 18-degrees. Again, your point is moot.
Really? You are doing nothing but Mynah Birding numbers that do Not address the question at hand. Is there a Clean LOS from the sniper's nest half open window, to the Limo Back Seat, to the Armpit of Connally? And do Not forget that on the bumper of the JFK Limo is the Queen Mary with 2 Large SS Agents standing on each sideboard.
Yes there most certainly is. I showed that to you a while back. If I remember correctly the trajectory line was drawn on an image taken on 11/22/63 from the Main Street area just for you.
Thanks, I should have also asked for the view from Zapruder’s camera angel. Please provide this if you will.Here are the views from Zapruder and from the left side showing the path from the SN:
Main St? JFK and Connally are continually moving/shifting around inside the Limo. And you wanna look at the positions of JFK & Connally way back on Main St? This makes obvious the difficulty you are having.
Here are the views from Zapruder and from the left side showing the path from the SN:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jShc3Qy8/z193-from-Zapruder.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLmbZy48/z193-shows-car-SN.jpg)
Thanks, I am in the process of working on some things related to all of this. It may take me a little time. But I should be responding before too long. In the meantime, you might want to see about getting those two front tires inflated. They look a little flat on the bottom. Just kidding of course. ;)I should have explained that the model is constructed on a flat map of Dealey Plaza, so in order to create the correct slope of Elm St. the car is rotated forward 3 degrees. This puts the front wheels are about 10 inches below the rear wheels. I also have to adjust the height of the TSBD based on the survey in CE884 for the point at which I place the car. So the SN is 60+4.5 feet above the road below where JFK is located at z193.
Here are the views from Zapruder and from the left side showing the path from the SN:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jShc3Qy8/z193-from-Zapruder.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLmbZy48/z193-shows-car-SN.jpg)
I should have explained that the model is constructed on a flat map of Dealey Plaza, so in order to create the correct slope of Elm St. the car is rotated forward 3 degrees. This puts the front wheels are about 10 inches below the rear wheels. I also have to adjust the height of the TSBD based on the survey in CE884 for the point at which I place the car. So the SN is 60+4.5 feet above the road below where JFK is located at z193.
I'm gonna call BS: on this "visual aid" From the Zapruder view. The Stemmons Sign is way off, the Limo is in the Wrong Lane, Seriously? Waste of time.
When I switched around the views I see that I inadvertently dragged the map which moves the position of the TSBD and the car/occupants relative to the map but doesn't change the relative positions of the SN and the car or its occupants. I have since corrected it.
As far as the Stemmons sign is concerned, the earlier view did not show the Stemmons sign. That was the Thornton sign on the left side.
In order to get the view from Zapruder one has to zoom in from Zapruder's position. In Sketchup, which is what I am using, the zoom function gives a different zoom perspective than the Bell & Howell camera that Zapruder was using. Here is the layout that I am using:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLL50T8L/z193-layout.jpg)
I zoom in over top of the Stemmons sign to get a more detailed view of the car and two men. Here is the same view without the zoom:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMb6nP4t/z193-from-Zapruder-no-zoom.jpg)
When I switched around the views I see that I inadvertently dragged the map which moves the position of the TSBD and the car/occupants relative to the map but doesn't change the relative positions of the SN and the car or its occupants. I have since corrected it.
As far as the Stemmons sign is concerned, the earlier view did not show the Stemmons sign. That was the Thornton sign on the left side.
In order to get the view from Zapruder one has to zoom in from Zapruder's position. In Sketchup, which is what I am using, the zoom function gives a different zoom perspective than the Bell & Howell camera that Zapruder was using. Here is the layout that I am using:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLL50T8L/z193-layout.jpg)
I zoom in over top of the Stemmons sign to get a more detailed view of the car and two men. Here is the same view without the zoom:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMb6nP4t/z193-from-Zapruder-no-zoom.jpg)
You do realize you have the SBT happening as the JFK Limo approaches the Thornton Sign? This position would put the Limo at a point where it is just about straightened out after making the turn onto Elm St. This is close to where Croft were standing on the (S) side of Elm St. And your SBT Shot would be the 2nd shot by 1 shooter inna 3 shot scenario? At some point prior to this, the 1st shot was fired. And there needs to be the required time to work the carcano bolt action between the 1st shot and the SBT/2nd shot. So this means you Now have Shot #1 happening while the JFK Limo is still on Houston approaching the turn onto Elm St. And on top of all of that, you have Shots #1 and #2 being fired much closer together than shots #2 and #3. Really?Just to update you: I don't have the SBT happening. There is too much evidence conflicting with it.
Mason - By not buying into the SBT, you're scenario has a timing issue. The elapsed time between when we see Connally hit and Z313 is too short vs the time it takes to work the bolt action carcano.According to the shot pattern as well as the hair flip seen by Hickey, the second shot occurred between z271-272:
According to the shot pattern as well as the hair flip seen by Hickey, the second shot occurred between z271-272:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cLgHyk4g/z261-to-z290.gif)
The next shot was after z312 and before the end of z313, which is a difference of 41-42 frames or 2.24 to 2.3 seconds. The time the shooter requires is the time to reload, reaim and pull the trigger. If the rifle is strapped to the shooter and resting on a pile of boxes and the target is moving directly away from the shooter (moving a tad left to right between z271 and z313) no reaiming would have been needed. I think 2.3 seconds is probably doable. The witnesses said that the shots were in rapid succession, or "'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle" (Emmett Hudson).
You're wrong on the time it takes to work/aim the bolt action carcano. As to witnesses, the vast majority claim shots #2 and #3 were very close together. You're now down to your last strike. Better choke up.2.3 seconds is not enough time? The FBI did it.
JBC was hit in the back by it. We can see he was hit before z280.
The study by Roselle and Scearce is pure nonsense. The very worst metric, by a country mile, for establishing whether a shot was fired is looking at people turning their heads in a motorcade. It is utterly futile. It's a motorcade!! Examining the completely normal head turns of a tiny fraction of the people that can be seen in the Z-film is weak sauce indeed.
You're full of high-fructose beans and pure nonsense, you're utterly futile, and if you've been hitting the sauce harder than usual, you'd better cut back before you totally flip out.
2.3 seconds is not enough time? The FBI did it.
Although witnesses said they were in rapid succession they also said that the relative spacing was about 2:1. Besides JBC was hit in the back by it. We can see he was hit before z280.
"They" being who specifically? The eyewitnesses I am familiar with did Not say anything about the spacing between shots 2 and 3 being "2:1"."They" being specifically: Senator Ralph Yarborough, Forrest Sorrels, Robert Jackson and Mayor Earle Cabell.
| Yarborough: | "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital." (7 H 439 - affidavit that was sworn July 10, 1964) |
| Sorrels: | Mr. STERN. Can you you tell us anything about the spacing of these reports? Mr. SORRELS. Yes. There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots. Mr. STERN. Can you estimate the overall time from the first shot to the third shot? Mr. SORRELS. Yes. I have called it out to myself, I have timed it, and I would say it was very, very close to 6 seconds.7 H 345. |
| Jackson: | I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure 2 H 160 |
| Cabell: | Mr. HUBERT. Could you estimate the number of seconds, say, between the flrst and second shots, as related to the number of seconds between the second and third shots? Perhaps doing it on the basis of a ratio? Mr. CABELL. Well, I would put it this way. That approximately 10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one. Mr. HUBERT. Two to one ratio? Mr. CABELL. Approximately that. And again I say that, as you mentioned, as a matter of being relative. I couldn’t tell you the exact seconds because they were not counted. 7 H 478 Quote And I'm guessing you are dumping Max Holland's scenario where the shooter was standing when firing Shot #1 and then sat down for shots #2 & #3?Good guess. |
"They" being specifically: Senator Ralph Yarborough, Forrest Sorrels, Robert Jackson and Mayor Earle Cabell.
Yarborough: "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital." (7 H 439 - affidavit that was sworn July 10, 1964) Sorrels: Mr. STERN. Can you you tell us anything about the spacing of these reports?
Mr. SORRELS. Yes. There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.
Mr. STERN. Can you estimate the overall time from the first shot to the third shot?
Mr. SORRELS. Yes. I have called it out to myself, I have timed it, and I would say it was very, very close to 6 seconds.7 H 345.Jackson: I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure 2 H 160 Cabell: Mr. HUBERT. Could you estimate the number of seconds, say, between the
flrst and second shots, as related to the number of seconds between the second
and third shots? Perhaps doing it on the basis of a ratio?
Mr. CABELL. Well, I would put it this way. That approximately 10 seconds
elapsed between the first and second shots, with not more than 5 seconds having
elapsed until the third one.
Mr. HUBERT. Two to one ratio?
Mr. CABELL. Approximately that. And again I say that, as you mentioned,
as a matter of being relative. I couldn’t tell you the exact seconds because they
were not counted.
7 H 478
Good guess.
Way before Z-280.I don't see a bulge on JBC's chest. How does the jacket bulge from a bullet but not the shirt? And we can see that the shirt doesn't move because if it did the tie would move. It doesn't budge:
Like at Z-222 as indicated by his lapel flap at Z-224 and the bulging out of his jacket the frame before that.
Or do you think those things were caused by a gust of wind?
You're gonna trot Cabell out there? 15 Seconds TOTAL for all 3 shots? So we go from 6 seconds to Holland's 10+ Seconds and Now, YOU, want us to buy into Cabell's elapsed time of 15 Seconds Total? The more guys like this that you produce, the closer we get to there being a Limo STOP!You need to read all of what he said. He was specifically asked for a ratio and he gave 10:5 which is 2:1. He specifically said that he used 10 and 5 seconds to show the relative spacing not the actual seconds. He specifically said that he did not count the seconds.
You need to read all of what he said. He was specifically asked for a ratio and he gave 10:5 which is 2:1. He specifically said that he used 10 and 5 seconds to show the relative spacing not the actual seconds. He specifically said that he did not count the seconds.
We see on the NBC Darnell Film that Camera Car #1 and #2 are at a Dead Stop when both are at the turn onto Elm St. That "CARTOON OF CARS" shows No Stop. That's a "Fractured Flicker"! It holds No Value what-so-ever.
Once again you are nothing but wrong, Royell.
Your consistency is outstanding.
Even by the Law of Averages I would have thought you'd get something right sooner or later.
Both Camera Car #1 and #2 are shown "at a Dead Stop"
I have always admired your willingness to comment on things you haven't even seen before.
Anyone unfamiliar with Tyler's staggering achievement can find it here - https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html
Do yourself a favour Royell, stop pretending you've seen it and actually watch it.
Thanks for the link. There are several of these simulations. I had Not viewed this one. There are several issues with this one. The spacing between the Lead Car and the JFK Limo is too great. The space between the JFK Limo and the Camera Cars is FAR, FAR TOO GREAT. Also, the position of the JFK Limo on this simulation when filmed by Wiegman is Wrong. I have the feeling it is working around a possible JFK Limo STOP. Nobody has ever explained why the Camera Cars came to a DEAD STOP. There is nothing in front of the Camera Cars on this simulation. Why did they Stop? Did they Stop due to a JFK Limo Stop? And on this simulation they are Stopped for a very extended period of time with Nothing in front of them. Do you know why those camera cars Stopped for that extended time period.
You proffered Cabell. "That Approximately 10 seconds elapsed between the 1st and 2nd shots, with not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the 3rd one". That's 15 seconds. The toothpaste is outta this tube.It is not that difficult to see that Cabell was providing a 2:1 ratio. Besides the other three make it clear that it was a 2:1 ratio.
