No. But you seem to have. Elizabeth Loftus, whose work in assessing eye-witness reliability is often referred to by courts, reports that witnesses are consistently more than 50% accurate on observations. If the observation is one made by more than 50% of the witnesses, the reliability approaches 98%. See Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, p. 27:
The high numbers of that study improved based on the "salience of an item" or how prominent it appeared to observers (the test is almost all visual, BTW). In Dealey Plaza, the "first shot" that was treated by many as an ordinary "backfire" or "firecracker" was
not that salient to some of those, and so did not trigger the mental preparation to gauge the "shot spanning" of unanticipated shots. Bugliosi--a renowned lawyer who could teach you a thing or two--says "they were in no position to compare the space between the second and third shots with that of the first and second."
"When a complex incident is witnessed, not all of the details
within that incident are equally salient, or memorable, to the
viewer or hearer. Some things just catch our attention more
readily than others."
How does Mrs. Loftus' words apply to all that was going on the seconds before and after the first shot? Crowd shouts and vehicle acceleration noise, trying to see the Kennedys and other dignitaries in the motorcade, a friend or family member getting your attention. All that outweighs something perceived by some, not all, as a "backfire" or "firecracker".
Some of the witnesses were incorrect, but they are in the minority. They are the two shorter bars on my chart.
The chart was produced by you? Now we know it's full of cherry-picks!
Dave Reitzes' tabulation didn't show such a skewed cluster:
"My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the
second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported
that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that
the first two shots were timed more closely together."
They said:
"Another photographer, Phillip L. Willis, snapped a picture at a time which he also asserts was simultaneous with the first shot. Analysis of his photograph revealed that it was taken at approximately frame 210 of the Zapruder film, which was the approximate time of the shot that probably hit the President and the Governor." (WR 112).
Keep in mind the Report's "approximate time" caveat before you write this kind of stuff: "Mind you, they were not able to figure out that Phil Willis' photo was taken at z202, almost a half second before z210, so I wouldn't put much faith in their expertise in such matters."
The Commission didn't seem to accept (as you have) without question Phil Willis' "instantaneous" claim. The Report justified its belief that the President was not wounded earlier than Z210:
"According to Shaneyfelt the reaction was "clearly apparent in 226 and barely
apparent in 225." It is probable that the President was not shot. before frame 210,
since it is unlikely that the assassin would deliberately have shot at him with a
view obstructed by the oak tree when he was about to have a clear opportunity.
It is also doubtful that even the most proficient marksman would have hit him
through the oak tree. In addition, the President's reaction is "barely apparent" in
frame 225, which is 15 frames or approximately eight-tenths second after frame
210, and a shot much before 210 would assume a longer reaction time than was
recalled by eyewitnesses at the scene. Thus, the evidence indicated that the
President was not hit until at least frame 210 and that he was probably hit by
frame 225."
Although the President becomes visible a few frames before Z210, one has to allow a few frames for the assassin to reacquire the target and adjust the aim.
All I am concerned about is finding the frame in which JFK is between the lamp post and the Thornton sign. So I put him there on a scale drawing of DP and extended a line from Zapruder past that point to see where it intersected. It appears to make a tangent to the rounded wall of the north reflecting pool. So I looked in the zframes to see where JFK was on a line between Zapruder and the rounded edge of the cement wall of the north reflecting pool.
Your map shows a green line exactly midway between the lamp post and the Thornton sign. And you seem to be associating this film capture with the map. Are you saying that this film capture you've been posting shows the "Kennedy" surrogate exactly midway between the lamp post and the Thornton sign?
Not a guess. But you decide. The President's car was 256 inches or 21 feet long. The car used in the SS film looks like a Ford Mercury Comet convertible (modified from original post):
which has an overall length of 194.5 inches. That is 61.5 inches less than the President's car, so a tad more than 5 feet. I had based the 6 feet on a Ford Falcon which is 181 inches long. But it appears to be a Mercury Comet - the same car that the Cabell's rode in the motorcade. The Comet is 13.5 inches longer than the Falcon.
See if I can get you to shave a little more off that "6 feet shorter".
Some of these pictures are from Robin Unger's Photo Gallery, showing a Lincoln Continental was used for the reenactment. The SS-X-100 Presidential Limousine was said to be about 3 1/2 feet longer than the stock 1961 Continental it was built up from.
I don't know what scale you are using or how big you think the car is or where you got your map. You can provide all those details and you can show us what frame you think corresponds to the position of JFK as seen in the SS film:
I might be able to show where you have gone wrong.
I've seen your photogrammetry skills. And maybe if you didn't use the blurriest SS reenactment photos you could find (to make it seem like the foliage didn't impede the view to the car) you might have determined the car's model. |
