The First Shot

[Zeon Mason]

Andrew , the way it appears to me,  at approx Z 226 , JBC right shoulder is moving FORWARD and his torso is rotating counterclockwise.

That’s NOT  JBC turning ClOCKWISE , which is the way he must turn to look over his right shoulder.

Imo, JBC is HIT at Z 226 approx. This causes the forward and counterclockwise turn of his body which continues up UNTIL about Z 250-260

It is at that point when JBCs left hand with hat starts to go up and then at THAT point is when he starts to try to turn In the CLOCKWISE turn (reverse rotation) which is him attempting to look over his right shoulder at JFK, and after which  he falls into Mrs Connallys lap.

In Dans scenario , as I understand it, the
 shot sequence is  1st shot Z 224, 2nd shot =head hit at Z 313, (4.8 secs later) and then a 3rd shot which MISSED at 1-2 secs AFTER 313.

That fits the 1….2..3 sequence.

If I’m mistaken about Dans sequence and
it’s a 2nd shot  BETWEEN Z 226 and Z 313 then that 2nd shot would be approx Z285  so that is just 1 sec Before Z313 . That never the less  would ALSO fit the 1….2..3 sequence

Andrew, your scenario however, does  NOT (imo) account for JBCs right shoulder rotating counterclockwise beginning AT 226 and continuing in that same rotation until about Z 250.

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew , the way it appears to me,  at approx Z 226 , JBC right shoulder is moving FORWARD and his torso is rotating counterclockwise.

That’s NOT  JBC turning ClOCKWISE , which is the way he must turn to look over his right shoulder.

Imo, JBC is HIT at Z 226 approx. This causes the forward and counterclockwise turn of his body which continues up UNTIL about Z 250-260

It is at that point when JBCs left hand with hat starts to go up and then at THAT point is when he starts to try to turn In the CLOCKWISE turn (reverse rotation) which is him attempting to look over his right shoulder at JFK, and after which  he falls into Mrs Connallys lap.

In Dans scenario , as I understand it, the
 shot sequence is  1st shot Z 224, 2nd shot =head hit at Z 313, (4.8 secs later) and then a 3rd shot which MISSED at 1-2 secs AFTER 313.

That fits the 1….2..3 sequence.

If I’m mistaken about Dans sequence and
it’s a 2nd shot  BETWEEN Z 226 and Z 313 then that 2nd shot would be approx Z285  so that is just 1 sec Before Z313 . That never the less  would ALSO fit the 1….2..3 sequence

Andrew, your scenario however, does  NOT (imo) account for JBCs right shoulder rotating counterclockwise beginning AT 226 and continuing in that same rotation until about Z 250.

At z226 he is leaning to the right. The right shoulder movement is at the same time as he raises his right arm and leans forward, which he has to do in order to turn around to the rear. He seems to be straightening up and giving himself room to turn around to see JFK.

You are reading a lot into some very tiny movements and ignoring the big picture:

• Again, where do you see JBC turning around and trying to see JFK?
• The second shot striking JFK in the head does not fit the evidence that JBC was hit on the second shot. This comes from the Connallys, Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman.
• Besides there is strong evidence that the head shot was the last and very little evidence to the contrary.  See my post #1151 in this thread.

,

[Jack Nessan]

At z226 he is leaning to the right. The right shoulder movement is at the same time as he raises his right arm and leans forward, which he has to do in order to turn around to the rear. He seems to be straightening up and giving himself room to turn around to see JFK.

You are reading a lot into some very tiny movements and ignoring the big picture:

• Again, where do you see JBC turning around and trying to see JFK?
• The second shot striking JFK in the head does not fit the evidence that JBC was hit on the second shot. This comes from the Connallys, Powers, Greer, Gayle Newman.
• Besides there is strong evidence that the head shot was the last and very little evidence to the contrary.  See my post #1151 in this thread.

,

The Connally’s and Greer are two shot witnesses.

Gayle Newman in her 50th anniversary family interview admitted she never actually heard a third shot. Her husband repeatedly had stated he only heard two shots on live TV within minutes of the assassination. Gayle can be seen reading Merriman Smith’s three shot news flash being held by the TV anchor in the same interview.

The bullet wound in JBC’s back can only be explained by the bullet first passing through JFK. No other explanation is possible.

You all know this. Why are you passing all this drivel again? 

[Dan O'meara]

So your whole “common sense” argument boils down to you believing Dishong’s “family” (who weren’t there) in identifying June from the rear over Westbrook’s (who was there) identification of herself. That and your presumption that going to see the motorcade together somehow requires standing in a line shoulder-to-shoulder with each other with nobody in between.

But even if you could somehow prove that is Dishong and that the other woman is not Calvery, it tells you nothing about who the blue scarf lady is.

My "common sense" argument boils down to demonstrating that Westbrook's identification of those around her, and thus herself, is wrong. Completely wrong.
The woman stood next to Blue Headscarf is clearly not Gloria Calvery. She does not have flame-red hair and is the wrong height and the wrong body-type. It's not a question of somehow proving it is not Gloria Calvery, that's been done. It is not Gloria Calvery stood next to Blue Headscarf and this was something Westbrook was absolutely sure of in her interview. Westbrook's recollection has been demonstrated to be incorrect

This must feel problematic for yourself as your "common sense" argument is solely based on Westbrook's recollection of a headscarf she once owned!
That's it!
Westbrook's clearly faulty recollection about a long-lost headscarf!
That's good enough for you, is it?
It's slightly grating to compare the impossible standard of proof you hold others to, against what you are willing to accept as convincing.

When comparing the Darnell trio against the Z-film trio it must be noted that there is not a single physical difference between any of them -
One wearing a headscarf, the other two not.
The same relative shade of hair colour between the other two.
The same hairstyles of the other two.
The same clothing type of all three.
The same relative shade of clothing between all three.
All three captured in images taken in the same general location.

Any physical comparison that can be made between the three women in each image reveals they are identical in every way. There are no differences.
In the seconds after the assassination Harry Cabluck took this pic:



This is a crop from the same pic:



On the left Stella Jacob comforts Gloria Holt who, as we see in Darnell, is clearly distraught. On the right June Dishong looks on and behind her is the woman stood next to her in the Z-film, presumably Dishong's work colleague, Peggy Burney. Apart from not being able to see Dishong's coat held in her arms in the Z-film, there is not a single physical difference between the women shown in this pic and the women in the Z-film. Every single detail that can be described is identical.
This pic is taken in the immediate aftermath of the assassination and is in the same general location as where these women are seen in the Z-film.

I also have to note your weak attempt to bring Judy Johnson into the debate in an earlier post.
In her CE 1381 Johnson states that she leaves the TSBD building with Holt and Jacob and that they are joined by Betty Dragoo, Carolyn Arnold and Bonnie Richey.
In their 1381's Dragoo, Arnold and Richey consistently mention being stood with each other and Johnson, but not one of them mentions Holt or Jacob. We can conclude from this that, although Holt and Jacob left the TSBD with Johnson, they did not stand with this group while watching the motorcade.
And this is confirmed by the 1381's of those in question:

Stella Mae Jacob - "I left the Depository building & walked down toward the Stemmons underpass west of the building approximately fifty yards."
Gloria Holt - "I left the Depository building & walked down toward the Stemmons underpass west of the building approximately fifty yards."
Sharon Simmons - "At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street about midway between the Texas School Book Depository and the underpass on Elm Street.

Each woman confirms that they were with the other two. Simmons confirms they were stood on the sidewalk. Each woman confirms that their location was well down Elm street - fifty yards/midway between the TSBD building and the underpass.
The only three women shown in the Z-film who are stood together in the approximate positions described are the three who happen to be identical in every measurable detail to the three women you accept are Simmons, Holt and Jacob in Darnell.

On the other hand, Westbrook remembers she was wearing a headscarf.

[Andrew Mason]

The Connally’s and Greer are two shot witnesses.

Greer said he heard three shots and felt a concussion at the time he heard the second shot.  Nellie Connally heard and observed the effects of each of three shots striking in the car. Gov. Connally heard the first and third shots.  He did not hear the second shot but he felt its impact.

Gayle Newman in her 50th anniversary family interview admitted she never actually heard a third shot. Her husband repeatedly had stated he only heard two shots on live TV within minutes of the assassination. Gayle can be seen reading Merriman Smith’s three shot news flash being held by the TV anchor in the same interview.

She said she couldn't tell if she heard the third shot because the visual effect of it dominated her perception of the event.  She never said a third shot did not occur. See 13:37 of the interview:

The bullet wound in JBC’s back can only be explained by the bullet first passing through JFK. No other explanation is possible.

You all know this. Why are you passing all this drivel again?

The explanation offered by the Connallys is certainly possible. But I suppose you think they were spouting drivel as well.

[Jerry Organ]

Here is the photo I used to show when JFK was first clear of the tree:


I put that at z190. What frame range do you say that JFK was in that position?

The car should be a foot or two to camera-left, and thus deeper in the foliage.



Anybody wonder why Mason doesn't go with the better-quality and better-resolution images from the SS reenactment?

[John Iacoletti]

My "common sense" argument boils down to demonstrating that Westbrook's identification of those around her, and thus herself, is wrong. Completely wrong.

"thus herself" does not actually follow.