Thanks for the link. There are several of these simulations. I had Not viewed this one. There are several issues with this one. The spacing between the Lead Car and the JFK Limo is too great. The space between the JFK Limo and the Camera Cars is FAR, FAR TOO GREAT. Also, the position of the JFK Limo on this simulation when filmed by Wiegman is Wrong. I have the feeling it is working around a possible JFK Limo STOP. Nobody has ever explained why the Camera Cars came to a DEAD STOP. There is nothing in front of the Camera Cars on this simulation. Why did they Stop? Did they Stop due to a JFK Limo Stop? And on this simulation they are Stopped for a very extended period of time with Nothing in front of them. Do you know why those camera cars Stopped for that extended time period.I don't think the camera cars stopped for an extended period. According to Jackson (Camera Car #3) the car stopped or "hesitated" at the corner of Houston and Elm before turning left and 3 men (Jim Underwood, Tom Dillard and a TV cameraman - Darnell) jumped out. (2 H 160 and 162). The Couch film (from the back seat of CC#3) shows the camera cars in motion all along Elm St.
I don't think the camera cars stopped for an extended period. According to Jackson (Camera Car #3) the car stopped or "hesitated" at the corner of Houston and Elm before turning left and 3 men (Jim Underwood, Tom Dillard and a TV cameraman - Darnell) jumped out. (2 H 160 and 162). The Couch film (from the back seat of CC#3) shows the camera cars in motion all along Elm St.
NBC reporter Robert MacNeil in the first press bus asked the driver to stop after the shots. The bus stopped and he got out.
Fred Litwin kindly pointed out to me that respected author and forensic investigator Robert Wagner (I know Pat Speer respects him) believes the first shot passed through JFK and exited the limousine, while a second shot hit JBC. I thus am comforted to know that others of Wagner's stature are, like me (1) not entirely convinced the SBT is correct, yet (2) not convinced the SBT is essential to the LN explanation.Mr. Wagner says that in his theory JFK had a two-plus second delay in reacting to a bullet hit - circa 160 - and, more problematic (for me), that the bullet was deflected as it passed through his body, exited through the throat (causing the wound), and then disappeared over the top of the limo windshield. That is, it went completely through JFK. It's why I asked you the same questions; viz., what caused the delay? and what happened to the bullet? Wagner addresses both of these.
In the mid-1970s, I owned a used Remington 30.06 with a 4X Weaver scope. I'm was a shooting neophyte with bad eyesight, but with that thing and my front porch as a rest, I pretty much never missed a glass jar at 200 yards (we were living on a ranch). I have a hard time believing that if multiple semi-professional hitmen were shooting at JFK, we'd be arguing 60+ years later about shots that missed their mark or anything like that. The actual events in Dealey Plaza look to me a whole lot more like stressed-out Lee with his Carcano (but, of course, the CTers reply - that's how it was supposed to look!).
Just think about the timing - our gunmen have to be careful to shoot in a sequence that isn't entirely implausible for their patsy to have accomplished. Why, then, not wait a solid five or ten seconds between shots? Now our patsy is even more plausible! And they needed Dark Complected Man and Umbrella Goofball to coordinate the operation? Isn't this all just ... nutty? The reality is, with a reasonably competent hitman JFK would've been dead in one shot. Multiple teams of shooters and spotters to trap him in a cross-fire? Absolutely nutty ... isn't it?
Fred Litwin kindly pointed out to me that respected author and forensic investigator Robert Wagner (I know Pat Speer respects him) believes the first shot passed through JFK and exited the limousine, while a second shot hit JBC. I thus am comforted to know that others of Wagner's stature are, like me (1) not entirely convinced the SBT is correct, yet (2) not convinced the SBT is essential to the LN explanation.
In the mid-1970s, I owned a used Remington 30.06 with a 4X Weaver scope. I'm was a shooting neophyte with bad eyesight, but with that thing and my front porch as a rest, I pretty much never missed a glass jar at 200 yards (we were living on a ranch). I have a hard time believing that if multiple semi-professional hitmen were shooting at JFK, we'd be arguing 60+ years later about shots that missed their mark or anything like that. The actual events in Dealey Plaza look to me a whole lot more like stressed-out Lee with his Carcano (but, of course, the CTers reply - that's how it was supposed to look!).
Just think about the timing - our gunmen have to be careful to shoot in a sequence that isn't entirely implausible for their patsy to have accomplished. Why, then, not wait a solid five or ten seconds between shots? Now our patsy is even more plausible! And they needed Dark Complected Man and Umbrella Goofball to coordinate the operation? Isn't this all just ... nutty? The reality is, with a reasonably competent hitman JFK would've been dead in one shot. Multiple teams of shooters and spotters to trap him in a cross-fire? Absolutely nutty ... isn't it?
There is a simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity. It goes like this. Oswald bought a rifle with a specific serial number. That rifle was used to kill JFK. No one other than Oswald has ever been connected to that rifle. These facts are supported by the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Unless that changes - case closed.
That rifle at some point in time was wrapped in a blanket and stored inside Ruth Paine's Garage. This connects Ruth Paine to the rifle whether she knew it or not.
I can't being to understand how someone thinks that if person (A) is staying at the home of person (B) and person (A) secretly has something that that connects (B) to it. How does one make this connection? If person (B) knows and allow it, yes. But they don't. What's the connection?
Anyway, we've gone over this ground before. If Paine wanted to implicate Oswald in the assassination - if she was controlled by the CIA - she would have said she saw the rifle, she saw Oswald with it, she saw him leaving that day with a package (he told her he was selling it), that he expressed hatred of JFK. And on and on. It doesn't take much of an imagination to come up with damning statements from here about Oswald. He's dead. She can say anything.
But she never did any of this. In fact, her testimony in some ways supports Oswald's innocence and doesn't undermine, e.g., his views on JFK.
The 1 Shooter scenario is so ridiculous that with or without the SBT the story still requires: (1) A MISSED shot, and (2) A LOST Bullet. In addition to that, they currently have extended the 3 Shot elapsed time from 6+ Seconds to 10.2 seconds, to a current 12+ seconds. And now they have moved the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St. This 1 Shooter Scenario continues to be an ever evolving fairy tale.How can a missed shot be required if JBC was hit in the back by a different bullet than the one through JFK's neck? We know that JBC and JFK were already hit before z313 so if there was only one other shot that struck, it must have made all the wounds other than the JFK head wound.
No, it doesn't. At least not in any meaningful way that is relevant to the assassination. Paine testified that she didn't know the rifle was there much less do anything with it. There is zero evidence that Ruth Paine ever touched the rifle. She was surprised when the police showed up and Marina indicated it was in the garage. She certainly did not assassinate JFK.
Yes, completely agree. If Paine was an important part of any plot to frame Oswald for the assassination (and what a laughable premise) by controlling the rifle, then she could easily have furthered the frame up by making the type of statements you cited. That would have gone a long way toward removing any doubt of Oswald's guilt.Michael Paine said that Oswald told him that JFK was the "best president in my lifetime." I'm going to suggest that's not what a CIA agent instructed to frame Oswald would say.
There is a simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity. It goes like this. Oswald bought a rifle with a specific serial number. That rifle was used to kill JFK. No one other than Oswald has ever been connected to that rifle. These facts are supported by the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Unless that changes - case closed.
There is a simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity. It goes like this. Oswald bought a rifle with a specific serial number. That rifle was used to kill JFK. No one other than Oswald has ever been connected to that rifle. These facts are supported by the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Unless that changes - case closed.
Cool story, bro. Just claiming something does not make it a "fact" though.
How can a missed shot be required if JBC was hit in the back by a different bullet than the one through JFK's neck? We know that JBC and JFK were already hit before z313 so if there was only one other shot that struck, it must have made all the wounds other than the JFK head wound.Right, thank you. I don't insist on this scenario - I don't insist on any scenario, because there are just too many variables - but I don't find this implausible at all. The fact that there is, at this late date, so much debate as to how many shots were fired, when they were fired, and from where they were fired is rather telling, I believe.
Here is how three shots three hits works:
1. The first hit JFK passing through his neck and continued going straight thereafter.
2. The second struck JBC in the back.
3. The third struck JFK in the head
Marina is also "connected" to the rifle. She definitely knew about it. In fact, she ID'd the rifle that very night.
Here we go again, besides your paranoid delusions, where's your solid evidence that refutes anything that Richard stated?
Waiting...............Zzzzz.......
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Right, thank you. I don't insist on this scenario - I don't insist on any scenario, because there are just too many variables - but I don't find this implausible at all. The fact that there is, at this late date, so much debate as to how many shots were fired, when they were fired, and from where they were fired is rather telling, I believe.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Here we go again, besides your paranoid delusions, where's your solid evidence that refutes anything that Richard stated?
Waiting...............Zzzzz.......
JohnM
Any credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
1) To whom are you alluding, and 2) how so?
Let's not ignore the point of my post. Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?
Why should we ignore the illogic of your previous post?
I'm so surprised you can't bring yourself to answer such a straightforward question ::)
Nutter Test passed with flying colours.
Nice gaslighting.
But then again, you've had a lot of practice, haven't you.
Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?
Let's not ignore the point of my post.
Do you agree that establishing Oswald's ownership of the Mannlicher-Carcano doesn't prove he actually took the shots?
When taken in combination with the fact that the Carcano (sans Mannlicher) was found on the same floor as the Sniper's Nest, the fact that three shells fired from that Carcano were found on the Sniper's Nest floor, the fact that Oswald's prints were found on the Carcano and on two of the four strangely positioned Sniper's Nest boxes, the fact that some fibers found on the Carcano were similar to the fibers in his shirt, the fact that CE-399 and the two largest bullet fragments found in the limo had been fired from that Carcano to the exclusion of all other guns in the world, the fact Buell Wesley Frazier saw Oswald carrying a long package towards the rear door of the TSBD that morning, and the fact that Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the Sniper's Nest window during, just before, or just after the shooting -- the fact that Oswald owned that Carcano suggests to The Reasonable Man that, yes, the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist known as Lee Harvey Oswald "took the shots," and did so with his Carcano.
To think (sic) otherwise is to irrationally believe that a bad guy used Oswald's Carcano to shoot JFK from that location, and that he and oodles and gobs of his bad-guy colleagues had manufactured and then planted oodles and gobs of Oswald-incriminating evidence.
Hmm . . . But wait! How and why did they deform CE-399 so strangely, etc., etc., etc.?
LOL!
I mean I mean I mean (to borrow a phrase from Jim DiEugenio), if I had to bet my life on whether or not Oswald "took the shots," I'd say "Yes!" . . . wouldn't you?
Establishing ownership of the murder weapon is highly incriminating absent any explanation or evidence that explains its presence at the crime scene. After 60 years, there is not a scintilla of evidence that lends itself to the conclusion that any other person obtained Oswald's rifle. Oswald lied to the police about his ownership of any such rifle. We know he lied because there are documents and photos showing him with the rifle. This case would be a slam dunk in any other context. No doubt whatsoever of Oswald's guilt based on his connection to the rifle and the rifle's connection to the crime.
I'm so surprised you can't bring yourself to answer such a straightforward question ::)
Nutter Test passed with flying colours.
When taken in combination with the fact that the Carcano (sans Mannlicher) was found on the same floor as the Sniper's Nest, the fact that three shells fired from that Carcano were found on the Sniper's Nest floor, the fact that Oswald's prints were found on the Carcano and on two of the four strangely positioned Sniper's Nest boxes, the fact that some fibers found on the Carcano were similar to the fibers in his shirt, the fact that CE-399 and the two largest bullet fragments found in the limo had been fired from that Carcano to the exclusion of all other guns in the world, the fact Buell Wesley Frazier saw Oswald carrying a long package towards the rear door of the TSBD that morning, and the fact that Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the Sniper's Nest window during, just before, or just after the shooting -- the fact that Oswald owned that Carcano suggests to The Reasonable Man that, yes, the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist known as Lee Harvey Oswald "took the shots," and did so with his Carcano.
Establishing ownership of the murder weapon is highly incriminating absent any explanation or evidence that explains its presence at the crime scene.
