Jerry Organ recently posted a GIF animated clip from the Zapruder film showing a woman in the crowd snapping her head at about the same time the VIPs in the limo snap theirs. Here is Jerry’s excellent clip:
(https://i.vgy.me/sfYhtb.gif)
I came to this forum many years ago with one of my main goals being to seek confirmation, or contrary evidence, regarding the conclusion by the HSCA of a missed first shot around the Z160 time frame. The photographic record is one of the primary areas that I have focused on. Jerry’s post, along with the other evidence, has me convinced that the HSCA got this aspect right.
I want to point out four other witness reactions in Jerry’s post that appear to me to be reactions to a loud, unexpected, explosive noise (aka: a missed first shot). In this frame from Jerry’s clip I have circled a woman (blue circle) with a gold or yellow garment that appears to jump just as she enters the frame and then immediately covers her mouth with her right hand. I drew two red marks showing how high it appears to me that she jumped at the sound of the shot. There is also a man (yellow circle) right behind the woman that Jerry circled who appears to suddenly snap his head from looking down and to his left to looking towards the limo/Zapruder camera and then he appears to stand on his toes to get a better view. Additionally, I have circled in green two men who suddenly swap positions to get a better view. One of these men steps in front of Betzner (who has his camera to his face). This man’s back appears to the camera left in Betzner’s photo. Here’s the marked up frame from Jerry Organ’s clip:
(https://i.vgy.me/pjfJPV.jpg)
Please take a look at Jerry Organ’s excellent clip and see if you can find any other reactions that appear to be reactions to a loud explosive noise. And thanks Jerry, this is exciting to me. When we add these reactions to the reactions in the limo and Rosemary Willis’ reactions it seems very obvious to that this closer look at the Zapruder film is groundbreaking.
Hi Charles, Great catch of the lady turning her head. I noticed a man behind and beyond Hugh Betzner also do the same thing as the woman you see jerking her head to her right. I circled him in red. (https://i.imgur.com/RM7CT7m.png)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/D-266.jpg)
That's the "engineer hat" dude. I don't think his head snaps as fast as the circled lady, but it could be a reaction all the same. Good ones, Charles and Steve!
I wonder if maybe the woman Charles circled in blue (with the gold top) who slows down and raises her right hand was struck by a tiny fragment from a missed shot. Or maybe she just sneezed.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/91/0b/SuzEYSfx_o.gif)
Seems there's no reactions among this group. I used only clear frames for the animation.
I came to this forum many years ago with one of my main goals being to seek confirmation, or contrary evidence, regarding the conclusion by the HSCA of a missed first shot around the Z160 time frame. The photographic record is one of the primary areas that I have focused on. Jerry’s post, along with the other evidence, has me convinced that the HSCA got this aspect right.
I want to point out four other witness reactions in Jerry’s post that appear to me to be reactions to a loud, unexpected, explosive noise (aka: a missed first shot). In this frame from Jerry’s clip I have circled a woman (blue circle) with a gold or yellow garment that appears to jump just as she enters the frame and then immediately covers her mouth with her right hand. I drew two red marks showing how high it appears to me that she jumped at the sound of the shot. There is also a man (yellow circle) right behind the woman that Jerry circled who appears to suddenly snap his head from looking down and to his left to looking towards the limo/Zapruder camera and then he appears to stand on his toes to get a better view. Additionally, I have circled in green two men who suddenly swap positions to get a better view. One of these men steps in front of Betzner (who has his camera to his face). This man’s back appears to the camera left in Betzner’s photo. Here’s the marked up frame from Jerry Organ’s clip:
(https://i.vgy.me/pjfJPV.jpg)
When we add these reactions to the reactions in the limo and Rosemary Willis’ reactions it seems very obvious to that this closer look at the Zapruder film is groundbreaking.
"The first point to make is about the two men circled in green. As Charles
points out, both men are focused on seeing the limo, they never stop
looking in that direction and both make an effort to get a better view
(one moving forward to the road and one moving backward to get a
better view around the woman stood in front of him). What these two
men have to do with a sudden reaction is a mystery and it is baffling
why they have been mentioned."
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Betzner_3.jpg)
Get down off your high horse. I think Charles was merely showing how a man came to dominate the left side of the Betzner Photo. At the last second, the tall man stepped into Betzner's camera-view. I wondered why myself.
The woman that Jerrry pointed out snaps her head to the right to look back over her right shoulder towards the TSBD in the span of 3-frames (or less than 0.164 of one second).
The man right behind her snaps his head from looking to his left to forward just about as fast as the lady in front of him.
JFK snaps his head to his right just after glancing to his left towards Jackie.
JBC snaps his head to his right just after glancing to his left towards Nellie.
Rosemary Willis snaps her head to look back over her right shoulder towards the TSBD.
Clint Hill snaps his head to his right to look at JFK as he said he did after hearing the first shot.
The man in the RR engineer’s hat that Steve pointed out snaps his head around to his right to look towards the TSBD.
The above are six similar head snaps that are all caught on the Zapruder film (hard physical evidence) that happen within 1.33 of one second of each other.
A lady appears to be jumping out of her skin then immediately raises her right hand to her mouth in shock.
Two men suddenly make major shifts in their positions in order to see towards the limo better.
Jackie Kennedy turns to her right towards JFK as she said she did after hearing the first shot.
Nellie Connally turns to her right towards JBC.
I believe that Jerry Organ has said that agent Ready turned his head to his right at this same time.
All of the above thirteen reactions are seen on the Zapruder film at the same short period of time. Ignore them if you wish. However, you are only fooling yourself.
The woman that Jerrry pointed out snaps her head to the right to look back over her right shoulder towards the TSBD in the span of 3-frames (or less than 0.164 of one second). The man right behind her snaps his head from looking to his left to forward just about as fast as the lady in front of him. JFK snaps his head to his right just after glancing to his left towards Jackie. JBC snaps his head to his right just after glancing to his left towards Nellie. Rosemary Willis snaps her head to look back over her right shoulder towards the TSBD. Clint Hill snaps his head to his right to look at JFK as he said he did after hearing the first shot. The man in the RR engineer’s hat that Steve pointed out snaps his head around to his right to look towards the TSBD. The above are six similar head snaps that are all caught on the Zapruder film (hard physical evidence) that happen within 1.33 of one second of each other.
Other reactions that appear to be in response to a sudden unexpected loud explosive can also be seen on the Zapruder film during the same 1.33 of one second. A lady appears to be jumping out of her skin then immediately raises her right hand to her mouth in shock. Two men suddenly make major shifts in their positions in order to see towards the limo better. In the crowd on the other side of Houston Street one man appears to suddenly duck as he had already started to turn away from the motorcade. I will post a frame shortly to show which man I am describing. Jackie Kennedy turns to her right towards JFK as she said she did after hearing the first shot. Nellie Connally turns to her right towards JBC. I believe that Jerry Organ has said that agent Ready turned his head to his right at this same time.
All of the above thirteen reactions are seen on the Zapruder film at the same short period of time. Ignore them if you wish. However, you are only fooling yourself.
I wish I could take credit, but that important discovery is yours. And thanks.
I am making a new animation more centered on Gold-Top Girl and found something new elsewhere that's odd.
Agreed.
No he doesn't. At no point is he looking to his left. He is looking towards the limo at all times.
I literally just dealt with this. He is reacting to Mary Woodward and her colleagues calling out. I have provided evidence for this which you have, yet again, chosen to ignore.
Agreed.
I have literally just dealt with this and, yet again, you have chosen to ignore it.
She is not reacting to a shot and I have provided evidence demonstrating this which you totally ignore.
I've watched the Z-film a few times now and I can't see this head snap.
There is nothing even remotely like a head snap.
Can you provide evidence of this?
Or he turns to watch the rest of the motorcade as he's lost sight of the limo.
Hard physical evidence?
Of people just looking around.
You're also forgetting that the 20+ people who show no reaction whatsoever is also "hard physical evidence".
No, she doesn't.
She's already running as she enters the clip.
Please explain in what world this indicates a reaction to a loud, explosive noise.
Already dealt with.
She is reacting to Mary Woodward and her friends calling out. I've provided this evidence. You have chosen to ignore it.
Probably in response to Mary Woodward and co. calling out.
Ready is looking to his left then resumes scanning forward and left.
He stays in this position until we last see him in z207.
At no point does he make the right rear turn towards the TSBD we see in Altgens 6.
There must be over 100 people shown in the Z-film.
Two or three turn their heads in the direction of the TSBD around the time you believe the first shot occurred.
I thought you believed a first shot in the z130's anyway?
Dan,
Dan O'mera,
Both President Kennedy and Governor Connally nearly simpultaneoulsy both snap their heads to their right. Zapruder's camera also jerks at the same time, because something startled him at that point. Most likely, the first shot fired caused this, because Zapruder does this two more times. Second time is just after the car is emerging from behind the Stemmons sign. Frames 226, 227, 228, and slightly 229 all are blurred as a result of Zapruder's reaction to the shot fire, circa 222/223, and frames 318, 319 and 320 after the fatal shot is fired
. It seems odd that Zapruder flinched at the same time the three sudden reactions occur within the limousine by both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Governor Connally never changes position until frame 223, after jerking his head from left to right circa Z 154 and this is when he shows first signs of being hit, and by the next frame President Kennedy is reacting. Coincidence? I do not think so.
Both President Kennedy and Governor Connally nearly simpultaneoulsy both snap their heads to their right.
Do you agree that after his head "snap", JFK starts waving and smiling at the people lining Elm Street?
Both President Kennedy and Governor Connally nearly simpultaneoulsy both snap their heads to their right.
Do you agree that after his head "snap", JFK starts waving and smiling at the people lining Elm Street?
Yes, but if you freeze the frame at 161, look at the startled expression on his face. In the frames that follow, he then begins smiling at the girls on the sidewalk, more than likely because he pobably thought it was a firecracker. Meanwhile, John Connally has a veryy stern look on his face, is not waving, rather, he sits there motionless. He told the WC he heard a shot and knew it was a rifleshot. You cannot ignore the jerk of Zapruder's camera, either.
Hey Steve, I hope you are well!It amazes me that no one mentions that both Croft and Betzner said that the first shot happened after they took their pictures which puts the first shot after z186. Croft said he had enough time roll his film after his z161 photo and take another picture at the moment of the first shot (unfortunately, the camera shutter did not work and the film was unexposed for that frame). Betzner said he took the picture at z186 and he was going to roll the film to take another when the shot occurred.
I totally agree with your observations. Thumb1:
Zapruder's vertical camera jerks at the time of the confirmed shots and working backwards, the head shot, the SBF and then the first shot, to me, are self explanatory.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmHVc31F/Zapuder-Shot-Reaction1.gif)
JohnM
It amazes me that no one mentions that both Croft and Betzner said that the first shot happened after they took their pictures which puts the first shot after z186. Croft said he had enough time roll his film after his z161 photo and take another picture at the moment of the first shot (unfortunately, the camera shutter did not work and the film was unexposed for that frame). Betzner said he took the picture at z186 and he was going to roll the film to take another when the shot occurred.
But it is not just Croft and Betzner. Phil Willis put the first shot just before he took his z202 photo. The occupants of the VP car said they had just completed the turn and were going down Elm St. The occupants of the VP follow up car said that there were in the process of completing the turn. Mary Woodward said that they shouted at the President and he turned toward them - and they were the last people he acknowledged before the first horrible ear-shattering noise. That means the shot could not have been before JFK turns and acknowledges them with a wave because JFK did not acknowledge anyone after that - according to Mary Woodward.
The goal here is not to find head turnings that fit a preferred theory. Conclusions must fit the evidence and a shot anywhere before z186 does not fit the evidence.
Yes, but if you freeze the frame at 161, look at the startled expression on his face. In the frames that follow, he then begins smiling at the girls on the sidewalk, more than likely because he pobably thought it was a firecracker. Meanwhile, John Connally has a veryy stern look on his face, is not waving, rather, he sits there motionless. He told the WC he heard a shot and knew it was a rifleshot. You cannot ignore the jerk of Zapruder's camera, either.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4d/55/XrQga2zz_o.gif) (https://images2.imgbox.com/3e/f6/w26jC1xU_o.gif)
I saw the two figures to the right rise up. There's also a man who, in the mid-180s, is behind Gold-Top, who I think rises up. Plus the figure on the left spotted by Charles. I think the two circled on the right may be people who were out on the pavement on Houston who later stood up on the curb. You can see Phil Willis lifting his camera and, behind him, his daughter Linda (she's on the right, in a blue top, walking in front of the pool wall). There are some artifacts caused by sharpening and compression. The horizontal out-of-scaling at the end is from the exposed area drifting closer to the outer edge.
There's a lady on the lower right waving a hanky. She and a friend are wearing black gloves, as was Nellie Connally. Probably a vogue fashion thing for the time. The older gentleman in the left foreground wearing a suit is holding a Stetson-like hat.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FHzDmytc/z161jfkcrop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)I would be interested in hearing from the early missed shot speculators where they think JFK turned and acknowledged Mary Woodward and her friends. Do they really think Woodward missed hearing that first "horrible ear-shattering noise"?
I am really not seeing a startled expression.
In the frames that follow, he then begins smiling at the girls on the sidewalk, more than likely because he pobably thought it was a firecracker.
But there's no need to speculate Steve, we know exactly why JFK turned to his right and started smiling and waving. And we know why Jackie turned to her right at the same moment. We have the first-hand eye-witness account of reporter Mary Woodward as proof of why they were reacting the way they did at that moment.
Pierce Allman was standing among the crowd that we are taking a closer look at. Here is a snip from his living history interview at the Sixth Floor Museum:
They turned the corner and…boom. …
When the first shot… happened… it, it really didn’t… it, it, no one, no one around me recognized it as a shot. Connally said later that he did because he was a hunter. But it wasn’t a sharp sound that a rifle makes. It was, it was loud. I turned to Terry and said something: “That was firecrackers?” And then (slams fist) second shot. But during the first shot I looked up and across, that’s where the sound was coming from. …ok, there’s the sixth floor and the sixth floor window. The sixth floor window was up a little bit. To this day, I couldn’t tell you whether I saw a rifle or not. But there were three guys… hanging out of that fifth floor window. And they were looking up and pointing. This is all at a glance. Please understand the time perspective. The total time from when the limo turned until it went… left under the triple underpass was 18 or 19 seconds. And the shots were six and a half or seven seconds.
So, I glanced up and then glanced down and the second shot. And Kennedy didn’t have a violent reaction. He was… his right arm was on.. the uh, frame of the car. And he just sort of turned and then both arms and hands went up in this sort of reaction. And Jackie sort of leaned forward and the car kept progressing. The car never slowed down.
The car never took evasive action. And then the… I had glanced kind of over at the hillside a little bit and then the third shot hit. And it was pretty evident that uh he was hit. I did not see the uh Bill Newman on the other side of the street, I was on this side of the street. And I didn’t see the moment of the disintegration of the skull. But the split second after, when he went forward, went to the side… Remember, on the second shot… Kennedy was wearing a back brace. He had on this very tightly laced back brace. And he didn’t topple over. So he just, he was still upright. The assassin had for the third shot, essentially the second shot, just a few feet further. But on the third shot he did… topple over. And Jackie was screaming.[/i]
Not that Allman was a clock, but... if you work back 6.5 seconds from z313 the first shot would be at z194.
In his WFAA radio interview at 1:45 pm 22Nov63, Allman said he saw JFK react to the first shot. He said "I looked and saw the President, I thought, duck". Here is the recording (interview is in the first minute. The quoted remark begins at 1:25):
I would be interested in hearing from the early missed shot speculators where they think JFK turned and acknowledged Mary Woodward and her friends. Do they really think Woodward missed hearing that first "horrible ear-shattering noise"?
Excellent work as usual Jerry. Thanks again. I agree with what you said. Also, note that the woman next to Willis (Mrs. Willis?) appears to be looking toward the TSBD instead of toward JFK. It is hard to tell for sure, but at the very beginning she appears to be still turning (snapping?) her head toward the TSBD. The gold top lady does appear to suddenly jump then raise her right hand to her mouth in shock. Well done Jerry!
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/4d/55/XrQga2zz_o.gif) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/3e/f6/w26jC1xU_o.gif) |
Here is what he said:
He absolutely positively does NOT attribute JFK’s reaction to the first shot. You are mistaken.
