The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

    "My name is Milton T. Wright, Texas Highway Patrolman, Badge No. 790.
     On November 22 I was assigned to drive a 63 Mercury Comet convertible
     that contained the Mayor and his wife and a U. S. Congressman. We turned
     onto Houston Street, the parade was going real well and speed was
     beginning to pick up and the crowd was beginning to thin right at this point.
     The car I was driving had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30
     feet from the intersection when I heard the first shot. When the second shot
     was fired I noticed a number of people running away from the Motorcade
     and I saw several Dallas motorcycle policemen had their guns drawn.
     Then the motorcade speeded up and we went toward the hospital at a high
     rate of speed. I could see the President's car but I could not see anyone in
     the back seat. The only people I could see were the Agents. At the hospital
     we unloaded the Governor first and then the President. Then we were
     instructed to keep the news media away from the car."

Since he only references two shots, Milton Wright may be describing the Z220s shot as the "first shot" (that would make it the 2nd shot in most LN scenarios). Mrs. Cabell, who recalled three shots, doesn't say the first shot occurred when the car as far onto Elm as Wright says.

Or there was only two shots. Information leading to the conclusion there was only two shots: markings on the shells, one bullet and fragments of  second bullet, eyewitness testimony, time to fire the carcano, jiggle analysis, etc.

Three shot conclusions: earwitness statements about a 2nd and third shot so close together they sound like one -- nothing else.

[Andrew Mason]

You're really going to make me explain the English language to you?

I will turn/I will make a turn  -  This is something that will happen in the future.
I am turning  -  This is something happening in the present moment
I have turned/I have made a turn -  This is something that has already happened. Another way to phrase this is to say THE TURN HAS BEEN COMPLETED

No! The word "completed" is yours.   With the exception of Carter, the occupants do not provide any further details of how far they had turned.  Normally, on a 90 degree turn, if you make a turn off one street onto another you are very close to completing the turn.  But not this turn onto Elm which was a 120 degree turn. Carter described the security car being along side the TSBD. I suggest that means the car was turned 90 degrees, not 120, so that it was parallel to the TSBD front.  To the extent that "along side" might be somewhat ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by Mrs  Cabell who gave a very specific position of her car: she was directly facing the TSBD at the moment of the first shot and just had to look up to see the rifle in the SN directly in front of her.   I say that the Cabell car had to have been in this position for her to be directly facing the SN when she looked up:



According to your diagram, that corresponds to frame z195:

You then insist that Mrs Cabell corroborates this statement - please demonstrate how this is the case.

You obviously have not taken in my previous posts.  READ HER EVIDENCE and tell us where you think he car was and the zframe that it corresponds to.

To be clear:  I am not saying that the witnesses in the VP car and VP security car rule out any possibility of a shot at z223. I thought I made that clear in my first recent post. What I am saying is that this evidence is also consistent with a first shot at z195 ie. it does not conflict with a shot at z195.  The difference, about 1.5 seconds, is too small a time difference to distinguish based on the statements of vehicle occupants alone.  One has to look at other evidence, such as Phil Willis, the Secret Service Film, Mary Woodward, Jane Berry, etc.

The importance of the motorcade evidence is to establish a "before bracket" for the first shot.  The "before bracket" establishes a time that the first shot was not before.  The motorcade evidence which establishes that the VP car had just finished the full turn onto Elm (and had straightened out) positively excludes a first shot before z181, which is the last frame in which the VP car is seen and it still has not finished the turn.  This fits with Betzner who said he took his z186 photo before the first shot. This fits with Hughes who said he stopped filming (which stops at z185) before the first shot. It fits with Woodward and Berry and other witnesses along Elm. 

The "after bracket" is more difficult to establish.  The only definitive statement is that of Phil Willis who said that his z202 photo was taken at the moment of the first shot - that the sound of the shot caused him to press the shutter.  If that was an accurate recollection, that would put the first shot sound arriving at his ears about 150 ms. before he pressed the shutter in order to allow for a physical reaction to the sound. That fits a first shot striking JFK no later than z198, with the sound arriving 75 ms. later and the shutter pressing 150 ms after that. That is consistent with Linda Willis who said that the President was between her and the Stemmons sign at the time of the first shot.  That puts it between z195 and z205.  It is also consistent with Rosemary Willis who turns her head sharply toward the TSBD at z204. She said she saw pigeons fly from the TSBD. Jack Ready, who said he immediately turned to the rear in response to the first shot, removed his hand from the front handhold at z200 and proceeds to turn to the right from z200-207 before disappearing from the zfilm.  That indicates the first shot was earlier than z198.

I will admit that the amount of evidence that can be used to establish an after-bracket for the first shot is not as much as the before-bracket.  But it is consistent with a shot before z200 and inconsistent with a shot any later.

