The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?

[John Iacoletti]

Willis's photo coincides with Zapruder 210.

Z202-3 actually.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Not if the rifle is about 90 yards away and the firecracker is about 20 yards away. At equal distances, a 163 db sound source is about 20 times as powerful as a 150 db sound source. But at about 90 and 20 yards away, respectively, they would sound equally loud.

From the loudness alone, Altgens could not tell if he was hearing a rifle from 90 yards away or a firecracker that was 20 yards away. So, it is reasonable, as Mr. Altgens testified, that he assumed the loud noise he heard, while preparing for an important photograph (that was his job), was probably a firecracker.

Many people on the sidewalk in front of the TSBD heard the shots as "firecrackers". By the time Altgens snapped his photo at z255, the onlookers had still not reacted to two rifle shots, despite the facts they were very close to the rifle AND the muzzle of the rifle was pointing toward them.

Are you aware how much louder a rifle is if you are ahead of the muzzle, as opposed to standing behind the shooter?

Why did the onlookers in front of the TSBD not display instantaneous startle reactions, as would be expected of people exposed to 163 dB? Why did many of them describe a deafening muzzle blast as a firecracker?

[Jack Nessan]

Kennedy's right hand is between his face and the Zapruder camera in Z185


But we can get a better sense of where his head is turned in Z180. He doesn't seem to be looking in Woodward's direction at all.







The Woodward group are just gently applauding in the Z160s until they go out-of-frame in the Z180s. One hand (Thornton's?) raises and waves. They don't seem to be shouting or jumping up and down.

Woodward claims the Kennedys looked around after the first shot. This could be when Jackie started her head turn in the Z170s. Kennedy turns his head to his right between Z153 and Z162, and in the Z170s, leans forward a little and turns further right. Don't see anywhere else in the pre-sign footage where the Kennedys turn their heads so much.

This doesn't work too well for your Woodward claim that the first shot she heard must have been after Z204, since that gets close to her second shot where she saw Kennedy slump. It may not have been the slump she referred to, but the first slump supposedly caused by a hit to be seen in the film occurs at Z226-228. If one accepts that as the slump Woodward referred to, then the first two shots Woodward heard (ca. Z204 and Z226) would have been about one second apart followed by the head shot nearly five seconds later.

Sounds like Burney's "first shot" is Woodward's "second shot".

I don't think we should be relying on these accounts too much; some witnesses either literally heard two shots or heard three (or more) and could only recall two. Others recall hearing more than two shots but felt comfortably with taking about two of them. Reasons for that might be that they associate a shot with something they were doing or saw something significant as they heard the shot. Still others, such as Woodward, heard three shots they were able to recall distinctively. A few heard more than three.

How about actually prove in some fashion there was an early missed shot instead of insinuating somehow Woodward did something wrong. To date the only proof offered of  an early missed shot is makig an unsupported claim that all the eyewitnesses are all wrong and a 10 year old child heard a shot not one other adult eyewitness in Dealey Plaza heard. It is obvious what is behind the need to dismiss the eyewitnesses because they do not support this theory at all. In fact their statements prove it never happened. The biggest clue to when the first shot occurred is the eyewitnesses state where it occurred.  It either happened past them, before them, or right in front of them but they all reference its location in relation to where they were standing.

Mary Woodward is just one of many eyewitnesses who stated JFK was wounded in the Z200+ area and Woodward places the shot at the same spot all the other eyewitnesses do. Woodward had a small interaction with JFK which is the whole purpose of the motorcade in the first place. JFK can be clearly seen looking to his right at Woodward and friends between Z180 and Z190+. An attempt to interpret her movements in relationship to his eye contact in the context of what is seen in the Zapruder film is impossible.

[Jack Nessan]

Altgens said:
I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot? the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle.


Altgens said his picture was taken almost simultaneously with the first shot. That alone make it sound like the two events were almost together, within a second of each other.

In addition, he clarifies this (with a mistake) by saying it was just a fraction ahead of his picture.

Question:

1.   What kind of units is Altgens talking about when he said ?fraction?. Units of weight? Units of Length? It?s units of time, correct?

2.   What unit of time would he be referring to? A fraction of a minute? A fraction of a fortnight? It has to be a fraction of a second, right?


People, particularly if they are a little nervous, making an official statement in front of others, often skip words. While Altgens didn?t say ?fraction of a second?, that has to be what he meant. The shot occurred with a fraction, almost simultaneously with his picture, just like the pictures taken by Betzner and Willis. But we know those pictures were all spread of several seconds, so one of them, perhaps all three, were wrong.

All three were right. That is correct, he pictures were spread over the very small time of several seconds and that is what their statements indicate, before the shot, at the time of the shot, and after the shot.

These eyewitnesses, including James Altgens, all state the same thing. The only issue being raised seems to be Altgen's choice of words in trying to describe how quick the whole assassination took place, not whether the shot took place before he took the picture.

Obviously the main issue with eyewitness statements is the fact they do not support the idea there was an early missed shot in any form. The theory there was an early missed shot is what is wrong not the witnesses. The time frame of the assassination was approximately five seconds and the cycle time of the carcano was 2.3 seconds and the mechanics of the assassination need to be explained with those parameters in mind.

[John Anderson]

There are indeed witnesses talking about an early shot as shown in this very thread. Regardless of what we each choose to believe it involves discounting some of the witnesses. They can't all be right.

