On the left is the full view, on the right is the limited view that doesn't depict the truth. Both sides of the JFK Assassination conspiracy argument will claim they are looking at the full view. But the CT proponents will claim that the photo on the left is fake....They both represent the truth. It is just that in the right picture you are making an incorrect interpretation of what is occurring if you conclude that the head is in the lion's mouth. In order to interpret it correctly you need to look at other evidence, such as the left picture.
(https://i.vgy.me/EIPi0Y.jpg)
They both represent the truth. It is just that in the right picture you are making an incorrect interpretation of what is occurring if you conclude that the head is in the lion's mouth. In order to interpret it correctly you need to look at other evidence, such as the left picture.
It is kind of like frame 224 of the Zapruder film. Some interpret it as it appears to them based on that single frame without caring that it conflicts with the rest of the evidence. Others look at the rest of the evidence and interpret it in a way that is consistent with that evidence.
Some of the danger lies in (due to having a biased view) looking at only one viewpoint. Example: If you believe that lions are always violent, the photo on the right might be all you care to look at. Another viewpoint (the left photo) shows an entirely different situation. But if one has been conditioned to believe that lions are always violent, one might not think that the left photo is genuine.
Now, think about the practically universal distrust of the authorities apparently present in the CT community. And the implications of that bias as it applies to their viewpoint and interpretation of the JFK assassination case. It is no wonder why essentially every piece of evidence has been “declared” by them to be corrupted in one way or another. They appear to believe that practically all the evidence is tainted. Why else would that be, except for a biased viewpoint?
They both represent the truth. It is just that in the right picture you are making an incorrect interpretation of what is occurring if you conclude that the head is in the lion's mouth. In order to interpret it correctly you need to look at other evidence, such as the left picture.
It is kind of like frame 224 of the Zapruder film. Some interpret it as it appears to them based on that single frame without caring that it conflicts with the rest of the evidence. Others look at the rest of the evidence and interpret it in a way that is consistent with that evidence.
Charles, it's not a super complicated problem.
The reason JFK conspiracy theories still persist is because of the EVIDENCE.
It's a fact that many pieces of evidence in the case have problems due either to incompetence or corruption by the Dallas PD. Their incompetence also led to the murder of Lee Oswald in their custody (which in and of itself fuels conspiracy theories).
It's a fact that there were institutional cover-ups by several of the agencies involved with the investigation.
It's a fact that most people watch the Zapruder film and view it as evidence of a second shooter (not everyone will buy the explanations of why Kennedy's head jerked violently backwards).
It's a fact that the botched JFK autopsy has created more confusion about the Medical evidence on both sides of the debate.
So with those issues in mind, it should be obvious why JFK assassination CT's will never go away.
I don't group JFK CT's with other CT's like 'Q-Anon' or 'faked Moon Landings' because there's plenty of reasonable questions about the evidence in the Kennedy assassination.
Why would Oswald shoot JFK?
Because he was a nut.
How do you know he was a nut?
Because he shot JFK.
... And stop lying that it's where Hickey saw Kennedy's hair fly away. You lie because you need the tiny hair flutter for your Pet Theory's Z272 shot. The only place Hickey could see the President's hair fly away is the head shot.Is that what George Hickey stated?
The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head.https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-hicke.htm
Oswald wasn't just a nut, he was Stark Raving BonkersPeople who like to sit around and create all these little illustrations with apparently nothing better to do might be a bit non compos mentis themselves.
People who like to sit around and create all these little illustrations with apparently nothing better to do might be a bit non compos mentis themselves.
Why would Oswald shoot JFK?
Because he was a nut.
How do you know he was a nut?
Because he shot JFK.
Per the illustration...We know that mother cats carry their young around----
----so there is nothing greatly revealed about this.
I agree that there will always be controversy surrounding the JFK assassination case. But there is more to it than just the items that you have outlined. In the US, it became much more fashionable to be antiestablishment and down right hostile to the authorities during the Vietnam War era and subsequent controversies like Watergate, etc. It has never improved and the nutty defund the police movement is an example of that. Couple that widespread attitude with the Oliver Stone JFK movie, and the unavoidable result is that a majority of the people believe in conspiracy. Most of them have no desire to do any research of their own or even entertain the other side of the argument. They just “somehow know” that there was a conspiracy and that is that…
On the cultural angle, I agree with you that people who distrust the government and other elite institutions are more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories about Kennedy's assassination and other CT's.
My question to you is, do you think the distrust of government and elites is deserved?
IMHO, the government and other institutions in the US have screwed up enough in my lifetime, in terms of lies and incompetence, that the possibility of organizational coverups and conspiracies often can't always be outright dismissed.
Like for example, Watergate, COINTELPRO, Iran Contra, CIA-Mafia assassination plots etc are confirmed conspiracies involving high level government officials. So who is more to blame for the decline in trust of the government? Richard Nixon and George HW Bush, or Oliver Stone?
The “government,” at least in the US, has been construed as: of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, we (the people) elect the government officials from our midsts. And if they do not serve the people in a good way, they can be voted out of office.
Yes, government officials are people. And people are human and therefore subject to making mistakes and sometimes even being corrupted. We should always question the actions and decisions of those elected officials. And we should try our best to look at all sides of the situations that we learn about through the news media, by whatever source we get the news from, and not just accept what is presented to us as the whole truth. The wholesale condemnation of the government officials as being corrupted (just because they are in power) is not deserved. Sadly, partisan politics and the zealots on either side try their best to portray the other side as evil. And the media loves to try to sell their stories by making them more sensational.
So, to answer your question, I believe that the media and filmmakers, etc. are more to blame (for the decline in trust in the government) than the actual government officials. But in the end analysis, we the people are responsible for making our own attitudes. We need to make the effort to learn the whole truth of the important matters by trying to always look at all viewpoints, not just lazily accept what is shown in the news as the truth. We can and should hold the media and filmmakers just as responsible for presenting the truth to us as we can and should hold the elected officials responsible for doing the right things. Pointing fingers and blaming others for the way things are isn’t going to solve anything. We are responsible for our own thoughts and actions, not someone else. And once we realize that and start making the effort to improve ourselves by learning the whole truth and acting accordingly the decline in trust of the government might just reverse itself. Until then, I have to say that it probably will not….
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the role the Media plays in this.
Granted, I agree that the corporate media is largely to blame for exploiting political partisanship and the painting of the opposition political party as “evil”. Fox News and MSNBC are opposite sides of the same coin. In recent years, exploiting political polarization seems to have become a key part of their business models.
Where I disagree is the idea that the mainstream media and even Hollywood promote anti-government sentiment. That seems quite far from the current reality we live in where Oliver Stone, an award winning film maker, can’t find a US distribution company for his most recent JFK assassination film.
The 1991 JFK movie was trashed for the most part by the news media. In fact the news media has been the biggest and most consistent cheerleader for the Warren Report.
Occasionally the news media covers a bombshell story that makes the government look bad but most of the time, they ignore lots of other stuff involving our government that only gets covered in alternative media or foreign media.
And Hollywood has had a close relationship with the Defense Dept going back to WWII. Despite the occasional film like “Platoon”, which Oliver Stone took ten years to make due to disinterest from Hollywood, they most often paint the US military and intelligence services in a positive light.
So while I agree that the media is a factor in political partisanship, I disagree that they are largely to blame for the persistence of conspiracy theories.
People who distrust the government often also distrust the mainstream media. So I don’t see how the media is to blame.
Is that what George Hickey stated?https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-hicke.htm
Why do you call people liars?
What is your problem?
People who like to sit around and create all these little illustrations with apparently nothing better to do might be a bit non compos mentis themselves.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the role the Media plays in this.
Granted, I agree that the corporate media is largely to blame for exploiting political partisanship and the painting of the opposition political party as “evil”. Fox News and MSNBC are opposite sides of the same coin. In recent years, exploiting political polarization seems to have become a key part of their business models.
Where I disagree is the idea that the mainstream media and even Hollywood promote anti-government sentiment. That seems quite far from the current reality we live in where Oliver Stone, an award winning film maker, can’t find a US distribution company for his most recent JFK assassination film.
The 1991 JFK movie was trashed for the most part by the news media. In fact the news media has been the biggest and most consistent cheerleader for the Warren Report.
Occasionally the news media covers a bombshell story that makes the government look bad but most of the time, they ignore lots of other stuff involving our government that only gets covered in alternative media or foreign media.
And Hollywood has had a close relationship with the Defense Dept going back to WWII. Despite the occasional film like “Platoon”, which Oliver Stone took ten years to make due to disinterest from Hollywood, they most often paint the US military and intelligence services in a positive light.
So while I agree that the media is a factor in political partisanship, I disagree that they are largely to blame for the persistence of conspiracy theories.
People who distrust the government often also distrust the mainstream media. So I don’t see how the media is to blame.
Do you believe that the media’s political partisanship factor (portraying the other side as evil, etc.) has an effect on people’s trust (or rather lack of trust) of the government? If so, then don’t you believe that that distrust helps promote the conspiracy theories? In may be an indirect result of the political bias that exists in the media. But I think there is a correlation.
JFK conspiracy theories have existed for 50+ years while the political polarization of the Media that we are experiencing today is a relatively recent phenomenon. Arguably, Talk Radio and Fox News started the trend but by the 2010s, promoting news that targets partisan audiences became a widespread trend in the news industry.
And that’s exactly why there’s no partisan divide on views of the JFK assassination. It’s one of the few political controversies that breakdown evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Media influence hasn’t really been a factor.
I totally blame the media for more recent partisan conspiracy theories but don’t see the media as having been a big factor in the persistence of JFK assassination theories.
I remember 2013 very well. During the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, most news outlets downplayed or ignored JFK CT’s almost entirely, except for the theories that blamed Fidel Castro.
The news media for the most part since 1963, has dismissed or attempted to debunk, JFK assassination theories. So I don’t see how they can be blamed for the persistence of a majority of Americans believing there was a conspiracy.
Back in the sixties the news media coverage of the Vietnam War was a catalyst for the protests and for turning a large part of a generation of young people against the authorities. The concurrent coverage of the civil rights movement had a similar effect.
Was there an agenda by the media? I certainly believe that there was one. Was it justified? I think that it probably was. There was an obvious similar and concurrent agenda by some of the television shows that were popular with the young folks. The Smothers Brothers Show and Laugh-In are two of them. Kids learn from the attitudes and actions of their parents. So when these antiestablishment young people had kids, many of their kids adopted their attitudes. A snowball effect of this phenomenon has led to the situation we are in today. What we really could use is another leader with the persuasive ability of JFK to convince people that they shouldn’t ask what their country can do for them. But should ask what they can do for their country!
I have to disagree again.
The media wasn't responsible for the political assassinations and the government lies about Vietnam that inspired the Leftwing Baby Boomers in the 60s and 70s.
Finding out that the government lied to us about the Vietnam war did more to damage Americans' trust in their government than negative news coverage of the war although the two things go hand in hand.
From a cultural standpoint, I think you're right. Most people in the media are Liberal and idealistic and their ideals were expressed in the print, TV, and movies of the 60s and 70s. But I fail to see that as a negative thing for society. It's good to be aspirational and aim for a more perfect union.
I agree that there's a connection between 'distrust in the government' and 'conspiratorial thinking' but I don't agree that the mainstream media and/or Hollywood promote those two things.
Then why don't you look at the view opposite Hickey's?Jerry: Let's make no mistake: you are suggesting that Hickey, a career Secret Service Agent, made up his story because he was saying he saw something that you say he could not.
Oswald wasn't just a nut, he was Stark Raving Bonkers who was a wife beater, defector and already tried to assassinate General Edwin Anderson Walker.I agree. It is not just that Oswald became a communist sympathiser and styled himself as an anti-fascist. Oswald acted on his twisted notions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrhHxxy1/Oswald-Stark-Raving-Bonkers.jpg)
JohnM
I agree. It is not just that Oswald became a communist sympathiser and styled himself as an anti-fascist. Oswald acted on his twisted notions.
How many Communist sympathizers actually moved to Russia? How many of those stayed there long enough to learn how to speak and write Russian and get married? How many supposed anti-fascists (ironic, because Oswald's behaviour was fascist-like) actually identified a specific target, bought a gun and tried to assassinate that target?
