The First Shot

[Royell Storing]

  The Wiegman Film throws these cartoons of the JFK Motorcade into a cocked hat. Wiegman actually filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. He also filmed the Hard Top LBJ SS Follow Up Car being outta the middle lane and sitting toward the (S) Elm St Curb near Hargis's parked motorcycle. What happened here? We have a JFK Limo Timing Issue along with that LBJ SS Follow Up Car being cattywampus on Elm St. A good copy of the Wiegman Film presents multiple conflicting issues. So does the recently released 1st generation copy of the Darnell Film. It shows ALL 3 camera cars atta dead stop with the driver of Camera Car #2 standing outside of that car on the corner of Houston/Elm St. Just ask yourself how long do You sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic before getting out of your vehicle? And then there's the issue of WHY are these Camera Cars sitting at a Dead Stop with absolutely nothing in front of them preventing their moving forward? These cartoons are a misrepresentation of what went down during the time period of shots being fired inside Dealey Plaza. They are like reading a comic book. Pleasant to look at, but clogging the mind with Fiction.   

[Dan O'meara]

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.

Very few testimonies provided specific and quantitative positioning for the limo at the time of the first shot.

In the post that directly precedes your own, ALL 10 OCCUPANTS of the Vice Presidential car and the VP follow-on car place both cars on Elm Street at the time of the first shot.
That's 100% of the witness accounts  providing "specific and quantitative positioning for the limo at the time of the first shot".
The point being this - at the time you are proposing for the first shot, both the VP and VP follow-on car are still on Houston Street!

While I agree that witness testimony can be variable and unreliable, when ALL relevant witnesses are agreeing on the same thing it has to be given credence. In this case ALL 10 OCCUPANTS of BOTH cars place themselves on Elm Street at the time of the first shot. This is real evidence. Strong evidence that refutes your assumption that the witnesses in your study are reacting to a shot. It's not a matter of researcher 'interpretation'.

Testimony is not necessarily ignored

Perhaps I've misunderstood but I was under the impression that, as far as your 'study' is concerned, ALL relevant witness testimony has been completely ignored, with no explanation as to why this should be the case.
I could accept your "excessive testimony variability" argument if the testimony of the witnesses in question supported such an early shot. But, with the possible exception of Rosemary Willis, they don't.
To the casual observer it looks like you avoided using their witness testimony because it reveals that your interpretation of their actions was nothing more than wishful thinking or projection.
Didn't it give you pause for thought that the witnesses you were using uniformly disagreed with your interpretations of their 'reactions'?

[Royell Storing]

  How many people in the USA have been convicted of crimes, some sentenced to death, based on Eyewitness Testimony? This stuff about eyewitness testimony being "unreliable" is indicative of the grasping at straws. The perceived credibility of an eyewitness is what ultimately carries the day.

[Dan O'meara]

  How many people in the USA have been convicted of crimes, some sentenced to death, based on Eyewitness Testimony? This stuff about eyewitness testimony being "unreliable" is indicative of the grasping at straws. The perceived credibility of an eyewitness is what ultimately carries the day.

As usual, you are wrong.
This is not a case of one or two witness testimonies, as you are insinuating.
As I've pointed out, all ten occupants of both cars are in agreement. That is 100% of the witnesses.
When we have consensus among so many witnesses it can be considered reliable.
You would know all this if you ever properly read the posts you are responding to. But you don't. You get half an idea and run with it, imagining your own opinion is gospel even though it's based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

[Royell Storing]

As usual, you are wrong.
This is not a case of one or two witness testimonies, as you are insinuating.
As I've pointed out, all ten occupants of both cars are in agreement. That is 100% of the witnesses.
When we have consensus among so many witnesses it can be considered reliable.
You would know all this if you ever properly read the posts you are responding to. But you don't. You get half an idea and run with it, imagining your own opinion is gospel even though it's based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

   My point is, it does Not matter if the eyewitness testimony is restricted to 1 person or 10. It is the credibility of the eyewitness upon which their testimony rises or falls. The blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable" is indicative of not being able to rebut the bottom line issue that is in dispute. The "unreliable" claim is nothing more than character assassination.

[Dan O'meara]

   My point is, it does Not matter if the eyewitness testimony is restricted to 1 person or 10. It is the credibility of the eyewitness upon which their testimony rises or falls. The blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable" is indicative of not being able to rebut the bottom line issue that is in dispute. The "unreliable" claim is nothing more than character assassination.

Nobody made the "blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable"".
Your usual misunderstanding and misinterpretation is, yet again, creating an issue that doesn't exist.
The claim was that eyewitness testimony CAN be unreliable.
Your inability to understand basic English has turned this into a "blanket" claim that ALL eyewitness testimony is ALWAYS unreliable.

[Royell Storing]

Nobody made the "blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable"".
Your usual misunderstanding and misinterpretation is, yet again, creating an issue that doesn't exist.
The claim was that eyewitness testimony CAN be unreliable.
Your inability to understand basic English has turned this into a "blanket" claim that ALL eyewitness testimony is ALWAYS unreliable.

     So proffer cartoon visual aid(s) vs eyewitness testimony with the attached addendum, "....CAN be unreliable"? That's exactly what I mean by "character assassination". As I have repeatedly mentioned, that "car cartoon" of the JFK Motorcade is not accurate. The opening frames of the :40 1st edition copy of the Darnell Film severely damages that JFK Motorcade car cartoon. That erroneous car cartoon is routinely posted on this forum.     

[Zeon Mason]

Well, I just looked AGAIN at that portion of Z-film from Z133-207 that Dan posted at the very start of this thread and it looks like Hickey is actually kind of LEANING to the left side of the car and looking at the side of car or the road.

This is the Z 143 movement approx and this indicates to me that maybe a suppressed shot has  been fired that struck near the rear left side tire of the JFK limo, missing it and ricocheting.

In this scenario , the object is to cause a blow out of the rear tire of the JFK limo which would cause the driver likely to stop or slow down the limo, thus affording the TSBD 6th floor shooter an easier target.

So this might account fur Hickeys leaning movement at Z143.

But there’s also the Willis girl from Z 190-Z200 stopping and looking back at TSBD.

Although SHE is looking back,hardly anyone ELSE is looking back, so it’s seems very improbable that this could be the 1st loud shot fired.

But could this be a 2nd supposed shot fired at the rear left tire of JFK limo, which also missed just like the Z143 suppressed  shot did?

Perhaps one of those 2 suppressed shots that ricocheted caused the gouge on the sewer manhole cover on that left side of Elm st and the uprooted grass beside it?

Both these 2 early suppressed shots most likely would have come from the Daltex building.