JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
Gary Craig:
?Motorcade Cop Tells How It Happened,? Sunday News (New York)
, 24 November 1963, p.25:
Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) - B. W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding
in President Kennedy?s motorcade, gave this account today of the assassination:
?We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about half a block from where it happened. I was
right alongside the rear fender on the left hand side of the President?s car, near Mrs. Kennedy.
When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had
been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look.
The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor,
talking to him.
As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he
got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around.
I was splattered with blood.
Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I
might have been hit.
Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and
drew my gun.
Then this Secret Service agent (in the President?s car) got his wits about him and they took off.
The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward
and announced to the chief that the President had been shot.?
---------------------------------------------
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=35&relPageId=304
Mr. Hargis: I was at the left-hand side of the Presidential Limousine.
Mr. Stern: Riding next to Mrs. Kennedy?
Mr. Hargis: Right.
....Well at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't
anyway in the world I could tell where they were coming from but at the time there
was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the
railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered with blood-I was just
a little back and left of-just a little back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know.
I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository. and these places
was the primary place that could have been shot from....
....I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered
seeing people scattering and running and then I looked--...
.....and then I looked over to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and no one that
was standing at the base of the building was--seemed to be looking up at the building or
anything like they knew where the shots were coming from, so.....
.....Well, then, I thought since I had looked over at the Texas Book Depository and some
people looking out of the windows up there, didn't seem like they knew what was going on,
but none of them were looking towards or near anywhere the shots had been fired from.....
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on January 31, 2018, 01:39:42 PM ---
Question: Did they run the acoustic tests with early 1960?s motorcycles?
Answer: No. They just assumed an early 1960?s motorcycle, having backfires
As the report says, early 1960?s motorcycles were louder than the mid 1970?s motorcycles. Much more prone to backfires, which are particularly loud to people within a few yards of the motorcycles.
In any case, some witnesses reported that they thought they were hearing backfires (indeed, throughout the motorcade, they did hear real backfires). And later realized that those were actually shots. So, it is possible for witnesses to mistake shots for backfires, regardless of what the HSCA experts thought.
Question: In the 1970?s HSCA test, did they set off some early 1960?s era firecrackers, and test to see how loud people thought those sounded compared to the recreated gunshots?
Answer: No. They just assumed that the firecrackers would never sound as loud. Even if the firecrackers were set off within 10 to 20 yards of an observer.
In any case, some witnesses reported that they thought they were hearing firecrackers. And later realized that those were actually shots. So, it is possible for witnesses to mistake shots for firecrackers, regardless of what the HSCA experts thought.
--- End quote ---
Looks like one more example of the witnesses being wrong. In this case these are people specifically placed there to observe the sounds and note them. Under what circumstances are witnesses correct?
Obviously with your extensive knowledge of a carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds you know what the witnesses hear.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on January 09, 2018, 12:27:45 AM ---
After reading some posts by CTs, like this example "Not merely a "large number."..... The vast majority of the witnesses reported that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous...... That's impossible with a bolt action rifle...." so I did a quick collation of a number of witnesses who said the shots were roughly about evenly spaced or the spaces between were longer than virtually instantaneous. Btw some witnesses guessed that the length of time was greater between shots 2 and 3 than 1 and 2 but a lot of these witnesses didn't specify a specific length so cannot be counted by either side.
...
JohnM
--- End quote ---
You have to look at all the evidence that bears on shot spacing, not just evidence specifically about shot spacing. You have to look at evidence relating to where the car was the shots sounded; what witnesses say what occurred in response to the shots - particularly the first shot as well as the perceived relative shot spacing. Then you must try to fit all the evidence of witnesses, photographs, film, physical evidence together to figure it out.
With respect to the evidence of witnesses as to shot spacing, you have to look at all their evidence too, not just what they said they recalled about the shot spacing. For instance, you cite Nellie Connally's evidence as to what she recalled about the spacing being 1..2.....3. But she also gave other evidence that conflicts with this. She said that she looked back at JFK after the first shot and never looked back after the second, which she said she saw hit JBC. The latter statement is inconsistent with her shot spacing recollection because she looks back until about z270. That puts the second shot after z270 and that is evidence of a 1.......2.....3 shot pattern.
It is not correct that the vast majority of witnesses reported that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous. If you look at the two witnesses (Kellerman and Hickey) who suggested they were nearly simultaneous or instantaneous, even they recalled a distinct spacing between those shots. Kellerman was able to discern 3 shots but described the last shots as a flurry. He said that there was 3 to 4 seconds of pause after the first shot and that the time between the first and last was 5 seconds. So implicitly, he is acknowledging that there could have been 1 to 2 seconds between the last shots, of which he recalled two. Kellerman admitted that the reason he described a "flurry" of shots was because he thought the wounds of Governor Connally indicated that he had been hit by several bullets (2 H 79). SA George Hickey expressed it as "almost simultaneous" but he recalled very distinct shots. He said that the first of those last two shots did not seem to hit JFK - only the hair on his right side flew up but the second definitely struck him in the head.