How many Communist sympathizers actually moved to Russia? How many of those stayed there long enough to learn how to speak and write Russian and get married?
Jerry: Let's make no mistake: you are suggesting that Hickey, a career Secret Service Agent, made up his story because he was saying he saw something that you say he could not.
Not only is your "theory" that Hickey made up something he did not see,
but the Zfilm actually captures what he said he saw in the time frame that he said it occurred.
How did he know that when he gave his statement? He had not seen the zfilm at that time.
If you want anyone to accept that your "theory" (that Hickey just made up seeing JFK's hair fly up on the second shot without causing any damage BEFORE seeing the head rupture on the third shot),
the least you could do is show us how you determine the sight line from Hickey to JFK. It is apparent to me that Hickey was standing in a much higher car
so he could see the top of JFK's head, so he would have had no difficulty seeing the hair fly up on the right side. Why would he not have been able to see the top of JFK's head?
Mason can't help himself. Right out of the Defense Attorney Playbook that, thanks to Mark Lane and the like, polluted just about every forensic fact to do with the Kennedy assassination. In this case, Young Andy re-framed what I said into something I did not say.Jerry, you seem awfully defensive. I just asked you why you think Hickey made up his statement about seeing the second shot NOT hit JFK. He said that the hair on the right side of his head flew up at the time of the second shot and did not appear to hit anything. Hickey did say that in his Nov. 30/63 statement (CE1024, 18H762):
Here what I wrote:I will just add a couple of comments:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Hickey seems to have heard the rifle report of the head shot and the impact on
the head as two separate sounds ("there seemed to be practically no time
element between them")."
I have a "theory" that Hickey made up something he did not see? LOL! National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is tomorrow, but it's going to be wasted on you.So are you conceding that he saw what he said he saw: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head" and "The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact" ?? Or are you still saying that I am lying in saying that Hickey actually said those words?
What time frame? Hickey said "Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President." Hickey's head is turned completely around in the Altgens photo at Z255, one second before the hair flutter in the Z270s. Even if Hickey began turning forward in Z256, he has to locate the President, perceive him "slumped forward and to his left" and observe the President "straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked." Then -- "At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports" -- Hickey sees what he calls "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward". Seems a lot to take in within one second, if Hickey got it all done by the Z270s.If Hickey turned his head from z255 to z273, which is a full second, he could have easily heard a shot and seen JFK's hair fly up, which occurs from z273-276. Why could that not have happened? He said: "Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President." so it could not have been much later than z255 that he turned.
What about Hickey's other statement:In his Nov. 22/63 statement he described two shots and their effects. On one shot, he observed the right side of JFK's head being hit and on the other he observed that JFK's hair flew forward. Hey, and guess what: that is exactly how he explained it in his more detailed statement on November 30/63!!
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car. The President
was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be
two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."
Hickey certainly associates the hair flying forward with the head shot.
Hickey was not standing in the Queen Mary; he was propped against the front side of two cases that were laid flat and stacked on his side of the back seat. I figure Hickey had his feet on the car floor because if he sat on the top of the upper case, he would go sliding off the cases at the first turn. My 3D model took into account the height differential and street slope.You KNOW he was not standing? Why would his legs when facing rearward be in the same position when he was facing forward? Think Jerry. That makes absolutely no sense. When facing the rear, he would have been able to kneel against the seat as he appears to be doing in Altgens 6. But that was not possible when facing forward. Why would he not be standing when he faced forward? What evidence do you have that he was not fully standing when he faced forward?
Hickey could see some of the top of the President's head but not the right front. In the Z270s, Kennedy's head is tilted forward such that the tiny hair flutter was out of Hickey's sight. I posed Kennedy as he was in Z272 and I placed Hickey as he was in the Queen Mary. One is sitting in a car; the other is braced with his feet on the floorboard. I even had Hickey facing forward though I very much doubt Hickey reeled his head fully around in the one second between the Altgens photo and Z272.Jerry, grade 5 students understand parallax and perspective. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Hickey saw what he said he saw. You say he could not. I say, there is no reason to believe that he made a false statement and every reason to believe, since what he said he observed actually appears in the zfilm, that his statement is not false.
This seems to once again come down to your non-comprehension of parallax and perspective. It would be like me taking on your legal work for a month.
Jerry, you seem awfully defensive. I just asked you why you think Hickey made up his statement about seeing the second shot NOT hit JFK. He said that the hair on the right side of his head flew up at the time of the second shot and did not appear to hit anything. Hickey did say that in his Nov. 30/63 statement (CE1024, 18H762):
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."
You now accuse me of lying in pointing out what he said. You said:
"And stop lying that it's where Hickey saw Kennedy's hair fly away. The only place Hickey could see the President's hair fly away is the head shot.
You lie because you need the tiny hair flutter for your Pet Theory's Z272 shot."
How is it a "lie" on my part to quote you saying that Hickey did not see the hair fly up on the second shot before the head shot, and ask you why you think that Hickey, a career Secret Service Agent, would state that he did see the hair fly up on the second shot, before the head shot if, indeed, he had not seen that, in which case he would have known he had not seen that when he gave his statement.
You say that you 'did not "suggest" Hickey "made up his story"'. Yet you continue to assert that Hickey, in recalling seeing JFK's hair fly up at the time of the second shot but no damage being done to JFK, was stating that he observed something that he did not observe:
I will just add a couple of comments:
"Practically" is a big word. It means there was a time element between the last two shots but it was short.
Hickey did make it clear that he could distinguish between the two shots. He did not describe the impact to the head as occurring before the sound of the shot, which is what would he would have heard if there had been just one shot. The sound of impact would have arrived at his ears about 1/10th of a second before the sound wave-front from the muzzle blast arrived. Why would he mistake that for two rifle shots? He distinguished between the impact sound and the muzzle blast but still counted that as one shot - the head shot. The second shot was a different shot, according to Hickey.
You then assert:So are you conceding that he saw what he said he saw: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head" and "The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact" ?? Or are you still saying that I am lying in saying that Hickey actually said those words?
If Hickey turned his head from z255 to z273, which is a full second, he could have easily heard a shot and seen JFK's hair fly up, which occurs from z273-276. Why could that not have happened? He said: "Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President." so it could not have been much later than z255 that he turned.
Hickey said he observed JFK's hair fly up on the right side of his head BEFORE the head shot. I have carefully examined the zfilm, as have you, and the only place that JFK's hair flies up between z255 when Hickey is looking rearward until z313 is from z273-z276. How could he possibly have known that this occurred if he had not seen it? It is obviously before the head shot. How do you explain that? Just a good guess? That is a really big question that you seem to be avoiding......
And, while you are at it, how is it that this hair movement, which Hickey said coincided with the first of the last two shots, fits perfectly with a shot that is 2.3 seconds before the head shot? That just happens to fit with Oswald firing the last two shots as quickly as possible. Just a coincidence, I suppose.....
In his Nov. 22/63 statement he described two shots and their effects. On one shot, he observed the right side of JFK's head being hit and on the other he observed that JFK's hair flew forward. Hey, and guess what: that is exactly how he explained it in his more detailed statement on November 30/63!!
You KNOW he was not standing? Why would his legs when facing rearward be in the same position when he was facing forward? Think Jerry. That makes absolutely no sense. When facing the rear, he would have been able to kneel against the seat as he appears to be doing in Altgens 6. But that was not possible when facing forward. Why would he not be standing when he faced forward? What evidence do you have that he was not fully standing when he faced forward?
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image59.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Jim_Walker1.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Motorcade.jpg) | ||||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0092.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Groden_Willis5.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_002.jpg) |
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Hill_Running.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Dave Powers standing | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DPowers.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Dave Powers' view |
At least it appears that you would agree with me that he would be able to easily see the top of JFK's head if he was fully standing when facing forward. You can see from Altgens' 6 that Clint Hill was able to see the top of JFK's head. Hickey's eyes would have been even higher if he was fully standing.
Jerry, grade 5 students understand parallax and perspective. That is not the issue.
The issue is whether Hickey saw what he said he saw. You say he could not. I say, there is no reason to believe that he made a false statement and every reason to believe, since what he said he observed actually appears in the zfilm, that his statement is not false.
Whether it is the main stream media’s bias or Oliver Stone’s bias (in his movie JFK) showing only one view in order to promote their bias can be misleading. Sadly, it happens every day.So you admit that there is a lame stream media bias... I certainly agree. But you are very much mistaken about the direction of that bias.
So you admit that there is a lame stream media bias... I certainly agree. But you are very much mistaken about the direction of that bias.
That day and in the December time that followed the assassination we had Uncle Walter Cronkite [whom everybody trusted heart and soul] reading the teleprompter like a puppet and the two other networks [the only ones around] followed suit. Who wrote those words for them to parrot? Who controlled the information? That control has never changed.
The case against the accused assassin was prosecuted via TV. Any questions were squelched...any doubts were belayed.
Regarding the movie 'JFK'...most people regard it as a film with an all star cast that is for the most part...too depressing...but does raise many questions. So what was wrong with that? There were productions along the way like 'The men who killed Kennedy' but they are regarded more as a novelty than anything else.
You're re-framing what I said just like you've re-framed what Hickey said. Here's his original statement again:But HE IS CLEARLY NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HEAD SHOT. He is talking about the first shot of the second two which appeared to miss because he observed the hair on the right side of his head fly forward with no impact on the head. There is no way that he is describing the head shot.
"Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car. The President
was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be
two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward."
The head is struck and the hair then flies away. Even his later report has those two shots intertwined:
"At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots
and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in
such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.
It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head."
Here he doesn't say only one of the two shots (or sounds he thought were shots; one could have been the impact on the head or the windshield frame being struck) struck the President's head; he says both "reports" occurred during the head shot event. Only then does Hickey break it down (much to the benefit of cherry-pickers):
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side
of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last
shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall
forward and to his left again. -- Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the time of
the first report and the last."
Because this is the only point at which Hickey could have seen hair "fly forward", he must be talking about the head shot.
By your Theory, Hickey would be describing a span of more than two seconds as "there seemed to be practically no time element between them".Jerry, my "theory" is that Hickey did not make it up. My "theory" is that he saw what he said he saw.
Here's what I said: "And stop lying that it's where Hickey saw Kennedy's hair fly away. The only place Hickey could see the President's hair fly away is the head shot."Jerry, he said he saw JFK's hair fly up on the right side on the first of the last two shots and nothing else happened. You say that Hickey could not have seen what he said he saw. I am just saying that, since the only place Hickey could have seen JFK's hair fly up BEFORE the head shot, which is unquestionably what he described, was the only place his hair flew up while he was looking forward, which is z273-76. And you accuse me of "lying" for saying this!!! It is you who is accusing Hickey of uttering a falsehood. I did not utter a falsehood by pointing out the evidence.
Calm down, fellow. I'm sorry your lamebrain Pet Theory is in the Ash Heap of History. So now the defense attorney is resorting to charges of evasion, even though I worked up his Hickey claim in 3D three years ago, and more recently explained that since Hickey can't physically see to the tiny hair flutter in the Z270s, he must have been talking about the head shot, where hair does fly forward in a memorable way plus being visible to Hickey.I don't know if you can actually read, Jerry. He distinctly said he was talking about a shot BEFORE the head shot!! He was not talking about the head shot.
Show one motorcade-underway picture where Hickey is standing with his head level with Clint Hill.Unfortunately, there are none. But there is one of Powers standing up in the QM taking movies. It is clear from your photo below that Powers is higher up than Clint Hill and the other agents on the running board. How tall was Hickey? Do you know?
Surely, Agent Hickey must have stretched his legs once in a while.Why? What does it matter if he didn't or if there is no photo of it? How does that bear on the issue: whether he was standing when he said observed the President at the time of the last two shots?
You are just making that up! How on earth can you know that? JFK's head would have been at his shin level 20 feet away. He could see his whole head. And he said he saw the hair on the right side of his head fly forward. You are really grasping at straws.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Dave Powers standing
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Dave Powers' view
Dave Powers was more to the behind of Kennedy than Hickey. Powers wouldn't be able to see to the hair flutter when Kennedy's head was sharply tilted forward and tilted a bit toward Jackie.
BTW, a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".Hickey obviously thought so because he recalled it and wrote it in his statement.
But HE IS CLEARLY NOT TALKING ABOUT THE HEAD SHOT. He is talking about the first shot of the second two which appeared to miss because he observed the hair on the right side of his head fly forward with no impact on the head. There is no way that he is describing the head shot.
Jerry, my "theory" is that Hickey did not make it up. My "theory" is that he saw what he said he saw.
Jerry, he said he saw JFK's hair fly up on the right side on the first of the last two shots and nothing else happened. You say that Hickey could not have seen what he said he saw. I am just saying that, since the only place Hickey could have seen JFK's hair fly up BEFORE the head shot, which is unquestionably what he described, was the only place his hair flew up while he was looking forward, which is z273-76. And you accuse me of "lying" for saying this!!! It is you who is accusing Hickey of uttering a falsehood. I did not utter a falsehood by pointing out the evidence.
I don't know if you can actually read, Jerry. He distinctly said he was talking about a shot BEFORE the head shot!! He was not talking about the head shot.
Unfortunately, there are none. But there is one of Powers standing up in the QM taking movies. It is clear from your photo below that Powers is higher up than Clint Hill and the other agents on the running board. How tall was Hickey? Do you know?
Why? What does it matter if he didn't or if there is no photo of it? How does that bear on the issue: whether he was standing when he said observed the President at the time of the last two shots?You are just making that up! How on earth can you know that? JFK's head would have been at his shin level 20 feet away. He could see his whole head. And he said he saw the hair on the right side of his head fly forward. You are really grasping at straws. Hickey obviously thought so because he recalled it and wrote it in his statement.
"Jerry, my "theory" is that Hickey did not make it up. My "theory" is that he saw what he said he saw."You seem angry, Dan.
"He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."
So, according to your "theory" Hickey saw JFK " straightening up to an almost erect sitting position".
This is not shown in the Zapruder footage yet Hickey still saw it.
How did Hickey see something that didn't happen?
According to your "theory" JFK "was almost sitting erect" when Hickey saw the headshot.
This is not shown in the Zapruder footage yet Hickey still saw it.
How did Hickey see something that didn't happen?
More interesting is what Hickey doesn't see.
The most striking aspect of this whole case is JFK's head exploding yet Hickey doesn't see this.
JFK's head flies backwards and to the left yet Hickey doesn't see this, instead he sees JFK fall forward as a result of the headshot.
This is not what the Zapruder footage shows.
It shows JFK's head flying "back and to the left"
Multiple witnesses describe JFK's hair flying up as a result of the headshot.Perhaps. But in Hickey's case he distinguished two shots that had two different effects. How many said that there was a shot that coincided with his hair flying up but did not appear to strike his head and then described another shot that did strike his head?
I (and apparently many other people) have requested that Ken Burns, the acclaimed documentary producer, make a documentary about the JFK assassination. One of the reasons that I specified in my letter to him was to provide a counter viewpoint to the Oliver Stone movie. Sadly the response from him stated that he already had many projects in the pipeline and was too busy to do one on the JFK assassination. Ken Burns is very well known and I think is uniquely qualified to make a documentary based on what is known (instead of “raising more questions “) that would appeal to a wider audience than just the students of the case. His techniques typically can “transport” an audience to the period of time in history and the events that are the subject of the documentary. It would be a much needed antidote to Oliver Stone’s movie, if he would only make it.It would be interesting to see Ken Burns take on the SBT.
You seem angry, Dan.
Do I?Let's take Hickey's observation that he observed JFK slumped to the left in the car and then observed him come up (22Nov63 statement) or "He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked." (30Nov63 statement) and see whether there is something that could have given him that impression. Hickey said he turned to the rear for about 2-3 seconds before looking forward just before the time of the last shots. So he is comparing the position of JFK that he had seen before he turned to the rear to the position he saw him when he turned forward again.
Jut because I pointed out how unbelievably poor your madcap "theory" is?
Just to recap the important point you slid over -
Your "theory" - that Hickey "saw what he said he saw."
I pointed out that Hickey turns round after the first shot and sees JFK slumped to his left (as we see in the Z-Film).
He then reports that JFK begins to sit up and is almost sat fully erect at the time of the headshot.
This does not happen. We know this for a fact. It is not in the Z-Film.
So what does that say about the reliability of what Hickey "sees"?
It says his account of what happened is completely unreliable.
He reports seeing things that did not happen!!
How can you possibly get around this fact?
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_230_to_270.gif) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_229_230_to_268_269.gif) |
It would be interesting to see Ken Burns take on the SBT.
Let's take Hickey's observation that he observed JFK slumped to the left in the car and then observed him come up (22Nov63 statement) or "He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked." (30Nov63 statement) and see whether there is something that could have given him that impression. Hickey said he turned to the rear for about 2-3 seconds before looking forward just before the time of the last shots. So he is comparing the position of JFK that he had seen before he turned to the rear to the position he saw him when he turned forward again.
When Hickey is last seen in frame z208 (the top half of z212) he is facing forward and rising up. From z225-235 JFK slumps forward and down and to the left of where he had been when waving to the crowd. If Hickey saw JFK up to z230 say, and then turned to the rear for a few seconds before looking forward around z265-z270 (some time after Altgens 6), he would have seen a change in JFK's position. If you compare frame z230 and z270 (which is a bit more than 2 seconds), there is a noticeable difference:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_230_to_270.gif) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_229_230_to_268_269.gif)
By z267, JFK is not slumping forward as he was in z230. He is sitting more erect. Not fully erect, but more than he was in z230. So Hickey would naturally have the impression that JFK had been straightening up. Nothing inaccurate about that at all. Perfectly reasonable.
The observation of the hair on the right side of JFK's head flying forward without causing damage to JFK is raises a different kind of issue. The issue in the first observation concerned the accuracy of his description of a change in JFK's position. In the hair flying up observation, the issue is whether the event it occurred at all, and if so, whether it occurred at the time he heard the second shot as he stated. The accuracy of the event can be determined by the fact that the hair flies forward on the right side of JFK's head (and no one else's hair moves at all) at the time that the 1.......2...3 shot pattern indicates the second shot could have occurred. The hair flies up into the apparent wind caused by the motion of the car. It is unusual. That is the only time such a hair movement occurs while Hickey could have been turned forward. It is very hard to imagine how he he could have guessed that it occurred then without actually seeing it. His description fits what is seen in the zfilm.
So Hickey's observation of the hair flip is definitely accurate. He must have seen it. There is no other way he could have known it had occurred. The only question is whether it occurred at the time of the second shot. To corroborate that, we have the dozens of witnesses who recalled the last two shots being close together, the first shot being the neck shot and the last shot being the head shot. We also have Greer and Powers who described what occurred on the second shot (Powers: Connally disappeared from his view; Greer: turned around immediately after the second shot and saw Connally falling - he turns by z283).
So my conclusion, which is consistent with all the evidence, is that Hickey actually saw the hair flying up on the right side of JFK's head without any damage occurring at the time of the second shot and this occurred at z273-276. You may not agree with my conclusion. But if you do not, you have a disagreement with the evidence, not my reasoning.
"From z225-235 JFK slumps forward and down and to the left..."Your reaction is difficult to understand. I just presented you with two animated .gif files to compare JFK's position seen by Hickey before he turns rearward to his position next seen by Hickey when he turns forward. Can you not see them?
??? Your "untruthfulness" knows no bounds.
I was intrigued to see what fabrications your slippery mind would come up with but this is off the charts.
You genuinely believe you can misrepresent the Z-Film, state something has happened in it that obviously hasn't happened and that it won't be mentioned. Who do you think you are - Hickey?
JFK does not slump forward, down and to the left between frames z225 and z235. Have you lost your mind??
From z225 onwards JFK grabs his throat and sits bolt upright, he leans slightly forward, Jackie grabs hold of his arms and then he slumps to his left. This is what happens in the Z-Film and none of your untruthing will change that.Did you not read what I wrote? I was describing JFK's position in z230 compared to his position while he was waving to the crowd before the Stemmons sign. I don't know why anyone would describe JFK as sitting bolt upright at z230, which is the position of JFK that I was suggesting that Hickey saw before he turned rearward for 2-3 seconds before turning forward again at the time of the last two shots. Numerous witnesses described JFK as slumping forward or to the left and bringing his hands to his neck:
JFK does not begin to slump to his left until around z260.Which zfilm are you viewing? Here is a comparison of JFK's position between z193 and z230:
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_193_to_230.gif) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193_lines.jpg) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z230_lines.jpg) |
Your arrogance, to believe you can simply ride roughshod over the film/photographic record, is unbelievable. And none of this changes the fact that in his statement Hickey is clear that when he turns around after hearing the first shot he sees JFK slumped to his left - this can only be a reference to the moment JFK has actually slumped to his left, something observed by dozens and dozens of witnesses.The zfilm shows otherwise. Hickey is describing a difference or change in position of JFK between the time he saw JFK before he (Hickey) turned around to the rear which I am suggesting could have occurred around z230 and when he turned forward just before the last two shots (which I am suggesting could have occurred around z270):
From this slumped position Hickey then recalls JFK beginning to sit upright until he is almost erect and is then shot in the head.
THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Getting back to the topic "Perception of Reality", the photo of the lion holding the lion cub vs. the photo of JFK emerging from behind the Stemmons sign at z225.
If you already have formed the view that the second shot had just occurred at z224 and passed through both men, you will see JFK not reacting in z225 to being shot in the neck because it is much too soon (55 ms) after the shot for him to have begun reacting. Also, in z224 JFK has his hands down in front of him in a much different position than seen before he passed behind the Stemmons sign. Since JFK could not have reacted to the neck shot before it hit him, the position of the hands seen in z224 is "natural" and the fact that JFK moves those hands closer to his face/neck afterward is seen as a different move: ie. one in response to the bullet passing through his neck instead of a continuation of the move of his hands from pre-Stemmons to z224.
The problem is that there is an enormous amount of witness evidence that the first shot struck JFK and that the last two shots were close together and not anything like 5 seconds apart. So by the time JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, there has been only one shot. So those who are trained to determine facts based on evidence do not interpret frame z224 as showing the second shot SBT.
Now, the question is: which approach has the better chance of reaching the right conclusion?
Witness accounts are frequently inaccurate. You are cherry-picking the witnesses that agree with your idea. That’s not the same as looking at all the available views with an open mind.Cherry picking witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot? There are at least 20 witnesses who said he did exactly that. I must have missed all the witnesses who said that he continued to smile and wave after the first shot for even half a second, let alone 3 seconds as you suggest. Perhaps you could direct me to just one....
Witness accounts are frequently inaccurate. You are cherry-picking the witnesses that agree with your idea. That’s not the same as looking at all the available views with an open mind.
When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.No. Cherry-picking is never appropriate.
No. Cherry-picking is never appropriate.
Who said it was appropriate? Nobody did, so you can back down off your strawman, ok? Oh how you misrepresent.Well, you said "It must occur". I disagreed. I said it must never occur.
The point I was making was about a "narrative". Allow me to lay out the rest of my post you so judiciously avoided:
"When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.Well, Hickey is really the only witness who observed JFK's hair fly up on the second shot. But there is no witness who gave conflicting evidence. So, it is not exactly "cherry-picking" to note that JFK's hair does fly up at z273-276 and that there is quite a bit evidence that a second shot occurred shortly before the head shot.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate."
The rest of your horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns post is not worthy of repeating other than to say there is no greater culprit of cherry-picking than you. Your Hickey/fringe ruffle BS: is the worst kind of cherry picking.
Your utterly destroyed BS: theory of a hit around z271 is predicated on nothing but the cherry picking you so righteously denounce.
I ask for an open mind and I get you ::)
Well, you said "It must occur". I disagreed. I said it must never occur.
Well, Hickey is really the only witness who observed JFK's hair fly up on the second shot.
But there is no witness who gave conflicting evidence.
So, it is not exactly "cherry-picking" to note that JFK's hair does fly up at z273-276 and that there is quite a bit evidence that a second shot occurred shortly before the head shot.
You do not seem to understand what "cherry-picking" means. It means that you ignore the preponderance of evidence and go with the one piece of evidence that conflicts with the preponderance of evidence to make your case. My "horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns post" is just pointing this out. You still seem to be missing the point.
When witness accounts completely contradict each other "cherry-picking" must occur.
It is an unavoidable consequence of contradictory witness accounts,
The best one can do is provide a narrative that coherently incorporates as much evidence as possible.
There will always be evidence that falls outside any narrative (this is the life blood of conspiracy parasites)
If you can point to a single "open mind" on this forum please do, I would very much like to engage them in debate.
No you didn't. You never said it "must never occur".Saying something is "never appropriate" is just a more polite way of saying it "must never occur". Or did you really think that I meant that sometimes it should occur? In case you still find it confusing, I will say it this way "Cherry-picking is never appropriate: ie. cherry-picking must never occur". I take it that you disagree with that statement. You think it is ok to cherry-pick - to select a single piece of evidence that is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. I guess we will have to disagree.
Are you lying or just amazingly confused?
None of the other witnesses who were looking directly at JFK at the time of the assassination report this.It would if there was no independent confirmation that what he observed actually occurred. But the zfilm shows it occurring:
Doesn't that mean anything to you?
Does it mean anything to you that Brehm describes JFK's hair flying up at the moment of the headshot?
Does it mean anything to you that Hickey fails to mention JFK's exploding head?People describe what they recall. He recalled seeing evidence that the shot hit JFK in the head. He also recalled seeing no evidence that the second shot hit JFK in the head and did recall seeing JFK's hair on the right side fly forward without any sign of hitting him.
Of course it doesn't, because you cherry pick Hickey's faulty observation of JFK's headshot to support your utterly destroyed theory that there was a bullet strike at z271.How is it "cherry-picking" to simply point out what he said he observed and to point out that precisely what he said he saw is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said it occurred (shortly before the head shot)? What evidence conflicts with it?
Brehm described JFK's hair flying up at the headshot, isn't that counter-evidence?No. For the reasons stated, Brehm was describing the headshot. Hickey was describing a shot before the headshot that did not strike JFK that coincided with the movement of JFK's hair and then he described the third and last shot striking JFK in the head.
JFK's hair does not "fly up" at this point. His fringe slightly ruffles and no more than that. In your intense, cherry picking desperation you have to grasp onto anything you can and then cry "evidence".It is plain to see that the hair on JFK's right side lifts together - and it is the only person whose hair moves. Here, I'll make it bigger for you:
Even the most open-minded people are susceptible to confirmation bias. I do not claim to be an exception to this phenomenon. If one has formed an opinion about something, he will often times give more weight to the side of conflicting evidence which agrees with his already formed opinion. The question should be: What is the reliability of the evidence that was used to form the opinion in the first place? And: How does the reliability of that evidence compare to the reliability of the conflicting evidence? Personally, I have tried to use reliable evidence to form an opinion about the timing of the shots. And a large percentage of this reliable evidence is directly related to the photographic record. The films and photos are documented to be related to specific times during the shooting. Witness accounts are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Therefore an opinion which is formed based heavily on witness accounts (without corroborating physical evidence) is on shakier ground than an opinion which is based on more reliable evidence.Every human being is susceptible to confirmation bias, as you point out.
Every human being is susceptible to confirmation bias, as you point out.
When I began looking at the evidence of the shots in detail, I had already formed the conclusion based on the abundant evidence of Oswald's involvement that the WC conclusion was correct. I had assumed the SBT was correct but was of the view, like the WC, that it occurred on the first shot. I started out with an open mind, however when I began, about 20 years ago, to examine the evidence in detail. It quickly became apparent to me that the trajectory did not really work for the first shot SBT. And the conflict with Connally's evidence was difficult to explain. But my confirmation bias, that the SBT was likely correct, held.
I then became aware that the SBT being touted was no longer the first shot SBT and that the SBT occurred on the second shot, the first shot having missed the entire car. But by this time I had become very familiar with the evidence that JFK had reacted to the first shot and for the 1.......2..3 shot sequence. The second shot SBT proponents had not even tried to deal with the abundant evidence that the first shot had struck JFK and that the last two shots were closer together.
It was readily apparent that the second shot SBT was wrong. But I was not yet prepared to abandon the first shot SBT. I still found Spector's argument that it must have struck JBC to be compelling.
It was only after really taking a hard look at the evidence and setting aside my confirmation bias that I was able to see that the SBT on the first or second shot was not correct and that a much simpler explanation that fit ALL the bodies of evidence emerged. The evidence in this case establishes that SBT is not needed to explain the correct LN conclusion: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter.
So my entire approach has been one of trying to overcome confirmation bias and just look at the evidence.
Victoria Adams spoke to detective James R. Leavelle of the DPD on 2/17/64. This is part of her statement: "When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot."
I reviewed the Tina Towner film and paid close attention to the actions of JFK. In the final few seconds of that film JFK does turn his head toward the TSBD and his right arm raises up and he waves just as the film ends. Just like Victoria Adams said.
Next I used Mark Tyler"s Motorcade 63 animation and paused it approximately where the end of Towner's film is indicated. Then I plotted the location of JFK in the backseat of the limo using the scale of Mark's animation. And placed a convertible with a male character in the backseat in that plotted location (relative to the southeast corner of the TSBD) in my 3-D computer model. Next I viewed the scene (using my 3-D model) as Victoria would have seen it from the fourth floor window. The results were just as Victoria said: right in front of her window and just before going behind the tree is the convertible with the male character. The front portion of the convertible is hidden from her view by the tree limbs but the rear seat and it's occupant are still visible.
Tina Towner has said that she stopped filming just before the first shot. Dale Myers calculated that Towner's film ends just before Zapruder began filming that portion of his film. And in the first portion of Zapruder's film JFK is seen lowering his right arm just after the wave that was begun at the end of Towner's film.
I asked for and received permission from Mark Tyler to post a couple of screenshots that will let you see some of the items I used in the proceedures I have just described.
The Towner film start position:
(https://i.vgy.me/VIUJpB.jpg)
The Towner film end position:
(https://i.vgy.me/7Jb8im.jpg)
The view (from the 3-D model 4th floor window) that Victoria Adams was watching the motorcade from:
(https://i.vgy.me/IPEqIf.jpg)
The free 3-D program that I use has its limitations and mine as its user. But I have used the sniper's nest model to demonstrate several things and it has proven to be accurate. I still need to fine tune things like the dimensions of the tree, but this is close enough to show that Victoria Adams was accurate in her description of what she saw. In the book "The Girl on the Stairs" by Barry Ernest Victoria clarifies her earlier statements and specifically says that she heard the first shot while JFK was hidden from her view by the tree.
Anyway, this appears to me to be further evidence that the first shot happened in the vicinity of Z-133. I believe it probably happened just before Z-133.
If any others with 3-D computer models cares to take the time to verify this work I would greatly appreciate it.
I believe it is possible that JFK was shot more than once in the head. Before it explodes... he nods noticeably and suddenly forward.
Your approach appears to rely heavily on witness accounts that simply say they believe JFK reacted to the first shot.None of the witnesses said they "believe" he reacted to the first shot. They describe what they saw:
My approach tries to be more precise. Here is just one example:First of all, you are relying on witnesses. Tina
The other folks here with 3-D models have confirmed my findings. Has anyone at all agreed with your theory?I am not sure how a 3D model confirms an early first shot. It merely confirms the bias of the person doing the 3D work. I don't really have a "theory". I am just pointing out that the evidence says that JFK was hit by the first shot, JBC by the second and JFK hit in the head on the third, that the shot pattern was 1.....2..3 with the last two shots in rapid succession. My theory is that the SBT is wrong because it conflicts with that evidence. Lots of people agree with that.
First of all, you are relying on witnesses. Tina Turner (and Victoria Adams).
Second, you have to get an accurate account of all the statements of that witness and figure out what the witness meant (and avoid using confirmation bias). In this case, an alleged statement of Tina Turner that the first shot occurred "just after" she stopped filming is not very helpful. You don't even provide a source for that. But if she said that, what did she mean? How many seconds? If she meant four to six seconds (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Gary_Mack_email_1Mar07.pdf), as she said in her statement to the Sixth Floor Museum, then that does not fit very well with the theory of a missed first shot. In her statement to a teen magazine in 1968, as quoted by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain, Tina Turner said had had just stopped filming and "now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in - the loudest crack of a rifle that I had ever heard". So, if she had stopped filming and was putting away her camera or something like that preparing to leave, that would take a few seconds.
Finally, the statement has to be compared to other witnesses. Croft said he took his photo (z162) BEFORE the first shot. He said he actually wound his camera and took another photo at the very instant of the first shot which did not expose properly (see Trask, POTP, p. 221-229). Betzner said he took his z186 photo BEFORE the first shot. He said he had started to wind his camera to take another when the first shot occurred. Hughes said he stopped filming just before the first shot. The section of the film that he was speaking about ends at about z182. Witnesses in the motorcade provided statements as to where their car was at the time of the first shot. They are all remarkably consistent and fit a time after z182 (when the VP car is last seen, it has not finished the turn onto Elm, which occupants said had occurred before the first shot sounded).
First of all, you are relying on witnesses. Tina Turner (and Victoria Adams).But you are relying heavily on uncorroborated estimate of a 13 year old girl as to the number of seconds she recalled between the time she stopped filming and the time of the first shot. It is also important to note that her estimates varied between 1 and 6 seconds. Is it not more reliable to look at witnesses who recalled whether the first shot was before or after an event that they can document?
Yes, I am relying on witnesses. However, their accounts can be related to specific points in time that coincide with the documented photographic record timings. By the way it is Towner (not Turner).
On page 7 of her book: Tina Towner - My story as the youngest photographer at the Kennedy assassination, Tina writes:
… but there was not enough time before the first gunshot sounded - only a second or two, if that, after I stopped filming.
(Emphasis added.)
I have seen where she said something like: “The first shot occurred right about the same time that I stopped filming”. But I don’t remember exactly where I saw that. I think that it was one of her earlier statements though.
But you are relying heavily on uncorroborated estimate of a 13 year old girl as to the number of seconds she recalled between the time she stopped filming and the time of the first shot. It is also important to note that her estimates varied between 1 and 6 seconds. Is it not more reliable to look at witnesses who recalled whether the first shot was before or after an event that they can document?
None of the witnesses said they "believe" he reacted to the first shot. They describe what they saw:
...
19. Jean Newman (Affidavit, 19 H 489, “The motorcade had just passed me when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down and I thought at the time that it probably scared him, too, just like it did me, because he flinched, like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest.”)
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1RW31b-gFEZYIfMvyTw7x0rZYxYThBMKG) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aLHMyLB1luukiE5FgxueSswjk7Rj2adB) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Ih3eA91Q612Dn0eYc-ceU6KXH7QH3xrm) |
Our memories can be faulty. However, we tend to remember things by association.Right. Like Croft, Betzner and Hughes remembering that their film exposures occurred BEFORE the first shot.
