The First Shot

[Tom Graves]

Again, you are imagining JFK or Rosemary Willis moving their heads in that time frame.

But even if they did, why not compare that to other short intervals throughout the motorcade? Here is less than a second (16 frames) from Powers' film much earlier in the motorcade. Jackie and JFK move in different directions at about the same time. Was that a startle reaction or just normal behaviour? 

Andrew Mason posted (paraphrased):

"Earlier during the motorcade in the Powers film, Jackie and JFK moved in different directions within a second of each other. Was that a startle reaction, or just normal behaviour?"


Dear Andrew,

I said nothing about "startle reactions."

I was talking about conscious reactions.

Conscious reactions follow "startle reactions."

When two people in close proximity to each other consciously move their heads in opposite directions within a second of each other (wowie zowie!), it doesn't necessarily mean that they're doing so in response to the same stimulus.

It is suggested, however, when more than two people consciously and quickly do it within half-a-second of each other. 

In this case, in addition to JFK and Jackie, three passengers in the limousine consciously and quicky moved their heads within half-a-second of each other.

At least two other witnesses to the sounds of the first, missing-everything, shot who weren't in the limo but who can be seen clearly in the Zapruder film -- Secret Service Agent George Hickey and "running girl," Rosemary Willis -- consciously moved their heads quickly within that half-second, as well.

That's seven prime witnesses who consciously and quickly moved their heads to the sounds of the first, missing-everything, shot.

It's logical to assume that the shot they consciously and quickly reacted to within half-a-second of each other (between Z-140 and Z-150) was about a second before they started consciously reacting to it (and after, of course, their invisible-to-us "startle reactions" to the sounds of said missing-everything shot).

-- Tom

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew Mason posted (paraphrased):

"Earlier during the motorcade in the Powers film, Jackie and JFK moved in different directions within a second of each other. Was that a startle reaction, or just normal behaviour?"

Dear Andrew,

I said nothing about "startle reactions."

I was talking about conscious reactions.

Conscious reactions follow "startle reactions."

My point was: How do you know that they are reactions to anything?  We see voluntary actions taken all the time as normal activities during a motorcade. 

When two people in close proximity to each other consciously move their heads in opposite directions within a second of each other (wowie zowie!), it doesn't necessarily mean that they're doing so in response to the same stimulus.

It is suggested, however, when more than two people consciously and quickly do it within half-a-second of each other. 

Fair enough. If several people make similar actions within half a second of each other, there may be something driving that.  Or there may not. One would have to assess how improbable that could happen by chance.

First of all, you are selecting people based on the fact that they moved their heads.  But there are many people who could be moving their heads but didn't.  In the President's car and follow up car there were 17 people (six + 11 in the follow-up car). Let's assume the driver in each is not going to move their head voluntarily.  So that is 15 people who could be acting or reacting.  You find 5 out of those 15 who act within a half second.  But you are choosing them based on the fact that they did move!

And then you have to factor in the chance of any two people will NOT move their heads within that half second.  Let's suppose that all 15 people had been moving their heads from left to right or right to left every 5 seconds, on average, and each move took 1 second.  Then for each person head turns that start, continue or finish during that half second would be included. That covers 2.5 seconds, so the probability of another person making a voluntary move within that 1/2 second is about .5. 

The probability that 5 people out of 15 possible persons simply moved their head within that 1/2 second is 1-the probability that 11 of them would NOT move their heads during that 1/2 second interval. 

We can work that out:
1.  The number of ways that 11 people out of 15 would not move their heads within that 2.5 second period multiplied by .5^11  is:the number of ways to select 11 people out of 15 without regard to order, or C(15, 11)=15!/11!4!=15x14x13x12/(4x3x2x1)=15x7x13=1365
2. the probability that all persons in a group of 11 people would not move their heads is the probability that each does not turn their head within that half second window: .5^11=.00049
3. Therefore the probability that 11 people out of 15 could be found that don't move their heads is .00049 multiplied by the number of ways to select 11 from 15.  That probability is 1365x.00049= .6665
4. Therefore the probability that you will not find at least 11 not moving their heads (ie. at least 5 people in 15 moving their heads) is 1-.6665 =.3335

So there is a 1 in 3 chance that 5 people will move their heads within half a second of each other.

It is a bit complicated and I may have over-simplified it but you get the idea why this may not be that improbable.

In this case, in addition to JFK and Jackie, three passengers in the limousine consciously and quicky moved their heads within half-a-second of each other.

You seem to think Rosemary Willis, JFK, Jackie, Nellie and Kellerman are moving their heads between 140-150.  I don't see that at all. You imagine things that are not visible in the zfilm. Rosemary does not move her head at all, for sure.  If you disagree, show us where they move their heads here:

[Tom Graves]

You seem to think Rosemary Willis, JFK, Jackie, Nellie and Kellerman are moving their heads between 140-150.  I don't see that at all.

You need to look more closely.

I guess you haven't read the article by Roselle and Scearce.

Here's the pertinent part:

1) Roy Kellerman -- Begins leaning over and looking behind/down to the right @ Z-148

2) George Hickey -- Begins leaning over to the left and looking down in the direction of the rear tire or ground @ Z-143.5

3) John Connally -- Begins a quick head turn left (followed by quickly looking back right) @ Z-150

4) Jackie Kennedy -- Starts accelerated head turning left, before looking back right. (Similar to John Connally’s L-R head motion but starts slightly
earlier & ends slightly later than his) @ Z-143.5

5) President Kennedy -- Starts a quick look to the left @ Z-143

6) Nellie Connally -- Begins a quick sweeping head turn to the right @ Z-145

7) Rosemary Willis -- Begins a quick look away from the Presidential limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository @ Z-140

You imagine things that are not visible in the Zapruder film.

That's a suggestion I refuse to accept.

[Dan O'meara]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

The fallible recollections of startled-and-traumatized human beings?

LOL!

Sorry, but I'll go with the (gasp . . . altered by the evil, evil CIA???) photographic evidence, instead.

-- Comrade Pinko Jerkov

Dear Comrade Jerkov,

The issue I'm raising isn't about how gullible you are. That's plain for all to see.
The point I'm making is about how omitting the first-hand accounts of the witnesses they are using in their 'study' invalidates their approach.
Your child-like argument, that we should either rely on the witness accounts OR the film/photographic evidence, just shows the level that you, not to mention Roselle and Scearce, are operating at.
Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that BOTH witness testimony and the Zapruder film must be used in conjunction with each other to arrive at some kind of reliable interpretation of what we see.
The fact that Roselle and Scearce have deliberately omitted the witness accounts invalidates their 'study'.
But the real issue I have is the reason WHY they have omitted these testimonies.
It is because any given first-hand account of the first shot, by any of the witnesses they use in their 'study', is in disagreement with what Roselle and Scearce would have us believe.
The kindest thing that can be said is that this is incredibly deceptive.

The OP of this thread highlights the correct way to integrate film/photographic evidence and witness testimony. You, Roselle and Scearce could learn a thing or two from it.

[Tom Graves]

The issue I'm raising isn't about how gullible you are. That's plain for all to see.
The point I'm making is about how omitting the first-hand accounts of the witnesses they are using in their 'study' invalidates their approach.
Your child-like argument, that we should either rely on the witness accounts OR the film/photographic evidence, just shows the level that you, not to mention Roselle and Scearce, are operating at. Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that both witness testimony and the Zapruder film must be used in conjunction with each other to arrive at some kind of reliable interpretation of what we see. The fact that Roselle and Scearce have deliberately omitted the witness accounts invalidates their 'study'. But the real issue I have is the reason WHY they have omitted these testimonies. It is because any given first-hand account of the first shot, by any of the witnesses they use in their 'study', is in disagreement with what Roselle and Scearce would have us believe. The kindest thing that can be said is that this is incredibly deceptive. The OP of this thread highlights the correct way to integrate film/photographic evidence and witness testimony. You, Roselle and Scearce could learn a thing or two from it.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

The fact that you lend more credence to the statements of cherry-picked startled-and-traumatized witnesses than to the photographic record of the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (five of whom were in the limo) tells me that you think (sic) the Zapruder film was altered.

John Connally was so traumatized by the whole experience that he didn't even remember turning far to his right around Z-163, before the second shot rang out (and wounded him) at approximately Z-222, to try to catch a glimpse of JFK over his shoulder.

He was unable to "see" his face, however, because JFK had turned his head far to his right and had raised his forearm to wave to someone and thereby was blocking JBC's view of his now-in-profile face. 

-- Tom

[Dan O'meara]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

The fact that you lend more credence to the statements of cherry-picked startled and traumatized witnesses than to the photographic record of the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (five of whom were in the limo) tells me that you think (sic) the Zapruder film was altered.

John Connally was so traumatized by the whole experience that he didn't even remember turning far to his right before the second shot rang out (and wounded him) at approximately Z-222, to try to catch a glimpse of JFK over his shoulder, but was unable to "see" his face because JFK had turned his head far to his right and had raised his forearm to wave to someone and thereby was blocking JBC's view of his now-in-profile face. 

-- Tom

Calm down, Pinko.
I'm obviously saying that any reliable interpretation of witness "reactions" should also include their statements.
It's YOU who is insisting it must be one or the other.
What is your explanation for Scearce and Roselle omitting these statements?
And John Connally was rightly traumatised - he was shot through the torso. A life-threatening injury. OF COURSE HE WAS TRAUMATISED.
Your childish argument, that everyone was traumatised by the sound of a shot, reveals how gullible you are.

[Tom Graves]

Calm down, Pinko.
I'm obviously saying that any reliable interpretation of witness "reactions" should also include their statements.
It's YOU who is insisting it must be one or the other.
What is your explanation for Scearce and Roselle omitting these statements?
And John Connally was rightly traumatised - he was shot through the torso. A life-threatening injury. OF COURSE HE WAS TRAUMATISED.
Your childish argument, that everyone was traumatised by the sound of a shot, reveals how gullible you are.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

What you want to do is confuse JFKA students and researchers by having the traumatized and probably muddled recollections of the six surviving prime witnesses (whose nearly simultaneous conscious reactions to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot were photographically recorded by Zapruder) compared with said photographically "captured" movements so that you can confuse the issue and thereby perpetuate your Vladimir Putin-approved tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theory.

Tough tacos, dude.

-- Tom