Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Tom Graves]

You're ugly and out of shape.

I'm 6'3" tall and weigh 240 lbs.

Bearing in mind that "You should never pick a fight with a really ugly guy" (like me), wanna go a couple of rounds, Comrade?

[Dan O'meara]

Photographic evidence trumps (pardon the pun) witnesses' fragile and highly malleable memories of a chaotic event in which they correctly or incorrectly perceived their own lives were in danger, xxxx xxxx.

The last word rhymes with "muck."

What a meaningless nothing of a post.
You really shouldn't have bothered as it is such a weak response.
I don't doubt for a second that you will continue to accept the results of this 'study' and believe in your 10.2 seconds, you seem like that kind of person.
For what it's worth, a combination of witness testimony and the photographic/film record trumps swallowing down any old hogwash that comes along.
For you to call me "brainwashed" is unreal.

[Tom Graves]

What a meaningless nothing of a post.
You really shouldn't have bothered as it is such a weak response.
I don't doubt for a second that you will continue to accept the results of this 'study' and believe in your 10.2 seconds, you seem like that kind of person.
For what it's worth, a combination of witness testimony and the photographic/film record trumps swallowing down any old hogwash that comes along.
For you to call me "brainwashed" is unreal.

I've edited it for you, xxxx xxxx.

Here it is:

When you posted: "Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens-6. However, when we take a closer look at Zapruder we see no meaningful reaction from them (Hickey looks briefly over the side of the car but then returns to his original position). The partial footage of the Z-film below focuses on the follow-up car. It runs from z133 to z207. At no point do we see any meaningful reaction from the agents mentioned above," it's apparent that by "meaningful" you mean that said observable reactions don't make sense in your fanciful tinfoil-hat conspiracy-theory scenario.

Once again for xxxx xxxx: Photographic evidence trumps (pardon the pun) witnesses' highly malleable memories of a loud, unexpected chaotic event in which they correctly or incorrectly perceived their own lives were in danger.

Reminder: The last word rhymes with "muck."

[Tom Graves]

This is bumped for you Tommy.
Have you seen the light about your little study? Have you revised your 10.2 second belief?

So, what's at the heart of this paper that has got Tommy boy so moist.
It's an 'analysis' of a handful of people in the Z-film (ignoring the hundreds of other people shown who apparently don't count)
It's supposed to be an analysis of startled reactions to the sound of a shot but, as we shall see, very few of the reactions are actually startled.
In reality, this is nothing more than projecting an interpretation on to a few people turning their heads.
But don't take my word for it.
Here is the heart of the 'study':



The tables describe the 'reactions' of certain people beginning at various z-frames. All Roselle and Scearce had to do was compare these reactions with the testimonies of these people to very quickly discover that they were simply wishing their own interpretations onto the Z-film.
For instance, Jackie Kennedy said she wasn't even aware of a first shot until John Connally started screaming like "stuck pig".  So how Roselle and Scearce can interpret her movements as being a reaction to the loud sound of a shot is truly baffling.
John Connally testified that JFK was hit by the first shot. This clearly does not happen when Roselle and Scearce propose Connally is reacting to the first shot.
Why didn't they compare their subjective interpretations of what they thought they were seeing in the Z-film to the actual testimony of the people they were focusing on??

Roy Kellerman.
According to the study, Kellerman begins to react to the first shot around z148

"Begins leaning over and looking behind/down to the right"

This is what Kellerman had to say about the first shot in his WC testimony:

"As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear..."

They were "away from the buildings", presumably meaning the TSBD building and there was a sign they had just passed and "you are out in the open".
The sign in question was the Thorntons Freeway sign.
The Tyler frame below shows the position of the presidential limo at z148. The Thornton sign is in the red circle.
The presidential limo in which Kellerman was riding has clearly not passed the Thornton sign. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if it's "away from the buildings".



Does Kellerman's testimony match up with the findings of the study?
Not really.

George Hickey
According to the study, Hickey begins to react around z143/z144:

"Begins leaning over to the left looking down in the direction of the rear tire or ground"

This is what Hickey actually had to say about the first shot:

"I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything."

In the study, Roselle and Scearce believe Hickey's reaction to the first shot is to look down to the left. In reality, his reaction is completely opposite - he turns to the right rear.
In fact, there is photographic evidence of Hickey's reaction to the first shot:

In Altgens 6 we see Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD, presumably in response to the sound of gunfire:


Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."

Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."

Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "

Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6. However, when we take a closer look at Zapruder we see no meaningful reaction from them (Hickey looks briefly over the side of the car but then returns to his original position). The partial footage of the Z-film below focuses on the follow-up car. It runs from z133 to z207. At no point do we see any meaningful reaction from the agents mentioned above:



I can't be arsed debunking the remainder as the point has been made.
A first shot as early as Roselle and Scearce are proposing is a nonsense and it doesn't take too much effort to demonstrate that.

Dear "Useful Idiot" O'meara,

(Don't take it literally or too personally -- it's just an old KGB* expression for a gullible person who unwittingly helps its cause.)

It's too bad Roselle and Scearce didn't include Secret Service agent Glen Bennett in their study.

You remember him, don't you?

He's the guy who was sitting behind Dave Powers (who was sitting on the passenger-side jump seat) in the follow-up car and who said he heard what he thought was a firecracker (i.e., Oswald's first, missing-everything shot) after the limo turned onto Elm Street, and that he looked to his right and then straight ahead and said he saw a bullet strike JFK's back "about four inches below the shoulder" (i.e., CE-399, which wounded both JFK and JBC).

Remember?

Well, why don't you take another "close look" at the Zapruder film and determine in which frame Agent Bennett starts leaning his head to his right to get a good view of JFK around Powers?

Hmm?

