Acoustic Evidence

[John Corbett]

Umm, because he fired from a concealed position behind the fence on the knoll.

He wouldn't have been concealed from Lee Bowers who had a clear view of the area behind the fence from an elevated position. People raced to that area after the shooting including some from the overpass and no one saw a shooter. Because there wasn't one.

Moreover, as I have pointed out to you before when you have argued against a grassy knoll shooter:

-- Several witnesses saw gun smoke coming from the area behind the fence on the knoll identified by the acoustical evidence as the location of the gunman.

Witnesses said they saw smoke. Gun smoke was your addition. Had it been gun smoke, it would have dissipated almost immediately before anyone could have seen it, unless of course your shooter was firing a flintlock or a blunderbuss.

-- We have hard photographic evidence that confirms the eyewitness accounts of seeing gun smoke on the knoll, i.e., the Wiegman film, which shows a small cloud of smoke hanging in the air near the fence on the knoll.

Again, you are assuming it was gun smoke.

-- Several witnesses smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder on and near the knoll right after the shooting.

That gives no indication of the source of the shots because the residue from a gunshot can and does travel from where a gun was fired. Senator Yarborough was in a car on Elm St. when he smelled the residue and there are no reports of a shot fired from Elm St.

-- Two witnesses saw a man running from the grassy knoll into the railroad yard seconds after the shots were fired.

Which witnesses? Ed Hoffman? <chuckle>

-- Dozens of witnesses in the plaza (at least 58) said they heard shots fired from the grassy knoll.

Dozens of other witnesses heard those same shots and they said it sounded like they came from the TSBD. Those witnesses are corroborated by shells and a rifle found in the TSBD and eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman in the sniper's nest. No corroboration for the folks who thought the shots came from the GK.

We still see lone-gunman theorists repeating the argument that those witnesses merely heard echoes of the sixth-floor gunman's alleged three shots. In his superb 1998 book Cover-Up, mathematician Stewart Galanor explains why the echoes argument is invalid:

Echoes are caused by sound bouncing off large, hard surfaces. . . . There are no buildings on the knoll or overpass that would have reflected sound back to confuse witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Beyond the knoll the terrain is flat with railroad tracks, while the knoll is covered with grass, shrubs, and trees that absorb sound. If there were any echoes, they would have been caused by the sound of rifle fire from the knoll echoing off the Book Depository (Cover-Up, p. 76).

I don't know what led those people to believe shots sounded like they came from the GK but I do know there is no physical evidence of a shooter there nor eyewitnesses. I also know from first hand experience it can be difficult to locate the source of the gunfire based on sound. I live in a rural area and gunfire is not an uncommon sound, especially right before the deer gun season. When I'm walking my dogs, I hear the gunfire but I don't know where it is coming from until I visually sight which of my neighbors is taking target practice.  Sometimes it turns out the shots were 90 degrees or more away from where it sounded like the shots came from, and I don't have tall buildings around to create the echos.

-- Dozens of witnesses rushed up the grassy knoll right after the shooting because they believed shots came from there.

WOW! All those people rushed the GK and not one of them saw a gunman. What are the odds?

-- Seconds after the shooting, Sheriff Bill Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass: "Have Station 5 to move all men available out of my department, back into the railroad yards there in an effort to try to determine just what and where it happened down there, and hold everything secure until the homicide and other investigators can get there."

-- Seconds after the shooting, Chief Jesse Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass: "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there!" 

Which simply indicates pinning a badge on your shirt doesn't give one special powers of auditory perception. They can be fooled just as easily as anybody else. It's notable that Decker and Curry directed their resources to different places.

-- William Newman, a combat veteran, said he heard a shot come from behind him on the knoll and that he heard the whiz of the bullet as it passed near him. As someone who heard bullets whiz above him in the Army, I know exactly what Newman was describing.

-- Abraham Zapruder, before he knew what he was supposed to say, told the Secret Service on 11/22/63 that "the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder" (CD 87). Zapruder was standing on the pergola on the knoll, so the area behind him would have been very close to the spot identified by so many other witnesses and by the acoustical evidence.

Looks like Newman and Zapruder didn't have any special powers of auditory perception either.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Umm, because he fired from a concealed position behind the fence on the knoll.