And when multiple people’s memories agree about the timing, they tend to corroborate each other. In my opinion, the accounts of Tina Towner, Victoria Adams, Howard Brenner, Amos Euins, and some others point to the first shot occurring just before the Zapruder film segment begins.Charles, you are simply confirming your own bias. All Victoria Adams said in her first statement was that she heard 3 shots when the motorcade was passing. She said her view was obstructed at the time and in her WC testimony she said her view of the President's car was obstructed by a tree at the time of the first shot. Since she said she was looking out one of the two windows in the third set of windows from the east side* this means that the oak tree (the only possible obstruction) was between the third set of windows from the east corner (4th floor) and the President's car. In other words, it was some distance along Elm St., not anywhere close to z133:
The actions of the limo occupants, and some others immediately after the Zapruder film segment begins appears to show them looking around after being surprised by a loud noise.Fine. That is what Secret Service agents are supposed to do normally. So that means absolutely nothing. But they are all consistent in saying that the first shot occurred when 1. the VP car had just finished the turn (it is still turning when last seen at z180). 2. the VP security car was about to finish the turn (it is pointing north at z180):
Newman is a two-shot witness ("I just heard two shots." "cannot definitely state that additional shot or shots were not fired"). She is describing the jump-and-duck shot occurring when "the motorcade had just passed" and before the head shot. The motorcade (ie: limousine) was still in front of Newman at Z193. Much of the front of the car was pass her position by Z222.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1RW31b-gFEZYIfMvyTw7x0rZYxYThBMKG) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aLHMyLB1luukiE5FgxueSswjk7Rj2adB) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Ih3eA91Q612Dn0eYc-ceU6KXH7QH3xrm)
Right. Like Croft, Betzner and Hughes remembering that their film exposures occurred BEFORE the first shot.Charles, you are simply confirming your own bias. All Victoria Adams said in her first statement was that she heard 3 shots when the motorcade was passing. In her WC testimony she said her view of the President's car was obstructed by the tree at the time of the first shot. Since she said she was looking out one of the two windows in the third set of windows from the east side* this means that the oak tree was between the third set of windows from the east corner (4th floor) and the President's car. In other words, it was some distance along Elm St., not anywhere close to z133:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Adams_sightline.jpg)
*Dorothy Garner confirms this: "I know this window to be the fifth window from the east end of the building. I recall that Mrs. Elsie Dorman was sitting next to me at that time looking out the sixth window and that Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles were both standing next to Mrs. Dorman and myself looking out the fifth and sixth windows".
Fine. That is what they are supposed to do normally. So that means absolutely nothing. But they are all consistent in saying that the first shot occurred when 1. the VP car had just finished the turn (it is still turning when last seen at z180). 2. the VP security car was about to finish the turn (it is pointing north at z180):
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z180.BMP)
Our memories can be faulty. However, we tend to remember things by association. And when multiple people’s memories agree about the timing, they tend to corroborate each other. In my opinion, the accounts of Tina Towner, Victoria Adams, Howard Brenner, Amos Euins, and some others point to the first shot occurring just before the Zapruder film segment begins. The actions of the limo occupants, and some others immediately after the Zapruder film segment begins appears to show them looking around after being surprised by a loud noise. Tina Towner says in her book that she studied the Dorman film which briefly shows her and her parents just after she stopped filming. And that her father and some other witnesses appear to suddenly look around as if looking for the source of the loud noise. I haven’t studied the Dorman film that closely to confirm what she says. She had access to the original film (I believe) at the Sixth Floor Museum when she noted those actions. And I would assume that the quality of the images she had access to was higher than what we see in the online versions.
One aspect of the accounts that claim that JFK was “right in front of them” that seems ambiguous to me is that that perception depends upon which direction their heads are facing at that moment. In other words, what they describe as right in front of them could be quite different from what we think is right in front of them. That is why the accounts that specify a stationary object are in my opinion more accurate.
"In my opinion, the accounts of Tina Towner, Victoria Adams, Howard Brenner, Amos Euins, and some others point to the first shot occurring just before the Zapruder film segment begins."
Talk about cherry-picking of the first order.
You must surely be able to see that.
It's amazing how similar you and Andrew are - both touting flimsy theories based on a handful of cherry picked witnesses and both theories utterly refuted by the Z-Film.
I haven’t even mentioned the very brief stop/start of Hughes’ movie camera at essentially the same time as I believe that the first shot occurs. And the sudden jerks and shutdowns of Dorman’s movie camera which occur at the same times as my estimate for the first shot and a second shot around z224. These are documented by Dale Myers in his synchronization of the films.
The Hughes film stop/starts every few seconds, so what?
The Dorman film is all over the place from beginning to end. How can you possibly pick out any single moment and say it is unique?
You are clearly estimating when your predetermined "shot" is occurring in these films, noting what happens at that particular point and assuming it is something to do with the "shot" you have already assumed is happening at that point.
You then present these "observations" as independent corroboration of the assumed "shot" you have used to determine the "observations" in the first place.
Just for an example, can you point out precisely what is unique in the Hughes film that indicates a shot?
But they are all consistent in saying that the first shot occurred when 1. the VP car had just finished the turn (it is still turning when last seen at z180). 2. the VP security car was about to finish the turn (it is pointing north at z180):
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z180.BMP)
Just for an example, can you point out precisely what is unique in the Hughes film that indicates a shot?
Yes, the stop/start is something like the equivalent of six or seven frames if I remember correctly. A relatively small fraction of a second. This is specified in Dale Myers’ documents, but I don’t remember the exact timing. This is highly unusual and is indicative of a startle reaction to the shot. If I remember correctly, Hughes apparently wasn’t even aware of it.
Can you post the Myers documents you refer to?
Otherwise it's an unsubstantiated claim.
It’s in another thread that I started, so it isn’t unsubstantiated. I dislike repeating myself. But if I have time I will look it up just for you.
If you can find time in your busy day just point me the thread you started, I'll do the work.
If you can find time in your busy day just point me the thread you started, I'll do the work.
Victoria Adams spoke to detective James R. Leavelle of the DPD on 2/17/64. This is part of her statement: "When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot."It is not photographic evidence that differs. The photographic evidence has to fit well corroborated independent consistent witness accounts. It is our interpretation of the photographic evidence that differs.
Suddenly and very rapidly jerking their heads around from right to the left and back again almost simultaneously is not normal. It’s an indication that something unexpected has happened. I believe that it was the first shot.
Again the difference between your approach and mine is verifiable photographic evidence.
It is not photographic evidence that differs. The photographic evidence has to fit well corroborated independent consistent witness accounts. It is our interpretation of the photographic evidence that differs.
The comment of Adam's is important. You will recall that as the President approached the Woodward group, he was not looking at the north side of Elm. So Mary Woodward yelled to him and she said he responded by turning and waving. Just after the President passed by the first horrible ear-shattering noise was heard. So Adams' statement fits with Mary Woodward's statement and a first shot just after JFK passed by Mary Woodward. That puts it after z190. The first shot.
I am not sure what you are looking at around z133 to think that a first shot occurred there. No witness says it had to be that early and dozens said it had to be about 60 frames later.
You are misinterpreting things based on your own confirmation bias. If you want to see the JFK actions described by Victoria Adams you need to look near the end of Tina Towner’s film segment. It’s a different wave.The point is that Adams and Woodward can be explained and fit with each other and the zfilm (and the occupants of the cars, the shot pattern, etc.). Your interpretation does not fit Woodward or any of the other evidence. That is your confirmation bias!
Charles, it's not a super complicated problem.
The reason JFK conspiracy theories still persist is because of the EVIDENCE.
I don't group JFK CT's with other CT's like 'Q-Anon' or 'faked Moon Landings' because there's plenty of reasonable questions about the evidence in the Kennedy assassination.
The point is that Adams and Woodward can be explained and fit with each other and the zfilm (and the occupants of the cars, the shot pattern, etc.). Your interpretation does not fit Woodward or any of the other evidence. That is your confirmation bias!
Exactly the same claim that is made for any conspiracy theory.
Those who claim Biden stole the 2020 election claim the evidence is overwhelming. Yes, it would seem unlikely that thousands of computer programmers, volunteer election workers, even Republican government officials like governors and secretary of states, would conspire together to do this, and successfully keep this secret. But, the evidence is overwhelming.
I do because they all claim that the evidence for their favored conspiracy theory is overwhelming. That, yes, on the surface, a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy seems unlikely. How could so many people keep such a secret? But, ‘When the evidence is overwhelming’, one must conclude that ‘The Moon Landing was fake’, or ‘The government covered up the truth about 9/11’, or ‘The government covered up the truth about the Kennedy assassination’, etc.
Again, this is your confirmation bias. You are concluding that Adams is describing JFK's actions near the end of the Towner film segment and trying to fit Adams to that. Why? How was the oak tree obscuring her view of JFK then? Adams describes exactly what Woodward described: a shout, a turn of JFK and a wave. They were describing the same thing. The only difference is you are trying to fit Adams to a pre-determined conclusion you have made.
The point is that Adams and Woodward can be explained and fit with each other and the zfilm
Like I said earlier, JFK’s actions that Adams describes are near the end of the Towner film segment. This is a few seconds before the zfilm segment even begins. So how the heck do you even think that the zfilm even applies to her description?
Again, this is your confirmation bias. You are concluding that Adams is describing JFK's actions near the end of the Towner film segment and trying to fit Adams to that. Why? How was the oak tree obscuring her view of JFK then? Adams describes exactly what Woodward described: a shout, a turn of JFK and a wave. They were describing the same thing. The only difference is you are trying to fit Adams to a pre-determined conclusion you have made.
The oak tree began obscuring Adams’ view of JFK very close to the point of time at end of Towner’s film segment and the beginning of the Zapruder film segment.On what basis can you conclude that? Adams' view was identical to Dorman's. We can easily see the other side of Elm St. past the end of the sidewalk where Rosemary Willis is running. Croft was standing there. JFK was opposite Croft at z162. We don't see the tree until the camera pans past the concrete pillar on the south side of the stairs. That corresponds to where JFK was at about z175. After that, the oak tree begins to obscure the view of the street. How can that be under the tree at z133? :
Adams states that he waved and then went behind the tree. Therefore what she describes happened before the Zapruder film segment began. And therefore is not related to what you are designating that Woodward describes. Thus the benefit of using a stationary object to help interpret and confirm what the witnesses are describing. The photographic record doesn’t lie, but it is subject to misinterpretation.But there are two waves, one that JFK was doing when the Zfilm begins at frame 133 and the second beginning at z171 as he is approaching Mary Woodward's group. Mary Woodward said that she shouted and JFK responded by acknowledging them with a smile and wave as he passed by JUST BEFORE the first shot . He passed by Woodward at z192. A that point, the oak tree obscured Adams' view. Why can this wave not be what Adams was referring to? There is no way you can fit your interpretation of Adams' "wave" and first shot with Mary Woodward's observation or with the dozens of others who put the first shot after z186.
On what basis can you conclude that? Adams' view was identical to Dorman's. We can easily see the other side of Elm St. past the end of the sidewalk where Rosemary Willis is running. Croft was standing there. JFK was opposite Croft at z162. We don't see the tree until the camera pans past the concrete pillar on the south side of the stairs. That corresponds to where JFK was at about z175. After that, the oak tree begins to obscure the view of the street. How can that be under the tree at z133? :
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Dframe1_066.BMP)
But there are two waves, one that JFK was doing when the Zfilm begins at frame 133 and the second beginning at z171 as he is approaching Mary Woodward's group. Mary Woodward said that she shouted and JFK responded by acknowledging them with a smile and wave as he passed by JUST BEFORE the first shot . He passed by Woodward at z192. A that point, the oak tree obscured Adams' view. Why can this wave not be what Adams was referring to? There is no way you can fit your interpretation of Adams' "wave" and first shot with Mary Woodward's observation or with the dozens of others who put the first shot after z186.
But there are two waves, one that JFK was doing when the Zfilm begins at frame 133 and the second beginning at z171 as he is approaching Mary Woodward's group. Mary Woodward said that she shouted and JFK responded by acknowledging them with a smile and wave as he passed by JUST BEFORE the first shot . He passed by Woodward at z192. A that point, the oak tree obscured Adams' view. Why can this wave not be what Adams was referring to? There is no way you can fit your interpretation of Adams' "wave" and first shot with Mary Woodward's observation or with the dozens of others who put the first shot after z186.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1RW31b-gFEZYIfMvyTw7x0rZYxYThBMKG) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1UlltKKJQH3ey7vHxPalo-76LB1_edm6e) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aLHMyLB1luukiE5FgxueSswjk7Rj2adB) |
Charles, you are providing a perfect example of confirmation bias!! You are using a third-hand account of someone who claims to have interviewed Adams long after the events and, instead of trying to corroborate that statement with bodies of consistent, independent evidence, you are taking what she is purported to have said as absolute gospel and are trying to fit it to the conclusion that you have already made.
