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.
