First shot reactions

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

When trying to stress a important point, a speaker might ask: “Did you hear what I just said”? This would be an attempt to make sure the audience is paying attention to his words.

The bystanders had their attention focused on the motorcade. The limousine occupants had their attention focused on the crowd. However, the limousine occupants had been traveling through the crowds for a while. And the bystanders only had a few moments to see the President before he would pass by and be gone. Therefore, due to these probable differences in intensity of focus, it seems to me that the limousine occupants might  be more aware of other things going on around them than the bystanders would be.

 Rosemary Willis appears to have reacted to the sound of the first shot as she can be seen jerking her head around to look back towards the TSBD just after Z133. So she is apparently more aware of her surroundings. However, she has been running along side the limousine since it turned onto Houston Street. And she has had to watch where she was going in order to not run into anything.

As far as your question goes, I saw a paratrooper describing what it was like while descending towards the ground where the enemy was shooting rifles at him. He said he could tell when he was the target by the distinctive crack sound of the rifle. I have been told that this is the sonic boom of the bullet. And it apparently is most noticeable when the bullet passes close by. So perhaps the limousine occupants did hear something that the bystanders didn’t.

The paratrooper wasn't descending in a parade of sorts, was he? As far as the expression of Jackie, I think it's possible that picture may reveal her sensing something but as far as bullets missing the target and still being noticed by its intended target is what I am wondering. If what we see is real reactions on Jackie's face, is it then possible to say this reaction was from more bullets that missed and in this case from a gun with a suppressor

[Charles Collins]

The paratrooper wasn't descending in a parade of sorts, was he? As far as the expression of Jackie, I think it's possible that picture may reveal her sensing something but as far as bullets missing the target and still being noticed by its intended target is what I am wondering. If what we see is real reactions on Jackie's face, is it then possible to say this reaction was from more bullets that missed and in this case from a gun with a suppressor

Personally, I haven't seen any evidence that a gun with a suppressor was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Therefore, given what I know of human nature (specifically that women are instinctively drawn to children, much the same way that men are instinctively drawn to pretty women), I believe that there is a very good chance that Rosemary Willis running alongside the limo caught Jackie's attention. And that Rosemary's enthusiasm could be a reason that Jackie is smiling in Towner and Willis 4 photographs. If that is the case, then seeing Rosemary snap her head back towards the TSBD and start slowing her speed to stop (by Z140 her head is already turned toward the TSBD and she is slowing down) immediately after hearing the sound of the first shot, is reason enough to cause the expression of concern on Jackie's face. It appears to me that in Croft's photo that Jackie's eyes are looking back towards her left (where Rosemary has suddenly slowed and is looking back at the TSBD).



And thanks to Gerda for the excellent video clip!

[Royell Storing]

Having the AR-15 flat on the floor doesn't count as "within easy reach of me". William Manchester said in his book: "on the seat between them [Bennett and Hickey] lay an AR-15 .233 automatic rifle." Clint Hill said the AR-15 was: "Between the two agents in the rear seat."

Hickey got hold of the weapon very quickly; no one said he bent down out of sight to reach to the bottom of the floor. Sen. Yarborough, riding in the Vice Presidential car behind the Queen Mary, said: "After the shooting, one of the Secret Service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward." Also in the VP vehicle was Rufus Youngblood, who: "observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings."

Bennett wrote: "I immediately hollered 'he's hit' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5." Combine with what Manchester and Hill said, and the weapon being within "easy reach" and quick retrieval. So it could be between the two agents on the back seat with an end on the center hump.

Seems unlikely to me that the AR-15 was on the floor in front of Hickey. That would impede with him as he sat normally (which we know he did from pictures), not to mention making the AR-15 awkward to reach.

So Hickey wasn't seated on a footlocker and his feet could be bracing against the jump-seat.

          BUMP - Nice of you to later ADD the "Hump" you had forgotten about. SA Hickey wrote in his Official Report that he reached down to the "BOTTOM" of the car for the AR-15. SA Bennett says he "....reached for the AR-15 located on the FLOOR of the rear seat". So here we have 2 SS in close proximity to the weapon, one of the agents actually handling the weapon. The one that actually handled the AR-15 Specifically Designates the "BOTTOM" of the car, the other Specifically Designates the "FLOOR" of the car. Case Closed as to Where the weapon was stored in it's locked-n-loaded state. Chief Rowley during his WC Testimony referred to the AR-15 as a "NEW" weapon back in "63". Knowing how quickly this "New" weapon could/would empty the clip of ammunition inside it, comes the question of Where would the extra ammunition for the AR-15 be stored for easy/quick access if/when needed??

[Gary Craig]

Willis family: Head shot came from right front

[Andrew Mason]

You suggested that the Croft photo shows "concern".  Was there another one that showed a similar expression?

Not that I am aware of.

As I said, it is not a good idea to base a conclusion based on a single photo:  i.e. concluding that she looked concerned because of her expression in Croft's photo.

OK.  But that does not mean they didn't hear it and a few seconds later, after seeing the effects, didn't recognize that it had been a rifle shot.

The first shot missed. Therefore the effects were not apparent.

My point was that just because they may have initially attributed the first bang to a firecracker, ensuing events would have persuaded them that it wasn't.  It is difficult to believe, without evidence, that anyone who initially thought it was a firecracker would have continued to believe - after the three shots - that the first loud bang was a firecracker (or, as Jerry insists, would have forgotten about the first loud noise completely). 

Gov. Connally said he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination was unfolding.  I don't seen anything prior to about z228 that indicates that kind of a reaction.

He snapped his head to the right then to his left (where Croft captured his concerned expression). Then back to his right. His actions and expressions are consistent with recognition of the rifle shot. The only thing he didn’t do was scream for everyone to duck. Instead he said something like oh no, they are going to kill us all. That dialogue only appears to have distracted Jackie for a few seconds.

He turned his head to the right at the same time that Jackie and JFK turned their head to the right.  He never turns around to look at the President, which is what he said he did in response to the first shot, until after z230.

If you want to reach an accurate conclusion, you should look at all the evidence.

I have been looking at the other evidence. The visual evidence is what I am focused on now.

And my point is that if you want to draw conclusions from evidence it must fit with all the evidence.  If what you think you see in the zfilm does not fit with the rest of the evidence you should try another interpretation that does. 

[Charles Collins]

Willis family: Head shot came from right front

I believe it is possible that some of the bystanders heard the loud noise from the soda bottle thrown down near Zapruder and mistook it for a gunshot.

[Royell Storing]

I believe it is possible that some of the bystanders heard the loud noise from the soda bottle thrown down near Zapruder and mistook it for a gunshot.

    We have heard an alleged Exploding Pop Bottle being blamed for the Smoke Cloud near the picket fence, and Now we have an Exploding Pop Bottle being mistaken for shots fired. Must have been a 6 Pack

[Brian Roselle]

"If you want to draw conclusions from evidence it must fit with all the evidence.  If what you think you see in the zfilm does not fit with the rest of the evidence you should try another interpretation that does."

I like the idea of an analysis scenario fitting all the evidence, but I suspect in complex cases all the evidence rarely always agrees with a single scenario. In a most simple example here three shots vs two shots testimony evidence is far from agreement. To get it to reconcile I as a researcher would have to make up some interpretations or assumptions to make it work. I don’t think any JFK shooting scenario will ever fit all the evidence. Unfortunately some evidence may just not make the cut or will need to be looked at differently.

I think there has been other evidence provided here besides testimony or anchored testimony that is quite useful.  There has been credible non-testimony based film analysis like voluntary reactions, non-voluntary or startle reactions, especially those associated with camera reactions that do support an earlier shot.  I think this has been a good faith effort to consider all the evidence and get folks to think as broadly as possible on this question by using non-testimony analysis as a key resource that does not rely solely on interpreting testimony.