Moreover, as I have pointed out to you before when you have argued against a grassy knoll shooter:

-- Several witnesses saw gun smoke coming from the area behind the fence on the knoll identified by the acoustical evidence as the location of the gunman.

-- We have hard photographic evidence that confirms the eyewitness accounts of seeing gun smoke on the knoll, i.e., the Wiegman film, which shows a small cloud of smoke hanging in the air near the fence on the knoll.

-- Several witnesses smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder on and near the knoll right after the shooting.

-- Two witnesses saw a man running from the grassy knoll into the railroad yard seconds after the shots were fired.

-- Dozens of witnesses in the plaza (at least 58) said they heard shots fired from the grassy knoll.

We still see lone-gunman theorists repeating the argument that those witnesses merely heard echoes of the sixth-floor gunman's alleged three shots. In his superb 1998 book Cover-Up, mathematician Stewart Galanor explains why the echoes argument is invalid:

Echoes are caused by sound bouncing off large, hard surfaces. . . . There are no buildings on the knoll or overpass that would have reflected sound back to confuse witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Beyond the knoll the terrain is flat with railroad tracks, while the knoll is covered with grass, shrubs, and trees that absorb sound. If there were any echoes, they would have been caused by the sound of rifle fire from the knoll echoing off the Book Depository (Cover-Up, p. 76).

-- Dozens of witnesses rushed up the grassy knoll right after the shooting because they believed shots came from there.

-- Seconds after the shooting, Sheriff Bill Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass: "Have Station 5 to move all men available out of my department, back into the railroad yards there in an effort to try to determine just what and where it happened down there, and hold everything secure until the homicide and other investigators can get there."

-- Seconds after the shooting, Chief Jesse Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass: "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there!"

-- William Newman, a combat veteran, said he heard a shot come from behind him on the knoll and that he heard the whiz of the bullet as it passed near him. As someone who heard bullets whiz above him in the Army, I know exactly what Newman was describing.

-- Abraham Zapruder, before he knew what he was supposed to say, told the Secret Service on 11/22/63 that "the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder" (CD 87). Zapruder was standing on the pergola on the knoll, so the area behind him would have been very close to the spot identified by so many other witnesses and by the acoustical evidence.

To follow up on these evidences, I should mention the fact that Lee Bowers saw three cars separately recon the parking lot behind the knoll during the 25 minutes leading up to the assassination. This "probing" caught Bowers' attention because the area had been sealed off and there had been no movement in the area since around 11:00. Bowers said the driver of the second car seemed to be speaking into a microphone. The HSCA rightly cited Bowers' account as evidence of conspiracy. The following video includes segments of an interview with Bowers in which he discusses the three suspicious cars:

The Suspicious Death of Lee Bowers

I am agnostic about the circumstances of Bowers' death, but it is worth noting that Bowers reportedly told friends that he feared for his life. Anyway, most of the video deals with Bowers' account of the three cars' recon of the parking lot behind the knoll.

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:23:21 PM
Umm, because he fired from a concealed position behind the fence on the knoll.

He wouldn't have been concealed from Lee Bowers who had a clear view of the area behind the fence from an elevated position.

Can you ever deal with evidence in an honest, credible way? We've had this very discussion before, yet you just keep repeating your argument and ignoring the counter-arguments.

So, again, as I've explained to you before, Bowers was not watching the two men he saw walk to a point behind the fence after he saw them go there, but later, during the shooting, he said his attention was drawn to that spot because he saw a "flash of light" or "smoke" from that location and this this caused him to think something unusual was going on there.

Surely you're aware of Bowers' account, but you ignore it and falsely imply that Bowers didn't see anything suspicious behind the fence during the shooting.

People raced to that area after the shooting including some from the overpass and no one saw a shooter. Because there wasn't one.

Oh my goodness. What about the witnesses, including a policeman, who said men flashing SS badges prevented them from going farther into the parking lot? Or have you never read about these witnesses? Surely you have. Yet, again, you just brush aside contrary evidence and make misleading arguments based on your deceptive omission.

Furthermore, although dozens of people ran toward and up the knoll after the shooting, they did not do so immediately after the last shot, so the gunman and his accomplice had time to run into the parking lot.

