Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

[John Corbett]

Both couldbe wrong?  How could either be right if they couldn’t tell where the shot came from? 

Physical evidence is not the only way to corroborate a witness.  Since you seem to be afraid of using AI I asked this question:

In researching the witness statements in the JFK assassination, I have found 25 witnesses who independently reported that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot.  What is the probability that these 25 witnesses independently made similar incorrect observations and, in fact, JFK continued to smile and wave for 3 or 4 seconds after the first shot?


and Chat GPT gave this answer:

The short answer is: you can’t calculate a meaningful probability from the witness count alone, and any numerical answer would require assumptions that cannot be justified from the available evidence.

Here’s why.

If you have 25 genuinely independent witnesses who all reported that President John F. Kennedy visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and no witnesses reported that he continued smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after that first shot, then that is strong evidence against the “continued smiling and waving” scenario.

However, to compute an actual probability, you’d need to know things like:

* how accurate each witness typically is,
* whether their errors are independent,
* whether they influenced one another,
* what each person’s vantage point was,
* what prior probability you assign to each hypothesis.

Without those inputs, there is no defensible way to produce a number like “1 in a million.”

A simple illustration

Suppose (purely hypothetically) each witness had a 90% chance of correctly identifying whether JFK visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and suppose their observations were completely independent.

Then the probability that all 25 independently made the same incorrect observation would be:

(0.10)^{25} = 10^{-25}

That is astronomically small.

But that calculation depends entirely on assumptions that are almost certainly false:

* eyewitnesses are not statistically independent;
* they viewed the event from different angles and distances;
* memory can be influenced by subsequent discussion and media coverage;
* some witnesses are more reliable than others.

What historians actually do

Rather than trying to assign a numerical probability, historians and forensic investigators look for convergence of evidence.

If:

* 25 independent witnesses describe an immediate visible reaction,
* the contemporaneous films show an immediate change in JFK’s posture,
* the medical evidence is consistent with a shot having already occurred,

then the combined evidence strongly favors the conclusion that JFK reacted at or very shortly after the first shot.

Conversely, if a theory requires JFK to have remained smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after the first shot, that theory would need to explain why:

* none of those 25 witnesses reported that,
* multiple independent observations instead describe an immediate reaction,
* and the visual record would have to be interpreted in a way consistent with that claim.

One caution

The key question is whether those 25 witnesses are truly independent. If they gave statements before being exposed to media accounts, were located at different positions, and had no opportunity to influence one another, then the agreement among them is much stronger than if they all learned details from a common source afterward.

So, while it is not possible to assign a rigorous probability to your question, the existence of 25 independent witnesses all describing an immediate reaction—and none describing several more seconds of smiling and waving—would generally be considered strong evidentiary support for the immediate-reaction account.

AI has no special powers of discernment. It can only regurgitate what it gathers from other sources. It can be used as a source but its answers should be taken with a grain of salt. Garbage in. Garbage out.

What I suspect is that what some people perceived to be the first shot was actually the second. We know a number of people didn't recognize the first shot as the sound of a gunshot. We can only guess as to why that was. Maybe they thought the first shot was a firecracker. Maybe that thought it was a motorcycle backfire. Maybe it was the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the turn onto Elm. Maybe they were so intent on seeing a President and a First Lady for the first time in their lives that the sound of the first shot didn't register with them. Maybe it was a combination of these factors. Whatever the reason, if their focus was 100% on JFK and Jackie, that focus would have been broken when they saw JFK unmistakably react to the second shot by suddenly raising both arms to the level of his throat and then slump over to his left. That was the time I believe most people began to realize what was happening. I'm sure the sound of that first shot reached those people's ears but not their brains. If they didn't perceive what was happening at the time it was happening, there's no reason to believe they would piece it together correctly later one.

[Andrew Mason]

AI has no special powers of discernment. It can only regurgitate what it gathers from other sources. It can be used as a source but its answers should be taken with a grain of salt. Garbage in. Garbage out.

What I suspect is that what some people perceived to be the first shot was actually the second. We know a number of people didn't recognize the first shot as the sound of a gunshot. We can only guess as to why that was. Maybe they thought the first shot was a firecracker. Maybe that thought it was a motorcycle backfire. Maybe it was the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the turn onto Elm. Maybe they were so intent on seeing a President and a First Lady for the first time in their lives that the sound of the first shot didn't register with them. Maybe it was a combination of these factors. Whatever the reason, if their focus was 100% on JFK and Jackie, that focus would have been broken when they saw JFK unmistakably react to the second shot by suddenly raising both arms to the level of his throat and then slump over to his left. That was the time I believe most people began to realize what was happening. I'm sure the sound of that first shot reached those people's ears but not their brains. If they didn't perceive what was happening at the time it was happening, there's no reason to believe they would piece it together correctly later one.

Nice try. But the chance that in a group of 25 people all would independently make an error that caused them to make the same false report is the same regardless of the kind of error. 

Besides, why would anyone have failed to hear the first “horrible ear-shattering noise”?  And if they initially thought it was a firecracker or a backfire, why would they not realize later that it was a shot.  And if they were so abysmally dull as to not think the first noise was the first shot why would they all decide not to even mention that another loud sound preceded the first shot?  The source of the error would have to be common to all the witnesses. And the fact that most of them (but not all) reported hearing three shots means that they did not miss hearing the first shot.

