http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=69157&imageOnly=true
"Secret Service Agent, Paul E. Landis. Jr., wrote a statement on the shooting dated 11/30/63. Landis was in the follow-up car,
behind the Presidential Limo, on the outside running board on the right. He indicated that the first shot "sounded like the
report of a high- powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder."
According to his statement, the shot he identified as number two might have come from a different direction.
He said: "I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot
came from somewhere towards the front right hand side of the road."
I find Max Holland's scientific analysis of the cartridge casings' ejection pattern in the reconstructed sniper's nest to be probative of a sharply downward-angled first shot's having occurred a second or two before Z-133.
-- MWT ;)
The shell casing positioning suggests he ejected the Ce 543 empty shell casing while watching and waiting for the motorcade to arrive. He then moved to the East and positioned himself behind the rifle rest and prepared to fire at JFK after he turned onto Elm Street.
I find Max Holland's scientific analysis of the cartridge casings' ejection pattern in the reconstructed sniper's nest to be probative of a sharply downward-angled first shot's having occurred a second or two before Z-133.
-- MWT ;)
Jack,
I guess you haven't watched The Lost Bullet.
It not only shows how the three casings ended up where they did by ricocheting off the boxes around him, but also shows how he could have sat on one of the boxes he had placed "just so," and leaned out from it to peek out the window up Houston Street while waiting for the motorcade to arrive.
By holding his rifle or having it near by, standing up from that box would have put him in his first firing position without his even having to take a step, and for his second and third shots, all he would have had to do was kneel down from that standing position.
-- MWT ;)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/i3b4av.jpg)
The early shot alongside the boxes didn't work for me.
Interesting, are those vertical objects to the left of the boxes supposed to be the pipes?
Yes. Sorry I'm such a poor 3D artist.
Something isn’t quite right. They shouldn’t be in his line of sight from his seat on the box.
Edited and bumped for Charles Collins.
-- MWT ;)
He wasn't sitting on the box while firing any of the three shots.
Watch The Lost Bullet, again, for cryin' out loud.
I'll find out how many minutes into the video for you to start watching, and post it here for you, okay?
-- MWT ;)
Edit: The segment in The Lost Bullet where they analyze the sniper's position, how the spent casings ended up where they did, etc., etc., starts at 43:56 ...
Google "the lost bullet" video
(https://i.postimg.cc/8CsJZXB9/whatstheproblemd-zpsatodspu8.jpg)
JohnM
Something isn’t quite right. They shouldn’t be in his line of sight from his seat on the box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8CsJZXB9/whatstheproblemd-zpsatodspu8.jpg)
JohnM
What makes you think shots were taken while seated on the box? I should think that Oswald had to right at that window in order to be seen from the street.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/sginap.jpg)
View angle for Z133 shot. Holland places his early shot a little before this.
Eye level is good and I suppose up to three seconds of tracking (limousine length is roughly two-seconds of travel??).
I think it's hilarious but tragic that people are still trying to "shoehorn" LHO into that window with malicious intent. There are a lot of potential assassins I'd be concerned about, but "Lee Hardly" is not one of them, especially with his unimpressive shooting record and that embarrassing rifle. Virtually every bit of evidence in this case has been tampered with or has a dubious chain of possession. Autopsy witnesses reported bullets and fragments recovered that were never introduced as evidence.
If there was a lone assassin, everything would line up perfectly and there would be no controversy. What we find is quite the opposite, with corrupt officials at the highest levels of our government covering up the truth from the outset.
You nutters are aware that Max Holland is a paid shill of the CIA, right? The guy is so oily, he makes me ill. He has concocted some of the most idiotic assassination scenarios I've ever heard and you people quote this genius? Again, it's embarrassing. Holland and Posner should start a detective agency together...
Again, I have to beg all of you: DON'T EAT THE CHEESE! IT'S A TRAP AND YOU ARE DECEIVING HISTORY! It is painfully obvious LHO was the patsy he claimed to be and it is an atrocity that you duped nutters continue to perpetuate the impossible notion of a lone assassin. The cockamamie story concocted by Specter needs to be filed in the only appropriate place for such malodorous waste: the toilet at the National Archives...
I think it's hilarious but tragic that people are still trying to "shoehorn" LHO into that window with malicious intent. There are a lot of potential assassins I'd be concerned about, but "Lee Hardly" is not one of them, especially with his unimpressive shooting record and that embarrassing rifle. Virtually every bit of evidence in this case has been tampered with or has a dubious chain of possession. Autopsy witnesses reported bullets and fragments recovered that were never introduced as evidence.
If there was a lone assassin, everything would line up perfectly and there would be no controversy. What we find is quite the opposite, with corrupt officials at the highest levels of our government covering up the truth from the outset.
You nutters are aware that Max Holland is a paid shill of the CIA, right? The guy is so oily, he makes me ill. He has concocted some of the most idiotic assassination scenarios I've ever heard and you people quote this genius? Again, it's embarrassing. Holland and Posner should start a detective agency together...
Again, I have to beg all of you: DON'T EAT THE CHEESE! IT'S A TRAP AND YOU ARE DECEIVING HISTORY! It is painfully obvious LHO was the patsy he claimed to be and it is an atrocity that you duped nutters continue to perpetuate the impossible notion of a lone assassin. The cockamamie story concocted by Specter needs to be filed in the only appropriate place for such malodorous waste: the toilet at the National Archives...
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2lthny8.jpg)
In my model there is room for the left leg to brace itself between the pipe and Box C and plenty of room for the right leg. Possibly the right foot braced against a box on the floor.
I am using a 5' 9" generic male standing model that I manually articulated (SketchUp doesn't allow articulated models that intuitively reset facets like more-advanced programs). When I bend the joints, facets retain their "standing" positions. I have left the hips and above articulated.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2lthny8.jpg)
In my model there is room for the left leg to brace itself between the pipe and Box C and plenty of room for the right leg. Possibly the right foot braced against a box on the floor. He would be seated on Box D.
I am using a 5' 9" generic male standing model that I manually articulated (SketchUp doesn't allow articulated models that intuitively reset facets like more-advanced programs). When I bend the joints, facets retain their "standing" positions. I have left the hips and above unarticulated.
More WC "sleight of hand-y" work.Once it's realized the "limo front/bumper" is not the same location as "JFK within the limo" you might have a better appreciation for what they were trying to accomplish.
(https://s3.gifyu.com/images/Sniper.gif)
I think it's hilarious but tragic that people are still trying to "shoehorn" LHO into that window with malicious intent. There are a lot of potential assassins I'd be concerned about, but "Lee Hardly" is not one of them, especially with his unimpressive shooting record and that embarrassing rifle. Virtually every bit of evidence in this case has been tampered with or has a dubious chain of possession. Autopsy witnesses reported bullets and fragments recovered that were never introduced as evidence.
If there was a lone assassin, everything would line up perfectly and there would be no controversy. What we find is quite the opposite, with corrupt officials at the highest levels of our government covering up the truth from the outset.
You nutters are aware that Max Holland is a paid shill of the CIA, right? The guy is so oily, he makes me ill. He has concocted some of the most idiotic assassination scenarios I've ever heard and you people quote this genius? Again, it's embarrassing. Holland and Posner should start a detective agency together...
Again, I have to beg all of you: DON'T EAT THE CHEESE! IT'S A TRAP AND YOU ARE DECEIVING HISTORY! It is painfully obvious LHO was the patsy he claimed to be and it is an atrocity that you duped nutters continue to perpetuate the impossible notion of a lone assassin. The cockamamie story concocted by Specter needs to be filed in the only appropriate place for such malodorous waste: the toilet at the National Archives...
| (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338712/m1/1/small_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339097/m1/1/small_res/) |
Once again, just nonsensical cheap shots. I would gladly debate anyone in any venue on these issues...
Interesting but the problem is this shot never happened. Not one eyewitness in Dealey Plaza ever heard this shot. Nobody at all. Especially not the men below the SN window.
BR WILLIAMS 11/22, Sheriffs Affidavit : "I heard 2 shots. It sounded like they came from just above us. We ran to the West side of the building. We didn't see anybody. "
James Jarman:
He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building.
Interesting but the problem is this shot never happened. Not one eyewitness in Dealey Plaza ever heard this shot. Nobody at all. Especially not the men below the SN window.
BR WILLIAMS 11/22, Sheriffs Affidavit : "I heard 2 shots. It sounded like they came from just above us. We ran to the West side of the building. We didn't see anybody. "
James Jarman:
He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png)
One second after the Z150s shot that caused the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy to turn their heads to their right and motivated Rosemary Willis to start to slow down so she could stop.
James Jarman to the W.C.
"Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, (one)or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.
Mr. BALL - You thought it was what?
Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot (two)was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot (three)was fired right behind the second one.
Mr. BALL - Were you still on your knees looking up?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President.
Seems Jarman thought he heard three shots.
Seems simple enough, Jarman states the 2nd shot takes place before the limousine speeds away then another shot. Shot one is the neck/throat shot. Shot two is the head shot. The car speeds away and a third shot after the head shot?"He said a third shot was heard by him closely following the second shot possibly within/ second or two afterward."
James Jarman:
He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building.
"He said a third shot was heard by him closely following the second shot possibly within/ second or two afterward."
So you confirm he thought he heard three shots. Good.
Like so many others they add a shot. I am glad to see you are confirming he said the second shot was the headshot and a shot followed as the car was leaving Dealey Plaza.Where did i confirm that the second shot was the headshot?
Obviously you understood what he stated or there would not have been a reason to quote a later statement.
Where did i confirm that the second shot was the headshot?
I quoted him to contradict your belief that there were only two shots not three. You seem to have quoted guy who disagrees with you.
That is not what Rosemary's parents or any other adult for that matter stated occurred. Why quote a child being interviewed 15 years later for a school paper instead of the adult eyewitnesses making statements at that time?