Bowers indicated that his attention was -- naturally -- drawn to the pandemonium that broke out in Dealey Plaza after the shooting, which would explain why he would not have noticed one or two men running into the parking lot. J.C. Price saw a man who was running into the parking lot after the shooting because Price was watching events from the roof of the Terminal Annex Building. And Price was not the only one who saw a man running from the fence area into the railyard after the shooting.

Of course you wave aside Ed Hoffman's account of seeing two men, one with a rifle, behind the fence on the knoll, but his story is credible.

I would direct interested readers to Mark Arnold's article "Eyewitness to Tragedy: The Ed Hoffman Story" Arnold shows that Hoffman's account has been subject to deliberate misrepresentation and faulty sign-language interpretation. Arnold looks at Hoffman's story in detail and concludes,

The one constant in the whole Ed Hoffman narrative is that if one takes the time and care necessary to understand him, his story has never changed: that on Friday, November 22, 1963, he was standing on Stemmons Freeway with an excellent view east, into the area behind the picket fence atop the grassy knoll, and there saw two men work together, one of them shooting at the President with a rifle, the other breaking it down and making his getaway through the railyard.

I would also direct interested readers to Casey Quinlan and Brian K. Edwards' book Beyond the Fence Line: The Eyewitness Account of Ed Hoffman and the Murder of President John F. Kennedy. Quinlan and Edwards refute every objection that critics have raised against Hoffman's account.

Witnesses said they saw smoke. Gun smoke was your addition.

Uh, they thought it was gun smoke. 

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:23:21 PM
-- We have hard photographic evidence that confirms the eyewitness accounts of seeing gun smoke on the knoll, i.e., the Wiegman film, which shows a small cloud of smoke hanging in the air near the fence on the knoll.

Had it been gun smoke, it would have dissipated almost immediately before anyone could have seen it, unless of course your shooter was firing a flintlock or a blunderbuss.

Utter nonsense. This myth was answered was decades ago, but of course you're decades behind the information curve. For starters, take a look at the footage of the 1966 Charles Whitman shooting: you can see obvious clouds of gun smoke hang in the air from his rifle firings, and they obviously do not dissipate "almost immediately." Innumerable wartime and other shooting photos and footage show that gun smoke can hang in the air for 5-10 minutes.

Furthermore, your side only has two explanations for the smoke in the Wiegman frame, and both of them are untenable. Your side says the smoke is either motorcycle exhaust or smoke from the steam pipe in the railroad yard. The patrol bikes weren't emitting any smoke, and the steam pipe was over 100 feet from the area where six witnesses said they saw gun smoke.   

I don't know what led those people to believe shots sounded like they came from the GK. . . .

LOL! Here's what led them: they heard gunshots coming from the grassy knoll!

Let's start with the scientifically established fact that there was a gunman firing from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. The gunman's location was determined by a refined sonar analysis done by Queens College acoustical scientists Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy. They found that all 26 of the echo patterns of the grassy knoll test shot matched the 26 echo patterns of the dictabelt’s 144.9 impulse pattern (8 HSCA 27-29). The scientists conservatively calculated the probability of the grassy knoll shot as 95% or higher, i.e., at least 95%. In statistics, that is a virtual certainty; moreover, it was later shown that the 95+% probability figure was too conservative, that the actual probability is virtually 100%.   

Even after introducing two outright errors in their calculations, the NRC/NAS panel could only reduce the grassy knoll shot's probability to 77.7%.

Dozens of witnesses heard the grassy knoll gunman firing; six of them saw gun smoke from his rifle; and the Wiegman film captured some of that smoke. One of the gunman's bullets came so close to combat veteran Bill Newman that he could hear the bullet whiz by him. Go talk to any veteran who has experienced rifle bullets coming close enough that he could hear the bullets whiz by him. 

Which simply indicates pinning a badge on your shirt doesn't give one special powers of auditory perception. They can be fooled just as easily as anybody else.

LOL! Yeah, you bet. Never mind that Curry and Decker were both riding in the lead car and were perfectly positioned to hear gunfire from the knoll, which was right next to the triple underpass and right in front of the railroad yard. Yeah, just never mind that.

And never mind that they both ordered their men to secure and search the triple underpass-railyard area. Yeah, just a "coincidence," right?

It's notable that Decker and Curry directed their resources to different places.

