A Closer Look…

[Charles Collins]

The limitations of human memory and recollection make trying to piece together events down a few seconds very difficult or impossible.  More often, the temptation is to interpret witness testimony/movements selectively to fit a desired narrative.  I don't think there is sufficient evidence to pinpoint the missed shot.  That's not to say that it pointless to take a closer look at the bystanders but the quality of film and variety of different reactions, delayed reactions, or nonreaction/unrelated movements doesn't add up to much in my opinion.  Under the circumstances, I would have expected a much more noticeable reaction to shots being fired.  Particularly by those standing in front of the TSBD.  I give credence to the general rather than specific.  The vast majority of witnesses said there were three shots.  There is nothing subjective about that question and answer.   How many shots?  Three.  Certainly, no more than two.   That is supported by the number of shells found.   At the very least that eliminates the nuttier CT claims that involve an O.K. Corral type shootout.

We don’t have a soundtrack on any of the films. So, we have to improvise. The witnesses who were actually there on the scene indicate that the first shot didn’t create a big general reaction. Therefore, your expectations of a more noticeable reaction seem to me to be misplaced. Most people who were there tell us that the crowd seemed stunned and only some of them looked around. And most of them tell us that they thought the first shot was a backfire or firecracker. At any rate, the reactions we have highlighted on the Zapruder film in this thread seem to me to agree with what the people who were actually there and actually heard the three shots tell us happened in the crowd at that point in time. What is significant in my opinion is the unmistakable head snaps and the instinctive jump of some of the bystanders. We can now see these things clearly with our own eyes thanks to the excellent work by Jerry Organ. I think that this makes Jerry’s find very important.

[Richard Smith]

We don’t have a soundtrack on any of the films. So, we have to improvise. The witnesses who were actually there on the scene indicate that the first shot didn’t create a big general reaction. Therefore, your expectations of a more noticeable reaction seem to me to be misplaced. Most people who were there tell us that the crowd seemed stunned and only some of them looked around. And most of them tell us that they thought the first shot was a backfire or firecracker. At any rate, the reactions we have highlighted on the Zapruder film in this thread seem to me to agree with what the people who were actually there and actually heard the three shots tell us happened in the crowd at that point in time. What is significant in my opinion is the unmistakable head snaps and the instinctive jump of some of the bystanders. We can now see these things clearly with our own eyes thanks to the excellent work by Jerry Organ. I think that this makes Jerry’s find very important.

I can understand the delayed or non-response by many folks to the shots.   A quick, sudden, unexpected event that was over before many realized what was happening.  Interpreting movements in the crowd, though, is something different and subjective.  I think anyone with a theory could look at the grainy film images and find bystanders who they believe support whatever narrative they want to reach.   I don't find the "head snaps" to be unmistakable or clear.   It's interesting but not compelling.  In contrast, I think the witness testimony that they were three shots is compelling and supported by the evidence.   Almost all these witnesses suggested the shots came from one location - although they disagreed where.  That means one shooter firing a maximum of three shots.  That alone undermines many CTer theories about multiple shooters.

[Charles Collins]

I can understand the delayed or non-response by many folks to the shots.   A quick, sudden, unexpected event that was over before many realized what was happening.  Interpreting movements in the crowd, though, is something different and subjective.  I think anyone with a theory could look at the grainy film images and find bystanders who they believe support whatever narrative they want to reach.   I don't find the "head snaps" to be unmistakable or clear.   It's interesting but not compelling.  In contrast, I think the witness testimony that they were three shots is compelling and supported by the evidence.   Almost all these witnesses suggested the shots came from one location - although they disagreed where.  That means one shooter firing a maximum of three shots.  That alone undermines many CTer theories about multiple shooters.

I don't find the "head snaps" to be unmistakable or clear.


We will just have to disagree then I suppose. The lady that Jerry Organ originally pointed out snaps her head roughly 180-degrees. Her torso twists about 90-degrees. This happens in about 0.16 of one second. Try doing that yourself sometime and see if you can do it that quickly by consciously trying. Do you not see that happening in the clip that Jerry created? It is clear and unmistakable to me that she does this.


  It's interesting but not compelling.

Again we will just have to disagree then I suppose. I view this as only feasible to do that quickly as an instinctive reaction. The only question becomes: An instinctive reaction to what? What else could possibly cause such a quick instinctive reaction. I can relate it to my own reaction to a striking snake that I already described in another thread. I had already jumped backwards out of the snake’s way before I even consciously knew what was happening. It was completely involuntary and over with before a thought about it could form in my mind. That is very similar to what I see happening to that lady (and the one who jumps) in the clips from the Z-film. Now, if you find it not compelling, then please explain why. I mean what else do you think might be going on around the lady to cause such a reaction?

[Andrew Mason]

If one draws a line on a map perpendicular to the direction of Elm Street at the Z133 mark (the location of JFK at the beginning of the Zapruder film segment) Pierce Allman was standing right there on the south side of the street. Here is what Allman said on the radio later that day: "And right after Mr. Kennedy passed right in front of me I heard one big explosion…
The beginnings of the reactions of some of the bystanders as documented on the Zapruder film and highlighted in this thread happen in the Z150s. This would place JFK at about a car length or less past the Z133 mark at which Allman is standing. Now, I ask: do Allman’s words seem to indicate that JFK was a car length or less past him or do they indicate that JFK was 75 or 100 feet past him when he heard the big explosion? Also, Allman’s words never specifically tie JFK’s reaction to the first explosion. About an hour before the radio interview, Allman was on the phone in the TSBD communicating with the radio station. Here is a snip from his live telephone report: And as he went by the Texas School Book Depository headed for the triple underpass, there were three pound reverberating explosions…. Again I ask, do those words “as he wert by” (place yourself in Allman’s position on Elm Street) seem to indicate that JFK was already 75 or 100 feet past Allman when he heard the first explosion? I don’t think so. But you be the judge.

Allman's statement is, at best, ambiguous as to where JFK was at the time of the first shot.  So you have to look at other evidence.  "Right after" could be 1.5 seconds as you suggest or it could be a bit longer.  How can you differentiate between 1.5 seconds and 3 seconds from "right after"?  You would be the last one to twist the words of Allman in order to try to justify believing what you wish to believe.

The images presented here in this thread speak for themselves. The lady who Jerry Organ first pointed out (who snapped her head around) and the lady in gold that I pointed out (who jumped and then brings her hand to her mouth), both seem to be having an instinctive reaction to the first loud explosive sound. These types of reactions happen extremely fast (before the conscious mind can even think about it). The amygdala portion deep inside the brain controls the instinctive reactions without the need for conscious thought. The reactions can be measured as to how quickly they happened and how far did she turn or jump. There are at least 13 others who have somewhat similar reactions that have been pointed out earlier in this thread. All of these reactions are the type of reactions that one might expect if a loud explosive sound had just unexpectedly happened. All all of these reactions happened at essentially the same time.

And if you had independent evidence that there was a shot around that time, these kind of head turns might be seen as corroboration or help to pin point the time. But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot.

You can see them with your own eyes and believe whatever you wish about them. Or, you can try to twist the words of however many witness accounts you want to in order to try to justify believing whatever you wish. I frankly couldn’t care less.

Do you think I twisted the words of the witnesses I listed by quoting them and providing the reference?

[Andrew Mason]

I can understand the delayed or non-response by many folks to the shots.   A quick, sudden, unexpected event that was over before many realized what was happening.  Interpreting movements in the crowd, though, is something different and subjective.  I think anyone with a theory could look at the grainy film images and find bystanders who they believe support whatever narrative they want to reach.   I don't find the "head snaps" to be unmistakable or clear.   It's interesting but not compelling.  In contrast, I think the witness testimony that they were three shots is compelling and supported by the evidence.   Almost all these witnesses suggested the shots came from one location - although they disagreed where.  That means one shooter firing a maximum of three shots.  That alone undermines many CTer theories about multiple shooters.

I agree completely. So how were the witnesses reliable when it comes to the number of shots but not reliable as to the pattern of the shots, the rapidity of the last two shots, where JFK was when the first shot occurred and how he responded to it?

And all of the evidence that is being rejected as unreliable all fits together:  the shot pattern with the last two close together requires JFK to be hit by the first shot.  The estimated 2:1 ratio recalled by several witnesses would  mean the first shot had to have occurred just before JFK is seen reacting when he emerges from behind the sign, which fits with the witnesses who said that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot.

Perhaps, the more important question is: how is it that all these witnesses were mistaken but in a way that the mistakes are all mutually consistent?

[Charles Collins]

Allman's statement is, at best, ambiguous as to where JFK was at the time of the first shot.  So you have to look at other evidence.  "Right after" could be 1.5 seconds as you suggest or it could be a bit longer.  How can you differentiate between 1.5 seconds and 3 seconds from "right after"?  You would be the last one to twist the words of Allman in order to try to justify believing what you wish to believe.
And if you had independent evidence that there was a shot around that time, these kind of head turns might be seen as corroboration or help to pin point the time. But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot. Do you think I twisted the words of the witnesses I listed by quoting them and providing the reference?

I presented the contexts, asked the questions, and said what I think. Then I said you be the judge, meaning each person should form their own opinions. That is completely different from: you claiming that all those witnesses’ accounts are supposedly confirming that JFK reacted to the first shot. You may have that opinion. But that doesn’t make it true.


But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot.

Please give us your opinion of the reason(s) that over fifteen people reacted at the same moment in time. I suggest that you begin with the extremely quick instinctive head snap reaction we can all see from the lady that Jerry Organ originally pointed out in his excellent clip.

[Zeon Mason]

Some interesting additional details of more persons having some head turning around the Z160 -z170 frames.

So to explain why so FEW persons are turning heads around this Z160-170 range , could the reason be a suppressed Z160 shot from Daltex  building ?

Because if Z160 - 170 was  a loud shot from the TSBD window surely more than 2 of the SS agents in the follow car should have turned heads from Z160 to Z207 ?

If not a suppressed shot that missed and ricocheted off the street  ( Virgie Rachley seeing it?) then was it a firecracker or was it a backfire?

[Andrew Mason]

But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot.

Please give us your opinion of the reason(s) that over fifteen people reacted at the same moment in time. I suggest that you begin with the extremely quick instinctive head snap reaction we can all see from the lady that Jerry Organ originally pointed out in his excellent clip.

Maybe someone in the crowd on the north side of Elm St. shouted at the President around z160-170 saying something like "Hey Mr. President" really loud so they could be heard over the motorcycles. Darn, if there was only evidence that something like that happened.....