The First Shot

[John Corbett]

What is silly is you thinking that I ever suggested that witnesses could.

You did ask me which witnesses said the first shot came before Z180. Just to refresh your memory you wrote:

"Give us the witnesses who said the first shot missed and the witnesses who said the first shot occurred at a time before z180"

Are you now acknowledging the silliness of your challenge?

But we can certainly relate what they said they observed at the time of the first shot to specific zframes.  For example, occupants of the VP car said that the first shot occurred just after they completed the turn and were going down Elm St. toward the triple underpass.  We can see that at z180 when the car is last seen in the zfilm that it has not quite finished that turn.

"just after they completed the turn" That sure nails it down to within 30-40 frames.

Ok. That’s one witness.  Just another 40 or so to go. Unfortunately, Bennett was not called so he never explained why his notes made on the airplane that afternoon refer to only two shots.  He wrote that he heard a loud noise and “immediately, upon hearing” it, he “looked at the Boss’ car”. He said “Immediately, at that exact time” he “saw a shot that hit the Boss” in the upper back.

You are taking Bennett's statement out of context. He said he heard a shot while he was scanning the crowd to the right(#1). He then turned toward JFK and saw a shot strike JFK high on his back (#2). He then said he saw a "second" shot strike JFK in the head(#3). He was clearly describing the second of the two shots which he saw strike JFK. Bennett could not have seen the shot that hit JFK in the back if he was scanning the crowd to the right. He was clearly describing two separate shots, the one he heard and then the one he saw hit JFK in the back.

Here is Glen Bennett's description of the shooting:
https://www.jfk-online.com/bennett.html

[Andrew Mason]

You did ask me which witnesses said the first shot came before Z180. Just to refresh your memory you wrote:

"Give us the witnesses who said the first shot missed and the witnesses who said the first shot occurred at a time before z180"

It is not rocket science, but perhaps you need someone to explain the basic concept for you in crayon:

• A human can give evidence of when a sound event occurred in relation to when a visual event occurred.
• Humans can do this because, unlike the zfilm, humans are capable of sensing both sound and light.
• We can see the visual event in the zfilm and relate the frame in which the visual event appears to the time of the sound event.
  

In this way, the witness provides evidence of the time of the sound event in relation to an event that they saw and which was also recorded on the zfilm.

For example, Hurchel Jacks was driving the VP car. He said “ My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President's car at that time. At that time I heard
a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice President's car.”. That statement relates the time of the first shot to the time that the VP car completed the turn.  We can see in the zfilm that at z180 the VP car had not yet completed the turn.

In that way Hurchel Jacks is a “witness who said the first shot occurred at a time after z180”.

"just after they completed the turn" That sure nails it down to within 30-40 frames.

Yes. But it provides a ‘before bracket’ to the first shot ie z180 is before the first shot..

You are taking Bennett's statement out of context.

No.  I was not interpreting it. I was simply quoting exactly what he said. 

He said he heard a shot while he was scanning the crowd to the right(#1). He then turned toward JFK and saw a shot strike JFK high on his back (#2).

He said upon hearing that sound he “immediately” looked at the President’s car and “at that exact time” saw “a shot that hit” JFK in the upper back. You seem to be ignoring those words.

What he did not say is that he waited 4 seconds to look at the Boss’ car after hearing the first loud firecracker noise. He did not say that the there was another loud noise at the time he saw a shot that hit JFK in the upper back. He saw it at the exact time that he first looked, which was “immediately upon hearing” the first loud firecracker noise. He described only two loud sounds.[/list][/list]

[John Corbett]

It is not rocket science, but perhaps you need someone to explain the basic concept for you in crayon:


• A human can give evidence of when a sound event occurred in relation to when a visual event occurred.
• Humans can do this because, unlike the zfilm, humans are capable of sensing both sound and light.
• We can see the visual event in the zfilm and relate the frame in which the visual event appears to the time of the sound event.
  

Yes, humans can do that. You're just not very good at it.

In this way, the witness provides evidence of the time of the sound event in relation to an event that they saw and which was also recorded on the zfilm.

For example, Hurchel Jacks was driving the VP car. He said “ My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President's car at that time. At that time I heard
a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice President's car.”. That statement relates the time of the first shot to the time that the VP car completed the turn.  We can see in the zfilm that at z180 the VP car had not yet completed the turn.

This is the part you don't understand. The human brain does not make precise recordings like that. If you told someone there is going to be a loud noise and you want them to take note of precisely where they were when they heard the noise, most people could probably give you a pretty accurate response. But nobody asked Jacks to do that. He wasn't asked that question until well after the event. At that point he was operating with a very imprecise memory. Nothing against Jacks. That's just being human. What he provided was an educated guess, and not a very accurate one.

In that way Hurchel Jacks is a “witness who said the first shot occurred at a time after z180”.
Yes. But it provides a ‘before bracket’ to the first shot ie z180 is before the first shot..

If only you had proof Jacks accurately remembered precisely where the car was when he heard the first sound.

No.  I was not interpreting it. I was simply quoting exactly what he said.  He said upon hearing that sound he “immediately” looked at the President’s car and “at that exact time” saw “a shot that hit” JFK in the upper back. You seem to be ignoring those words.

Bennett was not looking at JFK when he heard the first shot. The first shot is what caused him to look at JFK. He then saw the SECOND shot hit JFK below his right shoulder. That is the only way to interpret what Bennett said without twisting his words.

What he did not say is that he waited 4 seconds to look at the Boss’ car after hearing the first loud firecracker noise. He did not say that the there was another loud noise at the time he saw a shot that hit JFK in the upper back. He saw it at the exact time that he first looked, which was “immediately upon hearing” the first loud firecracker noise. He described only two loud sounds.[/list][/list]

He didn't have to wait four seconds. He turned to look at JFK as after hearing the first shot. Then he saw the second shot strike. That's two separate shots no matter how you slice it.

[Andrew Mason]

Yes, humans can do that. You're just not very good at it.

Actually. studies have shown that humans are very accurate in recalling salient details.  Salience is measured by the proportion who recalled a certain detail of an event. Where more than 50% note a certain detail more than 90% consistently get it correct (Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony):

This is the part you don't understand. The human brain does not make precise recordings like that.

Apparently, it does it very well. Over 80% accurately recalled three shots.  No one told them in advance there would be shots.

At that point he was operating with a very imprecise memory. Nothing against Jacks. That's just being human. What he provided was an educated guess, and not a very accurate one.

Why do you think memory is very imprecise?

If only you had proof Jacks accurately remembered precisely where the car was when he heard the first sound.

One looks to others and sees what they recall. If they are all consistent then it is very likely accurate.

Bennett was not looking at JFK when he heard the first shot. The first shot is what caused him to look at JFK. He then saw the SECOND shot hit JFK below his right shoulder. That is the only way to interpret what Bennett said without twisting his words.
He didn't have to wait four seconds. He turned to look at JFK as after hearing the first shot. Then he saw the second shot strike. That's two separate shots no matter how you slice it.

How fo you know if your interpretation of what Bennett said is accurate?   

[John Corbett]

Actually. studies have shown that humans are very accurate in recalling salient details.  Salience is measured by the proportion who recalled a certain detail of an event. Where more than 50% note a certain detail more than 90% consistently get it correct (Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony):


Apparently, it does it very well. Over 80% accurately recalled three shots.  No one told them in advance there would be shots.
Why do you think memory is very imprecise?
One looks to others and sees what they recall. If they are all consistent then it is very likely accurate.
How fo you know if your interpretation of what Bennett said is accurate?

Because I have competent reading comprehension.

[Andrew Mason]

Because I have competent reading comprehension.

So you think your interpretation of what he said he saw is an accurate statement of what he said he saw.  But that does not help you determine whether he was an accurate witness.  Why did at least 23 others say that they saw JFK react to the first shot?

[John Corbett]

So you think your interpretation of what he said he saw is an accurate statement of what he said he saw. 

I know it is.

But that does not help you determine whether he was an accurate witness.

That requires common sense.

 Why did at least 23 others say that they saw JFK react to the first shot?

Because they did not accurately recall the event. Very common among eyewitnesses.