In the clip below, I believe that you can see each of the limo occupants simultaneously react to the sound of the first shot.All reactions are "sudden" if that is the test. It does not take seconds to turn one's head or lift an arm.
(https://i.vgy.me/WVfbbb.gif)
JFK suddenly drops his right hand from his hair and looks to his left (towards Jackie). Then suddenly returns his head to the crowd on his right (probably reacting to the sound of someone yelling).
John Connally first turns to his right, then quickly turns to his left (towards Nellie), then back to his right.
Jackie suddenly turns her head further to her left, then back towards the front of the limo.
Nellie Connally suddenly turns to her right (towards John Connally).
Agent Roy Kellerman suddenly turns his head to his right, then quickly back towards the front.
Agent Greer (driver) appears to have his gaze towards the camera (Zapruder) and doesn't appear to move his head. He is the exception, perhaps Zapruder (up high on the pedistal) caught his eye.
And last, but not least, William T. McIntyre (on the left running board of the presidential follow-up car) suddenly looks to his left and down. He appears to me to be looking at the tires of the limo for a blow-out. (Perhaps he thought the loud noise might have been a tire blowing out.)
The leftward turns were from hearing shouts from the crowd there. During the turning and straightening up of the limousine. the Kennedys and Connallys had ten seconds or so to interact with the crowd on their right. Jackie and the Connallys said they turn their heads to their right in reaction to the first shot. The Connallys begin to make rightward head turns in the Z160s, followed by Mrs. Kennedy in the early-Z170s.
Nellie would have been turned rightward enough to see the President stop waving and assume he was wounded on the first shot. She may also have seen him stop smiling if he had seen the Umbrella Man protester.
I can't see Kellerman turn his head.
You seem to have gotten McIntyre mixed up with Agent Hickey.
"After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker.
It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level.
I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it."
Supposedly he was not "stood up" when he heard the first shot.
All reactions are "sudden" if that is the test. It does not take seconds to turn one's head or lift an arm.
There is not only no evidence that there was a shot by that point but there is abundant evidence that there was not: after z186 (Betzner; Hughes); after z191 (after the VP limo finished the turn) and just before z202 (Willis); when the President was opposite the Thornton Freeway sign (TE Moore) or opposite the west corner of the TSBD (Greer). Furthermore, there are at least 20 witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot by immediately moving left/bringing his hands toward his neck/looking startled or surprised. No one said he looked like he does in the frames prior to z195 after the first shot.
The movements you see from z162 or so to z195 is consistent with what Mary Woodward said occurred just before the first "horrible ear-shattering noise".
Do you know how Dorman was holding her camera?
By "last window" do you mean the SW window? Mason made the same mistake.
Brennan said "the President's back was in line with the last set of windows I have previously described". That means the SE corner window set. He appears to be describing Kennedy's back was facing the SE corner when he heard the first shot. This works fairly well for the Z220s, but very angular if a Z240s shot. Brennan said it was the first shot in an affidavit that describes two shots in total.
She's watching where's she headed and looking over at the cars.
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205%20arrow.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205_1.jpg)
Charles, do you think a very loud bang causing what Phil Willis said “the reflex from the shot caused me to take one of these pictures” would only affect his camera trigger finger, i.e. so no part of his hand or wrist or arm or shoulder would shutter so there would be no blur in the picture? If Zapruder at a noticeably further distance (and sound intensity falling off as 1/r^2) jiggled his camera at the gunshots, was it because he was a significantly less stable photographer compared to what Willis could do up much closer to the noise?
For what it’s worth, an approach I looked at awhile ago related to first shot testimonies (which would be expected to have lower than average variability when interpreting for the first shot timing) does appear to agree with your comments regarding those Willis photos.
https://sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home
sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/witness/willis-movements-map.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis04.jpg)
You guys make it seem like Willis was just standing there waiting for the limousine with plenty of time to raise his camera, frame his shot and pan evenly to eliminate blurring. All ruin by his being startled by hearing a shot.
Willis had to run from where he took his shot of the limousine on Houston to where he took Willis 04. He had a second or two after he arrived to get his shot.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/witness/willis-movements-map.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis04.jpg)
You guys make it seem like Willis was just standing there waiting for the limousine with plenty of time to raise his camera, frame his shot and pan evenly to eliminate blurring. All ruin by his being startled by hearing a shot.
Willis had to run from where he took his shot of the limousine on Houston to where he took Willis 04. He had a second or two after he arrived to get his shot.
Charles, do you think a very loud bang causing what Phil Willis said “the reflex from the shot caused me to take one of these pictures” would only affect his camera trigger finger, i.e. so no part of his hand or wrist or arm or shoulder would shutter so there would be no blur in the picture? If Zapruder at a noticeably further distance (and sound intensity falling off as 1/r^2) jiggled his camera at the gunshots, was it because he was a significantly less stable photographer compared to what Willis could do up much closer to the noise?
For what it’s worth, an approach I looked at awhile ago related to first shot testimonies (which would be expected to have lower than average variability when interpreting for the first shot timing) does appear to agree with your comments regarding those Willis photos.
https://sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home
sites.google.com/view/anchored-first-shot-testimony/home
In the clip below, I believe that you can see each of the limo occupants simultaneously react to the sound of the first shot.
(https://i.vgy.me/WVfbbb.gif)
JFK suddenly drops his right hand from his hair and looks to his left (towards Jackie). Then suddenly returns his head to the crowd on his right (probably reacting to the sound of someone yelling).
John Connally first turns to his right, then quickly turns to his left (towards Nellie), then back to his right.
Jackie suddenly turns her head further to her left, then back towards the front of the limo.
Nellie Connally suddenly turns to her right (towards John Connally).
Agent Roy Kellerman suddenly turns his head to his right, then quickly back towards the front.
Agent Greer (driver) appears to have his gaze towards the camera (Zapruder) and doesn't appear to move his head. He is the exception, perhaps Zapruder (up high on the pedistal) caught his eye.
And last, but not least,William T. McIntyre(on the left running board of the presidential follow-up car)Hickey suddenly looks to his left and down. He appears to me to be looking at the tires of the limo for a blow-out. (Perhaps he thought the loud noise might have been a tire blowing out.)
Edit: William T. McIntyre is almost hidden behind Clint Hill. However, I believe I see him suddenly duck his head and look around Clint Hill.
Still waiting for Anyone to reveal Why SA Hickey is seated so Exceptionally High inside the Queen Mary. His head is higher than the front windshield, and Much higher than everyone else inside the vehicle. Extremely peculiar.
Still waiting for Anyone to reveal Why SA Hickey is seated so Exceptionally High inside the Queen Mary. His head is higher than the front windshield, and Much higher than everyone else inside the vehicle. Extremely peculiar.
Still waiting for Anyone to reveal Why SA Hickey is seated so Exceptionally High inside the Queen Mary. His head is higher than the front windshield, and Much higher than everyone else inside the vehicle. Extremely peculiar.SA Hickey appears to be either sitting on a very high booster seat or he is partially standing from at least as early as z138. His head is higher than others who are seated but lower than the agents standing on the running boards. At around z150 he begins to lean over to the left and looks to the left and down. He appears to be trying to look at something or someone through the space between McIntyre and Clint Hill, perhaps the left rear motorcycle outrider. He is not extended outside the car so he can't be looking at tires.
George W. Hickey, Jr., Special Agent, White House Detail, White House garage, United States Secret Service
Activities of SA George W. Hickey, Jr. from the time he arrived at Love Airfield, Dallas, Texas, Thursday, November 21, 1963, to the time he departed from the above Love Airfield, Friday, November 22, 1963
http://www.jfk-online.com/hickey.html
EXCERPT:
(...)
The motorcade then left the airport and proceeded along the parade route. Just prior to the shooting the Presidential car turned left at the intersection and started down an incline toward an underpass followed by 679X. After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level. I stood up and looked to my right and rear in an attempt to identify it. Nothing caught my attention except people shouting and cheering.
(...)
Thanks, Jerry. I realised that after I had posted my request. That's why I deleted it.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis04.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/snapshot208.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_071~0.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_093.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_106.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_118.jpg)
Appears to be a concrete pillar, tree trunk and first floor of the Depository.
Additional evidence (that can be pretty accurately clocked) to counter your opinion:Hughes said he stopped filming just before the first shot. He continued filming to about frame z187.
Harkness suddenly turns from his duty of controlling the Main Street/Houston Street intersection and looking intently for something in the direction of the presidential limo.
Hughes' film shows he lifted his finger enough to stop the camera for six frames (a very brief 0.3 seconds, very unusual and could be indicative of a reaction to the first shot). Simultaneously, the Dorman film shows an extremely blurred frame then stops for 49 frames.
Tina Towner film stopped just before the unusual Hughes and Dorman films' anomalies. Tina has said she stopped filming just before the first shot.Tina Towner was interviewed by Richard Trask who quotes her (p. 217 Pictures of the Pain) as saying that after she stopped filming "now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in - the loudest crack of a rifle I had ever heard". I believe that she provided a statement for the Sixth Floor Museum in which she said the first shot was 4-6 seconds after she stopped filming. She has a facebook page related to the assassination: https://www.facebook.com/tinatowner1963/
The observant Howard Brennan said in his 11/22/63 affidavit that JFK's back was inline with the last window of the TSBD when the first shot occurred. From Brennan's position this puts JFK inline with those windows at just before Z133.Or that means that he was opposite those windows, not between those windows and Brennan.
Rosemary Willis suddenly turns her head over her right shoulder and looks back in the direction of the TSBD just after Z133 and begins to slow (in order to stop). She has said that she did just that.She stopped at z198.
Tina Towner was interviewed by Richard Trask who quotes her (p. 217 Pictures of the Pain) as saying that after she stopped filming "now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in - the loudest crack of a rifle I had ever heard". I believe that she provided a statement for the Sixth Floor Museum in which she said the first shot was 4-6 seconds after she stopped filming. She has a facebook page related to the assassination: https://www.facebook.com/tinatowner1963/
Andrew Mason suggested Hickey was partially standing. This is my 3D interpretation.Maybe his feet are braced against the jump-seat in front of him.
(TinyPic is closing this year (2019) so this image may not be appearing
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image76~0.jpg)
Is Hickey higher up here? He's in the background holding the Colt AR-15. Maybe he's seated on the top of the seat-back.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_dealey-plaza1964may-mndc02.jpg)
The other agent (Bennett) can be compared with this photo, allowing for Bennett's forward lean).
Good find Charles. Tina Towner apparently stopped her filming in front of the TSBD in perhaps just under 1 second before Z133 started. If she recalled the shot happening within about a second just after stopping filming, this would put the limo in the same position as the last anchored testimony study I looked at, which placed the limo position at the time of the first shot in a position it would have been about ½ second before z133.
Related to first shot reactions, one can independently look at Dorman’s filming in front of the TSBD at this time. I think Charles also commented on Dorman earlier in the thread, but this link may help visualize having a synchronized video to the Zapruder film for reference. It also has the video with a superimposed shot ½ second before z133 which to me appeared very telling. Make sure your audio is turned up to hear the background sounds.
https://sites.google.com/view/dorman-zapruder-sync-on-elm-st/home
sites.google.com/view/dorman-zapruder-sync-on-elm-st/home
In her book Tina Towner, page 7, she states: “ ...but there was not enough time before the first gunshot sounded—only a second or two, if that, after I stopped filming.”She did not time it with a stopwatch. True. But if she thought it was somewhat longer than one or two, that fits with what about 25 other witnesses said. If it was one or two seconds, it conflicts with those 25 witnesses.
I believe I have seen a video in which she said that the first shot sounded just about the time that she stopped filming. I don’t remember which video. But I will point it out if I come across it again.
Regardless, she didn’t time it with a stopwatch.
...Yes. That appears to be SA McIntyre in front of him. McIntyre made the trip to Parkland.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image76~0.jpg)
Is Hickey higher up here? He's in the background holding the Colt AR-15. Maybe he's seated on the top of the seat-back.
Bennett on the right rear seat is lower than Hickey. This is seen in Betzner (z186) and Willis no. 5. but both are somewhat higher than the occupants of the jump seats (Ken O'Donnell and David Powers).
The other agent (Bennett) can be compared with this photo, allowing for Bennett's forward lean).
It appears that you and I have come to the same conclusions (independently) based on the same evidence. And that is a good thing because it tends to confirm each other’s work. I haven’t had any luck viewing the video yet. But the description tells me what it is going to show. Thanks for posting it.
Hickey is seated normally until late on Main Street. He then repositions to how he appears in Dealey Plaza.
Before Main Street
On Main Street
On Main Street
Hickey said: "I did this and had the ammunition clip inserted in the rifle and placed the rifle within easy reach of me." He's hardly going to put it flat on the floor if it has to be "within easy reach". Probably had it vertical and secured between the seat and inside of the car. He said: "I reached to the bottom of the car and picked up the AR 15 rifle" can't be taken literal.
Why three feet high? You think the AR-15 was a cannon?Just that when Hickey isn't partially standing, he's seated at a normal height.
Early Part of Motorcade
On Main Street
The AR-15 was normally kept in a storage are behind the front seat that was accessible to the rear compartment.
She did not time it with a stopwatch. True. But if she thought it was somewhat longer than one or two, that fits with what about 25 other witnesses said. If it was one or two seconds, it conflicts with those 25 witnesses.
I raised this in some discussions on the newsgroup in 2007 about the time of the first shot. Gary Mack replied with this email (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/GMack_TinaTowner_email_1Mar07.pdf) in which he stated:
Andrew,
I've known Tina Towner since 1978 and my memory has been that she said
the first shot came just a second or two after she stopped filming.
However, in a March 30, 1996 oral history, Tina said it was four to six
seconds. So either I have misremembered, which is possible, or her
memory has changed.
What's important is that she stopped filming some seconds before the
shots were fired. That eliminates the early shot theory held by Max and
Johann.
....
Gary Mack
(the last two paragraphs omitted deal with Croft's statement to Richard Trask that after taking his z162 photo he had time to rewind his camera and run down the street and take another photo which he said was taken at the moment of the first shot. Unfortunately, it turned out blank.)
I have not seen Tina Towner's March 30, 1996 oral history which is in the Sixth Floor Museum but I am assuming that Gary Mack's account of what she says is accurate. The 4 to 6 seconds also fits with what she told Trask - that she was getting ready to leave after she stopped filming when she heard the first shot.
LOL. It only "conflicts" with your wacky interpretation of them.Tina Towner stopped filming about 1 second before Zapruder re-started filming. A second after Zapruder restarted filiming (around z150) the VP car and VP security car are both pointing toward the TSBD with the VP followup car somewhere on Houston approaching the intersection. So if that is where the first shot occurred, these witnesses are wrong:
That's not "Croft's statement to Richard Trask". That's from a characterization in an FBI AirTel about Bronson. It may be accurate; it may not be. Croft in 1988 could not confirm the AirTel: "I really don't know how they came up with what they did so fast. They put things together awful quick."Trask interviewed Croft and wrote a whole chapter about him. While he also uncovered an FBI document of an interview with Croft and uses a quote from that, it is inconceivable that Trask would not have confirmed with Croft those details when, for example at p.225 Trask, says that Croft quickly wound his camera as the car went by and took his fourth photo as he heard a shot. The bottom line is that Trask confirms that Croft took his z162 photo a perceptible amount of time before any shot was heard.
Neither Croft nor the FBI claimed the blank slide "was taken at the moment of the first shot." Trask terms it: "The report further states that Croft said that he believed his last picture was taken simultaneously with the shot that killed the President." There's a case to be made that Croft's talking about the head shot. But that would mean a shot showing Kennedy twice as far away as he was to Willis at Z137, when Willis took his fifth slide.
Dale K. Myers cites this email from Gary Mack dated November 21, 2011. "Tina has always said, and we've been good friends since 1978, the first shot came right after she stopped filming. She has always believed the first shot came within a second or two."You are assuming that Myers gave a complete quote from Gary Mack's email. It is apparent that he omitted the reference that Mack would have given to the 1996 oral history statement.
So add that to what she said in her book: "...but there was not enough time before the first gunshot sounded—only a second or two, if that, after I stopped filming."We need to determine why she has given a range of 1 to 6 seconds as the delay between her end of filming and the first shot. Her recollection that she was getting ready to leave when she heard the first shot suggests that the delay was closer to 6 seconds than to 1. Four seconds would put the first shot at about z191.
And a 2013 Greensville, Texas newspaper account:
"She said she heard the first shots "about two seconds" after she stopped filming." ( Link (https://www.heraldbanner.com/news/local_news/capturing-few-seconds-of-history/article_8bf054fe-3e87-51e0-8e33-232a60e97394.html) )
Not sure how much this influenced her story:
"I’m told it was about two seconds (before) the first gun shot." ( Link (https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/11/21/photographer-describes-capturing-iconic-jfk-jr-image/) )
She doesn't dispute it. Now you work on her at Facebook to say it could have been as much as four seconds.
She merely said: "Now I was beginning to leave when I heard the sky fall in."
Does she describe putting her camera away in its case, or something?
Additionally, notice the contrast in the facial expressions in the two photographs below:But no one in the crowd is showing any look of concern. BTW Look at your 2nd photo, see how JFK is sitting? No way a bullet from the 6th story window went into his back and came out his throat
Willis took this photo near the beginning of the clip posted in the first post above. Everyone is smiling and in contact with the crowd.
(https://i.vgy.me/NCVEtP.jpg)
Croft took this photo closer to the end of the clip in the original post. Both John Connally and Jackie have quizzical expressions. It appears to me that they are looking around and wondering what that loud noise they just heard was.
(https://i.vgy.me/mGxwI0.jpg)
But no one in the crowd is showing any look of concern. BTW Look at your 2nd photo, see how JFK is sitting? No way a bullet from the 6th story window went into his back and came out his throat
Andrew,While witnesses are not video recorders, they generally don't fabricate entire events. They will often differ on small details but will generally agree on the salient points. And if a witness reports an event that did not occur, other witnesses will not independently report the same thing. That simply does not happen.
I admire your diligent effort to make the raw testimony work, but I struggled with raw testimony like this when trying to accurately nail down first shot timing (like the Willis photos issue).
It may be that a difference in 2 shot (which included slumping and/or hands going up to throat) or 3 shot testimonies would contribute to a significant difference in what is being interpreted, but in any case I think we all struggle with two sources of error or variability in testimony in general. 1) errors in how folks remembered what happened during the chaotic events and how they subsequently recalled it in their testimony and 2) (and this may be an equally large source of error), how researchers interpret what they think the testimony meant or what they thought the individuals meanto.
So an example along these lines in your supporting testimonies are the drivers of cars #4 and #6.
#4 Hurchel Jacks (driver), WC 18 H 801, said "My car had just straightened up from making the left hand turn" when the first shot rang out.
#6 Milton Wright (driver), WC18 H 802: "had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection"
Their testimonies say that they were effectively in the same place at the same time. That conclusion is obviously way wrong. Is it error 1) or 2) above? (or both)
The crowd is focused on the President and motorcade. Very few of them recognized the first shot as a rifle shot. Even JFK quickly recovered from the noise (after a brief look towards Jackie) and then returned looking to his right and began waving to the crowd again. Look closely at his facial expressions on the Zapruder clip as he turns back to his right. His look of concern quickly returns to a smile as he re-engages with the crowd.Exactly, the crowd is focused on the motorcade but that does not make them immune to gunfire. When the first shot is a miss is it only louder inside an open-top car or from where it originated
The first shot missed. So I agree with your assessment of the second photo.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z144.jpg)
No reason to believe he's not smiling here. The glare spot begins to obscure his face as the Z240s increase.It seems to me he's smiling before his head gets to the right. The change in shadow makes it seem he begins to break out in smile.
Left: raw frames; Right: deblurred (TinyPic to close 2019)(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z161.jpg)
Exactly, the crowd is focused on the motorcade but that does not make them immune to gunfire. When the first shot is a miss is it only louder inside an open-top car or from where it originated
When trying to stress a important point, a speaker might ask: “Did you hear what I just said”? This would be an attempt to make sure the audience is paying attention to his words.
The bystanders had their attention focused on the motorcade. The limousine occupants had their attention focused on the crowd. However, the limousine occupants had been traveling through the crowds for a while. And the bystanders only had a few moments to see the President before he would pass by and be gone. Therefore, due to these probable differences in intensity of focus, it seems to me that the limousine occupants might be more aware of other things going on around them than the bystanders would be.
Rosemary Willis appears to have reacted to the sound of the first shot as she can be seen jerking her head around to look back towards the TSBD just after Z133. So she is apparently more aware of her surroundings. However, she has been running along side the limousine since it turned onto Houston Street. And she has had to watch where she was going in order to not run into anything.
As far as your question goes, I saw a paratrooper describing what it was like while descending towards the ground where the enemy was shooting rifles at him. He said he could tell when he was the target by the distinctive crack sound of the rifle. I have been told that this is the sonic boom of the bullet. And it apparently is most noticeable when the bullet passes close by. So perhaps the limousine occupants did hear something that the bystanders didn’t.
Charles,
Isn't it possible that Rosemary "pulled up" because her father yelled, "Stop, Rosemary!," or some-such thing?
-- MWT ;)
Not unless he had “eyes in the back of his head” (like my mother did ;) ).
Can someone help me out with a fundamental question. A substantial majority of critics and WC supporters appear to agree that the first shot missed. I can understand that the earlier that shot occurred, the longer a SN shooter had to fire 2 more shots till 313. Other than that, what is the significance of the timing of the first shot.
By virtue of what others are doing means JFK did the same? Even if Jackie's change in expression between Willis 04 and Croft was one of concern, she could be worried some people in the street are about to be mowed down by Martin's motorcycle.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z133-z199/z139.jpg)
In any case, there is no clear indication that Jackie's expression does change between Willis 04 and Croft.
Jim Towner Slide
Willis 04 Slide (Z157)
Robert Croft Slide (Z202)
We can compare the Jim Towner and Croft slides because they of comparable quality and focus:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/14mru6e.jpg)
There is a slight change but Jackie is still smiling. And I would say no look of concern. She might have been smiling a little more in the Towner slide because Tina Towner was filming her.
Governor Connally doesn't appear to have smiled since Main and Houston. He's probably feeling the effects of 30-minutes in that jump seat.
There was also a crowd of people to their left who were hoping to make contact as the limousine straightened up. They were possibly waving and shouting as it was their turn to be seen by the Kennedys. In the early Z-140s, Nellie makes a small turn to look forward. Not a big deal.
Which SS agents are turning? Myers and Vaughan address the turns of Ready, Bennett and Hickey here (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/12/cherry-picking-evidence-of-first-shot.html). Kellerman straightens his head up in the late-Z140s, where it remains, slightly looking towards his right, as they approach the sign.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z153.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z161.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z162.jpg)
Here are the three clearest frames before the "break out in a smile" frame of Z167 (the hand-lifting begins Z170). No rationale have been given for the claim that Kennedy has a "look of concern" or even that he's not smiling in those frames.
Mockery. I see. Kennedy is already smiling before he turns his head rightward to the crowd (and maybe smiling while he was looking leftward). The change in shadow on his face as his head got to its position in Z167 made it seem he broke out in a smile that moment.