Marilyn Willis (FBI Report on 6-19-64) "...when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds later she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy's head "blow off and ringed by a red halo." She stated she believes she heard another shot following this."
Phil Willis:
Willis believed the first short was at Z202 with his Willis No 5 photo. He mentions Willis no. 4 as being several seconds before.
FBI Affidavit 6/23/64
WILLIS advised that at just about the time that the
limousine carrying President Kennedy was opposite the Stemmons Freeway road
sign he heard a loud report and knew immediate1y it was a rifle shot
and knew also the shot "had hit.
Warren Commission
Mr. LIEBELER. Now did you stand at that particular spot the entire time, or did you move down Elm Street?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.
| Liebeler | You couldn’t tell whether he was hit by the first shot? You couldn’t tell whether he had been hit by the first shot or the second shot or the third shot, or by how many shots he had been hit? | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) |
| Willis | No, sir; except this one thing might be worthy of mention. When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively. It did cause me to wonder. | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) |
| Liebeler | You say that the President looked toward his left; is that correct? Toward the side of Elm Street that you are standing on, or which way? | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) |
| Willis | In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. |
================
Jackie's Theodore White interview. She describes two shots with the first hitting both men.
They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connelly grabbing his arms and saying `no no no nonono,' with his fist beating--then Jack turned and I turned--all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead; then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--he was holding out his hand--and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap
No, he clearly stated in the statement, it was there for all to read:
"He said a third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot possibly within/second or two afterward"
You read his statement and understood he was talking about a second shot headshot because you felt the need to quote his WC statement in which he states the exact same thing. The car accelerates after the second shot and before the third. The acceleration takes place after the second shot headshot as evidenced by the Zapruder film.
Jarman WC: "and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot (three)was fired right behind the second one."
Rosemary's slowing-and-stopping is like the head turns of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy. It is substantiated by the Zapruder film.
I believe she was standing pretty far up on Elm.
Since you brought up Phil Willis:
Liebeler You couldn’t tell whether he was hit by the first shot? You couldn’t tell whether he had been hit by the first shot or the second shot or the third shot, or by how many shots he had been hit? (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Willis No, sir; except this one thing might be worthy of mention. When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively. It did cause me to wonder. (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Liebeler You say that the President looked toward his left; is that correct? Toward the side of Elm Street that you are standing on, or which way? (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Willis In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street.
When asked for specifics, Willis backed off his cavalier claims that Kennedy was hit by the first shot and that his 05 slide was taken at the instant of the shot.
She certainly doesn't do what you claim she does with that statement.
I don't understand your point Jack. He said there were three shots. You only two.
"Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?
Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.
Mr. McCLOY You have had military experience, haven't you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you can recognize rifle shots when you hear them?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - But you didn't hear, you didn't catch the sound of the bolt moving?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Did you see the President actually hit by the bullets?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir. I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit, but after the second shot, I presumed that he was, because I had my eye on his car from the time it came down Houston until the time it started toward the freeway underpass.
Mr. McCLOY - You saw him crumple, you saw him fall, did you?
Mr. JARMAN - I saw him lean his head.
Representative FORD - You actually saw the car lurch forward, did you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD That is a distinct impression?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Representative FORD - And you had followed it as it turned from Main on to Houston and followed it as it turned from Houston on to Elm?
Mr. JARMAN - Right, sir.
Representative FORD - Had your eye on the car all the time?
Mr JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot came from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below. That is what I thought.
Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking at the President's car.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether the sound came from your left or from your right?
Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.
Representative FORD - But your first reaction, that is was from below.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - When the second shot came, do you have any different recollection?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, they all sounded just about the same.
Representative FORD - You distinctly recall three shots?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - And at what point did you get up from where you were on your knees in the window?
Mr. JARMAN - When the motorcar picked up speed.
Representative FORD - Was this after what you thought was the third shot?
Mr. JARMAN - The third shot; yes.
Representative FORD - McCloy said you had been in the army 8 years, two 4-year hitches. Was there any doubt in your mind that this was a gunshot, either one of the three?
Mr. JARMAN - Not after the second shot. I didn't have any doubt in my mind then.
Could not be more clear. He states he reacts to the first shot by leaning forward.(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png)
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z170.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z178.jpg) | |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z170.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z178.jpg) |
Just like he always stated the reaction to the shot made him take the picture.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jackie clearly states he reacts to the first shot. She also references Gov Connally crying out to the same shot that hit JFK. She is not going to explain a noise that never occurred because someone comes up with an odd theory someday in the future.
An early missed shot never happened. How that is known is the eyewitnesses state what happened. Why base the understanding of the shot sequence of the assassination off the beliefs of a 10 year old girl and ignore all the adults stating an entirely different story?
I think you do understand perfectly. You are saying there was a shot after the headshot as the car accelerated and was leaving Dealey Plaza.Where did i state that Jack?
We know who you think the shooter is. What does this say about your gullibility? Asking me to name the shooter is pretty silly, isn't it? Shouldn't you be more concerned there are no exit wounds on the front of JFK's body? A logical inference from a rear head shot would be that the face would be blown out, right? Instead, there's not a single report from Parkland of an exit wound on the front of the body. The only reports of a rear entry come from Connally's wounds. We also know the SBT is 100% impossible since several witnesses reported Humes' frustration at finding no point of exit for the back wound. If this bullet failed to transit the body, how could it be a threat to Governor Connally? Sorry pal, this annihilates your SBT, but then so does every other shred of evidence in this case. Your turn...I agree. But think of this. They don't understand logic. That is why they want to talk about Max Holland's suggestion that a bullet was shot when the car passed under a streetlight post and it was this bullet that missed because they guess it must of caromed of the interfering streetlight post. Then they try to support Max Holland by trying to suggest that in a couple films where there is evidence of human reaction to gunfire . The problem is for the idea to be plausible they would have to say a bullet would be moving at 5 mph or the speed of sound is like 5 mph because by the time you see human reaction to gunfire the limo it is like 5 miles from the point that it passed under the post. All this and they can't even prove that any shoots came from the building. i swear next they will say LHO was not seen in the window (we know he wasn't) because he was actually inside one of the boxes. I actually don't believe he was on that floor but even if a person tried to shoot at a passing limo, that limo's passengers would show their a reaction to gunfire way sooner and not way down the road like they admit
I agree. But think of this. They don't understand logic. That is why they want to talk about Max Holland's suggestion that a bullet was shot when the car passed under a streetlight post and it was this bullet that missed because they guess it must of caromed of the interfering streetlight post. Then they try to support Max Holland by trying to suggest that in a couple films where there is evidence of human reaction to gunfire . The problem is for the idea to be plausible they would have to say a bullet would be moving at 5 mph or the speed of sound is like 5 mph because by the time you see human reaction to gunfire the limo it is like 5 miles from the point that it passed under the post. All this and they can't even prove that any shoots came from the building. i swear next they will say LHO was not seen in the window (we know he wasn't) because he was actually inside one of the boxes. I actually don't believe he was on that floor but even if a person tried to shoot at a passing limo, that limo's passengers would show their a reaction to gunfire way sooner and not way down the road like they admit
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png)
"he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward" (see above)
"In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead ... when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward" (see above)
Jackie turns from looking to her left to looking to her right in the early Z170s. Willis was very close to Jackie by then and could see this clearly.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z170.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z178.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z170.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z178.jpg)
"When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead,
and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the
first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less
faced the other side of the street and leaned forward" (WC testimony)
"Well, after having photographed the President on Main Street and on Houston Street and
then in front of the Depository Building on Elm Street I cocked my camera for another
picture and this loud shot went off and the first reaction was that could it be a crank or a
firecracker but it was so loud and of such a sound it had to be rifle so I became alarmed.
I was trying to take a picture at the moment and the reflex from the shot caused me to
take one of these pictures." (Shaw trial)
Where does she say that?
Not with this:
"They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that;
I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connelly grabbing his arms and saying `no no no nonono,'
with his fist beating--then Jack turned and I turned--all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead;
then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a
piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--he was holding out his hand--and I can see
this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap"
Everything specific Rosemary Willis and her parents say is substantiated by the Zapruder film. Phil Willis made a generalization about his most important slide being "instantaneous" with the first shot (or having captured Kennedy's reaction to the first shot which means the first shot occurred before he took his 05 slide). Willis was selling a slide set at the time.
Where did i state that Jack?
I'm saying there were three shots. You say two. Jarman says three. You quoted him so you must believe him, otherwise why quote him?
Willis's memory like everyone else did not improve with time and is proven by how much more vague he becomes as time went by. I know you try to pinpoint the first shot by the coordinated movements of the Jackie, JFK, and JBC. The memory recall of these movements and that anyone would note them is sketchy at best.
Few people make any statement as to the wounding of JBC at all let alone what he was doing.
It is easier to use the statements of the eyewitness and coordinate their common observations. Basically they state they hear the first shot and see JFK react. They also state where this occurred on the street by relating it to where they were standing. No one states there was an early missed shot.
They all place it in the same general location as Willis with his photo.
Hugh Betzner took a photo slightly before Willis (Z186) and completely corroborates Willis's statement that it was the first shot. Betzner also stated and describes that there were two shots.
Hugh Betzner 11/22
"....I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following:
I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. ...."
-----------------------------
Jackie hears, what is to her a loud backfire, different than the others.
I assume Jackie did not have a great deal of experience with the sound of rifles discharging but she does her best by noting the difference. JBC is wounded at exactly the same time,
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z174.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z193.jpg) |
I am unaware of him having any issues with Tourette's Syndrome and just cries out for no reason. JFK having a piece of his skull separate from his head which would definitely be an indicator of a bullet impact. Her WC statement is definitely more detailed.
Jarman was not lying, he added a shot like so many others.
