The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

As far as the two men riding in the front of the Presidential limo are concerned Kellerman is the more reliable and the more observant, even though his testimony isn't fault-free it is far more detailed and more in line with the Z-film than Greer's. It should also be noted Kellerman is not distracted with driving the vehicle and he recalls the first shot vividly whereas Greer takes hardly any notice.
So where does he place the limo at the time of the first shot:

"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."

Away from the buildings
Just passing a sign at the side of the road
After which the limo is out in the open

The sign in question can only be the Thornton's freeway sign. The limo has just passed this sign when the first shot sounds. This is in line with a shot at z223, not one @ z190-z200 and certainly not one @ z160

[Dan O'meara]

Not a valid %s URL

Just want to get at the braking claim for now, and the rest later.

    "I wonder if the Z250s is where Greer inadvertently began to ease
     his foot off the accelerator. That would begin the process that
     caused the car to slow down by time it reached the Z290s."

Well, I didn't say (above) Greer completely lifted his foot off the accelerator. I speculated Greer may have slowly eased his foot off, beginning in the Z250s, when I believe both Kellerman and Greer looked back, possibly responding to the same causation coming from behind. Such a gradual lifting off the accelerator would gradually slow down the car.

This is from an article by Chuck Marler in the old newsletter "Fourth Decade" (May 1994):

    "Based upon the government's measurements, the limousine only reduced
     its speed 1.2 miles per hour between frames 225 through 255 and frames
     255 through 313. When one views the Zapruder film without the close–up
     enhancements, the limousine reduces its speed significantly between frames
     255 and 313—substantially more than the 1.2 miles per hour. This obvious
     reduction of speed prior to frame 313 also occurs as the limousine is
     becoming more perpendicular to the location of Abraham Zapruder which
     should visually appear to be going faster even if there wasn't a reduction
     in speed."

Those aren't brake lights that are lit up. They're "wrap-around" tail-light lenses that allow ambient light to shine through.

Sample (far lens brighter due to light background showing through)		Sample (Nix film on Houston)
Sample (Towner film on Elm)		Sample (Zapruder frame 374, direct sunlight but also background is bright)

Whether one tail-light or both (or none) were artificially bright depended on the viewer's position and amount and direction of ambient light. Now you'll argue Ford Lincoln wouldn't allow such a tail-light design because it would be a traffic hazard.

M19 | Z290

M45 | Z316

Tail-light in M19 and M45 (the frame you supplied in your post) are about equal in brightness. Neither appear to be lit by a bulb.

Looks like the slowing event Alvarez presented was centered on Z300. Alvarez wrote:

    "The heavy car decelerated suddenly for about 0.5 sec (10 frames),
     centered at about frame 299, reducing its speed from about 12 mph
     to about 8 mph." (or frame 300 in his graph)

So now we look for a brake light being on at Z295. There is a still of Muchmore frame M24 (Z295) in Robin's Gallery. As it happens, it's one of the clearest frames.

In the animation, see if the limousine tail-lights come on before the tail-light passes the little boy. That's when braking must occur if Greer braked to account for the slowdown Alvarez centered on Z300.

I like this composite version of the Z-film as it shows the braking event quite clearly. Once the limo passes a lamp-post after the Stemmons sign it slows significantly. Just using my eye I see this deceleration begin around z290. It is not a gradual slowing down starting in the z250's, it is a more rapid event beginning around z290.

This close-up of the AP film you posted appears to show the rear passenger-side brake light on then going off as it passes between Moorman and Hill.



The limo appears to be braking as Hill moves from vehicle to vehicle. As soon as JFK is hit in the head the brakes lights go out as Greer steps on the gas.

[Charles Collins]

Actually, Hugh Aynesworth is a highly respected journalist. What I am questioning is the accuracy of the information on Pat Speer’s claim that you referenced in your post. I now have a copy of the book in question on order. And hopefully will get to the bottom of this.

Okay, I have received the copy of “JFK Assassination - The Reporters’ Notes” by the Dallas Morning News that I ordered. Here is what is written on the inside of the cover:

In May 1964, the top editors of The Dallas Morning News decided to collect the recollections of all staffers who took part in covering the Kennedy assassination.