We don't see the tree until the camera pans past the concrete pillar on the south side of the stairs. That corresponds to where JFK was at about z175. After that, the oak tree begins to obscure the view of the street. How can that be under the tree at z133? :
It is obscured by the tree about z133 but not indicated by the Dorman film because Dorman had her camera pointed well above the limo and JFK. You really need to understand that the window was two floors below the sniper's nest window and several windows west of the sniper's nest window. What that means is that (from Dorman's position) the tree obscured JFK earlier than it obscured the line of sight from the sniper's nest window. It is easy to visualize this just by using a straightedge with Roberdeau's map. And verifiable with a 3-D model. I believe that it was James Hackeroot that has verified this with his 3-D model also. The view from the sniper's nest became obscured in the neighborhood of z160.
Woodward was talking about the first hand wave ("The car proceeded down Elm, and when it was about 40 yards from us, we heard the first noise." Note: Woodward may have meant feet, not yards). The car must still be approaching her group and not be out from her group or pass, as in the Z190s.Jerry, she was talking about the last wave he made: "As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces he noticed in the crowd."
Woodward's account (and the subsequent head-turn reactions of the Kennedys and Connallys) is compatible with hearing the first shot in the Z150s.Talk about confirmation bias!! Jerry, Woodward's account makes no sense if JFK had waved and smiled after the first shot, which is what you are saying. Why is it that no one noticed that JFK smiled and waved for 3 seconds after the first shot (4 seconds according to Charles)? Why is that? Is it because witnesses were all mysteriously afflicted by the same inability to see and all were implanted with the same false memory that he didn't wave at all but slumped as if he was hit by it?
Charles, you are providing a perfect example of confirmation bias!! You are using a third-hand account of someone who claims to have interviewed Adams long after the events and, instead of trying to corroborate that statement with bodies of consistent, independent evidence, you are taking what she is purported to have said as absolute gospel and are trying to fit it to the conclusion that you have already made.
Not only that, you are not looking critically at the physical evidence. The tree is does not begin to block Adams' view of the street until after z160 and she said that the first shot was after that. That puts the President down around the lamppost next to which Woodward was standing:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/above_Dorman_view_tree.JPG)
There is zero evidence of a shot at z133. None. But more to the point, there are large independent bodies of witness evidence that conflict with it. You just dismiss that evidence by saying that you treat witness evidence as the least reliable form of evidence. But you ignore the fact that YOU are using the evidence of ONE WITNESS to support the z133 phantom missed shot!
Charles, you are providing a perfect example of confirmation bias!! You are using a third-hand account of someone who claims to have interviewed Adams long after the events and, instead of trying to corroborate that statement with bodies of consistent, independent evidence, you are taking what she is purported to have said as absolute gospel and are trying to fit it to the conclusion that you have already made.
Not only that, you are not looking critically at the physical evidence. The tree is does not begin to block Adams' view of the street until after z160 and she said that the first shot was after that. That puts the President down around the lamppost next to which Woodward was standing:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/above_Dorman_view_tree.JPG)
There is zero evidence of a shot at z133. None. But more to the point, there are large independent bodies of witness evidence that conflict with it. You just dismiss that evidence by saying that you treat witness evidence as the least reliable form of evidence. But you ignore the fact that YOU are using the evidence of ONE WITNESS to support the z133 phantom missed shot!
The tree is does not begin to block Adams' view of the street until after z160…
Use an accurate map that shows the layout from directly overhead. The Don Roberdeau map is one of these. That photo is not directly overhead, therefore the blue line doesn’t show the true angle. Compare the angle from the sniper’s nest window to the tree to the angle from the Dorman window to the tree. Simple geometry shows that the difference in the angles means that Dorman would loose sight of JFK behind the tree well before the sniper does. Wake up, you are dreaming if you think otherwise.
Here is a crop of Roberdeau's map showing the relevant area. The red lines that I added indicate the line of sight from the sniper's nest. The blue lines that I added indicate the line of sight from the Dorman window. You also need to consider that the tree (like most trees) gets larger near the lower limbs. Dorman's window is about 20 feet lower than the sniper's nest window, therefore the wider lower limbs affect the Dorman view more than they do the sniper's nest view.I noticed how the photos all show perfectly circular trees.... And you put Adams looking out the 6th window when the evidence indicates she was primarily looking out the 5th window. If you were trying to avoid confirmation bias you would put her at the 5th window.....
(https://i.vgy.me/7q5Sur.jpg)
Now, if you still think that Dorman's view wasn't blocked until after z160, I give up. You are completely blind to the truth.
I noticed how the photos all show perfectly circular trees.... And you put Adams looking out the 6th window when the evidence indicates she was primarily looking out the 5th window. If you were trying to avoid confirmation bias you would put her at the 5th window.....
I gave up trying to find it here. But I do remember posting it in another thread. Anyway here is some substantiation for you:
A link to the download page of Dale Myers’ website:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/report_download.html (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/report_download.html)
Either of the PDF files will get you the complete report. Look in the appendix III section for the timeline synchronization of the various films.
Here is a photo showing that the Hughes, Towner, and Dorman films all suddenly stopped about the same time. Tina Towner said she stopped filming on purpose and very shortly thereafter the shot rang out. Her film is the first of the three to stop, then the other two do shortly thereafter.
(https://i.vgy.me/6ba8XI.png)
Substantiation??
Myers reports a letter sent from Hughes to his parents:
"About 5 seconds after I quit taking the pictures we heard the shots..."
How can Hughes be reacting to a shot when the shots didn't start until about 5 seconds after he quit filming??
Towner reports she stopped filming on purpose and the Dorman film stops for 49 frames!! How is that a reflex reaction to hearing a shot?
Could your substantiation be any weaker?
This is part of Mary Woodward's initial recollection of the shooting:
"We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us… After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right."
Two things to note:
1) Both JFK and Jackie turn directly towards where Woodward is standing.
2) The first shot occurs after JFK has faced forward again.
In the Towner film Jackie is looking off to her left as JFK waves, so Woodward is not referring to this wave.
In the Croft pic (@ z162) Jackie is still looking off to the left.
In the Z-film Jackie does not turn to her right until around z190 just after JFK looks to his right and starts waving. This is clearly the wave Woodward is referring to.
The first shot doesn't occur until JFK looks forward again, after z190.
This cannot be coherently disputed.
What substantiation did you ask for? Dale Myers’ information. You have it now thanks to my efforts (not your own efforts). It confirms my claim. There are many conflicting accounts. I give more weight to the accounts that agree with the physical evidence including the photographic record. Many witnesses said that they didn’t initially recognize the first bang as a shot. It appears to me that Hughes was one of them. Yes Towner stopped filming on purpose. I never indicated otherwise. The significance is that she said the first shot sounded within a second or two (if that) after she stopped filming. There is no reason to believe that a long stoppage of 49 frames couldn’t be the result of a shot fired. The fact that there’s a similar one that coincides with the shot around z224 tells me that it simply took her a few seconds to gain her composure and start filming again. There are a lot of people who practically jump out of their skin at the sound of sudden loud noise. Reactions vary from person to person. Zapruder was able to continue filming during at least two of the shots. But he was much further away from the rifle.
There is an advantage to having the stationary object (tree) for a reference. There’s no way Adams was referring to the same wave that you believe Woodward was describing. So, conflicting accounts (if one believes in your theory). I give more weight to the Adams account because the tree makes it more precise and less ambiguous.From Vicki Adams' WC testimony:
Jerry, she was talking about the last wave he made: "As it turned out, we were almost certainly the last faces he noticed in the crowd."
Talk about confirmation bias!! Jerry, Woodward's account makes no sense if JFK had waved and smiled after the first shot, which is what you are saying. Why is it that no one noticed that JFK smiled and waved for 3 seconds after the first shot (4 seconds according to Charles)? Why is that? Is it because witnesses were all mysteriously afflicted by the same inability to see and all were implanted with the same false memory that he didn't wave at all but slumped as if he was hit by it?
From Vicki Adams' WC testimony:
Miss ADAMS. I watched the motorcade come down Main, as it turned from Main onto Houston, and watched it proceed around the corner on Elm, and apparently somebody in the crowd called to the late President, because he and his wife both turned abruptly and faced the building, so we had a very good view of both of them.
Both Woodward and Adams describe someone calling out to JFK and Jackie and both of them turn in response.
Both Woodward and Adams are describing exactly the same moment.
In both descriptions Jackie turns to her right in response to the call.
You are clearly wrong on this but you have nowhere to go. We are now moving out of the realm of confirmation bias and into flat out denial of the evidence.
I'm sure Woodward, who seemed to adore the Kennedys, felt she had made such a connection. The last bystanders Kennedy saw were more likely the Newman family or the men on the steps. The President seems to be peering at the Umbrella Man in Z225 and the Umbrella Man is standing well to the south of Woodward.
She must be talking about the first hand wave if she's correct about the Kennedys looking around as if bewildered after the first shot. The President turns his head rightward in the late-Z150s-to-early Z160s. Mrs. Kennedy turns her head rightward in the Z170s; Woodward probably could see some of Jackie's pillbox hat. That's the only time we know for sure the Kennedys looked around before they went behind the sign. When they emerge from behind the sign a second later, their heads are still as they were before they went behind the sign.
Who--among the witnesses reporting three distinct shots--said they saw Kennedy not smiling and waving after the first shot?
"Mrs. Kennedy turns her head rightward in the Z170s;"
This is very disingenuous of you Jerry.
Jackie begins to turn her head in the z170's but is not looking to her right until around z190.
Woodward states they were both looking directly in her direction which is only possible around z190.
Adams also states that both JFK and Jackie turn to their right - not in response to a shot but to someone calling out to them.
Woodward - "But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…"
Adams - "...somebody in the crowd called to the late President, because he and his wife both turned abruptly and faced the building..."
Adams is describing exactly the same moment Woodward is describing.
Both JFK and Jackie turn to face the people calling.
The only time this happens is when Jackie is facing right, @z190
LATER EDIT;
"The President turns his head rightward in the late-Z150s-to-early Z160s."
This has got nothing to do with the wave. It's got nothing to do with anything.
JFK does not respond to Woodward and co. calling out until @ z170
From Adams’ viewpoint, JFK disappeared behind the tree around z133. She couldn’t even see the occupants during the time period you claim this happened. How could she possibly describe something that she didn’t see? She is describing the actions that happened right in front of her and her building, and before they went behind the tree. It couldn’t possibly be any other way. Many, many people along the motorcade route thought that they looked “right at them” and waved to acknowledge them. In reality they smiled and waved hundreds of times throughout the parade. What is significant to me is that most of the occupants of the limo stopped smiling and waving for a short period and almost simultaneously jerked their heads right to left and back to the right in between the two waves we are discussing. It is apparent to me that they heard the first shot and quickly looked around. Nothing looked out of place (the shot missed). So, being “on stage” so to speak, they quickly resumed waving and smiling. Then the next shot happened…
So Woodward (in the Z190s) could see Mrs. Kennedy's face through her husband's head? Kind of like how Hickey can see through the P{resident's head to see the right-side hair flutter in Z270s. The only place Woodward would have seen the faces of both Kennedys was just before before Zapruder started filming. Then Woodward said she heard the first shot and then saw the Kennedys look around, which they do starting in the Z160s and Z170s.
Where does the Kennedys looking around occur after the Z190s? Where are the Kennedys' heads not already turned rightward after the Z190s to early-Z220s, when the President's head turns to the front (because he's just been shot through the neck)?
This is before the Zapruder film starts. Then the film starts and about the late-Z150s Woodward hears the first shot.
But Jackie faces the Woodward group earlier, when she is actually visible to the Woodward group.
I don't think Woodward's group waited until the President was practically passed them before shouting out. They were pretty excited to see the Kennedys and would have shouted out before Z133. I think the Kennedys happened to look their way and Woodward assumed her group's shouts had caused that, as if the Kennedys could have heard anything over the motorcycles starting to accelerate from the corner and the general crowd noise.
Maybe because the Woodward group's hand movements caught the President's attention earlier (pre-Z133) and he calmly looked their way in the Z190s as a brief acknowledgement. Just one person in the Woodward group is clapping her hands. There's no waving towards the car. The President's hand is raised but not waving. There are others along the sidewalk he wants to make contact with.
"From Adams’ viewpoint, JFK disappeared behind the tree around z133. She couldn’t even see the occupants during the time period you claim this happened. How could she possibly describe something that she didn’t see?"
:D :D :D
And here we have it - the witness doesn't agree with your preconceived idea therefore the witness is wrong!!
Truly unbelievable.
According to your Perception of Reality outside the TSBD there is a massive green sphere that no-one can see through (as shown in the Roberdeau Map).
According to you Adams couldn't have seen what she testified to seeing because the massive green sphere obscured her view. :D
"She is describing the actions that happened right in front of her and her building, and before they went behind the tree. It couldn’t possibly be any other way."
Why couldn't it possibly be any other way?
Because you say so??
You should allow Adams' testimony to inform you about what she could see - that both JFK and Jackie turned to face the TSBD
But no...you are right therefore the witness is wrong.
Adams could see JFK and Jackie both turn to face the TSBD (@ z190) because she could see through the branches of the tree - because it's a tree and not a massive green sphere. You have zero idea about what Adams could see so you should accept her testimony and alter your opinion accordingly.
The power of Adams testimony is that it corroborates Woodwards testimony and is confirmed by the Z-Film - nowhere else do both JFK and Jackie turn to face directly to their right other than around z190 - you cannot get away from this so you call the witness a liar.
"So, being “on stage” so to speak, they quickly resumed waving and smiling. Then the next shot happened…"
Being on stage??
:D :D :D
You are in a desperate situation. The evidence proves your theory wrong but you can't accept that. You drone on about how you "follow the evidence" but you don't...you deny the evidence when it doesn't agree with you.
Perception of Reality?
What Perception of Reality?
So Woodward (in the Z190s) could see Mrs. Kennedy's face through her husband's head?
Qualify this incredibly stupid point.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1RW31b-gFEZYIfMvyTw7x0rZYxYThBMKG) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aLHMyLB1luukiE5FgxueSswjk7Rj2adB) |
I guarantee you that if you take even a cursory look at the Z-Film you will find that around z190 JFK and Jackie are looking to their right - directly towards Woodward and her group.
The only place Woodward would have seen the faces of both Kennedys was just before before Zapruder started filming.
You are completely wrong about this (and I think you know you are).
You are the master of graphics so why not rustle up something that demonstrates your point.
The problem that you will have with that is the Towner film, which shows Jackie looking off to her right all the way round the turn.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_099.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_137.jpg) |
There is no point in the video record of Dealey Plaza that shows BOTH Jackie and JFK looking directly to their right before around z190. You will never be able to demonstrate otherwise and you should accept this.
The Towner film shows us what was happening before Zapruder started filming and it shows us Jackie looking off to her left so Woodward and friends could not have seen "the faces of both Kennedys ", as you incorrectly claim.
Both you and Charles are now in the position where you have to deny the video evidence in order to prop up your long defunct theories.
The accounts of Woodward and Adams corroborate each other and are corroborated by the Z-Film. You should accept this.
Why couldn't it possibly be any other way?
Because you say so??
Because Adams says so:
Belin: Will you state what you saw, what you did, and what you heard?
Miss Adams: I watched the motorcade come down Main, as it turned from Main onto Houston, and watched it proceed around the corner on Elm, and apparently somebody in the crowd called to the late President, because he and his wife both turned abruptly and faced the building, so we had a very good view of both of them.
Belin: Where was their car as you got this good view, had it come directly opposite your window? Had it come to that point on Elm, or not, if you can remember.
Miss Adams: I believe it was prior, just a second or so prior to that.
You should allow Adams' testimony to inform you about what she could see - that both JFK and Jackie turned to face the TSBD
But no...you are right therefore the witness is wrong
I just showed you what Adams said. You are the one who needs to listen to reason instead of assuming that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Adams could see JFK and Jackie both turn to face the TSBD (@ z190) because she could see through the branches of the tree…
I have already shown you that Adams said (under oath) that she saw this prior to JFK going behind the tree. Here’s some more testimony that you need to read and understand:
Miss Adams: And from our vantage point we were able to see what the President’s wife was wearing, the roses in the car, and things that would attract women’s attention. Then we heard—then we were obstructed from the view. Belin: By what? Miss Adams: A tree, and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.[\i]
You have zero idea about what Adams could see so you should accept her testimony and alter your opinion accordingly.
I have her statement that her view was obstructed by the tree. And that she saw them look her way before the tree obstructed her view. You need to look in the mirror and repeat your above advice (to yourself this time).
The power of Adams testimony is that it corroborates Woodwards testimony and is confirmed by the Z-Film - nowhere else do both JFK and Jackie turn to face directly to their right other than around z190 - you cannot get away from this so you call the witness a liar.
This happened just before Zapruder began filming that segment. The end of the Towner film segment shows it. There is a brief period between the end of the Towner film segment and the beginning of the Zapruder segment. Just because you don’t think it can be seen in the Zapruder film doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Adams swears that it happened just before they went behind the tree. I believe her. You keep saying that I claim that Adams is wrong and a liar. No I haven’t, you keep jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions (about many things).
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1RW31b-gFEZYIfMvyTw7x0rZYxYThBMKG) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aLHMyLB1luukiE5FgxueSswjk7Rj2adB)
Sure looks like the President's head would obscure Mrs. Kennedy's face to Woodward in the Z190s.
The question is the line-of-sight between Woodward and Mrs. Kennedy's face, with the President's head in between. And Kennedy could see clear down to Jean Newman. His raised right hand is not in the way. The President's raised right hand obscures his face to Zapruder, but Zapruder has a different line-of-sight than Jean Newman.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_099.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_137.jpg)
Jackie seems to have turned her face forward enough for Woodward's group to see.
I don't think Woodward says Mrs. Kennedy turned her head sharply to the right prior to the first shot.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Just as President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a second
or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs.
Kennedy probably were about one hundred feet from her."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and
waved, directly at us, it seemed."
I don't see where Mrs. Kennedy literally waved to anyone during the Towner or Zapruder films, so Woodward may be exaggerating on that point.
While we're at it, where does the President face forward after acknowledging the Woodward group?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again."
Can't be after the Z190s, because the President faces rightward until being shot in the Z220s. The President does face forward in the Z130s, which would be after Woodward thought he had "acknowledged" her group's cheers. The first shot then followed. If this happened in the late-Z150s, it could have caused the rapid rightward head-turns of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy. They all begin to turn their heads a second or so before the Z190s. The President turned his head rightward, too. Woodward said the Kennedys looked around after hearing the first shot.
You can't be serious! The car is moving 1 foot per frame. Even if you think that a person standing on the sidewalk could not see over JFK's head (highly doubtful), his head would block Jackie for less than 55 ms.
Sure looks like the President's head would obscure Mrs. Kennedy's face to Woodward in the Z190s.
While we're at it, where does the President face forward after acknowledging the Woodward group?Talk about confirmation bias! You cannot see JFK when he is behind the Stemmons sign. We cannot conclude from the photographic evidence exactly where he is facing after z193. He appears to be turning forward after z193. Although Willis appears to show his head turned somewhat to the right at z202, according to Willis the first shot had just occurred So that position could be an initial reaction. Or it could be a continuation of a forward turn begun a few frames earlier.
Wow!
So. in a nutshell, you are saying that in the period of time between the end of the Towner film and the beginning of the Z-Film (frame z133), that JFK and Jackie face towards the TSBD?
Is that correct?
If not, please show in the video record where both Jackie and JFK face towards the TSBD.
No I am not saying that. And my opinion is that the JFK wave that can be seen near the end of the Tower film segment is what Adams was describing. It is possible that Jackie turned her head between the end of the Towner film segment and the beginning of the Zapruder film segment. But I am not claiming that she actually did, just throwing out the idea that it is possible. Regardless of whether or not Jackie did that, Adams was certainly not describing something that happened after the limo went behind the tree. She explicitly says that it was prior to that point in time.
You're right Charles, Adams is not describing something that happened after the limo went behind the tree.
It is clear she is describing something that happened just before the limo went out of her sight behind the tree.
She is describing a moment when both JFK and Jackie turn towards the TSBD in response to somebody in the crowd calling out to them.
Both JFK and Jackie turn to face the TSBD.
This is exactly the same moment Woodward describes.
Adams describes the turn as "abrupt", Woodward describes JFK and Jackie looking directly towards them.
Woodward also describes this happening just as the limo passes by her position.
In the video record we are looking for a moment when both JFK and Jackie look abruptly to their right.
There is only one such moment in the video record - around z190.
You will not accept that Adams can see JFK and Jackie facing towards the TSBD even though she says "we had a very good view of both of them."
Two witnesses describe exactly the same event and it is captured by Zapruder but you deny all this evidence because, as far as you're concerned, the tree was in the way.
You are wrong - you must see that this is the only logical conclusion.
You have a very poor Perception of Reality.
It would seem as far as you're concerned Reality is what you say it is!!
you must see that this is the only logical conclusion.What I am having trouble understanding is how you can be so confident that your interpretation of a single witness can be absolutely relied on and yet you dismiss the preponderance of witness evidence as to the 1.....2...3 shot pattern, the uncontradicted evidence of the motorcade witnesses and photographers that the first shot was after z186, and the uncontradicted evidence of at least 22 witnesses who said that JFK did not smile and wave after the first shot but moved left/slumped/clutched at his neck/or assumed a blank stare.
I can see you jumping to conclusions without any basis in logic. And you dismissing physical evidence so that you can continue to believe some ambiguous accounts support your theory.
What I am having trouble understanding is how you can be so confident that your interpretation of a single witness can be absolutely relied on and yet you dismiss the preponderance of witness evidence as to the 1.....2...3 shot pattern, the uncontradicted evidence of the motorcade witnesses and photographers that the first shot was after z186, and the uncontradicted evidence of at least 22 witnesses who said that JFK did not smile and wave after the first shot but moved left/slumped/clutched at his neck/or assumed a blank stare.
You simply ignore vast bodies of independent evidence that absolutely conflicts with a first shot anywhere near z133 let alone a shot that missed. How is this not confirmation bias?
What I am having trouble understanding is how you can be so confident that your interpretation of a single witness can be absolutely relied on and yet you dismiss the preponderance of witness evidence as to the 1.....2...3 shot pattern,
the uncontradicted evidence of the motorcade witnesses and photographers that the first shot was after z186,
and the uncontradicted evidence of at least 22 witnesses who said that JFK did not smile and wave after the first shot but moved left/slumped/clutched at his neck/or assumed a blank stare.
You simply ignore vast bodies of independent evidence that absolutely conflicts with a first shot anywhere near z133 let alone a shot that missed. How is this not confirmation bias?
The video clip is taken from the Secret Services reconstructions in early December. The camera car drove through Dealey Plaza – with focus on the 6th floor corner window. I’ve tried to bracket the clip from about Z133 to Z225. Although the window set with Elsie Dorman and Vicky Adams (2 floors below and west of the SN) is in frame it is highly obscured from leaves and branches of the Live Oak. I used the 3D model for help estimating the film Z frames.
(https://i.imgur.com/yQpAhjz.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/PzYCCQf.gif)
The video clip is taken from the Secret Services reconstructions in early December. The camera car drove through Dealey Plaza – with focus on the 6th floor corner window. I’ve tried to bracket the clip from about Z133 to Z225. Although the window set with Elsie Dorman and Vicky Adams (2 floors below and west of the SN) is in frame it is highly obscured from leaves and branches of the Live Oak. I used the 3D model for help estimating the film Z frames.
(https://i.imgur.com/yQpAhjz.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/PzYCCQf.gif)
The video clip is taken from the Secret Services reconstructions in early December. The camera car drove through Dealey Plaza – with focus on the 6th floor corner window. I’ve tried to bracket the clip from about Z133 to Z225. Although the window set with Elsie Dorman and Vicky Adams (2 floors below and west of the SN) is in frame it is highly obscured from leaves and branches of the Live Oak. I used the 3D model for help estimating the film Z frames.
(https://i.imgur.com/yQpAhjz.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/PzYCCQf.gif)
This also appears to show that the view from Dorman’s window was starting to get clear of the tree about the time your clip ends (~z225). And I have read that Adams said that she saw Clint running to the limo. So it all fits. Thanks again!One problem is that Adams said that the shot occurred while the tree obscured her view. Even using your frame numbers, that is well after z133. You seem to ignore the large number of people who have every reason to be as reliable as Veronica Adams, who put the first shot after z186. You are also ignoring the 1.....2..3 shot sequence.
