Dan,
How this perception time thing got started is that around the 50th anniversary there were a lot of TV shows on the JFK assassination. A couple of the shows talked about the HSCA’s estimate on the first shot timing based on what was determined then to be a startle reaction by John Connally, his major head rotation right, starting at z162.
I recognized this as not being a startle reaction, as major head rotations are voluntary reactions not startle reactions.
There were a number of testimonies that indicated an earlier shot. The fact that the method used by the HSCA for the first shot was incorrect, indicated that there should be better indicators of the first shot on the film, and there were a number testimonies that said it was noticeably earlier. This was the basis for closer inspection of the film and finding the other people reacting about the same time. This whole thing did not start with a random witch hunt early on the film.
After the method was developed I wanted to look at some other independent methods as verification that the prediction was correct.
Other methods I looked at appeared to agree or support the early timing the perception time method predicted either directly or indirectly. These included a Dorman film examination, some shot timing modeling when using a standard startle reaction latency time of 0.21 seconds for Zapruder, an Extended Jiggle analysis that indicated the first shot was not between z136 and z227, some Anchored testimony analysis, and given there was nothing between the rifle and the limo at z124, it is quite unlikely a surviving fragmented bullet striking and deflecting from something way up on Elm caused the Tague curb mark. Evaluating the Tague incident indicated the curb mark was likely from the missing chunk of the third shot that hit JFK in the head.
I’m sure all of these studies have been shared here over the years, but they tend to get lost over time. I kept a summary I'll share here. I particularly liked the Dorman film analysis since its pretty impactful and it gives Elsie a little credit for capturing something useful when it has trashed by so many researchers.
The summary of what I have shared before can be found at:
https://sites.google.com/view/auxiliary-prt-study-analysis/home
I hope this helps explain the various Basis used for validating the shot timing.
Brian, clearly you have put a lot of time and effort into your theory and have no intention of abandoning it. Even in the face of the mountain of evidence refuting it. I've no doubt I could continue presenting such evidence and you would simply ignore it, as you have done with my last post.
This whole thing did not start with a random witch hunt early on the film.
This, I believe, is known as a Straw Man Argument.
I stated that one of the two main reasons that your theory has failed is because, rather than trying to pin down when the first shot occurred, you have
assumed there was an early first shot and have looked for evidence of this
assumed early first shot in the Z-film.
Nothing random about it.
Thanks for clarifying
why you assumed there was an early first shot - the HSCA study into an early shot and "a number testimonies that said it was noticeably earlier".
It appears this "number" of witnesses is 3 - Pierce Allman, Patricia Lawrence and Amos Euins (your inclusion of Victoria Adams and, in particular, Phil Willis, as witnesses that support a shot around z124 is baffling).
Your Anchored Testimony is, possibly, the worst case of cherry-picking I've ever come across but it shows you are wiling to use witness testimony
but only when it suits.
Which brings us to the second main reason your theory has failed IMO - ignoring the mountain of eye-witness testimony refuting such an early shot
including the testimonies of the very witnesses you use in your study, which all indicate a first shot much further along in the Z-film (as I have demonstrated in my post and which you have ignored).
There are over 200 witnesses who remark on hearing the shots that day. At his website, Pat Speer has undertaken the gargantuan task of collating all the testimony/statements from every single witness.
I urge anyone interested in this topic to put some time aside and go through his chapter - The Jigsaw Puzzle.
Any ideas of a shot as early as z124 will quickly evaporate.
It appears you have assumed the conclusion of your study and looked for evidence in the Z-film supporting your assumed conclusion.
This is no way to conduct a study.
It also appears to be the case that you have deliberately ignored any evidence refuting your study and have cherry-picked evidence when it can be interpreted as supporting your assumed conclusion.
Also, this is no way to conduct a study.
Final note...you have influenced some of my own thinking in key areas regarding the assassination and have provided some truly original insights. You are an excellent researcher and seem like a truly decent human being.
However, I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion of a shot as early as z124 and can back up why I disagree with it.
I reckon it's probably best we just agree to disagree on this issue.