I am a little surprised that you don’t see the change in Jackie’s expression. When shown your excellent graphic, my wife said that she looks “happy” in the Towner photo and “concerned” in the Croft photo. Those are her words with no leading questions from me.It is dangerous to try to discern mood from a single photo. In Towner Jackie is smiling in a way that was likely not sustained during the entire motorcade. So a change in her facial expression does not mean much. The President waved and smiled after that. Mary Woodward said that she shouted to the President and both he and Jackie turned and smiled and waved at them. That occurs after Croft 162 as seen in the zfilm.
Having the AR-15 flat on the floor doesn't count as "within easy reach of me". William Manchester said in his book: "on the seat between them [Bennett and Hickey] lay an AR-15 .233 automatic rifle." Clint Hill said the AR-15 was: "Between the two agents in the rear seat."
Hickey got hold of the weapon very quickly; no one said he bent down out of sight to reach to the bottom of the floor. Sen. Yarborough, riding in the Vice Presidential car behind the Queen Mary, said: "After the shooting, one of the Secret Service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward." Also in the VP vehicle was Rufus Youngblood, who: "observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings."
Bennett wrote: "I immediately hollered 'he's hit' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5." Combine with what Manchester and Hill said, and the weapon being within "easy reach" and quick retrieval. So it could be between the two agents on the back seat with an end on the center hump.
Seems unlikely to me that the AR-15 was on the floor in front of Hickey. That would impede with him as he sat normally (which we know he did from pictures), not to mention making the AR-15 awkward to reach.
So Hickey wasn't seated on a footlocker and his feet could be bracing against the jump-seat.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/wb5hzc.jpg)
It is dangerous to try to discern mood from a single photo. In Towner Jackie is smiling in a way that was likely not sustained during the entire motorcade. So a change in her facial expression does not mean much. The President waved and smiled after that. Mary Woodward said that she shouted to the President and both he and Jackie turned and smiled and waved at them. That occurs after Croft 162 as seen in the zfilm.
There is too much evidence against an early first shot.
1. First of all you have all the motorcade witnesses who put their car much later in the turn than z150-160 at the time of the first shot (see my earlier post).
2. Then you have all the people along Elm (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF) who said the had just passed them or was just passing or was approaching them or was opposite the Thornton sign or JFK was "between me and the Stemmons sign" putting the shot after but close to z190.
3. Then you have all the witnesses who said that JFK immediately reacted to the first shot (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF)before the second by bringing his hands to his chest/neck, moving left, blank stare, surprised look, appeared to duck etc.
4. Then you have the photographers who put the first shot a perceptible time after they took their photos/film (Hughes, Betzner and Croft) which puts the first shot after z186.
5. Then you have all the witnesses (over 40) who said that the last two shots were much closer together than the first two, which puts the second shot after z225 when JFK is seen to be reacting to the bullet that struck him.
Each these five independent bodies of witness evidence is inconsistent with a first shot before z186-190. And they are all consistent with each other. If you ignore this evidence you will not be able to determine the correct shot pattern. The correct shot pattern is consistent with Oswald firing all three shots and inconsistent with the SBT.
It is dangerous to try to discern mood from a single photo. In Towner Jackie is smiling in a way that was likely not sustained during the entire motorcade. So a change in her facial expression does not mean much.You suggested that the Croft photo shows "concern". Was there another one that showed a similar expression?
There are three photos (including Willis 4 in which Jackie is still smiling). Plus all the other evidence I have previously outlined earlier in this thread. Therefore I am not relying on a single photo.
The President waved and smiled after that. Mary Woodward said that she shouted to the President and both he and Jackie turned and smiled and waved at them. That occurs after Croft 162 as seen in the zfilm.Ok. But that does not mean they didn't hear it and a few seconds later, after seeing the effects, didn't recognize that it had been a rifle shot.
Like the vast majority of eyewitnesses who have stated their perceptions, most of the occupants of the limo do not appear to have recognized the first shot as a rifle shot.
JBC is an exception. Therefore it is reasonable for them to re-engage with the crowd after quickly looking around with concerned expressions and not seeing anything alarming.Gov. Connally said he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination was unfolding. I don't seen anything prior to about z228 that indicates that kind of a reaction.
There is too much evidence against an early first shot.If you want to reach an accurate conclusion, you should look at all the evidence.
I am focusing on visual evidence.
You suggested that the Croft photo shows "concern". Was there another one that showed a similar expression?
Ok. But that does not mean they didn't hear it and a few seconds later, after seeing the effects, didn't recognize that it had been a rifle shot.
Gov. Connally said he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination was unfolding. I don't seen anything prior to about z228 that indicates that kind of a reaction.
If you want to reach an accurate conclusion, you should look at all the evidence.
When trying to stress a important point, a speaker might ask: “Did you hear what I just said”? This would be an attempt to make sure the audience is paying attention to his words.The paratrooper wasn't descending in a parade of sorts, was he? As far as the expression of Jackie, I think it's possible that picture may reveal her sensing something but as far as bullets missing the target and still being noticed by its intended target is what I am wondering. If what we see is real reactions on Jackie's face, is it then possible to say this reaction was from more bullets that missed and in this case from a gun with a suppressor
The bystanders had their attention focused on the motorcade. The limousine occupants had their attention focused on the crowd. However, the limousine occupants had been traveling through the crowds for a while. And the bystanders only had a few moments to see the President before he would pass by and be gone. Therefore, due to these probable differences in intensity of focus, it seems to me that the limousine occupants might be more aware of other things going on around them than the bystanders would be.
Rosemary Willis appears to have reacted to the sound of the first shot as she can be seen jerking her head around to look back towards the TSBD just after Z133. So she is apparently more aware of her surroundings. However, she has been running along side the limousine since it turned onto Houston Street. And she has had to watch where she was going in order to not run into anything.
As far as your question goes, I saw a paratrooper describing what it was like while descending towards the ground where the enemy was shooting rifles at him. He said he could tell when he was the target by the distinctive crack sound of the rifle. I have been told that this is the sonic boom of the bullet. And it apparently is most noticeable when the bullet passes close by. So perhaps the limousine occupants did hear something that the bystanders didn’t.
The paratrooper wasn't descending in a parade of sorts, was he? As far as the expression of Jackie, I think it's possible that picture may reveal her sensing something but as far as bullets missing the target and still being noticed by its intended target is what I am wondering. If what we see is real reactions on Jackie's face, is it then possible to say this reaction was from more bullets that missed and in this case from a gun with a suppressor
Having the AR-15 flat on the floor doesn't count as "within easy reach of me". William Manchester said in his book: "on the seat between them [Bennett and Hickey] lay an AR-15 .233 automatic rifle." Clint Hill said the AR-15 was: "Between the two agents in the rear seat."
Hickey got hold of the weapon very quickly; no one said he bent down out of sight to reach to the bottom of the floor. Sen. Yarborough, riding in the Vice Presidential car behind the Queen Mary, said: "After the shooting, one of the Secret Service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward." Also in the VP vehicle was Rufus Youngblood, who: "observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings."
Bennett wrote: "I immediately hollered 'he's hit' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5." Combine with what Manchester and Hill said, and the weapon being within "easy reach" and quick retrieval. So it could be between the two agents on the back seat with an end on the center hump.
Seems unlikely to me that the AR-15 was on the floor in front of Hickey. That would impede with him as he sat normally (which we know he did from pictures), not to mention making the AR-15 awkward to reach.
So Hickey wasn't seated on a footlocker and his feet could be bracing against the jump-seat.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/wb5hzc.jpg)
You suggested that the Croft photo shows "concern". Was there another one that showed a similar expression?As I said, it is not a good idea to base a conclusion based on a single photo: i.e. concluding that she looked concerned because of her expression in Croft's photo.
Not that I am aware of.
OK. But that does not mean they didn't hear it and a few seconds later, after seeing the effects, didn't recognize that it had been a rifle shot.My point was that just because they may have initially attributed the first bang to a firecracker, ensuing events would have persuaded them that it wasn't. It is difficult to believe, without evidence, that anyone who initially thought it was a firecracker would have continued to believe - after the three shots - that the first loud bang was a firecracker (or, as Jerry insists, would have forgotten about the first loud noise completely).
The first shot missed. Therefore the effects were not apparent.
Gov. Connally said he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination was unfolding. I don't seen anything prior to about z228 that indicates that kind of a reaction.He turned his head to the right at the same time that Jackie and JFK turned their head to the right. He never turns around to look at the President, which is what he said he did in response to the first shot, until after z230.
He snapped his head to the right then to his left (where Croft captured his concerned expression). Then back to his right. His actions and expressions are consistent with recognition of the rifle shot. The only thing he didn’t do was scream for everyone to duck. Instead he said something like oh no, they are going to kill us all. That dialogue only appears to have distracted Jackie for a few seconds.
If you want to reach an accurate conclusion, you should look at all the evidence.And my point is that if you want to draw conclusions from evidence it must fit with all the evidence. If what you think you see in the zfilm does not fit with the rest of the evidence you should try another interpretation that does.
I have been looking at the other evidence. The visual evidence is what I am focused on now.
Willis family: Head shot came from right front
I believe it is possible that some of the bystanders heard the loud noise from the soda bottle thrown down near Zapruder and mistook it for a gunshot.
As I said, it is not a good idea to base a conclusion based on a single photo: i.e. concluding that she looked concerned because of her expression in Croft's photo.
My point was that just because they may have initially attributed the first bang to a firecracker, ensuing events would have persuaded them that it wasn't. It is difficult to believe, without evidence, that anyone who initially thought it was a firecracker would have continued to believe - after the three shots - that the first loud bang was a firecracker (or, as Jerry insists, would have forgotten about the first loud noise completely).
He turned his head to the right at the same time that Jackie and JFK turned their head to the right. He never turns around to look at the President, which is what he said he did in response to the first shot, until after z230.
And my point is that if you want to draw conclusions from evidence it must fit with all the evidence. If what you think you see in the zfilm does not fit with the rest of the evidence you should try another interpretation that does.
"If you want to draw conclusions from evidence it must fit with all the evidence. If what you think you see in the zfilm does not fit with the rest of the evidence you should try another interpretation that does."
I like the idea of an analysis scenario fitting all the evidence, but I suspect in complex cases all the evidence rarely always agrees with a single scenario. In a most simple example here three shots vs two shots testimony evidence is far from agreement. To get it to reconcile I as a researcher would have to make up some interpretations or assumptions to make it work. I don’t think any JFK shooting scenario will ever fit all the evidence. Unfortunately some evidence may just not make the cut or will need to be looked at differently.
I think there has been other evidence provided here besides testimony or anchored testimony that is quite useful. There has been credible non-testimony based film analysis like voluntary reactions, non-voluntary or startle reactions, especially those associated with camera reactions that do support an earlier shot. I think this has been a good faith effort to consider all the evidence and get folks to think as broadly as possible on this question by using non-testimony analysis as a key resource that does not rely solely on interpreting testimony.
We have heard an alleged Exploding Pop Bottle being blamed for the Smoke Cloud near the picket fence, and Now we have an Exploding Pop Bottle being mistaken for shots fired. Must have been a 6 Pack
As I said, it is not a good idea to base a conclusion based on a single photo: i.e. concluding that she looked concerned because of her expression in Croft's photo.My comment was directed to the view expressed that Jackie looks "concerned" in that Croft photo. All I said was that it was dangerous to draw conclusions about a person's mood based on a single photo. You seem to have agreed that the conclusion was drawn from that single photo.
As I said, there is other corroborating evidence that supports this. And as I said earlier, I described this evidence earlier in this thread.
