The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

We have two very different approaches.
Me:I place no weight on opinions that conflict with the evidence. I stick to the evidence. 
You: Sometimes you base conclusions on evidence (ie. first shot struck JFK and shot pattern) but sometimes you disregard evidence in favour of your own opinion and theory. 

Opinions still have to be based on evidence.  Even if you had expertise in how the body reacts to bullet wounds, you still need evidence to support your conclusions.

"I stick to the evidence."
 
You don't give a f%ck about the evidence.
You have demonstrated that time after time after time on this thread.
The latest is the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented, really strong evidence that supports my first shot at z223 and refutes your first shot at z195. I asked you:

"Do you find the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented credible and reliable?"

You didn't bother to reply. You offered up your own, paltry evidence that could be used to argue against a first shot at z223 so I asked:

"How do Betzner, Croft and Ready undermine z223 in a credible way?"

You didn't bother to reply.
Probably because you're embarrassed by how weak your cherry-picked nonsense is.
The question still stands.

For example, according to the medical reports there was no damage to the ulnar nerve in the wrist. The damage was on the radial side (Dr. Gregory, 4H124):

"Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence
but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile.
That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in
this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon
leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could hare been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion,
undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular
surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it
aside."

No other nerve damage was found (again, Dr. Gregory 4H127):

"The wound on the volar surface or the palmar side of his wrist was enlarged.
The purpose in enlarging it was an uncertainty as to the condition of the major
nerves in the volar side of the wrist, and so these nerves were identified and
explored and found to be intact, as were adjacent tendons. So that that wound
was then sutured, closed."

Moreover, the radius was shattered about 2 inches above the wrist joint (Gregory, 4H118): 

"The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption
began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on
the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.
There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the
midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less
than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease."

This is how good evidence should be treated.
I assumed nerve damage and that it was to the Ulnar nerve, and gave this as the reason why it was not "impossible" for JBC to hold on to his Stetson after such a serious wrist injury.
You have provided evidence that there was indeed nerve damage but it was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar, as I had assumed.

I stand corrected on that point - the damage was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar nerve.
I have taken that on board and accept it as it seems like solid evidence to me.

"Opinions still have to be based on evidence."

Give it a try some time. 

Again, you are injecting opinion based on no evidence and ignoring the evidence that we have.

I was responding to a post by Jerry and left some of his post in my own -

"CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.
Note---You Tube now considers the Zapruder film "Age Restricted" What next? "

This was actually posted by Jerry and is his opinion, not mine.
How he knows it was "a giant bowl of jelly" is beyond my comprehension.

[Andrew Mason]

"I stick to the evidence."
 
You don't give a f%ck about the evidence.
You have demonstrated that time after time after time on this thread.

You sound angry, Dan.  Calm down. It's just a discussion thread. 

There is a difference between basing conclusions on evidence and interpreting the evidence the same way you do.  I do the former.  I don't always agree with your interpretation of the evidence.  But I am still basing conclusions on evidence, not opinion.

A good illustration is the placement of the second shot.  It is based on evidence of the shot pattern and the third shot being the last shot. Now I know that you disagree with the third shot being the last, but you cannot say that there is no evidence to support the third shot being the last.  If the third shot was the last and the neck shot was the first (which, as we both agree, follows the evidence), then there had to be a shot after z255 and before z313 in order to fit the 1......2...3 shot pattern.  I used the evidence of Greer and Hickey as well as Nellie to identify in the zfilm points that were necessarily before or after the  second shot.  Greer and Hickey provide the "after" bracket and Nellie provides the "before" bracket.  That narrows the second shot to after z268 and before z273.  I put it between z271 and z272.  That happens to be 2.3 seconds before the head shot.

Now what evidence do you use to rebut a shot at z271?  You use your opinion that JBC could not have received his injury to this chest at that point and his wrist shows no sign of being hit.  When I pointed out the change in appearance of his wrist and wrist position, you suggest that it was not enough of a change for having his wrist shattered: again your opinion not evidence.

The latest is the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented, really strong evidence that supports my first shot at z223 and refutes your first shot at z195. I asked you:

"Do you find the Tyler/Speer evidence I've presented credible and reliable?"

The question is not whether it is credible and reliable. The question is: what does it mean?   The evidence is credible and reliable.  It just doesn't prove that the VP Security car had completed the 120 degree turn. It is perfectly consistent with the VP  security car having made 90 degree turn and is roughly parallel to the TSBD (as per Carter: "along side" the TSBD), which fits a first shot at z195. 

You didn't bother to reply.

I do have a full time day job, Dan.  Sometimes it takes time to reply. 

You offered up your own, paltry evidence that could be used to argue against a first shot at z223 so I asked:

"How do Betzner, Croft and Ready undermine z223 in a credible way?"

I have explained Croft, Betzner and Ready before.  Many times. Do you actually read my responses?

Jack Ready said that immediately after the first shot he turned to the rear.  At z195 he is facing forward with his right hand on the front handhold.  He needs to remove that right hand in order to turn to the rear.  At z200 he removes his hand from the right front hand-hold and continues to turn to the right for the next 1/3 of a second until he disappears from the zfilm at z207. 

As far as Betzner is concerned: according to Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p. 160): "Betzner took his third picture and then, "...started to wind my film again, and I heard a loud noise.  I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."
He describes a very short time.  It does not take much time - certainly not 2 seconds - to start to wind the camera.  Not conclusive in itself, but it fits much better with a z195 shot than with z223.  And it fits with Ready, P. Willis, L. Willis, R. Willis, the shot pattern (if the head shot was the third shot) etc.

Croft said that he took another photo after the one at z161-2 and that he took it at the very moment of the shot "that killed the President".  According to Trask, p. 225:

"Quickly winding his camera, Croft takes another picture of the vehicle as it passes by his position.  As he makes this fourth photo, he hears a shot, and believes that this picture was "taken simultaneously with the shot which killed the President."

The reference is to an 'Airtel to: Director, FBI, from SAC, Denver, file #62-109-60-1388, 11/23/1952, through FOIA request #263, 250, 6/1985.'

Unfortunately, the camera (an Argus C3, which is, apparently, known for this kind of malfunction), did not expose the film and the film when developed was blank. 

The timing issue is simply this:  how long does it take to quickly wind an Argus C3 camera and take another picture as the President is moving farther away?  2 seconds or 3.5 seconds?  If it can be done in 2 seconds, which I suggest it can, why would he take 3.5 seconds? Keep in mind Phil Willis' statement that he took his photo at z202 just after the first shot.

You didn't bother to reply.
Probably because you're embarrassed by how weak your cherry-picked nonsense is.
This is how good evidence should be treated.

I assumed nerve damage and that it was to the Ulnar nerve, and gave this as the reason why it was not "impossible" for JBC to hold on to his Stetson after such a serious wrist injury.
You have provided evidence that there was indeed nerve damage but it was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar, as I had assumed.

I stand corrected on that point - the damage was to the Radial nerve, not the Ulnar nerve.
I have taken that on board and accept it as it seems like solid evidence to me.

"Opinions still have to be based on evidence."

Give it a try some time. 

I was responding to a post by Jerry and left some of his post in my own -

"CE 399 [worshiped as that single bullet] was most likely fired by the sixth floor rifle into a giant bowl of jelly in advance of the Dallas visit.
Note---You Tube now considers the Zapruder film "Age Restricted" What next? "

This was actually posted by Jerry and is his opinion, not mine.
How he knows it was "a giant bowl of jelly" is beyond my comprehension.

Ok. That's a relief.  It is not Jerry's opinion either. He was in troll mode.

[Dan O'meara]

You sound angry, Dan.  Calm down. It's just a discussion thread.

You're obviously unfamiliar with the significance of laughing emojis.

There is a difference between basing conclusions on evidence and interpreting the evidence the same way you do.  I do the former.  I don't always agree with your interpretation of the evidence.  But I am still basing conclusions on evidence, not opinion.

You do nothing of the sort.
You start with a conclusion then try to scrape together whatever scraps of evidence you can to support your conclusion.
How do I know this?
Because in the very next paragraph of your post you reveal your approach to evidence:

A good illustration is the placement of the second shot.  It is based on evidence of the shot pattern and the third shot being the last shot. Now I know that you disagree with the third shot being the last, but you cannot say that there is no evidence to support the third shot being the last.  If the third shot was the last and the neck shot was the first (which, as we both agree, follows the evidence), then there had to be a shot after z255 and before z313 in order to fit the 1......2...3 shot pattern.  I used the evidence of Greer and Hickey as well as Nellie to identify in the zfilm points that were necessarily before or after the  second shot.  Greer and Hickey provide the "after" bracket and Nellie provides the "before" bracket.  That narrows the second shot to after z268 and before z273.  I put it between z271 and z272.  That happens to be 2.3 seconds before the head shot.

You have your conclusion in place, that the second shot occurs just before the headshot, and you scrape together any evidence that may support your conclusion if interpreted in a very specific way.
This is a shoddy approach, which is why your theory has been so easy to refute.

Now what evidence do you use to rebut a shot at z271?  You use your opinion that JBC could not have received his injury to this chest at that point and his wrist shows no sign of being hit.  When I pointed out the change in appearance of his wrist and wrist position, you suggest that it was not enough of a change for having his wrist shattered: again your opinion not evidence.

You have never "pointed out the change in appearance of his wrist and wrist position" because there is no change in the appearance or position of JBC's wrist at the time you propose it is shattered. This is more of your untruthing.

"Now what evidence do you use to rebut a shot at z271?"

Jerry produced the graphic below.




    "Connally clamps right elbow over torn-open right chest"
          — "Kennedy and Lincoln", Dr. John K. Lattimer (1980)


It demonstrates conclusively that where the bullet exited JBC's jacket is way below his wrist position around z271/272
We both agree the bullet fragments when it strikes his wrist, this alone indicates a significant force acting on the wrist. The force of this blow shatters one of the largest bones in the human body into pieces, again indicating a very significant force acting on the wrist. Fragments of bullet are embedded in his wrist, at least one exits the palm side of his wrist, possibly the same one that gets embedded in his leg
All of this indicates a very significant force acting on the wrist but the film evidence shows there is zero movement in JBC's wrist around z271.
You are advocating something miraculous, something beyond logic and common sense.

Not to mention the impossible bullet trajectory you propose through JBC's body!

The question is not whether it is credible and reliable. The question is: what does it mean?   The evidence is credible and reliable.  It just doesn't prove that the VP Security car had completed the 120 degree turn. It is perfectly consistent with the VP  security car having made 90 degree turn and is roughly parallel to the TSBD (as per Carter: "along side" the TSBD), which fits a first shot at z195.

The turn is completed. The occupants of the VP security car are unanimous on this detail.
At z195 the car is still in the process of turning and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.
As has already been pointed out to you, the car is not "along side" the TSBD at z195, again refuting your theory.

Jack Ready said that immediately after the first shot he turned to the rear.  At z195 he is facing forward with his right hand on the front handhold.  He needs to remove that right hand in order to turn to the rear.  At z200 he removes his hand from the right front hand-hold and continues to turn to the right for the next 1/3 of a second until he disappears from the zfilm at z207. 

At no point does Ready turn to the rear in the Z-film. None of the agents who turn to the right rear (as shown in Altgens 6) make any kind of significant move in the Z-film. Ready does indeed change his hand-hold but that means nothing, you have invented a meaning for it.
In no way does this undermine the case for a first shot at z223.

As far as Betzner is concerned: according to Trask (Pictures of the Pain, p. 160): "Betzner took his third picture and then, "...started to wind my film again, and I heard a loud noise.  I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."
He describes a very short time.  It does not take much time - certainly not 2 seconds - to start to wind the camera.  Not conclusive in itself, but it fits much better with a z195 shot than with z223.  And it fits with Ready, P. Willis, L. Willis, R. Willis, the shot pattern (if the head shot was the third shot) etc.

"Not conclusive in itself"
You can say that again.
In no way does this undermine the case against z223

Croft said that he took another photo after the one at z161-2 and that he took it at the very moment of the shot "that killed the President".  According to Trask, p. 225:

"Quickly winding his camera, Croft takes another picture of the vehicle as it passes by his position.  As he makes this fourth photo, he hears a shot, and believes that this picture was "taken simultaneously with the shot which killed the President."

The reference is to an 'Airtel to: Director, FBI, from SAC, Denver, file #62-109-60-1388, 11/23/1952, through FOIA request #263, 250, 6/1985.'

Unfortunately, the camera (an Argus C3, which is, apparently, known for this kind of malfunction), did not expose the film and the film when developed was blank. 

The timing issue is simply this:  how long does it take to quickly wind an Argus C3 camera and take another picture as the President is moving farther away?  2 seconds or 3.5 seconds?  If it can be done in 2 seconds, which I suggest it can, why would he take 3.5 seconds? Keep in mind Phil Willis' statement that he took his photo at z202 just after the first shot.

Again, this is a meaningless point.
You have no idea how long it took for Croft to wind his camera and take the fourth shot.
In no way does this undermine the case for z223

So where does that leave us?
Phil Willis and his daughters.
This is your amazing collection of evidence that undermines a first shot at z223.
And how credible is salesman Mr Willis, the man who wasted no time copyrighting his precious slides and setting up Phil Willis Enterprises specifically to sell his slides, slides which he gave grandiose titles in order to enhance their significance?

[Jerry Freeman]

.... injecting opinion based on no evidence and ignoring the evidence that we have.

Oh...you mean like the Report did?
You believe CE 399 was actually fired at the motorcade created seven wounds in two guys and recovered in its nearly undamaged condition?

[Andrew Mason]

You're obviously unfamiliar with the significance of laughing emojis.

You do nothing of the sort.
You start with a conclusion then try to scrape together whatever scraps of evidence you can to support your conclusion.
How do I know this?
Because in the very next paragraph of your post you reveal your approach to evidence:

You have your conclusion in place, that the second shot occurs just before the headshot, and you scrape together any evidence that may support your conclusion if interpreted in a very specific way.
This is a shoddy approach, which is why your theory has been so easy to refute.

That's just silly.  The reason  I initially thought the second shot occurred after z255 and before z313 is because of the evidence, ie. the 1......2...3 shot pattern.  The evidence always tells you what happened.  If an investigator starts from a theory, there is a natural tendency to let confirmation bias guide the view of the evidence. You can't do that.

Besides, you even admitted that if the headshot was the third shot that there had to be a shot around z270.  You made that admission because you understand the significance of the evidence that the first shot hit JFK and the last two shots were closer together.  That's all I am doing. Nothing sinister.

It is quite apparent that there is not only no evidence of a missed shot, but much evidence that conflicts with it. Several witnesses, including JBC himself said he was hit in the back on the second shot. So, again, a shot striking JBC around z271 just before he begins to fall back fits the evidence. What evidence is there that he was NOT hit on the second shot? All you have done is offer an opinion that he looks like he is hit around z224. Again, I ignore opinion when it conflicts with the evidence.

You have never "pointed out the change in appearance of his wrist and wrist position" because there is no change in the appearance or position of JBC's wrist at the time you propose it is shattered. This is more of your untruthing.
......

It demonstrates conclusively that where the bullet exited JBC's jacket is way below his wrist position around z271/272

Again, your opinion. And to make it worse, your opinion is not based on the evidence. The bullet struck the radius 5cm (2 in.) above the wrist. It entered .5 cm above the end of the jacket cuff. What makes no sense and is based on no evidence at all is the idea that a bullet that caused the wrist wound somehow deflected around the radius and went to the left thigh. No explanation as to how it does not deflect away from the point of contact.

You are advocating something miraculous, something beyond logic and common sense.

Not to mention the impossible bullet trajectory you propose through JBC's body!

You keep making my point. Your objections are not based on evidence.  They are based on your opinion that the evidence is false and your opinion of what is causing that behavior seen in the zfilm. You appear to do this because you have formed a conclusion about what happened based on something other than evidence, so the evidence is wrong (ie  that the head shot was the last shot and JBC was hit on the second shot).

The turn is completed. The occupants of the VP security car are unanimous on this detail.
At z195 the car is still in the process of turning and is thus refuted by the Tyler/Speer evidence.
As has already been pointed out to you, the car is not "along side" the TSBD at z195, again refuting your theory.

The car is parallel to, or along side, the TSBD by z200. So by the time Carter hears the shot (z197) and reacts, it is around z200.

At no point does Ready turn to the rear in the Z-film.

But he is not seen after z207. What does it mean if he is last seen turning to the right at z207 and 2.5 seconds later when he is next seen, he is completely turned to the rear?  The fact is that he had to remove his hand from the handhold to begin his turn to the rear and there is no evidence that he stopped turning from z200 to whenever it was that he completed the turn to the rear.  We know it was completed sometime before z254 (Altgens 6) because he is fully turned to the rear at that point.