You surely know this is misleading. Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass. Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass and said to get a man on top of the underpass to see what happened there. Anyone who looks at a map of Dealey Plaza and understands English can see that Decker and Curry sent their men to essentially the same area.

Looks like Newman and Zapruder didn't have any special powers of auditory perception either.

Uh-huh. Of course. I'm sure Newman, a combat veteran, just dreamed he heard a bullet whiz by him from behind. Again, go talk to any veteran who has experienced hearing bullets whiz by him.

And never mind that Zapruder initially categorically stated that the gunman was behind him, and that there was strong "reverberation" all around him, right? He was standing nearly 250 feet from the sixth-floor window, nearly a football field away. Only gunfire that was fired near Zapruder could have caused physically discernible reverberation on the pergola on which he was standing.

[John Mytton]

Utter nonsense. This myth was answered was decades ago, but of course you're decades behind the information curve. For starters, take a look at the footage of the 1966 Charles Whitman shooting: you can see obvious clouds of gun smoke hang in the air from his rifle firings, and they obviously do not dissipate "almost immediately." Innumerable wartime and other shooting photos and footage show that gun smoke can hang in the air for 5-10 minutes.

and they obviously do not dissipate "almost immediately."

 





 



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

[SNIP]

JohnM

You are the poster child for cherry-picking and making dubious assumptions.

I notice you said nothing about the footage of the 1966 Charles Whitman shooting in Texas. I notice you made no attempt to explain the smoke seen in the Wiegman film. I notice you made no attempt to explain the puffs of smoke seen by six witnesses during the shooting.

Here's one short segment of footage of the Charles Whitman shooting that shows visible puffs of smoke:

Footage of Charles Whitman shooting, 01

Here's a much longer segment that shows numerous visible puffs of smoke:

Footage of Charles Whitman shooting, 01 (1:09 to 1:33)

Or, check out this footage of the SLA shootout with police in LA in 1974 that shows obvious gun smoke that hangs in the air for quite some time -- the camera pans away from the large cloud of gun smoke, but it is obvious the smoke would have remained visible for some time if the camera had kept filming it:

Footage of 1974 SLA shootout (0:05 to 0:09)

In an article about the 1970 shooting of two college students at Jackson State University, a Baltimore Sun article noted that "the gun smoke was thick" (https://www.baltimoresun.com/2000/05/15/an-overshadowed-anniversary-killings-two-people-were-killed-by-police-gunfire-at-jackson-state-college-in-mississippi-30-years-ago-but-few-besides-those-directly-affected-remember/).

In describing a 2024 shooting at a high school graduation ceremony in LA, one witness said they "could see the gun smoke":

You could see the gun smoke, gun shells hitting the floor, and then they kind of peeled off. (https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/la-graduation-ceremony-for-at-promise-high-schoolers-ends-in-brawl-police-say-los-angeles-california-operation-graduation-juvenile-court-students-education-crisis-in-the-classroom)

A CBS News report about a 2024 shooting at a religious gathering in Philadephia notes that one witness said they "cold see the gun smoke because it was very close":

"I was like, it's just another beautiful day and gunshots started ringing and you could see the gun smoke because it was very close," Fareed Abdullah, who witnessed the shooting, said. (https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/shooting-eid-al-fitr-west-philadelphia-community-leaders-reaction/)

A Los Angeles Times article about the 2016 terrorist attack in San Bernadino, CA, notes that "the gun smoke made it difficult to see":

In the chaos, one round pierced a fire sprinkler pipe, causing water to gush from the ceiling. The gun smoke made it difficult to see. Many got out the doors, and escaped outside or barricaded themselves in other rooms in the building. (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-bernardino-terror--20160909-snap-story.html)

I personally saw Army M-16 rifles emit visible puffs of smoke many times on Army rifle ranges. You can find numerous referenes to gun smoke, thick gun smoke, gun smoke impeding visibility, etc., in soldier accounts from the Korean War and the Vietnam War. 

BTW, did you ever retract your howler that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in their analysis of the backyard rifle photos? (In fact, the PEP found that the parallax between the photos was so small it could only be detected with “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and with “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes.”)

