The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

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

Dear Comrade Jerkov,

It is you who is unwittingly spreading disinformation with your childish and gullible acceptance of the Roselle/Scearce 'study'.
Your childish insistence, that everyone was too traumatised to describe hearing the first shot, highlights your profound ignorance about something as basic as when the first shot occurred. Have a read through the OP of this thread to inform yourself as to how film/photographic evidence and witness testimony should be approached.
While you're at it, ask yourself this question - If the sound of the first shot was so loud as to be traumatising, why is it only these handful of people react of the hundreds caught on film?

Here is another good example, from the mountain of evidence in this thread regarding when the first shot occurred, that demolishes your idea of an early shot. This is Reply#697:


I recently came across yet another way to corroborate a first shot around z223 thanks to the work of Pat Speer. It concerns the witness statements of the occupants of the Vice-Presidential car and the Vice-Presidential follow-up car. From these statements it is possible to glean an approximate position for each car at the time of the first shot and from these approximate positions it is possible rule out various theories regarding the first shot.
I will look at a number of theories put forward for when the first shot occurred in relation to the Z-Film:

z133 (and before)
z160
z190
z223 (my own proposal for the first shot)

First, a look at the statements:

VICE PRESIDENTIAL CAR

Hurchel Jacks [Driver] -
"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President’s car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out..."

Rufus Youngblood [Passenger Seat] -
"The motorcade then made a left turn, and the sidewalk crowds
were beginning to diminish in size. I observed a grassy plot to my right in back of a small crowd...I heard an explosion…"
"As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise."
"We had straightened on Elm now and were beginning to move easily down the incline in the wake of the cars ahead. Suddenly there was an explosive noise..."

Senator Yarborough [back left] - 
“as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast..."

Lady Bird Johnson [back centre] - 
“we were rounding a curve, going down a hill and suddenly there was a sharp loud report..."
"...suddenly in that brilliant sunshine there was a sharp rifle shot. It  came, I thought, from over my right shoulder."

Lyndon Johnson [back right] - 
"After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report."

VICE-PRESIDENTIAL FOLLOW-UP CAR

Joe Henry Rich [Driver] -
“We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and that was when I heard the first shot."


Cliff Carter [passenger seat]  - 
"...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded like a firecracker."

Jerry Kivett [back right] - 
"As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 the way to the underpass, traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour, I heard a loud noise..."

Warren Taylor [back centre] -
“Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker —the sound coming from my right rear."

Thomas (Lem) Johns [back right] - 
"We turned onto Elm Street...We were going downhill...which put the Texas Book Depository on our right, more or less...But we were going down this Elm Street, with my door open. I heard at least two shots.."

10 witnesses in 2 vehicles all corroborating each others statements. Not one or two ambiguous statements open to any kind of interpretation. Every single occupant of both cars are stating, basically, the same thing - at the time of the first shot these cars had turned off Houston Street and were travelling down Elm.
I now turn to the work of Mark Tyler to compare how these statements support or refute the various theories put forward.

Z133



In the image above the Vice-Presidential car is marked 7 and the follow-up car 8. It is obvious from this image that both vehicles are still on Houston at the time of this proposed first shot and, as such, a shot around z133 (or before) is absolutely refuted by the 10 witness statements.

Z160



Again, we can clearly see that, although car 7 is well into it's turn, car 8 is still on Houston. The theory of a first shot around z160 is refuted.

Z190



It can be said that car 7 is now travelling down Elm but car 8 is still to complete the turn as specified by the occupants of this car and, as such, a shot around z190 is refuted by the witness statements.

Z223



My own proposal.
It can be seen from the above image that both cars are now travelling on Elm after having completed the turn off Houston. There can be no doubt that this is the only theory that comes anywhere close to fitting the witness statements of the 10 occupants of these vehicles.
Yet further corroboration, if any were needed, that the first shot was the one that struck JFK in the throat around z223.


Do yourself a favour, Pinko, and get informed.

[Brian Roselle]

Very few testimonies provided specific and quantitative positioning for the limo at the time of the first shot.
Net, most testimonies are too variable and are at the mercy of the interpretation of the researcher to apply a “researcher assumption” on it as to what the person who said it really meant wrt the location.

If one insists that testimonies have to be used in order to get accurate estimates, then those testimonies on limo position should be “anchored” to a specific land mark or camera photo in order to provide some quantitative positioning which would allow for averaging of the positions in order to further reduce variation (like the central limit theorem) when creating estimates. This criterion is also generic enough to not affect the mean testimony, therefore not cherry picking.

This is an example:
https://sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home

Testimony is not necessarily ignored; it’s just not used in conjunction with Perception Time calculations because testimony isn’t required for that method, and it avoids the excessive testimony variability. Testimony is better if one tries to use testimony with inherently lower variability by virtue of space (anchored location) in conjunction with time (at the first sound surprise loud) and averaging the results.

