Question about Dealey Plaza Witnesses.

[John Iacoletti]

But Oswald being found a half hour within a half mile (as I recall) of the murder scene. Oswald being found with the loaded murder weapon that matched shells found at the scene. Oswald being found with bullets in his pocket of the same type used to kill Officer Tippit. Oswald’s suspicious behavior just before entering the theater and within the theater. And Oswald pulling a gun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater. If I can explain away all this, I can explain away any evidence against anyone. All these things I find incredibly incriminating against Oswald.

Those are all interesting claims. You would do well to ascertain if they are actually true before deciding that they incriminate Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, I do. It seems strange for me that you would think that LNers have bad intent.

Why do you think that?

Aren’t you implying that you think we are all involved in a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy? Why else would we all have bad intents? By coincidence?

No, I don’t recall saying that. Can you post a link to this?

What I recall saying is that a police car summoned to the Tippit murder scene, but many, many miles away, with other police cars already at scene, or much closer than he, might elect to proceed at normal speed rather than high speed while using sirens and flashing lights. And yes, while proceeding at normal speed, he would not run red lights. If he proceeds at high speed, even with lights and sirens, while running red lights, he is more likely to cause a serious accident, then arrive at the Tippit murder scene in the nick of time.

It would be different if he was just a quarter mile away and it was reported a suspect was getting away and he was the closest to the scene. In that case, yes, flashing lights, sirens, and a high-speed approach would be appropriate. But not from many miles away.

Are you certain you didn’t miss report what I said?

The words are hard to make out but I think that experts who examine the tapes back Brown’s arguments. In any case, I haven’t looked into it very much myself.

Of course, your claims have absolutely no support from the dictabelt tapes. At best, At best, your scenario has no more support than Bill’s.

In any case, any question about what the dictabelt recording says or doesn’t say should not be directed to me or Bill but to our true expert on the subject. Steve Barber.

I always found the Officer Tippit witnesses to be the weakest reasons to think Oswald killed Officer Tippit. Because eyewitness identifying suspects is not reliable.

Where have I said otherwise?

But Oswald being found a half hour within a half mile (as I recall) of the murder scene. Oswald being found with the loaded murder weapon that matched shells found at the scene. Oswald being found with bullets in his pocket of the same type used to kill Officer Tippit. Oswald’s suspicious behavior just before entering the theater and within the theater. And Oswald pulling a gun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater. If I can explain away all this, I can explain away any evidence against anyone. All these things I find incredibly incriminating against Oswald.


Yes. But Rather did not know what he should look for. He did not know he should see which direction JFK’s head moved after being shot. He did not know if he should try to see if Connally and JFK were struck at the same time or different times. All these issues came up later.

Like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, I think Rather was surprised just how bloody awful the head shot was and didn’t note what direction JFK’s head moved.

When asked about it later he, subconsciously, guessed what happened.


In any case, no one can come up with a single Dealey Plaza witness who saw the head move forward. Thus answering my basic question.

This has point has been somewhat lost with you concentrating on other matters that have no bearing on my one question. But it is clear that no one can come up with a single such witness.

The words are hard to make out but I think that experts who examine the tapes back Brown’s arguments. In any case, I haven’t looked into it very much myself.

Of course, your claims have absolutely no support from the dictabelt tapes. At best, At best, your scenario has no more support than Bill’s.

In any case, any question about what the dictabelt recording says or doesn’t say should not be directed to me or Bill but to our true expert on the subject. Steve Barber.


Thank you for providing the best example of LN ignorance and/or denial of facts.

The words are hard to make out but I think that experts who examine the tapes back Brown’s arguments. In any case, I haven’t looked into it very much myself.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the words on the recordings are perfectly well to make out. The ambulance driver, Butler, tried to call the dispatcher twice, by saying "602", which is what you hear on the tape. You don't need to be an expert to hear that, but, and this is the worst part, how in the world can you come to any conclusion if you haven't looked into it very much?

Of course, your claims have absolutely no support from the dictabelt tapes. At best, At best, your scenario has no more support than Bill’s.

This is in fact simply not true. Brown claimed that the second "602" call was Butler trying to tell the dispatcher that the ambulance was leaving. He claimed to have a source for this information but he never produced it. I, on the other hand, argued that Butler had told George and Patrica Nash in 1964 that he wanted to inform the dispatcher that the victim was a police officer and that he tried in vain to get through twice. It's in their article. So, in fact it's the other way around. My scenario has more support than Bill's, who has provided no support at all for his claim.

In any case, any question about what the dictabelt recording says or doesn’t say should not be directed to me or Bill but to our true expert on the subject. Steve Barber.

And this only shows how little you have been paying attention to the discussion as there was no question whatsoever about what the dictabelt recording says and no question was asked about it.

All this tells me that you simply took Bill Brown's side, not because you had listened to the arguments, but simply because he was a fellow LN. And that of course answers your other questions about why I think LNs have bad intent as well.

[Paul J Cummings]

The bullet casings found with Tippit were a 38 automatic revolver which could eject while Oswalds was a 38 revolver which was not an automatic.

"But Oswald being found a half hour within a half mile (as I recall) of the murder scene. Oswald being found with the loaded murder weapon that matched shells found at the scene. Oswald being found with bullets in his pocket of the same type used to kill Officer Tippit. Oswald’s suspicious behavior just before entering the theater and within the theater. And Oswald pulling a gun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater. If I can explain away all this, I can explain away any evidence against anyone. All these things I find incredibly incriminating against Oswald."

[Charles Collins]

Question:

Can someone provide us with a list of witnesses, along with a link or something supporting this claim, who reported seeing JFK’s head moving forward as a result of the headshot during the first three days of the assassination?

Note, this cannot include a person who saw the Zapruder film.

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.

Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.

Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe.

Asking Joe what the purpose of his question is, is an "unreasonable relentless attack"?

Hilarious! What's wrong with you?

[Joe Elliott]

This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.

Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.

I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.

And to clarify, naturally none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza noticed the 1/18 th of a second forward head movement of two inches between z312-z313. But the movement I was asking about was the backwards motion from z313-z318 of about ten inches (as I recall). It seems that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses noticed this at the time. So, it seems reasonable that Dan Rather would also not notice this from his one time viewing of the Zapruder film. Despite what others said, I don't think Dan Rather 'knew' ahead of time exactly what he was going to see in the film and, like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, was so shocked by the head explosion that he did not notice or remember the slow (maximum speed of just under 2 mph) motion of the head and torso backwards during z313-z318.

And on another note, some might claim that Dan Rather did see the brief forward motion of 312-312 of two inches. I don't think that would be possible from a one=time, real time, viewing of the Zapruder film. Certainly highly implausible. It was likely the subconscious of Dan Rather figuring out what he should have seen, not what he actually saw. A common sort of error that people make from a one time viewing of an event, whether in person or on film.

[Charles Collins]

I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.

And to clarify, naturally none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza noticed the 1/18 th of a second forward head movement of two inches between z312-z313. But the movement I was asking about was the backwards motion from z313-z318 of about ten inches (as I recall). It seems that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses noticed this at the time. So, it seems reasonable that Dan Rather would also not notice this from his one time viewing of the Zapruder film. Despite what others said, I don't think Dan Rather 'knew' ahead of time exactly what he was going to see in the film and, like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, was so shocked by the head explosion that he did not notice or remember the slow (maximum speed of just under 2 mph) motion of the head and torso backwards during z313-z318.

And on another note, some might claim that Dan Rather did see the brief forward motion of 312-312 of two inches. I don't think that would be possible from a one=time, real time, viewing of the Zapruder film. Certainly highly implausible. It was likely the subconscious of Dan Rather figuring out what he should have seen, not what he actually saw. A common sort of error that people make from a one time viewing of an event, whether in person or on film.

Okay, I think that I understand your question better now, thanks. And I tend to agree with your assessment. But I would appreciate it if you would refresh my memory regarding when, where, and the circumstances of the viewing that Dan Rather had that you are referring to. Thanks!