LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.

Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.

Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?

Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons.

As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.

Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled.:


Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27

 In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them.  How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts?  (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).

[Joe Elliott]

Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?


Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled.:


Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27

 In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them.  How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts?  (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).

The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.

Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:

This KLIF bulletin from Dallas: Three shots reportedly were fired at the motorcade of President Kennedy today near the downtown section. KLIF News is checking out the report. We will have further reports. Stay tuned.

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.

I think it is possible that people might not remember the number of shots, as surprising as that may seem. The motorcycles backfired a lot. People might think it was a backfire. As late as z-312, it is clear that most people, not in the limousine or the follow up Secret Service car, realized that shots had been fired. Many were still clapping at that point. Without realizing in real time, that shots had been fired, and pre-occupied with seeing the President, they likely would not have kept a count of the number of "backfires/shots".

Why would people be wrong so much about the timing of the shots?

It would be easy to mistake the last shot, the shot at z-312, as two separate shots. A rifle shot makes a "Crack-Thump" sound, a double sound. This would be most distinct for the final shot, the one at 88 yards. For the shots at 43 and 63 yards, the "Crack-Thump" might come too close together to recognize as two separate sounds. Also, a fragment from the third shot struck metal, the windshield frame. This did not happen with the first shot.

I, of course, am not an expert on the perception of rifle sounds, but is plausible that at a shorter range, the "Crack-Thump" are too close together to perceive as two separate sounds. But at longer ranges, they are. And, for all I know, that transition may happen at around 75 yards.

If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.

If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".

In short, there are two different reasons a lot of witnesses get the spacing wrong. The third shot is the one most likely to be mistaken for two shots right on top of each other. And witnesses may have been influenced by over-hearing other witnesses, particularly over-hearing a "Bang-Bang" witness.

[Andrew Mason]

The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.

But there is a big difference between a human's ability to hear and count the number of shots and its ability to determine the direction of the source.  It is not hard to hear three shots and recall the number of shots correctly, particularly if there was a pattern, such as 1, a space and then 2 together.  Direction is an entirely different matter and our brains are easily fooled or confused by nearby surfaces that reflect sound.

There is an easy way to tell if witnesses are simply poor witnesses or if they have been fooled or confused bu something they have in common.  There is no reason to think that poor witnesses will tend to collect in a certain area. Their geographical distribution should be random.

The difference in perception of the direction of the shots (which is determined by our brains from the difference in time between the arrival of the sound wavefront at each ear) is not random. If they were just poor witnesses, perception would not depend on where they were situated at the time of the shots - but they were.

Most of the witnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD or near the corner of Houston and Main were located near that corner or were in the TSBD itself (ie. the three men on the floor below the SN, Secret Service Agents behind the President, the Cabells, occupants of the press car).  The witnesses farther along Elm or Houston St.  where reflections from nearby surfaces such as the Pergolas or from the Triple Underpass were much more likely to report that they thought the shots came from a different direction (eg. Mary Woodward, John and Faye Chism, Chief Curry, Richard Dodd, S.M. Holland, Jean Hill, Orville Nix).  Many were just confused as to where the shots came from, which may have been because echos from multiple reflective surfaces nearby created uncertainty.

Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.

Right.  The Secret Service, the Connallys, Mary Woodward, all the people waiting to give statements in the Sheriff's office were listening to KLIF.  Even that fanciful possibility does not explain why they would report a particular pattern to the shots though, does it?

If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.

Very few witnesses said that the space between the last two shots was as short as the time between the supersonic compression wave (crack) and the muzzle blast. The ability to hear the "crack" depends on how close one is to the bullet path.  For a person located close to the bullet path at a distance of 100 m from the muzzle, the bullet (610 m/s - travel time 163 ms) arrives 130 ms before the muzzle blast (343 m/s - travel time 291 ms.).  It is difficult to understand how anyone would confuse the two sounds that close as two rifle shots.  Many said there was a distinct space between the last two.

Allan Sweatt: 19 H 531 (Decker exhibit).

• “I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot”.

or Forrest Sorrels: 21 H 548 and 7 H 345.

• “There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.”

or Eugene Boone: 3 H 292.

• “there seemed to be a pause between the first shot and the second shot and third shots-a little longer pause.

or Arnold Rowland: 19 H 494 (Decker exhibit). 

• “and then in about 8 seconds I heard another report and in about 3 seconds a third report”

or Wm. Shelley: 6 H 329.

• “Well, I heard something sounded like it was a firecracker and a slight pause and then two more a little bit closer together.

or James Romak: 6 H 280.

• Mr. BELIN. Did it sound like the shots were faster than it could be operated with a bolt action rifle?
  Mr. ROMACK. No, sir."

or James Altgens: 7 H 520

• "They seemed to be at almost regular intervals and they were quick.”

or Thomas Dillard: WC 6 H 164.

• "I heard three-the three approximately equally spaced."

If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".

But you can't simply 'discard' a witness recollection because you have a hunch they might be wrong.  The suggestion that they might have confused a shot sound with a supersonic crack that one can only hear if one is close to the bullet path is not consistent with any of the evidence that I have found except, perhaps, Roy Kellerman. Even Hickey, who was close to the bullet path, described two distinct shots having two different effects.