[Tom Graves]

Hurchel Jacks [driver of the LBJ's car -- # 7 in Mark Tyler's animation] -
 
"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President’s car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out..."

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

If Tyler's animation is correct, Jacks must have been referring to the "Single Bullet" shot at approximately Z-222.

https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawK4zONleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFFODdsRHVIa2RSUGZJNllFAR6Zx-0JB5zBmwy-qakJKtfLfY5vcW9V2IqOrNXjP-oezkHhb-av38NlRUa-uA_aem_2d95NRPz2dpt6k_03l7iYg

-- Tom

[Royell Storing]

  The Wiegman Film throws these cartoons of the JFK Motorcade into a cocked hat. Wiegman actually filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. He also filmed the Hard Top LBJ SS Follow Up Car being outta the middle lane and sitting toward the (S) Elm St Curb near Hargis's parked motorcycle. What happened here? We have a JFK Limo Timing Issue along with that LBJ SS Follow Up Car being cattywampus on Elm St. A good copy of the Wiegman Film presents multiple conflicting issues. So does the recently released 1st generation copy of the Darnell Film. It shows ALL 3 camera cars atta dead stop with the driver of Camera Car #2 standing outside of that car on the corner of Houston/Elm St. Just ask yourself how long do You sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic before getting out of your vehicle? And then there's the issue of WHY are these Camera Cars sitting at a Dead Stop with absolutely nothing in front of them preventing their moving forward? These cartoons are a misrepresentation of what went down during the time period of shots being fired inside Dealey Plaza. They are like reading a comic book. Pleasant to look at, but clogging the mind with Fiction.   

[Dan O'meara]

Very few testimonies provided specific and quantitative positioning for the limo at the time of the first shot.
Net, most testimonies are too variable and are at the mercy of the interpretation of the researcher to apply a “researcher assumption” on it as to what the person who said it really meant wrt the location.

If one insists that testimonies have to be used in order to get accurate estimates, then those testimonies on limo position should be “anchored” to a specific land mark or camera photo in order to provide some quantitative positioning which would allow for averaging of the positions in order to further reduce variation (like the central limit theorem) when creating estimates. This criterion is also generic enough to not affect the mean testimony, therefore not cherry picking.

This is an example:
https://sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home

Testimony is not necessarily ignored; it’s just not used in conjunction with Perception Time calculations because testimony isn’t required for that method, and it avoids the excessive testimony variability. Testimony is better if one tries to use testimony with inherently lower variability by virtue of space (anchored location) in conjunction with time (at the first sound surprise loud) and averaging the results.

Very few testimonies provided specific and quantitative positioning for the limo at the time of the first shot.

In the post that directly precedes your own, ALL 10 OCCUPANTS of the Vice Presidential car and the VP follow-on car place both cars on Elm Street at the time of the first shot.
That's 100% of the witness accounts  providing "specific and quantitative positioning for the limo at the time of the first shot".
The point being this - at the time you are proposing for the first shot, both the VP and VP follow-on car are still on Houston Street!

While I agree that witness testimony can be variable and unreliable, when ALL relevant witnesses are agreeing on the same thing it has to be given credence. In this case ALL 10 OCCUPANTS of BOTH cars place themselves on Elm Street at the time of the first shot. This is real evidence. Strong evidence that refutes your assumption that the witnesses in your study are reacting to a shot. It's not a matter of researcher 'interpretation'.

Testimony is not necessarily ignored

Perhaps I've misunderstood but I was under the impression that, as far as your 'study' is concerned, ALL relevant witness testimony has been completely ignored, with no explanation as to why this should be the case.
I could accept your "excessive testimony variability" argument if the testimony of the witnesses in question supported such an early shot. But, with the possible exception of Rosemary Willis, they don't.
To the casual observer it looks like you avoided using their witness testimony because it reveals that your interpretation of their actions was nothing more than wishful thinking or projection.
Didn't it give you pause for thought that the witnesses you were using uniformly disagreed with your interpretations of their 'reactions'?

[Royell Storing]

  How many people in the USA have been convicted of crimes, some sentenced to death, based on Eyewitness Testimony? This stuff about eyewitness testimony being "unreliable" is indicative of the grasping at straws. The perceived credibility of an eyewitness is what ultimately carries the day.

[Dan O'meara]

  How many people in the USA have been convicted of crimes, some sentenced to death, based on Eyewitness Testimony? This stuff about eyewitness testimony being "unreliable" is indicative of the grasping at straws. The perceived credibility of an eyewitness is what ultimately carries the day.

As usual, you are wrong.
This is not a case of one or two witness testimonies, as you are insinuating.
As I've pointed out, all ten occupants of both cars are in agreement. That is 100% of the witnesses.
When we have consensus among so many witnesses it can be considered reliable.
You would know all this if you ever properly read the posts you are responding to. But you don't. You get half an idea and run with it, imagining your own opinion is gospel even though it's based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation.