Reactions to 6 Shots in the Zapruder Film

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote a test showing people will only jiggle their camera while filming each time they hear a gunshot.

Have you read *anything* about the assassination? This is one of the more well-known, well-covered issues in the literature. So is your argument that Zapruder jiggled his camera *three times* "just because" and that he jiggled it three other times in response to gunfire, because your bankrupt theory does not allow for more than three shots? I mean, sheesh, at some point doesn't your brain kick in and say, "Wait a minute! This theory is just absurd!"?

Anyway, moving on from a lost cause (getting Beck to admit anything that conflicts with the lone-gunman theory), although I firmly believe the Zapruder film has been edited, I also believe it contains clear evidence of more than three shots, and that this is why the film, even after being edited, was suppressed.

One key piece of evidence in the film is JFK's dramatic reaction that begins at Z226, a good 20 frames after he has clearly begun to react to a previous external stimulus.

Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's upper body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of his forward jolt and of the movement of his hands and elbows are quite startling when one watches the sequence from Z226-232 in slow motion. Second only to the head shot, this reaction is the most obvious in the Zapruder film, with Connally's Z236-232 reaction running a close third.

But here's the fatal problem for the lone-gunman theory: Kennedy clearly, clearly begins to react to a different external stimulus at around Z188, when his cheeks puff. At Z200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze and his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion. He also begins to rapidly turn his head to the left toward his wife. By Z207 he has his hands up to his face. The HSCA PEP acknowledged these movements. They are obvious to anyone who is willing to allow their eyes to see them.

However, we see the obvious result of a bullet striking him in the back starting at Z226 when he is visibly knocked forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. This is clearly the back shot.

So, we have one non-fatal shot reaction from Z188-207, as even the HSCA photo evidence panel acknowledged. Then we have the second non-fatal shot reaction, the second-most obvious shot reaction in the film, from Z226-232. Then we have the head shot at Z313. And even the Warren Commission admitted there was  one missed shot. That's four shots right there, and that's not counting Connally's dramatic shot reaction from Z233-240 and the clear indications of shot reactions starting at around Z154.

[Dan O'meara]

It's you who can't admit the truth. You skirt over the testimony of agents Landis, Ready and Hickey as to their immediate response as recorded in Altgens6 and confirmed by agent Youngblood's testimony to seeing abnormal movements in the Presidential follow up car after the first 'explosive' noise. Instead you think they just reacted slowly. We see the agents not reacting up to z207, over three seconds after a supposed shot at z145. Three seconds to react to the sound of gunfire?
It is the lack of reaction by these SS agents in Zapruder that refutes the idea of a shot at z145, not to mention the copious 'ear-witness' testimonies describing the first shot as being the one to which JFK reacted by throwing his hands up to his throat.

I agree, let's throw out the Z154-167 reactions. On to the Z186-207 reactions from a shot you posit around z186.
The main argument of the HCSA panel for a shot here (apart from the dubious jiggle analysis) is JFK's reactions before he passes behind the Stemmons sign - a 'hand freeze' and a very sharp head turn from right to left.
Firstly, the hand freeze simply doesn't happen. JFK is waving then slowly brings his hand down in a normal way:

As far the rapid head turn, this is easily refuted.
One of the main arguments for a shot before JFK goes behind the Stemmons sign is a quick 'head-snap' from right to left, presumably a reaction to the sound of a shot. However, on closer examination I believe it can be shown no such head-snap occurs.
Look at the hairline of JFK in the following frames:



In the top pic (z207, just before he passes behind Stemmons sign) the parting in his hair on the left side of his head can just be made out. Certainly the way his fringe sweeps up to the parting is clearly visible.
In the second pic (z225, first full frame of JFK emerging from behind Stemmons) his parting is not so visible but the sweep of his hair up to it is.
In the bottom pic (z230, JFK facing straight ahead) the part of his forehead revealed by the sweep of his hairline up to the parting is no longer visible.
Far from turning to his left JFK is still looking to his right as he passes behind the Stemmons sign (z207).
There is no head-snap to the left and, therefore, no reason to suspect JFK is reacting to anything.

The reaction from Z226-232 (actually z225 is the very first reaction) is from the first audible shot, the shot which is assumed to have hit him high up in the back.
One last note on the reactions from z188-207, if hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments around z186, to imagine JFK hasn't reacted to this by reaching for his head in the full second we see him before he goes behind the Stemmons sign is totally unrealistic (IMO)

[Dan O'meara]

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Mike!

I've not heard that phrase for ages.

[Dan O'meara]

Have you abandoned your own thread Michael?

[Michael T. Griffith]

The reaction from Z226-232 (actually z225 is the very first reaction) is from the first audible shot, the shot which is assumed to have hit him high up in the back.

What about all the witnesses who said they heard a shot just after the limo finished its turn onto Elm Street? What about all the visible reactions between Z154 and Z207? Even if you reach and strain and say they are all in response to one external stimulus, that still gives us four shots. Or, are you going to deny all of them?

I find it incredible that you are placing so much reliance on the testimony of SS agents, most of whom were hungover from the their late-night partying the night before.

One last note on the reactions from z188-207, if hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments around z186, to imagine JFK hasn't reacted to this by reaching for his head in the full second we see him before he goes behind the Stemmons sign is totally unrealistic (IMO)

Okay, well, I can't force you to admit that you can see Z154-207 reactions that are plainly visible. They are so visible that even the HSCA PEP felt compelled to acknowledge them. And there are two strong blur episodes during this timeframe. I won't recount them again. They are discussed in my article. The Z186-207 reactions are discussed in the HSCA PEP's report.

"IF" hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments? "IF"? Look, we know he was hit in the back of the head by several bullet fragments because they are on the autopsy skull x-rays. They surely did not get there as a result of mythical "shearing" by an FMJ bullet.

You see, the problem is that you are bound by a ridiculous theory that only allows for three shots, even though the Zapruder film plainly, clearly, obviously shows reactions to at least four shots, at the bare minimum.

[Dan O'meara]

What about all the witnesses who said they heard a shot just after the limo finished its turn onto Elm Street? What about all the visible reactions between Z154 and Z207? Even if you reach and strain and say they are all in response to one external stimulus, that still gives us four shots. Or, are you going to deny all of them?

I find it incredible that you are placing so much reliance on the testimony of SS agents, most of whom were hungover from the their late-night partying the night before.

Okay, well, I can't force you to admit that you can see Z154-207 reactions that are plainly visible. They are so visible that even the HSCA PEP felt compelled to acknowledge them. And there are two strong blur episodes during this timeframe. I won't recount them again. They are discussed in my article. The Z186-207 reactions are discussed in the HSCA PEP's report.

"IF" hit in the back of the head by bullet fragments? "IF"? Look, we know he was hit in the back of the head by several bullet fragments because they are on the autopsy skull x-rays. They surely did not get there as a result of mythical "shearing" by an FMJ bullet.

You see, the problem is that you are bound by a ridiculous theory that only allows for three shots, even though the Zapruder film plainly, clearly, obviously shows reactions to at least four shots, at the bare minimum.

In his work, "The Unofficial JFK Assassination FAQ #19", John Locke makes the following observation:

"Of the approximately 200 witnesses whose statements were taken by
the WC, 88% said they heard three shots, 5% said they heard more than
three. "

In the comprehensive study of witness statements analysed at his website, Pat Speer concludes:

"While roughly 90% of the witnesses heard three shots or less, and less than 10% heard four shots or more"

I know from my own experience that the vast majority of the witness statements I've read indicate three audible shots, many referring to a specific pattern - shot, pause, two shots closer together.
The overwhelming majority of 'ear-witnesses' to the shooting describe hearing three shots. It is this that informs my opinion and it is this that you must ignore.
Your method seems to be based on jiggle analysis and it seems you would like to cherry-pick your ear-witnesses to suit. The majority of the reactions you describe are normal head turns, something we should totally expect to see. The observation of reactions by the HSCA have been debunked and some of the reactions you describe don't even occur (such as agent Hickey's sharp turn to face right)
The reactions of the car load of 'hung-over' agents, who you would have us believe took three whole seconds to react to the sound of gunfire, is not a starting point for me. It's simply confirmation that the early audible shots you would like to believe happened did not, in fact, take place.

[Dan O'meara]

You see, the problem is that you are bound by a ridiculous theory that only allows for three shots, even though the Zapruder film plainly, clearly, obviously shows reactions to at least four shots, at the bare minimum.

It's good to see you've abandoned your own ridiculous theory and rightly so. It was very poorly thought through, was easily refuted and seemed to depend heavily on dramatic pronouncements.