The First Shot

[Chris Bristow]

The accounts in which the last two sounds were almost simultaneous or very close together (less than the time required to aim and fire the rifle) were most likely describing the sounds of the impacts of the bullet (or one of its fragments)  with the skull, or the inside of the windshield or the sound of the skull exploding (not the sound of a separate shot). In these cases their accounts would be describing a sound that was mistaken for a shot. And therefore these accounts should not be considered as describing the last two shots closer together and should removed from this category.


That said, using statistics of witness accounts alone (without other evidence to substantiate it) to attempt to make sense of this aspect is pointless. There are too many variables, and most witness accounts were taken after a period of time in which other descriptions from other witnesses (seen on TV or heard on radio or read in the papers and magazines or communications in person) could have colored their memories.

Our memories are reconstructions (not taped replays) and are based on associations. They are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Basing one’s theory on witness accounts, without confirmation from other evidence, is not recommended. And if one bases a theory solely upon statistics of witness accounts then starts to look for some other evidence to support it, confirmation bias is most likely going to follow.

Charles, the sound of a shock wave or muzzle blast is just not similar to the sound of a piece of shrapnel, The sound of the round hitting JFK's head was heard by several people and it is also a distinct sound different from a shock wave or muzzle blast. I think it was Connally or Kellerman who described the sound  like a melon being broken open. I think Kellerman and Greer would easily differentiate between rounds entering the limo and shrapnel.
 Basing a theory on the statistics of witness accounts is exactly what a police detective does isn't it? It is based on the majority of witnesses. That does not mean that they draw a conclusion from it, they use it to create a theory and follow it to see if it is correct. I am not saying that the witnesses statements are proof, they are circumstantial evidence and compelling because of the number of witnesses and the statements of two SS agents who had fire arms training and were so close to the action.
 

[Chris Bristow]

Echoes, anyone?

Bill, most heard three shots so where were the echos? I think if echos were an issue we would have many people reporting 4 to six shots
 The cop on the East side of the Elm/Houston corner heard major echos bounce between the buildings and I assume the sound would have bounced its way East on Elm. Two women on Main in the courthouse heard echos and I assume the sound bounced its way East on Main. One SS agent in the follow up car said there was an extremely loud echo from the underpass, so loud he could not tell were the shots were coming from. It is possible he heard another shot not an echo since it was so loud. It could still be the case that the underpass echo sounded like another shot but I think Kellerman and Greer were going by the sound of a shock wave heading towards them followed by a round impact.
Witnesses who experienced echos tended to recognize them as such. But it is the fact they mostly reported only three shots that tells me echos were not a big issue.   

[Charles Collins]

Charles, the sound of a shock wave or muzzle blast is just not similar to the sound of a piece of shrapnel, The sound of the round hitting JFK's head was heard by several people and it is also a distinct sound different from a shock wave or muzzle blast. I think it was Connally or Kellerman who described the sound  like a melon being broken open. I think Kellerman and Greer would easily differentiate between rounds entering the limo and shrapnel.
 Basing a theory on the statistics of witness accounts is exactly what a police detective does isn't it? It is based on the majority of witnesses. That does not mean that they draw a conclusion from it, they use it to create a theory and follow it to see if it is correct. I am not saying that the witnesses statements are proof, they are circumstantial evidence and compelling because of the number of witnesses and the statements of two SS agents who had fire arms training and were so close to the action.

Every case is unique, so generalizations are really not going to be advisable. I believe that police detectives rely mostly on the physical evidence to determine likely theories of what occurred. The witness accounts are of interest but not considered very reliable. Here’s an example: Mason has his theory that JFK was hit in the back of the base of his neck with the first shot, and that JBC was hit with a separate shot. The physical evidence doesn’t support that theory because it can’t account for where the bullet went after it exited JFK’s throat. It would have hit something in the limo and there would have been evidence of it. The only theory that fits the physical evidence is the single bullet theory. JBC was positioned such that that bullet hit him in the back near his right armpit. Once that was realized the physical evidence fit.

 One shot missed. Exactly when it occurred, and why it missed are questions that are difficult to answer. The physical evidence suggests that it probably hit the manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street, ricocheted and hit the curb next to Tague. And the ergonomics (physical evidence) in the sniper’s nest suggest that interference from the conduit or the top box could have caused that shot to happen inadvertently before it was fully aimed. Proving that theory is probably not possible. Jack Ruby made sure of that.

[Andrew Mason]

I see your first witness is high-confidence. No surprise. Poor Bob Jackson is fast becoming your "star witness".

Well, he is a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer. so that makes him somewhat of a star. That also indicates that he has some good observational skills.  But I have to thank you for pointing out Malcolm Kilduff whose later statements I was not aware of until you kindly pointed it out. Funny how that is: the more one digs, the more evidence one finds that the shot pattern was 1.....2...3.

Please explain how your second witness, Linda Willis, could see the President slump about the time of your first shot.

I don't have to explain.  Her testimony speaks for itself:
"Miss WILLIS. Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went."

All you have to do is look at the Zapruder film to see JFK doing exactly what Linda Willis said she saw...AFTER the first shot and before "two real fast bullets together".  So, despite what your suspicions may be from your photo analysis, she was able to see that.

Rather than during the first two shots,  Hurchel Jacks could just as well be saying Youngblood got into the back seat during the last two shots.

    "He climbed to the rear of the seat with the Vice President and appeared
     to be shielding the Vice President with his own body. At that time I heard
     two more shots ring out."

But we know Youngblood didn't hop over the front seat even then because Johnson and him are seated in their respective seats in the Altgens photo.

I don't know what you think you are seeing in Altgens #6 but it looks to me like something is blocking a clear view of the right side of the back seat to the right of Lady Bird. What else could that be?  We can see the top/side of the back of Johnson's head but we can't see Younblood's head anywhere.

Why Z282? We can see enough of Greer's face by Z277 to know he's turned around about as far as he ever got. The film also shows Greer turned around by frame 273 (when we first see his hairline clearly; it's the same as later frames).



Greer is probably turned to his right in the Altgens photo.

It is absolutely impossible to tell what direction Greer is looking in the Altgens photo.  There is just shadow.  But if you look at the zfilm during this time his chest and shoulders do not move at all.

Kellerman begins to turn his head to his left about the late-Z240s. Possibly, both Greer and Kellerman heard Connally shouting beginning at Z242, which finally prompted them to look back. In Greer's case, he said he heard the second shot before turning his head.

This doesn't do much for your "second shot" at Z271. You have to learn to follow the evidence.

The second shot at z271 is consistent with:
1. JBC sailing toward the front before falling back on his wife
2. change in appearance of JBC's cuff from z271-272
3. movement of the sunvisor z271-272
4. JFK's hair flying up from z273-276 as reported by Hickey.
5. Greer turning back immediately AFTER the second shot and seeing JBC falling back onto his wife. That does not begin until z278.

It is also now corroborated by secret service interviews as recounted by Gerald Blaine in his book The Kennedy Detail who reported that the second shot occurred as Clint Hill stepped off the runningboard and ran to the President's car.

[Charles Collins]

The Mason Theory has the CE399 bullet transit Kennedy's neck and go on to pass to the left of Connally (not striking his torso or arm) and then strike the Governor's left thigh, when it stopped. He thinks the bullet was slowed down enough when it left the neck to not fracture the thigh bone.

Mason's second shot at Z271-ish is fired from the Sniper's Nest and directly strikes the Governor in the back and then the arm. I guess the bullet fractures or something. This is where Greer hears the second shot and is supposed to look back around Z282 and see the Governor "start to fall". The Governor's actions between emerging from behind the sign and being struck in the Z270s are explained as "expressing concern" for the President.

Mason appears to be on Planet Earth with the head shot.

Thanks, I must have forgotten some of his details. However, the physical evidence indicates that JBC’s back (near his right armpit) was lined up with the trajectory of the bullet, not his left thigh. Also that the thigh wound was not very deep. Neither of those support that theory.

[Andrew Mason]

Thanks, I must have forgotten some of his details. However, the physical evidence indicates that JBC’s back (near his right armpit) was lined up with the trajectory of the bullet, not his left thigh. Also that the thigh wound was not very deep. Neither of those support that theory.

I am not sure how you conclude that.  In order for JBC's right armpit to be in line with the exit trajectory from JFK's throat, JBC had to be where Thomas Canning put him:

In order to get JBC that far left, he had to assume that his right shoulder would have been visible in Betzner's z186 photo if he was any farther to the right:


But that was an error because JBC's shoulder was below the top of the car as seen in the Altgens #5 photo:


and we can see from this photo that JBC was not nearly as far left as Canning put him.

If the first shot occurred between z190 and z200 (which is consistent with Betzner, Croft, Willis and the witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade), you will see that JBC is turned to the right and you can readily see that he is not where Canning has placed him:


If his legs were spread apart (which I suggest is a reasonable possibility) JBC's left leg would have been exposed something like this:


As far as the depth of the thigh wound, Dr. Shires who operated on it and reviewed the xrays said that there was a bit of lead in the femur and he debrided the wound down to the femur.

[Charles Collins]

I am not sure how you conclude that.  In order for JBC's right armpit to be in line with the exit trajectory from JFK's throat, JBC had to be where Thomas Canning put him:

In order to get JBC that far left, he had to assume that his right shoulder would have been visible in Betzner's z186 photo if he was any farther to the right:


But that was an error because JBC's shoulder was below the top of the car as seen in the Altgens #5 photo:


and we can see from this photo that JBC was not nearly as far left as Canning put him.

If the first shot occurred between z190 and z200 (which is consistent with Betzner, Croft, Willis and the witnesses along Elm and in the motorcade), you will see that JBC is turned to the right and you can readily see that he is not where Canning has placed him:


If his legs were spread apart (which I suggest is a reasonable possibility) JBC's left leg would have been exposed something like this:


As far as the depth of the thigh wound, Dr. Shires who operated on it and reviewed the xrays said that there was a bit of lead in the femur and he debrided the wound down to the femur.

Here is a similar angled view (of a re-enactment) which appears to be just a few feet further down Elm Street (I don't remember for sure which exact Z-rame this re-enactment is portraying):




And this is an overhead view of the same position:



I believe that the reason we apparently don't see JBC's right shoulder in the Betzner photo is that the shot actually occurred a little later than when that photo was taken. JBC said that he turned to look at JFK and was in the middle of turning the other way (to look over his left shoulder for JFK) when he was hit (in the back). So JBC was moving during that time period, not stationary. A look at the Z-186 frame shows that JBC was turned to his right, I believe that that was approximately when he was turned as far right as he could. And his right shoulder was a little further towards the centerline of the limo than it was after he started to turn the other way. A look at the Z-frames that follow Z-186 confirms that JBC was turning back the other way.

Another point is: If you want to rely on witness testimony for the timing of this shot, then how the heck can you ignore the fact that JBC said that he felt the shot hit his back. If he had been shot in the left leg a few seconds before he was hit in the back (as you suggest), why wouldn't he have said that be the pain he said he felt when he was shot was in his left thigh?

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew, I counted 35 who said the last shots were closer but that is not specific of course. 22 of those used terms like "In rapid succession" or "almost at the same time". That is significant.

The reverberation in Dealey Plaza caused by the reflection of sound from the TSBD, the buildings along Houston and the concrete structures in the plaza had the effect of sustaining the sound after the gun fired. There was also a large building south of Dealey Plaza (Post office) that sound would have reflected from and sustained the sound for some time afterward. The distance from the TSBD to the Post Office was about 600 feet so the first reflection would have taken more than a second to return. Mary Woodward described the last two shots as follows:

"“The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.” … “and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”

It would have been interesting if someone had tested the reverberation to see how long it would take for the sound to die out. 

Several witnesses did describe the time interval as more than a second:Jackson: 2 seconds; Emmett Hudson: "'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle"; Yarborough: 1.5 seconds; "not more than 2 seconds": Roger Craig.

One thing is certain: they were not describing a 5 second pause between 2 and 3.