The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

Let me get this straight.
You said: When Rich says "we turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" you need to believe he is saying they are still in the process of turning. But he's not, he's saying that, at the moment of the first shot, the VP security vehicle had turned off Houston Street and was now on Elm Street.

So I asked:
So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn?

And you said:
No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed.

But the problem is all Rich said was: "We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm
Street and that was when I heard the first shot."   Now you admit that the car could turn off Houston and be on Elm without making the full 120 degree turn but you still insist that Rich is saying that he completed the 120 degree turn.

I understand how the English language works.
Rich does not say - "As I was turning off Houston onto Elm"(as at z195)
He uses the past tense - "We turned off Houston onto Elm" (as at z223)

I have explained this point at length. You are in denial.

Well, according to your diagram, which is 1.7 seconds after z195, Mrs. Cabell would not have looked directly up at the SN.  She was past that point already.  Besides, it would take a few frames - 150 ms. at least, which is 3 frames - to react and a frame or two to look up and see the rifle, so you really have to compare z228 at the very earliest. 

At z223 Cabell has not past the point where she can look directly up at the SN.
This is denial on your behalf.

Again, I am not saying that the motorcade evidence in itself excludes a first shot at z223.  It just doesn't exclude a first shot at z195.

It has been comprehensively demonstrated that the Tyler/Speer evidence refutes a first shot at z195.
You are just in denial about it.

I notice you have not addressed the fact that according to Pat Speer's analysis, which you seemed to agree with in November last year, the motorcade evidence allows a first shot in the z190-z224 window.

On November 7th I wrote this:

"My journey through the evidence has led me to this point -

1st shot z223
2nd shot z313
3rd shot yet to be firmly established but it must follow the "shot, pause, two shots closer together" pattern."

So if evidence does not agree with one's analysis, the evidence is wrong, not the analysis.  Ok. I get it.

This reveals the depth of your denial.
You put forward the statements of Phil and Linda Willis as evidence.
I put forward the statements of 10 witnesses who all corroborate each other as to the position of their vehicles at the time of the first shot.
I compare this matrix of interlocking evidence with the Mark Tyler 's mapping program.
This program is the result of a colossal effort to synthesise as much evidence as possible - the complete video record, the complete photographic record, hundreds of witness statements etc.
There has hardly been a greater effort to collate such a vast amount of evidence which can then be presented in such a seemingly simple way.

On one side of the scales is this colossal amount of evidence supporting a first shot at z223.
On the other are the statements of Phil and Linda Willis.

You do the math(s)

[Andrew Mason]

I understand how the English language works.
Rich does not say - "As I was turning off Houston onto Elm"(as at z195)
He uses the past tense - "We turned off Houston onto Elm" (as at z223)

I have explained this point at length. You are in denial.

At z223 Cabell has not past the point where she can look directly up at the SN.
This is denial on your behalf.

It has been comprehensively demonstrated that the Tyler/Speer evidence refutes a first shot at z195.
You are just in denial about it.

Let me ask you this:  Does Rich's statement that the car had turned off Houston onto Elm mean he had completed the full 120 degree turn and therefore eliminates the possibility that the car was pointing along or parallel to the front face of the TSBD?

On November 7th I wrote this:

"My journey through the evidence has led me to this point -

1st shot z223
2nd shot z313
3rd shot yet to be firmly established but it must follow the "shot, pause, two shots closer together" pattern."
...
On one side of the scales is this colossal amount of evidence supporting a first shot at z223.
On the other are the statements of Phil and Linda Willis.

You do the math(s)

Yet you quoted with approval Speer's statement:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 293 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 293, 88 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together."

I am just wondering why you want to cherry-pick 10 of them who you think made definitive statements that are inconsistent with a first shot earlier than z223.  What happened to the 159 witnesses who gave evidence that Speers considered to be consistent with a first shot between z190-z224?

[Dan O'meara]

Let me ask you this:  Does Rich's statement that the car had turned off Houston onto Elm mean he had completed the full 120 degree turn and therefore eliminates the possibility that the car was pointing along or parallel to the front face of the TSBD?

I've answered this question 3 times now. The turn was completed. 4 times now.
You are starting to move from denial into something more disturbing.
Go back and look at the statements of the occupants of these two vehicles. They all make definitive statements as to the positions of their respective vehicles at the moment of the first shot:

VICE PRESIDENTIAL CAR

Hurchel Jacks [Driver] -
"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President’s car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out..."

Rufus Youngblood [Passenger Seat] -
"The motorcade then made a left turn, and the sidewalk crowds
were beginning to diminish in size. I observed a grassy plot to my right in back of a small crowd...I heard an explosion…"
"As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise."
"We had straightened on Elm now and were beginning to move easily down the incline in the wake of the cars ahead. Suddenly there was an explosive noise..."

Senator Yarborough [back left] -
“as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast..."

Lady Bird Johnson [back centre] -
“we were rounding a curve, going down a hill and suddenly there was a sharp loud report..."
"...suddenly in that brilliant sunshine there was a sharp rifle shot. It  came, I thought, from over my right shoulder."

Lyndon Johnson [back right] -
"After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report."

VICE-PRESIDENTIAL FOLLOW-UP CAR

Joe Henry Rich [Driver] -
“We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and that was when I heard the first shot."


Cliff Carter [passenger seat]  -
"...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded like a firecracker."

Jerry Kivett [back right] -
"As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 the way to the underpass, traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour, I heard a loud noise..."

Warren Taylor [back centre] -
“Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker —the sound coming from my right rear."

Thomas (Lem) Johns [back right] -
"We turned onto Elm Street...We were going downhill...which put the Texas Book Depository on our right, more or less...But we were going down this Elm Street, with my door open. I heard at least two shots.."

10 witnesses in 2 vehicles. All 10 are in agreement that the cars had completed the turn off Houston onto Elm. This is such solid evidence and should be embraced.
Combined with the Tyler mapping program it is clear that all other theories regarding when the first shot occurred are refuted.
The collection of the colossal amount of evidence that has gone into this is not my doing. I am merely pointing out that it supports my own view of a first shot at z223 to the exclusion of all other theories I am aware of.
Including your own.
Your theory is not refuted because of my opinion.
It is refuted because of this incredibly solid evidence.

Yet you quoted with approval Speer's statement:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 293 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 293, 88 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together."

I am just wondering why you want to cherry-pick 10 of them who you think made definitive statements that are inconsistent with a first shot earlier than z223.  What happened to the 159 witnesses who gave evidence that Speers considered to be consistent with a first shot between z190-z224?

Speers website is amazing and I regard him as a researcher's researcher.
As you seem to be having some kind of meltdown, it seems to have escaped your attention that z223 falls into the z190 - z224 range consistent with the 159 witnesses you mention.

[Andrew Mason]

I

Speers website is amazing and I regard him as a researcher's researcher.
As you seem to be having some kind of meltdown, it seems to have escaped your attention that z223 falls into the z190 - z224 range consistent with the 159 witnesses you mention.

Yes. But it is also consistent with a first shot at z195!!  That's my whole point!!

[Andrew Mason]

I've answered this question 3 times now. The turn was completed. 4 times now.
You are starting to move from denial into something more disturbing.
Go back and look at the statements of the occupants of these two vehicles. They all make definitive statements as to the positions of their respective vehicles at the moment of the first shot:

You have not answered the simple question.  I was just asking about Rich, the driver of the VP security car. Your logic escapes me. You admit that one can make the turn off Houston onto Elm and still not have completed the full 120 degree turn.  Yet that is all Rich says.  But you continue to insist that he is saying he completed the 120 degree turn.

[Dan O'meara]

You have not answered the simple question.  I was just asking about Rich, the driver of the VP security car. Your logic escapes me. You admit that one can make the turn off Houston onto Elm and still not have completed the full 120 degree turn.  Yet that is all Rich says.  But you continue to insist that he is saying he completed the 120 degree turn.

"You admit that one can make the turn off Houston onto Elm and still not have completed the full 120 degree turn."

 
Point out where I've "admitted" this.
Point out any instance I have used the phrase "120 degree turn".

[Dan O'meara]

Yes. But it is also consistent with a first shot at z195!!  That's my whole point!!

The Tyler/Speer evidence is not consistent with a first shot at z195.
This has been comprehensively demonstrated.
Your attempts to deny this fact have ranged from humorous to disturbing.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn off Houston onto Elm.
The occupants of the VP security car make it clear the vehicle has completed the turn and is now travelling on the incline down Elm Street.

[Andrew Mason]

"You admit that one can make the turn off Houston onto Elm and still not have completed the full 120 degree turn."

 
Point out where I've "admitted" this.
Point out any instance I have used the phrase "120 degree turn".

I asked:
So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn?

And you said:
No.

A negative answer to that question MEANS that you are agreeing that a car could be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the 120 degree turn.