*Today's SVR and FSB

Bennett wrote:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."

[Dan O'meara]

I've edited it for you, xxxx xxxx.

Here it is:

When you posted: "Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens-6. However, when we take a closer look at Zapruder we see no meaningful reaction from them (Hickey looks briefly over the side of the car but then returns to his original position). The partial footage of the Z-film below focuses on the follow-up car. It runs from z133 to z207. At no point do we see any meaningful reaction from the agents mentioned above," it's apparent that by "meaningful" you mean that said observable reactions don't make sense in your fanciful tinfoil-hat conspiracy-theory scenario.

Once again for xxxx xxxx: Photographic evidence trumps (pardon the pun) witnesses' highly malleable memories of a loud, unexpected chaotic event in which they correctly or incorrectly perceived their own lives were in danger.

Reminder: The last word rhymes with "muck."

Landis, Hickey and Ready react immediately to the first shot.
All three of them turn to their right and rear,
Altgens 6 shows them doing this.
This is an example of the photographic record and witness testimony being in perfect harmony. Something you don't seem to appreciate.
This immediate reaction - turning to their right rear is not shown in the Z-film and we see them until z-207.
All of this is a fact.
There is nothing fanciful.

Like a good little Nutter, you can't accept any evidence that contradicts your little belief system.
Even when multiple witness testimony is confirmed by the photographic record.

All three men state they turned to their right rear as a response to the first shot - fact.
All three men are shown turned to their right rear in Altgens 6 - fact.
The z-film does not show this movement - fact.


Do you agree that these three things are facts?
(I don't expect an answer to that anytime soon).

[Tom Graves]

Landis, Hickey and Ready react immediately to the first shot.
All three of them turn to their right and rear,
Altgens 6 shows them doing this.
This is an example of the photographic record and witness testimony being in perfect harmony. Something you don't seem to appreciate.
This immediate reaction - turning to their right rear is not shown in the Z-film and we see them until z-207.
All of this is a fact.
There is nothing fanciful.

Like a good little Nutter, you can't accept any evidence that contradicts your little belief system.
Even when multiple witness testimony is confirmed by the photographic record.

All three men state they turned to their right rear as a response to the first shot - fact.
All three men are shown turned to their right rear in Altgens 6 - fact.
The z-film does not show this movement - fact.


Do you agree that these three things are facts?
(I don't expect an answer to that anytime soon).

Dear XXXX XXXX,

Repeat after me: "It doesn't matter much what people say timing-wise and sequence-wise after witnessing a startling, chaotic and traumatic event. What matters are their caught-on-film "startle" and conscious (i.e., non-"startle") reactions."

By the way, I guess you missed this:

Dear "Useful Idiot" O'meara,

(Don't take it literally or too personally -- it's just an old KGB* expression for a gullible person who unwittingly helps its cause.)

It's too bad Roselle and Scearce didn't include Secret Service agent Glen Bennett in their study.

You remember him, don't you?

He's the guy who was sitting behind Dave Powers (who was sitting on the passenger-side jump seat) in the follow-up car and who said he heard what he thought was a firecracker (i.e., Oswald's first, missing-everything shot) after the limo turned onto Elm Street. He said he looked to his right and then straight ahead and that he saw a bullet** strike JFK "about four inches below his right shoulder."

Remember?

Well, why don't you take another "close look" at the Zapruder film and determine in which frame Agent Bennett starts leaning his head to his right to get a good view of JFK around Powers?

Hmm?

To refresh your memory, this is what Bennett wrote:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."

*Today's SVR and FSB

**CE-399, which wounded both JFK and JBC

[Dan O'meara]

Dear XXXX XXXX,

Repeat after me: "It doesn't matter much what people say after witnessing a startling, chaotic and traumatic event. What matters timing-wise and sequence-wise are their caught-on-film "startle" and conscious (i.e., non-"startle") reactions. D'oh."

I guess you missed this, xxxx xxxx:

Dear "Useful Idiot" O'meara,

(Don't take it literally or too personally -- it's just an old KGB* expression for a gullible person who unwittingly helps its cause.)

It's too bad Roselle and Scearce didn't include Secret Service agent Glen Bennett in their study.

You remember him, don't you?

He's the guy who was sitting behind Dave Powers (who was sitting on the passenger-side jump seat) in the follow-up car and who said he heard what he thought was a firecracker (i.e., Oswald's first, missing-everything shot) after the limo turned onto Elm Street, and that he looked to his right and then straight ahead and said he saw a bullet strike JFK's back "about four inches below the shoulder" (i.e., CE-399, which wounded both JFK and JBC).

Remember?

Well, why don't you take another "close look" at the Zapruder film and determine in which frame Agent Bennett starts leaning his head to his right to get a good view of JFK around Powers?

Hmm?

To refresh your memory, this is what Bennett wrote:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."

*Today's SVR and FSB

Dear Useless Idiot (it doesn't matter whether you take it personally or not)

Maybe for you it is a pity they didn't use Bennett in their study but they didn't
Do you understand this point?
You're defense of their pointless study is that they didn't use Bennett?
You b!tch about the use of "highly malleable memories" and then do exactly that!
Rather than deal with the evidence I've presented that destroys the study you love so much, you try to introduce your own sad interpretation of someone who has nothing to do with anything.
You have no idea how weak that is.

But let's imagine that you're not talking complete horse$hit (which you clearly are), post a blow-up of the z-frame you believe shows Bennett looking round Powers because I don't see it.

And don't forget this:

All three men state they turned to their right rear as a response to the first shot - fact.
All three men are shown turned to their right rear in Altgens 6 - fact.
The z-film does not show this movement - fact.


Do you agree that these three things are facts?
(I don't expect an answer to that anytime soon).