The First Shot

[Brian Roselle]

Quote:
"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'?
[/quote]


To be clear the Perception time study’s intent was to use only human reactions to ascertain the timing of the first shot. It had nothing to do with testimonies or ignoring testimonies or disregarding testimonies, it had nothing to do with testimonies period. A testimony analysis is something completely different and that is what I was referring to wrt to the Anchored testimony analysis. Which happened to support the ~z124 timing.

If you want to insist that I ignore all relevant testimonies for the Anchored testimony test, that’s incorrect, but it’s true I did not consider testimonies that did not meet a criteria of an Anchored Testimony (hence I am guilty in one respect since I did not consider a lot of testimonies relevant because they did not meet the criteria for that particular type of analysis being conducted), and that has nothing to do with what I expected testimonies to say or not. I ignored testimony that would have agreed well with the placement I expected, like Tina Towner and Howard Brennan, because they did not meet the criteria of an Anchored Testimony.

The anchored testimony looked at any testimony around that time specifically identifying the President/President limo at the time of hearing the first shot. I don’t recall finding or using any presidential limo anchored testimony coming from the vice presidential car. I think the position of the Presidential limo at the first shot is quite important to understanding the line of sight the sniper had from the sniper’s nest to the Presidential limo when taking the first shot.

Now as far as why people on the street did not react like those in the limo, consider the following. First consider the reactions of those in the limo. The reactions of those in the limo were voluntary reactions, and appeared to be reactions consistent with sound localization attempts after a surprising loud sharp sound behind and above them, all reactions were within 0.55 seconds which is indicative of a common stimulus and is predicted by a Perception Time distribution model.  Since there was probably not a lot of great new visual stimulus at that time to grab their attention, they likely simply all looked around and wondered “What the hell was that”. Many believed it was a firecracker but looked around anyway. Some people further on down Elm did the same thing but with not as much head motion. This is what James Tague said he also did, glance around up there for the idiot throwing a firecracker that happened about 5 seconds before the second shot sounded. These were all voluntary reactions to a surprising stimulus.

Now consider yourself as a bystander up on Elm on the side of the road as the Limo went by. You came to Dealey Plaza to see the President, and many also wanted to see Jackie and her dress. You waited over an half an hour for the motorcade to show up. Right as they were approaching or driving by you, a firecracker is shot off. At that time there was a ton of visual stimuli right in front of you with the President and Jackie and the limo; do you ignore that intense visual stimuli right there in front of you, or do you follow the audible stimulus and turn around to spend time trying to find what kid threw a firecracker. Net, do you ignore the sound as an annoyance and keep your attention on the Limo. If folks look for the kid with the firecracker they totally miss JFK and Jackie go by, their whole intent for the day. What would you do at that time if you did not consider the perceived firecracker a personal threat, look for the kid that threw the firecracker or continue to look at JFK and Jackie?

I encourage you to develop your theories using your choice of testimonies, maybe others will build on what you are doing. You may find the exact meaning of the testimony “They had just turned the corner, straightened up… heading down towards the underpass” with respect to the Presidential limo position, or from what you find may also apply to the vice president car, and perhaps others as well.

In the meantime, I will look for other analysis on this question as well. At this point the anchored testimony results, the perception time analysis from the z-film, the Dorman film evaluation, the overall timing of all three shots using Zapruder startle reaction time ~210ms, and some extended Jiggle analysis, all point to an early shot before z133 being triggered around z124.

[Brian Roselle]

This is a list of the proposed first shot timings over the years. The shot estimate has ranged over 103 frames. If I add z223 to the list, that range expands to 116 frames.

They all used some raw testimony as a basis to support their first shot positioning. When I started to do research, this variability really frustrated me.