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_JFK_SN_Before_tree.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_JFK_SN_Before_long_branch.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_JFK_SN_mid_long_branch.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_JFK_SN_after_tree.JPG)] |
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_SN_before_tree.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_SN_before_longbranch.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_SN_mid_longbranch.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_SN_after_tree.JPG)] |
One problem is that Adams said that the shot occurred while the tree obscured her view. Even using your frame numbers, that is well after z133. You seem to ignore the large number of people who have every reason to be as reliable as Veronica Adams, who put the first shot after z186. You are also ignoring the 1.....2..3 shot sequence.
From chapter 10 of “The Girl on the Stairs”, this is what a Jim Leavelle report dated 2/17/64 says Adams told him on that date:
When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him, and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot.
Why should your favorite accounts be taken as more credible than Adams’ account?It is not about taking "favorite accounts". It is about examining all the evidence and fitting it together. The early missed shot/second shot SBT does not fit large bodies of consistent, independent evidence. One has to ask: how is it that so many witnesses independently recalled that the same consistent things?
That is one of her alleged statements and we don't know if Jim Leavelle wrote down verbatim what she said or recorded it. It is apparent that Victoria Adams did not review the statement. You are placing a lot of weight on Leavelle's recollection, uncorroborated, that she actually said "that is when" in relation to JFK turning.
Dorothy Garner, who was standing at the same window with Adams said:
"I recall that moments following the passing of the Presidential car I heard three loud reports which I first thought to be fireworks but only seconds later realized something had happened on the street below although as the time of the shots, the Presidential car was out of view behind a tree."
In Adams' WC testimony she said her view of JFK was obstructed when the shots were fired:
"Miss ADAMS. And from our vantage point we were able to see what the
President’s wife was wearing, the roses in the car, and things that would attract
women’s attention. Then we heard-then we were obstructed from the
view.
Mr. BELIN. By what?
Miss ADAMS. A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a
second shot, and then a third shot."
By the way, if you accept Victoria Adams' statement to Leavelle, why do you not accept her statement about the shot pattern: "we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot?"It is not about taking "favorite accounts". It is about examining all the evidence and fitting it together. The early missed shot/second shot SBT does not fit large bodies of consistent, independent evidence. One has to ask: how is it that so many witnesses independently recalled that the same consistent things?
Then we heard-then we were obstructed from theOf course, that interpretation conflicts with Dorothy Garner, who said that the tree obstructed their view of the President at the time of the shots.
view.
Mr. BELIN. By what?
Miss ADAMS. A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a
second shot, and then a third shot."
If taken verbatim, she says that “we heard-then we were obstructed…
Of course, that interpretation conflicts with Dorothy Garner, who said that the tree obstructed their view of the President at the time of the shots.
You conveniently ignore Adams' recollection of the 1.......2....3 shot pattern, which puts the second shot after the midpoint between the first and last shots. Even if you put the first shot as early as z133, then the second shot would be a perceptible time after z223 if the last shot was at z313. That means the President was hit by the first shot, just as at least 22 witnesses recalled.
No matter what kind of spin anyone wants to apply to Adams’ accounts, she clearly associates the time of the turn of JFK (before he went behind the tree) and the time of the tree becoming obstructive to her view of JFK with the timing of the first shot.It is not putting "spin" on it to say that she associates the time of the first shot with a time when her view of JFK was obstructed by the tree. That is what she said in her first statement (FBI - 24Nov63): "She had not been able to fully observe the President at the exact moment he was shot, inasmuch as her view was partially obstructed".
When Adams’ account is combined with (and supported by) the other items that the photographic records very clearly show occurred during that time period (Hughes film very brief 6-frames stoppage, Towner’s account of the first shot timing, Dorman’s film stoppage, Willis’ blurred photo, traffic cop in Hughes’ film suddenly turning away from his intersection to look intently and walk towards the limo, and the shortly thereafter actions of the limo occupants (stopping the waving and smiling to quickly and almost simultaneously jerk their heads to look from side to side). It is abundantly clear to me that the first shot occurred in the neighborhood of z133.
Adams really doesn’t explicitly say in her testimony to Belin that there was a lengthier pause between the first and second shots than between the second and third shots. I can see how one might assume that, but she doesn’t really come out and definitively say it. Your spin is an example of how accounts are interpreted to fit one’s already formed opinions (confirmation bias). The photographic record is less ambiguous and requires less interpretation.You are right. Although Adams mentions a pause between shots 1 and 2 but does not mention a pause between 2 and 3, she does not explicitly say that there was no similar pause between 2 and 3. She could have just mentioned a pause between one and two because she remembered a pause there but did not remember a pause between 2 and 3.
It is not putting "spin" on it to say that she associates the time of the first shot with a time when her view of JFK was obstructed by the tree. That is what she said in her first statement (FBI - 24Nov63): "She had not been able to fully observe the President at the exact moment he was shot, inasmuch as her view was partially obstructed".
and this also fits with her WC statement and with the account provided by the person standing beside her, Dorothy Garner.
Let's be clear: your interpretation that Adams' account supports a z133 shot is supported by your interpretation of Towner's account, your interpretation of why Hughes allegedly stopped his film for 6 frames, and your interpretation of why Dorman's film may have stopped and by you completely ignoring contrary evidence (that Towner stated that the first shot occurred 4-6 seconds after she stopped filming and as she was preparing to leave; that Hughes said he stopped filming - which occurs at about Zapruder frame 182 - BEFORE the first shot; that Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot).
You are right. Although Adams mentions a pause between shots 1 and 2 but does not mention a pause between 2 and 3, she does not explicitly say that there was no similar pause between 2 and 3. She could have just mentioned a pause between one and two because she remembered a pause there but did not remember a pause between 2 and 3.
One has to look at all the evidence and there is no question that dozens of witnesses explicitly recalled that pattern and that the last two shots were in rapid succession (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_testimony.pdf). Adams' description fits that pattern. It does not fit the other patterns but I would agree, in itself it does not clearly exclude them.
You can interpret whatever accounts you want to interpret any freaking way you want to interpret them.Not if you are trying to determine what really happened. If you are just trying to confirm a predetermined conclusion, that's fine. But if you are trying to find what happened, you have to look at all the evidence and fit it together. You ignore vast bodies of consistent, independent evidence. No interpretation - just their words taken as they are given. When 80% of the witnesses who gave evidence as to the shot pattern and said the last two were close together, closer than 1 and 2, and when another several dozen describe the shots as 1+ 2 more or 1 + a pause + 2 more you AND another 2 dozen say that JFK reacted to the first shot AND at least 18 others say that the first shot was after z186, that evidence cannot be ignored if you want to discover what really occurred. You are ignoring that evidence.
And there will be some conflicting accounts that some freaking body will argue with you about. In some cases there are inconsistencies by the same freaking witnesses. You can argue about them until the end of time. And all the “he said/she said arguments will get you no closer to the truth. I will stand by what I have said that the photographic record clearly shows.Again, you are not standing by what the photographic record clearly shows. You are going by the evidence of one witness and interpreting the photographic record in a way that suits your conclusion. Your confirmation bias is creating your perception of reality!
Not if you are trying to determine what really happened. If you are just trying to confirm a predetermined conclusion, that's fine. But if you are trying to find what happened, you have to look at all the evidence and fit it together. You ignore vast bodies of consistent, independent evidence. No interpretation - just their words taken as they are given. When 80% of the witnesses who gave evidence as to the shot pattern and said the last two were close together, closer than 1 and 2, and when another several dozen describe the shots as 1+ 2 more or 1 + a pause + 2 more you AND another 2 dozen say that JFK reacted to the first shot AND at least 18 others say that the first shot was after z186, that evidence cannot be ignored if you want to discover what really occurred. You are ignoring that evidence.
Again, you are not standing by what the photographic record clearly shows. You are going by the evidence of one witness and interpreting the photographic record in a way that suits your conclusion. Your confirmation bias is creating your perception of reality!
that Hughes said he stopped filming - which occurs at about Zapruder frame 182 - BEFORE the first shot;
that Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot).
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1v2c4cuC_lpf9A-4l-VyQWN-SODjQC2Jb) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16BLkZ38k5urEtZIbhfky63hn2v5FzVSD) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1H6KILBVsxDlbnX0Z-mpaIY35iPPv-Np8) |
One has to look at all the evidence and there is no question that dozens of witnesses explicitly recalled that pattern and that the last two shots were in rapid succession (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_testimony.pdf). Adams' description fits that pattern. It does not fit the other patterns but I would agree, in itself it does not clearly exclude them.
Hughes stopped filming a few times but the one you refer to (Myers places the stop at Z185) doesn't relate well to your Theory's first shot in the Z190s because Hughes wrote in a letter to his parents: "about five seconds after I quit taking pictures we heard the shots".
If Willis took his Z202 slide between shots 1 and 2 (say, Z155 and Z222), then it was taken in the midst of shots and echoing, so it could be said his slide was "simultaneous" with the shots, but not the precise moment of the first shot.
As I've explained countless times, Willis himself defined the first shot having occurred before his Z202 slide:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of
the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just
snap in that direction"
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street.
Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him"
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1v2c4cuC_lpf9A-4l-VyQWN-SODjQC2Jb) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16BLkZ38k5urEtZIbhfky63hn2v5FzVSD) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1H6KILBVsxDlbnX0Z-mpaIY35iPPv-Np8)
The Zapruder film shows Mrs. Kennedy turning her head to her right within one second of Z155. Willis was nearby enough to observe this (his legs are at the extreme right edge of the Z167 crop.
Amazing. Mason has built his Baloney Theory on cherry-picks that he presents as having God-like clear perception of the shot spanning in the midst of major distraction, shocking violence and an unprecedented historical event. And that the subsequent reconstruction in their memory is equally flawless. The same guy who's argued in a court of law on numerous occasions that eyewitness reconstruction is the most unreliable form of evidence.
Mason's confirmation bias /cherry-pick method only works with one part of the data (the part that helps his Ash Heap Theory) and fails the other witnesses (as well as the Zapruder film which show no bullet strikes in the Z190s and Z270s, where Mason's Theory places wounding "shots"). The shot spanning for, say, Z155-to-Z222-to-Z313 is 1.....2.......3. More evenly-spaced. Better accommodates the witnesses who said the shot spanning was more closer for the first two shots, was more closer for the last two, and all shots evenly-spaced.
Then we heard-then we were obstructed from the
view.
Mr. BELIN. By what?
Miss ADAMS. A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a
second shot, and then a third shot."
If taken verbatim, she says that “we heard-then we were obstructed…
You are so desperate. ;D
It's clear from her WC testimony that Adams is about to talk about the shots but remembers the detail about the limo passing behind the tree, so she interrupts herself to include this detail:
"Then we heard—then we were obstructed from the view…A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot."
This interpretation of Adams' account of the assassination is confirmed elsewhere:
2-2-02 interview with Barry Ernest recounted in The Girl On The Stairs, published 2011) "As they rounded the corner, they turned toward our building, waving and smiling. The car continued moving slowly and a tree obstructed my view. That is when I heard what I thought was a firecracker go off. As the car came back into view I saw that something was wrong and watched as Mrs. Kennedy appeared to be trying to climb out of the car. I saw a Secret Service man jump in and the car began speeding toward the triple underpass. Before it reached that I turned to Sandra and I said, 'I want to see what is going on.' [patspeer.com]
There is no doubt the limo was behind the tree for all three shots. This recieves further corroboration from Dorothy Garner:
"I recall that moments following the passing of the Presidential car I heard three loud reports which I first thought to be fireworks but only seconds later realized something had happened on the street below although at the time of the shots, the Presidential car was out of view behind a tree.
"
All we can learn from Adams' various statements is that her view of the limo was obscured for all three shots.
This covers a period of around z130 - z330.
It can tell us nothing about when the first shot occurred.
No desperation here. We have discussed three different Victoria Adams interviews, and each and every one of them associates the time of the first shot with the time that the tree begins to block her view.