The First Shot

[Andrew Mason]

Firstly - I'm not avoiding anything.
Secondly - you still haven't dealt with the arguments I have presented

What arguments?  That the left hand is the only indicator of whether he is reacting?  That seems to be what it boils down to.  Based on your hunch, you assert that the stimulus for the motion of his left hand beginning in z225 occurred at z223. 

I have pointed out that there is no evidence that conflicts with a more gradual reaction to being shot at z195-200, which is when TE Moore, Jeanette Hooker (when the President was just almost to the Thornton Freeway sign), Phil Willis (just an instant before his z202 photo), as well as numerous motorcade and Elm St. witnesses put the first shot. 

I have dealt with it by pointing out that his face and his right arm and hand are showing signs of reacting by z224 and certainly by z225. I point out that we can't see all the rest of JFK before z223.  Other than your hunch that his left arm determines when he was hit, you really have not offered much evidence to support your view that the shot occurred at z223. 

Thirdly - the answer to your "simple question" is in the arguments I have presented.

Which is your hunch that the z225 left hand motion has to be within 2 frames of being shot. And I asked you how you can rule out that he was not already reacting behind the sign before z223.  To which you have never responded.

[Dan O'meara]

Let's have a look at what you describe as my "hunch" concerning JFK's left arm.

It has already been established that for the full duration of the Z-film, from z133 (when we first see the presidential limo) until z225 (just after JFK emerges from behind the 'Stemmons' sign), JFK's left arm is down by his side. This is a fact, not a hunch.
Within approximately one third of a second JFK's left arm moves from this position (at z225)



To this position (at z232)



Within such a ridiculously small amount of time his left elbow goes from being down by his side at z225 to the unnaturally extended position we see in z232. This is a fact, it is not a hunch.
It would be difficult to achieve this speed of movement as a conscious action but JFK is doing it as a reflex reaction to being shot. It is reasonable to assume that prior to this moment he has no intention of raising his arm in such a fashion.

Is it a "hunch" to assume JFK is reacting to being shot?
JFK is shot through the throat. His reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands up to his throat. This reaction begins at z225. This is not a hunch.
His left arm does not raise up before z225. This is not a hunch.
So if his reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands to his throat, and if it can be clearly demonstrated from the Z-film that this reaction does not occur until z225 then what is this "hunch" you're talking about?
Maybe you are proposing that whilst JFK is behind the sign he has a "pre-reaction" to being shot. The problem with that is the extreme speed at which JFK moves which indicates a "reflex reaction" to being shot (NOT A GAGGING REFLEX  , A REFLEX REACTION). A Reflex Reaction would be his first response to such a traumatic injury. We don't need to guess about what's going on behind the sign as the Z-film shows us his first reaction.

So what is this "hunch"? - "That the left hand is the only indicator of whether he is reacting?"
Really? It's the only indicator?

Are there any other extreme and rapid reactions that occur at the same time as JFK's left arm movement?
At z223 both JFK and JBC are shot through with the same bullet. The close-up of the Z-film below focusses on JBC. It begins with him looking to his right, towards the people lining Elm St. He has a quick look to his left then resumes looking to his right. By z167 JBC has completed his turn to the left and is looking towards the crowds to his right. From this point on until he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign JBC stays in exactly this position!




The following frames from the Z-film (z222 and z223) show JBC after he has emerged from behind the sign. He shows no signs of distress and appears to look exactly the same as when he passed behind the sign:



From this seemingly relaxed position JBC undergoes a rapid and extreme reaction. He is holding his Stetson hat which is resting in his lap. Between frames z225 and z230 the Stetson suddenly leaps up to his face. This action takes approximately one quarter of a second. It is incredibly quick. Up to this point the hat has been resting in his lap then suddenly, at exactly the same moment JFK is making his incredibly rapid movements, JBC also "decides" to make an incredibly rapid movement of his own:



But this is not the only incredibly quick movement taking place at this time. As JFK emerges from behind the sign at z224 we can see his hand is in an open position (somewhere you have used the ridiculous expression "semi clenched" but you mean "open", although not fully extended open). I have presented a clear argument that we cannot use the position of JFK's right arm/hand at this point as a reliable indicator of when JFK first reacts to being shot. The reason we can't use it as a reliable indicator is because JFK is moving it around as he passes behind the Stremmons sign.
Even so, there is still a discernable and incredibly rapid reaction that takes place which I have described as the "Hand Snap". This is a post from earlier in the thread:

JFK's reaction to being shot seems strange in a couple of ways. Firstly, he doesn't 'clutch' at his throat as one might expect, instead his hands clench into fists which he seems to jam under his chin. Secondly is the way his elbows extend upwards in quite an extreme way. For a second or so he seems to go rigid, his elbows extended upwards. To me this seems more like a reflex than a straightforward reaction to an external stimulus. The difference being that a reflex is quicker than a reaction.

“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.” [https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]

If we assume the average reaction to a touch stimulus is 150 milliseconds we can use this to get a rough estimate of when JFK was first hit. Before that, it must be established when JFK first reacted to being shot. As I stated in an earlier post, as JFK begins to emerge from behind the Stemmons sign (z224) we can see his right hand in a slightly raised position. I argued that, as he was coming to the end of his last wave I couldn't draw anything conclusive about this hand position (ie: he was already reaching for his throat) and that the movement of his left arm/hand was a much truer indication of when he reacted to being shot. It appeared to me that the most obvious reaction began at z226 but there seemed to be a hint of movement at z225. In the clip below i would like to focus on JFK's right hand. It is known that after being shot his hands clench into fists which he thrusts under his chin. The clip below shows the moment his right hand clenches shut into a fist:



It seems clear to me that his hand is beginning to close in z225 and fully closes shut in z226. From this I conclude that his very first reaction to being shot can be seen in z225.
Each Zapruder frame represents, approximately, a timespan of 55 milliseconds. If we accept the reaction time to a touch stimulus as 150 milliseconds this means the stimulus (the shot) cannot have occurred more than 4 z-frames before the reaction. That is to say, the shot to which JFK is reacting cannot have occurred before z221, particularly if it is a reflex reaction. It is also worth noting that a reflex reaction is much quicker than a normal reaction to a stimulus. As such it can be expected that the first shot hit JFK z221 to z224.


At the same moment in the Z-film there are at least three unbelievably quick reflex reactions - JFK's left elbow shooting up from his side to a point of full extension (about one third of a second), JBC's Stetson suddenly flying up from his lap close to his face (one quarter of a second) and JFK's hand snapping shut (less than one fifth of a second).

Three extremely rapid reactions, all occurring at the same time. To postulate these are reactions to stimulus a couple of seconds earlier is absurd.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Most successful defense attorneys are. However, Posner, Bugliosi and the lawyers on the WC are heads and shoulders above a spatially-challenged lawyer who vainly argues a failed Theory.



When people believe slime-ball attorneys or rally to their specious arguments that waste court time and resources.

I wouldn't include Dershowitz in that "slime ball" category. Giuliani, yes; I have no idea what's happened to him with Trump and this election nonsense. Slimy? Deranged? I don't know.

Dershowitz has been defending "unpopular" people for decades. And he's taught generations of lawyers at Harvard. This is no crank or sleazeball. He's always been one warning about a "mob mentality" that is too quick to find people guilty. And for this he should be credited. He defends liberals or conservatives, Democrats, Marxists, Republicans, anarchists. He defended Clinton when he was impeached. He favors no side; just, as he sees it, the law. As he explained it: "I am a liberal Democrat in politics, but a neutral civil libertarian when it comes to the Constitution." Hell, I'll wager that he would have defended Oswald and made sure that his rights were being protected.

We can counter his arguments - his views on what constitutes an impeachable offense are far too strict - but to call him a slime ball is unfair.

As to the WC lawyers: some of the top trial lawyers in the country advised the Commission. I mentioned Joseph Ball but we can add Albert Jenner. And John Hart Ely went on to a distinguished career. Norman Redlich founded the NYU law school.

I mean, for crissakes, anyone who thinks these men would willingly and knowingly coverup for the assassination of JFK is just thinking bizarre things. If you think they were wrong then state your case. But to accuse them of actively engaging in a coverup and framing an innocent man is simply absurd. But in conspiracy world - as we see with this nonsense about the election being stolen from Trump - absurdities are all conspiracists have.

[Andrew Mason]

Let's have a look at what you describe as my "hunch" concerning JFK's left arm.

It has already been established that for the full duration of the Z-film, from z133 (when we first see the presidential limo) until z225 (just after JFK emerges from behind the 'Stemmons' sign), JFK's left arm is down by his side. This is a fact, not a hunch.
Within approximately one third of a second JFK's left arm moves from this position (at z225)

I agree. That is an observation.

To this position (at z232)

I agree. Just an observation.

Within such a ridiculously small amount of time his left elbow goes from being down by his side at z225 to the unnaturally extended position we see in z232. This is a fact, it is not a hunch.

I agree.  Just an observation.

It would be difficult to achieve this speed of movement as a conscious action but JFK is doing it as a reflex reaction to being shot. It is reasonable to assume that prior to this moment he has no intention of raising his arm in such a fashion.
Is it a "hunch" to assume JFK is reacting to being shot?
JFK is shot through the throat. His reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands up to his throat. This reaction begins at z225. This is not a hunch.
His left arm does not raise up before z225. This is not a hunch.

I agree that it is a reaction to being shot.  It just doesn't tell you when he was shot.  It tells you more about when his brain became aware that something was wrong after having been shot.  Moreover, we cannot tell from just looking at the zfilm that he is not already reacting behind the sign.

When I slip on ice I don't plan ahead of time that I am going to move my body in such and such a way to avoid falling.  I just do it.  It is a  pre-programmed hard-wired response to certain stimuli that tell my brain that I am about to fall.   

I agree that JFK very likely was not consciously thinking of where he was going to move his arms before he moved them.  We have no evidence at all how someone being shot through the neck like that - missing spinal cord, bone and nerves and just passing through soft tissue - will react.   While you point to the lifting of his left arm from z223 to z227 as being too sudden to be planned that does not mean it is within a tenth of a second of being hit.  That motion may be a hard-wired response to being unable to breathe.  He starts to feel that he cannot breathe, or he starts to feels blood filling his windpipe and starts to gag, or he feels something else that causes him instinctively to react.  What we do not know is how long after being pierced by a bullet in the neck like that, that such a sensation would be felt.

So if his reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands to his throat, and if it can be clearly demonstrated from the Z-film that this reaction does not occur until z225 then what is this "hunch" you're talking about?

The "hunch" that you are going on is that the response at z225 occurs within 2 frames or 110 ms after the bullet passes through his neck.  There is absolutely no evidence to support that. Therefore, it is a "hunch" as in "a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than known facts"; "an idea that is based on feeling and for which there is no proof".

Moreover, the movement of the arms from z225 looks more like a response to choking than to any kind of pain or other sensation.   The choking sensation is not necessarily going to occur the instant the bullet hits.

Maybe you are proposing that whilst JFK is behind the sign he has a "pre-reaction" to being shot. The problem with that is the extreme speed at which JFK moves which indicates a "reflex reaction" to being shot (NOT A GAGGING REFLEX  , A REFLEX REACTION). A Reflex Reaction would be his first response to such a traumatic injury. We don't need to guess about what's going on behind the sign as the Z-film shows us his first reaction.

So, again, you are using your "hunch" that the trigger for the "reflex" reaction is the bullet passing through his neck rather than the physiological impairment that resulted from that injury. 

So what is this "hunch"? - "That the left hand is the only indicator of whether he is reacting?"
Really? It's the only indicator?

