The First Shot

[Royell Storing]

When the limo was so close to the TSBD?

         You're NOW only skeptical of the "getaway car" discovery, but you reveal that you do not have an understanding of the Elm St Extension. I have mentioned possible: (1) bullet furrow on the (S) grass, (2) the manhole cover, and (3) Tague's chipped curb. Also, Bill Newman said that he thought he and his family were "in the line of fire". Work your way backward and line these points up with the JFK Limo and the Elm St Extension.
         

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Royell Storing]

  There is literally NO EVIDENCE of an early 1st shot. Head turns of witnesses is proof of nothing. And now they are forced to move the physical position of the JFK Limo to accommodate a possible early shot? This is simply the attempted jamming of a square peg into a round hole.   

[Brian Roselle]

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.

Dan, I appreciate the feedback, even if my research is no way to conduct research

I suppose I have to agree with you that at some point I formed a hypothesis that the first shot was early, and then followed up looking for evidence. I have probably been guilty of forming a hypothesis first in the past on other matters as well. Generally though I think the hypotheses are based on some evidence or indicated place to start.

I find it hard to argue against testimony since testimony appears to be very definitive. I just got frustrated with testimony early on, specifically John Connally and Phil Willis, two witnesses who I believe are honest, but had inconsistencies that drove me nuts.

Also, I don’t think the anchored testimony is cherry picking because its just a different (and stricter) criterion for doing some evaluation. I didn’t believe that requiring a spatial component to the testimony would bias any testimony, or mean value of averaged testimonies, in any way. Any testimony at any point would qualify if it had a spatial component along with its timing component (the time of hearing the first shot). I mentioned a anchored testimony on the second shot in a reply to Tom earlier.

 Pat Speer has done a lot of hard work on the project and looked at a lot of testimony. I don’t think he ever found a testimony he would interpret as being early on Elm. I don’t know if he ever considered it or tried to align testimony with a shot just before Z133.  If he gets 0% testimony for an pre z133 shot, and I go nearly 100% of anchored testimony for that time/location, testimonies may differ too much.

Pat and you agree on no early first shot via interpreting testimonies, and you are comfortable there. I’m OK with that, you guys outnumber me 2 to 1, but I am also comfortable with my ways as well.

We can agree to disagree, you have done a lot of good digging into the data, please keep that up. I think there is probably still more out there to learn on all this.

[Royell Storing]

  An early 1st shot requires: (1) Shooter standing straight-up, (2) firing down through a 1/2 open window, (3) Moving the physical position of the JFK Limo on Elm St. There is Zero Evidence to support this almost 62 yr old history rewrite.

[Tom Graves]

An early 1st shot requires: (1) Shooter standing straight-up, (2) firing down through a 1/2 open window

Comrade Storing,

A shot at "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-second, film-saving pause and as indicated by the nearly simultaneous and rapid conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (five of whom were inside the limo) to the sounds of said shot, required Oswald to stand and lean-forward awkwardly while firing through a 1/3-open window.

3) Moving the physical position of the limo on Elm Street.

Comrade Storing,

Move the physical position? You mean as opposed to the non-physical position? LOL!

Regardless, move it from where to where for a "Z-124" shot?

From where it was at Max Holland's "Z-107" theorized shot?

Okay.

In either case, the limo hadn't started passing under the branches of the oak tree, yet, and therefore it was totally in the clear.

Scroll down to page 18 to see what I'm talking about, Comrade Storing.

https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf

D'oh!

[Royell Storing]

  If you are going to buy into a "Theory", you probably need to KNOW the details of said "Theory". I continue urging you to expand your foundational knowledge of the JFK Assassination. In construction, the general philosophy is that the broader the base, the taller the structure. You currently reside in a 1 story ramshackle Line Shack. Instead of doing some actual research, you request that I supply you with the details. As my Dad used to tell me whenever I got lazy, "I'll work With You. I will Not work For You.". This is the "work ethic" that resulted in my discovering the "getaway car". Get off of your duff and do your own JFK Assassination research. Broaden your base. 

[Jarrett Smith]

  There is literally NO EVIDENCE of an early 1st shot. Head turns of witnesses is proof of nothing. And now they are forced to move the physical position of the JFK Limo to accommodate a possible early shot? This is simply the attempted jamming of a square peg into a round hole.

Governor Connally heard the first shot that missed and being an avid hunter, I believe him. So, you have one missed shot before both are hit at Z-223/224. The majority of testimony says that shot was the 1st of 3 meaning 4 total.