Pat Speer produces a list of 44 eye-witnesses who saw JFK react to the first shot:
"For those reluctant to read through the plethora of statements and testimony recounted in the pages to follow, but who are nevertheless curious as to how I can feel so sure the first shot did not miss, I hereby offer a telling taste of the statements of every witness I could find who described the activities in the limousine during or just after the first shot. While some of these witnesses believed the first shot missed, they almost all believed Kennedy responded to the shot by leaning forward or jerking to his left, actions the Zapruder film reveals occurred only after he'd been hit. My conclusion that these witnesses were thereby describing Kennedy's actions between frames 190 and 224 of the Zapruder film is further confirmed by the fact that not one of these witnesses said the President continued waving and smiling to the crowd on his right after the first shot rang out. Common sense tells us that this should have been the impression of at least a few of these witnesses should they really have heard a shot at the time proposed by most "first shot miss" proponents, around frame 160 of the Zapruder film. But common sense, alas, is often ignored in favor of something more glamorous."
I won't reproduce the list in full. It can be seen here:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter5therorschachpuzzle
You don't have to scroll down far to the section entitled "The First Shot Miss Myth". This is proper evidence, not interpretation to suit one's needs.
The limitations of human memory and recollection make trying to piece together events down a few seconds very difficult or impossible. More often, the temptation is to interpret witness testimony/movements selectively to fit a desired narrative. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to pinpoint the missed shot. That's not to say that it pointless to take a closer look at the bystanders but the quality of film and variety of different reactions, delayed reactions, or nonreaction/unrelated movements doesn't add up to much in my opinion. Under the circumstances, I would have expected a much more noticeable reaction to shots being fired. Particularly by those standing in front of the TSBD. I give credence to the general rather than specific. The vast majority of witnesses said there were three shots. There is nothing subjective about that question and answer. How many shots? Three. Certainly, no more than two. That is supported by the number of shells found. At the very least that eliminates the nuttier CT claims that involve an O.K. Corral type shootout.
We don’t have a soundtrack on any of the films. So, we have to improvise. The witnesses who were actually there on the scene indicate that the first shot didn’t create a big general reaction. Therefore, your expectations of a more noticeable reaction seem to me to be misplaced. Most people who were there tell us that the crowd seemed stunned and only some of them looked around. And most of them tell us that they thought the first shot was a backfire or firecracker. At any rate, the reactions we have highlighted on the Zapruder film in this thread seem to me to agree with what the people who were actually there and actually heard the three shots tell us happened in the crowd at that point in time. What is significant in my opinion is the unmistakable head snaps and the instinctive jump of some of the bystanders. We can now see these things clearly with our own eyes thanks to the excellent work by Jerry Organ. I think that this makes Jerry’s find very important.
I can understand the delayed or non-response by many folks to the shots. A quick, sudden, unexpected event that was over before many realized what was happening. Interpreting movements in the crowd, though, is something different and subjective. I think anyone with a theory could look at the grainy film images and find bystanders who they believe support whatever narrative they want to reach. I don't find the "head snaps" to be unmistakable or clear. It's interesting but not compelling. In contrast, I think the witness testimony that they were three shots is compelling and supported by the evidence. Almost all these witnesses suggested the shots came from one location - although they disagreed where. That means one shooter firing a maximum of three shots. That alone undermines many CTer theories about multiple shooters.
If one draws a line on a map perpendicular to the direction of Elm Street at the Z133 mark (the location of JFK at the beginning of the Zapruder film segment) Pierce Allman was standing right there on the south side of the street. Here is what Allman said on the radio later that day: "And right after Mr. Kennedy passed right in front of me I heard one big explosion…Allman's statement is, at best, ambiguous as to where JFK was at the time of the first shot. So you have to look at other evidence. "Right after" could be 1.5 seconds as you suggest or it could be a bit longer. How can you differentiate between 1.5 seconds and 3 seconds from "right after"? You would be the last one to twist the words of Allman in order to try to justify believing what you wish to believe.
The beginnings of the reactions of some of the bystanders as documented on the Zapruder film and highlighted in this thread happen in the Z150s. This would place JFK at about a car length or less past the Z133 mark at which Allman is standing. Now, I ask: do Allman’s words seem to indicate that JFK was a car length or less past him or do they indicate that JFK was 75 or 100 feet past him when he heard the big explosion? Also, Allman’s words never specifically tie JFK’s reaction to the first explosion. About an hour before the radio interview, Allman was on the phone in the TSBD communicating with the radio station. Here is a snip from his live telephone report: And as he went by the Texas School Book Depository headed for the triple underpass, there were three pound reverberating explosions…. Again I ask, do those words “as he wert by” (place yourself in Allman’s position on Elm Street) seem to indicate that JFK was already 75 or 100 feet past Allman when he heard the first explosion? I don’t think so. But you be the judge.
The images presented here in this thread speak for themselves. The lady who Jerry Organ first pointed out (who snapped her head around) and the lady in gold that I pointed out (who jumped and then brings her hand to her mouth), both seem to be having an instinctive reaction to the first loud explosive sound. These types of reactions happen extremely fast (before the conscious mind can even think about it). The amygdala portion deep inside the brain controls the instinctive reactions without the need for conscious thought. The reactions can be measured as to how quickly they happened and how far did she turn or jump. There are at least 13 others who have somewhat similar reactions that have been pointed out earlier in this thread. All of these reactions are the type of reactions that one might expect if a loud explosive sound had just unexpectedly happened. All all of these reactions happened at essentially the same time.And if you had independent evidence that there was a shot around that time, these kind of head turns might be seen as corroboration or help to pin point the time. But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot.
You can see them with your own eyes and believe whatever you wish about them. Or, you can try to twist the words of however many witness accounts you want to in order to try to justify believing whatever you wish. I frankly couldn’t care less.Do you think I twisted the words of the witnesses I listed by quoting them and providing the reference?
I can understand the delayed or non-response by many folks to the shots. A quick, sudden, unexpected event that was over before many realized what was happening. Interpreting movements in the crowd, though, is something different and subjective. I think anyone with a theory could look at the grainy film images and find bystanders who they believe support whatever narrative they want to reach. I don't find the "head snaps" to be unmistakable or clear. It's interesting but not compelling. In contrast, I think the witness testimony that they were three shots is compelling and supported by the evidence. Almost all these witnesses suggested the shots came from one location - although they disagreed where. That means one shooter firing a maximum of three shots. That alone undermines many CTer theories about multiple shooters.I agree completely. So how were the witnesses reliable when it comes to the number of shots but not reliable as to the pattern of the shots, the rapidity of the last two shots, where JFK was when the first shot occurred and how he responded to it?
Allman's statement is, at best, ambiguous as to where JFK was at the time of the first shot. So you have to look at other evidence. "Right after" could be 1.5 seconds as you suggest or it could be a bit longer. How can you differentiate between 1.5 seconds and 3 seconds from "right after"? You would be the last one to twist the words of Allman in order to try to justify believing what you wish to believe.
And if you had independent evidence that there was a shot around that time, these kind of head turns might be seen as corroboration or help to pin point the time. But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot. Do you think I twisted the words of the witnesses I listed by quoting them and providing the reference?
Maybe someone in the crowd on the north side of Elm St. shouted at the President around z160-170 saying something like "Hey Mr. President" really loud so they could be heard over the motorcycles. Darn, if there was only evidence that something like that happened.....
But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot.
Please give us your opinion of the reason(s) that over fifteen people reacted at the same moment in time. I suggest that you begin with the extremely quick instinctive head snap reaction we can all see from the lady that Jerry Organ originally pointed out in his excellent clip.
If one draws a line on a map perpendicular to the direction of Elm Street at the Z133 mark (the location of JFK at the beginning of the Zapruder film segment) Pierce Allman was standing right there on the south side of the street. Here is what Allman said on the radio later that day: "And right after Mr. Kennedy passed right in front of me I heard one big explosion…
The beginnings of the reactions of some of the bystanders as documented on the Zapruder film and highlighted in this thread happen in the Z150s. This would place JFK at about a car length or less past the Z133 mark at which Allman is standing. Now, I ask: do Allman’s words seem to indicate that JFK was a car length or less past him or do they indicate that JFK was 75 or 100 feet past him when he heard the big explosion? Also, Allman’s words never specifically tie JFK’s reaction to the first explosion. About an hour before the radio interview, Allman was on the phone in the TSBD communicating with the radio station. Here is a snip from his live telephone report: And as he went by the Texas School Book Depository headed for the triple underpass, there were three pound reverberating explosions…. Again I ask, do those words “as he wert by” (place yourself in Allman’s position on Elm Street) seem to indicate that JFK was already 75 or 100 feet past Allman when he heard the first explosion? I don’t think so. But you be the judge.