[Dan O'meara]

No! The word "completed" is yours. With the exception of Carter, the occupants do not provide any further details of how far they had turned.

    You sound like a petulant child.
If you don't like the word "completed" then choose another word that means the VP security car has finished turning and is now travelling on Elm Street. You refuse to accept what the witnesses are actually saying. If they were still in the process of turning they would be saying things such as "as we were making the turn" or "while we were turning"...but they don't.
The all use the past tense of the verb "to turn" indicating the process of turning had been (I'd better not use the word "completed" as you seem to have a problem with it)...finished.
When Rich says "we turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" you need to believe he is saying they are still in the process of turning. But he's not, he's saying that, at the moment of the first shot, the VP security vehicle had turned off Houston Street and was now on Elm Street.
When Carter says "...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm", he's not saying they were still in the process of turning. He is saying that the turn had been "made". The turn had been done. The turn was over. It was...(I shouldn't say it)...COMPLETED!!

You cannot escape this evidence. All you can do is try to obfuscate and misrepresent.
We've been here before and I know from experience there is no point carrying on this debate.

Normally, on a 90 degree turn, if you make a turn off one street onto another you are very close to completing the turn.  But not this turn onto Elm which was a 120 degree turn. Carter described the security car being along side the TSBD. I suggest that means the car was turned 90 degrees, not 120, so that it was parallel to the TSBD front.

When you wrote - "According to Carter, they had only turned 90 degrees." - I knew you were "untruthing" yet again.
You put those words in Carter's mouth but it turns out he said nothing of the sort. Instead it turns out to be some kind of perverse logic on your behalf. No surprise there.

The Tyler mapping program shows that at z195 the VP security car is still in the process of turning off Houston and onto Elm. This demonstrates that the first shot did not occur at this point.
I know you won't accept this and that you will just try to twist the evidence beyond reason, as you have already done.
The rest of your post is just the usual nonsense and not worth dealing with.

A first shot at z195 has been refuted.
 

[Andrew Mason]

   You sound like a petulant child.
If you don't like the word "completed" then choose another word that means the VP security car has finished turning and is now travelling on Elm Street. You refuse to accept what the witnesses are actually saying. If they were still in the process of turning they would be saying things such as "as we were making the turn" or "while we were turning"...but they don't.
The all use the past tense of the verb "to turn" indicating the process of turning had been (I'd better not use the word "completed" as you seem to have a problem with it)...finished.
When Rich says "we turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" you need to believe he is saying they are still in the process of turning. But he's not, he's saying that, at the moment of the first shot, the VP security vehicle had turned off Houston Street and was now on Elm Street.

So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn? How do you interpret Carter's statement that the car was "along side " the TSBD? Are you saying that both the VP and VP security cars had "just straightened up" from the turn onto Elm at the same time?

When Carter says "...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm", he's not saying they were still in the process of turning. He is saying that the turn had been "made". The turn had been done. The turn was over. It was...(I shouldn't say it)...COMPLETED!!

You cannot escape this evidence. All you can do is try to obfuscate and misrepresent.
We've been here before and I know from experience there is no point carrying on this debate.

When you wrote - "According to Carter, they had only turned 90 degrees." - I knew you were "untruthing" yet again.
You put those words in Carter's mouth but it turns out he said nothing of the sort. Instead it turns out to be some kind of perverse logic on your behalf. No surprise there.

The Tyler mapping program shows that at z195 the VP security car is still in the process of turning off Houston and onto Elm. This demonstrates that the first shot did not occur at this point.
I know you won't accept this and that you will just try to twist the evidence beyond reason, as you have already done.
The rest of your post is just the usual nonsense and not worth dealing with.

A first shot at z195 has been refuted.

Why do you not deal with Mrs. Cabell's statement that she was directly facing the TSBD at the time of the first shot and looked directly up to see the TSBD?  Maybe you could comment on the statements of Phil Willis and Linda Willis.  What zframes do you put JFK between Linda Willis and the Stemmons sign? It is not difficult to do.
Perhaps you could resist making your ususal infantile comments while doing that.

[Dan O'meara]

So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn?

No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed. This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.

How do you interpret Carter's statement that the car was "along side " the TSBD?

At the time of the first shot the VP security car was travelling down Elm Street with the TSBD to it's right-hand side.
This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195

Are you saying that both the VP and VP security cars had "just straightened up" from the turn onto Elm at the same time?

No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed. This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.

Why do you not deal with Mrs. Cabell's statement that she was directly facing the TSBD at the time of the first shot and looked directly up to see the TSBD?

What is there to deal with?
If you look at z223 you will see Cabell is still in a position to be facing the TSBD at the time of the first shot. The car she is in has just started to make the turn onto Elm.
What's your point?