Nutters are so funny.
If only you could "establish ownership"...
And you are so brainwashed by 60-plus years of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and strategic deception counterintelligence operations.
*Today's SVR and FSB
PS Are you a Trump supporter?
Even if you aren't, "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin cherishes your you-know-what for spreading nation-rending JFKA conspiracy theories.
Keep up the good work, Comrade O'meara!
And you are so brainwashed by 60-plus years of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and strategic deception counterintelligence operations.
*Today's SVR and FSB
PS Are you a Trump supporter?
Even if you aren't, "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin cherishes your you-know-what for spreading nation-rending JFKA conspiracy theories.
Keep up the good work, Comrade O'meara!
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXhzxX6J/Roselletable.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The tables describe the 'reactions' of certain people beginning at various z-frames. All Roselle and Scearce had to do was compare these reactions with the testimonies of these people to very quickly discover that they were simply wishing their own interpretations onto the Z-film.
Jackie Kennedy said she wasn't even aware of a first shot until John Connally started screaming like "stuck pig". So how Roselle and Scearce can interpret her movements as being a reaction to the loud sound of a shot is truly baffling.
John Connally testified that JFK was hit by the first shot. This clearly does not happen when Roselle and Scearce propose Connally is reacting to the first shot.
Why didn't they compare their subjective interpretations of what they thought they were seeing in the Z-film to the actual testimony of the people they were focusing on??
According to the study, Kellerman begins to react to the first shot around z148
This is what Kellerman had to say about the first shot in his WC testimony:
"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..."
They were "away from the buildings", presumably meaning the TSBD building and there was a sign they had just passed and "you are out in the open".
The sign in question was the Thorntons Freeway sign.
The Tyler frame below shows the position of the presidential limo at z148. The Thornton sign is in the red circle.
The presidential limo in which Kellerman was riding has clearly not passed the Thornton sign. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if it's "away from the buildings".
Does Kellerman's testimony match up with the findings of the study?
Not really.
George Hickey
According to the study, Hickey begins to react around z143/z144:
"Begins leaning over to the left looking down in the direction of the rear tire or ground"
This is what Hickey actually had to say about the first shot:
"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."
In the study, Roselle and Scearce believe Hickey's reaction to the first shot is to look down to the left. In reality, his reaction is completely opposite - he turns to the right rear.
In fact, there is photographic evidence of Hickey's reaction to the first shot:
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 firecrackers 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:
A first shot as early as Roselle and Scearce are proposing is a nonsense and it doesn't take too much effort to demonstrate that.
You're ugly and out of shape.
Photographic evidence trumps (pardon the pun) witnesses' fragile and highly malleable memories of a chaotic event in which they correctly or incorrectly perceived their own lives were in danger, xxxx xxxx.
The last word rhymes with "muck."
What a meaningless nothing of a post.
You really shouldn't have bothered as it is such a weak response.
I don't doubt for a second that you will continue to accept the results of this 'study' and believe in your 10.2 seconds, you seem like that kind of person.
For what it's worth, a combination of witness testimony and the photographic/film record trumps swallowing down any old hogwash that comes along.
For you to call me "brainwashed" is unreal.
This is bumped for you Tommy.
Have you seen the light about your little study? Have you revised your 10.2 second belief?
So, what's at the heart of this paper that has got Tommy boy so moist.
It's an 'analysis' of a handful of people in the Z-film (ignoring the hundreds of other people shown who apparently don't count)
It's supposed to be an analysis of startled reactions to the sound of a shot but, as we shall see, very few of the reactions are actually startled.
In reality, this is nothing more than projecting an interpretation on to a few people turning their heads.
But don't take my word for it.
Here is the heart of the 'study':
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXhzxX6J/Roselletable.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The tables describe the 'reactions' of certain people beginning at various z-frames. All Roselle and Scearce had to do was compare these reactions with the testimonies of these people to very quickly discover that they were simply wishing their own interpretations onto the Z-film.
For instance, Jackie Kennedy said she wasn't even aware of a first shot until John Connally started screaming like "stuck pig". So how Roselle and Scearce can interpret her movements as being a reaction to the loud sound of a shot is truly baffling.
John Connally testified that JFK was hit by the first shot. This clearly does not happen when Roselle and Scearce propose Connally is reacting to the first shot.
Why didn't they compare their subjective interpretations of what they thought they were seeing in the Z-film to the actual testimony of the people they were focusing on??
Roy Kellerman.
According to the study, Kellerman begins to react to the first shot around z148
"Begins leaning over and looking behind/down to the right"
This is what Kellerman had to say about the first shot in his WC testimony:
"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..."
They were "away from the buildings", presumably meaning the TSBD building and there was a sign they had just passed and "you are out in the open".
The sign in question was the Thorntons Freeway sign.
The Tyler frame below shows the position of the presidential limo at z148. The Thornton sign is in the red circle.
The presidential limo in which Kellerman was riding has clearly not passed the Thornton sign. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if it's "away from the buildings".
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0t30C2m/z148-6-Tylercrop.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Does Kellerman's testimony match up with the findings of the study?
Not really.
George Hickey
According to the study, Hickey begins to react around z143/z144:
"Begins leaning over to the left looking down in the direction of the rear tire or ground"
This is what Hickey actually had to say about the first shot:
"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."
In the study, Roselle and Scearce believe Hickey's reaction to the first shot is to look down to the left. In reality, his reaction is completely opposite - he turns to the right rear.
In fact, there is photographic evidence of Hickey's reaction to the first shot:
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/)
I can't be arsed debunking the remainder as the point has been made.
A first shot as early as Roselle and Scearce are proposing is a nonsense and it doesn't take too much effort to demonstrate that.
I've edited it for you, xxxx xxxx.
Here it is:
When you posted: "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," it's apparent that by "meaningful" you mean that said observable reactions don't make sense in your fanciful tinfoil-hat conspiracy-theory scenario.
Once again for xxxx xxxx: Photographic evidence trumps (pardon the pun) witnesses' highly malleable memories of a loud, unexpected chaotic event in which they correctly or incorrectly perceived their own lives were in danger.
Reminder: The last word rhymes with "muck."
Landis, Hickey and Ready react immediately to the first shot.
All three of them turn to their right and rear,
Altgens 6 shows them doing this.
This is an example of the photographic record and witness testimony being in perfect harmony. Something you don't seem to appreciate.
This immediate reaction - turning to their right rear is not shown in the Z-film and we see them until z-207.
All of this is a fact.
There is nothing fanciful.
Like a good little Nutter, you can't accept any evidence that contradicts your little belief system.
Even when multiple witness testimony is confirmed by the photographic record.
All three men state they turned to their right rear as a response to the first shot - fact.
All three men are shown turned to their right rear in Altgens 6 - fact.
The z-film does not show this movement - fact.
Do you agree that these three things are facts?
(I don't expect an answer to that anytime soon).
Dear XXXX XXXX,
Repeat after me: "It doesn't matter much what people say after witnessing a startling, chaotic and traumatic event. What matters timing-wise and sequence-wise are their caught-on-film "startle" and conscious (i.e., non-"startle") reactions. D'oh."
I guess you missed this, xxxx xxxx:
Dear "Useful Idiot" O'meara,
(Don't take it literally or too personally -- it's just an old KGB* expression for a gullible person who unwittingly helps its cause.)
It's too bad Roselle and Scearce didn't include Secret Service agent Glen Bennett in their study.
You remember him, don't you?
He's the guy who was sitting behind Dave Powers (who was sitting on the passenger-side jump seat) in the follow-up car and who said he heard what he thought was a firecracker (i.e., Oswald's first, missing-everything shot) after the limo turned onto Elm Street, and that he looked to his right and then straight ahead and said he saw a bullet strike JFK's back "about four inches below the shoulder" (i.e., CE-399, which wounded both JFK and JBC).
Remember?
Well, why don't you take another "close look" at the Zapruder film and determine in which frame Agent Bennett starts leaning his head to his right to get a good view of JFK around Powers?
Hmm?
To refresh your memory, this is what Bennett wrote:
"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."
*Today's SVR and FSB
It's too bad Roselle and Scearce didn't include Secret Service agent Glen Bennett in their study.
You remember him, don't you?
He's the guy who was sitting behind Dave Powers (who was sitting on the passenger-side jump seat) in the follow-up car and who said he heard what he thought was a firecracker (i.e., Oswald's first, missing-everything shot) after the limo turned onto Elm Street. He said he looked to his right and then straight ahead and that he saw a bullet** strike JFK "about four inches below his right shoulder."
Remember?
Well, why don't you take another "close look" at the Zapruder film and determine in which frame Agent Bennett starts leaning his head to his right to get a good view of JFK around Powers?
Hmm?
To refresh your memory, this is what Bennett wrote:
"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."
*Today's SVR and FSB
**CE-399, which wounded both JFK and JBC
SS Agent Glen Bennett is turned around looking back and upwards towards the TSBD in Betzner’s photo taken at approximately Z186.
(https://i.vgy.me/PBVolh.jpg)
Bennett was cited by the WC as a witness for the first shot missing JFK. But he was never called by the WC and this is unfortunate because he gave a statement on 23Nov63 that is different from his original notes taken at the time on 22Nov63. His original notes (CE1024 at 18H542) state:
- "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."
I believe that this is Agent Bennett looking back towards the western end of the TSBD in Betzner’s photo at about Z186.
(https://i.vgy.me/SVpsR8.jpg)
I haven’t found another photo that shows he or any of the other agents looking back behind them (except during the shots on Elm Street). They are trained to scan the crowd and areas that they are approaching and adjacent to.
Any theories as to why Bennett, looking straight ahead between Z frames 140 and 143, begins tilting his head to his right in Z-144 while Hickey, on the other side of the car, starts looking down at the pavement in Z-149?Bennett is in the rear seat on the right side sitting down. He is behind the two agents on the right running board and can’t be seen in z188 or any of those frames.
If you will google "Costella Combined Edit" and click on frame Z-188, you'll see that just 1/9 of a second after Betzner's photo, Bennett is still leaning far to his right but "now" looking straight ahead!
Hmm.
PS Do you really think Bennett is looking towards the TSBD in Betzner's photo?
Bennett is in the rear seat on the right side sitting down. He is behind the two agents on the right running board and can’t be seen in z188 or any of those frames.
I think he's looking at the crowd, not the TSBD.
Bennett is in the rear seat on the right side sitting down. He is behind the two agents on the right running board and can’t be seen in z188 or any of those frames.
At z186 the TSBD is to the right of the car. If he is looking sideways 90 degrees or more he is looking at the TSBD.
The TSBD front door is roughly in line with the water pool. The pictured Queen Mary is well passed that water pool and has reached the R.L. Thornton sign. As pictured, the agent looking to the (R) would be looking in the direction of the Shelter/Sidewalk and the bushes close to that same sidewalk. This SS Agent is Not looking Back toward any portion of the TSBD. To do so from his pictured position, would require a much more severe head turn.
Your defense of their pointless study is that they didn't use Bennett?
Roselle and Scearce couldn't use Bennett in their fine study because, although we can see him looking sharply to his right in Z-135, z-136, 137, and (most clearly) in Z-138, and we can see him looking straight ahead by Z-142, and we can see him tilt his head to his right to see around Powers from about Z-144-on, we can't see him in Z-133 or Z-134 due to the sprocket hole, so we don't know if he started looking sharply to his right in response to hearing the first shot or if he was already looking in that direction before the first shot rang out. The important thing is that he started tilting his head to his right to see around Powers to see if JFK was okay around Z-147, i.e., about 1.25 seconds after Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot at "Z-124." The time interval of 1.25 seconds (or slightly shorter) suggests that Bennett was already looking sharply to his right while "scanning the crowd," and that his turning his head and starting to look straight ahead by Z-142 was his conscious (i.e., non-"startle") reaction to the sounds of the first shot.
