Perception of Reality

[Charles Collins]

When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate.

Even the most open-minded people are susceptible to confirmation bias. I do not claim to be an exception to this phenomenon. If one has formed an opinion about something, he will often times give more weight to the side of conflicting evidence which agrees with his already formed opinion. The question should be: What is the reliability of the evidence that was used to form the opinion in the first place? And: How does the reliability of that evidence compare to the reliability of the conflicting evidence? Personally, I have tried to use reliable evidence to form an opinion about the timing of the shots. And a large percentage of this reliable evidence is directly related to the photographic record. The films and photos are documented to be related to specific times during the shooting.  Witness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Therefore an opinion which is formed based heavily on witness accounts (without corroborating physical evidence) is on shakier ground than an opinion which is based on more reliable evidence.

[Andrew Mason]

No you didn't. You never said it "must never occur".
Are you lying or just amazingly confused?

Saying something is "never appropriate" is just a more polite way of saying it "must never occur".  Or did you really think that I meant that sometimes it should occur?  In case you still find it confusing, I will say it this way  "Cherry-picking is never appropriate: ie. cherry-picking must never occur".  I take it that you disagree with that statement.  You think it is ok to cherry-pick - to select a single piece of evidence that is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.  I guess we will have to disagree.

None of the other witnesses who were looking directly at JFK at the time of the assassination report this.
Doesn't that mean anything to you?

It would if there was no independent confirmation that what he observed actually occurred.  But the zfilm shows it occurring:

It just means that Hickey was particularly observant to have noticed an event which, without question, occurred.  And if one watches these frames carefully one realizes that it is the only bit of hair on anyone that moves and it moves INTO the apparent wind. What do you think could have caused it?  Just asking.

Does it mean anything to you that Brehm describes JFK's hair flying up at the moment of the headshot?

Brehm gave two statements.  In his first statement to the Dallas Herald (23Nov63) his statement is quoted and mentions only two shots. In his November 24/63 statement, after no doubt hearing all sorts of media reports that there were 3 shots, repeats what he said a few days earlier but adds that "a third shot followed" without saying anything more.  I am unable to find any reliable independent corroboration for a third shot following the head shot and much evidence that conflicts.  I assume Brehm was trying to be accurate but I cannot be sure that he recalled more than two shots and he was of the view that the second of those two shots struck JFK in the head.  It is, perhaps, unusual to describe the head shot as hair flying up but it is fairly clear that this is what he was referring to because he said that the President then rolled over to his side.   But just because Brehm described the head shot that way from his position does not mean that Hickey was describing it that way.  Hickey made a deliberate distinction between the last two shots, the first of which coincided with JFK's hair lifting and no apparent damage whereas the third appeared to strike him in the head.

Does it mean anything to you that Hickey fails to mention JFK's exploding head?

People describe what they recall.  He recalled seeing evidence that the shot hit JFK in the head.  He also recalled seeing no evidence that the second shot hit JFK in the head and did recall seeing JFK's hair on the right side fly forward without any sign of hitting him.

Of course it doesn't, because you cherry pick Hickey's faulty observation of JFK's headshot to support your utterly destroyed theory that there was a bullet strike at z271.

How is it "cherry-picking" to simply point out what he said he observed and to point out that precisely what he said he saw is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said it occurred (shortly before the head shot)?   What evidence conflicts with it?

Brehm described JFK's hair flying up at the headshot, isn't that counter-evidence?

No. For the reasons stated, Brehm was describing the headshot.  Hickey was describing a shot before the headshot that did not strike JFK that coincided with the movement of JFK's hair and then he described the third and last shot striking JFK in the head.

JFK's hair does not "fly up" at this point. His fringe slightly ruffles and no more than that. In your intense, cherry picking desperation you have to grasp onto anything you can and then cry "evidence".

It is plain to see that the hair on JFK's right side lifts together - and it is the only person whose hair moves. Here, I'll make it bigger for you:

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe it is possible that JFK was shot more than once in the head. Before it explodes... he nods noticeably and suddenly forward.

