The First Shot

[Charles Collins]

What follows is based on the comprehensive witness analysis at Pat Speer's website. The analysis mainly focusses on what eye and ear-witnesses had to say about the shots - the amount, pattern, timing and whether there was a shot after the headshot at z313. From his analysis I count 26 witnesses he is confident identify a shot after the headshot, a further 8 who are probably describing such a shot and another 8 who are possibly describing a shot after the headshot.

John Templin
 In a letter to [Pat Speers], written in March. 1998, Templin related his experience at the time of the assassination: the motorcade past (sic] us about 15 to 20 feet we heard what appeared to be a motorcycle backfire. As it did, the President's shoulders came up and he slumped down slightly on the back of the seat … As the car went a few feet more, the second shot was fired hitting President Kennedy with such force that I could see his hair actually depart from his skull...My (sic) attention was to look behind us and see if we could see anyone or anything. We could not determine where the shots came from other than from our left.' Templin (continued in his letter): 'Did the first shot strike the President? Yes.' Interestingly enough, Templin pointed out to me that while he believed that only three shots were fired, he stated that 'the third shot missed everything.'
Marilyn Willis
(6-19-64 FBI report, CD1245 p. 44-45) “Mrs. Willis advised when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds following this she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy’s head “blow off and ringed by a red halo.” She stated she believes she heard another shot following this.”
James Worrell
 (3-6-64 UPI article on Worrell in the Dallas Times-Herald) "He said he was standing directly below the sixth floor of the depository when he heard a shot. 'I looked up real quick and saw the barrel fire again. I looked to see where it hit and saw President Kennedy hit in the back of the head. Then I looked up again and saw it fire a third time.
J W Foster
(3-26-64 FBI report based upon a 3-25-64 interview, CD897 p.20-21) “Just as the vehicle in which President Kennedy was riding reached a point on Elm Street just east of the underpass, Patrolman Foster heard a noise that sounded like a large firecracker…he realized something was wrong because of the movement of the President. Another report was heard by Patrolman Foster and about the same time the report was heard, he observed the President’s head appear to explode, and immediately thereafter, he heard a third report which he knew was a shot.
Malcolm Summers
 (No More Silence p.102-107, published 1998) “ I heard three shots altogether…Then, when Jackie reached over and grabbed John, she was saying, “Oh, no! Oh, God no!” or something to that effect…Then I knew immediately that he had been hit…I thought he might have been ducking…When I heard her say that was after the second one had already hit.  Apparently, that was the head wound.…as to the spacing of the shots, there was much more time between the first one and the second two, the second and the third.  They were real close.”
Mary Moorman
 (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times-Herald) "Mrs. Moorman, who snapped a picture just at the time the President was shot, and said: 'I took the picture exactly at the moment the shot rang out. My Polaroid shows Kennedy slumped over in the car and it shows Jackie leaning towards him. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say 'My God, he's been shot.' I heard another shot or two and I turned to my friend and we got on the ground.'"
Charles Brehm
The first one hit the president—there was no doubt whatsoever--because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go.
Hugh Aynesworth
(March-May 1964 account written for the Dallas Morning News, published in the 2013 book JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes.) "Then came the first shot. I looked instinctively at one of the motorcycles to see if it was an exhaust. A woman near screamed. I saw a face look into mine briefly with a lost look, much as mine must have been. Then another shot. This was a shot I knew. I recall darting my eyes to the President's open limousine, now slipping down Elm St. to the viaduct. The president jerked his head. I could not tell if he were looking to see what the noise was, but I recall thinking he was only jerking his head to wave at the people on the other side of the grassy slope. His hair seemed to jump up. Later I understood why. Some of the vehicles in the caravan seemed to come to almost a complete stop. Others crept along. I could not tell who was in charge. Then a third shot, clearer now, for I somehow almost expected it.
These are just a handful of the more unambiguous statements. It's not a question of theorizing these witnesses are wrong or the ones you quote are. They are clearly contradictory statements and this is the problem, these witness statements are useful up to a certain point but cannot be solely relied upon to give us a definitive answer about the timing of the shots. Anyone trying to ascertain the timing of the shots who uses witness statements is forced to cherry-pick. They can only be used to enhance arguments derived from other evidence (video, photographic etc).
As for your point about the missing third shot, I agree, it's a weakness of the model I am presenting, not an insurmountable problem but a problem none-the-less. Assuming all three shots are meant to be head shots - the first is close, the second is on the mark but the third, when the sniper's eye should be in, goes awry. I can speculate that perhaps, because the gap between the second and third shots is so tight this hurried shot missed it's mark or perhaps the sudden appearance of Clint Hill in the sniper's sights caused him to pull his shot at the last second or perhaps.... more speculation, which is all it is.