Post a blow-up of the Z-frame you believe shows Bennett looking round Powers, because I don't see it.
Google "Costella Combined Edit" and go to Z-150 for a pretty clear one.
You're welcome, btw.
All three men [Landis, Ready and Hickey] state they turned to their right rear as a response to the first shot.
That's what their confused recollections told them to say, but when they say they turned around to the rear, they're obviously referring to what they did in response to the second shot, i.e., the one around Z-222.
Ready, however, gives us a clue that they were all wittingly or unwittingly referring to the second shot when he wrote (as you so kindly posted, above), "I heard what appeared to be firecrackers [plural] going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear [after the second "firecracker"] trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."
You do realize, don't you, that Altgens-6 equates to Z-255, 1.80 seconds after JFK and JBC were wounded by Oswald's second bullet, CE-399?
The Z-film does not show this movement.
Correct, because by Z-200, i.e., 1.2 seconds before the second shot and 3 seconds before Altgens-6, the pertinent people (your Landis, Ready and Hickey) in the Secret Service follow-up car were no longer in the frame.
D'oh!
The TSBD front door is roughly in line with the water pool. The pictured Queen Mary is well passed that water pool and has reached the R.L. Thornton sign. As pictured, the agent looking to the (R) would be looking in the direction of the Shelter/Sidewalk and the bushes close to that same sidewalk. This SS Agent is Not looking Back toward any portion of the TSBD. To do so from his pictured position, would require a much more severe head turn.The QM is well short of the Thornton sign at z186. The lamp post is about 10 feet before the Thornton sign and JFK is a few feet short of the lamp post at z186. Bennett is a car length (21’) + 6 feet behind JFK.
Look on a Dealey Plaza map (the Roberdeau map shows Betzner’s position). Draw a line from Betzner’s position to the backseat position of the follow up vehicle at Z186. This is roughly the Z161 position of JFK as indicated on the Roberdeau map. We can see SS Agent Bennett’s right face profile. Therefore his head is facing roughly 90-degrees from the line of sight from Betzner’s camera. That 90-degree line intersects the TSBD at about the second set of windows (on the south side of the building) from the SW corner.
The QM is well short of the Thornton sign at z186. The lamp post is about 10 feet before the Thornton sign and JFK is a few feet short of the lamp post at z186. Bennett is a car length (21’) + 6 feet behind JFK.
The Light Pole is NOT in line with the Thornton Sign. Your 10 feet measurement holds No Value with these 2 Landmarks NOT being in line. And try and stick with the posted Betzner pic. Nice try.I am not sure what you mean by “in line”. I was referring to the distance along the street. This shows the distance along Elm St. after passing the lamp post and before passing the Thornton sign:
I've just read the post where you realised the man you thought was Bennett, tilting his head to look around Powers, was actually Powers.
I took a look at another copy of the Betzner 3 photograph. In this version, it appears that we can see some of the details in the shadows that are not visible in the darker version we have been posting and looking at. What seemed to me to be the right side of his face in the darker version now appears to be his right fist and the back of his head appears to be resting on it. In this version, we can see how his right arm (bent elbow) appears to be resting on the back of the back seat. If I am seeing things correctly this time, it appears to me that we can see his left ear and a sliver of the left side of his face. If so, this makes it appear that he is looking in the direction of JFK.
(https://i.vgy.me/IQSP7H.jpg)
I am not immune to the influence of my imagination in the phenomenon of “seeing what we want to see” in interpreting some of these grainy old photos. But I do now believe that Bennett is looking towards JFK in this photo. What do y’all think?
Bald, except-for-some-hair-on-the-back-of-his-head, Dave Powers (the big whitish sphere directly in front of Bennett and significantly lower than him) is looking straight ahead, so if Bennent is, too (which I believe he is), that makes both of them.
Question: Is Bennett's upper torso oriented perpendicularly to the axis of the car, or is it turned to his right?
Correct, Little Man.
Here's something I wrote up on the subject especially for you:
David F. Powers was Special Assistant to JFK and was sitting on the passenger-side jump seat in the Secret Service follow-up car during the motorcade. Secret Service Agent Glen Bennet was sitting behind him on the rear seat and is apparently not visible in the Zapruder film.
Here’s part of his 12/18/63 statement:
"[W]e made a sharp right turn, for about a ˝ block, then a curved left turn into a slight downhill grade, entering an area with little or no spectators. We were still travelling 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 pm. Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President’s voice, “My God, I’m hit!” I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy’s . . ." [This is the end of page on the website where I found this statement.]
It's very interesting that Powers says he turned around between the first and second shots.
(Devil's Advocate: Was the second of the "two additional shots" just an echo of the [fill in the blank] shot in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza?
Now, if I recently misidentified virtually bald Powers as fully haired Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett in another thread, I sincerely apologize from the depths of my largish-but-ugly old "Deep State" / "National Security State" heart, and I now have some new thoughts and observations for all of you "Lone-Nutters" and tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists, alike, to chew on.
As we all(?) know, Abraham Zapruder, having started filming the motorcade seven seconds prematurely, resumed filming at Z-133 when the limo was already, IIRC, about 100 feet down Elm Street.
Given that basic fact, in Z-136 we see virtually bald-headed Bennett oops I mean Powers looking sharply to his right, and then in Z-140 he's looking straight ahead. We don't know what he was doing before Z-133 because neither Zapruder nor Robert Hughes nor Tina Towner were filming during the critical hypothetical "Z-124", "125", "126", "127", "128", "129", "130", "131," and "132" frames.The sprocket hole and "blur" prevents us from seeing Bennet oops I mean Powers in Z-133, Z-134, and Z-135, but in Z-136, Z-137 and Z-138 it seems we can see Powers' head as it's turned far to his right, perhaps "to find out what happened" behind him half-a-second earlier at hypothetical "Z-124".
Pesky Question: Why does Bennent oops I mean Powers start tilting his head far to his right starting around Z-frame 149?
To get a better view of JFK (perhaps around the guy riding "shotgun" in front of him -- Assistant Special Agent In Charge, Emory Roberts) to determine whether or not he'd been hit by that first missing-everything shot aka "firecracker" at "Z-124"?
Devious Rhetorical Question: Is it just a coincidence that Secret Service Agent George Hickey, sitting up high on the other side of the car, is leaning over and looking at the pavement at this point (Z-149), given the fact that he reported later that he thought he'd heard a firecracker and seen its remnants float down there?
Regardless, here's a creative posit:
It James Tague down by the triple underpass who yelled out, "My God, I'm hit!" !!!
I mean I mean I mean (to borrow a phrase from Jimmy DiEugenio at the so-called JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum), wasn't JFK, wounded in the neck and paralyzed by Oswald's second shot (around Z-222) as he was, incapable of saying anything at that point?
More likely, JBC, right?
Was Dave Powers, like so many other witnesses, confused as to what he had witnessed?
Was the sequence of events a bit jumbled in his memory?
Oh well, at least he correctly said there were three shots (the first one of which he said sounded like a firecracker) and that he turned between the first one and the second one to find out what had happened in the area to the rear of the car, so I guess I shouldn't be too hard on him.
I took a look at another copy of the Betzner 3 photograph. In this version, it appears that we can see some of the details in the shadows that are not visible in the darker version we have been posting and looking at. What seemed to me to be the right side of his face in the darker version now appears to be his right fist and the back of his head appears to be resting on it. In this version, we can see how his right arm (bent elbow) appears to be resting on the back of the back seat. If I am seeing things correctly this time, it appears to me that we can see his left ear and a sliver of the left side of his face. If so, this makes it appear that he is looking in the direction of JFK.
(https://i.vgy.me/IQSP7H.jpg)
I am not immune to the influence of my imagination in the phenomenon of “seeing what we want to see” in interpreting some of these grainy old photos. But I do now believe that Bennett is looking towards JFK in this photo. What do y’all think?
"What do y'all think?". You need to look at more of these badly degraded images from 11/22/63. You need practice and patience. You take what you think you see and knee jerk with it. It's like hitting a curve ball. You can Not jump at it. Take your time and let it come to you. You're falling all over yourself to determine the position of the Queen Mary in the Betzner photo, when ALL you gotta do is judge the position of the vehicle based on the LARGE Elm Street Lane Stripe. In short, you over complicate things to the point of disregarding the obvious directly in front of you. There is truth to, "If it had been a snake, it woulda bit you".
I’m not the one arguing with you over the position of the Queen Mary. And my question is regarding which direction Bannett is looking. Anyway, here is the position on the Roberdeau map showing the Queen Mary, and Betzner’s camera’s field of view (yellow highlighted, excluding the left side that is obscured by the man).
(https://i.vgy.me/hzh23t.jpg)
Your diagram is a very close match to the Mark Tyler mapping program at Z186There is a noticeable difference in the position of Betzner between the Mark Tyler and Roberdeau maps. Betzner was closer to the corner and to the curb than Roberdeau has him.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYpDCZGm/z186tylercrop.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Is it just a coincidence that Secret Service Agent George Hickey, sitting up high on the other side of the car, is leaning over and looking at the pavement at this point (Z-149), given the fact that he reported later that he thought he'd heard a firecracker and seen its remnants float down there?
Can you tell us where Hickey said that about seeing what he thought was a firecracker down there? I read his report and didn’t it that in his report.
As luck would have it I can't seem to find that statement at the moment; will keep trying to locate it.
How are you going to locate something that doesn't exist?
Hickey never made any such statement. This is from his report on the 22nd
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.
This is from his report on the 30th:
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
You shouldn't make things up. It just shows how desperate you are.
Your diagram is a very close match to the Mark Tyler mapping program at Z186
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYpDCZGm/z186tylercrop.png) (https://postimages.org/)
There is a noticeable difference in the position of Betzner between the Mark Tyler and Roberdeau maps. Betzner was closer to the corner and to the curb than Roberdeau has him.
As luck would have it I can't seem to find that statement at the moment; will keep trying to locate it.
In the meantime, take a look at Hickey's (blurred) head in Z-190 and note how far he's leaned over to look at the pavement. Please note that he'd started leaning over and looking down by at least Z-149.
I do Not see Betzner with the camera, "to his eye" in your posted Z184. His head is tilted which further casts doubt on his camera being up in his face at this point in time. Willis does have his hands up at face level for comparison. Also, we see the JFK Limo has straightened out on Elm St. This gives the viewer a good idea where the Limo is at with respect to the Light Pole/Thornton Sign. For some reason, you guys continue swearing by the cartoon work that has previously been done. When you gonna just pull the plug?
I believe what we are seeing is a shadow on One Side of his face. Image analysis is Not easy. Take your time and think it through.
He has a small Kodak 120 (el cheap) camera that he is holding in front of his eye. It is much smaller than a typical 35mm camera. It uses much smaller film also. I can’t quite read the serial number though….
"MUCH Smaller than a typical 35mm camera"? Nope. We can see the flesh tone of the entire side of his face clear up to his hairline. No camera there.
Hardcore tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist that you are, I'm surprised that you admit it's Betzner.
What?? No mention of my Russian connections? You're slipping.
On the other hand, Roberdeau’s map seems to me to have Betzner’s position correctly aligned with the corner of that building on the east side of Houston Street.
(https://i.vgy.me/DgHP6A.jpg)
That may be true, but from my own research years ago I know that Roberdeaux originally (maybe still has?) misplaced several witnesses, including, iirc, Ochus V. Campbell and Gloria Calvery.
Is his map still viewable in blown-up form online?
I just tried this link and downloaded the GIF. Then you can zoom in as needed in a photo viewing program.
https://imgur.com/8vSS1dp (https://imgur.com/8vSS1dp)
"By continuing, Google will share your name, email address, language preference, and profile picture with imgur.com. See imgur.com’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service"
No thanks..
