|
|
 December 23, 2010, 07:39:21 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1899
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT.
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
December 24, 2010, 12:08:57 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2354
Germany
|
three loud bangs. First: a firecracker, second + third = shots. then the first might have been also a shot. i go back in memory and recall the report sequence, no problem. unless you have a weak memory.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"ich bin ein Berliner" As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 24, 2010, 03:51:44 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Paul, welcome, SSA Roy H. Kellerman’s WC testimony sums up the double bang--bang, bang.--Ear-witness testimony best:
Mr. SPECTER. Will you give us the best estimate of the lapse of time from the instant you heard the sound which appeared to you to be a firecracker until you instructed Mr. Greer in the way you have described?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. How many seconds?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Three or four.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. On your 5-second estimate, was that in reference, Mr. Kellerman, to the total timespan from the first noise until the flurry ended?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; that is right.
Oswald’s weapon, takes a minimum of 2.3 seconds to cycle, therefore, there had to be another shooter.
Michael
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
December 24, 2010, 04:58:54 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 3611
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT. Andrew Mason. I remember he tried to correlate the positions of the people in the limousine using off-plane lines and the like. I think he had a theory that the throat shot exiting Kennedy went immediately to Connally's leg. I tried to explain to him that it would mean Connally's thigh was in the front seat. Paul, how can people "measure" the spans of the shots when the first one is so unexpected (many described it as a firecracker or backfire; only a few immediately recognized it as gunfire). For most, any timing mechanism and concentration on shot spanning would kick in beginning with the second shot ("That's gunfire! I'm gonna pay attention." or "That's gunfire. Time to stop talking to my wife."). This led to the false impression that the second two shots were closer together. You often hear the expression (paraphrasing) "the first shot was followed by two more in quick succession." Think about that, Paul. How can the "first shot" follow the last two? Only the last two can follow the first. And there's really nothing about shot spanning in the phrase "the first shot was followed by two more in quick succession." I went through As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login three weeks ago. Don't be a:  Jerry Jerry More shots than you can handle? ,What about the last one hitting whilst JFK and JBC are laying between the seats have a look at 343 onwards and remember what Brehm said about the head shot being the second and Altgens taking his picture at the exact same time as the head shot his testimony is shaky to say the least and of course Brehm was never called to testify because "brian" said that they probably had enough witnesses and did not need the eye witness testimony of the 3 closest people Brehm, DCM and Umbrella man how fortunate for them. Ian “It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious.” Ian tell us what Brehm's testimony would have changed? I will help you with that..NOTHING. What is there not to understand about that. They talked to alot of eye witnses at the scene. They know the eye witensses disagreed on what happened. Why would finding more eye witnsesses change anything. They were not going to write the report based on what every eye witnsses said. They couldn't. This is just one more topic that CT grabe onto to, and one more that doesn't make sense. Rememeber Ian, The WC didn't know there was going to be a cottge industry of con men selling books for the next 50 years selling books and trying to confuse a very bssic case. Brehm is free to give any interview he wants, and has given many. What he has said changes nothing. Why would you even bring this up again. He was called in the 1986 trial and testified. And you know what Ian, the jury still said Oswald did it. Brehm says they was no grassy knoll shooter. Ian do you except that because Brehm said so? You say Brehm was one of the three closest witnsses, wrong the people in the limo were and they called them. And there was a film of the killing, so much of the eye witness testimony was proven wrong by the film.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 24, 2010, 05:01:43 PM by Brian Walker »
|
-------------------------
What is silly is thinking that two turns that reduced the speed of the car to 8-11 m.p.h. is no big deal when motorcades are suppose to keep a 44 m.p.h. speed..R Caprio
LHO had poor hand-eye coordination and proof of this is seen in the fact he couldn't drive an automobile-- R Caprio
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 24, 2010, 11:10:11 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2147
|
Ian tell us what Brehm's testimony would have changed? I will help you with that..NOTHING. What is there not to understand about that. They talked to alot of eye witnses at the scene. They know the eye witensses disagreed on what happened. Why would finding more eye witnsesses change anything. They were not going to write the report based on what every eye witnsses said. They couldn't. This is just one more topic that CT grabe onto to, and one more that doesn't make sense. Rememeber Ian, The WC didn't know there was going to be a cottge industry of con men selling books for the next 50 years selling books and trying to confuse a very bssic case.Brehm is free to give any interview he wants, and has given many. What he has said changes nothing. Why would you even bring this up again. He was called in the 1986 trial and testified. And you know what Ian, the jury still said Oswald did it. Brehm says they was no grassy knoll shooter. Ian do you except that because Brehm said so? You say Brehm was one of the three closest witnsses, wrong the people in the limo were and they called them. And there was a film of the killing, so much of the eye witness testimony was proven wrong by the film. [/quote] Wrong again as usual.As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginWarren Comission Executive Session 12/5/1963 SEN RUSSELL: In relation to that it seems to me, since Mr. McCloy has mentioned it, it would decrease the use of self-serving conclusions if we had that power. Understand, I'm not looking for anyone, I'm not suspicious of anyone going out to cover up, but people will be writing about this thing. I told the President the other day, fifty years from today people will be saying he had something to do with it so he could be President.
