JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

<< < (15/51) > >>

Andrew Mason:

--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on January 30, 2023, 11:31:48 PM ---It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.
--- End quote ---
It is a matter of NOT interpreting - just read them:
Robert H. Jackson (2 H 159):

* "Then we realized or we thought that it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. ... I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure. "Linda Willis (7 H 498):

* "Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went. "Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell(7 H 478)

* "I heard the shot. Mrs. Cabell said, “Oh a gun” or “a shot”, and I was about to deny and say “Oh it must have been a firecracker” when the second and the third shots rang out. There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession. There was no mistaking in my mind after that, that they were shots from a high-powered rifle". Lady Bird Johnson (5 H 564):

* "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."Luke Mooney (3 H 282):

* "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot."
--- Quote ---So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.



You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.
--- End quote ---
Right. Maybe they were just drying some wet string.


--- Quote ---The model does not represent the Warren Commission's final word on the shot sequence, other than options they might have considered.
--- End quote ---
Obviously, it does not represent their final word.  They endorsed the SBT after all.  But you seem to think that one has to be on magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen to even begin to think that this could be where the shots occurred. I don't think Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford were into drugs.  (Not sure about McCloy).


--- Quote ---See Dave Reitzes' tabulation. ( Link ) "My preliminary finding is that 58 witnesses reported that the second two shots were timed more closely together, 39 reported that the shots were timed about evenly, and 15 reported that the first two shots were timed more closely together. " See this Link for review of Mason's "JFK hit on first shot; no one saw him smile" witnesses.

--- End quote ---
Reitzes numbers are, in large part, based on statements made long after the events that are not documented in evidence. Many quotes are from Larry Sneed who claims to have interviewed witnesses for his 1998 book "No More Silence".  He cites TE Moore as an evenly spaced witness based on something said to Sneed decades after the event, but ignores Moore's original statement in which he said that the first shot occurred by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign (z200), that he observed the President slumping and then heard two more shots.  That puts the last two shots after JFK starts slumping (ie. after z225).   Reitzes uses Emmett Hudson as an "evenly spaced" witness but ignores his 22Nov63 statement in which he stated: “he then heard two more loud reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot.” 


--- Quote ---Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".
--- End quote ---
I don't interpret.  I read.  He either saw what he said he saw or he was just making it up and lying.  I don't accept that he was lying.


--- Quote ---Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.
--- End quote ---
The turn reaction starts about 1/2 a second after hearing the shot which I place at z271-272. That is not an unusual reaction delay.  He may have been already thinking about turning after hearing the first shot and hearing JBC screaming "Oh, no, no" around z245.

Joe Elliott:

Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.

Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.

In popular history, the trial of witches in the late Middle Ages was a great tragedy, resulting in the needless death of thousands of innocent women. But what does the witness testimony have to say? In thousands of cases eyewitnesses testified before judges about the witchcraft they observed. The support for the practicing of witchcraft is overwhelmingly supported by eyewitness testimony. Surely, they couldn't have all been lying or mistaken. If we have the same faith that Andrew Mason has in eyewitnesses, we would have to say that popular history is wrong. That much harm was averted by the death of all those witches.

Or on the question of Bigfoot. Rational thinking says they don't exist. If we can't capture one, surely we could shoot and kill one. Or get one run over by a car. Or if that is not big enough, a logging truck. Or find a body, Or a skeleton. Or at least a skull. If nothing else, we should at least be able to find EDNA of an unknown primate, as we can find the EDNA of other animals like bears and lynxes. But year after year, nothing turns up. And yet, the eyewitness evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is overwhelming. Thousands have seen a Bigfoot. Surely not all those witnesses could be lying or mistaken.

Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons. A belief that witchcraft is real, that Bigfoot is real, can influence what people perceive. A plausible reason why Bigfoot sightings were so rare before 1958, but much more common afterwards, particularly after the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. The Crack-Thump of a single rifle shot can be mistaken for two shots. And is perhaps more easily mistaken for two shots for a longer shot at 88 yards than ones at 63 or 43 yards. Or the sound of the shot and of a bullet fragment striking  the metal windshield frame. Their are possible explanations for witnesses being mistaken in 1963.

As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.

Andrew Mason:

--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on February 03, 2023, 02:41:58 AM ---Andrew Mason places a lot of faith in witnesses. I don't.

Suppose we place faith in eyewitnesses on other questions.
--- End quote ---
Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?




--- Quote ---Witnesses can be mistaken. For all sorts of reasons.

As a skeptic, I don't see why witness perceptions should be the last word in what happened. Particularly when so many witnesses disagree with each other.

--- End quote ---
Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled.:


Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27

 In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them.  How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts?  (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).

Joe Elliott:


--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on February 03, 2023, 06:02:43 PM ---Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?


Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled.:


Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27

 In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them.  How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts?  (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).

--- End quote ---

The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.

Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:


--- Quote ---This KLIF bulletin from Dallas: Three shots reportedly were fired at the motorcade of President Kennedy today near the downtown section. KLIF News is checking out the report. We will have further reports. Stay tuned.

--- End quote ---

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.

I think it is possible that people might not remember the number of shots, as surprising as that may seem. The motorcycles backfired a lot. People might think it was a backfire. As late as z-312, it is clear that most people, not in the limousine or the follow up Secret Service car, realized that shots had been fired. Many were still clapping at that point. Without realizing in real time, that shots had been fired, and pre-occupied with seeing the President, they likely would not have kept a count of the number of "backfires/shots".

Why would people be wrong so much about the timing of the shots?

It would be easy to mistake the last shot, the shot at z-312, as two separate shots. A rifle shot makes a "Crack-Thump" sound, a double sound. This would be most distinct for the final shot, the one at 88 yards. For the shots at 43 and 63 yards, the "Crack-Thump" might come too close together to recognize as two separate sounds. Also, a fragment from the third shot struck metal, the windshield frame. This did not happen with the first shot.

I, of course, am not an expert on the perception of rifle sounds, but is plausible that at a shorter range, the "Crack-Thump" are too close together to perceive as two separate sounds. But at longer ranges, they are. And, for all I know, that transition may happen at around 75 yards.

If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.

If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".

In short, there are two different reasons a lot of witnesses get the spacing wrong. The third shot is the one most likely to be mistaken for two shots right on top of each other. And witnesses may have been influenced by over-hearing other witnesses, particularly over-hearing a "Bang-Bang" witness.

Andrew Mason:

--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on February 04, 2023, 10:25:01 PM ---The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.
--- End quote ---
But there is a big difference between a human's ability to hear and count the number of shots and its ability to determine the direction of the source.  It is not hard to hear three shots and recall the number of shots correctly, particularly if there was a pattern, such as 1, a space and then 2 together.  Direction is an entirely different matter and our brains are easily fooled or confused by nearby surfaces that reflect sound.

There is an easy way to tell if witnesses are simply poor witnesses or if they have been fooled or confused bu something they have in common.  There is no reason to think that poor witnesses will tend to collect in a certain area. Their geographical distribution should be random.

The difference in perception of the direction of the shots (which is determined by our brains from the difference in time between the arrival of the sound wavefront at each ear) is not random. If they were just poor witnesses, perception would not depend on where they were situated at the time of the shots - but they were.

Most of the witnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD or near the corner of Houston and Main were located near that corner or were in the TSBD itself (ie. the three men on the floor below the SN, Secret Service Agents behind the President, the Cabells, occupants of the press car).  The witnesses farther along Elm or Houston St.  where reflections from nearby surfaces such as the Pergolas or from the Triple Underpass were much more likely to report that they thought the shots came from a different direction (eg. Mary Woodward, John and Faye Chism, Chief Curry, Richard Dodd, S.M. Holland, Jean Hill, Orville Nix).  Many were just confused as to where the shots came from, which may have been because echos from multiple reflective surfaces nearby created uncertainty.


--- Quote ---Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.
--- End quote ---
Right.  The Secret Service, the Connallys, Mary Woodward, all the people waiting to give statements in the Sheriff's office were listening to KLIF.  Even that fanciful possibility does not explain why they would report a particular pattern to the shots though, does it?


--- Quote ---If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.
--- End quote ---
Very few witnesses said that the space between the last two shots was as short as the time between the supersonic compression wave (crack) and the muzzle blast. The ability to hear the "crack" depends on how close one is to the bullet path.  For a person located close to the bullet path at a distance of 100 m from the muzzle, the bullet (610 m/s - travel time 163 ms) arrives 130 ms before the muzzle blast (343 m/s - travel time 291 ms.).  It is difficult to understand how anyone would confuse the two sounds that close as two rifle shots.  Many said there was a distinct space between the last two.

Allan Sweatt: 19 H 531 (Decker exhibit).

* “I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot”.or Forrest Sorrels: 21 H 548 and 7 H 345.
* “There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.”or Eugene Boone: 3 H 292.
* “there seemed to be a pause between the first shot and the second shot and third shots-a little longer pause. or Arnold Rowland: 19 H 494 (Decker exhibit). 
* “and then in about 8 seconds I heard another report and in about 3 seconds a third report”or Wm. Shelley: 6 H 329.
* “Well, I heard something sounded like it was a firecracker and a slight pause and then two more a little bit closer together.or James Romak: 6 H 280.
* Mr. BELIN. Did it sound like the shots were faster than it could be operated with a bolt action rifle?
Mr. ROMACK. No, sir." or James Altgens: 7 H 520
* "They seemed to be at almost regular intervals and they were quick.”or Thomas Dillard: WC 6 H 164.
* "I heard three-the three approximately equally spaced."

--- Quote ---If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".
--- End quote ---
But you can't simply 'discard' a witness recollection because you have a hunch they might be wrong.  The suggestion that they might have confused a shot sound with a supersonic crack that one can only hear if one is close to the bullet path is not consistent with any of the evidence that I have found except, perhaps, Roy Kellerman. Even Hickey, who was close to the bullet path, described two distinct shots having two different effects.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page