The First Shot

[Royell Storing]

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.

   Possible shot(s) striking near the manhole cover, the (S) Grass, or even the Tague curb strike, also line up with the "Bushes/Shrubs/Garden". Such being reported by the Hysterical Woman/Officer Smith, Mal Couch, and Bill Newman. The Elm St Extension has Not been thoroughly researched with respect to it possibly being used by a shooter and/or providing clandestine access to a getaway car for shooter(s) inside the TSBD. My discovery of a car moving down the Elm St Ext while the JFK Limo was still on Elm St proves this.

[Dan O'meara]

     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.     

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".

I can see that you're using English words and that they are in some kind of order, but I literally have no idea what you are attempting to say here. I've spent too long trying to work out the meaning of these sentences and I've got nothing.
Your posts are useless. You might as well just be trolling the thread and deliberately trying to derail the discussion.
When they can be understood, the points you make are irrelevant and have no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Mark Tyler's motorcade mapping is probably the most impressive achievement in JFKA research. It's astounding.
You criticising it is like listening to Peewee Herman critiquing Mike Tyson's uppercut.
The vehicle movements are based on every single available scrap of film and photographic evidence that exists regarding that specific time period in Dealey Plaza.
I would bet my house that any criticisms you have of it are based on your usual misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what's going on.
You just make wild, unfounded and unsupported claims that have no basis in any kind of approximation to reality. After a painful and tedious trial of explaining the obvious to you, you finally relent and accept you were talking nonsense all along.

The opening frames of the :40 1st edition copy of the Darnell Film severely damages that JFK Motorcade car cartoon

Here's a mad challenge for you.
Rather than just blurt out this unsupported nonsense, why don't you provide evidence to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.
Post the relevant pictures or footage and present your argument. Show us all how Tyler got it so wrong.

And create a thread on which to do this, rather than clog this one up with your musings.

[Royell Storing]

  You guys need to seriously examine the Darnell Film. For starters, do you really believe that Officer Baker was inside the TSBD in only 30 seconds after the Kill Shot? Read his WC Testimony. The guy was almost knocked off his bike by a wind gust as he was turning onto Houston St. Yet, somehow he is inside the TSBD in only 30 seconds? This is WC  . Officer Baker and Officer Haygood were riding close together in the JFK Motorcade. Have you ever thought about why Baker has already parked his bike at the Elm St curb and has run to the TSBD by the time that Officer Haygood even turns his motorcycle from Houston onto Elm St? How does that work? It does Not!
   And how long do you believe the JFK Limo was really on Elm St? Wiegman jumped out of his camera car, ran down Elm St and somehow filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass? TICK-TOCK Issue. On top of that, the Wiegman Film also shows NO Getaway Car parked alongside the Island. Not just yet. Do Not blindly accept the WC  . Do the research and think everything through. The images do Not fit hand-in-glove. And as they become clearer, this becomes more and more obvious.

[Brian Roselle]

Quote:
"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'?
[/quote]


To be clear the Perception time study’s intent was to use only human reactions to ascertain the timing of the first shot. It had nothing to do with testimonies or ignoring testimonies or disregarding testimonies, it had nothing to do with testimonies period. A testimony analysis is something completely different and that is what I was referring to wrt to the Anchored testimony analysis. Which happened to support the ~z124 timing.

If you want to insist that I ignore all relevant testimonies for the Anchored testimony test, that’s incorrect, but it’s true I did not consider testimonies that did not meet a criteria of an Anchored Testimony (hence I am guilty in one respect since I did not consider a lot of testimonies relevant because they did not meet the criteria for that particular type of analysis being conducted), and that has nothing to do with what I expected testimonies to say or not. I ignored testimony that would have agreed well with the placement I expected, like Tina Towner and Howard Brennan, because they did not meet the criteria of an Anchored Testimony.

The anchored testimony looked at any testimony around that time specifically identifying the President/President limo at the time of hearing the first shot. I don’t recall finding or using any presidential limo anchored testimony coming from the vice presidential car. I think the position of the Presidential limo at the first shot is quite important to understanding the line of sight the sniper had from the sniper’s nest to the Presidential limo when taking the first shot.

Now as far as why people on the street did not react like those in the limo, consider the following. First consider the reactions of those in the limo. The reactions of those in the limo were voluntary reactions, and appeared to be reactions consistent with sound localization attempts after a surprising loud sharp sound behind and above them, all reactions were within 0.55 seconds which is indicative of a common stimulus and is predicted by a Perception Time distribution model.  Since there was probably not a lot of great new visual stimulus at that time to grab their attention, they likely simply all looked around and wondered “What the hell was that”. Many believed it was a firecracker but looked around anyway. Some people further on down Elm did the same thing but with not as much head motion. This is what James Tague said he also did, glance around up there for the idiot throwing a firecracker that happened about 5 seconds before the second shot sounded. These were all voluntary reactions to a surprising stimulus.

Now consider yourself as a bystander up on Elm on the side of the road as the Limo went by. You came to Dealey Plaza to see the President, and many also wanted to see Jackie and her dress. You waited over an half an hour for the motorcade to show up. Right as they were approaching or driving by you, a firecracker is shot off. At that time there was a ton of visual stimuli right in front of you with the President and Jackie and the limo; do you ignore that intense visual stimuli right there in front of you, or do you follow the audible stimulus and turn around to spend time trying to find what kid threw a firecracker. Net, do you ignore the sound as an annoyance and keep your attention on the Limo. If folks look for the kid with the firecracker they totally miss JFK and Jackie go by, their whole intent for the day. What would you do at that time if you did not consider the perceived firecracker a personal threat, look for the kid that threw the firecracker or continue to look at JFK and Jackie?

I encourage you to develop your theories using your choice of testimonies, maybe others will build on what you are doing. You may find the exact meaning of the testimony “They had just turned the corner, straightened up… heading down towards the underpass” with respect to the Presidential limo position, or from what you find may also apply to the vice president car, and perhaps others as well.

In the meantime, I will look for other analysis on this question as well. At this point the anchored testimony results, the perception time analysis from the z-film, the Dorman film evaluation, the overall timing of all three shots using Zapruder startle reaction time ~210ms, and some extended Jiggle analysis, all point to an early shot before z133 being triggered around z124.