In general it is believed there was not a shot after the headshot. So what is Jarman describing? Both the WC and the HSCA made statements about the media heavily influencing the witnesses resulting in the inflating of the number of shots.
WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"
HSCA Conclusion: "they may well 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 have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
Your turn. You think Jarman was lying about a second shot headshot and a first shot that wounded both JFK and JBC but you thought it was alright to quote him anyway to make some strange point? Apparently the content of the statement does not matter. It is just a matter of whether they stated three shots or not.
What I have presented is a possible alternative to the bullet missing because it hit the traffic signal. I have cited several additional reasons, that Holland didn't include, in my first post as evidence of an early first shot. The Scearce article explains the reactions of the limo occupants much better than I could. Here is the last paragraph from that article:If you believe someone's first shot from the window(if that is where it came from) and it hit the streetlight post, then you also would have to say the limo was not below the streetlight
The single bullet theory and the rear head shot are settled issues, the forests and terabytes that continue to be consumed debating these subjects notwithstanding. The only remaining major forensic questions concern the missed 1st shot. As to those questions, the Z155–Z157 consensus timing is a millstone. The torch has been passed to original thinkers like Holland and Rush. They are helping uncover what has been “hidden in plain view” for over four decades. The open-minded among us owe them a fair hearing in their journey through the heretofore undiscovered country of the Kennedy assassination towards the final truth.
Do you consider yourself open-minded?
If you believe someone's first shot from the window(if that is where it came from) and it hit the streetlight post, then you also would have to say the limo was not below the streetlight
Peter, the reason why I think the first bullet missed the entire limo and it's occupants is not dependent upon the bullet hitting the traffic signal or it's post. I believe it is more likely that the rifle collided with the cardboard box. And that the collision stopped the tracking motion of the rifle, but the target kept moving. Therefore the bullet simply went into the pavement behind the limo. (By the way a streetlight is different from a traffic signal. So please use the proper term so people won't get confused.)That is interesting, especially assuming 3 shots came from that window. So explain at what point did this shooter start this tracking motion with this rifle.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png)
"he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward" (see above)
"In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead ... when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward" (see above)
Jackie turns from looking to her left to looking to her right in the early Z170s. Willis was very close to Jackie by then and could see this clearly.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z170.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z133-z199/z178.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z170.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z178.jpg)
"When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead,
and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the
first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less
faced the other side of the street and leaned forward" (WC testimony)
"Well, after having photographed the President on Main Street and on Houston Street and
then in front of the Depository Building on Elm Street I cocked my camera for another
picture and this loud shot went off and the first reaction was that could it be a crank or a
firecracker but it was so loud and of such a sound it had to be rifle so I became alarmed.
I was trying to take a picture at the moment and the reflex from the shot caused me to
take one of these pictures." (Shaw trial)
Where does she say that?
Not with this:
"They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that;
I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connelly grabbing his arms and saying `no no no nonono,'
with his fist beating--then Jack turned and I turned--all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead;
then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a
piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--he was holding out his hand--and I can see
this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap"
Everything specific Rosemary Willis and her parents say is substantiated by the Zapruder film. Phil Willis made a generalization about his most important slide being "instantaneous" with the first shot (or having captured Kennedy's reaction to the first shot which means the first shot occurred before he took his 05 slide). Willis was selling a slide set at the time.
You missed out "in my opinion", Jack.
My turn o.k., but first answer the question I asked you, Jack.
You wrote, "You are saying there was a shot after the headshot as the car accelerated and was leaving Dealey Plaza."
Where did I say that?
I just don't understand why you would quote a witness who disagrees with your conclusion, that there were only two shots. Why do that?
Phil Willis put a time stamp on the first shot by clicking the shutter on his camera when the sound
of that shot startled him.
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205%20arrow.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/willis%205_1.jpg)
That is interesting, especially assuming 3 shots came from that window. So explain at what point did this shooter start this tracking motion with this rifle.
Do you even understand what you are saying? When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's film,
I mean, we already have Brennan, if you believe his description of a shooter as "did not seem to be in any hurry".
Why not just say this shooter in the middle of this tracking motion decided to stop and light a cigarette for the hell of it
I get it, the rifle collided with the cardboard, the shot is fired, but the bullet hits the pavement and not the intended target.
Then after this apparent blunder, it is followed by a couple of perfect recovery shots.
Wouldn't that be something? BS: BS: BS:
This is good. Lots of useless posting trying to obscure the point. You realize there was never an early missed shot or you would not be deliberately misquoting these witnesses in an attempt to give the idea there was one.
Every Z frame is approximately 1 foot of travel
Willis photo The WC thought it was Z210, The HSCA thought it was Z202.
Betzner takes his photo at Z186 and is rewinding the camera and hears the first shot afterwards.
------------------------
Mary Woodward places the shot after Z204, Her reference to 40 yards is after he passes her not before .
Woodward said the earsplitting noise happened after JFK turned forward not before and JFK does not turn forward until Z204+
Mary Woodward
"After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right."
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z153.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z162.jpg) |
----------------------
Jean Newman: the first shot occurs after he passes her. The Chisms standing a few yards further down Elm Street said the first shot occurred right before them.
------------------------
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z170.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z200.jpg) |
Jackie is answering the question from Rankin, not describing the wounding of JBC.
Mr. RANKIN. "Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots? is a description of the total number of shots."
Jackie: "Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling" Jackie in her WC statement dismisses the thought there was three shots and states there was only two
----------------------------
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember.
And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two
She could not have been any clearer on that point of two shots vs three shots. She references the medias influence the same as the WC and the HSCA.
Marine infantry training would make a little interference from a box seem like nothing to get worried about.What a comparison, now I understand how you come up with these ideas that fall out of the range of possibility.
(https://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/815/cached.offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/news/SUC/2-20170512061223134.jpg)
In my opinion Ray, while attempting to be clever and despite his conspiracy beliefs, managed to stupidly quote James Jarman in the belief he was quoting a three shot testimony, not realizing he was really endorsing SBT with a second shot as the headshot as described by Jarman. Also in my opinion, Ray seemingly lacks the intestinal fortitude to admit his mistake. Also in my opinion, I doubt Ray has the where with all to realize there really was just two shots.Ignoring the childish insults, Jack, you don't seem to understand that Jarman didn't see any of the shots hit the President (His sworn testimony to the W.C.) how could he have seen which hit the President?
What a comparison, now I understand how you come up with these ideas that fall out of the range of possibility.
That is interesting, especially assuming 3 shots came from that window. So explain at what point did this shooter start this tracking motion with this rifle.
Do you even understand what you are saying? When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's film,
I mean, we already have Brennan, if you believe his description of a shooter as "did not seem to be in any hurry".
Why not just say this shooter in the middle of this tracking motion decided to stop and light a cigarette for the hell of it
I get it, the rifle collided with the cardboard, the shot is fired, but the bullet hits the pavement and not the intended target.
Then after this apparent blunder, it is followed by a couple of perfect recovery shots.
Wouldn't that be something? BS: BS: BS:
I think it's hilarious but tragic that people are still trying to "shoehorn" LHO into that window with malicious intent. There are a lot of potential assassins I'd be concerned about, but "Lee Hardly" is not one of them, especially with his unimpressive shooting record and that embarrassing rifle. Virtually every bit of evidence in this case has been tampered with or has a dubious chain of possession. Autopsy witnesses reported bullets and fragments recovered that were never introduced as evidence.
That is interesting, especially assuming 3 shots came from that window. So explain at what point did this shooter start this tracking motion with this rifle.
Do you even understand what you are saying? When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's film,
I mean, we already have Brennan, if you believe his description of a shooter as "did not seem to be in any hurry".
Why not just say this shooter in the middle of this tracking motion decided to stop and light a cigarette for the hell of it
I get it, the rifle collided with the cardboard, the shot is fired, but the bullet hits the pavement and not the intended target.
Then after this apparent blunder, it is followed by a couple of perfect recovery shots.
Wouldn't that be something? BS: BS: BS:
If you ever wake up to reality, you might understand that they are not only feasible but probable. And that the point I am making is that marines are trained not to loose their composure, and to focus on hitting their targets even under intense attack from the enemy. Therefore a little bump into an unarmed small box with a rifle is not likely to deter one from hitting the target on the next two shots.Reality? The problem is your idea is not probable and it is not even possible based on the information you presented. I did not know the assassin had an enemy I thought the assassin had a target. Did JFK have a weapon? Was the assassin more of a sniper or a soldier in combat. You could take you general ideas of marine and say it had to be Oswald.
Reality? The problem is your idea is not probable and it is not even possible based on the information you presented. I did not know the assassin had an enemy I thought the assassin had a target. Did JFK have a weapon? Was the assassin more of a sniper or a soldier in combat. You could take you general ideas of marine and say it had to be Oswald.
Did JFK have a weapon?
Ignoring the childish insults, Jack, you don't seem to understand that Jarman didn't see any of the shots hit the President (His sworn testimony to the W.C.) how could he have seen which hit the President?
His sworn testimony.
"Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?
Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.
Mr. McCLOY You have had military experience, haven't you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you can recognize rifle shots when you hear them?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - But you didn't hear, you didn't catch the sound of the bolt moving?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Did you see the President actually hit by the bullets?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir. I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit, but after the second shot, I presumed that he was, because I had my eye on his car from the time it came down Houston until the time it started toward the freeway underpass.
Mr. McCLOY - You saw him crumple, you saw him fall, did you? Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?
Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.
So Jack's "evidence" that Jarman' second shot was to the head is wrong. Nowhere does Jarman say the second shot hit the President in the head. He is reported to have said (note NOT actually said)
"he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. [Throat shot?] After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building."
Nowhere does he say he saw a shot hit the President in the head.
So the third shot he heard was the head shot.
So he heard three shots. Q.E.D.
Willis thought his 05 slide matched Z226. That's why he claimed his most-commercial slide showed Kennedy had been hit and was reacting to the first shot.
He's definitely not looking down and winding his camera prior to Z207. So no tie to him hearing a shot at Z202. Could be looking down and winding his camera by Z223.
"The car proceeded down Elm, and when it was about 40 yards
from us, we heard the first noise"
She says "from us" not "pass us". This means the car was approaching her.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z153.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z162.jpg)
The "first" of two shots Newman has a recollection of would have to occur much later than Z202 if she was accurate about the President having passed her.
The Chisms likewise could only recall two shots, the head shot and what I believe to be the shot before that. From their same-day affidavits, the "first" shot supposedly struck the President. Mr. Chism said:
"And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this
side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot"
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z170.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z200.jpg)
Kennedy waves through the Z200s and beyond. JFK is more "in front of me" at Z223 than Z202.
In my opinion, many of the "two shots" witnesses could have heard three shots and have a recollection of just two. Seems many of them (ie: Bretzner) acknowledge the possibility of a third shot. The "three shots" witnesses seem more sure of the count.
The early media reports claimed Kennedy was struck on the first shot. This may have influenced many, including Mrs. Connally.
Maybe? But what we do know is that the SS agents were packing some serious weaponry.Were they an enemy? They were drunk
(https://www.inquirer.com/resizer/v7iLMeqTtbc-9KFnumrvAGyyaSM=/1400x932/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/HD362SB5CREDRJUTBOQEUT3SAM.jpg)
JohnM
Maybe? But what we do know is that the SS agents were packing some serious weaponry.
(https://www.inquirer.com/resizer/v7iLMeqTtbc-9KFnumrvAGyyaSM=/1400x932/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/HD362SB5CREDRJUTBOQEUT3SAM.jpg)
JohnM
The rifle can be seen in approximately the same position and at a similar angle to what is seen in the mock-up image. The sniper's left arm appears in the lower right corner of the window, similar to what is seen in the mock-up image.
If he had tried to take a shot at JFK while they were approaching the TSBD on Houston Street, chances are good that the sniper would have been spotted and shots fired back at him. Waiting for the limousine to start down Elm Street was part of a good ambush plan.Who is "he"? It could've been "she". Whoever it was got away, but the credit was given to some guy name Oswald
When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's filmLook at the stabilized clip of Hugh's film you see the SS follow- up car turning on to Elm Street. Now place the Prez limo in front of the follow-up car and it would be very close to crossing the area under the arm/post holding the traffic light. if someone was in the 6th fl window how were they positioned exactly at the time Hugh's film cuts out, because I don't see anything. When you zoom in on any of these pictures you can see whatever you want to see. Sometimes I, unfortunately, see Oprah Winfrey but I blink and I know it was not her.
Thank you for pointing this out. It gave me incentive to investigate this further. I believe that it is visible on the Hugh's film.
A view of the sniper's window from Hughes' position as generated by my mock-up should give us an idea of what it should look like just before Z133:
(https://i.vgy.me/w1YyrA.png)
Here is a stabilized clip of the end of the segment of Hughe's film that includes the beginning of the tracking motion (but still is still about two seconds before when I believe the first shot was made):
(https://i.vgy.me/2bMxHc.gif)
P.S. This clip from the Hughes film is one that I downloaded a number of years ago. I don't remember who created it. But it was probably someone from this forum. So if you recognize it, please let me know who created it so I can properly credit them.
Here is an enlarged portion of the last frame in that clip:
(https://i.vgy.me/hs0dmV.jpg)
The rifle can be seen in approximately the same position and at a similar angle to what is seen in the mock-up image. The sniper's left arm appears in the lower right corner of the window, similar to what is seen in the mock-up image.
If you use a program to view the Hughes film clip (like irfanview) which allows you to enlarge the clip and watch the motion at the same time, you can see that the rifle isn't there at the beginning of the clip but appears near the end. This is the sniper tracking the target.
Where?
Right where I described and showed in the mock-up image. I see it best when using irfanview https://www.irfanview.com/ (https://www.irfanview.com/). Just download the clip, open it with irfanview, click on the magnifying glass with the plus sign about 12 times. The rifle shows up near the end of the clip pointing down at a similar angle to the rifle in the mock-up image. Also what appears to be his left arm appears in the lower (camera) right corner of the window.
I did exactly that. And I don't see either of those things in the resulting grainy, pixelated image.
Well I guess that settles it then doesn't it.
But then again, you're the one who couldn't see the glasses on your very own Betzner-3 "Glasses Woman".
I did exactly that. And I don't see either of those things in the resulting grainy, pixelated image. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I probably would have fallen out of my chair if you had said you did see something! ;)Are you going to fall down when you realize you don't see anything either? If you lay down before you look at it again you at least will not fall down
I probably would have fallen out of my chair if you had said you did see something! ;)
I think that it there was really something there, other people would have seen it years ago. Walt insists that he sees a rifle sticking out of the window in the Powell photo.
One study concluded that there is some movement in the window. Another says that there isn’t. Either way, it doesn’t exclude the theory of the boxes interfering with the shot.
I think that it [sic] there was really something there, other people would have seen it years ago. Walt insists that he sees a rifle sticking out of the window in the Powell photo.
Like, if the world was round, someone would have proved it before Magellan and Elcano sailed around it?
No, it's more like somebody today saying that the world looks flat to him, therefore it must be flat.
The creation of my 3D mock-up gave me a new tool. For the first time, I was able to see what some things should have looked like from various angles. I had seen the Hughes clip before but didn't have an accurate idea of what to look for. The movement (reportedly detected in an earlier study) happens to be in the same area of the window where I now believe, thanks to the mock-up, that the rifle would be (if he were tracking the motion of the limo at that point in time). So, armed with a better idea of what I should be looking for, I believe I now see something that resembles the rifle.
The creation of my 3D mock-up gave me a new tool. For the first time, I was able to see what some things should have looked like from various angles. I had seen the Hughes clip before but didn't have an accurate idea of what to look for. The movement (reportedly detected in an earlier study) happens to be in the same area of the window where I now believe, thanks to the mock-up, that the rifle would be (if he were tracking the motion of the limo at that point in time). So, armed with a better idea of what I should be looking for, I believe I now see something that resembles the rifle.
| (http://i59.tinypic.com/xfumi8.jpg) | (http://i61.tinypic.com/cqdxe.jpg) |
(http://i59.tinypic.com/xfumi8.jpg) (http://i61.tinypic.com/cqdxe.jpg)
There is some "grain noise" altering the registration on the film. That is normal for 8-mm film. What's happening in the SN window is significantly more than that.
I agree with John M. that there is movement in the open area of the SN window.
Seems primarily over the boxes by the window sill rather than between the boxes and the east-side window frame.
This particular Hughes sequence, per Myers, stops 13.16 sec before the head shot. About 3.3 sec before Z133 or 4.6 sec before Z157.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/myers/filmsync/film-sync-05.jpg)
There is some "grain noise" altering the registration on the film. That is normal for 8-mm film. What's happening in the SN window is significantly more than that.
Charles,
I complement you on your discovery.
I hope some day someone more gifted with "computers" than I will be able to isolate or "bring out" the two horizontal stripes in Gloia Calvery's skirt as she's standing on a TSBD lower step in the Darnell part of Couch-Darnell.
-- MWT ;)
From a copy of The Lost Bullet, here is the Hughes digitized film and I can definitely see something move into position in the sniper's nest window which corresponds with the position in your 3d graphic. Thumb1:
The following graphic suffers from the usual gif restrictions but even in this copy from a copy from a copy, movement can be seen.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dw0GhdkW/hughes-osw-ald-windowa.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8nB0djc/hughes-osw-ald-windowc.gif)
@ about 40:00
JohnM
It is amazing that we have as many details as we do. But some of them just bring up more questions.
Thanks John, it appears to me that the photo of the actual sniper's nest was taken after the boxes had been moved for fingerprinting and then put back. And it appears to me that they positioned them closer to the center of the window than they originally were. The photos of the reenactment in Max Holland's mock-up, with the guy kneeling, don't include the box that the sniper was sitting on. My contention is that that box would be in the way of his lower legs and feet in that kneeling position. Here are a few photos to illustrate my point.
This first one shows a top (plan) view of the sniper's nest. The box he was sitting on is about 16.5" from the south wall, as indicated in Day's testimony. The 3 boxes just inside the window are positioned closer to the east than in your photo. This agrees with the Dillard telephoto photograph taken seconds after the last shot. The result is that there is very little room between the sitting box and the other boxes for someone to kneel without some interference.
(https://i.vgy.me/u7VWZB.jpg)
This one includes the sniper sitting on the box and leaning forward. It is the position that is used for the view from Brennan's position. If the sniper sits straight up he is out of view from Brennan's position. And the sniper has a view of all three of the positions of the limo for shots at: just before Z133, Z225, and Z313 without moving much at all.
(https://i.vgy.me/6XkwuD.jpg)
Finally, Max Holland says in his program that the box the sniper was sitting on was in about the position in this photo. However it was actually much closer as I have shown above. And Max appears to be sitting on two boxes, so he was much higher than the sniper.
(https://i.vgy.me/Laylaa.png)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/xfumi8.jpg) (http://i61.tinypic.com/cqdxe.jpg)
There is some "grain noise" altering the registration on the film. That is normal for 8-mm film. What's happening in the SN window is significantly more than that.
I agree with John M. that there is movement in the open area of the SN window.
Seems primarily over the boxes by the window sill rather than between the boxes and the east-side window frame.
This particular Hughes sequence, per Myers, stops 13.16 sec before the head shot. About 3.3 sec before Z133 or 4.6 sec before Z157.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/myers/filmsync/film-sync-05.jpg)
Four frames extracted from John's Gif, cropped and given a slight contrast adjustment.
The two frames, which appear to show a figure with a Rifle, have red letters marked over them.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/window4frames.gif)
One single frame which appears to show the figure with a Rifle.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/windowstillframe1.jpg)
Thanks, Duncan.
I wish (John's?) red letters weren't there to obscure what we're looking at.
-- MWT ::)
Charles,
Please explain (or rephrase) how you've shown that the "sitting box" was much closer to the window than Holland believes it was.
Thanks.
-- MWT ;)
Edit: nm
I understand, now.
Question: Do you believe Holland's analysis of how the cartridge casings ended up where the did is valid?
Four frames extracted from John's Gif, cropped and given a slight contrast adjustment.
The two frames, which appear to show a figure with a Rifle, have red letters marked over them.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/window4frames.gif)
One single frame which appears to show the figure with a Rifle.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/windowstillframe1.jpg)
Wow!
Just wondering ...
Did Thierry "Fake News" Speth have anything fo do with the creation of the "enhanced" images on the DVD?
-- MWT ;)
Four frames extracted from John's Gif, cropped and given a slight contrast adjustment.
The two frames, which appear to show a figure with a Rifle, have red letters marked over them.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/window4frames.gif)
One single frame which appears to show the figure with a Rifle.
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/windowstillframe1.jpg)
The barrel seems blurred in proportion to the frame blur, but the stock doesn't seem to be. Therefore my enthusiasm, as to the 'rifle' being same, remains curbed.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/b3mumf.jpg)
The slanted object in the window is an artifact from the morphing "restoration" of assassination films done for "JFK: The Lost Bullet".
In trying to eliminate the blotches caused by heat damage to the Hughes film, they used a process to smooth out the sharp edges. Ironically, a slanted rifle-like object appears in the window about where one might expect it to be if there was a rifle there. It's still quite a find for something briefly-appearing in an animation.
I find "The Lost Bullet" restoration worked well for motion transitions and eliminated much of the blur and damage. The restorations just don't stand up to frame-by-frame analysis.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/b3mumf.jpg)
The slanted object in the window is an artifact from the morphing "restoration" of assassination films done for "JFK: The Lost Bullet".
In trying to eliminate the blotches caused by heat damage to the Hughes film, they used a process to smooth out the sharp edges. Ironically, a slanted rifle-like object appears in the window about where one might expect it to be if there was a rifle there. It's still quite a find for something briefly-appearing in an animation.
I find "The Lost Bullet" restoration worked well for motion transitions and eliminated much of the blur and damage. The restorations just don't stand up to frame-by-frame analysis.
Very ironic, thanks Jerry!
Charles, I just don't trust these 'enhancements'
Wow!I see a musket and a stick boy
I see a musket and a stick boy
What happened to Oprah?Easy to see, the problem with the other idea of a figure or gun is if you look and believe it is a barrel there is white color there before and after distorting everything around the edge of the windows whether open or closed then the object which has no proportionality looks like a crude attempt to tamper with the film. Zoom in other windows long enough and you will see all sorts of things
(http://i67.tinypic.com/jkwumq.jpg)
In my model, the strike point for the Max Holland/Lost Bullet theory is on the outer arm of the traffic light assembly.
The seated shooter's left hand would have to hold the rifle with the trigger-guard housing to be clear of the pipes. Also the center of the rifle butt-plate is about four inches above the un-artictulated right shoulder. Unless the right shoulder rises some distance while pointing a rifle down, the shooter would have to standing.
This is academic as there is too much against a first shot as early as Max Holland has proposed.
Nice work Jerry! Yes, I agree, Max Holland's theory appears to be a little early. Could you please give me the locations and dimensions of the pipes that you have come up with so that I may add them to my model? It could be that the left arm bumped the pipes during the tracking motion. And that that caused the shot to miss (in lieu of the boxes). Also, do you have an idea of the timing of Willis' slide #4? It appears to me that it is in the vicinity of Z133. Perhaps a little later. Thanks.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2saeyz9.jpg)
Sorry, Charles. I haven't forgotten your request. My placement of the pipes is a visual guess. Obviously use at own risk.
I sent the Sixth Museum a request for measurements, and the curator, who's really helpful, told me just now that he will get back to me with true measurements when they access that area for maintenance. I'll PM those to you when I get them. Meanwhile you can use what I am using or build off it.
The westward pipe is a simple vertical. As I have it, the total height of the coupling is 3 1/4". I have the bottom of the coupling 8 13/16" above the floor (just make it 8 3/4" or 9", whatever). The coupling doesn't interfere with a hypothetical shooter; I put the coupling in there for the sake of completeness and haven't bothered with the bolts.
For the east pipe, I drew straight lines and angled them and placed them where I thought the center of the pipe ran. I then used SketchUp's "Follow-Me" tool to create the pipe by having a 2" circle follow the "path" of the lines. The Sketchup Tool decided I needed two elbows at each of the two bends. The closest any part of the first bend is to the floor is 13".
There is something wrong with my measurements. If the pipes are 2", then the planks have to be about 3". Or the planks are correct and the pipes needs to be a bit wider. Anyway, the key is how the westward pipe is relative to the window's masonry opening, which I think is fairly close now. That's the pipe that interferes.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2saeyz9.jpg)
Sorry, Charles. I haven't forgotten your request. My placement of the pipes is a visual guess. Obviously use at own risk.
I sent the Sixth Museum a request for measurements, and the curator, who's really helpful, told me just now that he will get back to me with true measurements when they access that area for maintenance. I'll PM those to you when I get them. Meanwhile you can use what I am using or build off it.
The westward pipe is a simple vertical. As I have it, the total height of the coupling is 3 1/4". I have the bottom of the coupling 8 13/16" above the floor (just make it 8 3/4" or 9", whatever). The coupling doesn't interfere with a hypothetical shooter; I put the coupling in there for the sake of completeness and haven't bothered with the bolts.
For the east pipe, I drew straight lines and angled them and placed them where I thought the center of the pipe ran. I then used SketchUp's "Follow-Me" tool to create the pipe by having a 2" circle follow the "path" of the lines. The Sketchup Tool decided I needed two elbows at each of the two bends. The closest any part of the first bend is to the floor is 13".
There is something wrong with my measurements. If the pipes are 2", then the planks have to be about 3". Or the planks are correct and the pipes needs to be a bit wider. Anyway, the key is how the westward pipe is relative to the window's masonry opening, which I think is fairly close now. That's the pipe that interferes.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2saeyz9.jpg)Hi Jerry and Charles,
Sorry, Charles. I haven't forgotten your request. My placement of the pipes is a visual guess. Obviously use at own risk.
I sent the Sixth Museum a request for measurements, and the curator, who's really helpful, told me just now that he will get back to me with true measurements when they access that area for maintenance. I'll PM those to you when I get them. Meanwhile you can use what I am using or build off it.
The westward pipe is a simple vertical. As I have it, the total height of the coupling is 3 1/4". I have the bottom of the coupling 8 13/16" above the floor (just make it 8 3/4" or 9", whatever). The coupling doesn't interfere with a hypothetical shooter; I put the coupling in there for the sake of completeness and haven't bothered with the bolts.
For the east pipe, I drew straight lines and angled them and placed them where I thought the center of the pipe ran. I then used SketchUp's "Follow-Me" tool to create the pipe by having a 2" circle follow the "path" of the lines. The Sketchup Tool decided I needed two elbows at each of the two bends. The closest any part of the first bend is to the floor is 13".
There is something wrong with my measurements. If the pipes are 2", then the planks have to be about 3". Or the planks are correct and the pipes needs to be a bit wider. Anyway, the key is how the westward pipe is relative to the window's masonry opening, which I think is fairly close now. That's the pipe that interferes.
Hi Jerry, builder here, so I may be able to help. Most floorboards, 'planks' as you call them, are 6" wide, those look like soil/main drain pipes, not water pipes so they're going to be 4" diameter. These measurements are confirmed by the bricks, ie 3no vertical courses are approximately 8". Nice work, mate.
Hi Jerry, builder here,
A jerry builder who admits it. Very honest of you Denis. ;)
Your suggestion as to purpose made me wonder if the pipes could be for dry-venting. I think the pipes were put in after the building was built; they look so unplanned. They seem to go through the ceiling on the seventh floor. Doesn't the seventh floor seem high? I suppose pre-AC, some top floors in Texas had the extra height for ventilation.
You're showing your age using that expression Ray and I'm showing mine by knowing what it means. lol Would 'jerry builder' be classed as racist in these PC times? :D
Not racist, if you mean in the sense of Gerry (as in german) built as I believe the meaning comes from "Jury built" as in a jury sail, a temporary sale rigged up in an emergency.
You're right about age , the kids on here have probably never heard the expression. Thumb1:
I don't believe anyone's 100% sure of the original meaning. But during WW2 the expression certainly took on a whole new meaning. England, particularly London, was being blitzed by the German's almost every night, most builders were away fighting, so emergency repairs were carried out by men and sometimes even women who were not qualified, so the work was generally under-par. These workers became known as Jerry or Gerry builders. As you know, Gerry/Jerry was British slang for German. There, a little history lesson for the 'kids' here. lol
PS Sorry, no more off-topic. I promise.
Hi Jerry and Charles,
Please allow me to submit my 3D work of the Snipper's Nest. The bent pipe was always a problem to model until I discovered, in the POV-Ray software, a procedure named “sphere_sweep” - very similar to your description of SketchUp's “Follow-Me” tool. I use a 2” diameter for both pipes, basically because that looks right. I'm eager to learn Steven Fagan's results if you would kindly share those.
Attached is an animated GIF with and without a box-sitting Virtual Action Figure posed for ~Z225. All checker board surfaces use 3” squares. The center of the west pipe 42” west of the east wall and 7” from the south wall. Oddly placed shadows are due to use of an overhead lamp to improve visibility. The 3D model is under construction, and always will be. FIW
James
(https://i.imgur.com/3QoOBSW.gif)
________I'm not sure those pipes are still present on the seventh floor. I took photos and video from the seventh floor SE window pair in 2014 (yes, you can photograph on the seventh but not sixth floor). You may need to copy and paste this link in a browser window. Just a thought, would you request to Stephen he measure the circumfrance of the pipes with a tape measure?
If we can do without the vertical measurements for the coupling and east pipe bends, and where the east pipe is, I'll ask Stephen to go to the seventh floor and, if he has access, measure only the west pipe from the east wall and south wall, and the width of the pipe (working with 2" for now). Maybe some floorboards are visible so he can get their width. Any of that would be representative of the sixth floor.
I'm not sure those pipes are still present on the seventh floor. I took photos and video from the seventh floor SE window pair in 2014 (yes, you can photograph on the seventh but not sixth floor). You may need to copy and paste this link in a browser window. Just a thought, would you request to Stephen he measure the circumfrance of the pipes with a tape measure?
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1h9EeeYbSd4P9lsnIG1NOdoCy3A7wGB3n (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1h9EeeYbSd4P9lsnIG1NOdoCy3A7wGB3n)
I don't recall noting the pipes, but I wasn't looking for them either. This video captured views from the western window and shifted to views from the eastern window. There was a large potted plant positioned in front of the center mullion. The video is very dark inside the building. An enhanced frame below shows the most likely frame that could have captured the pipes, if present. It could be the camera just did not sweep enough to pickup them up. I do doubt those pipes would be accessible to any visitor.
(https://i.imgur.com/3XerFzx.jpg)
I also can't remember if the seventh floor is carpeted but I think it was. While looking at my videos for evidence of carpet I found video where I recorded the FBI's model of the TSBD. I did not see carpet, but did notice three dark slat like features in the floor. Possibly, the original floor slats? If so, the FBI model was cordoned off, just to the right of the hallway connecting the elevator to the seventh floor and accessible to all. Maybe Stephen could see if those are of any value.
(https://i.imgur.com/27aHrYz.png)
James
Sniper Nest measurements from Stephen Fagin.
- Circumference of pipe = 7”
- Width of floorboard = 3.25”
- Corner to edge of brick at window = 33”
Corner --> Southeast interior corner.
Brick at window --> east edge of window's masonry opening.
Sniper Nest measurements from Stephen Fagin.Thank you Jerry and Stephen for sharing. It's much appreciated! I'm going to re-calibrate my eyeballs now ;D.
- Circumference of pipe = 7”
- Width of floorboard = 3.25”
- Corner to edge of brick at window = 33”
Corner --> Southeast interior corner.
Brick at window --> east edge of window's masonry opening.
I had a great three and half days in Dealey Plaza this past week as an early birthday present. One unexpected find was the remnants of the pipes on the 7th floor. I had a tape measure so took these photos. I also coincidentally met Stephen Fagin and thanked him for his help with Jerry's request. I also found out it is okay to photograph on the sixth floor also, just no flash on sixth or seventh. I got lots of photos of the glassed in SN display.
(https://i.imgur.com/GFkioOK.jpg)
I had a great three and half days in Dealey Plaza this past week as an early birthday present. One unexpected find was the remnants of the pipes on the 7th floor. I had a tape measure so took these photos. I also coincidentally met Stephen Fagin and thanked him for his help with Jerry's request. I also found out it is okay to photograph on the sixth floor also, just no flash on sixth or seventh. I got lots of photos of the glassed in SN display.
(https://i.imgur.com/GFkioOK.jpg)
The image is over sized and may not be displaying fully. There two images on the top of collage. The first is a closeup of the pipe that would be the curved pipe from below. The ~2 in pipe is centered about 10” from the South wall. Just above and touching the pipe appears to be chipped cement or other material slightly mounded over the pipes and is chipped to form that irregular shape. The photo on top right would be the straight pipe from below. The bottom photo is rotated 90 degrees and shows the measures from the East wall.
I get roughly for the
straight pipe center 36” from East wall
straight pipe center 11.5” from South wall
bent pipe center 27.5” from East wall
bent pipe center 10” from South wall
Here is a full resolution view of the bent pipe and chip. Top edge is South. I don't think that chip contains a pipe edge, but I did not think at the time to check it closer.
(https://i.imgur.com/61W50by.png)
For the SN pic many may be suitable for 3D anaglyphs. If you don't have a pair of cyan/red 3D glasses you might find some on Amazon pretty cheap. I wear glasses and found a pair of cyan/red clip-ons that work really well for me.
The image is over sized and may not be displaying fully. There two images on the top of collage. The first is a closeup of the pipe that would be the curved pipe from below. The ~2 in pipe is centered about 10” from the South wall. Just above and touching the pipe appears to be chipped cement or other material slightly mounded over the pipes and is chipped to form that irregular shape. The photo on top right would be the straight pipe from below. The bottom photo is rotated 90 degrees and shows the measures from the East wall.I revised and corrected the annotation for the bottom image.. This should make it easier of others, and myself too, to visualize.
I get roughly for the
straight pipe center 36” from East wall
straight pipe center 11.5” from South wall
bent pipe center 27.5” from East wall
bent pipe center 10” from South wall
Here is a full resolution view of the bent pipe and chip. Top edge is South. I don't think that chip contains a pipe edge, but I did not think at the time to check it closer.
(https://i.imgur.com/61W50by.png)
For the SN pic many may be suitable for 3D anaglyphs. If you don't have a pair of cyan/red 3D glasses you might find some on Amazon pretty cheap. I wear glasses and found a pair of cyan/red clip-ons that work really well for me.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/8a/22/24RPI7zo_o.jpg)Notice that Holland's drawing is wrong. The correct line of fire goes throo the collar for the 2 guy rods. A multi ricochet involving collar rods pipe (& even the signals) would explain the lead hitting the pavement & the 2 copper fragments ending up in the limo, & 1 fragment glancing off JFK's head.
In my model, the strike point for the Max Holland/Lost Bullet theory is on the outer arm of the traffic light assembly.
The seated shooter's left hand would have to hold the rifle with the trigger-guard housing to be clear of the pipes. Also the center of the rifle butt-plate is about four inches above the un-artictulated right shoulder. Unless the right shoulder rises some distance while pointing a rifle down, the shooter would have to standing.
This is academic as there is too much against a first shot as early as Max Holland has proposed.
Notice that Holland's drawing is wrong. The correct line of fire goes throo the collar for the 2 guy rods. A multi ricochet involving collar rods pipe (& even the signals) would explain the lead hitting the pavement & the 2 copper fragments ending up in the limo, & 1 fragment glancing off JFK's head.
If Oswald fired a clean miss, there would be a big crater in the road. And no good mechanism for 2 copper fragments to end up in the limo.
Hi Marjan,
You say at z203 " two standing agents are starting to look back to Oswald"
Below is a close up of z207, four frames after z203. It's the last frame we see most of the agents in. I'm sure you'll agree that not one is looking back towards the TSBD, so I don't understand where you are getting the idea from that they are looking back:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFVMWyXq/z207-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
From your notes can you reveal where you are getting the idea from there is a shot before z133.
Oh yeah...I asked you before to explain why none of the agents has reacted to a loud, explosive noise for over four seconds. What are your ideas on that?
Thought you might like to clear these points up Thumb1:Yes i did answer in your other thread. The Agents were confused etc.
I revised and corrected the annotation for the bottom image.. This should make it easier of others, and myself too, to visualize.
(https://i.imgur.com/HyxwpZT.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/81/89/AcVi0O2c_o.jpg)
Sorry, Charles. I haven't forgotten your request. My placement of the pipes is a visual guess. Obviously use at own risk.
I sent the Sixth Museum a request for measurements, and the curator, who's really helpful, told me just now that he will get back to me with true measurements when they access that area for maintenance. I'll PM those to you when I get them. Meanwhile you can use what I am using or build off it.
The westward pipe is a simple vertical. As I have it, the total height of the coupling is 3 1/4". I have the bottom of the coupling 8 13/16" above the floor (just make it 8 3/4" or 9", whatever). The coupling doesn't interfere with a hypothetical shooter; I put the coupling in there for the sake of completeness and haven't bothered with the bolts.
For the east pipe, I drew straight lines and angled them and placed them where I thought the center of the pipe ran. I then used SketchUp's "Follow-Me" tool to create the pipe by having a 2" circle follow the "path" of the lines. The Sketchup Tool decided I needed two elbows at each of the two bends. The closest any part of the first bend is to the floor is 13".
There is something wrong with my measurements. If the pipes are 2", then the planks have to be about 3". Or the planks are correct and the pipes needs to be a bit wider. Anyway, the key is how the westward pipe is relative to the window's masonry opening, which I think is fairly close now. That's the pipe that interferes.
Notice that Holland's drawing is wrong. The correct line of fire goes throo the collar for the 2 guy rods. A multi ricochet involving collar rods pipe (& even the signals) would explain the lead hitting the pavement & the 2 copper fragments ending up in the limo, & 1 fragment glancing off JFK's head.My above feb2021 wordage was early in my jfk accidental homicide study. I need to bring things up to date.
If Oswald fired a clean miss, there would be a big crater in the road. And no good mechanism for 2 copper fragments to end up in the limo.
The pipes could be the issue if one of them
had hot water flowing thru it.
The SE window gunmans exact firing stance is unclear to me still ( crazy after all these years heh)
Maybe the gunman was sitting on the box at first and then burned himself as he fired his first shot , at approx z223. ?
But the shooters reaction from the pipe burn perhaps had only a slight effect on his aim
so that the 223 shot aimed at the head , instead hit JFK in the back. So there was no missed 1st shot, just a slightly off target shot that still hit the body of JFK.
After this pipe burn (or obstruction)of the pipe , did the gunman take up some other kind of firing stance before he fired off 2 more shots rapidly together about 4 secs later?
If it were not for Harold Normans description of hearing the clack clack noise which suggests a bolt action rifle, then the 4 sec spacing of all 3 shots that Norman also demonstrates , would indicate that a semi auto rifle was more probable than a bolt action rifle to be able to fire 3 shots rapidly, especially the last 2 which most witness heard “back to back”.
An obstruction causing the gunman to miss would fit nicely with a theory of semi auto rifle being used and the gunman firing 3 rapid shots. The gunman , having had his aimed head shot at Z220 thrown off from either a pipe or other obstruction when he pulled the trigger at Z222 , adjusted his firing position slightly afterwards, while still tracking the target with his good quality scope mounted correctly on his good quality semi auto rifle.
He fired about 4.8 secs after his missed head shot at Z223 and fired 2 shots rapidly at Z313.
The 2nd shot was the head shot at Z313, followed immediately by the 3rd shot a split sec after Z313, which because of “muzzle rise” from firing rapidly, caused that shot to fly over JFKs head, and over to the curb near to Tague (by the Triple underpass)
A projectile fired from a semi auto rifle with different composition of metals than the MC rifle 6.5mm bullet, thus may explain the anomaly of metallic element analyzed from the curb not matching the typical 6.5 mm bullet from the MC rifle (in Tom Aleya film lifted from the 6th floor by Lt. Day) and alleged to be the rifle fired by the SW gunman by the WC.
It may also explain CE 399 MC bullet having been substituted for a bullet that came from Gov Connallys leg, ( or replacing the one found on a stretcher) which bullet was of different caliber than 6.5 mm or was not a type which could have been fired by an MC rifle even if it were 6.5 mm, because of cartridge size.
Would not the SE 6th floor window gunman have be standing to get the angle necessary for a shot as early as z133?
There was a 2/3rd majority of witnesses who heard the 3 shots spaced so closely together that do not match a 9-10 seconds time interval.
There was no physical evidence from the light fixture or pole of the traffic light that supports the z133 1st shot premise.
If the shooter was visually surveying his field of fire in preparation, as the motorcade started up Houston st, then he surely was aware of the possible obstacles, the tree and the light pole, so all the more reason that he MAY have decided that his best opportunity was to not begin shooting until after the JFK limo has gone PAST both traffic pole AND the tree. Which therefore makes z223 a very probable FIRST shot.
There is a slight movement by SS agent Hickey in the back seat of the follow up car which occurs approx Z143-144
Virgie Racheley is a witness who claims seeing something strike the pavement beside the JFK limo.
These 2 witnesses may possibly have seen or be reacting to the slight noise of a suppressed shot from Daltex building that missed the JFK limo
On a thread about: "Why the first shot missed", it should be mentioned that the first shot may have missed because it had the highest angular velocity of the three shots from the TSBD sniper's nest.
First shot, at z-153: Angular velocity is 4.8 degrees per second.
Second shot, at z-222: Angular velocity is 1.9 degrees per second.
Third shot, at z-312: Angular velocity is 0.58 degrees per second.
The first shot had an angular velocity that was 2.5 times greater than the second.
The second shot had an angular velocity that was 3 times greater than the third.
Naturally, one might expect the first shot to miss.
How high is the angular velocity of 4.8 degrees per second for a rifle shooter? Pretty high. In the 1908 Olympics, where I could get the most information about, the world's best shooters at moving targets were shooting at a target that only moved 3.2 degrees per second.
A shot at z-133 would have an even higher angular velocity than the one at z-153.
A shot before z-133? Higher than the angular velocity of a shot at z-133.
One does not have to hypothesis that Oswald missed the first shot because he was getting himself into hot water. Which he certainly was. Just the difficulty of an early shot is explanation enough.
I have made previous posts that address this in more detail. On can check out the first post made for each of the following two threads:
Running Deer Shooting at the 1908 Olympics.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3570.0.html
How to Calculate the Angular Velocities of a Target
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2640.msg93376.html#msg93376
Yes, I agree. And I replied to your thread accordingly. There are numerous factors to consider.
Yes. But on this thread, we had twenty pages on 'Why the first shot missed' without the high angular velocity of the first shot even being mentioned. While there may be many factors to consider, in my mind, the high angular velocity is the dominant reason. That factor, by itself, means that we should expect for Oswald to miss the first shot. But have a much better chance with his second and third shots, where the angular velocity was much lower.
Running Deer Shooting at the 1908 Olympics.
In years past, they used to have a ‘Running Deer Shooting’ competition at the Olympics. The best thing about this competition was that they did not actually shot at real live deer.
The Wikipedia article on this gives the most complete information on the 1908 Olympics.
The range was 330 feet. The target would appear for only 4 seconds at a distance of 75 feet.
The target had an outline of a life size deer, with three concentric circles. The inner circle would could for 4 points. The next circle for 3. And the outermost circle for 2. A shot outside the largest circle, but on the outline of the deer (but not the rear part of the deer) would count as 1 point.
My father once told me, that in deer hunting, you don’t want to hit the rear of the deer. This would allow the deer to still get away but would wound it seriously enough that it would likely die in the coming days. Better to miss the deer altogether than to do that. Hence, I would guess, the somewhat strange scoring system.
Everyone would get a single shot (in the Single Shot competition) during a 4 second pass and would get 10 shots altogether.
The speed of the target was 18.75 feet per second or 12.8 mph. This is pretty slow. At 67 years old, I could run faster than that. I’m certain a real deer would run well over 30 mph. I suspect that they did not use real running deer solely for humane reasons.
Still, these were shots designed to test the best rifle shooters, at moving targets, in the world. So, I imagine they were pretty challenging.
In the real competition, the winner got 25 points, with several others just behind. So, an average shot would end up either in the “2” circle or the “3” circle. This competition appears to have been challenging because the three lowest scores were 11, 6 and 3 points.
The Angular velocity of the 1908 target varied from 3.21 to 3.26 degrees per second. Let’s compare this to the angular velocity of possible shots at Dealey Plaza. All the shots are listed from the highest to the lowest angular velocities:
The following chart lists:
Angular Velocity of the Target, in degrees per second (dps),
Tangential Velocity of the Target, in feet per second (fps),
Distance to the Target, in feet (ft)
Ang. Vel. Tang. Vel. Distance
Grassy Knoll, Badge Man at z-312: 6.2 dps 10.8 fps 100 ft
Grassy Knoll, Smoke at z-312: 5.1 dps 9.7 fps 109 ft
TSBD position at z-153: 4.8 dps 11.9 fps 142 ft
1908 Running Deer: 3.2 dps 18.4 fps 330 ft
TSBD position at z-222: 1.9 dps 6.4 fps 192 ft
TSBD position at z-312: 0.58 dps 2.7 fps 265 ft
Obviously, Oswald was attempting a shot at z-153, with a higher angular velocity, than the best shooters in the world in 1908 had to attempt. No wonder he missed the limousine. A shot from the Grassy Knoll would have even been tougher, at least the target would have had an even higher angular velocity.
Admittedly, the Angular Velocity does not take into account distances. Perhaps a superior comparison is from the Tangential Velocity of the Target. So the following chart as the previous, except it is ordered by the Tangential Velocity:
Ang. Vel. Tang. Vel. Distance
1908 Running Deer: 3.2 dps 18.4 fps 330 ft
TSBD position at z-153: 4.8 dps 11.9 fps 142 ft
Grassy Knoll, Badge Man at z-312: 6.2 dps 10.8 fps 100 ft
Grassy Knoll, Smoke at z-312: 5.1 dps 9.7 fps 109 ft
TSBD position at z-222: 1.9 dps 6.4 fps 192 ft
TSBD position at z-312: 0.58 dps 2.7 fps 265 ft
Either by using Angular Velocity or Tangential Velocity, the two shots that hit from Oswald’s position are clearly the easiest of shots.
The 1908 data is not totally satisfactory. It does not give the size of the scoring circles. Nor the size of the outline of the deer and exactly which part of this outline was out of bounds. Still, it’s the best I have found. And the rifles available in 1908 would be roughly equivalent of Oswald’s Carcano rifle. If anyone has any data that is as good or better I would be interested in seeing a post to it. Particularly one that would show if Angular Velocity or Tangential Velocity is a better measure of difficulty for shots under 200 yards.
If the deflection off a tree or the traffic light pole is not the reason for a missed shot, and it’s an early 1st shot somewhere between Z133- Z170, then why no significant reactions of SS agents looking back to the TEBD in the Z film in that sequence of frames to indicate they heard anything?
The SS agents Seem to be fixated watching Umbrella man and DC man up till Z207 before the sign blocks the view to them until they are seen again post Z 313.
Only a sight movement by SS agent Hickey at about Z143-45 and it is uncertain if it may just be readjustment due to limo movement causing inertia effect on Hickey which he had to counter balance.
Let’s say the shooter was sitting on the box position and keeping his body behind the wall so he wasn’t seen in Hughes film.
He would still have to move himself from that position to stick the rifle out the window and adjust both himself and the rifle as he tries to track and aim at the moving target.
In that moment of readjustment and in the state of anticipation / anxiety he was experiencing, could it be just an inadvertent squeezing the trigger because he already had his finger on the trigger before he had acquired the target in either the iron sights or the scope reticle?
I question your calculations simply because it appears to me that you incorrectly have the distance of the running deer competition shots at 330-feet instead of 75-feet.
The competitors were shooting at a target much smaller than the JFK limo. How many of the 1908 olympics shots do you suppose would have missed something the size of the limo?
The distance at z-153 was more like 129 feet, not 75 feet.
But the problem is, if the angular velocity is too great, a shooter can't keep the sights lined up on the target. If the shooter can't keep the sights lined up on the target, even one the size of a human, or a deer, I would expect them to miss at 330 feet. Or 129 feet. Or 75 feet. Even at 75 feet you need luck to hit a target of that size when you can't keep the sights lined up on the target as it moves.
