When Was JBC Hit?

[John Corbett]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[John Corbett]

Wow. 35 years research and this is the best you can do.

It's the best I need in this case.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Dan O'meara]

It's the best I need in this case.
Yes I did. I noticed Sitzman was behind Zapruder.
So you think sound only travels in a vector?
Oh, goody. Another version of what happened from an ear witness. Just how many different ways do you think the JFKA happened?
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.
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.
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.
Funny how his vertigo only kicked in 7-8 frames after the second and third shots.

As expected, a witness gives evidence undermining your naive understanding of this issue and she is totally dismissed.
This is no great shock.
Your post is full of the usual lunacy but this cannot be ignored:

You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account.

The issue at hand is whether or not the sound of the shots were loud enough to startle Zapruder at his location and create 'jiggle' in the Z-film.
My approach has been to take the witness testimony of someone stood right next to Zapruder. This witness reports the sound of the shots was "far off" and a "far away sound". They were certainly not enough to create 'jiggle' in the film.
The distant nature of this sound might explain why neither Zapruder or Sitzman could confidently recall how many shots they heard.
This is evidence directly contradicting the reliability of Jiggle Analysis regarding the Z-film.
However, you insist there is a "wealth of evidence" countering Sitzman's testimony. This is utter nonsense. It's a falsehood. An untruth.
There is not a single scrap of evidence that the shots were loud enough to create a startle reflex at Zapruder's location - not a single scrap!

The problem is your delusion - you believe you are right no matter what. You believe this "wealth of evidence" must exist because you sooo believe you are right
But it does not.
There is not a chance in hell that you will retract the falsehood you have posted, which will make it a deliberate falsehood - a lie.

Please provide this "wealth of evidence" that the sound of the shots was loud enough to create a startle reflex from at Zapruder's position.

[John Corbett]

As expected, a witness gives evidence undermining your naive understanding of this issue and she is totally dismissed.
This is no great shock.
Your post is full of the usual lunacy but this cannot be ignored:

You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account.

The issue at hand is whether or not the sound of the shots were loud enough to startle Zapruder at his location and create 'jiggle' in the Z-film.
My approach has been to take the witness testimony of someone stood right next to Zapruder. This witness reports the sound of the shots was "far off" and a "far away sound". They were certainly not enough to create 'jiggle' in the film.
The distant nature of this sound might explain why neither Zapruder or Sitzman could confidently recall how many shots they heard.[/quoe]

I've heard my neighbor taking target practice a quarter mile away. I know how loud that is. Even with my windows closed, it scares the hell out of my dogs.

This is evidence directly contradicting the reliability of Jiggle Analysis regarding the Z-film.

Jiggle analysis is an established concept. It is far more compelling than your analysis of Sitzman's statement. Can you name one other witness in DP who said the shots sounded like they were from a distance?

However, you insist there is a "wealth of evidence" countering Sitzman's testimony. This is utter nonsense. It's a falsehood. An untruth.

There is a complete lack of evidence to support Sitzman.

There is not a single scrap of evidence that the shots were loud enough to create a startle reflex at Zapruder's location - not a single scrap!

Other than the fact Zapruder's camera jiggled 7-8 frames after the second shot and 7-8 frames after the third shot. Just a coincidence I suppose.

The problem is your delusion - you believe you are right no matter what.

That's not a delusion.

You believe this "wealth of evidence" must exist because you sooo believe you are right

I know I am right because I know what the evidence is and I am capable of applying common sense. Anyone who does not reach the same conclusion is missing at least one of those qualities.

But it does not.
There is not a chance in hell that you will retract the falsehood you have posted, which will make it a deliberate falsehood - a lie.

I do not lie and on the rare occasion in which I have made a mistake, I own up to it.

Please provide this "wealth of evidence" that the sound of the shots was loud enough to create a startle reflex from at Zapruder's position.

It created a startle response in JBC and Rosemary Willis. It caused Bennett to turn away from the crowd he was observing and immediately turn to look at JFK. It caused two of the agents on the Queen Mary running board to turn around and look to the rear. It caused the Newmans to push their kids onto the ground and shield them with their bodies. But you're willing to dismiss all those reactions because Sitzman said the shots seemed to be from a distance. Damn, CTs are so bad at weighing evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Jiggle analysis is an established concept. It is far more compelling than your analysis of Sitzman's statement. Can you name one other witness in DP who said the shots sounded like they were from a distance?
There is a complete lack of evidence to support Sitzman.
Other than the fact Zapruder's camera jiggled 7-8 frames after the second shot and 7-8 frames after the third shot. Just a coincidence I suppose.
That's not a delusion.
I know I am right because I know what the evidence is and I am capable of applying common sense. Anyone who does not reach the same conclusion is missing at least one of those qualities.
I do not lie and on the rare occasion in which I have made a mistake, I own up to it.
It created a startle response in JBC and Rosemary Willis. It caused Bennett to turn away from the crowd he was observing and immediately turn to look at JFK. It caused two of the agents on the Queen Mary running board to turn around and look to the rear. It caused the Newmans to push their kids onto the ground and shield them with their bodies. But you're willing to dismiss all those reactions because Sitzman said the shots seemed to be from a distance. Damn, CTs are so bad at weighing evidence.

 
I knew this was going to be funny but I never had any idea..
So, I've asked Mr Corbett to offer up his "wealth of evidence" that the sound of the shots at Zapruder's location were loud enough to cause a startle reaction, thus creating the 'jiggle' effect. .
It was a bit sneaky on my behalf because I knew there wasn't any evidence supporting such a thing and that the only real evidence - Sitzman's witness statements - completely contradicted this notion.
But I also know that Mr Corbett is a deluded Tinfoil Nutter who, like all of his ilk, believes that if he says it, then it is right.
So here is his litany of evidence that demonstrates the sound of the shots was loud enough to startle in his location in DP according to Mr Corbett:

1] I've heard my neighbor taking target practice a quarter mile away. I know how loud that is.  [ ]
2] It created a startle response in JBC and Rosemary Willis
3] It caused Bennett to turn away from the crowd he was observing and immediately turn to look at JFK
4] It caused two of the agents on the Queen Mary running board to turn around and look to the rear
5] It caused the Newmans to push their kids onto the ground and shield them with their bodies

He then finishes off with this beauty of a statement - " Damn, CTs are so bad at weighing evidence." 
Let's see how good Mr Corbett is at "weighing evidence". Let's see how strong this "wealth of evidence" is.
None of these points demonstrates (or even hints) that the sounds were loud enough to cause a startle reaction in Zapruder at his location west of the building. Remember, Sitzman states on more than one occasion that the sound of the shots was distant - "far away".
We can dispense with point 1]. That's just so funny.
Point 2] Rosemary Willis??  There is no evidence of a startle reaction by either JBC or Willis 
Point 3] This a reaction. Not a startle reaction.
Point 4] This is a reaction. Not a startle reaction
Point 5] The Newman's hit the deck after seeing JFK's head explode.

In this wealth of evidence there is nothing to suggest a startle reaction. I think Mr Corbett doesn't understand the difference between reacting to something and being startled by it.
Jackie Kennedy, sat very close to JBC, says she wasn't even aware something was wrong until Connally "screamed like a stuck pig". So much for startled.
What a piss-poor attempt to cobble together some evidence by Mr Corbett.
Why not just accept the witness testimony of Sitzman? Why not do that?

PS: This is my favourite part of the post:

That's not a delusion.
I know I am right because I know what the evidence is...

You know you're right?
Hmmmm....

[John Corbett]

PS: This is my favourite part of the post:

That's not a delusion.
I know I am right because I know what the evidence is...

You know you're right?
Hmmmm....

I'm not surprised that the concept of drawing conclusions from evidence is foreign to you. You prefer to pull your conclusions out of your ass.