The images presented here in this thread speak for themselves. The lady who Jerry Organ first pointed out (who snapped her head around) and the lady in gold that I pointed out (who jumped and then brings her hand to her mouth), both seem to be having an instinctive reaction to the first loud explosive sound. These types of reactions happen extremely fast (before the conscious mind can even think about it). The amygdala portion deep inside the brain controls the instinctive reactions without the need for conscious thought. The reactions can be measured as to how quickly they happened and how far did she turn or jump. There are at least 13 others who have somewhat similar reactions that have been pointed out earlier in this thread. All of these reactions are the type of reactions that one might expect if a loud explosive sound had just unexpectedly happened. All all of these reactions happened at essentially the same time.
You can see them with your own eyes and believe whatever you wish about them. Or, you can try to twist the words of however many witness accounts you want to in order to try to justify believing whatever you wish. I frankly couldn’t care less.
I recently came across yet another way to corroborate a first shot around z223 thanks to the work of Pat Speer. It concerns the witness statements of the occupants of the Vice-Presidential car and the Vice-Presidential follow-up car. From these statements it is possible to glean an approximate position for each car at the time of the first shot and from these approximate positions it is possible rule out various theories regarding the first shot.
I will look at a number of theories put forward for when the first shot occurred in relation to the Z-Film:
z133 (and before)
z160
z190
z223 (my own proposal for the first shot)
First, a look at the statements:
VICE PRESIDENTIAL CAR
Hurchel Jacks [Driver] -
"My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President’s car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out..."
Rufus Youngblood [Passenger Seat] -
"The motorcade then made a left turn, and the sidewalk crowds
were beginning to diminish in size. I observed a grassy plot to my right in back of a small crowd...I heard an explosion…"
"As we were beginning to go down this incline, all of a sudden there was an explosive noise."
"We had straightened on Elm now and were beginning to move easily down the incline in the wake of the cars ahead. Suddenly there was an explosive noise..."
Senator Yarborough [back left] -
“as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast..."
Lady Bird Johnson [back centre] -
“we were rounding a curve, going down a hill and suddenly there was a sharp loud report..."
"...suddenly in that brilliant sunshine there was a sharp rifle shot. It came, I thought, from over my right shoulder."
Lyndon Johnson [back right] -
"After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street, I heard a sharp report."
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL FOLLOW-UP CAR
Joe Henry Rich [Driver] -
“We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and that was when I heard the first shot."
Cliff Carter [passenger seat] -
"...our car had just made the left hand turn onto Elm and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded like a firecracker."
Jerry Kivett [back right] -
"As the motorcade was approximately 1/3 the way to the underpass, traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour, I heard a loud noise..."
Warren Taylor [back centre] -
“Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker —the sound coming from my right rear."
Thomas (Lem) Johns [back right] -
"We turned onto Elm Street...We were going downhill...which put the Texas Book Depository on our right, more or less...But we were going down this Elm Street, with my door open. I heard at least two shots.."
10 witnesses in 2 vehicles all corroborating each others statements. Not one or two ambiguous statements open to any kind of interpretation. Every single occupant of both cars are stating, basically, the same thing - at the time of the first shot these cars had turned off Houston Street and were travelling down Elm.
I now turn to the work of Mark Tyler to compare how these statements support or refute the various theories put forward.
Z133
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNvWkv4c/z133-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
In the image above the Vice-Presidential car is marked 7 and the follow-up car 8. It is obvious from this image that both vehicles are still on Houston at the time of this proposed first shot and, as such, a shot around z133 (or before) is absolutely refuted by the 10 witness statements.
Z160
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFQMpXmx/z160-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Again, we can clearly see that, although car 7 is well into it's turn, car 8 is still on Houston. The theory of a first shot around z160 is refuted.
Z190
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKLpP4Q5/z190-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It can be said that car 7 is now travelling down Elm but car 8 is still to complete the turn as specified by the occupants of this car and, as such, a shot around z190 is refuted by the witness statements.
Z223
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4XTTyk0/z223-Tyler.png) (https://postimages.org/)
My own proposal.
It can be seen from the above image that both cars are now travelling on Elm after having completed the turn off Houston. There can be no doubt that this is the only theory that comes anywhere close to fitting the witness statements of the 10 occupants of these vehicles.
Yet further corroboration, if any were needed, that the first shot was the one that struck JFK in the throat around z223.
I presented the contexts, asked the questions, and said what I think. Then I said you be the judge, meaning each person should form their own opinions. That is completely different from: you claiming that all those witnesses’ accounts are supposedly confirming that JFK reacted to the first shot. You may have that opinion. But that doesn’t make it true.
But because people can turn their heads for any number of reasons, by itself this is not evidence of a shot.
Please give us your opinion of the reason(s) that over fifteen people reacted at the same moment in time. I suggest that you begin with the extremely quick instinctive head snap reaction we can all see from the lady that Jerry Organ originally pointed out in his excellent clip.
I agree completely. So how were the witnesses reliable when it comes to the number of shots but not reliable as to the pattern of the shots, the rapidity of the last two shots, where JFK was when the first shot occurred and how he responded to it?
And all of the evidence that is being rejected as unreliable all fits together: the shot pattern with the last two close together requires JFK to be hit by the first shot. The estimated 2:1 ratio recalled by several witnesses would mean the first shot had to have occurred just before JFK is seen reacting when he emerges from behind the sign, which fits with the witnesses who said that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot.
Perhaps, the more important question is: how is it that all these witnesses were mistaken but in a way that the mistakes are all mutually consistent?
The question of how many shots were fired doesn't require the witness to provide any subjective description or interpretation. It is a quantitative question and answer. The witness might be wrong but what is being asked and answered is clear. When you start asking about "shot patterns" or "reactions" you begin to stray into individual interpretations of events using language that can be interpreted in different ways. That's not to say that it can't be informative, but the answers are filtered through the witness description of events and whomever is trying to interpret their answers. Often with a bias. Most witnesses said three shots were fired. Three shell casings were found. That's compelling.So how is it that so many of those witnesses all made the same mistaken subjective impression that the last two were close together and there was a longer pause between the first two?:
So how is it that so many of those witnesses all made the same mistaken subjective impression that the last two were close together and there was a longer pause between the first two?:
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7Bqd3XK/IMG-1226.jpg)
And why would the pattern be more difficult to get right than the number of shots? Wouldn’t that kind of pattern make it easier to remember how many shots there were?
What a truly interesting graph. Horribly misleading but interesting. Can you break it down further and explain how all the numerous variations of these statements were tabulated or was the word “three” the sole parameter even if the witnesses, especially two shot eyewitnesses, had stated a completely different account earlier.It is set out here (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). The evidence relating to shot pattern starts on page 7.
It is set out here (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). The evidence relating to shot pattern starts on page 7.
Unbelievable, three shots really were your only parameter and nothing else mattered. Early statements completely ignored.Are you saying that it would be more reasonable to conclude, on all the evidence, that there were only two shots? How did so many people not only hear three, but recognized a particular pattern? It is hard to have a pattern with only two shots. Or are you saying we shouldn't look at all the evidence, particularly the evidence of those who said there were exactly three shots.
You turned your twisted and tortured interpretations of witness statements into a graph? Are you sure you want people to read it and know what you did? It is full of the inconsistencies mentioned. Still no proof there was even a third shot except for your opinion.An opinion shared by at least 132 people who were actually there and heard the shots... But, they must be wrong because the 17 who heard two shots were obviously better witnesses? How about the 7 or so who heard 2 or 3 shots but weren't sure?
A small sampling of the people that are part of your three shot graph.He said "they were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them" .... "The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again." CE1024, 18H762. If he thought they sounded like one shot then how was he able to discern two shots?
Hickey: last two shots were so close together they sounded like one shot.
BR Williams; Two shot witnessHe did say he heard two shots in his first statement. But he also said in his WC testimony that he did not pay any attention to the first:
James Jarmin: second shot is the head shot.Are you referring to Jarman's 22Nov63 "I definitely heard three shots" statement, his 18Mar64 statement in which he does not mention the shots at all or his WC testimony in which he says "I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit"?
