The First Shot

[Lance Payette]

My understanding is that psychologists in at least 37 states are now using the Z film instead of Rorschach blobs because the interpretations are so much more diverse and interesting. Anyone who doesn't find these discussions hysterical needs to binge watch Monty Python reruns.

(Thanks to Duncan for creating a separate Weirdness subforum, which shall apparently henceforth be known as Lance's Private Playground!  )

[Andrew Mason]

Herein is your problem. You put all your faith in fallible witnesses and reject what the Z-film tells you unmistakably. The Z-film is more reliable than 20 witnesses because it has perfect recall.

We don't have to look to other events to find more than 20 witnesses getting something wrong. More than 20 witnesses said all the shots came from the GK. More than 20 witnesses said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They can't both be right. So there's your example of more than 20 witnesses getting a pertinent fact wrong.

First of all, determining direction of a sound is not a simple observable fact, especially in Dealey Plaza. Second, the apparent direction depended on the location of the listener. Third, many of the witnesses said they couldn't tell but still offered a a guess. Finally, this is not an example where there were zero who observed it correctly.

[John Corbett]

First of all, determining direction of a sound is not a simple observable fact, especially in Dealey Plaza. Second, the apparent direction depended on the location of the listener. Third, many of the witnesses said they couldn't tell but still offered a a guess. Finally, this is not an example where there were zero who observed it correctly.

Nice job of cherry picking what you are willing to believe from witnesses. The reality is witnesses get all kinds of things wrong. The typical witness, if there is such a thing, will get some things right and some things wrong. That's why anything and everything witnesses tell us needs corroboration before it should be accepted. To you, corroboration means the witness tells a story that conforms with your ridiculous scenario that only you believe.

[Andrew Mason]

Nice job of cherry picking what you are willing to believe from witnesses. The reality is witnesses get all kinds of things wrong. The typical witness, if there is such a thing, will get some things right and some things wrong. That's why anything and everything witnesses tell us needs corroboration before it should be accepted. To you, corroboration means the witness tells a story that conforms with your ridiculous scenario that only you believe.

I can tell that you have not worked much with witnesses.  While it is true that witnesses can be and often are wrong on details, and some lie, honest witnesses rarely hallucinate the same hallucination. At least not in my experience. Have you thought about what caused so many people to have had the same wrong recollection of the first shot occurring while JFK was waving to the crowd on his right and then moving to his left?

[John Corbett]

I can tell that you have not worked much with witnesses.  While it is true that witnesses can be and often are wrong on details, and some lie, honest witnesses rarely hallucinate the same hallucination. At least not in my experience. Have you thought about what caused so many people to have had the same wrong recollection of the first shot occurring while JFK was waving to the crowd on his right and then moving to his left?

I have never claimed any of the witnesses had an hallucination. Why would you imply I had? I simply point out the established fact that witnesses don't remember events perfectly. They tend to get some things wrong and some things right. I don't know why people had the same wrong misperception. I know people did have the same wrong perceptions and I can only speculate as to why and speculations don't establish anything. I don't know why some people reacted to the first shot and others did not. Clint Hill doesn't remember hearing the first shot but Glen Bennett, riding in the same car, clearly did hear it. So did JBC. So did Rosemary Willis.

[Andrew Mason]

I have never claimed any of the witnesses had an hallucination. Why would you imply I had? I simply point out the established fact that witnesses don't remember events perfectly. They tend to get some things wrong and some things right. I don't know why people had the same wrong misperception. I know people did have the same wrong perceptions and I can only speculate as to why and speculations don't establish anything. I don't know why some people reacted to the first shot and others did not. Clint Hill doesn't remember hearing the first shot but Glen Bennett, riding in the same car, clearly did hear it. So did JBC. So did Rosemary Willis.

Ok.  How many things could have been reported as happening on the first shot?:
1. JFK could have continued smiling and waving to his right, which you say is what happened.
2. He could have turned to the left and waved.
3. He could have stopped waving but remained looking right.
4. He could have remained in his position and turned left but not waved.
5. He could have stopped waving and turned forward but not moved left.
6. He could have moved to his left but continued waving to his right.
7. He could have moved left and turned to his left but not leaned forward. 
8. Or he could have stopped waving, turned forward and moved to his left and leaned forward, which is consistent with what 24 witnesses said happened.

Those are just 8 of the possibilities.  No. 1 -  is what you say occurred after the first shot.  Not a single witness reported seeing this.  Nos. 2-7 are not consistent with anything seen in the zfilm. Not a single witness reported seeing nos. 1 through 7. No. 8 is exactly what occurred in the zfilm after z224 and is not inconsistent what appears to be starting to happen after z193.  At least 24 witnesses reported seeing something that is consistent with no. 8 and is inconsistent with no.s 1 through 7.

You say that the witnesses who observed something consistent with no. 8 were wrong.  That means they made errors that just happened to coincide with what actually happened but did not occur on the first "horrible ear-shattering noise".  The number of ways that a witness could have reported what they saw wrong would be at least 7 out of 8 (there are many other possible ways of being wrong).  The chance that one witness would incorrectly report the no. 8 that didn't happen is at most, then, 1/8.  The probability that all 24 would report something consistent only with no. 8 would be 1/8²⁴=2 x 10^-22. That is a probability that it would never happen in the lifetime of the Universe.

If you want to believe that all 24 were wrong, my question would be: in what universe?

Now, you will come back and say that there are only two possibilities 1 and 8 and that the 24 witnesses were mistaken because they confused the second shot with the first shot or didn't hear the first "ear shattering noise".  Let's assume that the chance of that happening is 50% - I would say it is much less but I am feeling generous. (And we will leave aside the question why they would be wrong in all mistaking the first for the second shot but not all wrong in observing what else occurred). That would mean that the chance that all 24 witnesses would make the same error and none get it correct would be 1/2²⁴=6x10^-8 or about 1 in 17 million.  At least that is still something that might happen in this universe.  Just not likely to have ever happened in human history.