Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Dan O'meara, Sean Kneringer, Andrew Mason

Author Topic: When Was JBC Hit?  (Read 159065 times)

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1439
Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Reply #406 on: Today at 12:32:03 AM »
Sitzman described the shots as a noise off in the distance. Nothing compared to the sirens or the coke bottle smashing.
This rules out Jiggle Analysis as a valid approach to the Z-film. The noise of the shots wasn't enough to startle Zapruder.

Nonsense. JBC recognized the first shot as the sound of a high powered rifle. It was plenty loud.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3811
Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Reply #407 on: Today at 12:23:08 PM »
Nonsense. JBC recognized the first shot as the sound of a high powered rifle. It was plenty loud.
Wow. 35 years research and this is the best you can do.
In all those years of intense study you must have noticed that different witnesses were located in different positions.
JBC had just passed the front of the TSBD building and was clearly in LoS of the shooter so, of course he would have heard the shot clearly. There are other witnesses positioned in front of the building who describe the shots as being very loud.
However, and here you might have to consult your copious notes made over the years, Zapruder and Sitzman were located on the west side of the building, not directly in front.
This affected how they heard the shots.

This is from Sitzman's Oral History interview given in '93:

"The last shot that we heard was right in front of us and it was like the same sound—far off and to the left...
...the sound we heard… the third sound still sounded a distance because if it had been as close as everybody’s trying to tell us...we would have jumped sky-high.
[referring to a young couple sat a few feet away] ...they were sitting in a park bench and they dropped their pop bottle on that cement there and cracked it. That’s what kind of woke us up, and that’s when we got down off of the concrete. But that sound was, like, five… eight feet from us. That, yeah, we did hear, but that’s the only other sound other than that far away sound that we heard."

Here we have a witness, stood next to Zapruder, describing the sound of the shots as "far off".
Because you are a Tinfoil Nutter any witness that undermines or disproves any fraction of your spoon-fed beliefs about this case, is dismissed or are talking nonsense.
I've no doubt you believe you treat all the evidence fairly but this is not the case. Here is a witness who completely undermines your naive approach to the issue of the shots but, because you are so utterly deluded, you believe you know better  ::)

Funnily enough, in an interview with Josiah Thompson Sitzman disagrees with the notion of jiggle analysis, presumably because the sound of the shots was so distant it couldn't have caused a startled reaction.
Zapruder was an old man with vertigo stood on a narrow plinth taking a home movie. To expect a completely smooth tracking shot is ridiculous. Jiggle Analysis is over as a method of analysing the Z-film. Get over it.



Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1439
Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Reply #408 on: Today at 01:05:12 PM »
Wow. 35 years research and this is the best you can do.

It's the best I need in this case.
Quote

In all those years of intense study you must have noticed that different witnesses were located in different positions.

Yes I did. I noticed Sitzman was behind Zapruder.
Quote

JBC had just passed the front of the TSBD building and was clearly in LoS of the shooter so, of course he would have heard the shot clearly. There are other witnesses positioned in front of the building who describe the shots as being very loud.
However, and here you might have to consult your copious notes made over the years, Zapruder and Sitzman were located on the west side of the building, not directly in front.
This affected how they heard the shots.

So you think sound only travels in a vector?
Quote

This is from Sitzman's Oral History interview given in '93:

"The last shot that we heard was right in front of us and it was like the same sound—far off and to the left...
...the sound we heard… the third sound still sounded a distance because if it had been as close as everybody’s trying to tell us...we would have jumped sky-high.
[referring to a young couple sat a few feet away] ...they were sitting in a park bench and they dropped their pop bottle on that cement there and cracked it. That’s what kind of woke us up, and that’s when we got down off of the concrete. But that sound was, like, five… eight feet from us. That, yeah, we did hear, but that’s the only other sound other than that far away sound that we heard."

Oh, goody. Another version of what happened from an ear witness. Just how many different ways do you think the JFKA happened?
Quote

Here we have a witness, stood next to Zapruder, describing the sound of the shots as "far off".
Because you are a Tinfoil Nutter any witness that undermines or disproves any fraction of your spoon-fed beliefs about this case, is dismissed or are talking nonsense.

Eye and earwitness accounts don't prove anything unless you can prove the witness' account is accurate. I trust people's observed reactions far more than I trust their recollections. The Newmans, who were not far from Zapruder reacted by pushing their kids on the ground and shielding them with their bodies.
Quote

I've no doubt you believe you treat all the evidence fairly but this is not the case. Here is a witness who completely undermines your naive approach to the issue of the shots but, because you are so utterly deluded, you believe you know better  ::)

You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account. I always get a chuckle when somebody starts and argument with, "So-and-so said....." as if what so-and-so said. People choose to believe the witnesses who support what they want to believe. Because there are so many differing versions of what happened, it's not hard to find a witness who will support your argument. I don't accept any witness' account that can't be corroborated through other evidence. We have visual evidence that Zapruder's camera shook noticeably 7-8 frames after the second shot was fired and 7-8 frames after the third shot was fired. Is that just a coincidence? It would have taken about 4 frames for the sound of the muzzle blast to reach Zapruder's ears which leaves another 3-4 frames for a startle reaction, about what that should take.
Quote

Funnily enough, in an interview with Josiah Thompson Sitzman disagrees with the notion of jiggle analysis, presumably because the sound of the shots was so distant it couldn't have caused a startled reaction.

That is one of the dumbest things I have read on this forum. It is silly to think the sound of the muzzle blast would have dissipated in just 90 yard. You want to be all your eggs in the Sitzman basket as if her account is the definitive story of the JFKA. Foolish.
Quote

Zapruder was an old man with vertigo stood on a narrow plinth taking a home movie. To expect a completely smooth tracking shot is ridiculous. Jiggle Analysis is over as a method of analysing the Z-film. Get over it.

Funny how his vertigo only kicked in 7-8 frames after the second and third shots.