I don't know. But all of the competitors had practice at shooting at a moving target. So even if the answer is zero for the 1908 Olympic competitors, Oswald might miss by more than any of them. He had training at shooting at stationary targets. So Oswald, I would believe, could hit a moving target with a slow angular velocity, like at z-222 or z-312. But Oswald might miss by five feet or more at a high angular velocity target at z-153, which could miss the limousine, since JFK was not sitting in the center of the limousine.
In any case, if anyone can find statistics on what good shooters can do with a high angular velocity shot, of 3.2 degrees per second or higher, at distances of 129 feet, or 75 feet, I would like to hear them. And not just assume that at 75 feet, one is so close, one is bound to hit a human size target, even without being able to aim properly. I don't buy that notion.
in 1950, when an attempt was made on Truman's life, Secret Service agents were firing several shots at the main would be assassin from ranges of around 30 to 40 feet. Using handguns. And all of them missing. Except for one morally wounded policeman who got a fatal hit on the assassin from 40 feet away.
When firing under difficult conditions, like using a handgun, or using a rifle on a target with too high an angular velocity, it's not easy to hit a human size target. At 129 feet. Or 75 feet. Or even 40 feet. Misses are quite possible.
Also, LHO reportedly practiced by dry-firing at moving cars from the screened-in porch in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.
Marina only said he was dry firing the weapon, not that he was pointing it at cars.
From page 1004 (of my Kindle version) of “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi:
One evening at the end of August Marina returned from a twilight stroll with June and found Lee on their screened-in side porch, kneeling on one knee, aiming his rifle into the street and working the bolt—dry firing. 1365.
Footnote 1365. 1 H 21–22, WCT Marina N. Oswald; McMillan, Marina and Lee, pp.451–452; CE 1154, 22 H 190.
I don’t remember if someone else wrote that there were actually passing cars in the street in New Orleans in 1963, or if I just assumed that. Either way, Marina did say that he spent a lot of time doing this on the darkened porch. If anyone wants to think that he didn’t aim at any passing cars during that time, that is their prerogative. But I have a differing opinion.
Interesting.
Though from that porch, which is recessed back off the house, I'm not sure how long he'd be able to track each car as it passed in the street.
It would make an interesting experiment to see how many seconds would he have to track each car before his view of each car became obstructed by the corners of the houses to his left and right on his side of the street.
I'd imagine cars would be traveling slow enough on that street.
From page 1004 (of my Kindle version) of “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi:
One evening at the end of August Marina returned from a twilight stroll with June and found Lee on their screened-in side porch, kneeling on one knee, aiming his rifle into the street and working the bolt—dry firing. 1365.
Footnote 1365. 1 H 21–22, WCT Marina N. Oswald; McMillan, Marina and Lee, pp.451–452; CE 1154, 22 H 190.
This is why you should always check primary sources. 22H190 says nothing about Oswald doing this. And Marina’s testimony says nothing about dry firing.
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch, and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't know what he did with it. I came there by chance once and saw him just sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and resting. Of course I didn't like these kind of little jokes.
. . .
Mr. RANKIN. You have described your husband's practicing on the hack porch at New Orleans with the telescopic scope and the rifle, saying he did that very regularly there.
Did you ever see him working the bolt, that action that opens the rifle, where you can put a shell in and push it back- during those times?
Mrs. OSWALD. I did not see it, because it was dark, and I would be in the room at that time.
But I did hear the noise from it from time to time not often.
This is why you should always check primary sources. 22H190 says nothing about Oswald doing this. And Marina’s testimony says nothing about dry firing.
You should always check the primary claim. My statement says nothing about Marina testifying to this. And, you very conveniently left out Bugliosi’s other listed source (“Marina and Lee”) indicated in his footnote.
It’s Bugliosi’s claim, and he cited Marina’s testimony. And no, “Marina and Lee” says nothing about dry firing either.
It doesn’t matter who’s claim it is. My claim only says that LHO reportedly did this. If you don’t like that Bugliosi reported it. That’s your freaking problem.
Your problem is believing (and passing on) a fabricated claim from Bugliosi.
No need to get defensive. You said “LHO reportedly practiced by dry-firing at moving cars from the screened-in porch in New Orleans”, and all I said is that people should check primary sources (especially for things that Bugliosi “reports”).
The distance at z-153 was more like 129 feet, not 75 feet
I am only questioning your calculations of the running deer Olympic shots. Here is why:
From your post:
“1908 Running Deer: 3.2 dps 18.4 fps 330 ft”
Yet the description you posted from Wikipedia clearly states the targets were at 75-feet.
1908 was the first time of running deer at the Olympics, and the target was specified to placed at 110 yards[citation needed] (100.584 meters) and made 10 runs of 75 feet (23 meters) for about 4 seconds each.
But the problem is, if the angular velocity is too great, a shooter can't keep the sights lined up on the target. If the shooter can't keep the sights lined up on the target, even one the size of a human, or a deer, I would expect them to miss at 330 feet. Or 129 feet. Or 75 feet. Even at 75 feet you need luck to hit a target of that size when you can't keep the sights lined up on the target as it moves.
Why would you assume that he couldn’t keep the sights lined up on a moving target? I have read that LHO was a member of a shooting club in Russia. And that they could only own shotguns (no rifles). I don’t claim to know what type of shooting they did with their shotguns. But a common and popular type of shooting was at “clay pigeons”. Also called skeet shooting or trap shooting depending on the specifics of how it was set up. Hitting a 110 mm diameter flying target at various and unpredictable angles of flight requires considerable shooting skills and quick reactions. Here is an exerpt regarding LHO’s reaction speed from page 211 of Robert Oswald’s book “Lee” that I find interesting:
I have some idea of the speed of Lee’s reflexes, both from my general observation of him while we were growing up and specifically because of a game we used to play. Sometimes Lee and I would walk up to each other and fake an unexpected punch, to test each other’s reactions. I discovered from this game that Lee had very rapid reflexes.
LHO reportedly delighted in situations where he could “try to prove” his self-perceived “superiority”. I can imagine that his “very rapid reflexes” would have come in handy during any shooting activities he might have had in the shooting club in Russia. Whether they were shooting at birds or rabbits or skeet or whatever, he most likely would have done well shooting at moving targets.
Also, LHO reportedly practiced by dry-firing at moving cars from the screened-in porch in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. There is no doubt that the higher angular velocity of an early shot from the sniper’s nest in Dealey Plaza would have made it a much more challenging shot than the two shots that hit JFK. But, again, I think it would have taken more than just that to cause it to miss the limo entirely.
No. the link I provided was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_meter_running_deer
which states:
So the target ran on a course that was 75 feet long, for about 4 seconds. This path was at right angles to the shooter. But the distance to the target, at it's closest, was 110 yards or 330 feet. So the target was 330 feet away from the shooter, not 75 feet, at it's closest.
Oswald did minimum shooting in Russia. We was kicked out of the shooting club. Not due to his poor marksmanship, but to his lack of judgement. He made a quick snap shot with a shotgun at a running rabbit which was in the general direction of another shooter. He missed the rabbit and the other shooter. He was not kicked out because he missed the rabbit. It made no difference whether he hit the rabbit or not. He was kicked out because he fired carelessly in the general direction of another person.
Whether an angular speed of 4.8 degrees per second would be enough to cause Oswald to likely miss JFK by five feet, I don't know. One would need to run some tests with someone of Oswald's experience, very good training at stationary targets, at 200, 300 and 500 yards, little to no experience at shooting at moving targets. I suspect that the angular velocity was high enough that he could well miss by five feet, which could cause him to miss the limousine. He seems to have missed the limousine with the first shot. If the high angular velocity is not the explanation than I don't know what is. But firing tests would need to be made to get a more definitive answer.
Running Deer Shooting at the 1908 Olympics.
In years past, they used to have a ‘Running Deer Shooting’ competition at the Olympics. The best thing about this competition was that they did not actually shot at real live deer.
The Wikipedia article on this gives the most complete information on the 1908 Olympics.
The range was 330 feet. The target would appear for only 4 seconds at a distance of 75 feet.
…
Yes, the field of view was limited and the speed of the cars would be varied. So the available time to track the cars would be varied also. I think that this would be a challenge that LHO would like. It would be similar to the challenge of skeet or trap shooting. Testing and practicing of LHO’s very fast reflexes (described by Robert Oswald) comes to mind for this challenge. He would have to react quickly to acquire the moving target in his sights and pull the trigger (dry firing) before the car left the field of view. I don’t see how he could have anticipated that this practice would come in handy on 11/22/63. But it sure seems to me that it did.
I hadn't heard this before. What is your source that Robert Oswald said LHO practiced fast reflex times while shooting?
I believe you said “this is why you should check…”. Or something like that. I use words like “reportedly” and terms like “it appears to me” to appease your apparent sensitivity to anyone making any kind of assumption whatsoever. It doesn’t matter how well reasoned the assumption might be, you object (unless, of course, it points away from LHO’s guilt). So when, after I use such language, you still insinuate that I said something that I didn’t, I have a legitimate gripe.
Go waste someone else’s time…
I was referring to the passage in Robert Oswald's book "Lee" which I posted earlier in this thread. It was a game they played when they were growing up. And it didn't have anything to do with rifles. It was walking up to each other and sometimes throwing a fake unexpected punch to test and compare each other's reaction times. Robert said he learned from this game that Lee had very fast reflexes. Sorry if my sentence was unclear.
So I understand it right, that an earlier closer shot at the JFK limo just beginning to start down Elm st , would actually be a MORE difficult shot because the rifle sight would have to be moved laterally FASTER than it would at a range 2x farther from the limo?
The answer is obvious. Oswald missed the 1st shot because his scope was misaligned.Spending time coming up with theories why the early first shot missed seems a bit premature. You first have to explain why there is so much evidence: