A Closer Look…

[Charles Collins]

This clip that Jerry Organ made to show some of the crowd on the east side of Houston Street seems to show one man (red circle) ducking as he turns away from the motorcade. This morning I also noticed a passenger (blue circle) in the left rear seat of the VP car apparently ducking.




Here’s the clip:



It appears to me that the left arm comes down off of the side of the car and the head ducks downward. Take a look and be your own judge.

[Richard Smith]

I agree completely. So how were the witnesses reliable when it comes to the number of shots but not reliable as to the pattern of the shots, the rapidity of the last two shots, where JFK was when the first shot occurred and how he responded to it?

And all of the evidence that is being rejected as unreliable all fits together:  the shot pattern with the last two close together requires JFK to be hit by the first shot.  The estimated 2:1 ratio recalled by several witnesses would  mean the first shot had to have occurred just before JFK is seen reacting when he emerges from behind the sign, which fits with the witnesses who said that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot.

Perhaps, the more important question is: how is it that all these witnesses were mistaken but in a way that the mistakes are all mutually consistent?

The question of how many shots were fired doesn't require the witness to provide any subjective description or interpretation.  It is a quantitative question and answer.  The witness might be wrong but what is being asked and answered is clear.  When you start asking about "shot patterns" or "reactions" you begin to stray into individual interpretations of events using language that can be interpreted in different ways.  That's not to say that it can't be informative, but the answers are filtered through the witness description of events and whomever is trying to interpret their answers.  Often with a bias.   Most witnesses said three shots were fired.  Three shell casings were found.  That's compelling. 

[Charles Collins]

A bird’s eye view shows us the relative positions of the vehicles around the point in time of all of these reactions. Notice the gap between the queen Mary vehicle (6) and the VP car (7).




Although we don’t see Rosemary Willis in this clip, I believe that we do see Rosemary’s baby um, sister and mother (circled in yellow). Notice that it appears that both mother and daughter have snapped their heads to look towards the upper levels of the TSBD. It appears that they both are holding their right hand up towards that direction. Both of these Willis ladies reacted the same way simultaneously and at the same instant that the lady that Jerry Organ first noticed snapping her head around. The Willis ladies quickly swing their heads back around towards JFK’s direction just like the one that Jerry originally noticed. Rosemary Willis can be seen further along (to the camera right) if we were looking at the entire Zapruder film capture instead of a partial frame closeup. And if I remember correctly Rosemary snaps her head around towards the TSBD at this same moment in time. I believe that Gerda Dunkel did an excellent clip of Rosemary doing just that. So, there are four ladies that we can see snapping their heads around towards the TSBD at the same time. And for those who might think these ladies were waving at someone in the motorcade, there is no one to wave at due to the gap shown above in the birdseye view.











Edit: That is apparently not Mrs Willis. I have been told that she is elsewhere in Dealey Plaza.

[Andrew Mason]

The question of how many shots were fired doesn't require the witness to provide any subjective description or interpretation.  It is a quantitative question and answer.  The witness might be wrong but what is being asked and answered is clear.  When you start asking about "shot patterns" or "reactions" you begin to stray into individual interpretations of events using language that can be interpreted in different ways.  That's not to say that it can't be informative, but the answers are filtered through the witness description of events and whomever is trying to interpret their answers.  Often with a bias.   Most witnesses said three shots were fired.  Three shell casings were found.  That's compelling.

So how is it that so many of those witnesses all made the same mistaken subjective impression that the last two were close together and there was a longer pause between the first two?:


And why would the pattern be more difficult to get right than the number of shots?  Wouldn’t that kind of pattern make it easier to remember how many shots there were?

[Jack Nessan]

So how is it that so many of those witnesses all made the same mistaken subjective impression that the last two were close together and there was a longer pause between the first two?:


And why would the pattern be more difficult to get right than the number of shots?  Wouldn’t that kind of pattern make it easier to remember how many shots there were?

What a truly interesting graph. Horribly misleading but interesting. Can you break it down further and explain how all the numerous variations of these statements were tabulated or was the word “three” the sole parameter even if the witnesses, especially two shot eyewitnesses, had stated a completely different account earlier.

[Andrew Mason]

What a truly interesting graph. Horribly misleading but interesting. Can you break it down further and explain how all the numerous variations of these statements were tabulated or was the word “three” the sole parameter even if the witnesses, especially two shot eyewitnesses, had stated a completely different account earlier.

It is set out here. The evidence relating to shot pattern starts on page 7.

[Jack Nessan]

It is set out here. The evidence relating to shot pattern starts on page 7.

Unbelievable, three shots really were your only parameter and nothing else mattered. Early statements completely ignored.

You turned your twisted and tortured interpretations of witness statements into a graph? Are you sure you want people to read it and know what you did?  It is full of the inconsistencies mentioned. Still no proof there was even a third shot except for your opinion.


A small sampling of the people that are part of your three shot graph.

Hickey: last two shots were so close together they sounded like one shot. 

BR Williams; Two shot witness

James Jarmin: second shot is the head shot. 

Mary Woodward; First shot missed. All shots took place after Z207.

Seriously Andrew, give it up. Your belief Clint Hill missed hearing a shot while running to JFK's limo at Z310, is it in the graph anywhere?