Few among the "20 witnesses" in your paper were actually in a position to see the President smiling. Of those, some (ie: the Chisms, Jean Newman) were "two shot" witnesses who merely recalled the President "slumping" on the shot which occurred before the head shot. That means their "first shot" was the second in most three-shot scenarios.
That is not a very good argument, Jerry. There were dozens of witnesses along the north side of Elm who
could see JFK from z160 to z225. Many if not all were looking at the President or Jackie. None of them said that either continued to smile or wave after that first horrible ear-shattering noise.
According to your rationalization of why they were wrong, they must have stopped looking at the President after the first shot and then looked at him again only at or after the second. The problem is that we can see in the zfilm that they are all continuing to look at JFK while he is smiling and waving. Why did not a single one of them report that? When you then look at the evidence as to when the first shot occurred, it becomes obvious: the first shot had not yet occurred as JFK was smiling and waving.
Mary Woodward saw the President not react (other than look around) to the first shot and "slump" on the second shot, followed by the head shot.
She also heard the last two shots closer together - so close that the reverberation from the second had not died out before the third shot sounded. That, in itself, says that JFK must have been hit on the first shot. Admittedly, she said her recollection of the events after the first shot were a little "hazy". But there are dozens of others who reported the same thing.
It's "required" only to meet your arbitrary claim.
It would be arbitrary if not supported by evidence but merely conjecture. Your rationalizations for why the witnesses were all wrong is just that: conjecture. It is certainly not evidence.
But your list of 20 witnesses have few who were in a position to see the President wave clearly and even more who were not positioned to see his face.
So what? See above: there were many others who were in a position to see his face - everyone on the north side of Elm St. All or nearly all were looking at the President.
No evidence for the car clearing the oak tree by Z195 that you produced. Better-resolution film shows the branches were a considerable hindrance.
Your zframes are wrong. The president was opposite the lamppost at z190. Why not show us how you determined the corresponding zframe for this film. Also - tell us where you found the high resolution frames of the tree. I would like a better copy myself.
Witnesses were more attentive to the shot span--if they were attentive to such a thing at all--only after hearing a second shot. They had no reason to expect a second loud report after hearing the first as many dismissed the first as a "backfire" or "firecracker". The first shot blended more readily into the normal behavior observed in the crowd and the motorcade. Only with the second shot came a wave of awareness and urgency.
Your rationalization of why you think they were wrong is not evidence. You need evidence that the witnesses who reported the last two shots closer together were wrong. All the evidence I have found shows that they were right: that the second shot was at z271-272.
Andrew Mason is a defense attorney and apparently will commit any lie, misrepresentation or distortion to "defend" his "client" (pet theory).
Why do you think that my "theory" that the witnesses were not hallucinating or collectively mistaken in the same way is any crazier than your "theory" that they were? And why is it a "lie"? You should realize, Jerry, that resort to
ad hominems is a sign that you are in the last stage of a losing argument.