Warren Report (favored ~z210)
Basis: Testimonies, JFK arm/hand motion around z210 suspicious, and sniper line of sight then just cleared the tree

Alvarez, Wyckoff (~z186)
Basis: Testimonies, Jiggle analysis, brief tree opening, but probable branch deflection

Failure Analysis Associates, ABA Mock Trial (~z166)
Basis: Testimonies, Probable tree deflection just as limo started to be obstructed by the branches

Bugliosi book (~z160)
Basis: Testimonies, J. Connally’s “startle” reaction

HSCA (~z157)
Basis: Testimonies, Jiggle analysis, J. Connally “startle” reaction, Acoustics, Limo not yet to the tree branches

Holland, Rush (~zeq107)
Basis: Testimonies, Probable Traffic Mast deflection

[Tom Graves]

This is a list of the proposed first shot timings over the years. The shot estimate has ranged over 103 frames. If I add z223 to the list, that range expands to 116 frames.

They all used some raw testimony as a basis to support their first shot positioning. When I started to do research, this variability really frustrated me.

Warren Report (favored ~z210)
Basis: Testimonies, JFK arm/hand motion around z210 suspicious, and sniper line of sight then just cleared the tree

Alvarez, Wyckoff (~z186)
Basis: Testimonies, Jiggle analysis, brief tree opening, but probable branch deflection

Failure Analysis Associates, ABA Mock Trial (~z166)
Basis: Testimonies, Probable tree deflection just as limo started to be obstructed by the branches

Bugliosi book (~z160)
Basis: Testimonies, J. Connally’s “startle” reaction

HSCA (~z157)
Basis: Testimonies, Jiggle analysis, J. Connally “startle” reaction, Acoustics, Limo not yet to the tree branches

Holland, Rush (~zeq107)
Basis: Testimonies, Probable Traffic Mast deflection

Just curious:

In Holland's "The Lost Bullet," did Amos Euins point to a spot that corresponds with "Z-124"?

[Royell Storing]

Just curious:

In Holland's "The Lost Bullet," did Amos Euins point to a spot that corresponds with "Z-124"?

   While on the subject of Amos Euins, have you ever closely examined his Testimony? He claims to have traveled UP the Elm St Ext to gain access to the railroad yard. I believe there are several images after the kill shot that: (1) show a kid his size, (2) wearing the same colored clothing, (3) standing on Elm St, and, (4) running across Elm St toward the picket fence. Euins probably then climbed over the picket fence or climbed atop the Triple Underpass to get back inside the railroad yard where Officer Harkness found him. Also, Euins claimed to have crouched behind that stone perch that Toni Glover, (Blue Coat), and her Mom stood atop while watching the motorcade. Glover says that no kid was below them. Euins has numerous problems with his story/testimony.     

[Brian Roselle]

Just curious:

In Holland's "The Lost Bullet," did Amos Euins point to a spot that corresponds with "Z-124"?

To see where he pointed, you have to look in the program where he is being interviewed by Max Holland in that National Geo. program.

The line of sight he pointed out was used as an anchored testimony since he recalled the first shot and pointed to a location where the limo was when he heard the shot. His recollection was used in the anchored testimony averaging analysis and pointed very close to where the Presidential limo was at z124. A snapshot of his recollection is included in that Anchored testimony summary.

[Royell Storing]

  There is ZERO EVIDENCE placing Euins on Houston St or even at the base of the pedestal where Euins claims to have sought shelter after shots were fired. But, he is accepted by the Lone Nut crowd. This equates to a Euins segment on the National Geographic/Max Holland "The Lost Bullet". Total     

[Brian Roselle]

  There is ZERO EVIDENCE placing Euins on Houston St or even at the base of the pedestal where Euins claims to have sought shelter after shots were fired. But, he is accepted by the Lone Nut crowd. This equates to a Euins segment on the National Geographic/Max Holland "The Lost Bullet". Total 

Why would Amos lie about what he recalls? What he said in the program does not help Max Holland since it doesn't line up to where Max was proposing at z107.

If people cannot remember even where they were, maybe that makes a case for ignoring all testimony in this case since you cannot rely on anything anyone says.

Perhaps other types of analysis that do not rely on testimony would be better.