[Andrew Mason]

Even the most open-minded people are susceptible to confirmation bias. I do not claim to be an exception to this phenomenon. If one has formed an opinion about something, he will often times give more weight to the side of conflicting evidence which agrees with his already formed opinion. The question should be: What is the reliability of the evidence that was used to form the opinion in the first place? And: How does the reliability of that evidence compare to the reliability of the conflicting evidence? Personally, I have tried to use reliable evidence to form an opinion about the timing of the shots. And a large percentage of this reliable evidence is directly related to the photographic record. The films and photos are documented to be related to specific times during the shooting.  Witness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Therefore an opinion which is formed based heavily on witness accounts (without corroborating physical evidence) is on shakier ground than an opinion which is based on more reliable evidence.

Every human being is susceptible to confirmation bias, as you point out.

When I began looking at the evidence of the shots in detail, I had already formed the conclusion based on the abundant evidence of Oswald's involvement that the WC conclusion was correct. I had assumed the SBT was correct but was of the view, like the WC, that it occurred on the first shot.  I started out with an open mind, however when I began, about 20 years ago, to examine the evidence in detail.  It quickly became apparent to me that the trajectory did not really work for the first shot SBT. And the conflict with Connally's evidence was difficult to explain. But my confirmation bias, that the SBT was likely correct, held.

 I then became aware that the SBT being touted was no longer the first shot SBT and that the SBT occurred on the second shot, the first shot having missed the entire car. But by this time I had become very familiar with the evidence that JFK had reacted to the first shot and for the 1.......2..3 shot sequence. The second shot SBT proponents had not even tried to deal with the abundant evidence that the first shot had struck JFK and that the last two shots were closer together. 

It was readily apparent that the second shot SBT was wrong.  But I was not yet prepared to abandon the first shot SBT. I still found Spector's argument that it must have struck JBC to be compelling.

It was only after really taking a hard look at the evidence and setting aside my confirmation bias that I was able to see that the SBT on the first or second shot was not correct and that a much simpler explanation that fit ALL the bodies of evidence emerged. The evidence in this case establishes that SBT is not needed to explain the correct LN conclusion: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

 So my entire approach has been one of trying to overcome confirmation bias and just look at the evidence.

[Charles Collins]

Every human being is susceptible to confirmation bias, as you point out.

When I began looking at the evidence of the shots in detail, I had already formed the conclusion based on the abundant evidence of Oswald's involvement that the WC conclusion was correct. I had assumed the SBT was correct but was of the view, like the WC, that it occurred on the first shot.  I started out with an open mind, however when I began, about 20 years ago, to examine the evidence in detail.  It quickly became apparent to me that the trajectory did not really work for the first shot SBT. And the conflict with Connally's evidence was difficult to explain. But my confirmation bias, that the SBT was likely correct, held.

 I then became aware that the SBT being touted was no longer the first shot SBT and that the SBT occurred on the second shot, the first shot having missed the entire car. But by this time I had become very familiar with the evidence that JFK had reacted to the first shot and for the 1.......2..3 shot sequence. The second shot SBT proponents had not even tried to deal with the abundant evidence that the first shot had struck JFK and that the last two shots were closer together. 

It was readily apparent that the second shot SBT was wrong.  But I was not yet prepared to abandon the first shot SBT. I still found Spector's argument that it must have struck JBC to be compelling.

It was only after really taking a hard look at the evidence and setting aside my confirmation bias that I was able to see that the SBT on the first or second shot was not correct and that a much simpler explanation that fit ALL the bodies of evidence emerged. The evidence in this case establishes that SBT is not needed to explain the correct LN conclusion: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.

 So my entire approach has been one of trying to overcome confirmation bias and just look at the evidence.

Your approach appears to rely heavily on witness accounts that simply say they believe JFK reacted to the first shot.

My approach tries to be more precise. Here is just one example:

Victoria Adams spoke to detective James R. Leavelle of the DPD on 2/17/64. This is part of her statement: "When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot."

I reviewed the Tina Towner film and paid close attention to the actions of JFK. In the final few seconds of that film JFK does turn his head toward the TSBD and his right arm raises up and he waves just as the film ends. Just like Victoria Adams said.

Next I used Mark Tyler"s Motorcade 63 animation and paused it approximately where the end of Towner's film is indicated. Then I plotted the location of JFK in the backseat of the limo using the scale of Mark's animation. And placed a convertible with a male character in the backseat in that plotted location (relative to the southeast corner of the TSBD) in my 3-D computer model. Next I viewed the scene (using my 3-D model) as Victoria would have seen it from the fourth floor window. The results were just as Victoria said: right in front of her window and just before going behind the tree is the convertible with the male character. The front portion of the convertible is hidden from her view by the tree limbs but the rear seat and it's occupant are still visible.

Tina Towner has said that she stopped filming just before the first shot. Dale Myers calculated that Towner's film ends just before Zapruder began filming that portion of his film. And in the first portion of Zapruder's film JFK is seen lowering his right arm just after the wave that was begun at the end of Towner's film.

I asked for and received permission from Mark Tyler to post a couple of screenshots that will let you see some of the items I used in the proceedures I have just described.


The Towner film start position:





The Towner film end position:




The view (from the 3-D model 4th floor window) that Victoria Adams was watching the motorcade from:




The free 3-D program that I use has its limitations and mine as its user. But I have used the sniper's nest model to demonstrate several things and it has proven to be accurate. I still need to fine tune things like the dimensions of the tree, but this is close enough to show that Victoria Adams was accurate in her description of what she saw. In the book "The Girl on the Stairs" by Barry Ernest Victoria clarifies her earlier statements and specifically says that she heard the first shot while JFK was hidden from her view by the tree.

Anyway, this appears to me to be further evidence that the first shot happened in the vicinity of Z-133. I believe it probably happened just before Z-133.

If any others with 3-D computer models cares to take the time to verify this work I would greatly appreciate it.

The other folks here with 3-D models have confirmed my findings. Has anyone at all agreed with your theory?

[Jon Banks]

I believe it is possible that JFK was shot more than once in the head. Before it explodes... he nods noticeably and suddenly forward.

I agree

[Andrew Mason]

Your approach appears to rely heavily on witness accounts that simply say they believe JFK reacted to the first shot.

None of the witnesses said they "believe" he reacted to the first shot.  They describe what they saw:
The following people recalled that JFK reacted to the first shot :
1.   T.E. Moore (24 H 534, "President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in the Presidential car.")
2.   Nellie Connally (4 H 147. "I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.")
3.   David Powers (7 H 473: "I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head")
4.   Gayle Newman (19 H 488: "President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up. After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car")
5.   William Newman (19 H 490 "The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it.")
6.   John Chism (19 H 472 “When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him, "The President," sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side.”
7.   Faye Chism (19 H 471 “As the President was coming through, I heard this first shot, and the President fell to his left.”)
8.   James Altgens (7 H 520. He said his z254-5 photo was taken after first shot and before any other. It shows JFK reacting.)
9.   Abraham Zapruder (TV interview at 2:00 pm Nov. 22/63: " I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two"
10.   SA Clint Hill (2 H 138, Recalled only two shots. After the first: "I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left". CE1024, 18 H 742: "I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left.").
11.   Linda Willis (7 H 498. “ 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.)
12.   SA George Hickey (CE1024, 18 H 761. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.”)
13.   SA Sam Kinney (CE1024, 18 H 731. “As we completed the left turn and on a short distance, there was a shot. At this time I glanced from the tailights of the President's car that I use for gaging distances for driving. I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with right hand. There was a second of pause and then two more shots were heard”).
14.   SA Emory Roberts (CE1024, 18 H 734. “12:30 p.m. First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy. I do not know if it was the next shot or third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw ,,,what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President's head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left.”).

15.   Cecil Ault (24 H 534. Viewing from court house on Houston. Reported to have seen JFK rise up in his seat after first shot.)
16.   Harold Norman (3 H 191. “but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something,”)
17.   Malcolm Summers (Affidavit, 19 H 500 “The President's car had just come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "Oh, no", then a second shot and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots.”)
18.   Mary Moorman (Affidavit, 19 H 487, “As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over.”
19.   Jean Newman (Affidavit, 19 H 489, “The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down and I thought at the time that it probably scared him, too, just like it did me, because he flinched, like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest.”)
20.   Charles Brehm (Dallas Times Herald statement, Nov. 22, 1963 “The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. ‘The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped’.”)

21.   B. J. Martin (Dallas police officer on motorcycle to the left and rear of the President’s car) (Apr. 3, 1964:  6 H 291):
Mr. BALL. Did you take any notice of the President after the first shot?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; I looked at the President after I heard the shot and he was leaning forward-I could see the left side of his face. At the time he had no expression on his face.
Mr. BALL. Then, did you hear some more shots?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. How many?
Mr. MARTIN. Two more shots.
22.   Pierce Allman, WFAA interview 11/22/63:

in which he states: “and right after Mr. Kennedy passed in front of me I heard one big explosion … I looked and saw the President, I thought, duck. Evidently he was slumping at the time”.