[Andrew Mason]

Tom Dillard was sitting a few feet in front of Jackson. Reitzes writes:

    "Tom Dillard, Dallas Morning News, said, "the three [shots
      were] approximately equally spaced." (6H163-64) In 1986
     Dillard told Richard Trask, "As distinct as I know I'm talking
     to you, I'm as convinced there were three clear shots. [snip]
     I thought they were fairly evenly spaced." (Trask, pp. 440-41)
          (My abridgement)

Dillard is one of 10 witnesses who gave statements that were available to the WC indicating that the shots were about equally spaced.  Keep in mind that immediately after the shots he was trying to take a photo of the window from which Bob Jackson said he saw a rifle being withdrawn.

Linda can't see the President's right hand nor if he grabbed his throat. At least in the Z150s, she can see the President. But that's over two seconds before your first shot.

Ok. Let's discount Linda because you think the 14 year old girl was lying....

Right. Mr. Cabell had an odd sense of time (15 seconds total):

    "Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately
     10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with
     not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
     Mr. HUBERT - Two to one ratio?
     Mr. CABELL - Approximately that. And again I say that, as you
     mentioned, as a matter of being relative. I couldn't tell you the
     exact seconds because they were not counted."

And he said he wasn't actually counting off the seconds between either of the spans.

You conveniently omitted the question he was asked, which was:

• Mr. HUBERT. Could you estimate the number of seconds, say, between the flrst and second shots, as related to thenumber of seconds between the second and third shots? Perhaps doing it on the basis of a ratio?

I don't quite see how that describes the spanning between the three shots. Could have been three evenly-spaced shots.

Ok. I'll break the sentence: ""Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession." down for you:  "Then a moment" refers to a pause after the first shot. "and then two more shots" refers to two shots occurring after the "moment".  "in rapid succession." refers to the spacing between the last two shots indicating that they occurred without the pause that occurred for a moment after the first shot and before the next.

So you don't know if the string actually represents a specific sequence of shots.

So you don't know how to recognize sarcasm.

Here's how the use of Sneed affects Dave's tally:

• Shots One-and-Two Closer Together ... 2
• Shots Evenly-Spaced ... 8*
• Shots Two-and-Three Closer Together ... 5

You haven't got much to complain about.

It is not just Sneed.  Reitzes uses statements in several other much later sources such as O'Donnell's book (1972), Zeliger (1992), CNN (2003), Trost/Bennett (2003), Turner (2001), Biffle (2000), Weisberg (1976), Savage (1993), Mark Lane (1968), Thompson (1967) and Trask (1994).

Unlike what he said to Sneed, Moore's 1964 statement says nothing about the shot-spacing. You just think you can make it fit using your bias of shot-spacing.

I don't count TE Moore as a 1......2...3 witness.  He just mentioned hearing the last two after hearing the first.  I just pointed out that he said that the first shot occurred much later (by the time JFK reached the Thornton sign), which means the first shot did not miss.

Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".

So it is just an interesting coincidence that only JFK's hair on the right side flies up about 2 seconds before the head shot, just as Hickey described but, you say, did not see.  Just a lucky guess?

Yet the Zapruder film--when it begins to reveal Greer's head clearly in the late-Z270s--shows Greer already faced fully backward. By the Z280--when you claim Greer first turned his head sharply backward in reaction to your Z272 shot--Greer is not initiating a backward head turn, but instead is coming out of a backward head turn.

He is still turning rearward after z283 and does not come out of the rearward head turn until z291.  Here it is in slow motion:

[Andrew Mason]

It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.

So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.




You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.

Actually, the full set of photos that is available in the National Archives contains captions.  The captions explain that the cars represent the locations of the President's car when shots one, two and three were fired. The strings show the trajectories from the SN at that time:

[Martin Weidmann]

Since they have the head shot at either Z290 or the Z340s, you have to wonder if they had a surveyor or other expert place the strings. Or was it some kind of good-faith best-estimate thing. The Z-frames in the Hearings start at Z171, meaning the Commission apparently didn't think the first shot occurred prior to that.

Did you notice the two white cars in the foreground are even further away from the Depository than they are in photos of the model from the Museum? I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on. Also risky to base a theory on eyewitness reconstruction.

I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on.

I agree

[Andrew Mason]

I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on.

I agree

Three points:

1. The model shows that Jerry's pejorative rejection ("bats__t crazy") of my "theory" that the first shot occurred between z190 and z200 when the car was between the lamp post and the Thornton Freeway sign ie. here:

is, in fact, rejection of a serious working hypothesis of the FBI and WC - at least in January 1964.

2. The model shows that it is quite reasonable that a shot at that time from the SN through JFK's neck exiting on a right-to-left downward trajectory would go to the left side of JBC's jump seat.  With JBC turned to the right was he was from z190-200, the bullet could easily have missed the right side of his torso and implanted itself butt-first in the thigh.
 

3. It shows that Arlen Specter's demonstration of the trajectory:

is not consistent at all with the actual trajectory from the SN through JFK at any time while the car was passing along Elm St. before JFK shows signs of having been hit in the neck.

[Andrew Mason]

Jerry:
I am not sure how or why you think this:

is the same seating position as this: