The First Shot

[Tom Graves]

You seem to think Rosemary Willis, JFK, Jackie, Nellie and Kellerman are moving their heads between 140-150.  I don't see that at all.

You need to look more closely.

I guess you haven't read the article by Roselle and Scearce.

Here's the pertinent part:

1) Roy Kellerman -- Begins leaning over and looking behind/down to the right @ Z-148

2) George Hickey -- Begins leaning over to the left and looking down in the direction of the rear tire or ground @ Z-143.5

3) John Connally -- Begins a quick head turn left (followed by quickly looking back right) @ Z-150

4) Jackie Kennedy -- Starts accelerated head turning left, before looking back right. (Similar to John Connally’s L-R head motion but starts slightly
earlier & ends slightly later than his) @ Z-143.5

5) President Kennedy -- Starts a quick look to the left @ Z-143

6) Nellie Connally -- Begins a quick sweeping head turn to the right @ Z-145

7) Rosemary Willis -- Begins a quick look away from the Presidential limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository @ Z-140

You imagine things that are not visible in the Zapruder film.

That's a suggestion I refuse to accept.

[Dan O'meara]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

The fallible recollections of startled-and-traumatized human beings?

LOL!

Sorry, but I'll go with the (gasp . . . altered by the evil, evil CIA???) photographic evidence, instead.

-- Comrade Pinko Jerkov

Dear Comrade Jerkov,

The issue I'm raising isn't about how gullible you are. That's plain for all to see.
The point I'm making is about how omitting the first-hand accounts of the witnesses they are using in their 'study' invalidates their approach.
Your child-like argument, that we should either rely on the witness accounts OR the film/photographic evidence, just shows the level that you, not to mention Roselle and Scearce, are operating at.
Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that BOTH witness testimony and the Zapruder film must be used in conjunction with each other to arrive at some kind of reliable interpretation of what we see.
The fact that Roselle and Scearce have deliberately omitted the witness accounts invalidates their 'study'.
But the real issue I have is the reason WHY they have omitted these testimonies.
It is because any given first-hand account of the first shot, by any of the witnesses they use in their 'study', is in disagreement with what Roselle and Scearce would have us believe.
The kindest thing that can be said is that this is incredibly deceptive.

The OP of this thread highlights the correct way to integrate film/photographic evidence and witness testimony. You, Roselle and Scearce could learn a thing or two from it.

[Tom Graves]

The issue I'm raising isn't about how gullible you are. That's plain for all to see.
The point I'm making is about how omitting the first-hand accounts of the witnesses they are using in their 'study' invalidates their approach.
Your child-like argument, that we should either rely on the witness accounts OR the film/photographic evidence, just shows the level that you, not to mention Roselle and Scearce, are operating at. Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that both witness testimony and the Zapruder film must be used in conjunction with each other to arrive at some kind of reliable interpretation of what we see. The fact that Roselle and Scearce have deliberately omitted the witness accounts invalidates their 'study'. But the real issue I have is the reason WHY they have omitted these testimonies. It is because any given first-hand account of the first shot, by any of the witnesses they use in their 'study', is in disagreement with what Roselle and Scearce would have us believe. The kindest thing that can be said is that this is incredibly deceptive. The OP of this thread highlights the correct way to integrate film/photographic evidence and witness testimony. You, Roselle and Scearce could learn a thing or two from it.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

The fact that you lend more credence to the statements of cherry-picked startled-and-traumatized witnesses than to the photographic record of the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (five of whom were in the limo) tells me that you think (sic) the Zapruder film was altered.

John Connally was so traumatized by the whole experience that he didn't even remember turning far to his right around Z-163, before the second shot rang out (and wounded him) at approximately Z-222, to try to catch a glimpse of JFK over his shoulder.

He was unable to "see" his face, however, because JFK had turned his head far to his right and had raised his forearm to wave to someone and thereby was blocking JBC's view of his now-in-profile face. 

-- Tom

[Dan O'meara]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

The fact that you lend more credence to the statements of cherry-picked startled and traumatized witnesses than to the photographic record of the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (five of whom were in the limo) tells me that you think (sic) the Zapruder film was altered.

John Connally was so traumatized by the whole experience that he didn't even remember turning far to his right before the second shot rang out (and wounded him) at approximately Z-222, to try to catch a glimpse of JFK over his shoulder, but was unable to "see" his face because JFK had turned his head far to his right and had raised his forearm to wave to someone and thereby was blocking JBC's view of his now-in-profile face. 

-- Tom

Calm down, Pinko.
I'm obviously saying that any reliable interpretation of witness "reactions" should also include their statements.
It's YOU who is insisting it must be one or the other.
What is your explanation for Scearce and Roselle omitting these statements?
And John Connally was rightly traumatised - he was shot through the torso. A life-threatening injury. OF COURSE HE WAS TRAUMATISED.
Your childish argument, that everyone was traumatised by the sound of a shot, reveals how gullible you are.

[Tom Graves]

Calm down, Pinko.
I'm obviously saying that any reliable interpretation of witness "reactions" should also include their statements.
It's YOU who is insisting it must be one or the other.
What is your explanation for Scearce and Roselle omitting these statements?
And John Connally was rightly traumatised - he was shot through the torso. A life-threatening injury. OF COURSE HE WAS TRAUMATISED.
Your childish argument, that everyone was traumatised by the sound of a shot, reveals how gullible you are.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

What you want to do is confuse JFKA students and researchers by having the traumatized and probably muddled recollections of the six surviving prime witnesses (whose nearly simultaneous conscious reactions to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot were photographically recorded by Zapruder) compared with said photographically "captured" movements so that you can confuse the issue and thereby perpetuate your Vladimir Putin-approved tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theory.

Tough tacos, dude.

-- Tom 

[Dan O'meara]

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

What you want to do is confuse JFKA students and researchers by having the traumatized and probably muddled recollections of the six surviving prime witnesses (whose nearly simultaneous conscious reactions to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot were photographically recorded by Zapruder) compared with said photographically "captured" movements so that you can confuse the issue and thereby perpetuate your Vladimir Putin-approved tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theory.

Tough tacos, dude.

-- Tom

Dear Comrade Jerkov,

It is you who is unwittingly spreading disinformation with your childish and gullible acceptance of the Roselle/Scearce 'study'.
Your childish insistence, that everyone was too traumatised to describe hearing the first shot, highlights your profound ignorance about something as basic as when the first shot occurred. Have a read through the OP of this thread to inform yourself as to how film/photographic evidence and witness testimony should be approached.
While you're at it, ask yourself this question - If the sound of the first shot was so loud as to be traumatising, why is it only these handful of people react of the hundreds caught on film?

Here is another good example, from the mountain of evidence in this thread regarding when the first shot occurred, that demolishes your idea of an early shot. This is Reply#697:


I recently came across yet another way to corroborate a first shot around z223 thanks to the work of Pat Speer. It concerns the witness statements of the occupants of the Vice-Presidential car and the Vice-Presidential follow-up car. From these statements it is possible to glean an approximate position for each car at the time of the first shot and from these approximate positions it is possible rule out various theories regarding the first shot.
I will look at a number of theories put forward for when the first shot occurred in relation to the Z-Film:

z133 (and before)
z160
z190
z223 (my own proposal for the first shot)

First, a look at the statements:

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 corroborating each others statements. Not one or two ambiguous statements open to any kind of interpretation. Every single occupant of both cars are stating, basically, the same thing - at the time of the first shot these cars had turned off Houston Street and were travelling down Elm.
I now turn to the work of Mark Tyler to compare how these statements support or refute the various theories put forward.

Z133



In the image above the Vice-Presidential car is marked 7 and the follow-up car 8. It is obvious from this image that both vehicles are still on Houston at the time of this proposed first shot and, as such, a shot around z133 (or before) is absolutely refuted by the 10 witness statements.

Z160



Again, we can clearly see that, although car 7 is well into it's turn, car 8 is still on Houston. The theory of a first shot around z160 is refuted.

Z190



It can be said that car 7 is now travelling down Elm but car 8 is still to complete the turn as specified by the occupants of this car and, as such, a shot around z190 is refuted by the witness statements.

Z223



My own proposal.
It can be seen from the above image that both cars are now travelling on Elm after having completed the turn off Houston. There can be no doubt that this is the only theory that comes anywhere close to fitting the witness statements of the 10 occupants of these vehicles.
Yet further corroboration, if any were needed, that the first shot was the one that struck JFK in the throat around z223.


Do yourself a favour, Pinko, and get informed.

[Brian Roselle]

Very few testimonies provided specific and quantitative positioning for the limo at the time of the first shot.
Net, most testimonies are too variable and are at the mercy of the interpretation of the researcher to apply a “researcher assumption” on it as to what the person who said it really meant wrt the location.

If one insists that testimonies have to be used in order to get accurate estimates, then those testimonies on limo position should be “anchored” to a specific land mark or camera photo in order to provide some quantitative positioning which would allow for averaging of the positions in order to further reduce variation (like the central limit theorem) when creating estimates. This criterion is also generic enough to not affect the mean testimony, therefore not cherry picking.

This is an example:
https://sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home

Testimony is not necessarily ignored; it’s just not used in conjunction with Perception Time calculations because testimony isn’t required for that method, and it avoids the excessive testimony variability. Testimony is better if one tries to use testimony with inherently lower variability by virtue of space (anchored location) in conjunction with time (at the first sound surprise loud) and averaging the results.

[Tom Graves]

Hurchel Jacks [driver of the LBJ's car -- # 7 in Mark Tyler's animation] -
 
"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..."

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

If Tyler's animation is correct, Jacks must have been referring to the "Single Bullet" shot at approximately Z-222.

https://www.marktyler.org/mc63.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawK4zONleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFFODdsRHVIa2RSUGZJNllFAR6Zx-0JB5zBmwy-qakJKtfLfY5vcW9V2IqOrNXjP-oezkHhb-av38NlRUa-uA_aem_2d95NRPz2dpt6k_03l7iYg

-- Tom