None of the agents who turn to the right rear (as shown in Altgens 6) make any kind of significant move in the Z-film. Ready does indeed change his hand-hold but that means nothing, you have invented a meaning for it.
In no way does this undermine the case for a first shot at z223.

"Not conclusive in itself"
You can say that again.
In no way does this undermine the case against z223

Again, this is a meaningless point.
You have no idea how long it took for Croft to wind his camera and take the fourth shot.
In no way does this undermine the case for z223

So where does that leave us?
Phil Willis and his daughters.
This is your amazing collection of evidence that undermines a first shot at z223.
And how credible is salesman Mr Willis, the man who wasted no time copyrighting his precious slides and setting up Phil Willis Enterprises specifically to sell his slides, slides which he gave grandiose titles in order to enhance their significance?

I take that as an acknowledgement that the evidence indicates that the first shot was just before z202, but that you think the evidence is wrong.

[Andrew Mason]

Oh...you mean like the Report did?
You believe CE 399 was actually fired at the motorcade created seven wounds in two guys and recovered in its nearly undamaged condition?

The evidence is that the two men were struck by separate bullets. Not a single witness said that JFK and JBC were hit at the same time and several witnesses, including the Connallys said they were not.  Dave Powers said that JFK moved left on the first shot, away from the far right position he had been in; that Connally disappeared from his view on the second and the third hit JFK in the head.  Gayle Newman said that JBC appeared to react to being hit on the second shot. 

According to the evidence, the shot pattern was 1.......2....3 with the last two shots in rapid succession.

The SBT is a theory. It is not based on evidence.  It is based on a belief, contrary to the evidence, that Governor Connally was showing signs of being hit in the back by z230.  According to the shot pattern evidence the last two shots were in rapid succession, the second coming a perceptible time after the midpoint between 1 and 3. That midpoint is certainly after z250. So there had only been one shot by z230.  Thus, according to the evidence, JBC was hit on the second shot and the second had not yet occurred by z230.

So, according to the evidence, CE 399 did not cause 7 wounds.  In particular, it did not cause JBC's chest or wrist wounds. CE399's condition is consistent with causing JFK's neck wound and then striking butt-first into JBC's left thigh leaving a bit of lead in the femur.  The evidence is not sufficient to determine precisely how it ended up on Connally's hospital gurney.

[Dan O'meara]

Charles has recently started this thread, "Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)", in which he writes:

Stavis Ellis, motorcycle escort cop with the DPD, described his sighting of where the first shot hit in his interview with Larry Sneed in Larry’s book “No More Silence”. Ellis’ position was just ahead of the lead car, which was just ahead of the JFK limo. Here’s the relevant passage:

We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.

We have all seen the Murray photo of the detectives looking at the concrete surrounding manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street. They were investigating what appeared to be a mark left by a bullet that grazed the concrete. This area is inline with the position of James Tague who was grazed on the cheek by a piece of this bullet or a piece of the concrete curb adjacent to him. That curb was apparently also hit by a part of the bullet, which apparently skipped from the manhole area to that curb.

So the physical evidence was there. The above has been a theory that I began to believe once I found enough other evidence of a first shot miss. And I cannot help believing that Stavis Ellis saw the concrete dust from this shot!

The evidence and arguments against a first shot miss theory are presented in this thread and demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that there was no first shot miss.

[Charles Collins]

Charles has recently started this thread, "Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)", in which he writes:

Stavis Ellis, motorcycle escort cop with the DPD, described his sighting of where the first shot hit in his interview with Larry Sneed in Larry’s book “No More Silence”. Ellis’ position was just ahead of the lead car, which was just ahead of the JFK limo. Here’s the relevant passage:

We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.

We have all seen the Murray photo of the detectives looking at the concrete surrounding manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street. They were investigating what appeared to be a mark left by a bullet that grazed the concrete. This area is inline with the position of James Tague who was grazed on the cheek by a piece of this bullet or a piece of the concrete curb adjacent to him. That curb was apparently also hit by a part of the bullet, which apparently skipped from the manhole area to that curb.

So the physical evidence was there. The above has been a theory that I began to believe once I found enough other evidence of a first shot miss. And I cannot help believing that Stavis Ellis saw the concrete dust from this shot!

The evidence and arguments against a first shot miss theory are presented in this thread and demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that there was no first shot miss.