The First Shot

[Jerry Organ]

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:

Hold on, sport. The "Z195" film capture you posted shows that Mrs. Cabell would have to turn away from Roberts (whom she claimed she was looking at) and look forward and up over the windshield to see the Depository. So if she's allow to do that for Z195, why can't she do that for Z160?

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,

Willis himself defined the first shot having occurred before his Z202 slide:

    "Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of
     the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just
     snap in that direction"

    "she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street.
     Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him"


The Zapruder film shows Mrs. Kennedy turning her head to her right within one second of Z155. Willis was nearby enough to observe this (his legs are at the extreme right edge of the Z167 crop.

the Secret Service Film,

You got quite a spin going on with that, too.

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.

Betzner said he could recall only two shots. The head shot and the one before, which fits pretty well with the Z200s, as Betzner said he was winding his camera (after taking his photo at Z186) when he heard the first of the two shot he spoke about. As Betzner goes out of the Zapruder film in Z207, he is still lowering his camera and is not looking down. Assuming he winds his camera shortly thereafter, it could be that the shot he heard while winding the camera was the proposed SBT shot at Z223.

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. 

Robert Hughes says he stopped filming about five seconds before the shots were heard; but Z185 is about 1/2 second before your theory's first shot at Z195. Seems unlikely Hughes would characterize 1/2 seconds as five seconds. A shot heard in the Z220s is over two seconds after Hughes stopped filming. Of course that means, for my scenario, that Hughes heard but underrated a Z150s shot while he was filming, but many witnesses did describe the first shot as a "backfire" or "firecracker" they weren't concerned about.

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,

Seems a "white lie" to add value to the slide set Willis was selling commercially. Yes Willis claimed the shot caused him to snap the shutter, but he can't have it that way AND claim that Mrs. Kennedy reacted during the interval between his Z202 and Z133 slides.

"When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking      straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to      my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to      just snap in that direction"           — Warren Commission testimony       "and then in front of the Depository Building on Elm Street I cocked      my camera for another picture and this loud shot went off and the first      reaction was that could it be a crank or a firecracker but it was so loud      and of such a sound it had to be rifle so I became alarmed."           — Clay Shaw Trial testimony 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. How can Linda Willis in the Z190s and Z200s see the President if she has to look through taller bystanders on the sidewalk and two motorcycle policemen? Linda could better see the President when he was between her and the Thornton sign. This accords with a first shot in the Z150s. Why did she think it was the Stemmons sign? Because of her father's famous slide. 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. She's running along the grass by the limousine in Z160 and she comes to a full stop by about Z189. She said she had been running when she heard the first shot, which caused her to stop. 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. Wouldn't you know it? Agent Ready, the man standing on the front of the running board near the motorcycle camera-left, turns his head sharply rightward during the same half-second as the Connallys. Nelow: Compare with how little Ready's head turns after Z200. Mason terms this "proceeds to turn to the right from z200-207".

[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)

[Andrew Mason]

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.

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

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

Let me ask you this:  Does Rich's statement that the car had turned off Houston onto Elm mean he had completed the full 120 degree turn and therefore eliminates the possibility that the car was pointing along or parallel to the front face of the TSBD?

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."
...
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)

Yet you quoted with approval Speer's statement:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 293 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 293, 88 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together."

I am just wondering why you want to cherry-pick 10 of them who you think made definitive statements that are inconsistent with a first shot earlier than z223.  What happened to the 159 witnesses who gave evidence that Speers considered to be consistent with a first shot between z190-z224?

[Dan O'meara]

Let me ask you this:  Does Rich's statement that the car had turned off Houston onto Elm mean he had completed the full 120 degree turn and therefore eliminates the possibility that the car was pointing along or parallel to the front face of the TSBD?

I've answered this question 3 times now. The turn was completed. 4 times now.
You are starting to move from denial into something more disturbing.
Go back and look at the statements of the occupants of these two vehicles. They all make definitive statements as to the positions of their respective vehicles at the moment of the first shot:

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 10 are in agreement that the cars had completed the turn off Houston onto Elm. This is such solid evidence and should be embraced.
Combined with the Tyler mapping program it is clear that all other theories regarding when the first shot occurred are refuted.
The collection of the colossal amount of evidence that has gone into this is not my doing. I am merely pointing out that it supports my own view of a first shot at z223 to the exclusion of all other theories I am aware of.
Including your own.
Your theory is not refuted because of my opinion.
It is refuted because of this incredibly solid evidence.

Yet you quoted with approval Speer's statement:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 293 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 293, 88 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together."

I am just wondering why you want to cherry-pick 10 of them who you think made definitive statements that are inconsistent with a first shot earlier than z223.  What happened to the 159 witnesses who gave evidence that Speers considered to be consistent with a first shot between z190-z224?

Speers website is amazing and I regard him as a researcher's researcher.
As you seem to be having some kind of meltdown, it seems to have escaped your attention that z223 falls into the z190 - z224 range consistent with the 159 witnesses you mention.