The woman stood next to Blue Headscarf is clearly not Gloria Calvery. She does not have flame-red hair and is the wrong height and the wrong body-type.

And the way you know about Gloria Calvery's height and hair is from a photo identified by . . . Karen Westbrook.  So your "common sense" tells you that Westbrook is correct except when she isn't.

The woman in the Z film still (which isn't necessarily correctly color-balanced) does have reddish hair, and the "flaming red hair" as you call it was in a photo taken a month later and isn't necessarily natural.  Westbrook knew Calvery and worked with her every day.  Your "expertise" is based on a single photo that wasn't taken at the time.

So, your "certainty" is your own illusion.

Westbrook's clearly faulty recollection about a long-lost headscarf!

There's nothing "clearly faulty" about her scarf.  That's a circular argument.

That's good enough for you, is it?

What I actually said was that she is more of an authority on where she stood than some Internet blowhards (including you and me -- but especially Tommy Graves).

It's slightly grating to compare the impossible standard of proof you hold others to, against what you are willing to accept as convincing.

I don't hold anybody to an impossible standard of proof.  That's just what people who make handwaving speculative arguments like to use to try to divert from the weaknesses of their arguments.

When comparing the Darnell trio against the Z-film trio it must be noted that there is not a single physical difference between any of them -
One wearing a headscarf, the other two not.
The same relative shade of hair colour between the other two.
The same hairstyles of the other two.
The same clothing type of all three.
The same relative shade of clothing between all three.
All three captured in images taken in the same general location.

This is laughably disingenuous.  How do you know those figures in the Z film are a "trio"?  "Same general location"?  You mean Dealey Plaza?  Or near the pergola?  That applies to everybody on Elm street.  "Same relative shades"?  You're equating a color image with a black and white image.  On what basis are you comparing "shades"?  "Same hairstyles"?  There's nothing particularly distinctive about their hairstyles and you're comparing opposite sides of their heads.  This is the epitome of handwaving, even for you.  You don't see "any differences", therefore they are necessarily the same people.  There is not nearly enough information for your remarkable claim that they are "identical in every way".

On the left Stella Jacob comforts Gloria Holt who, as we see in Darnell, is clearly distraught. On the right June Dishong looks on and behind her is the woman stood next to her in the Z-film, presumably Dishong's work colleague, Peggy Burney.

The notion that any of the figures in Cabluck are distinctive enough to match to specific names is even more laughable.

I also have to note your weak attempt to bring Judy Johnson into the debate in an earlier post.
In her CE 1381 Johnson states that she leaves the TSBD building with Holt and Jacob and that they are joined by Betty Dragoo, Carolyn Arnold and Bonnie Richey.
In their 1381's Dragoo, Arnold and Richey consistently mention being stood with each other and Johnson, but not one of them mentions Holt or Jacob. We can conclude from this that, although Holt and Jacob left the TSBD with Johnson, they did not stand with this group while watching the motorcade.

Lots of TSBD employees were standing near the intersection of Elm and Houston.  Nobody mentioned everybody they were standing with.  You're cherry-picking away anything that doesn't match what you want to believe.  Including the fact that both Holt and Jacob said they were standing on the south side of Elm street.

And this is confirmed by the 1381's of those in question:

Stella Mae Jacob - "I left the Depository building & walked down toward the Stemmons underpass west of the building approximately fifty
                           yards."
Gloria Jeanne Holt - "I left the Depository building & walked down toward the Stemmons underpass west of the building approximately fifty
                           yards."

Do you really think they independently used the exact same word-for-word descriptions?

Each woman confirms that they were with the other two. Simmons confirms they were stood on the sidewalk. Each woman confirms that their location was well down Elm street - fifty yards/midway between the TSBD building and the underpass.

Except the people in question aren't even close to the halfway point between the TSBD building and the underpass.

The only three women shown in the Z-film who are stood together in the approximate positions described are the three who happen to be identical in every measurable detail to the three women you accept are Simmons, Holt and Jacob in Darnell.

The women in Darnell are recognizable.  The figures in Zapruder are not -- your handwaving and completely unsubstantiated "identical in every measurable detail" claim notwithstanding.

Incidentally, neither Jacob, Holt, or Simmons said in CE 1381 that the three were standing side-by-side.  And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know which figures in a long line of people are "together".

On the other hand, Westbrook remembers she was wearing a headscarf.

Highly dishonest.  She didn't say her identification of herself was based on the figure wearing a headscarf.

[Andrew Mason]

Highly dishonest.  She didn't say her identification of herself was based on the figure wearing a headscarf.

She actually did say exactly that:  "I wish I still had that headscarf because that headscarf is how I can identify myself in the Zapruder film." [YouTube video at 17:45]