Mary Woodward; First shot missed. All shots took place after Z207.Do you mean the Mary Woodward who said there were three shots and the last two were so close together that the third shot overlapped the echo of the second and that the third shot was the head shot? We can see JFK reacting 5 seconds before the head shot so that observation eliminates the first shot as a missed shot (see below starting at the 0:47 mark):
Seriously Andrew, give it up. Your belief Clint Hill missed hearing a shot while running to JFK's limo at Z310, is it in the graph anywhere?Hill is one of the 17 who recalled only two shots. I have already explained why he had to have jumped off the running board much earlier than z310.
Are you saying that it would be more reasonable to conclude, on all the evidence, that there were only two shots? How did so many people not only hear three, but recognized a particular pattern? It is hard to have a pattern with only two shots. Or are you saying we shouldn't look at all the evidence, particularly the evidence of those who said there were exactly three shots.
An opinion shared by at least 132 people who were actually there and heard the shots... But, they must be wrong because the 17 who heard two shots were obviously better witnesses? How about the 7 or so who heard 2 or 3 shots but weren't sure?
He said "they were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them" .... "The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again." CE1024, 18H762. If he thought they sounded like one shot then how was he able to discern two shots?
He did say he heard two shots in his first statement. But he also said in his WC testimony that he did not pay any attention to the first:
"Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded it even shook the building, the side we were on. Cement fell on my head." 3H175. But he not only recalled three shots, he said he noticed a pattern to the three shots: "The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember." 3H175?
Are you referring to Jarman's 22Nov63 "I definitely heard three shots" statement, his 18Mar64 statement in which he does not mention the shots at all or his WC testimony in which he says "I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit"?
Do you mean the Mary Woodward who said there were three shots and the last two were so close together that the third shot overlapped the echo of the second and that the third shot was the head shot? We can see JFK reacting 5 seconds before the head shot so that observation eliminates the first shot as a missed shot (see below starting at the 0:47 mark):
Perhaps you are referring to Mary Woodward's Dallas Morning News article in which she wrote that after the first shot "things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet"?
Which one should I accept as being correct? The "hazy" impression that conflicts with at least 16 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as we see him doing as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, or the recollection of three shots, 1.......2...3, that fits with at least 40 other witnesses (re: pattern) and over 130 others as to the number and which she absolutely swears was correct? Both can't be. Is it dishonest to choose the recollection that fits the rest of the evidence?
Hill is one of the 17 who recalled only two shots. I have already explained why he had to have jumped off the running board much earlier than z310.
Ok. So you do agree that the three shot, three hit scenario has substantial evidence to support it - it was the working scenario for the FBI for the first several months of their investigation, after all. It is just that you believe that the evidence is false having been influenced by the media reports and echos. That’s fine. We just disagree on whether the evidence that we both recognize exists, is reliable.
Here is where this theory really goes off the rails and gets really perverse, I mean interesting.
Hill is one of the 17 who recalled only two shots.The HSCA lists 17 two shot witnesses. Who are the other 23?
Here it is. The tortured and twisted statement analysis. Clint Hill is a two shot witness. There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots. This does not include the large number of eyewitnesses who stated the second shot was the headshot or the last "two shots" were so close together they sounded like one shot. Clint Hill is told he did not hear a shot. It is not in his narrative when recounting the shots.
Ok. So you do agree that the three shot, three hit scenario has substantial evidence to support it - it was the working scenario for the FBI for the first several months of their investigation, after all. It is just that you believe that the evidence is false having been influenced by the media reports and echos. That’s fine. We just disagree on whether the evidence that we both recognize exists, is reliable.
The HSCA lists 17 two shot witnesses. Who are the other 23?
Ok. So you do agree that the three shot, three hit scenario has substantial evidence to support it - it was the working scenario for the FBI for the first several months of their investigation, after all. It is just that you believe that the evidence is false having been influenced by the media reports and echos. That’s fine. We just disagree on whether the evidence that we both recognize exists, is reliable.So is it that you don't think that there are upwards of 132 witness statements from actual people who claim to have heard 3 shots? Or you don't think that 132 witnesses saying they heard three shots is evidence of three shots? Either way you are not making much sense.
No, nice try though. I don’t agree at all with it. It is completely and utterly ridiculous. There is no evidence at all that there was a third shot let alone substantial. Let us not mistake your confused conclusion for an FBI investigation.
You have four shots. Three of which are a complete fantasy straight out of your imagination. Z190, Z270, and Clint Hill missed hearing a shot while running to the car, really.I don't have four shots. There were three shots. I have pointed out all the evidence for 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter. It is the scenario that the FBI was working for the first 5 months of their investigation because it is based on the evidence. Here is a model they were using:
| (https://i.postimg.cc/rwzySSfg/6130052-low-res-600px.jpg) | (https://i.postimg.cc/Pr8vgjtH/Photo-of-Dealey-Plaza-with-shot-locations.jpg) |
The HSCA lists 17 two shot witnesses. Who are the other 23?Oh. I see. The 40 witnesses to exactly 2 shots was just a number you pulled out of your.....
The fact that you do not know after all this time says it all. The HSCA Panel thought the number of shots had been inflated. I will repost it. In all the excitement you must have missed it.
So is it that you don't think that there are upwards of 132 witness statements from actual people who claim to have heard 3 shots? Or you don't think that 132 witnesses saying they heard three shots is evidence of three shots? Either way you are not making much sense.
I don't have four shots. There were three shots. I have pointed out all the evidence for 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter. It is the scenario that the FBI was working for the first 5 months of their investigation because it is based on the evidence. Here is a model they were using:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rwzySSfg/6130052-low-res-600px.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/Pr8vgjtH/Photo-of-Dealey-Plaza-with-shot-locations.jpg)
The SBT was invented to explain problems identified by "experts", not the evidence.
Oh. I see. The 40 witnesses to exactly 2 shots was just a number you pulled out of your.....
“So is it that you don't think that there are upwards of 132 witness statements from actual people who claim to have heard 3 shots? Or you don't think that 132 witnesses saying they heard three shots is evidence of three shots? Either way you are not making much sense.”So, what is your definition of evidence. It is obviously unique to you. And, where exactly does the WC dismiss the evidence of three shots? They find the three shells to corroborate the witnesses. By finding three shots, they find that the evidence of the witnesses who heard three shots was correct.
It is not evidence to anyone but you. It certainly was not evidence to the WC and the HSCA. How that is known is both investigative panels questioned and dismissed it.
The HSCA references 132 witnesses and then in conclusion HSCA stated the witnesses inflated the number of shots and the witnesses were influenced by the media. This is the whole basis of your theory and evidence. Once again, the simple fact that you do not know this after all this time says it all. The HSCA Panel thought the number of shots had been inflated, but here you are quoting them as if they had not. I will repost it and once again, in all the excitement, again you must have missed it.The HSCA concluded there were only two shots? I thought they found four shots.
HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
“I don't have four shots. There were three shots. I have pointed out all the evidence for 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter. It is the scenario that the FBI was working for the first 5 months of their investigation because it is based on the evidence. Here is a model they were using:” ,Again, what is your definition of evidence? Over a hundred witnesses, including the three men directly below the 6th floor window, reported hearing exactly three shots. One of those three heard three bolt-action reloads. There were three shells found on the floor. The people near or on the receiving end of those shots reported the effects of exactly three shots. Yet you persist in this nonsense that there is "no evidence of three shots". That is just silly. You may not accept that evidence but you can't deny its existence.
You have never pointed out any evidence. That is the problem.
“Oh. I see. The 40 witnesses to exactly 2 shots was just a number you pulled out of your.....”Simple question. You said: "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots. ". I listed 17. My question was: who are the other 23? Your answer: "uh, blah, blah" (paraphrased).
Anybody who takes the time to study the witness statements arrives at the same conclusion. There honestly is no way to determine how you evaluate witness statements other than by the number three. I am sure you are unable to face the reality of it. It would mean this whole ridiculous three to four shot theory of yours has been dead on arrival since day one decades ago.
An interesting analysis of the following document - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Decker_Ex_5323.pdf
The majority of these statements/reports were written on the day, some the day after.
I've broke it down into 2 shot, 3 shot and 4+ shot categories.
The list can also be broken down into Civilian and Law Enforcement.
Totals:
2 shot - 10
3 shot - 25
4+ shot - 5
There is nothing conclusive to be drawn from these totals. 25 say 3 shots but 15 say otherwise. Hardly conclusive.
What's weird is when we look at Civilian and Law Enforcement totals:
Civilian Totals:
2 shot - 9
3 shot - 7
4+ - 5
The majority of civilians reported 2 shots but it is quite an equal spread
Law Enforcement Totals
2 shot - 1
3 shot - 17
4+ shot - 0
Apart from Bill Decker, who was actually in the motorcade (unlike all the other law enforcement officers), every single law enforcement officer heard 3 shots.
So, what is your definition of evidence. It is obviously unique to you. And, where exactly does the WC dismiss the evidence of three shots? They find the three shells to corroborate the witnesses. By finding three shots, they find that the evidence of the witnesses who heard three shots was correct.
The HSCA concluded there were only two shots? I thought they found four shots.
Again, what is your definition of evidence? Over a hundred witnesses, including the three men directly below the 6th floor window, reported hearing exactly three shots. One of those three heard three bolt-action reloads. There were three shells found on the floor. The people near or on the receiving end of those shots reported the effects of exactly three shots. Yet you persist in this nonsense that there is "no evidence of three shots". That is just silly. You may not accept that evidence but you can't deny its existence.
Simple question. You said: "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots. ". I listed 17. My question was: who are the other 23? Your answer: "uh, blah, blah" (paraphrased).
An interesting analysis of the following document - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Decker_Ex_5323.pdf
The majority of these statements/reports were written on the day, some the day after.
I've broke it down into 2 shot, 3 shot and 4+ shot categories.
The list can also be broken down into Civilian and Law Enforcement.
Totals:
2 shot - 10
3 shot - 25
4+ shot - 5
There is nothing conclusive to be drawn from these totals. 25 say 3 shots but 15 say otherwise. Hardly conclusive.
What's weird is when we look at Civilian and Law Enforcement totals:
Civilian Totals:
2 shot - 9
3 shot - 7
4+ - 5
The majority of civilians reported 2 shots but it is quite an equal spread
Law Enforcement Totals
2 shot - 1
3 shot - 17
4+ shot - 0
Apart from Bill Decker, who was actually in the motorcade (unlike all the other law enforcement officers), every single law enforcement officer heard 3 shots.
So, what is your definition of evidence. It is obviously unique to you. And, where exactly does the WC dismiss the evidence of three shots? They find the three shells to corroborate the witnesses. By finding three shots, they find that the evidence of the witnesses who heard three shots was correct.I am puzzled by your contention that statements from 132 people does not constitute evidence but statements from 17 to the contrary do.
Still can’t support your theory? So, you think this is a good time to fabricate your own proof and have absolutely no evidence to support it.
As a huge believer in the HSCA and their findings, Thomas Canning stating the SBT is the only answer sure erased your whole theory.Interesting you should mention Canning. Canning of course put JBC's left cheek over the driveshaft:
Again, you need to give us your definition of evidence. Either that, or tell us what universe you are operating in and give us the principles of logic that apply there.
“The people near or on the receiving end of those shots reported the effects of exactly three shots”
Existence of what? An overacting imagination. There is no evidence being presented. Show the hard physical evidence, how hard is that for you to do? Apparently impossible because you have yet to ever to it. Just endless yammering on about a shot pattern that you have never proven even existed.
100 hundred witness all stating something completely different. That is all you done and then and then called it evidence.
I am puzzled by your contention that statements from 132 people does not constitute evidence but statements from 17 to the contrary do.
Interesting you should mention Canning. Canning of course put JBC's left cheek over the driveshaft:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTrtFt6H/Position-JBC-Canning-HSCA.jpg)
I corresponded and spoke with Thomas Canning about this in 2003 and questioned his assumption that the absence of JBC's right shoulder in Betzner meant his shoulder was farther to the left. I referenced the Altgens' #5 photo showing that it was below the sight line from the rear. He actually agreed, saying that he found this explanation "quite persuasive". He sent me an email stating:
"The explanation for the eclipse of Conally's shoulder by the limo body or by
the back of the jump seat is quite persuasive; I am moved to suggest that my
testimony could well be revised to refer to the right side of Connaly's head
and not his shoulder would be appropriate."
He said that would move JBC farther right by about 7-8 inches. However, he was reluctant to change his conclusion that the trajectory still fit:
"The resulting shift would not destroy the conclusion I drew."
The complete correspondence is found here (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Mason_Canning_correspondence_2003.pdf).
Again, you need to give us your definition of evidence. Either that, or tell us what universe you are operating in and give us the principles of logic that apply there.
I am puzzled by your contention that statements from 132 people does not constitute evidence but statements from 17 to the contrary doSo is it that the numbers are made up and don't refer to actual people? Can we just make up evidence like "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots." and not have to explain where it came from? If so, why not just say "There was a recording of ____ shots and it got accidentally erased". Then we can have absolute proof of as many shots as we would like to prove a favourite theory, because what could be better evidence than an actual recording?
Puzzled? The whole assassination is a complete puzzle to you. 17 and 132 are just made up unsubstantiated numbers posted to represent a failed theory.
Using the HSCA report to pretend to support this goofy nonsense when in reality the HSCA conclusions lead to the exact opposite. Get to the point and provide some evidence of this oddball theory. Wildly claiming the witness statements alone present evidence only serves to show how weak the whole theory is.Ground control to Major Jack. Your circuit's dead, .....
Again, you need to give us your definition of evidence. Either that, or tell us what universe you are operating in and give us the principles of logic that apply there.
I do not need to do anything. You have been proposing this theory for a long time and it is woefully lacking any evidence at all. That is your problem not mine. Misrepresenting the statements of witnesses is not evidence. Especially given what they originally stated and the subsequent changes to their statements that occurred over time. The very changes you are clinging to and trying to use to support this nonsense. It is painfully apparent you do not have any evidence to support this theory, or this discussion Q and A about evidence instead of you providing evidence would not be continually going on.
So is it that the numbers are made up and don't refer to actual people? Can we just make up evidence like "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots." and not have to explain where it came from? If so, why not just say "There was a recording of ____ shots and it got accidentally erased". Then we can have absolute proof of as many shots as we would like to prove a favourite theory, because what could be better evidence than an actual recording?
Ground control to Major Jack. Your circuit's dead, .....
So it appears that your answer is that you can just make up evidence like "There are over 40 eyewitnesses who stated there were two shots." and not have to explain where it came from.
This is Major Jack to ground control.
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way….
So just be sure on one hand you are saying 40 eyewitnesses stating two shots is just an opinion not evidence. Right?No. That is not at all what I said. I didn’t say anything about 40 witnesses stating two shots other than to ask you to ask you where the other 23 were (in addition to the 17 listed in the research paper of D.M. Green for the HSCA.)
I guess you live and die off the HSCA witness analysis. But to you your 47 witnesses (roughly 25%) out of the HSCA's total of178 which you state said three shots is a fact and in itself is evidence. Nice reasoning. It simply shows how weak this analysis of yours really is. The sad part is in your 47 a number of them are really two shot witnesses.
No. That is not at all what I said. I didn’t say anything about 40 witnesses stating two shots other than to ask you to ask you where the other 23 were (in addition to the 17 listed in the research paper of D.M. Green for the HSCA.)
A witness who states what they actually saw or heard or experienced is not giving an opinion. They are giving actual evidence of the existence of a fact. An opinion is given by people who weren’t there who want to tell us what they think happened. I prefer evidence.
Read the report (https://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0066b.htm). 132 said 3 shots. 17 said they heard only two. (https://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0073b.htm)
Here’s yet another apparent reaction to an early missed shot. SS Agent Glen Bennett turned around looking back and upwards towards the TSBD in Betzner’s photo taken at approximately Z186.Bennett was cited by the WC as a witness for the first shot missing JFK. But he was never called by the WC and this is unfortunate because he gave a statement on 23Nov63 that is different from his original notes taken at the time on 22Nov63. His original notes (CE1024 at 18H542) state:
(https://i.vgy.me/PBVolh.jpg)
Bennett was cited by the WC as a witness for the first shot missing JFK. But he was never called by the WC and this is unfortunate because he gave a statement on 23Nov63 that is different from his original notes taken at the time on 22Nov63. His original notes (CE1024 at 18H542) state:
- "At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."
That would appear to be a reference to two shots only but it is not entirely clear. He heard a firecracker and saw a shot "that hit" JFK about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.
However, in his later statement he did say that he looked to the right at the crowd after the first shot and then looked at the President:
"At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/ and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head."
Of course Jerry is already on record saying that Hickey standing up could not see JFK so he will have say that Bennett couldn't see JFK either. But I disagree. Both said they saw JFK on the second and third shots and I see no reason for them to make that up. Hickey said the first of the last two occurred while JFK was leaning to the left and appeared to miss JFK. Bennett in his statement said that the second shot struck JFK in the back.
Cite. Please.Perhaps I misinterpreted your previous views such as:
Nope. I have never thought anyone in the Queen Mary couldn't see JFK.
You seem to think I'm pretty nefarious, using a, per you, 6.86º angle on the limo overhead when it's really, again per you, 9.5º.
That doesn't translate into "Jerry is already on record saying that Hickey standing up could not see JFK".Yet he said he saw it and it was NOT the shot that caused JFK to be struck in the head, which was the third shot. How is it even possible that the unusually short and very local blast of air occurs just to the right of JFK's head lifting his hair at the point in time that it Hickey places it, IF he hadn't seen it? That makes no sense. And it fits with Greer, Tague, the wounds, the shot pattern, the first shot hitting JFK etc. etc.
I said Hickey couldn't see the flutter of Kennedy's hair because it would have been out of Hickey's viewpoint. Practically what I said in the post you cited:
"The view to the area of the hair flutter is blocked because
Kennedy's head is slanted forward, away from Hickey's LoS."
It's because Kennedy's head leaned forward such that caused the little lock of hair to dangle and be puffed in a small way by the wind. I duplicated an agent standing and called him "Hickey Standing" (the surrogate's head is about a foot higher than Hickey's head in the Altgens Photo) and I made Kennedy's head lean forward to illustrate Hickey's impossible view-line to the hair flutter.
Dave Powers was more to the behind of Kennedy than Hickey. Even Powers wouldn't be able to see to the hair flutter when Kennedy's head was sharply tilted forward and tilted a bit toward Jackie.
It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward, none of it visible to Hickey. Not to mention that Hickey would have to turn around to face forward (he's looking backward in Altgens, taken Z255) between Z255 and Z273 (about one second), locate Kennedy and observe that minor hair flutter.
I don't like you misusing my words and placing fake lines on my graphics, so this will be our last one-to-one exchange for awhile.The "fake" line was yours:
Yet he said he saw it and it was NOT the shot that caused JFK to be struck in the head, which was the third shot. How is it even possible that the unusually short and very local blast of air occurs just to the right of JFK's head lifting his hair at the point in time that it Hickey places it, IF he hadn't seen it? That makes no sense. And it fits with Greer, Tague, the wounds, the shot pattern, the first shot hitting JFK etc. etc.
Your argument that he was at the wrong angle to see it isn't very persuasive. He was looking down onto the top of JFK's head. Why would he not be able to see what he said he saw? Can you duplicate this in 3D?
The "fake" line was yours:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMw7dTRC/JO-overhead-clear.jpg)
I just extended it to measure it.
I hope the break will allow you to come up with new descriptive epithets for the 3 shot 3 hit scenario. "Mason-nut theory" and "Bat__it crazy" and "Sponge-Bob Squarepants" were all very good but getting a little worn with age. I expect you can do better.
As Jerry has demonstrated beyond doubt - it was impossible for Hickey to see the slight ruffle of JFK's fringe from where he was positioned.You seem to be unable to understand the significance of this fact: the very thing that you say he couldn't see but which he said he saw actually occurred - at the time he said it occurred and just as he described. It also occurred at the same time as JBC starts moving forward BEFORE he falls back onto his wife. It also occurred at the same time as Greer said he heard the second shot and - almost simultaneously turned around to see JBC falling back onto his wife. It also occurred at the same time that 45+ witnesses said the second shot had to have occurred if the head shot was the last shot. It also occurred at the very moment that the MC could have been fired if the shooter was trying to fire the MC as rapidly as possible (2.3 seconds before the head shot).
It was physically impossible.
This has been demonstrated beyond any question.
Rather than tackle Jerry's comprehensive demonstration of this impossibility, all you can manage is "yet he said he saw it".
You fail to comprehend that, if it was impossible for Hickey to see the fringe ruffle your demented theory requires, then he must have been talking about something else when he referred to JFK's hair moving.
It is the only conclusion that can be drawn.
Your demented "logic" - that Jerry's faultless demonstration must be wrong because you think Hickey said he saw JFK's fringe ruffle - says all anyone needs to know about the quality of your approach to this matter.
Hickey did see JFK’s hair fly forward but only after the bullet struck. At least he did on 11/22. Actually, it is exactly what everyone saw. Andrew knows this because it has been explained to him many many many times.Jack, you seem to have missed the part of his 30Nov63 statement (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0388b.gif) that says:
SA Hickey: 11/22
“The president was slumped to the left in the car and I saw him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”
Jack, you seem to have missed the part of his 30Nov63 statement (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0388b.gif) that says:
"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."
In Hickey's 22Nov63 statement he was describing the effects of two separate shots without specifying what happened on each shot.
As has been explained to you so many many many times, SA Hickey's statement still does not agree with your analysis. Here is the part of SA Hickey’s 11/30 statement you purposely left out so you could make this ridiculous claim.The three shot, three hit “nonsense” follows from the abundant evidence that someone was hit on each shot. So if you think it is nonsense, you need to deal with the evidence.
SA Hickey 11/30
At the moment he was almost sitting erect, I heard two reports that I thought were shots and that a peared to me completely different in sound than the first report and which were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.
Maybe you can explain this three shot three hit nonsense with his statement in mind.
There is no way you know this because you have to actually study the witness statements instead of gloss over them and cherry pick from them, but SA Kinney, driver of the SS car, made the same claim as to the bullet impacting JFK’s head and his hair then flying forward”observed hair flying from the right side of his head” seems like a strange way to describe a head explosion spewing brain and blood (but not hair) in all directions. In that first statement (22Nov63) Kinney said he heard three shots but he was not sure which shots struck JFK. If the second shot that he described as causing JFK’s hair to fly up left him unsure if it struck JFK, that tends to support what Hickey said he observed. If he actually saw the third shot as well, how could he not conclude that JFK was hit by it?
SA Kinney 11/22--- Look at this another two shot witness. If only the HSCA did not do all your thinking for you.
I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about 4 minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass. The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X, at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.
*At this time Clint Hill jumped off and ran to the President's car, jumped on the back, and laid out across the trunk in a prone position where he rode the entire trip to the hospital.*
SA Kinney even references Clint Hill leaping off the car at the time of the headshot. So much for Hill's movements being proof of the absolutely ridiculous Z270 shot scenario.
The three shot, three hit “nonsense” follows from the abundant evidence that someone was hit on each shot. So if you think it is nonsense, you need to deal with the evidence.
Hickey did not testify so we can’t be sure. He did use the word “practically” which suggests almost but not quite no time element between them. He may have been describing what Mary Woodward described in her 1980s interview, which was that third shot sounded before the reverberations from the second had died out.
”observed hair flying from the right side of his head” seems like a strange way to describe a head explosion spewing brain and blood (but not hair) in all directions. In that first statement (22Nov63) Kinney said he heard three shots but he was not sure which shots struck JFK. If the second shot that he described as causing JFK’s hair to fly up left him unsure if it struck JFK, that tends to support what Hickey said he observed. If he actually saw the third shot as well, how could he not conclude that JFK was hit by it?
It may be that Kinney was watching JFK at the time of the second shot but was watching Clint Hill at the time of the third shot. He was driving the car, after all. With Clint Hill running between cars he may have been distracted. He did make it clear that Hill jumped off after the first shot and before the second (he placed an asterisk after mentioning the first shot and before mentioning the second to denote the time Hill jumped off).
The three shot, three hit “nonsense” follows from the abundant evidence that someone was hit on each shot. So if you think it is nonsense, you need to deal with the evidence.
Hickey did not testify so we can’t be sure. He did use the word “practically” which suggests almost but not quite no time element between them. He may have been describing what Mary Woodward described in her 1980s interview, which was that third shot sounded before the reverberations from the second had died out.
”observed hair flying from the right side of his head” seems like a strange way to describe a head explosion spewing brain and blood (but not hair) in all directions. In that first statement (22Nov63) Kinney said he heard three shots but he was not sure which shots struck JFK. If the second shot that he described as causing JFK’s hair to fly up left him unsure if it struck JFK, that tends to support what Hickey said he observed. If he actually saw the third shot as well, how could he not conclude that JFK was hit by it?
It may be that Kinney was watching JFK at the time of the second shot but was watching Clint Hill at the time of the third shot. He was driving the car, after all. With Clint Hill running between cars he may have been distracted. He did make it clear that Hill jumped off after the first shot and before the second (he placed an asterisk after mentioning the first shot and before mentioning the second to denote the time Hill jumped off).
47 out of 62 who reported a timing pattern to the shots. So 47 is 75% of those who reported a pattern to the shots.
You do not support your own ridiculous analysis? Actually, I do not blame you. 47 witnesses out of the all the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza. Not very many at all. Even the 47 is wrong and an inflated number. It is definitely 25% or less of the total.
There are more two shot witnesses.I have asked you to provide the list of who they are. Still waiting. The HSCA study found 17 who recalled only 2 shots and 7 others who recalled 2 or 3 shots.
A suspect tally of witnesses you have chosen. 47 in total. A number of them do not support this theory. There are more two shot witnesses than that. You would think that would be a clue.
Why do you think Hickey’s and Kinney’s statements need your clarification? How about stop misquoting them in an attempt to bolster this strange theory. They are a straightforward depiction of what they saw and heard. What they saw and heard in no way represents what you have been proposing.You seem to agree they both described the second shot as JFK's hair flying forward but did not describe seeing blood or head explosion on the second shot. I am just saying they saw what they said they saw. No clarification needed.
Kinney and Hickey roomed with each other in Dallas. Do you think they might have talked to each other. Guess what they both give the same description of the hair flying forward. Go figure.
47 out of 62 who reported a timing pattern to the shots. So 47 is 75% of those who reported a pattern to the shots.
I have asked you to provide the list of who they are. Still waiting. The HSCA study found 17 who recalled only 2 shots and 7 others who recalled 2 or 3 shots.
You seem to agree they both described the second shot as JFK's hair flying forward but did not describe seeing blood or head explosion on the second shot. I am just saying they saw what they said they saw. No clarification needed.
Great math. So now, it is not the HSCA’s 178 total witnesses or the 132 three shot witnesses. It is 62 Andrew Mason predetermined witnesses, and these witness statements have somehow led you to this conclusion there was a shot at Z270. What a mess of logic.
So, by your standards 47 out of 132 and/or 178 witnesses is evidence? The other 85 and/or 129 witnesses recalling a different three shot pattern were wrong. Only the ones you like are right, and a number of them do not state what you say they do. Just when this whole theory could not be a bigger mess you prove it most definitely can. Where in this mess does it mention 62 Andrew predetermined witnesses.
Jack, if you are going to respond to posts you should read them first. There were only 62 witnesses, by my count who recalled ANY shot pattern. Not everyone who recalled three shots recalled a pattern to those shots..
Oh but I did read it. Same made up unsupported nonsense. What you seem unable to understand, is that no discernable shot pattern is a pattern or could be interpreted to be evenly spaced. 85 non-descript shot pattern statements, all evenly spaced.But the witnesses did not say that there was no discernible shot pattern. They just didn't mention it. And three evenly spaced shots is a discernible pattern.
WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"That might explain why some reported 4 or more shots. It does not explain why witnesses heard three loud shots distinctly spaced shots, which is what the vast majority reported. An echo that would have occurred 1.5 seconds after the shot would be from a surface 560 feet away from the observer. Such an echo would be much less loud and easily distinguished from the muzzle blast
HSCA Conclusion: The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations, or echoes, that followed the initial sound by from 0 .5 to 1 .5 sec . While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners, who were prepared and expected to hear them, they may well have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination . HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may haveThey appear not to have been familiar with the studies that had been done on the effect of publicity on witness accounts. These are all referred to in Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, 1979 Chapter 4. Receiving information within a day of the event that is consistent with what occurred, does not affect the accuracy of the witnesses in recalling details. In other words, the accuracy rate of witnesses is the same as those who received no information - about 80%. However, those who received false information about the events within a day of the event were noticeably affected:
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
| (https://i.postimg.cc/d1c9bxDV/P64-Loftus.jpg) | (https://i.postimg.cc/NjShHBCC/P65-Loftus.jpg) |
But the witnesses did not say that there was no discernible shot pattern. They just didn't mention it. And three evenly spaced shots is a discernible pattern.
That might explain why some reported 4 or more shots. It does not explain why witnesses heard three loud shots distinctly spaced shots, which is what the vast majority reported. An echo that would have occurred 1.5 seconds after the shot would be from a surface 560 feet away from the observer. Such an echo would be much less loud and easily distinguished from the muzzle blast
They appear not to have been familiar with the studies that had been done on the effect of publicity on witness accounts. These are all referred to in Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, 1979 Chapter 4. Receiving information within a day of the event that is consistent with what occurred, does not affect the accuracy of the witnesses in recalling details. In other words, the accuracy rate of witnesses is the same as those who received no information - about 80%. However, those who received false information about the events within a day of the event were noticeably affected:
(https://i.postimg.cc/d1c9bxDV/P64-Loftus.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/NjShHBCC/P65-Loftus.jpg)
Here it is again, the usual cute and clever third grade attempts at logic. This must be the same clever logic you used when Thomas Canning decided the only way he was going to get rid of you was to fake the early stages of Alzheimer or dementia.
A lot is missing from your post.
No answer to the fact that after your Z195 shot JFK continues to wave and smile at the spectators, even though according to your claim the bullet struck him at this time, and your paper stating JFK quits interacting with the crowd once he is shot. JFK was a real trooper to continue smiling and waving even though he was shot in the throat.
| (https://i.postimg.cc/CKXzj8xj/JFK-193-to-198.gif) | (https://i.postimg.cc/Z5NtDybb/JFK-Jackie-turns-z187-to-z207.gif) |
Where do you see JFK continuing to smile at spectators after z193? He appears to turn forward and start to bring his waving hand down:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKXzj8xj/JFK-193-to-198.gif) (https://i.postimg.cc/Z5NtDybb/JFK-Jackie-turns-z187-to-z207.gif)
I do not see how it’s probable that a bullet that goes thru the back of JFK at Z193 would exit his throat and NOT hit JC somewhere in JCs back.It didn't. I don't suggest that it did.
How could it miss JC entirely?
Yes the angle is slightly different at Z193 than at Z224, but is that enough of a different angle to allow a bullet exiting JFCs throat to miss JC entirely either left or right of his upper body?No. It goes to the left of JBC's midline. At z193 the horizontal angle of the trajectory from the TSBD through JFK to the car direction was about 18 degrees:
| (https://i.postimg.cc/Sx71ZqxW/JBC-z200-rear1-reenactment.jpg) | (https://i.ibb.co/MNyjBR0/JBC-z193-bullet-trajectory-left-thigh.jpg) |
The 2003 Beyond Conspiracy experiment to attempt to replicate the SBT trajectory thru the throat at Z224 FAILED completely. The bullet exited the JFK torso well below the level of the throat.
So if they could not even replicate the throat exit trajectory at the flatter vertical angle at Z224 , then it’s even LESS probable at the steeper vertical angle of Z193 that the bullet trajectory would have flattened out enough to would have JFKs throat after entering his back where the autopsy photo indicates.
Andrew should post some more diagrams to line up this z193 trajectory because it’s unclear how the bullet could exit the CENTER of JFKs throat ( where the incision obliterated the supposed hole that was seen by only a few witness previous) .(https://i.postimg.cc/g0cYmfG8/AM-model3-D-z195.jpg)
JFKs head turned that much to his right at Z193 would seem to suggest an exit of the bullet to left side of JFKs Adam’s apple or possibly not have gone thru the throat at all but rather exited the right upper part of JFKs chest going thru some portion of his lung.
If that is the case then the trajectory of the bullet exiting the right side of JFKs chest at the Z 193 angle may have some possibility of missing JC past his right shoulder/arm and the bullet impacting into the inner side of right door beside JFK.Unless you want to speculate that CE399 struck something capable of denting it more than once but always in the exact same the same part of its butt end, CE399 struck something hard only once. The evidence of the xrays and Dr. Shires is that there was a small deposit of lead in JBC's femur. Dr. Gregory commented that the thigh wound appeared to have been made by the butt end of an intact bullet. So all of that tells us that CE399 did not strike anything hard and capable of causing that dent until it reached JBC's femur, which it struck butt-first.
Possibly need to revisit the 2003 experiment set up and try this other angle and see where the bullet exits the JFK replica torso and if the bullet impacts the inner door and would that possibly produce a bullet like CE 399.