Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Brian Roselle]

  So let me get this straight. People for 60+ years have gone on-and-on about there being some kinda "echo" effect there in Dealey Plaza with sound bouncing every which way, yet in the face of this, some of you wanna rely on 11/22/63 Ear Witness Accounts/Testimony to go ahead and justify an extremely early 1st shot. And that extremely early 1st shot would require the shooter to: (1) fire his rifle from a Standing Position, (2) Fire his rifle downward through a 1/2 Open Window, (3) the fired bullet then striking a traffic light support beam, (4) the fired bullet then caroming off, (5) the fired bullet then striking a street curb, and (6) resulting in an injury to some guy standing about a football field away? Do you hear yourselves? Do you have any idea as to how ridiculous all of this sounds?   

Royell, I understand your frustration, but part of it may be related to an incorrect interpretation of the scenario on your part (basically all the items 3 through 6). For example the shot scenario described at z124 would most likely not strike a traffic mast (the traffic mast was significantly behind the President at this point) but rather the bullet would most likely have struck the pavement near, and right below Connally just ahead of JFK. This is what a miss of the President while minimally missing the limo would look like.

Thus the bullet would not carom off anything and go down the street to hit the curb by Tague. It would break up on impact almost underneath the limo. (I personally believe that may be part of what we see Kellerman reacting to in addition to a muzzle blast, by briefly leaning over and looking behind/down to the right at Z148). Without bullet remnants we can't prove that scenario, but that's a simple way a bullet could miss the President and limo and not be found.

This implies that if the curb mark by Tague was related to the shooting, it would likely have been caused from the missing segment of the third/head shot bullet that apparently escaped the limo, on a trajectory in Tague's direction, but was never found. That was a good distance of flight, about 250 ft, but was less than a football field distance.

[Royell Storing]

  Based on All of the mayhem You and Max Holland are describing, like it or not, this mayhem would be the result of: (1) More than 3 shots, and (2) More than 1 shooter.

[Brian Roselle]

Well done Brian. Your “anchored first shot” presentation is excellent. Thanks!

Thanks!  It actually surprised me a bit when I plotted out all the lines of sight and even though they were from very different view angles from both sides of the street, they all converged very closely (except Willis #5)

[Andrew Mason]

You and I interpret Tague’s testimony differently wrt the first shot’s z-frame. This is a good example where not only can witness testimonies differ, but researchers can exacerbate the situation by interpreting any given testimony in a different way.

How do witnesses differ from Tague?

There is no evidence that Tague was struck on the first or third shots.  We only have Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot. 

As far as Tague's recollection of the time between the first and second shots, [Tague said "almost five seconds... maybe four seconds" between the first and second shots?].  That fits with what many other witnesses recalled:

• Robert Jackson: "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." 
• Earl Cabell: "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"
• Lady-Bird Johnson: "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: "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot".
• Bonnie Ray Williams: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember."
• Senator Ralph Yarborough: "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots"
• SA Winston Lawson: "There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two".
• Reporter Robert MacNeil: "And there was a bang and we said: “What was that?  Was that a shot? Was that a backfire?”  And there was time for us to exchange.  And then were two shots close together bang bang"

My effort to mitigate this: I understand that witness testimony can be quite variable.

Yes. Witness evidence can vary.  That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.

[Royell Storing]

How do witnesses differ from Tague?

There is no evidence that Tague was struck on the first or third shots.  We only have Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot. 

As far as Tague's recollection of the time between the first and second shots, [Tague said "almost five seconds... maybe four seconds" between the first and second shots?].  That fits with what many other witnesses recalled:

• Robert Jackson: "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." 
• Earl Cabell: "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"
• Lady-Bird Johnson: "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: "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot".
• Bonnie Ray Williams: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember."
• Senator Ralph Yarborough: "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots"
• SA Winston Lawson: "There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two".
• Reporter Robert MacNeil: "And there was a bang and we said: “What was that?  Was that a shot? Was that a backfire?”  And there was time for us to exchange.  And then were two shots close together bang bang"

Yes. Witness evidence can vary.  That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.

 Was MacNeil seated inside a bus when the shots were fired? The location and surroundings of an "ear" witness are important when considering their testimony regarding the shots being fired.

[Tom Graves]

  So let me get this straight. People for 60+ years have gone on-and-on about there being some kinda "echo" effect there in Dealey Plaza with sound bouncing every which way, yet in the face of this, some of you wanna rely on 11/22/63 Ear Witness Accounts/Testimony to go ahead and justify an extremely early 1st shot. And that extremely early 1st shot would require the shooter to: (1) fire his rifle from a Standing Position, (2) Fire his rifle downward through a 1/2 Open Window, (3) the fired bullet then striking a traffic light support beam, (4) the fired bullet then caroming off, (5) the fired bullet then striking a street curb, and (6) resulting in an injury to some guy standing about a football field away? Do you hear yourselves? Do you have any idea as to how ridiculous all of this sounds?   

Roselle's and Scearce's 2020 study (have you read it?) did not involve analyzing "earwitness accounts" in the traditional meaning of the term, but analyzing the caught-on-film timing of the conscious (i.e., not "startle") head movements made by seven witnesses (including JFK, Jackie, JBC and Nellie) in reaction to the unexpected sounds and vibrations of the first, missing-everything, shot.

You keep harping on how unlikely is that an early shot hit the traffic signal's mast arm and continued down Elm Street to injure James Tague. Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize that that isn't at issue here because Roselle's and Scearce's shot was at "Z-124," not at Max Holland's "Z-107" and therefore couldn't have hit said mast arm.

It seems that you're so iconoclastic that you don't want to consider the possibility that Tague was nicked by a bullet fragment from the Z-313 fatal head shot, which Brian Roselle has proved to himself may indeed have happened, and which he has, btw, written about at another forum.

[Brian Roselle]

How do witnesses differ from Tague?

There is no evidence that Tague was struck on the first or third shots.  We only have Tague's evidence that he was struck on the second shot. 

As far as Tague's recollection of the time between the first and second shots, [Tague said "almost five seconds... maybe four seconds" between the first and second shots?].  That fits with what many other witnesses recalled:

• Robert Jackson: "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." 
• Earl Cabell: "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"
• Lady-Bird Johnson: "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: "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot".
• Bonnie Ray Williams: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember."
• Senator Ralph Yarborough: "After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots"
• SA Winston Lawson: "There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer together, two and three were closer together than one and two".
• Reporter Robert MacNeil: "And there was a bang and we said: “What was that?  Was that a shot? Was that a backfire?”  And there was time for us to exchange.  And then were two shots close together bang bang"

Yes. Witness evidence can vary.  That is why one looks at ALL the evidence before rejecting evidence. In the case of the shot spacing, however, the witnesses overwhelmingly recalled that the space between shots 2 and 3 was rapid and there was a long pause after the first before the second. I counted 48 such witnesses. I also found 10 who thought the shots were evenly spaced and 6 who thought the first two were closer together and a few who remembered that two were closer together but could not remember whether it was the first two or last two.

Tague vacillated over the years about being hit at shot two or shot three. I think near the end he did settle in that it was probably shot three.

I’d like to touch base on the debate over shot spacing. I think the shot spacing issue from testimony is interesting and could use more study to explain why there was a lot of testimony suggesting a compressed time for the last two shots.
The timing studies/estimates I have done indicate the shots were triggered at about z124, z219, z310. They were roughly equally spaced about 5 seconds apart. These times were based mostly on the forensics of film evaluation, considering both voluntary and involuntary human reactions, but not based on testimony. I am confident in the shot timing as estimated based on human reactions and prefer not to use witness testimony.

Separate from the conflicting analysis I get when not using witness testimony, there are a couple other reasons I have not been sold on the claim of an actual compressed time between shot 2 and 3 vs 1 and 2.

1)   There is a lot of testimony contrary to the shot 2 to 3 time compression vs 1 to 2.
-   I haven’t done a survey on this topic, but the general feeling I got when listening to witnesses in person on video recently when doing some general witness reviews is that there are nearly as many that think the spacing was about equal vs compressed.
The most recent ones I recall are that Karen Westbrook Scranton recalled two shots, lull, then one shot, which is the opposite of later time compression. Dave Wiegman had a very intense memory of the shots being equally spaced. Malcome Kilduff recalled the shots sounded precisely/exactly alike and Pierce Allman said three well space reverberating shots. Hugh Aynesworth first thought a motorcycle backfire, but it wasn’t, that was the first shot, then soon, a few seconds the second shot and then a third. He did not say unequal spacing but the shots were spaced fairly close together.
-   A researcher on another forum had done some research in Dallas awhile back and met a group of people with Mary Ferrell which comprised some Daltex workers from Nov 22 63 and they met for coffee…ladies, about 6 of them who were watching from the second floor and they all said the shots were about even. He also met ~23 witnesses and did not recall anyone saying the shots were bunched.
-   One witness, Faye Chism, saw a spray, like sparks, shoot up from the pavement about midway up the side of the limo by JFK during the first shot but did think the last two sounds after that were closer together.

Net, I am not sure what the true ratio is for witnesses of equal spacing vs compressed spacing for the last two shots.

2)   Nearly everybody changed their testimony which might give a clue as to how time perception may have changed during the last two shots. This dynamic should probably get more attention as recent studies indicate anxiety can make people underestimate how much time actually passes. I wonder if this may have played a role in the perceived time estimation between shots 2 and 3.

-   Nearly everyone that afternoon reported they heard an initial loud bang, some had a concern at that point but many were just annoyed and wanted to know what the hell it was.  Many thought it was a firecracker, but most soon realized it was followed by two shots. So technically their testimony initially was (firecracker, shot, shot). I don’t know of anyone who later on still maintained that initial perception of (firecracker, shot, shot) so everyone based on what they were told, or individually figured out, changed their testimony to (shot, shot, shot) i.e. three shots.

All the changing of testimony doesn’t make one feel warm and fuzzy, but in this case is probably justified and might shed light on how they perceived the spacing between the last two noises (two shots) vs the spacing between first two noises (a firecracker and a shot).

On the Zapruder film it seems that most of the ducking to the ground happened after the third shot, and that is when fear really set in. Between shot two and three was a transition to anxiety as the realization set in of gunshots going off around them, not firecrackers. Uncertainty and anxiety are believed to play a role in the perception of time passage.

A study at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London was designed to understand the effect anxiety and fear have on how we perceive time.
The researchers found that when people feel anxious, they underestimate how much time passes. In other words, anxiety makes time pass quicker. On the other hand, some people tend to slightly overestimate it when they feel afraid.

Could this mean 5 actual seconds between shots 2 and 3 was perceived by some to be like 2 or 3 seconds?