-------------------------
-------------------------
Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
John F. Kennedy
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 09:04:18 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 526
|
From Live Recordings’ of the Shots in Dealey Plaza: Reliability of Ear-Witness Evidence in the JFK Assassination by Andrew M. Mason As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginConclusions about the shot pattern As seen from the above review of the evidence, there are at least 44 witnesses who
recalled a relatively long pause after the first shot and a much shorter separation between the last two. Only 6 thought the pattern was the reverse. Another 10 may have thought the shots were fairly equally spaced.
If one assumes that the likelihood of a witness recalling a simple pattern of three loud
noises correctly was at least as great the likelihood of recalling it incorrectly, there is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence: the last two shots were closer together than the first two. If the shot pattern was 1…2…….3 one would have to explain how it could be possible that only 6 out of 60 witnesses perceived the pattern correctly.
One would have to explain not only why the rest of the witnesses were mistaken, but why 44 of them randomly made the same mistake.I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why a large majority of the ear-witnesses stated the last two shots were closely spaced. This is a direct contradiction to the supposed 5 seconds between the last two shots according to the SBT. Since I wrote that several years ago, I have realized that there is even more evidence that the last two shots were closer together than the first two. The evidence that the first shot was after z186 (eg. Betzner, Willis, Hughes and about a dozen people in the motorcade), the evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot (Clint Hill and at least 22 others) and the fact that no one says he smiled and waved after the first shot - all of this fits the 1......2...3 shot pattern and do not fit the SBT pattern. And it is not just witnesses recalling a shot pattern. Altgens could not recall a pattern but he did recall that his z255 photo was after the first shot and before any other. Greer recalled the second shot was just before he turned around to see JBC falling. He says he turned back a second time and that was when the head shot occurred. His first turn is at z277-280. Dave Powers said that the second shot occurred and JBC disappeared immediately from his view. Hickey said the second shot occurred just as he turned forward after looking back toward the TSBD - and he kept looking forward through the third shot. Hickey has not yet turned forward in Altgens' z255 photo. John Wiseman Wiseman was standing in front of the Sheriff’s office, which is on Main Street, half a building from the corner of Main and Houston, when he heard the first shot. “I ran at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street when the second and third shots rang out”. He did not comment on the pattern but his actions show the pattern. Clint Hill is very interesting. He looked around after the first shot. When he saw the President grasping his chest and leaning he realized there was a problem and he decided to run for the limo. He recalls that there was only one shot at that point when he decided to run. He did not recall hearing the second shot but he accepts that there was one while he ran to the limo. He did recall hearing the third shot. He seems to be saying in this clip <![CDATA[As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
<a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=register">Register</a> or <a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=login">Login</a>]]> (at about 2:40) that others in the car said that a second shot occurred as he was running toward the car. That seems to fit with all the shot pattern evidence as well. So you see it is not possible to explain the shot pattern evidence away. There is too much evidence and too much variety of evidence to explain away. It fits with everything else. But it does not fit the second shot SBT.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 04:15:23 PM by Andrew Mason »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 11:16:35 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2338
|
I think it is safe to say that there is also in the record, just as many witnesses who placed the first shot much further up the street, back toward the TSBD. I don't have a lot of faith in any of the witness recollections of this topic. The reasons being that many witnesses didn't realize the noises were shots until the head shot happened. Most described that they thought the first shot was a firecracker, or a motorcycle backfire.
By the time most witnesses began paying attention, and processing the information that the noises were gun shots, the shooting was already finished.
This would be in contrast to a shooting witnessed by many people, that even before the shots rang out, the gunman was seen with the gun, approaching the victim for example. In that case everyone watching would fully understand from the start what was happening in front of them. But clearly in DP, for most witnesses, they did not have this advantage.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"you're the cop, you figure it out"
-Lee H. Oswald to Dallas Police detectives, weekend
of 11-22-63.
"Part of the reason why we avoided talking about this thing, because every time you say something, somebody misinterprets what you say."
-James. J. Humes, excerpt of ARRB statement, 2-13-96
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 12:13:28 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1608
|
I don't have a lot of faith in any of the witness recollections of this topic. The reasons being that many witnesses didn't realize the noises were shots until the head shot happened.
Darn Geoff, that degree in mass psychologie comes in handy at times.... 
-------------------------
-------------------------
"Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions." Jerry Falwell " I'm not  " T Winky
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 02:26:09 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1085
|
I think it is safe to say that there is also in the record, just as many witnesses who placed the first shot much further up the street, back toward the TSBD. I don't have a lot of faith in any of the witness recollections of this topic. The reasons being that many witnesses didn't realize the noises were shots until the head shot happened. Most described that they thought the first shot was a firecracker, or a motorcycle backfire.
I think the same can be said for these same witnesses who had conflicting views to the Parkland staff with regards to location/extent of the damage to the head of JFK. A head wound that was visible to the crowd only for a short time before JFK was pulled out of view and the limo sped off. Apparently, you have used these witnesses to help cement your belief that the Parkland staff were mistaken. I'm not attacking you btw Geoff, just asking for some consistency in your evaluation with regards to the viability of eye witness testimony. As for the people who heard two shots closer together, or the ones that heard them right on top of each other, what does it prove? If you took everyones testimony in DP that day, there are any number of scenarios you could come up with. There are numerous scenarios that can be pushed forward with the correct selection of witnesses. Cheers.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
January 22, 2012, 02:32:44 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1608
|
Most described that they thought the first shot was a firecracker, or a motorcycle backfire.
Was the sound of the missile when it went through the windshield of the limo .....
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