My point was that just because they may have initially attributed the first bang to a firecracker, ensuing events would have persuaded them that it wasn't. It is difficult to believe, without evidence, that anyone who initially thought it was a firecracker would have continued to believe - after the three shots - that the first loud bang was a firecracker (or, as Jerry insists, would have forgotten about the first loud noise completely).?? My comment was not about Jackie's. expression. It was about your dismissal of the "first shot hit" witnesses on the basis that they thought the first loud noise was a firecracker, which you claim caused them to attribute the reaction of JFK to the second shot.
The Croft photo was taken before the second shot occurred. Therefore the ensuing events you are apparently trying to inject do not apply to Jackie's expression in that photo.
He turned his head to the right at the same time that Jackie and JFK turned their head to the right. He never turns around to look at the President, which is what he said he did in response to the first shot, until after z230.JBC is turned around as far as he can in z268. To suggest that he is in any way trying to see the President when his head is not even turned rearward is a stretching it an awful lot. Most people can turn their head on their neck.
At Z148 JBC has turned as far right as he apparently can then begins a snap turn to his left. In my opinion he could be trying to turn far enough to look at the President.
There is much conflicting evidence in this case. Especially the (fallible) eyewitness accounts. No conclusion will ever fit all the evidence. This is typical for such events. If everything fit perfectly, then I would suspect a conspiracy and cover-up. I have argued with you about your interpretation of your cherry-picked eyewitness accounts years ago under another screen name, "Porterhaus" if I remember correctly. You did help me learn more about how various angles affect how we see the images. Thanks.No one is suggesting that witness evidence should be the same. There are always different points of view and different things noticed by different witnesses. I am saying that if something did not occur you are not going to get multiple witnesses independently describing the same non-event. That never happens. Besides, the witnesses of the shot pattern: 1.........2.....3 were not the same witnesses who described JFK being hit by the first shot and were not the same witnesses who said the first shot was after z186. Each of those mutually consistent bodies of evidence are inconsistent in different ways with the first shot miss. (eg. the 1........2....3 shot pattern requires a first shot hitting the President because the second shot would have to be well after z225). You have to reject both all three bodies of evidence simply to cling to the notion of a first shot that missed. There is simply no rational basis for doing that.
Personally, I haven't seen any evidence that a gun with a suppressor was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Therefore, given what I know of human nature (specifically that women are instinctively drawn to children, much the same way that men are instinctively drawn to pretty women), I believe that there is a very good chance that Rosemary Willis running alongside the limo caught Jackie's attention. And that Rosemary's enthusiasm could be a reason that Jackie is smiling in Towner and Willis 4 photographs. If that is the case, then seeing Rosemary snap her head back towards the TSBD and start slowing her speed to stop (by Z140 her head is already turned toward the TSBD and she is slowing down) immediately after hearing the sound of the first shot, is reason enough to cause the expression of concern on Jackie's face. It appears to me that in Croft's photo that Jackie's eyes are looking back towards her left (where Rosemary has suddenly slowed and is looking back at the TSBD).
(https://i.vgy.me/ApTdJS.gif)
And thanks to Gerda for the excellent video clip!
"If you want to draw conclusions from evidence it must fit with all the evidence. If what you think you see in the zfilm does not fit with the rest of the evidence you should try another interpretation that does."It does if you have the right scenario - what actually happened. There are many examples where judges and juries have reached the wrong conclusion because the police/prosecution withheld evidence, or didn't pursue evidence and ignored or tried to explain away bodies of consistent contrary evidence. The cases of Guy Paul Morin or David Milgaard in Canada or the case of Michael Morton are excellent examples of reaching a conclusion while ignoring bodies of independent conflicting evidence. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires having all the material facts fit together.
I like the idea of an analysis scenario fitting all the evidence, but I suspect in complex cases all the evidence rarely always agrees with a single scenario.
In a most simple example here three shots vs two shots testimony evidence is far from agreement. To get it to reconcile I as a researcher would have to make up some interpretations or assumptions to make it work. I don’t think any JFK shooting scenario will ever fit all the evidence. Unfortunately some evidence may just not make the cut or will need to be looked at differently.It is not that all the evidence has to fit. Some witnesses are simply wrong. Some are misled for the same reason as other witnesses (echos made it difficult for witnesses near reflecting surfaces to accurately determine direction). But if they are way off, the will stand alone. In the JFK assassination there are not two independent witnesses who saw a dog between JFK and Jackie. Only one witness heard 8 shots. If evidence is to be correctly rejected as inaccurate there has to be an evidentiary basis for reaching a rational conclusion that it is not accurate.
I think there has been other evidence provided here besides testimony or anchored testimony that is quite useful. There has been credible non-testimony based film analysis like voluntary reactions, non-voluntary or startle reactions, especially those associated with camera reactions that do support an earlier shot. I think this has been a good faith effort to consider all the evidence and get folks to think as broadly as possible on this question by using non-testimony analysis as a key resource that does not rely solely on interpreting testimony.That's fine, so long as you realize that your conclusions has to fit the rest of the case. A missed shot does not fit the rest of the case.
My comment was directed to the view expressed that Jackie looks "concerned" in that Croft photo. All I said was that it was dangerous to draw conclusions about a person's mood based on a single photo. You seem to have agreed that the conclusion was drawn from that single photo.
?? My comment was not about Jackie's. expression. It was about your dismissal of the "first shot hit" witnesses on the basis that they thought the first loud noise was a firecracker, which you claim caused them to attribute the reaction of JFK to the second shot.
JBC is turned around as far as he can in z268. To suggest that he is in any way trying to see the President when his head is not even turned rearward is a stretching it an awful lot. Most people can turn their head on their neck.
At Z161 JBC has turned to his left and begins to turn back to his right. JFK has already turned back to his right.
No one is suggesting that witness evidence should be the same. There are always different points of view and different things noticed by different witnesses. I am saying that if something did not occur you are not going to get multiple witnesses independently describing the same non-event. That never happens. Besides, the witnesses of the shot pattern: 1.........2.....3 were not the same witnesses who described JFK being hit by the first shot and were not the same witnesses who said the first shot was after z186. Each of those mutually consistent bodies of evidence are inconsistent in different ways with the first shot miss. (eg. the 1........2....3 shot pattern requires a first shot hitting the President because the second shot would have to be well after z225). You have to reject both all three bodies of evidence simply to cling to the notion of a first shot that missed. There is simply no rational basis for doing that.
Willis on the shots "with the first shot I really just thought firecrackers just, you know, in celebration but as soon as the, you know, second and third and maybe SUBSEQUENT SHOTS, you know I have no idea how many, I know there were at least three MAYBE MORE"
Willis on what she saw "I never looked at the school book depository because I was totally entranced by the President"
What "smoke cloud"? Holland saw what he took to be a "puff of smoke" and, get this, it lingered. Me thinks Holland and you are telling a few porkies.
You lawyers sure are dishonest.You have such poor memory. A legal education might help with fact retention and would also help you understand professional ethics.
Who ever claimed a three-shot witness who initially thought the first shot was a firecracker went on to believe that permanently?
As far as I know, any three-shot witness who said the first-shot was like a firecracker or backfire has always described it as a first impression and that he subsequently realized all three loud reports were gunfire.
Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?
I may have said something remotely like that in a few posts long ago, but I know for the last few years, I have always said (or "insisted"):That does not explain why Betzner would think that the shots occurred after his z186 photo or why Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot before the President had time to react. It does not explain why Hughes who stopped filming at very close to z187 (based on the motorcade car positions and frame timings) stated that he stopped filming before the first shot.
- two-shot witnesses might have understandably lost track of a shot in
their memory (ie: trauma, shock, the last two shots were more vivid
as a memory because they struck and men reacted);- some of the two-shot witnesses acknowledge there were one-or-more
shots but can only reliably describe two because they have something they
recall in conjunction with the shots.
You think two-shot witness must lose track of the middle shot because it was near-simultaneous with the head shot.No. I have never said that. I have never ever suggested there was another shot that was nearly simultaneous with the head shot. I have always maintained that the second shot occurred just after z271 and before JFK's hair flies up beginning at z273. That is not to say that the reverberation of the second shot could not have overlapped with the sound of the third shot. Mary Woodward recalled that the sound of the second shot had not died out before the third shot sounded.
Well then, just who was that girl that was obviously looking back over her right shoulder as the President passed her by in the limousine?
Your comment was in reply to my original comment in post #69, which has nothing to do with Jackie's expression.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
JBC is turned around as far as he can in z268. To suggest that he is in any way trying to see the President when his head is not even turned rearward is a stretching it an awful lot. Most people can turn their head on their neck.If you have already concluded that he is turned that way because he was shot, you are doing so solely on the basis of the zfilm which is equivocal on that point.
By the time of Z268 JBC had already been shot. And apparently, as a result of the pain, has also turned his torso to his right and is beginning to fall back towards Nellie. He is apparently looking at the President, however if I remember correctly, he said he never saw the President after he himself had been hit. Perhaps he was in too much pain for it to register in his brain, or he mentally blocked it out.
The normal accepted range of motion of the neck rotation is 60 to 80 degrees.I can easily turn my neck 90 degrees to my shoulder and I can turn my shoulders about another 60 degrees, so while sitting down I can turn my head about 150 degrees (just as we see JBC doing at z268)
In Z148 JBC's torso is roughly facing the camera and his face is in profile showing the left side. And In Z161 JBC's torso is still in roughly facing the camera and his face is in profile showing the right side. Then by Z179 JBC has turned his head back around to his right and his torso is still roughly facing the camera. I am pretty sure that JBC's eyes could independently move left and right, and that he also had some peripheral vision. It is quite obvious to me that in that short 1.69 seconds he is looking around for either the source of the sound or the President, then checking on Nellie, then looking back to his right for the President.JFK is more than 90 degrees to where JBC is facing. JBC is looking forward and to the right, not back. There is no way that he could be trying to see JFK and not be turning his neck.
You have to reject both all three bodies of evidence simply to cling to the notion of a first shot that missed. There is simply no rational basis for doing that.Factual accuracy is not a popularity contest. The Connallys certainly believed that all three shots hit in the car and they were arguably in a better position to observe that than anyone on this board.
Let me ask you if anyone has ever agreed with your idea that all three of the shots from the TSBD sniper's nest hit someone in the limo? I have seen you arguing this for years here in this forum and not seen anyone agree with you. Where is the statistical corroboration from other investigators and researchers for your idea? The first shot missed theory appears to be a rational idea to plenty of people.
She obviously turns that direction but that does not mean that she looked at the TSBD. If she heard something to cause her to turn that is only part of it. She says many things and is consistent and specific plus she talks about the family's film being tampered with
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pojfkwhiteslides10018_b.jpg)
You mean this picture?
The Sam Holland I know of started out with ...
"puff of smoke ... from behind the arcade through the trees"; "I don’t know
whether it was a shot. I can’t say that"; "a firecracker, or something";
"could have been the third or fourth [shot]"
By 1966, this had become: "I saw a puff of smoke still lingering among the trees in front of the wooden fence. The report sounded like it came from behind the wooden fence."
LOL! I honor his original truthful account.
By 1966 he was being misled by WC critics into saying things that made no sense. A "puff of smoke" that lingers would be from a cannon. And your "Smoke Cloud" demonstrates how critics have exaggerated Holland's account.
Your comment was in reply to my original comment in post #69, which has nothing to do with Jackie's expression.
If you have already concluded that he is turned that way because he was shot, you are doing so solely on the basis of the zfilm which is equivocal on that point.
I can easily turn my neck 90 degrees to my shoulder and I can turn my shoulders about another 60 degrees, so while sitting down I can turn my head about 150 degrees (just as we see JBC doing at z268)
JFK is more than 90 degrees to where JBC is facing. JBC is looking forward and to the right, not back. There is no way that he could be trying to see JFK and not be turning his neck.