Maybe you could comment on the statements of Phil Willis and Linda Willis.  What zframes do you put JFK between Linda Willis and the Stemmons sign? It is not difficult to do.

The statements of Phil and Linda Willis are refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence. As such they must be deemed unreliable.

Perhaps you could resist making your ususal infantile comments while doing that.

 

[Andrew Mason]

No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed. This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.

Let me get this straight.
You said: When Rich says "we turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" you need to believe he is saying they are still in the process of turning. But he's not, he's saying that, at the moment of the first shot, the VP security vehicle had turned off Houston Street and was now on Elm Street.

So I asked:
So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn?

And you said:
No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed.

But the problem is all Rich said was: "We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm
Street and that was when I heard the first shot."   Now you admit that the car could turn off Houston and be on Elm without making the full 120 degree turn but you still insist that Rich is saying that he completed the 120 degree turn. 

At the time of the first shot the VP security car was travelling down Elm Street with the TSBD to it's right-hand side.
This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195

No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed. This is the case for z223 but it is not the case for z195.
At z195 the VP security car is still in the process of making the turn and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.

What is there to deal with?
If you look at z223 you will see Cabell is still in a position to be facing the TSBD at the time of the first shot. The car she is in has just started to make the turn onto Elm.
What's your point?

Well, according to your diagram, which is 1.7 seconds after z195, Mrs. Cabell would not have looked directly up at the SN.  She was past that point already.  Besides, it would take a few frames - 150 ms. at least, which is 3 frames - to react and a frame or two to look up and see the rifle, so you really have to compare z228 at the very earliest. 

Again, I am not saying that the motorcade evidence in itself excludes a first shot at z223.  It just doesn't exclude a first shot at z195.  I notice you have not addressed the fact that according to Pat Speer's analysis, which you seemed to agree with in November last year, the motorcade evidence allows a first shot in the z190-z224 window.

The statements of Phil and Linda Willis are refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence. As such they must be deemed unreliable.

So if evidence does not agree with one's analysis, the evidence is wrong, not the analysis.  Ok. I get it.

[Dan O'meara]

Let me get this straight.
You said: When Rich says "we turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street" you need to believe he is saying they are still in the process of turning. But he's not, he's saying that, at the moment of the first shot, the VP security vehicle had turned off Houston Street and was now on Elm Street.

So I asked:
So are you saying that the car could not be off Houston and on Elm without having completed the full 120 degree turn?

And you said:
No.
I am clearly saying that, according to the occupants of the VP security car, the turn from Houston onto Elm had been completed.

But the problem is all Rich said was: "We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm
Street and that was when I heard the first shot."   Now you admit that the car could turn off Houston and be on Elm without making the full 120 degree turn but you still insist that Rich is saying that he completed the 120 degree turn.

I understand how the English language works.
Rich does not say - "As I was turning off Houston onto Elm"(as at z195)
He uses the past tense - "We turned off Houston onto Elm" (as at z223)

I have explained this point at length. You are in denial.

Well, according to your diagram, which is 1.7 seconds after z195, Mrs. Cabell would not have looked directly up at the SN.  She was past that point already.  Besides, it would take a few frames - 150 ms. at least, which is 3 frames - to react and a frame or two to look up and see the rifle, so you really have to compare z228 at the very earliest. 

At z223 Cabell has not past the point where she can look directly up at the SN.
This is denial on your behalf.

Again, I am not saying that the motorcade evidence in itself excludes a first shot at z223.  It just doesn't exclude a first shot at z195.

It has been comprehensively demonstrated that the Tyler/Speer evidence refutes a first shot at z195.
You are just in denial about it.

I notice you have not addressed the fact that according to Pat Speer's analysis, which you seemed to agree with in November last year, the motorcade evidence allows a first shot in the z190-z224 window.

On November 7th I wrote this:

"My journey through the evidence has led me to this point -

1st shot z223
2nd shot z313
3rd shot yet to be firmly established but it must follow the "shot, pause, two shots closer together" pattern."

So if evidence does not agree with one's analysis, the evidence is wrong, not the analysis.  Ok. I get it.

This reveals the depth of your denial.
You put forward the statements of Phil and Linda Willis as evidence.
I put forward the statements of 10 witnesses who all corroborate each other as to the position of their vehicles at the time of the first shot.
I compare this matrix of interlocking evidence with the Mark Tyler 's mapping program.
This program is the result of a colossal effort to synthesise as much evidence as possible - the complete video record, the complete photographic record, hundreds of witness statements etc.
There has hardly been a greater effort to collate such a vast amount of evidence which can then be presented in such a seemingly simple way.

On one side of the scales is this colossal amount of evidence supporting a first shot at z223.
On the other are the statements of Phil and Linda Willis.

You do the math(s)