"By continuing, Google will share your name, email address, language preference, and profile picture with imgur.com. See imgur.com’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service"
No thanks..
I uploaded the [Roberdeau] GIF to vgy.me image hosting sight where I upload all the images I post on this forum. Try right-clicking on the image and selecting download (or something similar to that).
Thanks.
Although he finally got Jacobs, Holt, and Simmons right, Roberdeau's still totally wrong about a whole bunch of people a bit towards the TSBD from them.
Maybe he got lucky on Betzner, though.
EDIT: What are you guys trying to prove, anyway?
Whether or not the first shot was at Z-313?
LOL
Just a quick though for those who believe Qswald was stood up for the first shot and was pointing the rifle at an impossibly tight angle through a half closed window while straddling the boxes that formed the Sniper's Parch ( ::))
Amos Euins was aware of the barrel of the rifle sticking a good 15 inches out of the window and pointing towards the limo driving away down Elm Street for the first shot.
D'oh!
What’s your opinion on where he plotted Rackley-Baker?
He got it wrong.
In the Weigman clip, she is standing in the street (at the confluence of Elm Street and Elm Street Extension) about four people to the right of "Stetson Man" and in front of Jeraldean Reid.
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/witnesses-and-suspects-in-dealey-plaza/
He got it wrong.
In the Weigman clip she is standing in the street (at the confluence of Elm Street and Elm Street Extension) about three people to the right of "Stetson Man" and in front of Jeraldean Reid.
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/witnesses-and-suspects-in-dealey-plaza/
Thanks, that’s helpful. I am beginning to think that proper identification of the spectators was not a high priority for Roberdeau.
The theory that the first shot hit the traffic light post and ricocheted down the road seems very compelling.
The theory that the first shot hit the traffic light post and ricocheted down the road seems very compelling.
There is zero evidence of a shot hitting the street, which is right there with the SBT. That's what one shooter gets you. Fairy Tales. Representative Luna will soon put all of this to bed with the two shooters.
There is ZERO Evidence of a shot hitting the signal light/support arm, street, etc. ZERO. Which is right there with the SBT. That's what 1 shooter gets you. Fairy Tales. Rep Luna will soon put ALL of this to bed with the 2 Shooters.Do some reading about the aptly-named Rep. Luna-tic and you might have a changed perspective. The likelihood that she has any inside scoop on the JFKA is nil. She is fairly attractive though, and that's what's important.
Do some reading about the aptly-named Rep. Luna-tic and you might have a changed perspective. The likelihood that she has any inside scoop on the JFKA is nil. She is fairly attractive though, and that's what's important.
Max Holland disagrees about the traffic signal assembly: https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_44c78e12584949128ebeda1d1a49f9c2.pdf.
Again, ZERO Evidence regarding the traffic light, et al. This was cooked up to sell 44 minutes to Nat Geo/"The Lost Bullet" and extended the elapsed 3 shot firing time to 10.2 seconds. (Which has since been expanded to 12+ seconds). Oh yeah. And the Elm St position of the JFK Limo has been moved too. Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE and the finding that the SBT, "Is IMPOSSIBLE" is Evidence. And give Luna her time at bat. "Mighty Casey" just might do something.I disagree that there is zero evidence that a bullet struck the traffic light or its support. There is actually less than zero evidence.
I disagree that there is zero evidence that a bullet struck the traffic light or its support. There is actually less than zero evidence.
Zero evidence would still make it possible just not verifiable. But here there is abundant evidence that the first shot struck JFK and was well after the time JFK passed beneath the traffic light. There is consistent independent evidence that the first shot was between z186 and z202. The evidence of the 1.........2.....3 shot pattern with the last two shots in rapid succession also conflicts with an early missed first shot. This evidence is evidence that the traffic light shot did not happen, which can be considered negative (less than zero) evidence that it did.
So that means the 10.2 second time frame is based on less than zero evidence.
I would also say that there is less than zero evidence for the second shot SBT for the same reasons. However, where we seem to disagree is whether there was more than one shooter. I suggest that the evidence does not exclude all three shots, three hits and a single shooter: Oswald. In fact, I suggest that the evidence as a whole compels such a conclusion.
The theory that the first shot hit the traffic light post and ricocheted down the road seems very compelling.Read my postings. I nailed everything.
Whether Oswald's first, missing-everything shot glanced off the traffic signal's mast arm at hypothetical "Z-107" or hit the asphalt pavement at hypothetical "Z-124" (it very likely was one or the other), the fact remains that you, sir, are full of high-fructose beans.If anyone was full of high-fructose beans and you are right, it was those 80+ witnesses who flatulated the evidence of three shots, three hits, the first hitting JFK, the second hitting JBC in the back and third and last hitting JFK in the head. But you are the one who smelled it first, so.....
If anyone was full of high-fructose beans and you are right, it was those 80+ witnesses who flatulated the evidence of three shots, three hits, the first hitting JFK, the second hitting JBC in the back and third and last hitting JFK in the head. But you are the one who smelled it first, so.....
If anyone was full of high-fructose beans and you are right, it was those 80+ witnesses who flatulated the evidence of three shots, three hits, the first hitting JFK, the second hitting JBC in the back and third and last hitting JFK in the head. But you are the one who smelled it first, so.....
I haven't read many of your other garbage posts on this thread, so let me ask you -- do you think three shots were fired at JFK and that the first one hit him in the throat around Z-220, the second one hit JBC in the back a split-second later, and the third one hit JFK in the front of the head, the side of the head, or . . . gasp . . . the back of the head at Z-313?I think you should read my posts and stay away from the high fructose beans epithets.
If so, given the fact that three shells were found on the Sniper's Nest floor, how many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important COVER UP?
Oodles and gobs?
I think you should read my posts and stay away from the high-fructose beans epithets.
I think you should read my posts and stay away from the high fructose beans epithets.Oligosaccharides: Beans contain oligosaccharides (like raffinose and stachyose), which are complex sugars that the human body lacks the enzymes to break down. When these sugars reach the large intestine, they are fermented by gut bacteria, producing gas as a byproduct.5 May 2020
Eighty-plus witnesses said they thought the first shot hit JFK, or that they had heard what they thought was firecracker explode a few seconds before JFK (and JBC) were hit by said "first shot."
How many bad guys do YOU figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important COVER UP?You responded to my post in which I said there is less than zero evidence for an early missed shot and for a second shot SBT. Maybe you should have read it before responding. Here is the last paragraph:
Oodles and gobs?
You responded to my post in which I said there is less than zero evidence for an early missed shot and for a second shot SBT. Maybe you should have read it before responding. Here is the last paragraph:
“ I would also say that there is less than zero evidence for the second shot SBT for the same reasons. However, where we seem to disagree is whether there was more than one shooter. I suggest that the evidence does not exclude all three shots, three hits and a single shooter: Oswald. In fact, I suggest that the evidence as a whole compels such a conclusion.”
1) Do you think Oswald was the only shooter?Unfortunately the board does not allow one to use crayon.
2) If so, do you think Oswald fired three shots?
3) If so, do you think JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets?
4) If so, in which Zapruder frame (approximately) was JFK hit, and in which frame (approximately) was JBC hit?
5) Thanks.
Unfortunately the board does not allow one to use crayon.
I said the conclusion that “three shots, three hits and a single shooter: Oswald.” is the conclusion that is not merely permitted from the evidence but is compelled by the evidence.
That should answer all your questions.
Are you afraid to tell us in which Zapruder frame shot number one hit (and whom it hit), shot number two hit (and whom it hit), and shot number three hit (and whom it hit)?Since you don't seem to want to read anything, here is a picture (https://i.postimg.cc/rwzySSfg/6130052-low-res-600px.jpg):
Since you don't seem to want to read anything, here is a picture (https://i.postimg.cc/rwzySSfg/6130052-low-res-600px.jpg):
(https://i.postimg.cc/rwzySSfg/6130052-low-res-600px.jpg)
The first shot occurred as soon as JFK emerged from under the oak tree branches as he passed between the lamp post and Thornton sign. The evidence puts it after z186 and before z202. I suggest it occurred very close to z193. The bullet (CE399) passed through JFK's neck without deflecting.
The second shot at z271-272 struck JBC in the right armpit, exited his chest just below his right nipple, and impacted the right radius causing a comminuted fracture of the radius and causing the bullet to fragment. A fragment of bullet or bone went through the wrist but most bullet fragments deflected away from the point of impact on the radius, sending fragments up and forward. One of these fragments struck the windshield, one struck the top of the windshield frame. Driver Wm. Greer said that he sensed a "concussion" on the second shot. At least one fragment cleared the windshield completely. The latter fragment then dropped to the street level near where James Tague was standing and deflected up off the curb to strike his cheek. Tague said he was not struck on the first or last shot and there were exactly three shots.
The third shot struck JFK between z312 and z313.
That leaves only one wound unaccounted for: JBC's thigh wound. I suggest that the straight line trajectory from the SN through JFK at around z193 passed to the left side of JBC and could account for the thigh wound. The wound characteristics of the thigh wound are consistent with being struck by the butt end of an intact missile like CE399. Where it went after that and how it got onto a stretcher is not determinable from the evidence.
Why, between Z-133 and your beloved Z-193, did so many witnesses consciously react to the sounds and sights of a shot?Who are these witnesses? JFK, Jackie and JBC turned to the right but that was in response to Mary Woodward and her group waving and shouting to get their attention.
How did CE399 get so deformed if the only person it wounded was JFK, and only kinda nicked his transverse process, at that?Read what I wrote. It kept going. I suggest it caused JBC’s thigh wound. An intact missile appeared to have struck JBC ‘s thigh butt-first. Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shires identified a metal fragment embedded in the femur. That could explain the dent in the butt end of CE399.
Who are these witnesses? JFK, Jackie and JBC turned to the right but that was in response to Mary Woodward and her group waving and shouting to get their attention.
Read what I wrote. It kept going. I suggest it caused JBC’s thigh wound. An intact missile appeared to have struck JBC ‘s thigh butt-first. Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shires identified a metal fragment embedded in the femur. That could explain the dent in the butt end of CE399.
Why was Jackie's head turned far to her left in the Z-160 Croft photo?Perhaps she was acknowledging the people on her left at that time. Maybe she was thinking about lunch and her habit is to look toward the left when thinking about lunch.
Why did JBC quickly turn his head Right - Left - Right?Are you asking why he turned in the direction of Mary Woodward and her group after they shouted "Hey Mr. President"?
Why did Dave Powers in the follow-up car start leaning far to his right around Z-149?I don't know. Maybe to look at Mary Woodward? Why did he say that JFK moved quite far to his left after the first shot? Why could he not see Gov. Connally after the second shot?:
Why did S.S. Agent Hickey start leaning over around Z-150 (iirc) to look at the pavement?I see him looking to his left. Maybe he was concerned about Phil Willis and his wife standing on the road then. After all, Secret Service Agents trained to watch to make sure that people do not get too close to the President.
Why was S.S. Agent Ready looking far to his left instead of where he normally looked -- straight ahead or to his right?He has to have a reason to look to the left? Why did he say he immediately turned around to his right upon hearing the first shot to look back at where he thought the sound came from? He begins that turn to the right by releasing his hand from the front hand-hold at z198-199 and then turns right.
I could go on and on.
Regardless, do you really think CE-399 got as deformed as much as it did (with lead core squeezed out its you-know-what, etc) just by transiting JFK' upper back / lower neck, kinda nicking his transverse process, and ... wowie zowie ... shallowly penetrating JBC's thigh?
"[CE399] didn't make a shallow penetration of [JBC's] thigh if it left a lead fragment in the femur."
Since you don't seem to want to read anything, here is a picture (https://i.postimg.cc/rwzySSfg/6130052-low-res-600px.jpg):
(https://i.postimg.cc/rwzySSfg/6130052-low-res-600px.jpg)
The first shot occurred as soon as JFK emerged from under the oak tree branches as he passed between the lamp post and Thornton sign. The evidence puts it after z186 and before z202. I suggest it occurred very close to z193. The bullet (CE399) passed through JFK's neck without deflecting.
The second shot at z271-272 struck JBC in the right armpit, exited his chest just below his right nipple, and impacted the right radius causing a comminuted fracture of the radius and causing the bullet to fragment. A fragment of bullet or bone went through the wrist but most bullet fragments deflected away from the point of impact on the radius, sending fragments up and forward. One of these fragments struck the windshield, one struck the top of the windshield frame. Driver Wm. Greer said that he sensed a "concussion" on the second shot. At least one fragment cleared the windshield completely. The latter fragment then dropped to the street level near where James Tague was standing and deflected up off the curb to strike his cheek. Tague said he was not struck on the first or last shot and there were exactly three shots.
The third shot struck JFK between z312 and z313.
That leaves only one wound unaccounted for: JBC's thigh wound. I suggest that the straight line trajectory from the SN through JFK at around z193 passed to the left side of JBC and could account for the thigh wound. The wound characteristics of the thigh wound are consistent with being struck by the butt end of an intact missile like CE399. Where it went after that and how it got onto a stretcher is not determinable from the evidence.
Dear Andrew,Neither. I am simply following the evidence.
Given that you seem to think Oswald fired all three shots, did you concoct your (imho) implausible "first shot at Z-193" theory because you can't accept the Single Bullet Hypothesis?
Or is it due to something else, e.g., lack of color (or even black-and-white!) footage of Oswald's "Z-124" missing-everything bullet's striking the asphalt pavement?
Both?
-- Tom
Neither. I am simply following the evidence.
The SBT has no explanation for the CE-399's being so slightly deformed.
Neither the SBT nor Andrews 3 shots 3 hits theory, has an explanation for the CE399 bullet that’s so slightly deformed.
If it’s tumbling( or not?) after exiting JFKs throat atZ194 it’s still traveling probably around 1500 ft/sec ( or more) because it was not likely slowed as much just going thru JFKs throat as in the SBT scenario where it also strikes JC in the back and exits at about 900 ft/ sec before it hits JCs wrist bone.
It might require repeating the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy documentary experiment to examine if a Z193 1st shot and a Z270 shot fired into some kind of matter that represents human body’s of JC and JFK will produce a bullet looking like CE 399.
That particular bullet is made of a lead alloy which is significantly harder than just pure lead. Plus the relatively thick copper jacket provides significant resistance to deformation. These bullets were designed to pass through human bodies instead of mushrooming like, for example a hollow point bullet, does. The harder bullet was considered to be more humane by the powers that were deciding the “rules of war”. You might be surprised at how much force it takes to deform that type (CE 399) bullet as much as CE399 was deformed. We are talking about swinging a hammer hard enough to shatter the large bone (one of the hardest in the human body) in your wrist. The bullet might appear only slightly deformed but it took more force than most folks might imagine.
Yet the same type of bullet instantly fragmented when it contacted JFK's skull?
The bullet that shattered Connally's wrist also fragmented.
CE399 was introduced into the chain of evidence after it had passed from Chief Rowley to SA Elmer Todd.
According to the autopsy doctors, the bullet that struck JFK's head hit near its hardest part -- the External Occipital Protuberance.
The bullet that struck JBC's wrist (CE-399) did not fragment -- probably because, having passed through JFK and JBC, it had slowed down quite a bit and because it was twirling when it struck said bone.
D'oh
"Probably Because....."?
"Probably Because....."? That immediately DQ's your point. Try it again and act like you know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you'll get the gulag.
According to the autopsy doctors, the bullet that struck JFK's head hit near its hardest part -- the External Occipital Protuberance.
The bullet that struck JBC's wrist (CE-399) did not fragment -- probably because, having passed through JFK and JBC, it had slowed down quite a bit and because it was twirling when it struck said bone.
D'oh
Hi Tom, as the WC showed, a full speed bullet striking a human wrist would literally smash the wrist bone therefore for CE399 to only fracture Connally's wrist it must have been travelling slower!
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxJ6fr4c/Milesandthewrist1.jpg)
CE399 was partially slowed after moving through the soft tissue of Kennedy's neck, it then went sideways through Connally and after exiting it struck Connally's wrist at an angle hence why it left lead fragments and subsequently CE399 buried itself shallowly in Connally's thigh.
In fact the main provenance for the authenticity of CE399 is the fact that it was discovered before anyone knew the true extent of the injuries, so in other words who could possibly know what condition of bullet to plant?
CE399 was intact when found by Tomlinson.
CE399 shed a small amount of lead and a small amount of lead was discovered in Connally.
CE399 was flattened on one side consistent with it's passage sideways through Connally's ribs and even though a Carcano bullet fired through water will deform it won't exhibit the same flattening on only one side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTdjFPKj/ce399flat-zps6mc2kkno.jpg)
Also worth noting is that John Lattimer removed a similar amount of lead from another Carcano bullet and made 41 fragments which easily accounted for the missing lead from CE399.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kgRSdZ71/Lattimer-fragments-zps20a799c6.jpg)
JohnM
Yet the same type of bullet instantly fragmented when it contacted JFK's skull?
The bullet that shattered Connally's wrist also fragmented.
CE399 was introduced into the chain of evidence after it had passed from Chief Rowley to SA Elmer Todd.
Not necessarily. The direction of the fragments would depend on the angle at which the bullet struck the radius.
The bullet that shattered Connally's wrist also fragmented.
If that were the case, then there should have been damage to the limo in the area just past JBC’s wrist (aka: the back of the front seat). There was no damage to the limo in that area found.
The copper thickness is a bit misleading.
It’s interesting to see in those photos just how thick the copper jacket is on those bullets. Those photos bring out that aspect very well. Thanks!
The copper thickness is a bit misleading.
I just measured one of mine with a ruler (sorry about the scratches) and it looks like the thickness of jacket at the base is about 1 mm:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6gzgDPz/measuring-WCC-bullet.jpg)
But that is because there is a lip of copper around the edge of the lead at the base.
The exact specifications from Western Cartridge company would be helpful but someone on the old newsgroup made the effort to disassemble and measure everything (https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/CVopeJqg/comparison-smi-vs-wcc-ammunition#post1). The thickness of the jacket varied with the thickest copper at the tip (.937 mm). The thickness at the base was .627 mm so the actual thickness is a bit less than 2/3 that apparent thickness.
WCC jacket thickness- (measured with a point micrometer)
Base thickness- .627mm (or .0247")
Mid-body thickness- .607mm (or .0239")
Upper body thickness- .607mm (or .0239")
Jacket tip- .937mm (or .0369")
According to the autopsy doctors, the bullet that struck JFK's head hit near its hardest part -- the External Occipital Protuberance.
The bullet that struck JBC's wrist (CE-399) did not fragment -- probably because, having passed through JFK and JBC, it had slowed down quite a bit and because it was twirling when it struck said bone.
D'oh
Twirling?
If that was the case it would have blown JBC's hand off at the wrist.
This is what happens when people don't think things through.
According to you the bullet that hit JFK's head because it "hit near it's hardest part", the EOP ("near" it? Doesn't that mean it missed that part of the skull - d'uhhh)
The radial bone is far thicker and more dense than "near" the EOP so, BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, the bullet must fragment when it strikes JBC's radial bone. ::)
As a Nutter you must now indulge in some mental gymnastics to make your "logic" work.
Good luck with that.
Talking of mental gymnastics...John posted this:
Hi Tom, as the WC showed, a full speed bullet striking a human wrist would literally smash the wrist bone therefore for CE399 to only fracture Connally's wrist it must have been travelling slower!
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxJ6fr4c/Milesandthewrist1.jpg)
There are two images of wrist x-rays.
One shows where a bullet has clearly passed through the radial bone. It has smashed a hole through the bone as we might expect.
The other image shows an x-ray of JBC's wrist. Although the bone is clearly shattered there is absolutely zero evidence that a bullet has passed through the bone.
The explanation for this discrepancy is that the bullet that passed through JBC's wrist must have been travelling more slowly than the one that blasted a hole in the radial bone!!
???
How does a slower moving bullet leave no evidence that it has passed through the bone?
The bone still has to be blasted out of the way the bullet to get through.
Surely the x-ray of JBC's wrist is proof that a bullet didn't pass through it. Isn't that the obvious explanation?
And hasn't it crossed anyone's mind that the exit "slit" on JBC's wrist is far smaller than the entrance wound on the dorsal side of his wrist.
Isn't that suggesting a fragmented bullet to anyone?
"...twirling when it struck said bone"
:D
Twirling?
If that was the case it would have blown JBC's hand off at the wrist.
Instead, it left hardly any evidence that a bullet had passed through.
The injuries to Connally and the damage to his clothes demonstrate that there was no such twirling or tumbling.
This idea about a tumbling bullet HAD TO BE INTRODUCED to keep up the lie that CE399 was the bullet. Small fragments of metal were left in the wrist when the bullet fragmented. CE399 could not have left any kind of fragment if it created the wound nose-first as there was no material lost from the nose of the bullet. The only area any such fragments could've come from is the base of the bullet, therefore the idea that it turned around as it traveled had to be introduced.
The 'tumbling' theory is an invention, it is not supported by the evidence.
The bullet struck JBC's radial bone and fragmented. A small part of it passed through his wrist and the larger part lodged itself in his leg.
There is a little known story that when JBC was being moved from his stretcher onto the examination table in Parkland Hospital a bullet or large bullet fragment fell on the floor and was picked up by a nurse who was told by Henry Wade to give it to a police officer, which she did.
Well you WC believers still have to show some kind of experiment to replicate the CE 399 bullet cause the last one in 2003 where they fired a 6.5mm MC bullet thru 2 replica human torsos came out much more deformed than CE 399. And this even when they left out a wrist bone and a thigh muscle that the bullet would have hit after exiting JC.
Now maybe it’s due to their straight line trajectory from the TSBD shooting height into the JFK model NOT exiting from throat but instead thru more material in the JFK chest cavity area that could possibly explain the more deformed bullet that was recovered.
So somebody needs to try another attempt or maybe several attempts with these same type torso models and include some material to account for wrist bone and thigh muscle.
Test the SBT again and test Andrew’s proposed 3 shot scenario also.
The only thing seems conclusive is that a 6.5 mm bullet fired at Z223 from the TSBD window to JFK and then to JC has almost a straight trajectory line requiring very minimal zig zag if it exited the throat to hit JC. So at least the old original CT sketch of a wildly zig zagging bullet trajectory had been proved to be exaggerated by Dale Myers computer model and by the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy documentary experiment.
I’m not convinced about the WC version of the SBT having a 1st preceding the Z224 shot because:
A. The patten dies not match the 1….2..3 sequence that 2/3 majority of ear witness remember.
B. Betzner nor Willis heard a shot prior to Z186.
C. a 1st shot missed the whole limo ( and bullet never found ) One possible reason imo may be that the shooter accidentally squeezed the trigger when he moved from his seated position sitting on a box to place the rifle upon the 2 stacked boxes. The angle of the rifle at that moment could have been horizontal so the bullet sailed across the Dealey plaza and is still buried somewhere.
I kind of like Andrew Masons alternative WC single shooter theory with 3 shots sequence of Z194- Z270 and Z313 because it’s more similar to the 1…..2..3 spacing pattern. But I’ve got problems with JCs leg position and how his hat was held in his right hand when he gets struck in Andrew’s scenario at Z270 and also where does that Z270 bullet go after it hits JCs wrist ?
And where is JCs right hand holding his hat when he is struck at Z270?
IIRC, Dale Myers created a computer simulation that showed how CE-399 damaged JBC's wrist.