[John Corbett]

To follow up on these evidences, I should mention the fact that Lee Bowers saw three cars separately recon the parking lot behind the knoll during the 25 minutes leading up to the assassination. This "probing" caught Bowers' attention because the area had been sealed off and there had been no movement in the area since around 11:00. Bowers said the driver of the second car seemed to be speaking into a microphone. The HSCA rightly cited Bowers' account as evidence of conspiracy. The following video includes segments of an interview with Bowers in which he discusses the three suspicious cars:

The Suspicious Death of Lee Bowers

Cars in a parking lot don't equate to a gunman behind the fence. There is no hard evidence of a gunman anywhere on the GK.

Lee Bowers testified under oath that he did not see a gunman behind the fence and never recanted that testimony.

I am agnostic about the circumstances of Bowers' death, but it is worth noting that Bowers reportedly told friends that he feared for his life. Anyway, most of the video deals with Bowers' account of the three cars' recon of the parking lot behind the knoll.

Reportedly? Everything the CTs come up with is always reportedly. Nothing on the record.

There is nothing suspicious about cars doing a recon in the parking lot if that is what they were doing. In 1992, George H. W. Bush was campaigning by train and the train was scheduled to pass by my home golf course. Our fifth hole was right alongside the tracks and we saw both a helicopter and an inspection car doing a recon over the tracks. A little while later, the helicopter made a second pass. It was about an hour later when we were on the back nine that we saw the train going past our course. Doing a recon along a presidential route is due diligence.

Can you ever deal with evidence in an honest, credible way? We've had this very discussion before, yet you just keep repeating your argument and ignoring the counter-arguments.

When someone disagrees with one of your claims, they are not ignoring your arguments.

So, again, as I've explained to you before, Bowers was not watching the two men he saw walk to a point behind the fence after he saw them go there, but later, during the shooting, he said his attention was drawn to that spot because he saw a "flash of light" or "smoke" from that location and this this caused him to think something unusual was going on there.

Surely you're aware of Bowers' account, but you ignore it and falsely imply that Bowers didn't see anything suspicious behind the fence during the shooting.

A flash of light could be nothing more than sun reflecting off the chrome or glass of a passing vehicle. If a shot had been fired from GK, Bowers would not have seen the muzzle flash because the gun would have been pointing in the opposite direction. It's rather far fetched to think Bowers would see a muzzle flash but not the shooter that fired the gun.

Oh my goodness. What about the witnesses, including a policeman, who said men flashing SS badges prevented them from going farther into the parking lot? Or have you never read about these witnesses? Surely you have. Yet, again, you just brush aside contrary evidence and make misleading arguments based on your deceptive omission.

Furthermore, although dozens of people ran toward and up the knoll after the shooting, they did not do so immediately after the last shot, so the gunman and his accomplice had time to run into the parking lot.

OH WOW! Not only do you have an imaginary gunman, you've given him an accomplice as well.

Bowers indicated that his attention was -- naturally -- drawn to the pandemonium that broke out in Dealey Plaza after the shooting, which would explain why he would not have noticed one or two men running into the parking lot. J.C. Price saw a man who was running into the parking lot after the shooting because Price was watching events from the roof of the Terminal Annex Building. And Price was not the only one who saw a man running from the fence area into the railyard after the shooting.

It's always fun to see the excuses CTs come up with for why they have no real evidence of a second shooter.

Of course you wave aside Ed Hoffman's account of seeing two men, one with a rifle, behind the fence on the knoll, but his story is credible.

Gee, why would anyone doubt Ed Hoffman. He only waited until 1967 to tell it and then changed it several times. I didn't think even you were gullible enough to take Ed Hoffman seriously.

I would direct interested readers to Mark Arnold's article "Eyewitness to Tragedy: The Ed Hoffman Story" Arnold shows that Hoffman's account has been subject to deliberate misrepresentation and faulty sign-language interpretation. Arnold looks at Hoffman's story in detail and concludes,

The one constant in the whole Ed Hoffman narrative is that if one takes the time and care necessary to understand him, his story has never changed: that on Friday, November 22, 1963, he was standing on Stemmons Freeway with an excellent view east, into the area behind the picket fence atop the grassy knoll, and there saw two men work together, one of them shooting at the President with a rifle, the other breaking it down and making his getaway through the railyard.

I would also direct interested readers to Casey Quinlan and Brian K. Edwards' book Beyond the Fence Line: The Eyewitness Account of Ed Hoffman and the Murder of President John F. Kennedy. Quinlan and Edwards refute every objection that critics have raised against Hoffman's account.

