JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on May 02, 2025, 03:01:20 PM
-
The Zapruder film is considered by most folks to be one of the best photographic records of the assassination. Marilyn Sitzman had an almost identical view of the assassination that the Zapruder camera had. Yet, ironically, Marilyn Sitzman was completely ignored by the investigators. I think that if anyone could “add a soundtrack” (aka: tell us when the shots occurred) to the Zapruder film Marilyn Sitzman and Abraham Zapruder would be the most likely candidates. So, I find these two videotaped interviews of Marilyn Sitzman quite interesting.
Marilyn has a pleasant personality and neither interview is very long. So I encourage everyone to watch these for yourselves.
The second interview was done in Dealey Plaza near the location that Marilyn stood during the assassination. I wish that there were more interviews done in this manner. In this interview Sitzman points out approximately where the limo was when the first shot rang out (the first lamp post).
(https://i.vgy.me/6OQzuq.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/8V5RKr.jpg)
In both interviews Sitzman inexplicably ties the first two shots together when she describes them and JFK raising his hands. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that either she doesn’t remember which of the first two shots caused JFK to raise his hands, or she hasn’t separated the two shots well enough in her memory to say for sure which one it was. However I think we can infer from the location she points out for the first shot and what we can see on the Zapruder film that it was the second shot that caused JFK to raise his hands.
-
The Zapruder film is considered by most folks to be one of the best photographic records of the assassination. Marilyn Sitzman had an almost identical view of the assassination that the Zapruder camera had. Yet, ironically, Marilyn Sitzman was completely ignored by the investigators. I think that if anyone could “add a soundtrack” (aka: tell us when the shots occurred) to the Zapruder film Marilyn Sitzman and Abraham Zapruder would be the most likely candidates. So, I find these two videotaped interviews of Marilyn Sitzman quite interesting.
Marilyn has a pleasant personality and neither interview is very long. So I encourage everyone to watch these for yourselves.
The second interview was done in Dealey Plaza near the location that Marilyn stood during the assassination. I wish that there were more interviews done in this manner. In this interview Sitzman points out approximately where the limo was when the first shot rang out (the first lamp post).
In both interviews Sitzman inexplicably ties the first two shots together when she describes them and JFK raising his hands. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that either she doesn’t remember which of the first two shots caused JFK to raise his hands, or she hasn’t separated the two shots well enough in her memory to say for sure which one it was. However I think we can infer from the location she points out for the first shot and what we can see on the Zapruder film that it was the second shot that caused JFK to raise his hands.
Zapruder's granddaughter Alexandra wrote a terrific book on her grandfather and the film and has a number of interesting accounts about Sitzman and the assassination. Sitzman said, as she did elsewhere, that all of the shots sounded like they came from the same direction. No multiple locations. And she described how she and Zapruder walked around Dealey Plaza trying to find the best spot. She finally suggested to Zapruder that the concrete abutment would be ideal.
It's just not conceivable to me that a team of assassins behind the fence would have allowed Zapruder to do this described below. There were something like 300-400 people in Dealey Plaza some, like Zapruder, with cameras. Is it really plausible that a professional group of assassins would choose this location and this environment to send out teams of snipers to shoot the President? Sure, that's an argument from incredulity - just because I can't imagine it doesn't mean it didn't happen - but does this really make sense?
Just to add: When Zapruder arrived home his family was watching the television and were in tears. They were devastated. They had come from Russia where this violence was normal. But not in America. They were horrified. The claim by some simply awful people in the conspiracy side that Zapruder was one of the conspirators, that he went along with the assassination, is really disgusting. Again, *some* not all or most.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12380635720/Key166efxy6f7u5/zapruder walking.JPG)
-
The Zapruder film is considered by most folks to be one of the best photographic records of the assassination. Marilyn Sitzman had an almost identical view of the assassination that the Zapruder camera had. Yet, ironically, Marilyn Sitzman was completely ignored by the investigators. I think that if anyone could “add a soundtrack” (aka: tell us when the shots occurred) to the Zapruder film Marilyn Sitzman and Abraham Zapruder would be the most likely candidates. So, I find these two videotaped interviews of Marilyn Sitzman quite interesting.
Marilyn has a pleasant personality and neither interview is very long. So I encourage everyone to watch these for yourselves.
The second interview was done in Dealey Plaza near the location that Marilyn stood during the assassination. I wish that there were more interviews done in this manner. In this interview Sitzman points out approximately where the limo was when the first shot rang out (the first lamp post).
(https://i.vgy.me/6OQzuq.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/8V5RKr.jpg)
In both interviews Sitzman inexplicably ties the first two shots together when she describes them and JFK raising his hands. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that either she doesn’t remember which of the first two shots caused JFK to raise his hands, or she hasn’t separated the two shots well enough in her memory to say for sure which one it was. However I think we can infer from the location she points out for the first shot and what we can see on the Zapruder film that it was the second shot that caused JFK to raise his hands.
Interesting from what perspective?
Why choose Sitzman’s years later recollections instead of Zapruder’s statements and testimony?
Maybe Marilyn Sitzman's distant memory a great example of “the Medias influence”? The echoes referred to and understood by Zapruder?
FBI DEC 4 -----Zapruder advised he could not recall but having heard only two shots and, also stated that he knew that from watching through the viewfinder that the President had been hit.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over.
Mr. LIEBELER - And with the buildings around there, too?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that--I don't know how that is.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Toward her--there are so many frames, of course, this is probably his first reaction, but he leaned over--it would be after the shot was fired, after I heard a sound, he went like this [leaning to the left and holding both hands to the left side of his chest].
Mr. LIEBELER - He moved over to his left and pulled his hands there?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].
Mr. LIEBELER -.....Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him,"
-
Interesting from what perspective?
Why choose Sitzman’s years later recollections instead of Zapruder’s statements and testimony?
Maybe Marilyn Sitzman's distant memory a great example of “the Medias influence”? The echoes referred to and understood by Zapruder?
Question: A few years ago there was a story about a couple of editors for the Dallas papers donating their raw notes to the 6th Floor Museum. These would be the notes from the reports from the reporters in the field. I would imagine the original/raw information from there - all before the news broadcasts on the shots - would be the best source on this issue. I.e., not tainted/influence by the reports.
I think the late Hugh Aynesworth donated his material to the museum. Or some institution. There might be something there about the number of shots.
-
Interesting from what perspective?
Why choose Sitzman’s years later recollections instead of Zapruder’s statements and testimony?
Maybe Marilyn Sitzman's distant memory a great example of “the Medias influence”? The echoes referred to and understood by Zapruder?
FBI DEC 4 -----Zapruder advised he could not recall but having heard only two shots and, also stated that he knew that from watching through the viewfinder that the President had been hit.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over.
Mr. LIEBELER - And with the buildings around there, too?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that--I don't know how that is.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Toward her--there are so many frames, of course, this is probably his first reaction, but he leaned over--it would be after the shot was fired, after I heard a sound, he went like this [leaning to the left and holding both hands to the left side of his chest].
Mr. LIEBELER - He moved over to his left and pulled his hands there?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area).
Mr. LIEBELER - Grab himself on the front of his chest?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].
Mr. LIEBELER -.....Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - You didn't hear any shot after you saw him hit?
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I heard the second--after the first shot--I saw him leaning over and after the second shot--it's possible after what I saw, you know, then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him,"
Why choose Sitzman’s years later recollections instead of Zapruder’s statements and testimony?
Zapruder was unsure of how many shots he heard. Sitzman was adamant she heard three shots.
Let’s take another look at part of Zapruder’s testimony and bold the parts that fit MY bias confirmation:
Mr. LIEBELER -.....Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
-
Why choose Sitzman’s years later recollections instead of Zapruder’s statements and testimony?
Zapruder was unsure of how many shots he heard. Sitzman was adamant she heard three shots.
Let’s take another look at part of Zapruder’s testimony and bold the parts that fit MY bias confirmation:
Mr. LIEBELER -.....Let me go back now for just a moment and ask you how many shots you heard altogether.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
This Zapruder statement is definitive. Definitely understood the concept of echoes.
'I never even heard a third shot.'
Marilyn Sitzman's years later recollection is suspect at best. Like everyone else the third shot is thrown into the narrative at the end.
Confirmation bias is the only explanation I can think of to ignore all the other eyewitness statements. The physical evidence does not support three shots.
-
Question: A few years ago there was a story about a couple of editors for the Dallas papers donating their raw notes to the 6th Floor Museum. These would be the notes from the reports from the reporters in the field. I would imagine the original/raw information from there - all before the news broadcasts on the shots - would be the best source on this issue. I.e., not tainted/influence by the reports.
I think the late Hugh Aynesworth donated his material to the museum. Or some institution. There might be something there about the number of shots.
The best source of information is the physical evidence provided by the shells. One thing to remember is medias influence began almost immediately based on Walter Cronkite reading Merriman Smith’s news bulletin of three shots within in minutes of the assassination. Watch the Bill Newman interview and Jay Watson correcting them as to the number of shots, because he was there. Gayle Newman is reading the news bulletin in Jay's hand before she speaks.
The “chamber mark” on the side of the shells tells the story. If you don't understand what is meant by the FBI referring to the “Chamber Mark” on the side of the shells, find a gun guy and he will explain it.
Read Josiah Thompson’s observation in Six Seconds in Dallas, (pages 140 –146 and the footnotes on page 178), of the other 30+ shells fired in the carcano by the FBI. CE 141 seals the deal by having the “chamber mark” on the side of it. It proves the expansion of the chamber due to heat and pressure is what makes the “chamber mark”. The FBI could verify the observation of Thompson by examining the shells and the carcano in the Smithsonian, but there is no need because they already verified it in the Hoover report to Rankin.
The book Phantom Shot proves what is in Six Seconds in Dallas and the book Six Seconds in Dallas proves what is in Phantom Shot.
-
There's a short snippet in the Darnell Film that shows Sitzman being interviewed in front of the Pergola Shelter behind the Zapruder Perch. I believe this would be the very 1st time she detailed what she saw/heard. Does anyone know what happened to this interview?
-
Question: A few years ago there was a story about a couple of editors for the Dallas papers donating their raw notes to the 6th Floor Museum. These would be the notes from the reports from the reporters in the field. I would imagine the original/raw information from there - all before the news broadcasts on the shots - would be the best source on this issue. I.e., not tainted/influence by the reports.
I think the late Hugh Aynesworth donated his material to the museum. Or some institution. There might be something there about the number of shots.
Steve, I think that this book might be what you are remembering regarding the original notes:
(https://i.vgy.me/lG1rZ6.jpg)
That’s a photo of the cover of my copy of it. I will take a look and see what I can find and let you know.
-
Steve, I think that this book might be what you are remembering regarding the original notes:
(https://i.vgy.me/lG1rZ6.jpg)
That’s a photo of the cover of my copy of it. I will take a look and see what I can find and let you know.
Charles: Thanks, I think that was part of it. I remember reading something about the 6th Floor Museum receiving the "raw" notes from an editor or reporter for a Dallas paper. I believe it was an editor who gave them the notes he had from the reporters in the field. I would guess that that would be "clean" information free from any influence of the news about the shots, et cetera.
-
Two "firecrackers" going "bang-bang" could never come from one bolt action rifle...
-
Charles: Thanks, I think that was part of it. I remember reading something about the 6th Floor Museum receiving the "raw" notes from an editor or reporter for a Dallas paper. I believe it was an editor who gave them the notes he had from the reporters in the field. I would guess that that would be "clean" information free from any influence of the news about the shots, et cetera.
This is from the inside flap of the cover:
“In the summer of 2012, as The News planned its coverage for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, reporter David Flick acquired copies of the notes firm the DeGolyer Library at Southern Methodist University, which houses the original documents.”
The appendix in the back of the book appears to have images of the original notes on the old yellowed paper typewritten pages. They are arranged by the names of each reporter in alphabetical order. The main section of the book contains a chronological assortment of sections of the notes. So far, all the accounts I have read indicate 3-shots heard.
-
Anything given to the Sixth Floor has entered into a Black Hole. That place is nothing more than a "FRONT" for the LN Theory. NBC "sits" on their Original Darnell Film for 61+ years and then releases the first :40 seconds through the Sixth Floor for release? "Birds Of A Feather" right there. This is No different than Time/Life sitting on the Original Zapruder Film for its' 1st 12 years of existence. So we got Time/Life + NBC + The Sixth Floor = Sewed Up.
-
Two "firecrackers" going "bang-bang" could never come from one bolt action rifle...
AND... "I would say there is a very good possibility there was somebody back there (a second gunman behind the fence), but they had a silencer..."
-
Anything given to the Sixth Floor has entered into a Black Hole. That place is nothing more than a "FRONT" for the LN Theory. NBC "sits" on their Original Darnell Film for 61+ years and then releases the first :40 seconds through the Sixth Floor for release? "Birds Of A Feather" right there. This is No different than Time/Life sitting on the Original Zapruder Film for its' 1st 12 years of existence. So we got Time/Life + NBC + The Sixth Floor = Sewed Up.
Indeed... I think any informed and rational assessment would agree with this...
-
Between the Sixth Floor Whitewash and the Physical Changes they continue making inside Dealey Plaza, they are burying the assassination of a POTUS.
-
AND... "I would say there is a very good possibility there was somebody back there (a second gunman behind the fence), but they had a silencer..."
"Did [the shots] come from the 6th floor window, being fired by Oswald? I don't know and I would never say I did... I find that the hardest to believe."
-
"Did [the shots] come from the 6th floor window, being fired by Oswald? I don't know and I would never say I did... I find that the hardest to believe."
"I have no qualms saying I'm almost sure there was someone behind the fence, or in that area."
-
"I have no qualms saying I'm almost sure there was someone behind the fence, or in that area."
"There could have been two simultaneous shots [made] at the same time [that opened his head]"
-
Charles: Thanks, I think that was part of it. I remember reading something about the 6th Floor Museum receiving the "raw" notes from an editor or reporter for a Dallas paper. I believe it was an editor who gave them the notes he had from the reporters in the field. I would guess that that would be "clean" information free from any influence of the news about the shots, et cetera.
Here’s more information:
“About This Book”
In May 1964, the top editors of the Dallas Morning News decided to collect the recollections of all staffers who took part in covering the Kennedy assassination.
Include anecdotes, personal observations and anything else that will reflect the tone of the time as well as indicate the thoroughness of our coverage,” assistant managing editor Bill Rives wrote in a memo to the staff. The original plan was for the writings to be published individually and not as part of one long narrative.
So, this may not be what you are looking for. But it does seem like (to me anyway) that they would tend to write that they heard a number other than three shots (if any of them did). None of them have said in these writings that I can find that they heard anything other than three shots.
-
Sitzman certainly wasn't an LN'r... too bad the Warren Commission had no interest in her testimony...
-
Here’s more information:
“About This Book”
In May 1964, the top editors of the Dallas Morning News decided to collect the recollections of all staffers who took part in covering the Kennedy assassination.
Include anecdotes, personal observations and anything else that will reflect the tone of the time as well as indicate the thoroughness of our coverage,” assistant managing editor Bill Rives wrote in a memo to the staff. The original plan was for the writings to be published individually and not as part of one long narrative.
So, this may not be what you are looking for. But it does seem like (to me anyway) that they would tend to write that they heard a number other than three shots (if any of them did). None of them have said in these writings that I can find that they heard anything other than three shots.
Here is fun fact. There were 70 news reporters in Dealey Plaza, James Altgens is the only eyewitness news reporter, positioned 25 feet from the limo and he stated there were two shots. Everyone else is an earwitness. Despite the WC trying to get a three shot response from him, he told them he only heard two. Altgens news flash was read by Don Pardo on ABC after CBS's Walter Cronkite- Merriman Smith's three shot news flash.
Make sure when you are making these declarations that you understand how varied and influenced these people really were. There is no way to quantify these people's statements into categories without setting parameters that define them.
-
Here is fun fact. There were 70 news reporters in Dealey Plaza, James Altgens is the only eyewitness news reporter, positioned 25 feet from the limo and he stated there were two shots. Everyone else is an earwitness. Despite the WC trying to get a three shot response from him, he told them he only heard two. Altgens news flash was read by Don Pardo on ABC after CBS's Walter Cronkite- Merriman Smith's three shot news flash.
Make sure when you are making these declarations that you understand how varied and influenced these people really were. There is no way to quantify these people's statements into categories without setting parameters that define them.
Altgens also disputed where they placed him there on Elm St inside Dealey Plaza. He claimed he was further East on Elm St. His claim was based on his camera settings. He said based on where they were placing him on Elm St vs his camera settings, his picture of JFK through the Limo windshield with the TSBD doorway in the background would have never come out. Altgens also testified that after crossing Elm St, he then followed law enforcement UP the Knoll. None of this is captured on any JFK assassination images.
-
Altgens also disputed where they placed him there on Elm St inside Dealey Plaza. He claimed he was further East on Elm St. His claim was based on his camera settings. He said based on where they were placing him on Elm St vs his camera settings, his picture of JFK through the Limo windshield with the TSBD doorway in the background would have never come out. Altgens also testified that after crossing Elm St, he then followed law enforcement UP the Knoll. None of this is captured on any JFK assassination images.
The earwitness/eyewitness debates remind of "The Invisible Gorilla." You are asked to count how many times the people dressed in white pass the basketball. In the middle of the video, a gorilla walks in. More than half of the viewers miss the gorilla, and many insist there was no gorilla when informed there was. There are many similar tests where some outrageously dressed character runs into a classroom, shoots the professor several times, and runs out. The students' recollections are all over the map.
The JFKA is like "the killer in the classroom" times 100, and Dealey Plaza is an almost perfect echo chamber.
https://www.npr.org/2010/05/19/126977945/bet-you-didnt-notice-the-invisible-gorilla
I really don't know how anyone misses the gorilla, but the giraffe is trickier.
-
The best source of information is the physical evidence provided by the shells. One thing to remember is medias influence began almost immediately based on Walter Cronkite reading Merriman Smith’s news bulletin of three shots within in minutes of the assassination. Watch the Bill Newman interview and Jay Watson correcting them as to the number of shots, because he was there. Gayle Newman is reading the news bulletin in Jay's hand before she speaks.
The “chamber mark” on the side of the shells tells the story. If you don't understand what is meant by the FBI referring to the “Chamber Mark” on the side of the shells, find a gun guy and he will explain it.
Read Josiah Thompson’s observation in Six Seconds in Dallas, (pages 140 –146 and the footnotes on page 178), of the other 30+ shells fired in the carcano by the FBI. CE 141 seals the deal by having the “chamber mark” on the side of it. It proves the expansion of the chamber due to heat and pressure is what makes the “chamber mark”. The FBI could verify the observation of Thompson by examining the shells and the carcano in the Smithsonian, but there is no need because they already verified it in the Hoover report to Rankin.
The book Phantom Shot proves what is in Six Seconds in Dallas and the book Six Seconds in Dallas proves what is in Phantom Shot.
While doing some reading on CE 543, the dented shell casing, I came across these two old threads on the Ed Forum. Tink Thompson participates on both (and in fact started one). The discussions get pretty technical, but I found them interesting
"An unfired cartridge?" (2007): https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/
'The provenance of CE 543 and Gary Murr's recent report" (2009): https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14177-the-provenance-of-ce-543-and-gary-murr%E2%80%99s-recent-report/
They also serve as a somewhat depressing reminder of the quality of the discussions on forums such as this before the inmates took over the asylum. Now I return to the real world. Walk:
-
Professionals are very conscience of their equipment. Whether it's a soldier with their weapon or a professional photographer with their camera/settings. Pros are perfectionists. They know their equipment.
You notice that the WC Never questions an eyewitness as to seeing another assassination eyewitness? WC Never asked Zapruder if he saw Wiegman running Directly at him as we see on the Bell Film. Never asked Officer Hargis if he saw Altgens running across Elm St as he/Hargis was standing at the light pole. (Couch Film). They wanted to avoid eyewitnesses Documenting who was where/when. They wanted to avoid JFK Assassination Eyewitnesses contradicting the assassination images. Altgens went out of his way to do exactly this.
-
The earwitness/eyewitness debates remind of "The Invisible Gorilla." You are asked to count how many times the people dressed in white pass the basketball. In the middle of the video, a gorilla walks in. More than half of the viewers miss the gorilla, and many insist there was no gorilla when informed there was. There are many similar tests where some outrageously dressed character runs into a classroom, shoots the professor several times, and runs out. The students' recollections are all over the map.
Our old friend Bill Chapman used to trot out the gorilla playing basketball trope. Funny, we haven't heard from him in a while...
-
While doing some reading on CE 543, the dented shell casing, I came across these two old threads on the Ed Forum. Tink Thompson participates on both (and in fact started one). The discussions get pretty technical, but I found them interesting
"An unfired cartridge?" (2007): https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/
'The provenance of CE 543 and Gary Murr's recent report" (2009): https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14177-the-provenance-of-ce-543-and-gary-murr%E2%80%99s-recent-report/
They also serve as a somewhat depressing reminder of the quality of the discussions on forums such as this before the inmates took over the asylum. Now I return to the real world. Walk:
Forget the dented lip. This is not about the dented lip or the mark from the magazine follower. Wrong indentation and mark.
Read the book. Pages 140-146 and the foot notes to the chapter on page 178. This is about the "chamber mark" as noted by the FBI, nothing else, CE 543 lacks the "chamber mark" the 30+ others do not.
Funny Josiah knew of a key piece to the puzzle back in the mid 60’s, puts it into print in his book Six Seconds in Dallas, but apparently does not understand the relevance and significance of it because he cannot weave it into a conspiracy. In 1967, he felt it proved there was a shot from somewhere else that LHO only fired twice. He must have given up on that theory. Josiah giving up on his theory in no way diminishes the importance of his observation. He is the only person to view all these shells that were fired in the rifle, compare them, and write about them.
The bottom line based on his observations, CE 543 is the only shell that lacks the indentation referred to as the “chamber mark” by the FBI, whereas the next 30+ shell casings including the unfired cartridge all exhibit to some degree the “chamber mark”. The “Chamber Mark” is not the dented lip. They are completely different, as is the mark from the magazine follower. READ THE BOOK.
-
Altgens also disputed where they placed him there on Elm St inside Dealey Plaza. He claimed he was further East on Elm St. His claim was based on his camera settings. He said based on where they were placing him on Elm St vs his camera settings, his picture of JFK through the Limo windshield with the TSBD doorway in the background would have never come out. Altgens also testified that after crossing Elm St, he then followed law enforcement UP the Knoll. None of this is captured on any JFK assassination images.
How is this post, in any stretch of the imagination, even remotely relatable to Altgens stating he only heard two shots while standing in full view, alongside the street, staring into the car as JFK was shot twice.
If you can prove there was three shots Royell by all means get after it.
-
The earwitness/eyewitness debates remind of "The Invisible Gorilla." You are asked to count how many times the people dressed in white pass the basketball. In the middle of the video, a gorilla walks in. More than half of the viewers miss the gorilla, and many insist there was no gorilla when informed there was. There are many similar tests where some outrageously dressed character runs into a classroom, shoots the professor several times, and runs out. The students' recollections are all over the map.
The JFKA is like "the killer in the classroom" times 100, and Dealey Plaza is an almost perfect echo chamber.
https://www.npr.org/2010/05/19/126977945/bet-you-didnt-notice-the-invisible-gorilla
I really don't know how anyone misses the gorilla, but the giraffe is trickier.
This is not about just seeing but seeing and hearing. Maybe the Gorilla story is not relevant when two senses are involved. An echo chamber would result in more shots not less. Like hearing three when there was only two.
A way better analogy is Group Think where people are influenced by the majority into something they know is wrong. Like Walter Cronkite stating within minutes of the assassination "three shots fired at the motorcade", Not everyone in the car with Merriman Smith agreed with that news bulletin.
An argument took place on Air Force One between the passengers (news reporters and Secret Service), on the flight back to Washington, about was there two shots or three. Three shots was never a fact.
The WC and HSCA understood it by referencing the Medias Influence into inflating the number of shots reported.
-
How is this post, in any stretch of the imagination, even remotely relatable to Altgens stating he only heard two shots while standing in full view, alongside the street, staring into the car as JFK was shot twice.
If you can prove there was three shots Royell by all means get after it.
The point is, Altgens disagreed with the WC "Company line" on many points and said so on-the-record. Why you are veering to me and how many shots I believe were fired is both puzzling and flattering.
-
The point is, Altgens disagreed with the WC "Company line" on many points and said so on-the-record. Why you are veering to me and how many shots I believe were fired is both puzzling and flattering.
Altgens disagreed with the WC
Exactly how was he disagreeing with the WC? They asked him how many shots, and he told them. Are you sure the problem isn’t the fact he is disagreeing with your odd theory.
Why you are veering to me and how many shots I believe were fired is both puzzling and flattering.
Do not be to flattered. If you think Altgens was wrong stop talking about it and prove it.
-
Forget the dented lip. This is not about the dented lip or the mark from the magazine follower. Wrong indentation and mark.
Read the book. Pages 140-146 and the foot notes to the chapter on page 178. This is about the "chamber mark" as noted by the FBI, nothing else, CE 543 lacks the "chamber mark" the 30+ others do not.
Funny Josiah knew of a key piece to the puzzle back in the mid 60’s, puts it into print in his book Six Seconds in Dallas, but apparently does not understand the relevance and significance of it because he cannot weave it into a conspiracy. In 1967, he felt it proved there was a shot from somewhere else that LHO only fired twice. He must have given up on that theory. Josiah giving up on his theory in no way diminishes the importance of his observation. He is the only person to view all these shells that were fired in the rifle, compare them, and write about them.
The bottom line based on his observations, CE 543 is the only shell that lacks the indentation referred to as the “chamber mark” by the FBI, whereas the next 30+ shell casings including the unfired cartridge all exhibit to some degree the “chamber mark”. The “Chamber Mark” is not the dented lip. They are completely different, as is the mark from the magazine follower. READ THE BOOK.
On page two of the thread Josiah Thompson asked Thomas H. Purvisabout that chamber mark in the thread that Lance provided the link to. Here’s part of his answer:
Since CE543 did not show indications of the dent and the live round did, then this tended to serve as further circumstantial evidence that CE543 came from the first shot fired in the assassination shot sequence.
Thomas provides what seems to me to be a reasonable answer READ THE THREAD.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/page/2/ (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/page/2/)
-
On page two of the thread Josiah Thompson asked Thomas H. Purvisabout that chamber mark in the thread that Lance provided the link to. Here’s part of his answer:
Since CE543 did not show indications of the dent and the live round did, then this tended to serve as further circumstantial evidence that CE543 came from the first shot fired in the assassination shot sequence.
Thomas provides what seems to me to be a reasonable answer READ THE THREAD.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/page/2/ (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/page/2/)
I could care less about Thomas Whoever. Why would you care what that clueless dufus thinks instead of reading the pages in the book for yourself? Afraid to find out it is really that simple? After all the hype for 60 years it is a letdown to realize this is the answer, prepare yourself. If you will read the pages from his book. You will know why even the dumbest of people can figure out why that is not correct and is absolutely baseless, and by using his own analysis no less. Josiah, by chance, stumbled onto the answer to the JFK assassination 60 years ago, and proved it, but what he proved was that it was not a conspiracy with real live hard evidence, which is sadly lacking in the whole story. He was right about what he interpreted about the shells in his book. What he interpreted was verified by the FBI. Maybe the bigger question is how this escaped the HSCA firearms experts who supposedly examined everything collectively.
There are at least 11 other first shot shells in the group of 30+ shells Josiah observed. Including CE557 which were the test shells fired by the FBI when they first received the rifle. His observation was the shells in CE 557 and all 30+ shells exhibited the chamber mark. No exceptions. The fact that CE 141, the unfired cartridge, has the chamber mark proves there is an anomaly in the chamber making the indentations. That was his point. Once you read and understand what he observed you will no longer want to spend time chasing your tail with all this other useless nonsense.
I have the pages from his book that are relevant on a PDF but I do not think that I can just post them. READ THE BOOK.
The book Phantom Shot proves what is in Six Seconds in Dallas and Six Seconds in Dallas proves what is in Phantom Shot.
-
I could care less about Thomas Whoever. Why would you care what that clueless dufus thinks instead of reading the pages in the book for yourself? Afraid to find out it is really that simple? After all the hype for 60 years it is a letdown to realize this is the answer, prepare yourself. If you will read the pages from his book. You will know why even the dumbest of people can figure out why that is not correct and is absolutely baseless, and by using his own analysis no less. Josiah, by chance, stumbled onto the answer to the JFK assassination 60 years ago, and proved it, but what he proved was that it was not a conspiracy with real live hard evidence, which is sadly lacking in the whole story. He was right about what he interpreted about the shells in his book. What he interpreted was verified by the FBI. Maybe the bigger question is how this escaped the HSCA firearms experts who supposedly examined everything collectively.
There are at least 11 other first shot shells in the group of 30+ shells Josiah observed. Including CE557 which were the test shells fired by the FBI when they first received the rifle. His observation was the shells in CE 557 and all 30+ shells exhibited the chamber mark. No exceptions. The fact that CE 141, the unfired cartridge, has the chamber mark proves there is an anomaly in the chamber making the indentations. That was his point. Once you read and understand what he observed you will no longer want to spend time chasing your tail with all this other useless nonsense.
I have the pages from his book that are relevant on a PDF but I do not think that I can just post them. READ THE BOOK.
The book Phantom Shot proves what is in Six Seconds in Dallas and Six Seconds in Dallas proves what is in Phantom Shot.
Thomas H. Purvis’ posts in that thread indicate to me that he is knowledgeable and his explanation makes good sense to me. I imagine that Josiah Thompson thought so too. Otherwise, why would Josiah bother to ask him the questions? You are welcome to your own opinions as far as I am concerned Jack. I just disagree. If we all thought alike we wouldn’t have much of anything to discuss. I will private message you with a place you can send me the pdf. I will read the relevant pages with an open mind if you do that.
-
On page two of the thread Josiah Thompson asked Thomas H. Purvisabout that chamber mark in the thread that Lance provided the link to. Here’s part of his answer:
Since CE543 did not show indications of the dent and the live round did, then this tended to serve as further circumstantial evidence that CE543 came from the first shot fired in the assassination shot sequence.
Thomas provides what seems to me to be a reasonable answer READ THE THREAD.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/page/2/ (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/page/2/)
Yes, Purvis seemed quite knowledgeable to me, although the late Robert Prudhomme dismissed his analysis as "bull crap." As I understood what Purvis was saying, the chamber marks (or lack thereof) would vary according to the thermal conditions in the chamber, with the first shot obviously being in the "coolest" chamber and thus the least likely to be marked by the chamber wall. I don't want to pretend to more expertise than I have (pretty much none!), but I did look at several online forensic discussions and manuals and they seemed consistent with what Purvis was saying. I would logically think that the possibility of reload ammunition being used and/or the quality of the rifle might also be significant.
FWIW, here is Michael Griffith's piece on CE 543, which quotes Thompson on the "chamber marks" issue: https://maryferrell.org/archive/essays/mgriffith/dent.pdf
As you seem to be, I am always skeptical of arguments that purport to be CONCLUSIVE when there are so many potential variables. This is true of both LN and CT arguments. Six Seconds in Dallas had been published more than ten years before the HSCA firearms panel examined CE 543, but they do not seem to have noted the chamber marks issue at all (they did discuss extractor marks, which are different).
-
It bears repeating... "bang, bang" could not come from one bolt action rifle...
-
Yes, Purvis seemed quite knowledgeable to me, although the late Robert Prudhomme dismissed his analysis as "bull crap." As I understood what Purvis was saying, the chamber marks (or lack thereof) would vary according to the thermal conditions in the chamber, with the first shot obviously being in the "coolest" chamber and thus the least likely to be marked by the chamber wall. I don't want to pretend to more expertise than I have (pretty much none!), but I did look at several online forensic discussions and manuals and they seemed consistent with what Purvis was saying. I would logically think that the possibility of reload ammunition being used and/or the quality of the rifle might also be significant.
FWIW, here is Michael Griffith's piece on CE 543, which quotes Thompson on the "chamber marks" issue: https://maryferrell.org/archive/essays/mgriffith/dent.pdf
As you seem to be, I am always skeptical of arguments that purport to be CONCLUSIVE when there are so many potential variables. This is true of both LN and CT arguments. Six Seconds in Dallas had been published more than ten years before the HSCA firearms panel examined CE 543, but they do not seem to have noted the chamber marks issue at all (they did discuss extractor marks, which are different).
Thanks Lance, I have seen Michael Griffith around this forum from time to time. So, I didn’t need to guess what his position would be. His piece does contain some information that I find helpful. I agree with your skepticism regarding “conclusive” arguments. Listening to reason is typically not a part of their arguments. At this point in time I want to continue to investigate some more. I might even have to obtain a Carcano rifle to experiment with before I can form a solid opinion. I have been wanting one for a while now. This discussion might just be the catalyst that makes it happen….