First shot reactions

[Charles Collins]

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.
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). 
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.
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.

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.

As I said, there is other corroborating evidence that supports this. And as I said earlier, I described this evidence earlier in this thread.

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).

The Croft photo was taken before the second shot occurred. Therefore the ensuing events you are apparently trying to inject do not apply to Jackie's expression in that photo.

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.


At Z148 JBC has turned as far right as he apparently can then begins a snap turn to his left. In my opinion he could be trying to turn far enough to look at the President.



At Z161 JBC has turned to his left and begins to turn back to his right. JFK has already turned back to his right.



At 179 JBC has turned back to his right. In my opinion he is trying to turn far enough to get a look at the President.



Then at Z223 JBC has begun to turn back to his left as he re-appears from behind the sign.



At Z224 JBC shows effects of being hit.



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.

There is much conflicting evidence in this case. Especially the (fallible) eyewitness accounts. No conclusion will ever fit all the evidence. This is typical for such events. If everything fit perfectly, then I would suspect a conspiracy and cover-up. I have argued with you about your interpretation of your cherry-picked eyewitness accounts years ago under another screen name, "Porterhaus" if I remember correctly. You did help me learn more about how various angles affect how we see the images. Thanks.

[Charles Collins]

"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.

Thanks.

[Charles Collins]

    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

I have never seen one create smoke. But I have heard one make a lot of noise.

[Jerry Organ]

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

You lawyers sure are dishonest.

Who ever claimed a three-shot witness who initially thought the first shot was a firecracker went on to believe that permanently?

As far as I know, any three-shot witness who said the first-shot was like a firecracker or backfire has always described it as a first impression and that he subsequently realized all three loud reports were gunfire.

(or, as Jerry insists, would have forgotten about the first loud noise completely).

Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?

I may have said something remotely like that in a few posts long ago, but I know for the last few years, I have always said (or "insisted"):

• two-shot witnesses might have understandably lost track of a shot in
  their memory (ie: trauma, shock, the last two shots were more vivid
  as a memory because they struck and men reacted);
• some of the two-shot witnesses acknowledge there were one-or-more
  shots but can only reliably describe two because they have something they
  recall in conjunction with the shots.

You think two-shot witness must lose track of the middle shot because it was near-simultaneous with the head shot.

[Jerry Organ]

    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

What "smoke cloud"? Holland saw what he took to be  a "puff of smoke" and, get this, it lingered. Me thinks Holland and you are telling a few porkies.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

As I said, there is other corroborating evidence that supports this. And as I said earlier, I described this evidence earlier in this thread.

My comment was directed to the view expressed that Jackie looks "concerned" in that Croft photo.  All I said was that it was dangerous to draw conclusions about a person's mood based on a single photo. You seem to have agreed that the conclusion was drawn from that single photo.

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).

The Croft photo was taken before the second shot occurred. Therefore the ensuing events you are apparently trying to inject do not apply to Jackie's expression in that photo.

?? My comment was not about Jackie's. expression. It was about your dismissal of the "first shot hit" witnesses on the basis that they thought the first loud noise was a firecracker, which you claim caused them to attribute the reaction of JFK to the second shot.

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.


At Z148 JBC has turned as far right as he apparently can then begins a snap turn to his left. In my opinion he could be trying to turn far enough to look at the President.

JBC is turned around as far as he can in z268. To suggest that he is in any way trying to see the President when his head is not even turned rearward is a stretching it an awful lot. Most people can turn their head on their neck.



At Z161 JBC has turned to his left and begins to turn back to his right. JFK has already turned back to his right.

There is much conflicting evidence in this case. Especially the (fallible) eyewitness accounts. No conclusion will ever fit all the evidence. This is typical for such events. If everything fit perfectly, then I would suspect a conspiracy and cover-up. I have argued with you about your interpretation of your cherry-picked eyewitness accounts years ago under another screen name, "Porterhaus" if I remember correctly. You did help me learn more about how various angles affect how we see the images. Thanks.

No one is suggesting that witness evidence should be the same.   There are always different points of view and different things noticed by different witnesses.  I am saying that if something did not occur you are not going to get multiple witnesses independently describing the same non-event.  That never happens.   Besides, the witnesses of the shot pattern: 1.........2.....3 were not the same witnesses who described JFK being hit by the first shot and were not the same witnesses who said the first shot was after z186.  Each of those mutually consistent bodies of evidence are inconsistent in different ways with the first shot miss.   (eg. the 1........2....3 shot pattern requires a first shot hitting the President because the second shot would have to be well after z225). You have to reject both all three bodies of evidence simply to cling to the notion of a first shot that missed. There is simply no rational basis for doing that.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

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!

Willis on the shots "with the first shot I really just thought firecrackers just, you know, in celebration but as soon as the, you know, second and third and maybe SUBSEQUENT SHOTS, you know I have no idea how many, I know there were at least three MAYBE MORE"

Willis on what she saw "I never looked at the school book depository because I was totally entranced by the President"

[Andrew Mason]

"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.

It does if you have the right scenario - what actually happened.  There are many examples where judges and juries have reached the wrong conclusion because the police/prosecution withheld evidence, or didn't pursue evidence and ignored or tried to explain away bodies of consistent contrary evidence. The cases of Guy Paul Morin or David Milgaard in Canada or the case of Michael Morton are excellent examples of reaching a conclusion while ignoring bodies of independent conflicting evidence. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires having all the material facts fit together.

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.

It is not that all the evidence has to fit. Some witnesses are simply wrong.  Some are misled for the same reason as other witnesses (echos made it difficult for witnesses near reflecting surfaces to accurately determine direction).  But if they are way off, the will stand alone. In the JFK assassination there are not two independent witnesses who saw a dog between JFK and Jackie. Only one witness heard 8 shots.  If evidence is to be correctly rejected as inaccurate there has to be an evidentiary basis for reaching a rational conclusion that it is not accurate. 

With respect to the number of shots, there is an overwhelming preponderance of witness evidence that there were three shots. Here is the distribution of witness evidence on that issue:

 

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.

That's fine, so long as you realize that your conclusions has to fit the rest of the case.  A missed shot does not fit the rest of the case.