I encourage people to read all about Ed Hoffman. They should get a good laugh from it.

Uh, they thought it was gun smoke. 

Utter nonsense. This myth was answered was decades ago, but of course you're decades behind the information curve. For starters, take a look at the footage of the 1966 Charles Whitman shooting: you can see obvious clouds of gun smoke hang in the air from his rifle firings, and they obviously do not dissipate "almost immediately." Innumerable wartime and other shooting photos and footage show that gun smoke can hang in the air for 5-10 minutes.

As long as you have brought up Charles Whitman, it should be pointed out that his best recorded shooting in the USMC was only two points higher the Oswald's, yet he managed to shoot 45 people from a much higher elevation and far greater distances than Oswald shot JFK from. He killed 17 people that day although two were his wife and mother earlier in the day and a few more as he got to the observation deck. I believe 11 of his kills were from his elevated position.

Furthermore, your side only has two explanations for the smoke in the Wiegman frame, and both of them are untenable. Your side says the smoke is either motorcycle exhaust or smoke from the steam pipe in the railroad yard. The patrol bikes weren't emitting any smoke, and the steam pipe was over 100 feet from the area where six witnesses said they saw gun smoke. 

You continue to refer to the smoke as gun smoke even though you have never established what the smoke was.

LOL! Here's what led them: they heard gunshots coming from the grassy knoll!

They heard shots which they THOUGHT came from the GK. Other people heard those same shots and said it sounded like they came from the TSBD. Those people were corroborated by physical evidence and eyewitnesses. No corroboration for those who though the shots came from the GK.

Let's start with the scientifically established fact that there was a gunman firing from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. The gunman's location was determined by a refined sonar analysis done by Queens College acoustical scientists Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy. They found that all 26 of the echo patterns of the grassy knoll test shot matched the 26 echo patterns of the dictabelt’s 144.9 impulse pattern (8 HSCA 27-29). The scientists conservatively calculated the probability of the grassy knoll shot as 95% or higher, i.e., at least 95%. In statistics, that is a virtual certainty; moreover, it was later shown that the 95+% probability figure was too conservative, that the actual probability is virtually 100%.   

Even after introducing two outright errors in their calculations, the NRC/NAS panel could only reduce the grassy knoll shot's probability to 77.7%.

Junk science.

Dozens of witnesses heard the grassy knoll gunman firing; six of them saw gun smoke from his rifle; and the Wiegman film captured some of that smoke. One of the gunman's bullets came so close to combat veteran Bill Newman that he could hear the bullet whiz by him. Go talk to any veteran who has experienced rifle bullets coming close enough that he could hear the bullets whiz by him. 

LOL! Yeah, you bet. Never mind that Curry and Decker were both riding in the lead car and were perfectly positioned to hear gunfire from the knoll, which was right next to the triple underpass and right in front of the railroad yard. Yeah, just never mind that.

And never mind that they both ordered their men to secure and search the triple underpass-railyard area. Yeah, just a "coincidence," right?

One deployed his men to the railroad yard and one to the overpass. Both were guessing. [/quote]

You surely know this is misleading. Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass. Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass and said to get a man on top of the underpass to see what happened there. Anyone who looks at a map of Dealey Plaza and understands English can see that Decker and Curry sent their men to essentially the same area. [/quote]

Of course they would want to seal off the area until they were able to determine where the shots had come from. That doesn't mean they knew where the shots had come from.

Uh-huh. Of course. I'm sure Newman, a combat veteran, just dreamed he heard a bullet whiz by him from behind. Again, go talk to any veteran who has experienced hearing bullets whiz by him.

He was in close proximity to the headshot.

And never mind that Zapruder initially categorically stated that the gunman was behind him, and that there was strong "reverberation" all around him, right? He was standing nearly 250 feet from the sixth-floor window, nearly a football field away. Only gunfire that was fired near Zapruder could have caused physically discernible reverberation on the pergola on which he was standing.

Zapruder didn't categorically state any such thing. He had an impression the shots came from behind him. He was wrong.

Are you bothered at all by the fact the earwitnesses said all the shots they heard came from the GK but your cherished acoustic evidence only identified one shot from the GK?