I have compiled the summary of all the witness evidence relating to the shot spacing. The vast majority (47 out of 63 by my count) of those who commented on the shot pattern stated that the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Many others reported hearing a shot and then two more without expressly stating the relative spacing.
By my count 6 witneses said that the first two were closer together. Ken O'Donnell described two almost simultaneous shots and then a third but the others described distinct shots.
By my count 10 witnesses described shots about equally spaced.
So the distribution is: 47:10:6. To suggest that the 6 were right and 47 wrong, you would have to explain why people hearing a 1...2.....3 pattern are almost 8 times more likely to recall it as 1......2...3.
But that is not all the evidence that bears on shot spacing. At least 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. Not a single witness said he smiled or continued to wave after the first shot. This necessarily puts the first shot after z190.
Photographers (Hughes, Betzner) said that they they exposed their film before the first shot sounded. Both exposures ended after z186. This body of evidence is inconsistent with a first missed shot or any shot before at least several frames after z186.
Observations that the first shot struck JFK fits with other independent evidence:
SA Jack Ready said that he turned to the rear immediately when he heard the first shot. He was on the front right running board of the Secret Service car following the President. To turn rearward, he had to let go of the front hand-hold with his right hand. He does not do this until z199 when he lets go and begins his rearward turn.
The witnesses in the motorcade gave consistent evidence as to their position along Elm or Houston streets at the time of the first shot that is completely inconsistent with a first shot before z190. At z190, the VP car was still turning and the VP security car was just beginning the turn. The car carrying Mayor Cabell and his wife was still on Houston just coming up to the intersection.
The witnesses along Elm street observed the position of the President relative to where they were standing at the time of the first shot. For example, Mary Woodward said that the first horrible ear-shattering noise occurred as the car passed by her. She was standing just west of the lamp post on Elm and the President was opposite her around z190-195. Others, provided consistent recollections. Their evidence is compiled here.
So, when you put all of the evidence together, the only shot pattern that fits the rest of the evidence, is the 1.....2...3 pattern, which is the one recalled by the vast majority of witnesses. And this fits perfectly with the abundant evidence that there was a single shooter who fired 3 shots from the SN.
Joe Elliott:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on January 31, 2018, 02:59:56 PM ---
Looks like one more example of the witnesses being wrong. In this case these are people specifically placed there to observe the sounds and note them. Under what circumstances are witnesses correct?
Obviously with your extensive knowledge of a carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds you know what the witnesses hear.
--- End quote ---
No. I don?t have extensive knowledge of Carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds. It is the CTers who argue that we can tell what happened from what the witnesses reported they heard, not I.
But I know, from basic physics, the loudness of a sound depends, heavily, on the observer?s distance from the source. The loudness diminishes rapidly with distance.
So, one cannot say:
** It?s impossible to mistake a rifle with a firecracker because a rifle is so much louder.
** It doesn?t matter a firecracker is just 20 yards away and a rifle is 90 yards away, or 9 miles away, or any amount of distance away, the rifle is always going to sound louder.
A 163 db rifle (and the Carcano was likely not as loud as this) that is 90 yards away won?t sound any louder than a loud firecracker of 150 db that is 20 yards away. And the same rifle 45 yards away won?t sound any louder than the same firecracker that is 10 yards away.
So, it is nonsense to state that a witness, who is probably not an ?expert? on what various types of rifles and various types of firecrackers sound like, can tell whether a loud sound is from a rifle or a firecracker just from how loud the sound is. That this determination would be ?unmistakable?.
This would only be true of an ?expert?, a person who made an extensive study of what various rifles and firecrackers sound like at various distances. And who somehow knew his distance from the sound source, who somehow knew he was 90 yards from the sound source and so the sound could not be from an ordinary firecracker.
I believe that there were rifle shots at z153, z222 and z312 not because that is what the witnesses are telling me. I believe that these are the probable shots based on the physical evidence, primarily the Zapruder film. The clear evidence of frame z313. The pretty clear movement of JFK and Connally, and the lapel, and a large camera jiggle for a shot at z222. And the persuasive evidence for a shot at z153 from another large camera jiggle, plus the movements of people in the z160?s.
John Iacoletti:
--- Quote from: Joe Elliott on January 31, 2018, 07:46:10 PM ---No. I don?t have extensive knowledge of Carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds. It is the CTers who argue that we can tell what happened from what the witnesses reported they heard, not I.
--- End quote ---
No, it's you who argues that you can tell what happened by selectively interpreting jiggles and a little girl who stopped running.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version