Factual accuracy is not a popularity contest. The Connallys certainly believed that all three shots hit in the car and they were arguably in a better position to observe that than anyone on this board.
Many people on this board are, like you, unwilling to consider that the SBT is not required for the LN conclusion. So naturally, you think the evidence must be wrong. I am just pointing out the evidence is inconsistent with the SBT. 3 of the 7 members of the Warren Commission did not agree with the SBT but agreed with the LN conclusion (as did the Connallys). The FBI originally thought that all three shots struck in the car and that view continued until March or April 1964. It was thought that the second shot struck JBC around z275, which is just before Greer makes his first rearward turn (which Greer said he did immediately upon hearing the second shot). All I am saying is that there is abundant consistent and independent bodies of evidence that support such a conclusion. You don't have to agree with it. But your lack of agreement does not make the evidence disappear.
You apparently went to the same law school as Jimmy McGill.
Show us where anybody anywhere has every claimed Betzner "forgot" about the first shot he described.
"I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought
that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."
Right. Our disagreement is over the number of shots he could recall. I say he recalled two shots: the head shot and the one before that.
Betzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" meaning there could have been more. I thought we agreed that the two-shot witnesses have to have heard all three shots.
This is an example of "Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?"
Well, I seem to be explaining the divide over how the "two-shot" witnesses are handled. I'm not "insisting" on anything. Is "overlooked or not as distinctively recalled" the same as "forgot"? And where am I saying a witness failed to hear all three shots?
Is that what they taught you in that law school in the Virgin Islands, Mason? How to falsely parse a document into something that supports a client (ie: your dumb-ass laughing-stock failed pet theory).
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/witness/hugh-betzner-01-affidavit.gif)
Let's get that quote of yours (underlined part below) in context:
"I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill
on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise.
I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired.
I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the
matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the
President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were
stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then
sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over
the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when
I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember
exactly where I was when I saw the following:
I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a
firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for
this was because I saw fragments going up in the air."
Problem is he's describing that last part ("firecracker" and fragments going up in the air") with this prior passage:
"I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter
of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's
car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I
saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down
in the car."
Unless you want us to believe he saw the head shot incidents separately and that he saw Mrs. Kennedy raise up in the seat BEFORE he supposedly walked back to the monument and then saw the "firecracker/fragments in air" incident.
The document in full shows Betzner is describing just two shots (the "winding my camera" shot and the "another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds" shot) by way of relating them to things he witnessed or was doing.
But all is not lost. Here's your Saul Goodman Award.
Betzner has always described two shots occurred after he took his photo, not three as you are trying to make out. His "second" shot seems to be the head shot, but his "first" shot (which he relates to himself winding the camera and looking up) moves it outside the Z190s-Z200s. As for Willis, you like to ignore what he said about the first shot causing Mrs. Kennedy to turn her head from his side of the street to the opposite. She does this beginning in the Z170s. Hughes stopped filming five frames before Z190, so you are associating a five-second pause in filming, as Hughes claimed, with 1/3 second for a Z191 shot.
There's a recurring hair flutter that Hickey couldn't see during the Z270s.
She also said the President wasn't injured on the first shot and that he only slumped on the second shot.
After what you tried with Betzner, we have to wonder how you characterize who is a "two-shot" witness and who isn't.
You apparently went to the same law school as Jimmy McGill.Jimmy McGill never went to law school.
Show us where anybody anywhere has every claimed Betzner "forgot" about the first shot he described.No. Our disagreement is over whether he did not recall hearing the one that you say was before his z186 photo. The number of shots he heard is not clear. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the first shot was before or after his photo at z186. He said it was after. So you were arguing that he heard the first shot before z186 but, because he "dismissed" it as a firecracker, he did not treat it as the first shot when reporting his observations.
"I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought
that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired."
Right. Our disagreement is over the number of shots he could recall. I say he recalled two shots: the head shot and the one before that.
Betzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" meaning there could have been more. I thought we agreed that the two-shot witnesses have to have heard all three shots.This is transcribed from the statement that Betzner actually gave:
This is an example of "Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?"
Well, I seem to be explaining the divide over how the "two-shot" witnesses are handled. I'm not "insisting" on anything. Is "overlooked or not as distinctively recalled" the same as "forgot"? And where am I saying a witness failed to hear all three shots?
There's a recurring hair flutter that Hickey couldn't see during the Z270s.Yet he reported seeing something that you say he could not see but which we can see in the zfilm. Amazing! And, by the way, it is not recurring. It happens only once where just JFK's hair flies up: z273-z276.
She {Mary Woodward} also said the President wasn't injured on the first shot and that he only slumped on the second shot.Well, she did preface that comment by: "Things are a little hazy from this point"
(https://i.ibb.co/rtfdY0S/z158-z180.gif)
The only place in the Zapruder film where I am sure Rosemary first had her head turned to her right is beginning Z166. She seems to be going a steady clip until just after that.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z133-z199/z133.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z133-z199/z146.jpg)
Rosemary seems to be looking forward in frames Z133 and Z146. in the intervening frames, her figure is in shade or suffers glare when she re-emerges.
What a small-minded quibble. Technically it is a picture. Do still frames have white borders?
Supply the source? Okey-dokey. Did a witness actually say they saw a "Smoke Cloud"? Or that from the windmills of your mind?
Jimmy McGill never went to law school.
No. Our disagreement is over whether he did not recall hearing the one that you say was before his z186 photo. The number of shots he heard is not clear. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the first shot was before or after his photo at z186. He said it was after. So you were arguing that he heard the first shot before z186 but, because he "dismissed" it as a firecracker, he did not treat it as the first shot when reporting his observations.
This is transcribed from the statement that Betzner actually gave:
"Hugh William Betzner Jr.: DALLAS SHERIFF'S STATEMENT: November 22 1963. 24 H 200
"I was standing on Houston Street near the intersection of Elm Street. I took a picture of President Kennedy's car as it passed along Houston Street [Comment: Betzner photo no. 1]. I have an old camera. I looked down real quick and rolled the film to take the next picture. I then ran down to the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, this being the southwest corner. I took another picture just as President Kennedy's car rounded the corner [Comment: Betzner no. 2]. It was just about all the way around the corner. I was standing back from the corner and had to take the pictures through some of the crowd. I ran on down Elm a little more and President Kennedy's car was starting to go down the hill to the triple underpass. I was running trying, to keep the President's car in my view and was winding my film as I ran. I was looking down at my camera to see the number of the film as I ran. I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street [Comment: Betzner photo no. 3]. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise [Comment: Betzner loud noise no. 1]. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds [Comment: Betzner loud noise no. 2]. I looked down the street and I could see the President's car an another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so i could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was standing back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. "...
Now what is quite clear from that is that photo no. 3 was taken BEFORE loud noise no. 1. What is less clear, and I would say it is immaterial, is how many he heard after that. I don't see how this is really material to whether the first shot occurred before or after his photo no. 3 (but you apparently do).
Nevertheless, a reasonable case can be made that he was reporting two additional shots after the first shot. He said that after taking his photo no. 3, he started to wind his camera to take another when he says he heard the first shot (which he said sounded like a firecracker). He does not describe where he was looking at the time. Then, later in his statement he says: "when I saw the following" followed by "I heard at least two shots fired" followed by "and I saw" suggests that the two shots he heard occurred when he saw what he was describing (what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car). This is consistent with the many reports that the last two shots were close together. As I say, it is not crystal clear, but that is not an unreasonable interpretation of his statement. What is an unreasonable interpretation is that he heard the loud noise BEFORE he took his photo no. 3.
On March 18, 2018, post #49 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,70.290.html), you said: "A three-shot scenario would simply mean Betzner heard a third shot but had no reason to remember it, which in turn argues for an earlier shot (before the shot Betzner heard after taking his Z186 photo) that many witnesses dismissed as a backfire or firecracker."
Perhaps you could enlighten us on the distinction between not recalling because he "had no reason to remember" and "forgot".
Yet he reported seeing something that you say he could not see but which we can see in the zfilm. Amazing! And, by the way, it is not recurring. It happens only once where just JFK's hair flies up: z273-z276.
Well, she did preface that comment by: "Things are a little hazy from this point"
Sure. Bretzner said "I heard at least two shots fired" which means he likely heard more. If he lost track of one, it was because he had less or no reason to remember it. Another sign that a bat-s--t-crazy theory has imploded is when the theorist starts mining the Forum.I said that you were insisting that Betzner heard but did not recall that there was a first loud noise before his z186 photo i.e he forgot about it. Your answer above just confirms that. And you have been saying the same thing for years. That's pretty much all I have to say.
For the record, Jimmy McGill attended law school and did receive a law license.He did not attend law school in the sense that: "he did not attend as in being physically present at". In any event, his degree was from a fictitious on-line law school. No one can be admitted practice law in Canada by getting a law degree by correspondence. I believe in the U.S. only California recognizes an online law degree.
The narrow shape of her head in Z144 doesn't seem consistent with her head being turned to her right.
(https://i.vgy.me/iWOne0.jpg) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/RosemaryW_z200-207.gif)
I would go a frame further (to Z139) as saying she is looking straight ahead. Frames 140-143 have blur or indistinct features. We can't say which way she's looking.
The Lightbox frames show flesh tone Z144-147.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z133-z199/z144.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z133-z199/z145.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z133-z199/z146.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z133-z199/z147.jpg)
Her shoulders and torso change because her left arm extends as she runs. So the only window where she could have turned her head rightward and then forward again is Z140 to Z143.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2zf0f2w.jpg)
I believe her head position doesn't change during this sequence.
(https://i.vgy.me/iWOne0.jpg) (https://i.vgy.me/NpDawU.jpg)
The hood opening doesn't match. If the hood opening is narrow, the hood itself will be too wide to be comparable to Z144.
What you're contending is a hood opening in Z144 is shadow on the right side of her face. Z144 exhibits a tonal change in the head area that's darker than her jacket. A frame later it becomes obvious that she's facing forward.
Her left arm comes forward and crosses in front of her in one motion while she's in shade and as she emerges. I think some people move their arms when they're running.
Funny that her hood exhibits flesh tone in some of the frames.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder/image142.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder/image143.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder/image144.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder/image145.jpg)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/RosemaryW_z200-207.gif)I know you don't think it means anything, but it is interesting that Rosemary Willis suddenly turns her head back toward the TSBD from z202 to about z206. That couldn't be because she thought she had just heard the loud noise (but didn't of course) that she said prompted her to look back at the TSBD where she saw pigeons flying from the roof - the same noise that her father also thought he heard (but obviously didn't) just before he took his z202 photo.
The narrow shape of her head in Z144 doesn't seem consistent with her head being turned to her right.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/FBIreport%20of%20shots%202.png)
Hey Jerry: As I mentioned earlier and as this memo shows, in early 1964 they had figured out the correct shot sequence. The "bat-spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy theory" was SBT.
Not your shot sequence, though. Notice where they placed the first shot? While Kennedy was behind the sign, not before he went behind the sign, and certainly not Z191-or-so.They were looking for JFK's first reaction. There is no obvious reaction before z225. So they aren't able to pinpoint where JFK's reaction began. So their conclusion that it happened while he was behind the sign is not unreasonable. The memo also says within + or - 6 frames. JFK is behind the sign from z198 to z225. The evidence puts it after the VP car completes the turn, after Betzner's z186 photo, and before Phil Willis' z202 photo. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly. I put the first shot a few frames before z198, likely at z195, largely based on Jack Ready's reaction which begins at z199, and Rosemary Willis' sharp turning of her head (at z202).
They also think Kennedy alone was hit by the first shot; you say Kennedy and Connally were. They say Connally was stuck only one time, on the second shot; you say he was hit a second time on the second shot.That is true. Their analysis was not perfect. But it is understandable. Connally recalled being hit by only one bullet. They overlooked the possibility that the reason Connally had no recollection of sustaining a leg wound was because a) it caused no pain and b) he was preoccupied with the sound of a rifle shot and fearing an assassination was unfolding. The trajectory through JFK definitely goes to Connally's left side but no one realized that Connally's left thigh could have been exposed to a direct hit by a tumbling bullet after passing through JFK.
As it is that you're referencing the memo, you're confirming that your primary basis for rejecting the SBT is unscientific knee-jerk scoffing.No. I was just pointing out, as I mentioned in post #88, that I am not the only one who ever thought that all three bullets hit in the car. It is a very rational conclusion based on evidence. It is just one that you disagree with.
Re SBT: Tell us what FMJ ammo is designed to do. You can look it up if you have to.FMJ ammunition was designed to stop soldiers from engaging in combat and not to cause devastating wounds in soldiers that simply resulted in unnecessary pain and suffering while accomplishing no military objective. FMJ ammunition was not "designed" to go through multiple bodies. If it had been designed to go through multiple persons without causing devastating wounds, FMJ failed because once a FMJ bullet becomes unstable it can cause devastating wounds.
Z225 is the endpoint, so Z219-Z2225.And 225 + 6 = z231 so I don't think they were using z225. They said it was "a moment" before z225 while JFK was behind the sign. They did not give a frame no. but put it within a range of 12 frames of the frame they were suggesting. (the car was at about 12 mph, which is 18 feet/sec, so it was moving about a foot per frame). It is anybody's guess as to where behind the Stemmons sign they figured the shot struck.
Lady Bird said they were "rounding a curve" when she heard a shot... she also said they were "going down a hill". (She also said the last two shot were in rapid succession). Her statement is consistent with driver Hurchel Jacks who said that he had "just straightened up" after making the left turn. It has yet to "straighten up" at z186 and is just beginning the turn at z157.
Right. Betzner was looking down and winding his camera when he heard a shot. He hasn't got that far by Z207 when he goes out of the Z-film.He said he was winding his film. He did not say where he was looking.
That's your current placement. It's varied over the years.I have been consistent in saying that the first shot occurred between z186 and z202. I thought it was around z198 until a few years ago when I discovered Jack Ready and the zfilm could be used to pinpoint it a bit earlier. Jack Ready said when he heard the first shot he immediately turned to look back over his right shoulder. To do that he had to release his right hand from the car handhold. He did not do that until z199.
And the SBT is ridiculous? OK. LOL.I didn't say that, although it is apparent that some may have thought as much in January 1964. I don't attack others' views by making fun of them. I do it by pointing out the evidence that conflicts with it.
How on Earth did you establish that trajectory?It depends on the range of possible seating positions of JBC. If he was sitting in front of JFK and less than 8 inches left of JFK, which is within that possible range, his right armpit was right of JFK's exit wound. And the bullet was travelling right to left. Then you have to factor in JBC's sharp right turn at z195.
Well Betzner puts his so-called "first shot" to what seems a significant time beyond the Z200s, since he has to be looking down and winding his camera when he hears that shot.He said he was winding his film. Why does he have to be looking down to do that?
Those are your "best witnesses" to all bullets striking in the car? OK.All they had to do was observe. They all had observations that indicate all three shots struck in the car.
Walking digital recorders.
Re SBT: Tell us what FMJ ammo is designed to do. You can look it up if you have to.
Well, for starters we Know "FMJ ammo" is NOT designed to do what we see happening to JFK's head on Z 313. YOU can Not have it both ways.
Lady Bird said they were "rounding a curve" when she heard a shot.
FMJ ammo is designed to travel through-and-through flesh and remain as intact as possible. Glancing off heavy bone can twist and squeeze out some intact/pristine design ambitions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCQZnHfb/CE399-BUTT-END.png)
CE 399 Butt End view
A view never posted by CTers
Regarding the head shot: The fact that I don't claim FMJ ammo as purposed to remain intact after encountering solid bone straight on, your charge of 'having it both ways' is rendered moot. Striking the back of the skull nose-first can shatter some people's illusions about what FMJ ammo can and can't do.
So what is inconsistent about her statement and Jacks'? Only the driver is likely to be aware of when the car straightened out after making the turn.
They were going down a hill. The inclination begins early.
Lady Bird never said the car had straightened up.
Not far from being straightened out by, say, Z160 (allow a few frames for witnesses to perceive and process the noise) since the car is 70-degrees off Houston with just the rear trunk remaining to go on Elm. The driver said he was looking at the President, not gauging how straight his car was. He might later have had the impression that he had literally straightened up, but it wasn't the most important thing to remember.There is no way to shoehorn Jack's statement with a first shot anywhere close to z160. Here is what the VP car was doing at z160:
Ready's head barely moves after Z199. So that's probably not where he "immediately" turned to his right.We can't see Ready after z207. Before z199 he is facing forward to Zapruder's right. Between z198 and z207 he releases the left hand from the handhold and turns continuously to his right. By z207 his right hand is down by his right side and he is facing to Zapruder's left. He turns around to look rearward after z207 as we see him in Altgens' no. 6. taken at z256.
It is the Conflicting Ammo that is the Proof in the pudding. Ammo striking a skull and Disintegrating vs ammo striking radius bone and emerging Pristine are Not Equal.
Show us where CE399 struck either of the two large wrist bones nose-first. Show us where the butt-end view of CE399 (go ahead, post the-butt view of CE399... I dare you) fits any reasonable description of being in 'pristine' condition.
Texas Governor John Connally's surgeon Robert ShawThanks Gary for digging up this clip. Of course, Dr. Shaw was "bat-spombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy" for even suggesting that the bullet through JFK's neck went to the left side of Governor Connally ... right Jerry?
Shaw must have seen your 3D work. :DShaw died in 1992. So he must have figured it out all on his own.
There's one in the Shaw video. Didn't you play it?Yes, but I didn't see a CT cartoon. This was Shaw's drawing:
LOL! Shaw knows as much about how they were seated in a 3D environment as you do.I am sure he asked Nellie where her husband was seated and where the President was seated. He knows human anatomy and knows that a right armpit is right of the midline.
My trajectory doesn't turn. It's crossing right-to-left and downward, just like your trajectory. When was the last time you had your eyes checked?So - without moving the men - let's see the views from above and from the side so we can check the angles. There is no way that the line you have drawn goes from right to left at about 9 degrees and intersects JBC's right armpit.
Yes ladies and gentlemen. Focus your Complete Attention on "the butt end" of the bullet while David Copperfield marches his behind the curtain Elephant Off of the stage.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet identified as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which inflicted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missile similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical question could have inflicted all of the Governor's wounds in accordance with the theory which you have outlined on Commission Exhibit No. 689?Gee..anythings possible --Hypothetically speaking that is.......(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Dr. SHAW - Assuming that it also had passed through the President's neck you mean?
Mr. SPECTER - No; I had not added that factor in. I will in the next question.
Dr. SHAW - All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the I mean in the wrist.
Mr. SPECTER - Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.
Dr. SHAW - I see.
Mr. SPECTER - Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted nil of the wounds on the Governor?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone through the President in the way that I have described and proceed through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to whether or not it was bullet 399?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399?
Dr. SHAW - I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399.
Show us where CE399 struck either of the two large wrist bones nose-first. Show us where the butt-end view of CE399 (go ahead, post the-butt view of CE399... I dare you) fits any reasonable description of being in 'pristine' condition.
You don't need to get all excited, especially when you are wrong. You have no reason to make any conclusions when the FBI tests were worthless
I conclude that CE399 is not pristineI don't care either because it is just another bullet they can't link to the case. Oh forgive me I mean the case of planted evidence
No FBI tests required for that observation
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCQZnHfb/CE399-BUTT-END.png)
Shaw must have seen your 3D work. :D
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/mason-spongeboob-squarepants.jpg)
So you believe the CT cartoons? No surprise there.
You lot are the ones with the smoke & mirrors. Keep dodging, Royelle.
Yes, lurkers & lurkettes, focus your attention on the the fact that the head-shot missile was travelling at supersonic speed and struck the back of the head nose-first, while the twofer (CE399) lost most of its momentum while passing through-and-through both victims by the time it hit the wrist. Nose-first or not, it lacked the impact force to explode.
Still waiting for you to post the butt-end view of CE399 and explain why you insist on calling it 'pristine'
C'mon Royelle, walk the walk...
focus your attention on the the fact that the head-shot missile was travelling at supersonic speed and struck the back of the head nose-first
Wait, what? How do you know that the head-shot missile struck the back of the head nose-first?Easy...Just go beyond hypothetical theory, conjecture, or mere assumption--- and simply declare it a fact.
It is you who is thinking up subterfuges, not me. That you might be deliberately trying to fabricate something never occurred to me.
Rather than thinking up subterfuges you deem me capable of, how about you try to depict the "correct" trajectory using 3D figures and elements that match more closely those seen in the Zapruder film?
If you ever position the two men correctly, you might find out. But everything has gotten shoehorned to fit your pet theory.
The view on the left is taken in my Sketchup model viewed from close to the car on Zapruder's sightline, so the front of the car appears closer to the viewer than the rear of the car. Zapruder was using a zoom lens from about 120 feet away so the difference in distance from the viewer to the front and to the rear is not as much. So the perspective and angles appear different. You better than anyone should understand that.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/mason-spongeboob-squarepants.jpg)
... And you think it bears some resemblance to reality?
EVERY single time one of these JFK Specials attempts to duplicate the path of CE399 the bullet ends up penetrating the back seat and/or smashing into the dash board of the JFK Limo. The end result being a spent bullet that is bent up 10 Ways To Sunday. One time, the bullet even bounced off the dash board and fell well outside of the Limo. It took them 30 minutes to find the darn thing. The attempted Physical Replication of the alleged flight path of CE399 Always FAILS without exception. Always
Are you going to cite these specials, complete with the results you claim, or are we to just take your opinions as facts and be on our merry way?You should not cry about the bullet when the chain of possession consisted of 7 people - of which the first 3 people could not identify it, the 4th was never asked, and the 5th person could not identify it. But you cry that is a fact
By the way, you still haven't addressed my specific request to post the CT terminally-ignored-butt-end view of CE399, along with an explanation as to why the entire conspiracy-monger community insists on calling CE399 'pristine'
Silly me. Misunderstanding all these coded "inferences." Reminds me of the man in the White House.
You wrote:
"So - without moving the men - let's see the views from above and
from the side so we can check the angles. There is no way that the
line you have drawn goes from right to left at about 9 degrees and
intersects JBC's right armpit."
No point in me posting any overhead view until this is sorted. Where are you getting 9 degrees?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f144_sbttrajectory.gif)
The HSCA for Z190 has a right-to-left trajectory of about 13 degrees; it doesn't back-project to the SN but nearly so. I'm modelling Z193 because it's the clearest Z-frame in that area. You're modelling, I guess, Z195.
More of that coded insult stuff.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/mason-spongeboob-squarepants.jpg)
I don't see how our lines are that different. Similar line-of-sights and the trajectory similarly goes right-to-left and downward.
I have not seen such a file. Only frame-grabs posted here. Don't bother sending the file because I won't open it.
Not so much reluctant as I need to do more work for an overhead view. Some limousine details, Connally's torso twist and maybe Kennedy's shoulder line raised. The limo details are essentially done but the rest is major. On my system, it takes about a minute for each move, rotate or scale. I had enough in place a while ago for Zapruder line-of-sight views.
There are other 3D items I work on as well, such as the Holland Theory, the Sniper's Nest precision build, Kennedy head/torso with bone structure, BYP recreation, Z171 recreation, Hickey's semi-standing position and so-on.