Why don't you watch it?
And speaking of "twirling," why don't go sit on something and . . . aww . . . never mind.
Other than stamping your little foot . . .
Provide some evidence to support your "twirling" theory.
Grow up.
There's an x-ray of JBC's wrist. It's there for all to see. There is zero evidence a bullet passed through it.
The hole in the back of JBC's shirt is a three eighths inch square:
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNSNRtLg/JBCbackshirthole.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This is the hole in the front of his jacket:
(https://i.postimg.cc/5N8SjpDW/JBCcoatholefront.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Other than stamping your little foot and insisting it's so, provide some evidence to support your bullSpotty Avocada "twirling" theory other than a Myers cartoon.
The hole in the back of JBC's shirt is a three eighths inch square:
Well I might agree with JohnM that the bullet recovered in that 2003 experiment is close enough to CE 399 if they had it go thru a wrist bone also when it exited the JC replica body.
But alas they left out that important detail and that’s unfortunate because I would also have preferred a body with arms and legs to examine the likely position of JC legs and how he was holding his hat so that a bullet could go thru his wrist of the hand holding that hat without going thru the hat or even splattering some blood on the hat .
I’ve seen only one drawing of a position that is probably the only way it could be , which has JC with both legs turned towards the right door and he holds his hat upside down over the outside part of his left leg/thigh with his right hand fingers pressing down on the rim of the hat against the top of his thigh.
Thus when the Z224 bullet exits from his right side chest it goes thru his wrist as he is holding the hat still upside down with the rim covered by the fingers of his hand pressing the rim against the top of his left thigh, yet allowing the bullet to pass thru the lower part of the palm of his hand, without going thru the hat or splattering blood on the hat.
Then the sudden gripping clutching by the right hand snatching the hat up in the air is more plausible imo because it’s simply an involuntary nervous reaction to the pain from the bullet having gone thru his wrist.
Well I might agree with JohnM that the bullet recovered in that 2003 experiment is close enough to CE 399 if they had it go thru a wrist bone also when it exited the JC replica body.
But alas they left out that important detail and that’s unfortunate because I would also have preferred a body with arms and legs to examine the likely position of JC legs and how he was holding his hat so that a bullet could go thru his wrist of the hand holding that hat without going thru the hat or even splattering some blood on the hat .
I’ve seen only one drawing of a position that is probably the only way it could be , which has JC with both legs turned towards the right door and he holds his hat upside down over the outside part of his left leg/thigh with his right hand fingers pressing down on the rim of the hat against the top of his thigh.
Thus when the Z224 bullet exits from his right side chest it goes thru his wrist as he is holding the hat still upside down with the rim covered by the fingers of his hand pressing the rim against the top of his left thigh, yet allowing the bullet to pass thru the lower part of the palm of his hand, without going thru the hat or splattering blood on the hat.
Then the sudden gripping clutching by the right hand snatching the hat up in the air is more plausible imo because it’s simply an involuntary nervous reaction to the pain from the bullet having gone thru his wrist.
Charles: A photo of the hat with specks of what appears to be blood (what else could it be?) is here. It's from the 6th Floor Museum and was taken in Jesse Curry's office. How it got there is a mystery.
I am going from memory only, but I do remember seeing a photo of JBC’s hat hanging in someone’s office and it did have some blood splatter on it. The blood could have come from his chest wound or his wrist, or both.
Also, from memory only, I remember that the 2003 experiment had two broken ribs instead of just the one. And I do believe that they had a block set up with multiple “wrist bones” in it. But I do not remember whether or not the bullet actually hit one of them.
Charles: A photo of the hat with specks of what appears to be blood (what else could it be?) is here. It's from the 6th Floor Museum and was taken in Jesse Curry's office. How it got there is a mystery.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/16/12/75/161275353c2ad4cb8433aed40e46eb39.jpg)
And here:
(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/24994/preview)
I don't. And that was the original reason I acquired some actual bullets. I was trying to determine if CE567 and CE569:
Thanks that is interesting and helpful!
Do you have the respective weights of the jacket and the core handy?
| (https://i.postimg.cc/W1NRKyjV/CE569-NARA1997.jpg) | (https://i.postimg.cc/yx4tTQnw/CE567-NARAb.jpg) |
I don't. And that was the original reason I acquired some actual bullets. I was trying to determine if CE567 and CE569:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1NRKyjV/CE569-NARA1997.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/yx4tTQnw/CE567-NARAb.jpg)
came from more than one bullet by trying to determine whether the mass of the copper exceeded the mass of copper in a single bullet. I thought that the total mass of the copper in those two fragments (CE567=289 mg; CE569=1361 mg) might exceed the amount of copper in one bullet. I don't think it does and I think both may well have come from the same bullet.
If I feel inclined I may get my blow torch out and heat up one of my bullets and see if I can determine the mass of the lead and copper separately.
What type of bullet leaves a square hole?
But seriously, I found this close-up photo and the author theorizes that the straight sides may have been cut for a sample but the other sides appear to be ragged and extend way past 3/8 of an inch.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjZGX0Yj/Connally-shirt-right-armpit-hole-b.jpg)
After a little research into this, the resulting hole in fabric does not appear to be a direct reflection of calibre.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Ld5B9xQ/9mm-fmj-bullet-cloth.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/J45B1jqG/bullet-wipe-fabric.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpHBJV1y/bullet-wipe-knit-fabric.jpg)
So in conclusion it seems to me that the ragged edges on Connally's shirt hole(measured from each extremity to be roughly 3/4 of an inch) are the result of a tumbling bullet which did not strike flush but at an angle which is totally consistent with Dr. Gregory's estimation of a linear wound with a length of 3/4 of an inch.
Mr. SPECTER - What did the wound of entry look like, Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - It appeared to me that the wound of entry was sort of a linear wound, perhaps three-quarters of an inch in length with a rounded central portion. Whereas, the wound of exit was rather larger than this, perhaps an inch and a half across.
JohnM
You mean my size-15 little foot?
Should I have said "rotating" or "spinning," instead?
How about "whirly gigging"?
Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to the other factors indicating point of entry and point of exit, Dr. Gregory, I call your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 399, which is a bullet and ask you first if you have had an opportunity to examine that earlier today?
Dr. GREGORY - I have.
Mr. SPECTER - What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?
Dr. GREGORY - In examining this bullet, I find a small flake has been either knocked off or removed from the rounded end of the missile. I was told that this was removed for the purpose of analysis. The only other deformity which I find is at the base of the missile at the point where it Joined the cartridge carrying the powder, I presume, and this is somewhat flattened and deflected, distorted. There is some irregularity of the darker metal within which I presume to represent lead. The only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward. Now, this is not inconsistent with one of the characteristics known for missiles which is to tumble. All missiles in flight have two motions normally, a linear motion from the muzzle of the gun to the target, a second motion which is a spinning motion having to do with maintaining the integrity of the initial linear direction, but if they strike an object they may be caused to turn in their path and tumble end over, and if they do, they tend to produce a greater amount of destruction within the strike time or the target, and they could possibly, if tumbling in air upon emergence, tumble into another target backward. That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Is them sufficient metallic substance missing from the back or rear end of that bullet to account for the metallic substance which you have described in the Governor's wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - It is possible but I don't know enough about the structure of bullets or this one in particular, to know what is a normal complement of lead or for this particular missile. It is irregular, but how much it may have lost, I have no idea.
Mr. DULLES - Would the nature of the entry wound give you any indication as to whether it entered backward or whether it entered forward?
Dr. GREGORY - My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business end of this particular bullet is because of two things. The size of the wound of entrance, and the fact that it is irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads, and carry them into the wound with it. Now, you will note that Dr. Shaw earlier in his testimony and in all of my conversations with him, never did indicate that there was any such loss of material into the wrist, nor does the back of this coat which I have examined show that it lost significant amounts of cloth but I think the tear in this coat sleeve does imply that there were bits of fabric lost, and I think those were resident in the wrist. I think we recovered them.
Mr. SPECTER - Is the back of that bullet characteristic of an irregular missile so as to cause the wound in the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - I would say that the back of this being fiat and having sharp edges is irregular and would possibly tend to tear tissues more than does an inclined plane such as this.
Mr. SPECTER - Would the back of the missile be sufficiently irregular to have caused the wound of the right wrist, in your opinion?
Dr. GREGORY - I think it could have; yes. It is possible.
Mr. SPECTER - Would it be consistent with your observations of the wrist for that missile to have penetrated and gone through the right wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - It is possible; yes. It appears to me since the wound of exit was a small laceration, that much of the energy of the missile that struck the Governor's wrist was expended in breaking the bone reducing its velocity sufficient so that while it could make an emergence through the underlying soft tissues on his wrist, it did not do great damage to them.
Mr. SPECTER - Is there any indication from the extent of the damage to the wrist whether the bullet was pristine, that is: was the wrist struck first in flight or whether there had been some reduction in the velocity of the missile prior to striking the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - I would offer this opinion about a high velocity rifle bullet striking a forearm.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to inject factors which we have not put on the record although it has been brought to your attention previously: Assume this is a 6.5-millimeter missile which was shot from a rifle having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with a distance of approximately 160 to 200 feet between the weapon and the victim; and answer the prior question, if you would, Dr. Gregory, with those factors in mind?
Dr. GREGORY - I would fully expect the first object struck by that missile to be very badly damaged, and especially if it were a rigid bone such as the wrist bone is, to. literally blow it apart. I have had some experience with rifle wound injuries of the forearm produced by this type of missile, and the last two which I attended myself have culminated in amputation of the limb because of the extensive damage produced by the missile as it passed through the arm. Considerably more than was evidenced in the Governor's case either by examination of the limb itself or an examination of these X-rays.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, as to the experience you had which you experienced which resulted in amputations, what was the range between the weapon and the victim's limb, if you know?
Dr. GREGORY - The range in those two instances, I concede was considerably shorter but I cannot give you the specific range. By short I mean perhaps no more than 15 or 20 yards at the most.
Mr. SPECTER - Would the difference between the 15 or 20 yards and the 160 to 250 feet make any difference in your opinion, though, as to the damage which would be inflicted on the wrist had that bullet struck it as the first point of impact?
Dr. GREGORY - No, sir; I don't think it would have made that much difference.
"...it seems to me that the ragged edges on Connally's shirt hole(measured from each extremity to be roughly 3/4 of an inch)..."
As usual, I'm having problems understanding what you're posting.
Either I'm missing something very obvious or you are, once again, talking utter nonsense.
So, according to the picture you posted you believe the hole "measured from each extremity" is ROUGHLY 3/4 OF AN INCH
3/4 of an inch?
The hole ACROSS THE DIAGONAL is less than 1/2 an inch.
That means each side is even less than that.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wCkLCxm/JBCshirtholeclose.png) (https://postimages.org/)
What am I missing?
The idea that the bullet "tumbled" was created in order to keep up the pretense that CE399 was the bullet involved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4HQdX1m/Connally-shirt-right-armpit-hole-2.jpg)
Mr. SPECTER - What did the wound of entry look like, Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - It appeared to me that the wound of entry was sort of a linear wound, perhaps three-quarters of an inch in length with a rounded central portion. Whereas, the wound of exit was rather larger than this, perhaps an inch and a half across.
JohnM
That kind of bullet fired from that kind of Carcano tends to start yawing (i.e., "tumbling") upon exiting something soft (e.g., a block of ballistics gel or a human neck), as shown by Luke and Mike Haag in the evil, evil, evil PBS NOVA special, "Cold Case JFK."
Perhaps you missed it.
Yeah buddy, and perhaps you're missing all the evidence against a tumbling bullet that's being put right in your face at the moment.
Explain how a yawing bullet created such a small hole in the back of JBC's shirt (or don't bother)
Thanks again for providing the testimony showing when the tumbling nonsense was created.