Any way you look at it, any scenario in which these witnesses independently reported the same false observation is so highly improbable that one can conclude with the highest degree of certainty that it did not happen.  The possibility that the witnesses were not independent and either colluded with each other or were strongly influenced by others to say they saw something they were told but did not see is still more likely than the chance they all independently made the same error.

[Duncan MacRae]

I've always wished somebody would do a reenactment of that first shot just to see what challenges it would have presented. I'm not asking for a duplication which is impossible. Just a re-enactment to highlight the difficulties.

[Charles Collins]

That’s an interesting video, thanks Duncan. I don’t think it addresses an early first shot though. (One that would have occurred a few seconds before any of the first shots taken by these participants.) And it also would be nice for a replica sniper’s nest (with the window boxes, etc in their proper places) to be incorporated into the demonstration.

[John Corbett]

Nice try. But the chance that in a group of 25 people all would independently make an error that caused them to make the same false report is the same regardless of the kind of error.

So you concede that the type of error has no bearing on the probability of 25 people being wrong in the same manner. Like all those people who thought the gunshots were fired from the GK.

Besides, why would anyone have failed to hear the first “horrible ear-shattering noise”?

I offered several possible reasons. None are provable but the fact remains that a number of people who offered an opinion on the number of shots only remembered hearing two shots.

Jackie only remembered two shots.

Clint Hill only remembered two shots.

How do you explain that? [quote

And if they initially thought it was a firecracker or a backfire, why would they not realize later that it was a shot.  And if they were so abysmally dull as to not think the first noise was the first shot why would they all decide not to even mention that another loud sound preceded the first shot?  The source of the error would have to be common to all the witnesses. And the fact that most of them (but not all) reported hearing three shots means that they did not miss hearing the first shot. [/quote]

I've already told you that it is impossible to say why some people did not remember hearing three shots but we know there were people who only remembered hearing two. Some remembered hearing four. We can only speculate why that is even though they all witnesses the same event. This speaks to the unreliability of witness recollections and simply assuming the plurality of witnesses got it right is simply illogical.

Any way you look at it, any scenario in which these witnesses independently reported the same false observation is so highly improbable that one can conclude with the highest degree of certainty that it did not happen.  The possibility that the witnesses were not independent and either colluded with each other or were strongly influenced by others to say they saw something they were told but did not see is still more likely than the chance they all independently made the same error.

It's not at all improbable. That is your assumption based on your false belief that witnesses will remember details of an event reliably. That's not how it works in the real world. That's why the Innocence Project has used DNA to overturn hundreds of convictions that were the result of erroneous witness accounts. It leaves us to wonder how many people have been wrongfully convicted based on erroneous eyewitness testimony where DNA was not available to exonerate them.

[John Corbett]

I was aware of those CBS tests when I made my proposal and I knew they didn't meet the conditions I laid out. They didn't test the problems I pointed out for an early first shot.

The problem with those CBS recreations is they were based on the erroneous premises that the WC concluded the 3 shots were fired in 5.6 seconds and that the WC determined when the first shot was fired. Neither of those premises were correct. In fact, of the scenarios the WC offered, CBS chose to test only the least probable and the most difficult one. They only tested the scenario in which Oswald fired his first shot after JFK cleared the tree, making all three shots being fired down range. A very sloppy piece of journalism by the man once considered the Most Trusted Man in America in collaboration with Dan Rather who I doubt was trusted by many people at all.

A proper test would have tested all the scenarios the WC offered and would have tested several points in time the first shot could have missed. There is no clear consensus among LNs as to how early that missed shot was fired but a sampling of several would have given us an idea as to how plausible some of those scenarios were. Testing an earlier first shot would have demonstrated how difficult an early first shot would have been but only if they also simulated the sash that was only open about a foot. Such a test could have revealed how much Oswald's view would have been obscured by the bottom of the sash, how much he would have had to raise up to fire at a severely veridical angle, and whether the boxes he stacked by the window would have been of any help steadying the rifle for that shot.

[Andrew Mason]

That’s an interesting video, thanks Duncan. I don’t think it addresses an early first shot though. (One that would have occurred a few seconds before any of the first shots taken by these participants.) And it also would be nice for a replica sniper’s nest (with the window boxes, etc in their proper places) to be incorporated into the demonstration.

The first shot at 175 feet would be around z208 according to the FBI survey (CE884)..

The CBS reenactment also does not have the oak tree or the street curve.  But it does show how similar all three shots are in terms of rifle position and aim if the first shot was around z208 from a downward angle starting at 21.8 degrees and the third shot at 15.4 degrees.  The lateral angle isn’t given but it doesn’t change much. 

According to CE883, position A that is referred to in CE884 is in the middle of Elm St. intersecting with the extension of the west side of Houston St. just east of the TSBD. At that point the downward angle is 40.2 degrees according to CE884.  A shot at z124 would be close to that 40 degrees making a next shot at z222 a difference of close to 20 degrees. The change in lateral angle from a shot at z124 to a shot at Z222 would be even greater. I can’t see even an inexperienced shooter choosing to fire two shots that would require such quick and significant repositioning.