You should not cry about the bullet when the chain of possession consisted of 7 people - of which the first 3 people could not identify it, the 4th was never asked, and the 5th person could not identify it. But you cry that is a fact
Define 'pristine'
Thanks. Another brilliant contribution. We couldn't keep this topic going without you.
You wrote:We have had this discussion before. We are measuring the horizontal angle that a line from the SN through JFK's neck makes to the car direction. The horizontal angle at z195 is 13 degrees to the car direction, which is what I was using. The horizontal angle at z225 is between 9 and 10 degrees. I was assuming you were using a shot at z225.
"So - without moving the men - let's see the views from above and
from the side so we can check the angles. There is no way that the
line you have drawn goes from right to left at about 9 degrees and
intersects JBC's right armpit."
No point in me posting any overhead view until this is sorted. Where are you getting 9 degrees?
The HSCA for Z190 has a right-to-left trajectory of about 13 degrees; it doesn't back-project to the SN but nearly so. I'm modelling Z193 because it's the clearest Z-frame in that area. You're modelling, I guess, Z195.What you need to do is show us where you have placed JBC in a view from above. Then, with the men in that same position we need to see a view as seen from Zapruder's position. The trajectory of the shot has to go from the SN to JFK's back, out of his throat to nick the left side of his tie knot and strike JBC in the right armpit. I have tried it at z195 and it can't be done. I have tried it at z225 and it can't be done. But maybe I have made an error of some kind. So I am curious as to how you have done it.
I don't see how our lines are that different. Similar line-of-sights and the trajectory similarly goes right-to-left and downward.
Not so much reluctant as I need to do more work for an overhead view. Some limousine details, Connally's torso twist and maybe Kennedy's shoulder line raised. The limo details are essentially done but the rest is major. On my system, it takes about a minute for each move, rotate or scale. I had enough in place a while ago for Zapruder line-of-sight views.
There are other 3D items I work on as well, such as the Holland Theory, the Sniper's Nest precision build, Kennedy head/torso with bone structure, BYP recreation, Z171 recreation, Hickey's semi-standing position and so-on.
Define 'pristine'The meaning is not needed the bullet never came in contact with Kennedy or Connelly Not my fault the bullets and yes the casings too also had a chain of possession issue. You now have nothing to argue about, what will you do with all of your extra time. Study Vince Foster's death?
What's the point of modeling Z-193 or Z-195 unless you think that's when the magic bullet transited?That is when the non-magic first bullet passed through JFK. The reason for modelling it in 3D is to demonstrate where the bullet could have gone after exiting JFK.
The common misconception of what you see in the Z film is shots were fired there. They were not. Kennedy is simply fluffing his hair, looking around, bringing his arm down and then getting ready to wave to the women to the right of him because they yelled out.Except for the part about the 'conspirators' I generally agree.
Go to film and photos of the parade and you see this movement of him throughout. I could post here a hair fluffing photo, a sequence where he does the same, he's waving then leaning on the car, and so on. But I won't - look it up. It's not hard to find.
We have to give the conspirators a little bit of credit. They knew the oak tree was in the line of fire early on Elm. They knew that if they started firing away too early, it would have blown everything. The kill zone is pretty much exactly where you see it in the Z film - right as he reappears from the sign. ...
I simply have never understood why people think there's shots fired earlier, sparks flying from the curb and other nonsense.
It's pretty straightforward - the vast majority of ear witnesses said they heard 2 close together shots and then the head shot. The Z film backs this up.No. And no, it doesn't. The vast majority of witnesses said they heard a first loud noise and then a pause and then two shots in rapid succession, with a noticeably smaller interval between the last two than between the first and second. Read their evidence. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). The zfilm is perfectly consistent with this shot pattern. Where everyone - CTs and most LNs - get it wrong is in the assumption that JBC is reacting to being hit in z230 -z272. He is reacting, as he said, to having heard the first shot and fearing an assassination was unfolding. He is hit in the back later - likely at z271-272 in my view - just before Greer turns around and just before he falls back onto Nellie, just as JBC and Nellie stated.
Except for the part about the 'conspirators' I generally agree.
No. And no, it doesn't. The vast majority of witnesses said they heard a first loud noise and then a pause and then two shots in rapid succession, with a noticeably smaller interval between the last two than between the first and second. Read their evidence. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). The zfilm is perfectly consistent with this shot pattern. Where everyone - CTs and most LNs - get it wrong is in the assumption that JBC is reacting to being hit in z230 -z272. He is reacting, as he said, to having heard the first shot and fearing an assassination was unfolding. He is hit in the back later - likely at z271-272 in my view - just before Greer turns around and just before he falls back onto Nellie, just as JBC and Nellie stated.
He is hit in the back later - likely at z271-272 in my view - just before Greer turns around and just before he falls back onto Nellie, just as JBC and Nellie stated.The bullet, essentially, went around most of the chest cavity and exited below the right nipple without passing through the right lung. Because Gov. Connally was twisted around, his armpit, fifth rib and right nipple were roughly on a line that did not pass through the lung. At z272, the car was moving almost directly away from Oswald so the shot was from almost directly behind.
Given the position of JBC’s torso at that point in time, how do you propose that a bullet fired from the SE corner window of the sixth floor of the TSBD was able to enter his back near the right armpit and exit his chest just below his right nipple?
Zapruder reacts with a violent reaction at about Z154, as Rosemary Willis slows, and Connally turns quickly to his right. And it could be argued that Kennedy was also reacting by a sudden turn to his right.Back to interpreting, are you?
Governor CONNALLY. We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my rightshoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0QMdgkW/connallyturn.gif)
Here a few seconds later they are both again violently simultaneously react to something and Connally's wrist with the bullet wound is the one reacting at the same time and as expected the wrist's initial position apears to be in about the right place to be struck by a bullet emerging from just below Connally's right niple.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2tK_GSE7HOg/UolSwJ5-AEI/AAAAAAAAw1s/9I0RZMn_3yY/s1600/109.+Z225-Z226+Toggling+Clip.gif)
And guess what there's more, here's Connally's jacket showing a massive reaction. What are the chances that all these "random" reactions happen within this fraction of a second?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-94Smfj5-wQ4/UolSwlgbXNI/AAAAAAAAw1w/2t04L3GlQPY/s600/110.+Z223-Z224+Toggling+Clip.gif)
Btw the two sbf gifs come from DVP's site and it's worth a visit.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/
JohnM
The common misconception of what you see in the Z film is shots were fired there. They were not. Kennedy is simply fluffing his hair, looking around, bringing his arm down and then getting ready to wave to the women to the right of him because they yelled out.
Go to film and photos of the parade and you see this movement of him throughout. I could post here a hair fluffing photo, a sequence where he does the same, he's waving then leaning on the car, and so on. But I won't - look it up. It's not hard to find.
We have to give the conspirators a little bit of credit. They knew the oak tree was in the line of fire early on Elm. They knew that if they started firing away too early, it would have blown everything. The kill zone is pretty much exactly where you see it in the Z film - right as he reappears from the sign. This video goes into detail about it.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc
I simply have never understood why people think there's shots fired earlier, sparks flying from the curb and other nonsense. It's pretty straightforward - the vast majority of ear witnesses said they heard 2 close together shots and then the head shot. The Z film backs this up.
'Night John Boy. 'Night Mary Ellen.
Zapruder reacts with a violent reaction at about Z154, as Rosemary Willis slows, and Connally turns quickly to his right. And it could be argued that Kennedy was also reacting by a sudden turn to his right.
Governor CONNALLY. We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the time we turned on Elm Street.
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my rightshoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0QMdgkW/connallyturn.gif)
Here a few seconds later they are both again violently simultaneously react to something and Connally's wrist with the bullet wound is the one reacting at the same time and as expected the wrist's initial position apears to be in about the right place to be struck by a bullet emerging from just below Connally's right niple.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2tK_GSE7HOg/UolSwJ5-AEI/AAAAAAAAw1s/9I0RZMn_3yY/s1600/109.+Z225-Z226+Toggling+Clip.gif)
And guess what there's more, here's Connally's jacket showing a massive reaction. What are the chances that all these "random" reactions happen within this fraction of a second?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-94Smfj5-wQ4/UolSwlgbXNI/AAAAAAAAw1w/2t04L3GlQPY/s600/110.+Z223-Z224+Toggling+Clip.gif)
Btw the two sbf gifs come from DVP's site and it's worth a visit.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/
JohnM
Giving serious consideration to "ear" witnesses is foolish. Motorcycle cycles backfiring from numerous angles, sound echoing off buildings, and then there is the constant Echo Chamber of WC supporters before, during, and after the release of the WC Report as to 3 shots being fired = "ear" witness accounts as being close to worthless. This is also why the WC Attorney's almost Never inquire as to the hearing ability of the "ear" witness in front of them. Many, many, many, of the males giving "Ear" witness testimony were WW 2 Vets and those guys had to of had hearing disabilities to some degree.
Very detailed description of what we are seeing. But by Golly somehow You Forgot to mention that even though Connally had his Radius Bone Busted along with the Tendon Severed that controls his thumb, he Still somehow managed to maintain his Grip and Hold Onto that stetson hat of his. Strange how You Forgot to include this in your narrative.
Very detailed description of what we are seeing. But by Golly somehow You Forgot to mention that even though Connally had his Radius Bone Busted along with the Tendon Severed that controls his thumb, he Still somehow managed to maintain his Grip and Hold Onto that stetson hat of his. Strange how You Forgot to include this in your narrative.
Please cite. What book or website did you get this gem from?
Connally's radial nerve was damaged (it supplies sensation to the back of the hand). Undamaged was the median nerve which allows the thumb and fingers to oppose each other, and the forearm to rise up. The sensation of the bullet through the wrist could have stimulated the median nerve and caused the forearm to spring up, like they've been showing you.
LOL! You're some "researcher". If you want the very common and readily-available Sam Holland quotes, just search for Sam Holland and tack on a few words from the quote.
You think I'm going to provide a citation for what the median nerve does?
Be a whole lot quicker for you to provide the sole source in the world for Connally's "Tendon Severed that controls his thumb".
Yes. You are right. I have corrected the model here:
Shouldn't the upright lines on the walls by the reflecting pool be more true to vertical?
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z195_from_Z_distant.JPG) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z195_from_Z_close.JPG) |
And doesn't the Stemmons sign lean the opposite way and should it be bigger? Maybe it doesn't matter if only camera-left post-top is relevant to line-of-sight.I don't have the exact dimensions of the Stemmons sign. I have made the Stemmons sign 5 ft wide.
Shouldn't there be some space (relative to Zapruder's view) between Kennedy and Connally? In your model they overlap, whether in the near-view or far-view. I model Z193 because it's clearer than other frames in the mid-Z190s and there were no major changes in position during that time. In my model: right-to-left: about 13 degrees; slope: about 22 degrees.My JFK model is a bit too large and inflexible. I could use a better JFK model. The separation depends on the angle and it is difficult to compare the poor resolution shot from a distance, which approximates Zapruder's viewpoint.
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z1.BMP) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z133.BMP) |
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z23.BMP) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z163.BMP) |
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z36.BMP) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z172.BMP) |
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z55.BMP) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z59.BMP) | (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z64.BMP) |
He said "the left turn" not the curve. He had just begun to relax the pressure on the steering wheel when he heard the first shot. The car's front wheels would then gradually go from turning to straightening up.That is your editorialzing. One straightens up after finishing the turn. Do you actually drive a car, Jerry? Lady Bird did not use the word "still". She said they were "rounding a curve, going down a hill" (5 H 565). You are suggesting that means "making a 120 degree turn"?