What John Mytton showed is that the size of the hole in the fabric is not an indication of the size of the bullet (see the high-speed photos of the bullet penetrating the fabric). The fabric stretches as the bullet passes through it. Then the fabric rebounds and the actual hole is smaller than the bullet. Human skin behaves similarly. So does paper to some extent. Here’s a photo of a paper target that I personally shot with (5) 25-caliber pellets through the same hole from a distance of ten meters. I personally measured the actual hole in the paper target with my digital calipers. It measures slightly less than 1/4 of an inch. The margins of the paper around the actual hole are slightly deformed but have rebounded such that the actual hole is smaller. The threads comprising the fabric of the shirt can and do stretch and rebound without leaving deformations that are as obvious (unless you know what you are looking at) as the deformations in the margins of the hole in the paper.
(https://i.vgy.me/ddEGSw.jpg)
So, you do admit that that kind of bullet fired from that kind of Carcano was shown in the PBS NOVA special "Cold Case JFK" to have a tendency to start "yawing" (i.e., "tumbling") upon exiting something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck.
Good!
You're making progress!
Because earlier on this "thread" you were denying it.
What John Mytton showed is that the size of the hole in the fabric is not an indication of the size of the bullet (see the high-speed photos of the bullet penetrating the fabric). The fabric stretches as the bullet passes through it. Then the fabric rebounds and the actual hole is smaller than the bullet. Human skin behaves similarly. So does paper to some extent. Here’s a photo of a paper target that I personally shot with (5) 25-caliber pellets through the same hole from a distance of ten meters. I personally measured the actual hole in the paper target with my digital calipers. It measures slightly less than 1/4 of an inch. The margins of the paper around the actual hole are slightly deformed but have rebounded such that the actual hole is smaller. The threads comprising the fabric of the shirt can and do stretch and rebound without leaving deformations that are as obvious (unless you know what you are looking at) as the deformations in the margins of the hole in the paper.
(https://i.vgy.me/ddEGSw.jpg)
:D
Nutters in full flow.
As I've explained elsewhere, there is zero difference between the Nutter and Tinfoil mentalities.
You were asked to explain how a yawing bullet could've created such a small hole in the back of Connally's shirt.
You can't do that so you're talking Spotty Avocada.
As all extreme mentalities do, you have painted yourself into a corner, just as John has done, and because you can't be honest with the evidence, because you can't be honest with yourself, you are left with no option other than to post nonsensical Replys like the one above.
And, like all extreme mentalities, you forget that the forum is a written record. You forget that your nonsense is now on the record for all to see.
As I've demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt (the key word being "reasonable") there was no yawing, tumbling or twirling bullet.
CE399 had nothing to do with the actual shooting.
This was why the first four men in the so-called "chain of custody" - Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Howley - all refused to identify it as the bullet they handled that day.
Wright categorically denied CE399 was the bullet he saw that day to Josiah Thompson and others.
It's why not a single one of these men was asked to identify the bullet before the Warren Commission.
It flies under the Nutter radar that not a single person verified CE399 as the bullet that was found at Parkland before it was entered into evidence as the bullet found at Parkland hospital.
All of this is perfectly acceptable to the Nutter mentality.
As Tom has shown, the idea of a tumbling bullet was introduced to maintain the lie that CE399 was involved in the shooting.
The physical evidence available refutes this theory.
A tumbling bullet could not have made such a small hole in the back of JBC's shirt or the front of his jacket.
The mental gymnastics being employed by the various Nutters on this thread is a result of this hard evidence.
The bullet in question shattered on contact with JBC's wrist bone, one of the largest and most dense bones in the human body.
As Tom has already explained, if a bullet can fragment striking "near" the EOP, then it can fragment on the wrist bone.
A small piece blew threw JBC's wrist and exited through the small slit-like wound on the palm side of his wrist.
The larger fragment entered his leg.
This is why fragments of metal are found spread throughout the wrist wound and not just in one, concentrated area.
It's why the x-ray of the wrist wound shows no trace of a bullet passing through the bone.
The larger fragment fell from JBC as he was being moved from his stretcher to the examining table at Parkland. It was retrieved by a nurse who eventually gave it to Texas Highway Patrolman Nolan.
No evidence exists that CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.
No evidence exists that the bullet which passed through JFK and JBC tumbled.
All of this is perfectly acceptable to the Nutter mentality.
Let's see how you handle this Charles.
John said this - "...it seems to me that the ragged edges on Connally's shirt hole(measured from each extremity to be roughly 3/4 of an inch)..."
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wCkLCxm/JBCshirtholeclose.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Do you agree that this shows a hole "roughly 3/4 of an inch?
What are you gonna do Charles?
How are you going to answer this question?
The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”; which is significantly larger than 6.5mm (.255906”). It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter.
The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”; which is significantly larger than 6.5mm (.255906”). It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter. That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back is to be expected expected due to the stretching and rebound as I described and John Mytton documented quite well. Ballistics are involved, however this is not rocket science.
I have seen Shot Guns make holes in clothing much like the above. This is what GUESSING gets you. This is where you are at. Spin the wheel conclusions.
The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”; which is significantly larger than 6.5mm (.255906”). It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter. That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back is to be expected expected due to the stretching and rebound as I described and John Mytton documented quite well. Ballistics are involved, however this is not rocket science.
"The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”..."
Of course it is, the measurement is right there for everyone to see and you're right to throw John under the bus over this.
John's refusal to retract his insane observation that this hole is anywhere near 3/4 of an inch is an embarrassment for all Nutters as it reveals the extreme mentality you would all rather remained out of sight.
It's bad enough you all refuse to acknowledge that four of the six people involved in the chain of custody refused to identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled that day.
It's bad enough that Wright specifically denied that CE 399 was the bullet and that the bullet he handled was a pointed "hunting slug".
It's bad enough that you all refuse to acknowledge that not a single person verified CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland before it was entered into evidence as the bullet found at Parkland.
It's bad enough that you all seem to think it quite normal and proper that none of the first four people to handle the bullet - Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley - was asked to identify CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland hospital by the Warren Commission, even though two of these people actually testified.
It's bad enough that you don't have a problem with Tomlinson, the man who initially discovered the bullet, not being asked a single question about the bullet itself during his tesimony!!
He wasn't asked to describe it and he wasn't shown CE 399 to identify it (he wasn't even shown a picture of it)
All of this is bad enough, but to have someone so desperate to show the bullet tumbled he is willing to deny what everyone can see right before their eyes...that is just unacceptable.
"It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter."
When you say "we" in the above sentence, you mean Nutters.
Of course you would look at it that way.
You literally have no choice.
A 6.5mm bullet passing through the centre of a 9.5mm square hole leaves a 1.5mm gap around it. Only Nutters can see this as evidence of yawing/tumbling.
The hole conforms to what sane people would expect reagrding a non-yawing bullet.
If the bullet yawed it would have left a hole closer to 30mm in the back of JBC's shirt.
It is clearly nothing like this.
"That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back..."
Unfortunately, those not too familiar with the testimonial evidence, like Tom, might think that this 3/4 of an inch wound in JBC's back that keeps getting mentioned, has some kind of validity to it. This observation came from Dr Gregory who had nothing to do with the wounds in JBC's torso, he dealt with JBC's wrist. There is every chance he is describing JBC's wound after it has been debrided, after damaged tissue had been removed from the wound.
Isn't it strange that Nutters don't seem inclined to quote Dr Robert Shaw, the man who actually dealt with JBC's torso wounds and who described a significantly smaller back wound. The reason they don't like to quote Shaw is because he thought a) the wound in JBC's back was so clean it was a direct hit, that the bullet hadn't passed through any object before hitting JBC and b) the idea of CE 399 causing the wounds to JBC was a crock:
Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?
Dr. SHAW: I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.
How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, O'meara?
Oodles and Gobs?
A "minimum" conspiracy involving five people and a patsy.
Why did the conspirators chose Oswald to be their patsy?
Because he was a self-described Marxist who had defected to the USSR and had recently been to the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City?
If so, when did they start patsy-ing him?
Oswald was the perfect patsy.
A marine who defected to Russia living in Dallas in the '60's?
A full blown Commie working in the building the shots were fired from?
There could not have been a more perfect patsy.
The moment he was arrested in the TT it seems like everyone in the DPD knew he'd killed Tippit and the President.
There was something about Oswald that was extremely 'hateable'.
When did they start "patsy-ing" him?
It might be that he was just the right man in the right place at the right time.
That said, I've always been struck by this picture:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZRDkNCzd/Shelley-New-Orleans1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It shows Oswald handing out leaflets in New Orleans.
In the background is a man who looks identical to Bill Shelley - same body-type, same dress sense, same hair and same face.
This pic is a still taken from a short piece of film footage. The footage gives the distinct impression that Oswald is part of a larger group of people who are all stood around talking business while Oswald does the donkey work.
In the scenario I'm proposing ex-CIA man (if you can be "ex" with the CIA) Bill Shelley is the main man on the ground in Dealey Plaza. It is a very uncomplicated plot - fire a rifle at the passing limo. It requires a patsy who has been fooled into handing over his rifle and a shooter (who could make a good Patsy #2 if Patsy#1 doesn't work out).
Now we're getting somewhere.
The image of Oswald's handing out FPCC fliers in New Orleans is from Friday, August 16, 1963, two months before he started working at the TSBD, and three months before the motorcade route in Dallas was announced.
Regardless, one wonders if Shelley (back in the day I believed that the person you're referring to was Gordon Novel!!!) wasn't at work that day?
If the TSBD employee-attendance records (if they still exist) said that he was, would you insist that they were fake?
If it is Shelley, why would an ex-CIA type be hanging around with a bunch of pro-Castro types?
Whether or not that's Shelley in the photo, what evidence do you have that he was "an ex-CIA type"?
The Glaze Letters?
Answering your own questions?
Where's the fun in that?
Is that your trollish way of admitting that it is?
If so, anything else?
No offence Tom but I see you've really homed in on the CIA reference which was just a throwaway comment.
I also notice you really have a CIA/KGB thing going on which I'm not really into.
The guy in the picture looks identical to Bill Shelley. The Glaze letters have zero bearing on that.
Or the fact that Shelley was involved in some incredibly suspicious goings-on in the aftermath of the assassination.
Or that Oswald named Shelley as part of his alibi, clearly expecting Shelley to back him up.
It's interesting that you're trying to gaslight your way out of having previously stated Shelley was "an ex-CIA type."
Do you believe Shelley was a CIA (former or . . . gasp . . . current) agent, or not, O'meara?
If so, upon what do you base your belief?
(Do you find that you encounter a lot of "CIA types" in day-to-day life and on the Internet?)
Sorry to put you "on the spot," Old Chap, but you did ask for it.
Now put up or shut up as we say here in The States.
Why, then, did you say Shelley was a "former CIA-type" and that it seemed suspicious to you that an ostensible "former CIA-type" like Shelley was hangin' with Oswald and some "pro-Castro types"?
BTW, You really like the word "types," don't you?
Do you find that you have a tendency to stereotype people?
I guess you're not smart enough to realize that by "current" I meant "then-current," as in then-in-August-of-1963-current.
D'oh!
It's pretty obvious to me that you've been so brainwashed by 60-plus years of KGB* JFKA disinformation that you'll never be able to grasp that a sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, with or without KGB* encouragement and/or logistical support, killed JFK on 11/22/63 by firing three shots at him in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
(Did I mention "over 10.2 seconds"?)
*Today's SVR and FSB
You're the one who brought it up, O'meara.
Remember?
Okay.
No, it already was.
Sorry to hurt your feelings, O'meara.
How about if he was just a "former CIA-type"?
Would that facilitate your tinfoil-hat JFKA CT?
Apology accepted.
No, O'meara. You just think you do.
That's the really sad part.
See, I've put you on the spot, again, Old Chap.