I have to question the Hugh Aynesworth account. He wrote in his book “Witness to History” that he was standing about 10-feet from the curb on the east side of Houston Street near the intersection of Houston and Elm Street. I don’t know that he could have seen the limousine during the shooting from his location (I doubt it). Here is an excerpt from his account on page 16: “I initially had no idea who was shooting at whom or why or where, except that it sounded very close.”

If the account you posted is in that book and attributed to Aynesworth, then I would think that it could have been from his notes, but something that one of the other witnesses said (that he interviewed immediately after the shooting).

[John Tonkovich]

Omeara; Altgens describes the third shit - second head shot - I'm great detail. So do Sibert and O neill

[Dan O'meara]

I have to question the Hugh Aynesworth account. He wrote in his book “Witness to History” that he was standing about 10-feet from the curb on the east side of Houston Street near the intersection of Houston and Elm Street. I don’t know that he could have seen the limousine during the shooting from his location (I doubt it). Here is an excerpt from his account on page 16: “I initially had no idea who was shooting at whom or why or where, except that it sounded very close.”

If the account you posted is in that book and attributed to Aynesworth, then I would think that it could have been from his notes, but something that one of the other witnesses said (that he interviewed immediately after the shooting).

That's very naughty of him if he did do that.

[Dan O'meara]

Omeara; Altgens describes the third shit - second head shot - I'm great detail. So do Sibert and O neill

Twonkovich: I'll let the rudeness of you just referring to me by my surname go (and spelling it incorrectly) because the rest of your post is so funny 

[Charles Collins]

That's very naughty of him if he did do that.

Actually, Hugh Aynesworth is a highly respected journalist. What I am questioning is the accuracy of the information on Pat Speer’s claim that you referenced in your post. I now have a copy of the book in question on order. And hopefully will get to the bottom of this.

[Dan O'meara]

Actually, Hugh Aynesworth is a highly respected journalist. What I am questioning is the accuracy of the information on Pat Speer’s claim that you referenced in your post. I now have a copy of the book in question on order. And hopefully will get to the bottom of this.

There is a titanic amount of evidence presented on Speers website, it truly is colossal, if there are no errors I would be amazed but it will be interesting to see what you turn up, as you seem like a clued up person on a lot of this Charles. If you are convinced this info is wrong, confident enough to buy the book, and it turns out you're wrong, it would be quite impressive validation of Speers work.
Whatever the case, the point being made is that there is, beyond doubt, contradictory eye/ear witness testimony and how we deal with that is important. You, yourself pointed out I would have to ignore evidence of an early shot and you're right, I do. But you have to ignore the evidence I present in this thread against an early shot and - guess what? - you do!
This seems to be an unacknowledged aspect of this type of research, when any researcher creates a model to describe a certain aspect of this case (ie; timing of shots) they must ignore certain evidence because there is so much contradictory evidence. It's impossible to avoid. So accusations of cherry-picking are ridiculous as everyone must do this.

[Charles Collins]

There is a titanic amount of evidence presented on Speers website, it truly is colossal, if there are no errors I would be amazed but it will be interesting to see what you turn up, as you seem like a clued up person on a lot of this Charles. If you are convinced this info is wrong, confident enough to buy the book, and it turns out you're wrong, it would be quite impressive validation of Speers work.
Whatever the case, the point being made is that there is, beyond doubt, contradictory eye/ear witness testimony and how we deal with that is important. You, yourself pointed out I would have to ignore evidence of an early shot and you're right, I do. But you have to ignore the evidence I present in this thread against an early shot and - guess what? - you do!
This seems to be an unacknowledged aspect of this type of research, when any researcher creates a model to describe a certain aspect of this case (ie; timing of shots) they must ignore certain evidence because there is so much contradictory evidence. It's impossible to avoid. So accusations of cherry-picking are ridiculous as everyone must do this.

One of the most important aspects of any investigation is to avoid having a biased viewpoint and treat all of the evidence with an open mind. It is proper to lay out some likely theories and test them against the evidence and attempt to prove or disprove the hypothetical theories. Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. However, I do try not to ignore any of them simply because they do not fit a particular theory. I do try to test the witness accounts against the other evidence, and then form an opinion about each witness account. You say that I ignore your evidence in this thread, however you really don’t know how I have treated this evidence. It might be that I have formed an opinion to discount that evidence because it is not corroborated by the physical evidence, or contradictory to some well established evidence, etc.

Cherry picking the evidence is also known as confirmation bias. This is where an investigator has already formed an opinion and is looking for evidence that confirms his opinion. Avoid confirmation bias at all costs.