The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

I understand what you mean by the influence of the media.
For some, as yet unspecified reason, the media felt there were three shots and many people went along with that.
Even the WC and The HSCA went along with it.
So, in this sense there is no conspiracy. It's some kind of 'mass hallucination'.

But then you start to detail how shell CE 543 doesn't belong there. Are you saying CE 543 was deliberately planted to give the impression there were three shots?

As you say, "the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative", but I'm still not really sure if you're saying the three shot scenario that is espoused as the official narrative is the result of a misunderstanding or the result of a deliberate attempt to give the impression three shots were fired.
Which is it?

Again, read Major Anderson and Joseph Nicol’s testimony. Nobody planted a shell. LHO’s Marine rifle training consisted of a great deal of dryfiring as a way to practice. The shell was ejected from the rifle before he took up the position to fire.

WC: “It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots," 

Merriman Smith’s news bulletin of three shots fired at the motorcade was the first bulletin read by Walter Cronkite. Few people knew James Altgen’s bulletin of two shots was read by ABC minutes later. Cronkite read Altgen’s bulletin right up to the number of shots and quit reading. 

An argument took place between the Secret Service, Merriman Smith, and Charles Roberts of Newsweek on Air Force 1 on the ride back to DC as to whether there were three shots or two. Roberts believed it was two as did a number of the SS. 

The best explanation is provided by the WC conclusion.

WC Conclusion

NUMBER OF SHOTS

The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.

The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three

Page 111

empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.

 
Do you understand your question? What misunderstanding are you alluding to? The idea there were three shots having been fired and the wounding of JBC by a separate shot, in a rapid time frame, which is beyond the capabilities of the Carcano and is the whole basis for the belief there was a conspiracy. Nobody planted a shell. Explain how two shots fired by LHO could ever be misconstrued into a conspiracy.

[Jack Nessan]

The human brain cannot distinguish a discrete echo if the time difference between the direct sound wave front and the reflected sound wave is less than 1/10th of a second.  [That's why a 1" difference between the record and play heads on a tape recorder will give nice feedback reverberation at 15 inches/sec but distracting echo at 7 1/2 or 3 3/4 ips]

In order for someone to perceive discrete echo and not just indistinct reverberation a distinct reflected wave has to travel 113 feet farther to the listener's ear than the other sound waves (i.e. sound waves directly from the SN and from other nearby reflecting surfaces). If the direct sound travels only 100 feet to the listener, a sound wave that travels twice as far before arriving at their ears will be 1/4 the intensity of the original, so it will not be nearly as loud.

People near the corner of Houston and Elm were within 100 feet of the SN and nearby reflecting surfaces.  So none of these reflecting surfaces would produce a distinct echo.  Someone standing farther down Elm St. might hear sound from the SN and reflecting surfaces near the corner of Elm and Houston and then hear reflections from the pergola structure west of the TSBD. But the reflected path difference will be, at best, the distance from their ears to the reflecting structure, which will be less than 100 feet. This may cause confusion as to the direction of the sound source, but that is all.

There are many people in these areas (near the corner of Houston and Elm and down Elm Street) who heard exactly three shots.  They were not confused by echos. They would have heard a sustained reverberation from the many reflecting surfaces around the TSBD.

People in the middle of Dealey Plaza between the TSBD and the Post Office building might have heard a distinct echo from the large Post Office building south of Dealey Plaza. But I expect that it would have been obvious that it was an echo.

Give us a break, what a bunch of tripe. The HSCA Sound Analysis report does a great job of explaining the possible echoes. It is good to see you have moved on from interpreting witness statements.

[John Iacoletti]

Assumptions stated as facts.
In her CE 1381 Simmons states:

"At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street...I was with Jeannie Holt...and Stella Jacob..."

Simmons was standing on the sidewalk and she was with Holt and Jacob.
She was standing...with Holt and Jacob
Standing with Holt and Jacob
Stood with Holt and Jacob

You falsely accuse me of overstating assumptions as fact and give this as an example.
Please explain what assumption I have made here.

That "was with" necessarily means standing side-by-side, 3 in a row.

And I've assumed Simmons was wearing a headscarf during Zapruder?
Please cite where I've made that assumption.

Please, Dan. 

"If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not."

You assume, as fact, that Westbrook is the woman in the blue headscarf simply because Westbrook says so.

Wrong.  I'm chiding you for categorically stating that Westbrook was "wrong", merely because you think the backs of these persons' bodies somehow "match" a different picture of three people at a different time and location.

And she was there so she must know best.

What I actually said is that she is a better authority about where she was standing than armchair amateur photo "analysts" like Graves and Doyle.

You weren't even aware she'd lost the headscarf in question.
Or that she never refers to it as being blue.

I hadn't watched her interview in a long while and I misremembered some details.  So what?

Another false accsation.
I have dealt with Judy Johnson's statement in full.

You "dealt with it" (by handwaving it away) after I brought it up as contradictory evidence .  You didn't mention it at all in your original argument.

Remember, you cherry-picked this single statement and ignored the statements of Arnold, Richey, Dragoo, Simmons, Holt and Jacob.

I ignored nothing.  I just mentioned evidence that you ignored to begin with.

I did an analysis of ALL the relevant CE 1381's.

Only after challenged.

The "south side of Elm" was also fully dealt with.

Only after I brought it up.

Not enough information??
We have a picture of the three women in question.
We are given the information that they are stood on the sidewalk of Elm between the TSBD building and the underpass.
We know they're not on the south side of Elm because we have the Zapruder footage.
We know there's no-one stood to the west of Bill Newman on Elm Street because we have have the Bell and Nix films.
We know there is no-one between Bill Newman and the woman in the blue headscarf who fits the bill because we have stills from the Bronson footage.
We know, for a fact, based on the above evidence, that the women in question must be in this picture:

Logic dictates that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are in this picture.
And they couldn't be easier to locate:

Done.
No amount of lies, hypocrisy and misrepresentations can alter the above identification.
It is certain.

Yes, we know you think they "look the same".  Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more certain.

If you disagree with the identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob as the three women in the Z-film then shows us where they are.
You've been asked this already.
There is a wealth of photographic and film evidence at your disposal.
SHOW US WHERE THEY ARE.

I disagree that you have proven anything to a "certainty".  This is the usual "I'm automatically right until you prove me wrong" argument.  I don't have to prove where they are.  You certainly haven't.

[Andrew Mason]

Give us a break, what a bunch of tripe. The HSCA Sound Analysis report does a great job of explaining the possible echoes. It is good to see you have moved on from interpreting witness statements.

Bolt-Beranek were not trying to see if people were confused by echos as to the number of shots.  They were trying to determine how many shot sounds could be heard on the dictabelt recordings and where they were coming from. They tried to do this by comparing the sound pattern of a rifle shot from various locations in Dealey Plaza recorded from a microphone moving through Dealey Plaza at 11 mph to see if they could match the sound pattern on the dictabelt. 

The Bolt Beranek team actually measured the difference in times of reflected sound and muzzle blast and published the results.  Although they refer to the reflected sound as "echos" what the human ear observed was reverberation.  The results confirm exactly what I said: that the reflected sound heard by witnesses in Dealey Plaza did not give the impression of distinct shot sounds/

This is a list of the reflecting surfaces and echo paths:



Surfaces 1-16 were all around the corner of Houston and Elm. Echo paths 1-17 involved reflections from surfaces 1-16 . The time difference between the arrival of the direct muzzle blast and the arrival of the reflected sound was published in this table and show that the time delay in arrival of the reflected sounds was less than 100 ms for paths 1-17:



So none of these "echos" were distinguishable by witnesses as distinct sounds. (See the Wikipedia article on sound echos).

[Jack Nessan]

Bolt-Beranek were not trying to see if people were confused by echos as to the number of shots.  They were trying to determine how many shot sounds could be heard on the dictabelt recordings and where they were coming from. They tried to do this by comparing the sound pattern of a rifle shot from various locations in Dealey Plaza recorded from a microphone moving through Dealey Plaza at 11 mph to see if they could match the sound pattern on the dictabelt. 

The Bolt Beranek team actually measured the difference in times of reflected sound and muzzle blast and published the results.  Although they refer to the reflected sound as "echos" what the human ear observed was reverberation.  The results confirm exactly what I said: that the reflected sound heard by witnesses in Dealey Plaza did not give the impression of distinct shot sounds/

This is a list of the reflecting surfaces and echo paths:



Surfaces 1-16 were all around the corner of Houston and Elm. Echo paths 1-17 involved reflections from surfaces 1-16 . The time difference between the arrival of the direct muzzle blast and the arrival of the reflected sound was published in this table and show that the time delay in arrival of the reflected sounds was less than 100 ms for paths 1-17:



So none of these "echos" were distinguishable by witnesses as distinct sounds. (See the Wikipedia article on sound echos).

No- Here is the report. You know this and have deliberately tried to deceive with this goofy nonsense.

HSCA Volume VIII: Acoustics Study - Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (aarclibrary.org)

Report No. 4034 

Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Some muffling of the blast wave will occur if a rifle is fired from within an open window . Thus, in the acoustical reconstruction, the rifle was fired from two locations in the TSBD : (1) in the plane of the open sixth-floor window and (2) with the muzzle tip withdrawn 2 ft from the plane of the window . The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations, or echoes, that followed the initial sound by from 0 .5 to 1 .5 sec . While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners, who were prepared and expected to hear them, they may well have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination . The source of these echoes can be predicted from the general geometry of the Plaza . For example, one hears a very strong reflection from the Post Office Annex that arrives about 1 sec after the shot, regardless of whether the rifle is fired from the TSBD or the knoll . Because of the long delay, a listener located on the knoll would recognize this as an echo but might place the source somewhere in back of him, anywhere from the TSBD to the railway overpass . From near the TSBD, a listener would hear a strong echo from the general vicinity of the railway overpass . However, since the initial disturbance, the shock wave from the bullet, would be almost directly overhead - an anomalous locus, especially if the rifle had been fired from well within the TSBD - this echo would cause some confusion . The general area of the knoll, to the right of the bridge, would then be a prime candidate as the locus of the source . Even though this echo occurs 0 .8 sec after the shock wave, it is the first sound that would make sense to the listener . On the other hand, listeners located near the railroad overpass would react to the very strong reflections from along Houston St . For listeners in the Plaza area, the location of the rifle muzzle relative to the window opening is a critical determiner of the perceived sound . The further inside the building the muzzle is located, the greater the potential for the shock wave to dominate perception . If the muzzle of the rifle had been withdrawn and, therefore, little or no blast were present for one or more of the shots in 1963, the localization judgments of people in the Plaza would have been based primarily on the shock wave, creating much uncertainty and lack of agreement.

During the reconstruction, echoes were heard from the new hotel, but they arrived some seconds after the primary sound and long after the earlier echoes from structures bordering the Plaza . The hotel echoes, therefore, did not interfere with the subjective evaluations in any way.

[Dan O'meara]

That "was with" necessarily means standing side-by-side, 3 in a row.

Please, Dan. 

"If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not."

Wrong.  I'm chiding you for categorically stating that Westbrook was "wrong", merely because you think the backs of these persons' bodies somehow "match" a different picture of three people at a different time and location.

What I actually said is that she is a better authority about where she was standing than armchair amateur photo "analysts" like Graves and Doyle.

I hadn't watched her interview in a long while and I misremembered some details.  So what?

You "dealt with it" (by handwaving it away) after I brought it up as contradictory evidence .  You didn't mention it at all in your original argument.

I ignored nothing.  I just mentioned evidence that you ignored to begin with.

Only after challenged.

Only after I brought it up.

Yes, we know you think they "look the same".  Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more certain.

I disagree that you have proven anything to a "certainty".  This is the usual "I'm automatically right until you prove me wrong" argument.  I don't have to prove where they are.  You certainly haven't.

The constant dishonesty and devious misrepresentation that have made any kind of reasonable debate impossible are on full display in this post. I am more than comfortable to allow the reader to judge the case I've put forward over the past few pages regarding the identification of the three women in the Z-film. The evidence I've put forward, and the arguments that have emanated from that evidence, reveal there are no alternatives to the identification in question. Once we have no other alternatives we have certainty.

That "was with" necessarily means standing side-by-side, 3 in a row.

You falsely accuse me of stating assumptions as facts. I ask you to provide examples to which you reply:

"Simmons didn't say she "stood with" Holt and Jacob, nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film.  Assumptions stated as facts."

In Reply#1303 I demonstrate, beyond question, that I've not assumed Simmons was stood with Holt and Jacob, that in her CE 1381 Simmons specifically states she was standing with Holt and Jacob. I've disproved your false accusation that I've stated an assumption as fact. Rather than retract your false accusation, which would require a certain amount of character on your behalf, you add your own assumption stated as fact, "that "was with" necessarily means standing side-by-side, 3 in a row."

As for your other example of where I've stated an assumption as fact you come up with this - "nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film".
Nowhere have I made this so-called assumption and ask you to provide where I have, knowing you can't. Instead you come up with this devious response, citing one of my earlier posts:

"If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not."

It's worth reproducing this part of my post in full just to demonstrate the level of deviousness you're willing to stoop to:



If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not.
One with dark, bushy hair, one with shoulder length fair hair.
Two wearing dark coloured coats, one wearing a lighter coloured dress.

The point being that this analysis only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
But if there is a physical difference between the women in these two images, NAME IT.

Regardless of your childish assertion that the two images above can't be compared because one is in colour and one isn't, I make the explicit statement that "this analysis only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob."
Nowhere, in any of this is the assumption stated as fact that Simmons is wearing a headscarf during the Z-film.
The inability to retract these false accusations reveals the same lack of character that led to the false accusations in the first place.


Wrong.  I'm chiding you for categorically stating that Westbrook was "wrong", merely because you think the backs of these persons' bodies somehow "match" a different picture of three people at a different time and location.

Once again, a perfect example of the deviousness and dishonesty that has permeated these last few pages.
The pathetic suggestion that I have based my arguments solely on a comparison between the two images posted above is a new low point.
As stated, this comparison was made solely to support a more general argument based on witness statements and the photographic/film record. I have provided photographic evidence that the woman Westbrook identifies as Calvery, is clearly in error. The two women have completely different hair colours and, more importantly, that Gloria Calvery is far taller and a bigger build that the Carol Reed identified by Westbrook in the Z-film.
This last point is undeniable and when confronted with it you side-step the issue with this sly observation:

Even if that isn't Reed (or Calvery), it doesn't just follow that it's not Westbrook.

A tacit admission that this is an insurmountable issue for Westbrook's identifications and an example of how willing you are to jettison Westbrook's recollection when it suits you. Westbrook recalls standing with her work colleagues but you are happy ignore this [as you do with so much] just to score a point.
I have also provided a comprehensive argument using witness testimony and a raft of assassination films, to demonstrate there is no other alternative identification of Simmons, Holt and Jacob in the Z-film, all of which you simply ignore.

You have based your own identification of Westbrook in the Z-film on her recollection of a headscarf she once owned.
You have provided zero evidence to indicate otherwise.
You have not provided a scrap of evidence to support this identification, hoping your devisive nit-picking will be enough to bluff your way through.


Yes, we know you think they "look the same".  Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more certain.

This is the part of my post you made this reply to:

Not enough information??
We have a picture of the three women in question.
We are given the information that they are stood on the sidewalk of Elm between the TSBD building and the underpass.
We know they're not on the south side of Elm because we have the Zapruder footage.
We know there's no-one stood to the west of Bill Newman on Elm Street because we have have the Bell and Nix films.
We know there is no-one between Bill Newman and the woman in the blue headscarf who fits the bill because we have stills from the Bronson footage.
We know, for a fact, based on the above evidence, that the women in question must be in this picture:



Logic dictates that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are in this picture.
And they couldn't be easier to locate:

This is a direct challenge to you John.
There is an wealth of evidence from which Simmons, Holt and Jacob can be identified in the Z-film.
The challenge is side-stepped in the usual slippery way, which is hardly surprising.
There is only one possible identification.
There are no alternatives.
That is the definition of "certainty".
If you can't provide an alternative identification [which you can't] at least try and provide a possibility for where they might be hidden from view [which you won't]

As I said, no amount of dishonesty or misrepresentation can save your faulty identification of Westbrook in the Z-film.
Only a bit of good old-fashioned research.

LATER EDIT: The reader can find the full argument for locating Simmons, Holt and Jacob in the Z-film in the second half of REPLY#1296 on page 163

[Dan O'meara]

Again, read Major Anderson and Joseph Nicol’s testimony. Nobody planted a shell. LHO’s Marine rifle training consisted of a great deal of dryfiring as a way to practice. The shell was ejected from the rifle before he took up the position to fire.

WC: “It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots," 

Merriman Smith’s news bulletin of three shots fired at the motorcade was the first bulletin read by Walter Cronkite. Few people knew James Altgen’s bulletin of two shots was read by ABC minutes later. Cronkite read Altgen’s bulletin right up to the number of shots and quit reading. 

An argument took place between the Secret Service, Merriman Smith, and Charles Roberts of Newsweek on Air Force 1 on the ride back to DC as to whether there were three shots or two. Roberts believed it was two as did a number of the SS. 

The best explanation is provided by the WC conclusion.

WC Conclusion

NUMBER OF SHOTS

The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.

The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three

Page 111

empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.

 
Do you understand your question? What misunderstanding are you alluding to? The idea there were three shots having been fired and the wounding of JBC by a separate shot, in a rapid time frame, which is beyond the capabilities of the Carcano and is the whole basis for the belief there was a conspiracy. Nobody planted a shell. Explain how two shots fired by LHO could ever be misconstrued into a conspiracy.

Whe I wrote this I didn't think I could be any more specific:

As you say, "the subsequent addition of a shot that makes no sense to the narrative", but I'm still not really sure if you're saying the three shot scenario that is espoused as the official narrative is the result of a misunderstanding or the result of a deliberate attempt to give the impression three shots were fired.
Which is it?

The "official narrative" is that three shots were fired.
Your theory is that two shots were fired.
This is a discrepancy.
Two shots versus three shots.
I am simply asking - how do you think this discrepancy has arisen?

The idea there were three shots having been fired and the wounding of JBC by a separate shot, in a rapid time frame, which is beyond the capabilities of the Carcano and is the whole basis for the belief there was a conspiracy.

It certainly doesn't form the basis of why I think there is a conspiracy.
I am absolutely convinced both JFK and JBC were shot through by the same bullet but that this bullet was not CE 399.
I strongly suspect CE 399 was introduced into the chain of custody for the bullet found on the stretcher in Parkland and, as such, plays no part in the actual shooting.
I am aware that, without CE 399, there is a disturbing lack of ballistic evidence regarding the assassination.

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence I've put forward, and the arguments that have emanated from that evidence, reveal there are no alternatives to the identification in question. Once we have no other alternatives we have certainty.

Unadulterated 

Westbrook could literally be any of the backs that we see in Zapruder.

In Reply#1303 I demonstrate, beyond question, that I've not assumed Simmons was stood with Holt and Jacob, that in her CE 1381 Simmons specifically states she was standing with Holt and Jacob.

Unadulterated  BS.

Nowhere in Simmons’ statement does she say who she stood with. Or next to.

As for your other example of where I've stated an assumption as fact you come up with this - "nor do you know she wore a headscarf at the time of the Z film".
Nowhere have I made this so-called assumption and ask you to provide where I have, knowing you can't. Instead you come up with this devious response, citing one of my earlier posts:

"If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not."

There’s nothing “devious” about it. By specifically looking in Zapruder for three people, one wearing a headscarf and two not, you are assuming that Simmons must be wearing a headscarf and standing in a line with two people who are not, hence your “identification”. You’re also equating your perception of “light” and “dark” to specific colors in Zapruder, and just declaring that they “match”.

As stated, this comparison was made solely to support a more general argument based on witness statements and the photographic/film record. I have provided photographic evidence that the woman Westbrook identifies as Calvery, is clearly in error. The two women have completely different hair colours and, more importantly, that Gloria Calvery is far taller and a bigger build that the Carol Reed identified by Westbrook in the Z-film.

You’re looking at two images, taken at different times and places, both identified by Westbrook as Gloria Calvery, and just declaring her to be “correct” about one and “wrong” about the other, merely on the basis of which one you prefer to believe.

This last point is undeniable and when confronted with it you side-step the issue with this sly observation:

Even if that isn't Reed (or Calvery), it doesn't just follow that it's not Westbrook.

It’s not a “sidestep” at all. The entire debate is over whether Westbrook correctly identified herself in the Z film. Not where Carol Reed might be.

You have based your own identification of Westbrook in the Z-film on her recollection of a headscarf she once owned.

Unadulterated  BS. You are the one claiming to have identified her to a “certainty”, not me. All I said was that Westbrook is more of an authority on who she is than your “logic”.