My approach tries to be more precise. Here is just one example:

First of all, you are relying on witnesses.  Tina Turner Towner (and Victoria Adams).   

Second, you have to get an accurate account of all the statements of that witness and figure out what the witness meant (and avoid using confirmation bias).  In this case, an alleged statement of Tina Turner Towner that the first shot occurred "just after" she stopped filming is not very helpful.  You don't even provide a source for that.  But if she said that, what did she mean?  How many seconds?  If she meant four to six seconds, as she said in her statement to the Sixth Floor Museum, then that does not fit very well with the theory of a missed first shot.  In her statement to a teen magazine in 1968, as quoted by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain, Tina Turner Towner said had had just stopped filming and "now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in - the loudest crack of a rifle that I had ever heard".  So, if she had stopped filming and was putting away her camera or something like that preparing to leave, that would take a few seconds. 

Finally, the statement has to be compared to other witnesses.  Croft said he took his photo (z162) BEFORE the first shot.  He said he actually wound his camera and took another photo at the very instant of the first shot which did not expose properly (see Trask, POTP, p. 221-229).  Betzner said he took his z186 photo BEFORE the first shot.  He said he had started to wind his camera to take another when the first shot occurred.  Hughes said he stopped filming just before the first shot.  The section of the film that he was speaking about ends at about z182. Witnesses in the motorcade provided statements as to where their car was at the time of the first shot.  They are all remarkably consistent and fit a time after z182 (when the VP car is last seen, it has not finished the turn onto Elm, which occupants said had occurred before the first shot sounded).

The other folks here with 3-D models have confirmed my findings. Has anyone at all agreed with your theory?

I am not sure how a 3D model confirms an early first shot. It merely confirms the bias of the person doing the 3D work.  I don't really have a "theory". I am just pointing out that the evidence says that JFK was hit by the first shot, JBC by the second and JFK hit in the head on the third, that the shot pattern was 1.....2..3 with the last two shots in rapid succession.  My theory is that the SBT is wrong because it conflicts with that evidence.  Lots of people agree with that.

[Charles Collins]

First of all, you are relying on witnesses.  Tina Turner (and Victoria Adams).   

Second, you have to get an accurate account of all the statements of that witness and figure out what the witness meant (and avoid using confirmation bias).  In this case, an alleged statement of Tina Turner that the first shot occurred "just after" she stopped filming is not very helpful.  You don't even provide a source for that.  But if she said that, what did she mean?  How many seconds?  If she meant four to six seconds, as she said in her statement to the Sixth Floor Museum, then that does not fit very well with the theory of a missed first shot.  In her statement to a teen magazine in 1968, as quoted by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain, Tina Turner said had had just stopped filming and "now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in - the loudest crack of a rifle that I had ever heard".  So, if she had stopped filming and was putting away her camera or something like that preparing to leave, that would take a few seconds. 

Finally, the statement has to be compared to other witnesses.  Croft said he took his photo (z162) BEFORE the first shot.  He said he actually wound his camera and took another photo at the very instant of the first shot which did not expose properly (see Trask, POTP, p. 221-229).  Betzner said he took his z186 photo BEFORE the first shot.  He said he had started to wind his camera to take another when the first shot occurred.  Hughes said he stopped filming just before the first shot.  The section of the film that he was speaking about ends at about z182. Witnesses in the motorcade provided statements as to where their car was at the time of the first shot.  They are all remarkably consistent and fit a time after z182 (when the VP car is last seen, it has not finished the turn onto Elm, which occupants said had occurred before the first shot sounded).

First of all, you are relying on witnesses.  Tina Turner (and Victoria Adams).

Yes, I am relying on witnesses. However, their accounts can be related to specific points in time that coincide with the documented photographic record timings. By the way it is Towner (not Turner).

On page 7 of her book: Tina Towner - My story as the youngest photographer at the Kennedy assassination, Tina writes:

… but there was not enough time before the first gunshot sounded - only a second or two, if that, after I stopped filming.

(Emphasis added.)

I have seen where she said something like: “The first shot occurred right about the same time that I stopped filming”. But I don’t remember exactly where I saw that. I think that it was one of her earlier statements though.