“Include anecdotes, personal observations and anything else that will reflect the tone of the time as well as indicate the thoroughness of our coverage,” assistant managing editor Bill Rives wrote in a memo to the staff. The original plan was for the writings to be published individually and not as part of one long narrative.

In the summer of 2012, as The News planned its coverage for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, reporter David Flick acquired copies of the notes from the DeGolyer Library at Southern Methodist University, which houses the original documents. Will Pry, mobile editor for The News, read each of the sets of notes and, with the idea for a chronological narrative in mind, edited the collection down to the contents of this book.

The final version includes excerpts from 22 of the 51 staffers who contributed to the project in 1964

After reading enough of this book to confirm or deny, it does appear that Hugh Aynesworth wrote what Pat Speers has included on his website. Therefore, the interpretation that this is supposed to be evidence of a third shot after the fatal head shot is in question. I underlined the words of Bill Rives on the inside of the cover of the book that give Hugh Aynesworth license to include anecdotes from other witnesses. Hugh Aynesworth apparently chose to write his story in a fashion that makes it appear that he saw the limo himself during the time period of shots being fired. However, based on the location that Hugh Aynesworth says he was during this time period and his location shown on Don Roberdeau’s map, he could not have seen the limo during this time period. James Hackerott generously provided an animation from his 3D model of Dealey Plaza to me with a viewpoint from Hugh Aynesworth’s position confirming this.

I don’t believe that Hugh Aynesworth actually saw JFK jerk his head after the second shot with his own eyes. And I don’t believe that whoever apparently told him that they saw this intended to imply that the second shot was the fatal head shot. It appears to me that JFK would have had a sudden reaction when he was hit in the back of the base of his neck. And that that was what is described as a jerk of his head. We do not see this head jerk on the Zapruder film  because JFK is still hidden from Zapruder’s camera by the sign when the bullet hit him. And JFK appears to have already started to raise his arms by the time he emerges into camera view from behind the sign.

Pat Speers apparently interprets Hugh Aynesworth’s words differently. Spinning them to try to imply that they indicate a shot after the fatal head shot. However, Aynesworth’s story is not sworn testimony, it is most likely an anecdotal comment from another witness (because Aynesworth could not have seen this from his position), and Bill Rives gave license to the reporters to include anecdotes, etc.. 

 

[Dan O'meara]

I don’t believe that Hugh Aynesworth actually saw JFK jerk his head after the second shot with his own eyes.

In this interview with Aynesworth he basically opens it with saying he didn't see JFK at the time of the assassination'

And I don’t believe that whoever apparently told him that they saw this intended to imply that the second shot was the fatal head shot.
 It appears to me that JFK would have had a sudden reaction when he was hit in the back of the base of his neck. And that that was what is described as a jerk of his head. We do not see this head jerk on the Zapruder film  because JFK is still hidden from Zapruder’s camera by the sign when the bullet hit him.

JFK did react within a fraction of a second of being hit. This first reaction is recorded in Zapruder and is dealt with in this thread. The head jerk is a reference to the headshot. JFK is indeed hidden behind the sign when hit at z223 but by z224 onwards enough of him is visible to ascertain when his first reaction to being hit took place.

And JFK appears to have already started to raise his arms by the time he emerges into camera view from behind the sign.

The danger of using JFK's right arm position as he emerges from behind the sign to indicate a reaction to being shot is dealt with in this thread. It is his left arm position that indicates his reaction more accurately

[Charles Collins]

In this interview with Aynesworth he basically opens it with saying he didn't see JFK at the time of the assassination'

JFK did react within a fraction of a second of being hit. This first reaction is recorded in Zapruder and is dealt with in this thread. The head jerk is a reference to the headshot. JFK is indeed hidden behind the sign when hit at z223 but by z224 onwards enough of him is visible to ascertain when his first reaction to being hit took place.

The danger of using JFK's right arm position as he emerges from behind the sign to indicate a reaction to being shot is dealt with in this thread. It is his left arm position that indicates his reaction more accurately

In this interview with Aynesworth he basically opens it with saying he didn't see JFK at the time of the assassination'

Yes, my memories of everything that I have read and seen on Hugh Aynesworth all have indicated this. That is why I ordered the book that inexplicably suggests otherwise. Hugh Aynesworth is still around. He could explain what he was thinking in May of 1964 when he wrote the account requested by his editor and included in the book. But I don’t think that I want to be the one to ask him about this. I will choose to believe the possible explanation that I already stated earlier in this thread.

[John Tonkovich]

Mr Aynesworth, his then wife, the DPD and/ or Sherriff's officers conspired to leak Oswald's diary to the press. For money.
Take that for what you will, in re: Mr Aynesworth and credibility.

[John Tonkovich]

In this interview with Aynesworth he basically opens it with saying he didn't see JFK at the time of the assassination'

JFK did react within a fraction of a second of being hit. This first reaction is recorded in Zapruder and is dealt with in this thread. The head jerk is a reference to the headshot. JFK is indeed hidden behind the sign when hit at z223 but by z224 onwards enough of him is visible to ascertain when his first reaction to being hit took place.

The danger of using JFK's right arm position as he emerges from behind the sign to indicate a reaction to being shot is dealt with in this thread. It is his left arm position that indicates his reaction more accurately

Mr O'meara again assumes he knows what was going on behind the sign.
JFK's reactions from Z223 onward are...his actions. Simply that.
They could have begun just then. Or they could have begun at Z215. Or Z209.
There's no way, from the Zfilm, of knowing.
There is, however, other evidence to consider.

[Pat Speer]

Pat Speers apparently interprets Hugh Aynesworth’s words differently. Spinning them to try to imply that they indicate a shot after the fatal head shot. However, Aynesworth’s story is not sworn testimony, it is most likely an anecdotal comment from another witness (because Aynesworth could not have seen this from his position), and Bill Rives gave license to the reporters to include anecdotes, etc.. 

 

Huh. Aynesworth's original account of his actions on the day of the shooting, found in the book you recently purchased, claims he saw Kennedy's head jerk with the second shot. He reports this in an eyewitness account--not in an account of the shooting as told by numerous witnesses. If you read through the book, furthermore, you'll find that the notes collected by his paper were all supposed to be personal accounts of the day of the shooting, and not news stories comprising the recollections of others.  Now, this was written before the publication of the Warren Report, and the gradual belief the last shot was the head shot. So it's understandable if Aynesworth backed away from his initial impression--lord knows many other witnesses did as much.

Now, could Aynesworth have even seen Kennedy at the time of the head shot? Good question. Probably not. The possibility exists, then, that he just added the bit about seeing Kennedy's head jerk to impress his boss--Aynesworth was at that time a young ambitions reporter and he may very well have noticed how those closest to the action (or claiming to be closest to the action, a la Dan Rather) received a boost in credibility, and stature, within the journalistic community. (See Barbie Zelizer's Covering the Body).

Now, as to my personal feelings regarding Aynesworth's credibility... When I created my witness database, many if not most CTs were of the mind-set Aynesworth was not even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting--I mean, where were his notes, his interviews, etc, and why hasn't he ID'ed himself in a photo, etc... But, from reading his many statements over the years, I've come to believe he was just where he said he was (at least some of the time), mid-block on the east side of Houston and Elm.

So why do I think as much? Aynesworth is a dyed-in-the-wool Oswald did-it guy. And yet he has been consistent in claiming the last two shots were bunched together. If he'd made up his story, it seems he would have changed it to fit the nonsensical 160-224-313 scenario pushed by most LNs these days. But he hasn't. So I tend to believe it is his genuine impression the last two shots were bunched together.

In any event, upon re-reading Aynesworth's account, I noticed something I should have included on my website--that Aynesworth placed himself in the vicinity of a large black woman wearing a pink dress. Such a woman should be easy to spot in the crowd along Houston. I took a quick look and was unable to find her. Maybe someone with an interest in supporting Aynesworth's credibility could find her, and then find him nearby.