No. I am just saying that we cannot pinpoint the time the bullet struck from the reactions we see because we don't know how long after the bullet penetrated his neck that he began to react, AND we cannot tell when his reaction began.   Since he is already reacting when we first see him emerge from behind the sign we cannot rule out the real possibility, if not probability, that he was reacting before z223.   His left hand is showing signs consistent with a reaction in z224 and his face is clearly showing a reaction when we first see it in z225.  We don't see his face before z225.  So how can you tell he is not reacting facially and with his left arm (and perhaps with other body parts that we can't see) before z225?  But that doesn't even matter.  Even if his first reaction did not begin until the very instant he appears from behind the sign, we don't know how long before that the bullet necessarily struck. The evidence from several independent sources is that the first shot occurred just before z202.  Your hunch does not fit that evidence.

Are there any other extreme and rapid reactions that occur at the same time as JFK's left arm movement?
At z223 both JFK and JBC are shot through with the same bullet.

Not according to Gov. Connally or his wife.  JBC and others said he turned around to see the President after the first shot.  He said that he turned because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot.  He said that he was hit in the back after turning around to see JFK.  Nellie told Dr. Shires that her husband was turned around to his right when the second shot occurred.  There is simply no such turn before z230.   Where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK after the first shot and before he was hit?  You don't, of course, because you reject the Connallys' evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Not according to Gov. Connally or his wife.  JBC and others said he turned around to see the President after the first shot.  He said that he turned because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot.  He said that he was hit in the back after turning around to see JFK.  Nellie told Dr. Shires that her husband was turned around to his right when the second shot occurred.  There is simply no such turn before z230.   Where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK after the first shot and before he was hit?  You don't, of course, because you reject the Connallys' evidence.

Obviously I'm talking about measurable observations we see in the Z-film.
Your recourse to contradictory witness evidence shows the weakness of your position.
If you wish to discuss the observations recorded in the Z-film and the ramifications of these observations, fair enough.
I put the video/photographic evidence before the witness testimony.
You don't and it's obvious why you don't.

[Andrew Mason]

Obviously I'm talking about measurable observations we see in the Z-film.
Your recourse to contradictory witness evidence shows the weakness of your position.
If you wish to discuss the observations recorded in the Z-film and the ramifications of these observations, fair enough.
I put the video/photographic evidence before the witness testimony.
You don't and it's obvious why you don't.

Actually, you put your interpretation of the film/photographic evidence before witness testimony.  If you take the position that there is some kind of inherently superior quality to certain kinds of evidence that entitles you to ignore large bodies of other evidence, you are making up your own rules.  The trier of fact has to carefully assess all the evidence and draw conclusions based on all the evidence. Juries are told this in every trial.

The weight given to one's interpretation of the film/photographic evidence depends how that interpretation fits with the rest of the evidence.  Where the film/photographic evidence is unequivocal, it is entitled to a great deal of weight, which is not a problem because the witness evidence doesn't conflict with it.  We see the head shot at z313 and conclude that that coincided within a couple of frames of a very loud rifle sound. And, guess what, that is not inconsistent with what all the witnesses said. 

Although the zfilm is not unequivocal with respect to the times of the other shots, we can conclude:

• that there were three shots only because the vast majority of witnesses said there were exactly three loud noises. 
• that the last two shots were close together because the vast majority of witnesses independently recalled that pattern. 
• that the first shot struck JFK because the vast majority of witnesses observed his reaction after the first shot and before the second. Not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot.
• that Governor Connally turned around after the first shot and before he was hit because the witnesses - JBC, Nellie, Gayle Newman, and others recalled this.  And the zfilm shows this. 

While there are witnesses who thought that there may have been a shot after the headshot at z313, there are many witnesses who said it was the last shot (Connally's, SSAgents in the QM, Dave Powers, bystanders close by).  The zfilm does not tell us it was the last shot.  We have to look at all the witness evidence, not just the witnesses who recalled whether the headshot was the last shot.  It is the witness evidence as to the first and second shots that confirms that the headshot was the third and last shot.

[Dan O'meara]

Actually, you put your interpretation of the film/photographic evidence before witness testimony.  If you take the position that there is some kind of inherently superior quality to certain kinds of evidence that entitles you to ignore large bodies of other evidence, you are making up your own rules.  The trier of fact has to carefully assess all the evidence and draw conclusions based on all the evidence. Juries are told this in every trial.

There is an "inherently superior quality" to the evidence provided by the Z-film over the contradictory evidence of witness accounts.
That doesn't mean witness statements are ignored. To suggest I'm ignoring "large bodies of other evidence" is mystifying, particularly when it is you ignoring the evidence before your eyes in the Z-film and scrabbling around for cherry-picked, selected statements that prop up your failed model. A model that has failed spectacularly in key areas.
When I observe the headshot at z313 is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe JFK sat in a limo is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe radical, extreme and rapid physical reactions, is that "my interpretation"?
I think not,
It is notable you have completely abandoned trying to argue against the video evidence I have presented showing multiple extreme physical reactions occurring at the same time.
You are right to to try to switch the focus to vague lawyerly philosophy. It's a pity you can't bring yourself to accept a new way of looking at things.

The weight given to one's interpretation of the film/photographic evidence depends how that interpretation fits with the rest of the evidence.  Where the film/photographic evidence is unequivocal, it is entitled to a great deal of weight, which is not a problem because the witness evidence doesn't conflict with it.  We see the head shot at z313 and conclude that that coincided within a couple of frames of a very loud rifle sound. And, guess what, that is not inconsistent with what all the witnesses said. 

The multiple extreme, coordinated and rapid reactions I observe in the Z-film are unequivocal.
They are recorded and measurable.
You cannot escape this fact and it is something that you should be willing to consider more deeply.

Although the zfilm is not unequivocal with respect to the times of the other shots, we can conclude:

• that there were three shots only because the vast majority of witnesses said there were exactly three loud noises. 
• that the last two shots were close together because the vast majority of witnesses independently recalled that pattern. 
• that the first shot struck JFK because the vast majority of witnesses observed his reaction after the first shot and before the second. Not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot.
• that Governor Connally turned around after the first shot and before he was hit because the witnesses - JBC, Nellie, Gayle Newman, and others recalled this.  And the zfilm shows this. 

You're last point is clearly wrong.
The Z-film unequivocally shows JBC reacting in an extreme and rapid manner. I came across the following at the McAdams website:

In 1976 the Itek Corporation, specialists in photographic analysis, looked at the issue of exactly when Connally was showing a reaction to being hit. The following is their report.
By frame 232-234 there is strong evidence that the Governor is reacting to a significant effect on his body; or from other data, to a bullet wound. He placed the time of his reaction at 234. We studied the film in this area to determine if there were any striking changes in his physical appearance which could be interpreted as the onset of a reaction. Five photo analysts studied the original film from frames 222-240. They all concluded independently that somewhere between 223-226 there are signs of the beginning of a significant change in the governor's position and appearance. Some of their comments are paraphrased below.
— As Connally first clears the obscuring sign on frame 221, his facial features are not discernable or distinct. Frames 222 and 223 show no unusual action and Connally's face and features remain frozen (normal). With frame 224, I observe a slight grimace, a minor body twist, a slight arching of the back and a rearward head motion. These reactions continue on frame 225 which includes a slight hiking up in the seat. By frame 226 Connally's head is turned forward which I judged to be a rapid reaction. Frame 227 yields no information due to the high amount of smear, but the following frames 228, 9 and 30 indicate a rapid reaction of the hand holding the Stetson which was flicked up and down quickly.
— I observe a rotation of the Governor's body from right to left beginning at frame 223. It isn't obvious that this is significant relative to the study objective, however I also observe what I would consider an involuntary and unusual motion of his right hand and arm at 225. Before 225, his hand is hidden from Zapruder's view, down below the edge of the door. At 225-226 it can be seen to travel rapidly upward until it is about level with his chin in 228. From 228-230 he flips his hat rapidly. At 229 it appears upside down in his hand with the thin edge of the brim extending toward Zapruder. By 230 the hat has flipped so that one can now see into it. This all takes place within less than 1/3 of a second so it would appear to be somewhat unusual.

— At frame #223 he is turned in the jump seat sitting well into the car. I noticed a facial expression changing between #223 and 224 to a grimacing look. His body has moved forward (toward the edge of the car) with his right shoulder twisting to his left and downward. Between frames #225 and 226 a rapid motion of the Governor's right hand begins, i.e. #225 - his hand inside of car, #226 - his Stetson hat appears over the edge of the car, #228 - the hat is up in front of his chin concealing it. At #229 and 230 he flips his hat from edge on to a view of looking at the inside of it.

Source: "John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis" — Itek Corporation, May 2, 1976, pp. 36-39 Emphasis in original.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm)

You can put the greater weight on contradictory and muddled witness statements. That is your prerogative.

If you want to take this conversation down the road of vague philosophical arguments I won't be following. I'm presenting my model for when the first shot occurred on this thread. Its a strong model and has withstood any attempt to undermine it. We agree on so much, I do not think the step from your model to mine is that great.

[Andrew Mason]

There is an "inherently superior quality" to the evidence provided by the Z-film over the contradictory evidence of witness accounts.

The only thing the witness evidence contradicts is your hunch that the reaction shown in the zfilm after JFK emerges from behind the sign indicates that he was hit in the neck 110 ms earlier.

That doesn't mean witness statements are ignored. To suggest I'm ignoring "large bodies of other evidence" is mystifying, particularly when it is you ignoring the evidence before your eyes in the Z-film and scrabbling around for cherry-picked, selected statements that prop up your failed model. A model that has failed spectacularly in key areas.
When I observe the headshot at z313 is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe JFK sat in a limo is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe radical, extreme and rapid physical reactions, is that "my interpretation"?
I think not,

Of course, that is the classical straw man argument.  I have never suggested that those facts are anything but unequivocal.  Of course the headshot occurs at z313, that JFK sat in the limo and that we see JFK react with extreme and rapid physical reactions.  No one is challenging you on that.  No one.  So why use that in your argument?

It is notable you have completely abandoned trying to argue against the video evidence I have presented showing multiple extreme physical reactions occurring at the same time.

It is film evidence, not video evidence, btw.  I have never argued against the film or photographic evidence.  It is not the film or photographs that are in issue.  Rather it is the interpretation of what has happened to cause those things we see and when they happened.  All I am saying is that in order to determine what is happening you have to listen to the people who were there.  You have already concluded that those frames show JFK's reaction to the first shot.  You have reached that conclusion because of the overwhelming strength of independent witness evidence.  I agree with you on that.  But others are convinced that he is reacting to the second shot and completely discount all that witness evidence. 

You are right to to try to switch the focus to vague lawyerly philosophy. It's a pity you can't bring yourself to accept a new way of looking at things.

Saying you have to look at all the evidence is not a "vague lawyerly philosophy".  It is the way to accurately draw facts from evidence based on centuries of fact-finding by courts. There is no switch of focus. That has always been my focus.

The multiple extreme, coordinated and rapid reactions I observe in the Z-film are unequivocal.
They are recorded and measurable.
You cannot escape this fact and it is something that you should be willing to consider more deeply.

Again, there is no question about that.  That is a strawman argument.  No one is arguing that. I am certainly not. That is not the point on which we disagree.  The point on which we disagree is your hunch that JFK was shot in the neck 110 ms before z225.  The zfilm does not tell us that.  That is you.  That is your guess based on no evidence. Your intuition is not evidence. And I am merely pointing out that your intuition conflicts with the known evidence. 

You're last point is clearly wrong.
The Z-film unequivocally shows JBC reacting in an extreme and rapid manner.

For the umpteenth time, I agree.  That is not the issue on which we disagree. The issue on which we disagree is your hunch about how long before z225 JFK was hit.

You can put the greater weight on contradictory and muddled witness statements. That is your prerogative.

If you want to take this conversation down the road of vague philosophical arguments I won't be following. I'm presenting my model for when the first shot occurred on this thread. Its a strong model and has withstood any attempt to undermine it. We agree on so much, I do not think the step from your model to mine is that great.

You are right.  There is not much difference. We differ in 23-28 frames or 1.25 to 1.5 seconds on when the first shot occurred.  We also differ on whether the head shot was the last. You think it was the second and that there was a shot after z313.  I say that the evidence shows that it was the last.