First shot reactions

[Jerry Organ]

You have such poor memory. A legal education might help with fact retention and would also help you understand professional ethics.

You apparently went to the same law school as Jimmy McGill.

You have consistently maintained that Betzner "forgot" about the first loud noise because he thought it was a firecracker

Show us where anybody anywhere has every claimed Betzner "forgot" about the first shot he described.

    "I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought
     that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."

and was a "two shot" witness recalling only the two subsequent shots, which is why he thought the shots occurred after his z186 photo.

Right. Our disagreement is over the number of shots he could recall. I say he recalled two shots: the head shot and the one before that.

I can't go back very far because of the lost archives on this board but how about this gem from you in January 2018:
"Betzner thinks he heard more than two shots,

Betzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" meaning there could have been more. I thought we agreed that the two-shot witnesses have to have heard all three shots.

but could only recall two shots because they related to things he was doing (winding his camera) or witnessing (the head shot). Some "Bunched" shot advocates claim Betzner missed hearing a shot that occurred between his "winding the camera" shot and the head shot. The "early miss" advocates claim the first shot was more likely to be overlooked or not as distinctively recalled as most thought the first shot was anything but a shot ("firecracker" or "backfire") and were concentrating on seeing the motorcade."

This is an example of "Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?"

Well, I seem to be explaining the divide over how the "two-shot" witnesses are handled. I'm not "insisting" on anything. Is "overlooked or not as distinctively recalled" the same as "forgot"? And where am I saying a witness failed to hear all three shots?

You are certainly an "early miss" advocate.  One has to ignore Betzner's statement to conclude that he recalled only two shots.  He said: "I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise." (that's the first shot).  Then he said he heard two more shots when he was looking down Elm around the time of the head shot: When I saw the following I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the President's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. "  He is recalling the last two shots after hearing the first.

Is that what they taught you in that law school in the Virgin Islands, Mason? How to falsely parse a document into something that supports a client (ie: your dumb-ass laughing-stock failed pet theory).



Let's get that quote of yours (underlined part below) in context:

    "I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill
     on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise.
     I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired.
     I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the
     matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the
     President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were
     stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then
     sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over
     the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when
     I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember
     exactly where I was when I saw the following:

     I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a
     firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for
     this was because I saw fragments going up in the air."

Problem is he's describing that last part ("firecracker" and fragments going up in the air") with this prior passage:

    "I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter
     of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's
     car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I
     saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down
     in the car."

Unless you want us to believe he saw the head shot incidents separately and that he saw Mrs. Kennedy raise up in the seat BEFORE he supposedly walked back to the monument and then saw the "firecracker/fragments in air" incident.

The document in full shows Betzner is describing just two shots (the "winding my camera" shot and the "another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds" shot) by way of relating them to things he witnessed or was doing.

But all is not lost. Here's your Saul Goodman Award.

That does not explain why Betzner would think that the shots occurred after his z186 photo or why Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot before the President had time to react. It does not explain why Hughes who stopped filming at very close to z187 (based on the motorcade car positions and frame timings) stated that he stopped filming before the first shot.

Betzner has always described two shots occurred after he took his photo, not three as you are trying to make out. His "second" shot seems to be the head shot, but his "first" shot (which he relates to himself winding the camera and looking up) moves it outside the Z190s-Z200s. As for Willis, you like to ignore what he said about the first shot causing Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from his side of the street to the opposite. She does this beginning in the Z170s. Hughes stopped filming five frames before Z190, so you are associating a five-second pause in filming, as Hughes claimed, with 1/3 second for a Z191 shot.

No. I have never said that.  I have never ever suggested there was another shot that was nearly simultaneous with the head shot. I have always maintained that the second shot occurred just after z271 and before JFK's hair flies up beginning at z273.

There's a recurring hair flutter that Hickey couldn't see during the Z270s.

That is not to say that the reverberation of the second shot could not have overlapped with the sound of the third shot.  Mary Woodward recalled that the sound of the second shot had not died out before the third shot sounded.

She also said the President wasn't injured on the first shot and that he only slumped on the second shot.

I have just suggested witnesses who did not recall three shots weren't counting shots. There were not many witnesses who said there were ONLY two shots. A number who said they could recall only two but allowed that there could have been another shot e.g. Altgens 7 H 517 who said "I cannot tell you how many shots were in between" the first and last shots; or the Chisms; or Ewell Cowsert; or SA Clint Hill; or SA Paul Landis etc.

After what you tried with Betzner, we have to wonder how you characterize who is a "two-shot" witness and who isn't.

Hugh Brennan is considered to be a 2 shot witness but recalled one shot in particular and "definitely heard more than one noise" (FBI report 11/22/63 -Comm. Doc. 5).  SA Glen Bennett is also considered a two shot witness based on his incomplete hand notes.  But in his 11/23/63 written statement Bennett recalled three loud noises. Doris Burns recalled only one shot (she was inside in a hallway on the 3rd floor of the TSBD) but said (6 H 399)  "It must have been the last one because I didn’t hear any more."

[Jerry Organ]

Personally, I haven't seen any evidence that a gun with a suppressor was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Therefore, given what I know of human nature (specifically that women are instinctively drawn to children, much the same way that men are instinctively drawn to pretty women), I believe that there is a very good chance that Rosemary Willis running alongside the limo caught Jackie's attention. And that Rosemary's enthusiasm could be a reason that Jackie is smiling in Towner and Willis 4 photographs. If that is the case, then seeing Rosemary snap her head back towards the TSBD and start slowing her speed to stop (by Z140 her head is already turned toward the TSBD and she is slowing down) immediately after hearing the sound of the first shot, is reason enough to cause the expression of concern on Jackie's face. It appears to me that in Croft's photo that Jackie's eyes are looking back towards her left (where Rosemary has suddenly slowed and is looking back at the TSBD).



And thanks to Gerda for the excellent video clip!

The only place in the Zapruder film where I am sure Rosemary first had her head turned to her right is beginning Z166. She seems to be going a steady clip until just after that.


Rosemary seems to be looking forward in frames Z133 and Z146. in the intervening frames, her figure is in shade or suffers glare when she re-emerges.

[Charles Collins]

She obviously turns that direction but that does not mean that she looked at the TSBD. If she heard something to cause her to turn that is only part of it. She says many things and is consistent and specific plus she talks about the family's film being tampered with

Well, something broke her total entrancement on the President. I believe that the sound of a rifle shot in her direction would be very likely to do just that.

[Royell Storing]

You mean this picture?

The Sam Holland I know of started out with ...

    "puff of smoke ... from behind the arcade through the trees"; "I don’t know
     whether it was a shot. I can’t say that"; "a firecracker, or something";
     "could have been the third or fourth [shot]"

By 1966, this had become: "I saw a puff of smoke still lingering among the trees in front of the wooden fence. The report sounded like it came from behind the wooden fence."

LOL! I honor his original truthful account.

By 1966 he was being misled by WC critics into saying things that made no sense. A "puff of smoke" that lingers would be from a cannon. And your "Smoke Cloud" demonstrates how critics have exaggerated Holland's account.

    For starters, that is a Still Frame. In the future, when you "quote" someone such as Holland please supply your source. Again, You previously have been much better than this when discussing this case.

[Jerry Organ]

    For starters, that is a Still Frame.

What a small-minded quibble. Technically it is a picture. Do still frames have white borders?

In the future, when you "quote" someone such as Holland please supply your source. Again, You previously have been much better than this when discussing this case.

Supply the source? Okey-dokey. Did a witness actually say they saw a "Smoke Cloud"? Or that from the windmills of your mind?

[Charles Collins]

Your comment was in reply to my original comment in post #69, which has nothing to do with Jackie's expression.
If you have already concluded that he is turned that way because he was shot, you are doing so solely on the basis of the zfilm which is equivocal on that point.
I can easily turn my neck 90 degrees to my shoulder and I can turn my shoulders about another 60 degrees, so while sitting down I can turn my head  about 150 degrees (just as we see JBC doing at z268)
JFK is more than 90 degrees to where JBC is facing.  JBC is looking forward and to the right, not back.  There is no way that he could be trying to see JFK and not be turning his neck.
Factual accuracy is not a popularity contest. The Connallys certainly believed that all three shots hit in the car and they were arguably in a better position to observe that than anyone on this board.

Many people on this board are, like you, unwilling to consider that the SBT is not required for the LN conclusion. So naturally, you think the evidence must be wrong.  I am just pointing out the evidence is inconsistent with the SBT.   3 of the 7 members of the Warren Commission did not agree with the SBT but agreed with the LN conclusion (as did the Connallys).   The FBI originally thought that all three shots struck in the car and that view continued until March or April 1964.  It was thought that the second shot struck JBC around z275, which is just before Greer makes his first rearward turn (which Greer said he did immediately upon hearing the second shot).  All I am saying is that there is abundant consistent and independent bodies of evidence that support such a conclusion.  You don't have to agree with it.   But your lack of agreement does not make the evidence disappear.

If you have already concluded that he is turned that way because he was shot, you are doing so solely on the basis of the zfilm which is equivocal on that point.

Not at all.

can easily turn my neck 90 degrees to my shoulder and I can turn my shoulders about another 60 degrees, so while sitting down I can turn my head  about 150 degrees (just as we see JBC doing at z268)

Yes, and I have seen contortionists who can kiss their own asses, but not everyone has that kind of flexibility. JBC was sitting in the jump seat which is inclined backwards a bit. The seat was close to the floorboard and to the back of the front seat so his knees were elevated. This position for the entire motorcade route, the probable subsequent stiffness of his body, and the force of gravity makes it more difficult to turn the torso. Yes, it could be done, however since just turning the neck was quicker and served the same purpose, it apparently wasn't necessary or desirable to also turn his torso.

JBC is looking forward and to the right, not back.

At Z148 Zapruder's camera position is at approximately 28 degrees to the right from the direction the limo is traveling. I would consider this as forward and 28 degrees to the right of JBC. If JBC were looking forward and to the right, the camera would have seen the front of his face. Instead we see JBC's left ear, and the left earpiece of his glasses (in other words his left profile, as I said earlier). Therefore it is reasonable to say that his head is facing approximately 90 degrees to the left of Zapruder's camera line of sight. Add the 28 degrees of Zapruder's position to the 90 degrees of his head position and this puts JBC's head pointed at approximately 118 degrees from the front of the limo. This is definitely looking backwards, not forward and to the right.

Factual accuracy is not a popularity contest.

So, nobody else agrees with you? Shouldn't that tell you something?

The Connallys certainly believed that all three shots hit in the car and they were arguably in a better position to observe that than anyone on this board.

No umpire or referee ever missed a call either  . And they are trained to observe activities that they expect to happen and in good positions to observe them. The Connallys were taken by surprise, not trained for observing assassinations, had their backs to JFK and the TSBD, and so on, and so on. We have the advantage of 55 plus years of research and investigations, more photos and films than they had access to at the time, digital technology to enhance images, create 3D models, etc. So I expect that you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would agree with you on that opinion also.

I am just pointing out the evidence is inconsistent with the SBT.

Some of the eyewitness accounts are. You appear to have built your case on that?

But your lack of agreement does not make the evidence disappear.

Neither does your lack of agreement with the photographic evidence make it disappear.

[Jack Nessan]

You apparently went to the same law school as Jimmy McGill.

Show us where anybody anywhere has every claimed Betzner "forgot" about the first shot he described.

    "I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought
     that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."

Right. Our disagreement is over the number of shots he could recall. I say he recalled two shots: the head shot and the one before that.

Betzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" meaning there could have been more. I thought we agreed that the two-shot witnesses have to have heard all three shots.

This is an example of "Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?"

Well, I seem to be explaining the divide over how the "two-shot" witnesses are handled. I'm not "insisting" on anything. Is "overlooked or not as distinctively recalled" the same as "forgot"? And where am I saying a witness failed to hear all three shots?

Is that what they taught you in that law school in the Virgin Islands, Mason? How to falsely parse a document into something that supports a client (ie: your dumb-ass laughing-stock failed pet theory).



Let's get that quote of yours (underlined part below) in context:

    "I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill
     on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise.
     I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired.
     I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the
     matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the
     President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were
     stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then
     sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over
     the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when
     I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember
     exactly where I was when I saw the following:

     I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a
     firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for
     this was because I saw fragments going up in the air."

Problem is he's describing that last part ("firecracker" and fragments going up in the air") with this prior passage:

    "I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter
     of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's
     car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I
     saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down
     in the car."

Unless you want us to believe he saw the head shot incidents separately and that he saw Mrs. Kennedy raise up in the seat BEFORE he supposedly walked back to the monument and then saw the "firecracker/fragments in air" incident.

The document in full shows Betzner is describing just two shots (the "winding my camera" shot and the "another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds" shot) by way of relating them to things he witnessed or was doing.

But all is not lost. Here's your Saul Goodman Award.

Betzner has always described two shots occurred after he took his photo, not three as you are trying to make out. His "second" shot seems to be the head shot, but his "first" shot (which he relates to himself winding the camera and looking up) moves it outside the Z190s-Z200s. As for Willis, you like to ignore what he said about the first shot causing Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from his side of the street to the opposite. She does this beginning in the Z170s. Hughes stopped filming five frames before Z190, so you are associating a five-second pause in filming, as Hughes claimed, with 1/3 second for a Z191 shot.

There's a recurring hair flutter that Hickey couldn't see during the Z270s.

She also said the President wasn't injured on the first shot and that he only slumped on the second shot.

After what you tried with Betzner, we have to wonder how you characterize who is a "two-shot" witness and who isn't.

"Betzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" meaning there could have been more. I thought we agreed that the two-shot witnesses have to have heard all three shots."

Just out of curiosity can you explain the difference between your three shot theory and Mason's? Start with proving or for that matter even providing any evidence at all there was actually a third shot. Claiming so many eyewitnesses did not hear the third shot or whatever is being proposed here is simply fantastic. It really doesn't matter where in the shooting sequence you decide to place a shot that never happened. It is all the same.

Is there really any question as to why people believe there was a conspiracy when such a key fact, as to how many shots were fired, is left to the imagination of whatever bizarre interpretation of the witness statements like what was just presented here? I understand the CT group's skepticism, they get it, no three shot scenario makes any sense to the evidence or the witness statements.

[Andrew Mason]

You apparently went to the same law school as Jimmy McGill.

Jimmy McGill never went to law school.

Show us where anybody anywhere has every claimed Betzner "forgot" about the first shot he described.

    "I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought
     that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."

Right. Our disagreement is over the number of shots he could recall. I say he recalled two shots: the head shot and the one before that.

No. Our disagreement is over whether he did not recall hearing the one that you say was before his z186 photo.  The number of shots he heard is not clear.  It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the first shot was before or after his photo at z186. He said it was after.  So you were arguing that he heard the first shot before z186 but, because he "dismissed" it as a firecracker, he did not treat it as the first shot when reporting his observations.

Betzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" meaning there could have been more. I thought we agreed that the two-shot witnesses have to have heard all three shots.

This is transcribed from the statement that Betzner actually gave:
         
"Hugh William Betzner Jr.: DALLAS SHERIFF'S STATEMENT: November 22 1963.  24 H 200
      
"I was standing on Houston Street near the intersection of Elm Street. I took a picture of President Kennedy's car as it passed along Houston Street [Comment: Betzner photo no. 1]. I have an old camera. I looked down real quick and rolled the film to take the next picture. I then ran down to the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, this being the southwest corner.  I took another picture just as President Kennedy's car rounded the corner [Comment: Betzner no. 2]. It was just about all the way around the corner.  I was standing back from the corner and had to take the pictures through some of the crowd. I ran on down Elm a little more and President Kennedy's car was starting to go down the hill to the triple underpass. I was running trying, to keep the President's car in my view and was winding my film as I ran.  I was looking down at my camera to see the number of the film as I ran. I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street [Comment: Betzner photo no. 3].   I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise [Comment: Betzner loud noise no. 1].  I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired.  I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds [Comment: Betzner loud noise no. 2].  I looked down the street and I could see the President's car an another one and they looked like the cars were stopped.  Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car.  Then I ran around so i could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was standing back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car.  My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. "...

Now what is quite clear from that is that photo no. 3 was taken BEFORE loud noise no. 1.   What is less clear, and I would say it is immaterial, is how many he heard after that.  I don't see how this is really material to whether the first shot occurred before or after his photo no. 3 (but you apparently do).

Nevertheless, a reasonable case can be made that he was reporting two additional shots after the first shot.  He said that after taking his photo no. 3, he started to wind his camera to take another when he says he heard the first shot (which he said sounded like a firecracker). He does not describe where he was looking at the time.  Then, later in his statement he says: "when I saw the following" followed by "I heard at least two shots fired" followed by "and I saw" suggests that the two shots he heard occurred when he saw what he was describing (what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car). This is consistent with the many reports that the last two shots were close together. As I say, it is not crystal clear, but that is not an unreasonable interpretation of his statement.  What is an unreasonable interpretation is that he heard the loud noise BEFORE he took his photo no. 3.

This is an example of "Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?"

Well, I seem to be explaining the divide over how the "two-shot" witnesses are handled. I'm not "insisting" on anything. Is "overlooked or not as distinctively recalled" the same as "forgot"? And where am I saying a witness failed to hear all three shots?

On March 18, 2018, post #49, you said:  "A three-shot scenario would simply mean Betzner heard a third shot but had no reason to remember it, which in turn argues for an earlier shot (before the shot Betzner heard after taking his Z186 photo) that many witnesses dismissed as a backfire or firecracker."

Perhaps you could enlighten us on the distinction between not recalling because he "had no reason to remember" and "forgot".

There's a recurring hair flutter that Hickey couldn't see during the Z270s.

Yet he reported seeing something that you say he could not see but which we can see in the zfilm. Amazing!  And, by the way, it is not recurring. It happens only once where just JFK's hair flies up: z273-z276.

She {Mary Woodward} also said the President wasn't injured on the first shot and that he only slumped on the second shot.

Well, she did preface that comment by: "Things are a little hazy from this point"