Mrs. Johnson said they were still rounding the curve. Lyndon Johnson wrote in his 1971 memoir: "Just after our car made the left turn at the top of Elm, I was startled by an explosion." Youngblood testified: "As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise."
| (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/z160.BMP) |
No unusual movements immediately after Z198.Youngblood's statement is consistent with the movements seen after the car emerges from behind the Stemmons sign at z223 and after. The point he was making was that he looked around after the first shot and when he looked at the President's car and the Security car he saw abnormal actions. He had been watching from that position during the entire motorcade so he would have a good idea of what was and what wasn't normal.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/z161-Map_VP-VPSS-Comments.png)
Z161 chosen because it's about where people would become aware of a first shot fired a few frames earlier, per LN scenarios generally. Governor Connally begins a rapid rightward head turn a frame later at Z162.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/firstshot/z191-Map_VP-VPSS-Comments.png)
Z191 chosen because it's the last Zapruder frame to show either of the cars. Mason's theory has a first shot about Z195 with a few frames later for perception. I guess the cars would have moved about six-to-ten feet further.
Mary Ann Mitchell and James Crawford were standing together on the SE corner of Elm and Houston.
Mitchell told the Commission: "probably about the time the car in which Senator Yarborough was riding had just passed, I heard some reports." Yarborough was seated on the left-side of the backseat of the VP car. Mitchell's statement works better with 161 than 191. She probably can't see Yarborough in the Z190s.
Crawford told the Commission: "It was after the Secret Service Sedan had gone around the corner that I heard the first report". If Crawford meant the VP Security Car had completed its turn, tehn his statement doesn't literally apply to either 161 or 191. He may mean the car was in the process of turning rather than having completed the turn, if which case his statement works with both 161 and 191.
I was showing the VP and VP Security Cars.
The "Lost Bullet" shows Euins in a location that he is not seen in in the Bell Film. And Donaldson says the limousine (stopped at Z334) is about where the first shot occurred. That doesn't even support Holland's theory.
Jerry,
You're making the very common mistake of conflating journalist Anne Donaldson with Patrician Ann Donaldson (maiden name: Patricia Ann Lambert).
Amos Euins was 14 years-old and quite short, and, according to him, he moved from near the curb on Houston over to the short pillar by the reflecting fountain (or whatever it is) as the limo was making the turn onto Elm Street, so it's no surprise that he hasn't been spotted in any of the films (yet).
Rhetorical question: When's the last time you watched The Lost Bullet?
Factoid: If you watch a clear version of Mark Bell's film and/or Tina Towner's film in slow-motion, you can spot Lambert and her friend Lupe Whittaker (both basically dressed in black) and tall, dressed-in-white Stetson Man (all three of whom are very visible in the Wiegman film), standing on the "island," or maybe in the street just off the tip of the "island," to the right of the TSBD's entrance (from Bell's and Towner's points-of-view).
-- MWT ;)
Euins told HSCA Investigators that he had a camera with him on 11/22/63 and lost track of it. This late addition to his story makes him an unreliable witness.
Jerry,
You're making the very common mistake of conflating journalist Anne Donaldson with Patrician Ann Donaldson (maiden name: Patricia Ann Lambert).
Amos Euins was 14 years-old and quite short, and, according to him, he moved from near the curb on Houston over to the short pillar by the reflecting fountain (or whatever it is) as the limo was making the turn onto Elm Street, so it's no surprise that he hasn't been spotted in any of the films (yet).
Rhetorical question: When's the last time you watched The Lost Bullet?
Factoid: If you watch a clear version of Mark Bell's film and/or Tina Towner's film in slow-motion, you can spot Lambert and her friend Lupe Whittaker (both basically dressed in black) and tall, dressed-in-white Stetson Man (all three of whom are very visible in the Wiegman film), standing on the "island," or maybe in the street just off the tip of the "island," to the right of the TSBD's entrance (from Bell's and Towner's points-of-view).
-- MWT ;)
I have heard 15 yr old, 11 yr old, 7 yr old and now a 14 yr old.
"Amos Euins was 14 years-old and quite short, and, according to him, he moved from near the curb on Houston over to the short pillar by the reflecting fountain (or whatever it is) as the limo was making the turn onto Elm Street, so it's no surprise that he hasn't been spotted in any of the films (yet)."And there is more
Dear Peter,
Have you ever heard that Amos Euins was "tall," or "full-grown," or even "almost full-grown," anything like that?
Does he look very big to you in the photos and films that were taken that day?
-- MWT ;)
And there is more
Dear Peter,Look at him, he looks like CIA without question
Maybe in the excitement, Euins conflated the skin color of the two black guys leaning out of the 5th floor windows with the hard-to-see(?) skin color of the guy holding the "pipe" out of the Sniper's Nest window.
-- or --
Maybe the people who took his report got it wrong.
Who knows?
(BFD)
I still think he's a reliable witness, in The Lost Bullet, as to where the limo was when the first shot rang out, i.e., a little bit past the black-and white freeway signs on that sign post on the "island," which just happens to correlate with what Patricia Ann Donaldson (maiden name: Lawrence; standing on the tip of the "island" or in the street near it) says in The Lost Bullet.
-- MWT ;)
Look at him, he looks like CIA without question
What does "MWT" mean?
Mudd [sic] Wrassler Tommy
Guess he likes slippery babes
(And who wouldn't?)
Here's the person I'm talking about. The program identified her as Patricia Ann Donaldson. She's not standing where Anne Donaldson stood.
(https://jfkassassinationdocumentaries.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/tlb-76.jpg)
Capture from "Lost Bullet"; program flipped image horizontally.
It's a matter of Euins' line-of-sight to the limousine relative to background objects. In the "Lost Bullet", his reenactment of his movements had his curb position significantly south of where he marked it on CE 365. Furthermore, the program places the limousine for the first shot on Euins' perspective from beside the pool. If we move Euins' to his 1964 curbside location then that changes his perspective to the limousine relative to background objects.
Euins refers to three background objects:
- "about the time the car got near the black and white sign" ('63)
(presumed to be referring to the Thornton freeway sign; the program
did not duplicate the sign)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)- (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/lostBullet/FIG13_122111.jpg)
"It was just right there – at the embankment right there – about
where it’s at right now when the first shot sounded out" (2011)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)- "Right as it passed – like I say – that - that big pillar - pillar there" (2011)
Sorry. Z334 should read Z134. The position in "JFK: The Lost Bullet" where the limousine is stopped for PA Donaldson and Euins to give their comments corresponds to about Z134 (per Dale K Myers). The documentary does not mention that. Where did you think the "Lost Bullet" limousine was stopped for PA Donaldson/Euins?
(http://i67.tinypic.com/jkwumq.jpg)
To get the limousine into position for Holland's first-shot theory, the limousine would have to roll back 1.5 seconds.
About all the two "corroborate" is that the limousine at Z134 is about in the general area when the first shot occurred (Euins: "about where it's at right now" "right as it passed"; PA Donaldson: "approx where - I - the car was in this position when I heard the first shot"). Thing are so vague it could be a second or two after Z134, Earlier than Z134, I don't see so easily.
Holland instead makes it sound like something precise is occurring. Holland claims Euins could locate the limousine "at a specific point in time, just as the president passed a black and white sign" (when he says that, in the background the limousine is stopped where his theory would have it). The only black and white sign Euins ever specifically referenced was the one in 1963 that is presumed to be the Thornton freeway sign. Euins said the car "got near" the sign, not (per Holland) had "passed" it.
And I don't hear Euins say the first shot occurred "just as" the limousine passed the sign cluster. Holland says that. We're not told why Euins is talking about the sign cluster; yes, he is pointing to it, but why? Because Holland said Euins said the limousine had just passed the sign cluster? Sure, Holland would love to have Euins say the first shot occurred as the car passed the sign cluster because that gets the car back to beneath the traffic light sign arm.
Almost like witness tampering? How conservative is Max Holland? Is he getting pointers from Fox News?
I guess about 20 to 25 feet.
In "Lost Bullet", Holland claims the first shot occurs as the President went beneath the right-lower corner of the traffic light assembly hanging at the end of the arm.
Holland claims the total shooting sequence was 11.3 seconds (about 207 Zapruder frames). Working back from Z313, Holland's first shot is about 27 frames (1.5 sec) before Z133. The Euins/PA Donaldson segments in "Lost Bullet" show the limousine stopped at Z134 (possibly Holland was trying for Z133 as he once used that as a reference point).
From Z134 to Z157 (approx. first shot proposed by some LNers) is 1.3 sec. Therefore, Holland's first shot is 2.8 seconds before the area most LNers place the first shot.
I can't be bother (sic) with this. Goodbye.
And it's alright if you don't answer questions.
No specific frame. I believe Connally's rapid rightward head turn beginning Z162 suggests a first shot fired a few frames earlier. This has been gone over by me in this topic repeatedly.
I don't know. Could be the missed shot or a fragment from the head shot. Rague himself initially said second or third, but favors the second.
No opinion.
You wrote: "If memory serves, what they said tended to suggest that the first shot happened a second or to before Zapruder turned his camera back on at Z-133 (iirc)."
Is that what you make of their statements?
So you actually believe what Max Holland says about the first shot occurring 1.5 sec before Zapruder started filming?
I don't think there's anything left to discuss. Have a good one.
I thought it was 1.485382 seconds.Graves believes Max Holland. Tell everyone you and Gary Mack were buddies too. That is absolutely nuts
Uhh ... before he resumed filming, actually.
Graves believes Max Holland.Holland was trying to reconcile the SBT with the overwhelming evidence of the 1.....2..3 shot pattern. It can't be done. In his attempt to do that, he had to overlook the evidence that the last two shots were in rapid succession (5 seconds (z223-z313) doesn't fit that evidence) and that virtually everyone said that the first shot occurred at a point well after Zapruder started filming the motorcade cars.
Graves believes Max Holland. Tell everyone you and Gary Mack were buddies too. That is absolutely nuts
Holland was trying to reconcile the SBT with the overwhelming evidence of the 1.....2..3 shot pattern. It can't be done. In his attempt to do that, he had to overlook the evidence that the last two shots were in rapid succession (5 seconds (z223-z313) doesn't fit that evidence) and that virtually everyone said that the first shot occurred at a point well after Zapruder started filming the motorcade cars.
The 1.....2...3 shot pattern cannot be reconciled with the SBT, but it does fit with Oswald firing all the shots.
PS It's seems to me that the cartridge ejection pattern does tend to support the theory that one of the shots was taken from more of a standing (i.e., sharper downward angle) than the other two.
Was that before or after Fritz picked them up and then threw them back down?
Everyone think his own opinion is the "realistic" one...
*thinksThe grammar/spelling police check in to show their resolve.
-- MWT ;)
Was that before or after Fritz picked them up and then threw them back down?
The grammar/spelling police check in to show their resolve.
It was obviously after Craig discovered the three shells! LOL™!
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig2.jpg)
JohnM
Peter,In communication with Putin? I am Putin
Gary Mack and I were friends? Was that pre-Badgeman, or post-Badgeman?
-- MWT ;)
PS Are you still in regular communication with Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange?
In communication with Putin? I am Putin
Did Donald Trump give you a nice, long, satisfying xxxx xxx in Helsinki?I told Donald many months ago that I would turn over information implicating the CIA in the JFK assassination. And Donald told me that even Jimmy Carter thought the CIA needed to be taught a lesson for allowing itself to question any President and committing treasonous acts. Shame on them
I told Donald many months ago that I would turn over information implicating the CIA in the JFK assassination. And Donald told me that even Jimmy Carter thought the CIA needed to be taught a lesson for allowing itself to question any President and committing treasonous acts. Shame on them
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tCX79zK/trump-pred.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1tCX79zK/trump-pred.png)SaPersonay is just one of the seven days in a week Bill picks to Project. I believe the stats show you spend more time on the site than anyone. You must not have received enough attention in your early years.