The Shot That Missed

[Bill Chapman]

Thanks. Yes, I recall seeing that Williams' affidavit before but I forgot all about it.

Jarman's account is hard to muddle through. But he said he heard three shots. A third shot AFTER the head shot? And we have Harold Norman, standing right below the window, saying in a 12/4/63 deposition and in his testimony he heard three.

It's maddening to realize these men were standing/squatting right below the window and one heard two shots and another three.

Don't worry about it. Those guys were working in joe-jobs because they couldn't count.

 

[Jack Nessan]

Thanks. Yes, I recall seeing that Williams' affidavit before but I forgot all about it.

Jarman's account is hard to muddle through. But he said he heard three shots. A third shot AFTER the head shot? And we have Harold Norman, standing right below the window, saying in a 12/4/63 deposition and in his testimony he heard three.

It's maddening to realize these men were standing/squatting right below the window and one heard two shots and another three.

Actually BRW, Jarman, and Normam are a  good study in what transpired with the witnesses. BRW gave his statement immediately after the assassination (two shots). Jarman gave his two days later 2nd shot the heafdhot) and Norman was four days later (three shots). BRW several days later adds an additional shot.

I assume, trying to determine where the third shot took place is where  most of us start to look to find the answer to the JFK assassination. A simple reading of witness statements from locations all aver Dealey Plaze leads nowhere. Making JFK's car the center and working out from there a pattern emerges of two shot witnesses and their subsequent additons of  third shot later that in  lot of instances does not fit the narrative of three shots. Primarily the eyewitnesses are two shots and the earwitnesses are three shots.

Garland Slack indicates the first shot camee with the rifle retracted inside the building.
Garland Slack is an earwitness who references two shots based on the sound of the bullets impacting JFK. He also refernces the sound of the first shot sounded to him as if it had come from eithin the bulding.

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Garland Glenwill Slack, Address: 4130 Deely [sp?] St., Dallas, Age 59, Phone No. EV 1 2950
Deposes and says:

Today, I was standing on Houston Street, just below the window to Sheriff Decker's office waiting for the parade. I was standing there when the President's car passed and just after they rounded the corner from Houston onto Elm Street, I heard a report and I knew at once it was a high-powered rifle shot. I am a [cross-out] big game hunter and am familiar with the sound of hi [sic] powered rifles and I knew when I heard the retort [sic] that the shot had hit something. Within a [cross-out] few seconds I heard another retort [sic] and knew it also had hit something and all I could see was the highly colored hat that Mrs. Kennedy had on. I couldn't see anything else. I was so sick that I went back to my office but after thinking it over, I came back as a citizen to offer my statement if it could help in any way. During the time I was standing there I did look up into the building where the Texas Book Depository is and saw some people, maybe 12 or 14, hanging out of windows, but I didn't see anyone with a gun.

When the sound of this shot came, it sounded to me like this shot came from away back or from within a building. I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot has come from within a cave, as I have been on many big game hunts.

/s/ G. G. Slack

The witness statements are a wealth of information they are truly the only ones who knew what took place. It should also be understood the media had a large ompact on how their statements changed over time. Pat Speer's website is a great source of information about the witnesses and he should be greatly appreciated for what he has

[John Iacoletti]

Don't worry about it. Those guys were working in joe-jobs because they couldn't count.

 

Elitist remark and probably racist as well.

[Bill Chapman]

Elitist remark and probably racist as well.

So according to you I'm a racist, an elitist, a parrot, a clown, a lemming, a sheep (short back & sides, please) and child-molester
At least I don't take a knee to the little prick who killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

 

[Andrew Mason]

It's maddening to realize these men were standing/squatting right below the window and one heard two shots and another three.

It would not be as surprising if the last two shots were close together because the sound would have reverberated in that building.  This would be particularly so on the 5th and 6th floors that had no partitions.  The reverberations may have made those last two shots less distinct and left an initial impression overall of two loud discharges.

[John Iacoletti]

So according to you I'm a racist, an elitist, a parrot, a clown, a lemming, a sheep (short back & sides, please) and child-molester
At least I don't take a knee to the little prick who killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

Why should I base my actions on what you claim (without evidence) that somebody did?  Add "inflated self-importance" to your list.

[Denis Pointing]

So according to you I'm a racist, an elitist, a parrot, a clown, a lemming, a sheep (short back & sides, please) and child-molester
At least I don't take a knee to the little prick who killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.

 

Did John Iacoletti really call you a "child-molester"? Surely not.

[Dan O'meara]

Dan, I'm going to reply to your questions all together, as I'm not familiar with breaking out quotes like everyone else can. I'll eventually figure it out.

Reactions seen early in the zapruder film
https://sites.google.com/site/earlyzapruderfilmreactions/reactions-seen-early-in-zapruder-film

Some apparent total lack of reaction in people in response to a stimulus was a phenomenon that I saw mentioned in one literature reference, but no further elaboration was made. It may be situational based, so I don’t know the exact answer. I can only speculate for this situation. For the crowds I personally believe that it may be as simple as “what grabs, and holds, your attention at that time”. The visual stimulus intensity of seeing the President and First lady right in front of them (many were trying for direct eye contact and a wave response), might well override an auditory stimulus to a firecracker in the background. Now if the auditory stimulus was perceived as a threat, or a real concern, I suspect that perception would override the visual stimulus and they would react to that by looking around. Net the President and First lady right in front of them visually “grabbed and held their attention at that time” over a perceived non-concerning auditory stimulus.  For others the first shot sound could be perceived as something that was concerning and they reacted. Again, some speculation, but I wouldn’t be surprised that for those in the Presidential limo and the trailing SS car, there was some sense of relaxation starting to set in, the motorcade was nearly complete, the crowds were much thinner, and the visual field ahead of them was less stimulating than what they had just completed. A surprise loud bang for them may have posed a real concern that grabbed their attention and started a voluntary reaction of concern.

Another point that might come into play is that the most difficult location of a sound for your ears to accurately spatially locate (sound localization) is directly behind and high overhead. I suspect that was the case for individuals in the Presidential limo and the trailing SS car. It may have been hard, based on only one, first unexpected quick sharp bang, to determining exactly what direction the sound came from. Harder to tell which way to look. I can’t say for sure but actually Jackies’ and John Connally’s sweeping head reactions first left and then back right look almost like classical sound localization motions from mammals swinging the head back and forth to locate an unknown sound stimulus.

Regarding your comments on Hickey, I think there are two points to consider. 1) This technique does not use any testimony and further obviously does not use any testimony that is not given, or even testimony that is in error or specific details that were even forgotten or assumed inconsequential within all the chaos. 2) The reactions of Hickey you mention are not startle reactions. They are voluntary reactions, and fit the description as being unusual enough to be unusual voluntary motions of concern, and occur within a timeframe other voluntary motions of concern are observed and consistent with a population perception time model.

Looking at the video in the link above, Jackie starts accelerated head turning left at ~Z143.5, before looking back right. (Similar to John Connally's L-R head motion but starts slightly earlier and ends slightly later than his).

Rosemary Willis in the lower video in the link above appeared to begin a quick look away from the Presidential Limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository at ~Z140 as it appeared to both authors independently using that video.

To note, one advantage to using an average (or median) of multiple samples, if possible, is that this can help buffer mistakes made in sampling. If there were a couple of data points that I changed my mind on to use, I could just throw them out. For example if I decided I didn’t want to use JFK and Rosemary Willis data points, I would throw them out and recalculate. If I did that for this case the predicted first shot timing would only shift about 1.5 frames. If those two points were in error, the original result would have been somewhat buffered by the rest of the data with the original result only being off by less than two frames. Yes, some judgement in context is necessary, but even though I would say those two samples may be a little less clear than the others they still were judged relevant enough to include.

Good questions, hope this helps.

Hi Brian,

to be honest you've not really answered the main point I was making concerning the car-full of specially trained Secret Service agents specifically assigned for the protection of the president and the first lady.
I'm aware that your method excludes witness testimony but I assume it doesn't exclude other photographic evidence. Below is a close-up of the Altgens 6 picture focussing on the SS agents. It is beyond doubt that there is a radical and co-ordinated reaction to what we can assume is a gunshot. Three of them are looking backwards, over their shoulders. Nothing in the Z-film shows anything even remotely like this kind of extreme reaction. Just a few head turns made by the occupants of a limo which is the focus of crowds of people on both sides of them. Of course they are going to be turning their heads. But Altgens 6 shows something of a far greater magnitude.



Below is z255 which is thought to be the frame at which the Altgens 6 pic was taken. It is clear that by this time both JFK and JBC have been hit. To the left we can see the front of the follow-up car and, using the Altgens 6 pic and a little imagination, we can visualise the agents on board the follow-up car twisting round, reacting to the sound of a shot.



It must be remembered that the SS agents are visible in the Z-film until z207 (McIntyre, riding the left rear running board is visible until z236. Hill, riding left front running board, is visible until z249.) At no time do any of the agents make a reaction remotely as extreme as the one we see in Altgens 6.
How do your conclusions account for this?
Altgens 6 clearly shows the agents reacting to a shot.
Why doesn't the Z-film show the same thing?
Surely you're not going to suggest that, somehow, the agents didn't recognise the sound of a shot when little Rosemary Willis did or that it took them over 7 seconds to react to the sound of the first shot?