[Joe Elliott]

Many people on the sidewalk in front of the TSBD heard the shots as "firecrackers". By the time Altgens snapped his photo at z255, the onlookers had still not reacted to two rifle shots, despite the facts they were very close to the rifle AND the muzzle of the rifle was pointing toward them.

No.

The people under the sniper?s nest, 60 feet below, near the southeast corner of the building, were 60 degrees away from where the rifle was pointing. The bullet might pass right over their heads, about 60 feet above their heads, but in 3-D space the rifle was off of their position by 60 degrees. The rifle was not pointing in their general direction, almost straight down, but only 30 degrees below the horizon.


The people along the north side of the street near where the limousine was at z152 (see the map below):

http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_11/5a1653a2b6d50_DealeyPlazaDetailedMap112217.gif.368da7d606dfb2a91ee3af598949031f.gif

would have the shot muffled by the tree, which blocks the line of sight from the sniper?s nest to the sidewalk more than it does the center of the street.


And even if we ignore the effect of the tree, ignore that the rifle was not pointed within a few feet of them, the sound of the rifle from 45 yards away would be no louder than a firecracker 10 yards away. And for all they knew, someone had set off a firecracker.


Also, we should not forget that the Carcano is not one of the louder rifles. I understand it is not nearly as loud as some. As to be expected from a rifle that fires bullets that travel around 2100 feet per second as opposed to 2800 feet per second. So, while 163 db may be a good estimate for an average rifle, the Carcano was probably less loud than this.

Are you aware how much louder a rifle is if you are ahead of the muzzle, as opposed to standing behind the shooter?

Yes. 163 db. When the muzzle is pointed in the general direction of the observer.

Which is why a much larger firecracker is only 150 db, but a much smaller bullet can produce a much louder noise. Provided the rifle is pointed in the general direction of the observer.

And it is important to remember that in 1963, much more powerful firecrackers were legal then the ones you can legally buy today.



Even in an ?ideal? situation (ideal for hearing a loud noise) with the rifle pointed nearly at the observer, a rifle 90 yards away will only be as loud as a firecracker that is 20 yards away. And a rifle that is 45 yards away can only be as loud as a firecracker that is 10 yards away.

So, it won?t be obvious to an observer, at least one not experienced at being fired at with rifles, from the loudness alone, if they are hearing a firecracker or a rifle from four times further away.

Why did the onlookers in front of the TSBD not display instantaneous startle reactions, as would be expected of people exposed to 163 dB? Why did many of them describe a deafening muzzle blast as a firecracker?

The people who were close, within 60 feet, did not have the rifle pointed in their general direction.

The people who did have the rifle pointed in their general direction, were not that close, but 45 yards away (at z153). And, unless standing in the middle of the street, had a tree between them and the rifle, which would muffle the sound to some degree.

[Jack Nessan]

No.

The people under the sniper?s nest, 60 feet below, near the southeast corner of the building, were 60 degrees away from where the rifle was pointing. The bullet might pass right over their heads, about 60 feet above their heads, but in 3-D space the rifle was off of their position by 60 degrees. The rifle was not pointing in their general direction, almost straight down, but only 30 degrees below the horizon.


The people along the north side of the street near where the limousine was at z152 (see the map below):

http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_11/5a1653a2b6d50_DealeyPlazaDetailedMap112217.gif.368da7d606dfb2a91ee3af598949031f.gif

would have the shot muffled by the tree, which blocks the line of sight from the sniper?s nest to the sidewalk more than it does the center of the street.


And even if we ignore the effect of the tree, ignore that the rifle was not pointed within a few feet of them, the sound of the rifle from 45 yards away would be no louder than a firecracker 10 yards away. And for all they knew, someone had set off a firecracker.


Also, we should not forget that the Carcano is not one of the louder rifles. I understand it is not nearly as loud as some. As to be expected from a rifle that fires bullets that travel around 2100 feet per second as opposed to 2800 feet per second. So, while 163 db may be a good estimate for an average rifle, the Carcano was probably less loud than this.


Yes. 163 db. When the muzzle is pointed in the general direction of the observer.

Which is why a much larger firecracker is only 150 db, but a much smaller bullet can produce a much louder noise. Provided the rifle is pointed in the general direction of the observer.

And it is important to remember that in 1963, much more powerful firecrackers were legal then the ones you can legally buy today.



Even in an ?ideal? situation (ideal for hearing a loud noise) with the rifle pointed nearly at the observer, a rifle 90 yards away will only be as loud as a firecracker that is 20 yards away. And a rifle that is 45 yards away can only be as loud as a firecracker that is 10 yards away.

So, it won?t be obvious to an observer, at least one not experienced at being fired at with rifles, from the loudness alone, if they are hearing a firecracker or a rifle from four times further away.



The people who were close, within 60 feet, did not have the rifle pointed in their general direction.

The people who did have the rifle pointed in their general direction, were not that close, but 45 yards away (at z153). And, unless standing in the middle of the street, had a tree between them and the rifle, which would muffle the sound to some degree.

  "The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137



"We requested three motorcycles to be running during the test
to provide someback groundnoise that would approximate the orig
inal listening conditions in Dealey Plaza. Unfortunately these
newer motorcycles were not very noisy but the shots were so
loud that any reasonable level of background noise would have
been low in comparison with the shots themselves." HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pg 146

"All observers rated the rifle shots as very, very loud and
they were unable to understand how they could have been described
as a firecracker or backfire." HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pg 148