JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on January 03, 2021, 03:26:16 AM
-
The Warren Commission essentially concluded that one shot missed but couldn’t say, with any certainty, which shot missed. The HSCA essentially indicated that they thought that it was the first shot that missed. I tend to agree with it being the first shot; but it is still debatable.
Carl Day, DPD said the following in his interview in “No More Silence”:
During the course of the investigation at the School Book Depository, an officer came in and said they’d found a skid mark close to a manhole cover on Elm Street directly in line of the shots. So I went down there maybe 150 or more feet from the window. Then there was a rumor that somebody was supposed to have heard a shell zipping by on that railroad track. In any case, one of the officers found a place by that manhole cover that looked like something might have either hit or bounced. It could have been a skid mark from a slug; it could have been some other kind of mark; it could have been a tool of some sort. Whatever it was we took a little sample of the concrete and sent it to the laboratory to see if there might have been any trace of lead from a slug. If I remember correctly, they found nothing.
I believe that one of the aspects of the other mark on the curb on Main Street nearby where Tague stood is that, when it was tested, they found lead, but no copper. And some people say that the absence of copper indicates that the bullet didn’t still have the copper jacket on it.
I believe that the first shot missed, hit the concrete around the manhole cover and ricocheted to hit the curb near Tague. So it appears to me that the copper jacket was separated from the lead bullet core as a result of it hitting the concrete near the manhole area. This would explain why when Carl Day or his team sent the concrete sample from the manhole area to be tested for lead, they found none.
Anyway, the report from the lab for this test might have been archived with the other records from the DPD. And it would be interesting to see if they tested for or found copper in that sample.
-
The Warren Commission essentially concluded that one shot missed but couldn’t say, with any certainty, which shot missed. The HSCA essentially indicated that they thought that it was the first shot that missed. I tend to agree with it being the first shot; but it is still debatable.
Carl Day, DPD said the following in his interview in “No More Silence”:
During the course of the investigation at the School Book Depository, an officer came in and said they’d found a skid mark close to a manhole cover on Elm Street directly in line of the shots. So I went down there maybe 150 or more feet from the window. Then there was a rumor that somebody was supposed to have heard a shell zipping by on that railroad track. In any case, one of the officers found a place by that manhole cover that looked like something might have either hit or bounced. It could have been a skid mark from a slug; it could have been some other kind of mark; it could have been a tool of some sort. Whatever it was we took a little sample of the concrete and sent it to the laboratory to see if there might have been any trace of lead from a slug. If I remember correctly, they found nothing.
I believe that one of the aspects of the other mark on the curb on Main Street nearby where Tague stood is that, when it was tested, they found lead, but no copper. And some people say that the absence of copper indicates that the bullet didn’t still have the copper jacket on it.
I believe that the first shot missed, hit the concrete around the manhole cover and ricocheted to hit the curb near Tague. So it appears to me that the copper jacket was separated from the lead bullet core as a result of it hitting the concrete near the manhole area. This would explain why when Carl Day or his team sent the concrete sample from the manhole area to be tested for lead, they found none.
Anyway, the report from the lab for this test might have been archived with the other records from the DPD. And it would be interesting to see if they tested for or found copper in that sample.
I'm aware that you are a proponent of a very early first shot miss.
I assume you have it ricocheting off various tree limbs and traffic signals in order to reach the manhole area.
As you know, my own model proposes a late miss, after the headshot, something much more in line with a strike at the manhole area.
-
I'm aware that you are a proponent of a very early first shot miss.
I assume you have it ricocheting off various tree limbs and traffic signals in order to reach the manhole area.
As you know, my own model proposes a late miss, after the headshot, something much more in line with a strike at the manhole area.
I assume you have it ricocheting off various tree limbs and traffic signals in order to reach the manhole area.
No, actually I believe that the first shot was inadvertent due to interference from the conduit closest to the window. It appears to me that the shooter’s left elbow would have been very close to it when he brought the rifle up and began his aim. If his left elbow actually struck that conduit while his other finger was on the trigger, this interference and resulting sudden stop of the movement of the rifle could have caused what is termed an accidental discharge by gun safety instructors. Because he likely wouldn’t have wanted to let anyone below see the rifle ahead of time, I believe that he would have waited until the limo was below him and then been in the process of quickly bringing the rifle up into position for an intended first shot as soon as the target emerged from under the tree limbs cover. Since he likely wouldn’t have been able to physically practice this maneuver (with the rifle) ahead of time, without potentially drawing unwanted attention to himself, he likely wouldn’t have anticipated the interference from the conduit. I believe the inadvertent shot happened before the rifle was fully aimed and that the bullet simply traveled to the manhole cover area without hitting anything beforehand.
Others have theorized the interference from either tree limbs or the traffic signal as reasons for the first shot missing the limo entirely. But the evidence for those scenarios is slim. The theory I believe in explains why the shot missed (it was inadvertent and thus not fully aimed).
Your theory would also work for the manhole cover strike scenario if the third shot was the one that missed. However, if that were the case, I believe that more witnesses would have described a shot after the headshot in their accounts. Most witnesses seem to believe that the headshot was the last one.
-
The Warren Commission essentially concluded that one shot missed but couldn’t say, with any certainty, which shot missed. The HSCA essentially indicated that they thought that it was the first shot that missed. I tend to agree with it being the first shot; but it is still debatable.
Carl Day, DPD said the following in his interview in “No More Silence”:
During the course of the investigation at the School Book Depository, an officer came in and said they’d found a skid mark close to a manhole cover on Elm Street directly in line of the shots. So I went down there maybe 150 or more feet from the window. Then there was a rumor that somebody was supposed to have heard a shell zipping by on that railroad track. In any case, one of the officers found a place by that manhole cover that looked like something might have either hit or bounced. It could have been a skid mark from a slug; it could have been some other kind of mark; it could have been a tool of some sort. Whatever it was we took a little sample of the concrete and sent it to the laboratory to see if there might have been any trace of lead from a slug. If I remember correctly, they found nothing.
I believe that one of the aspects of the other mark on the curb on Main Street nearby where Tague stood is that, when it was tested, they found lead, but no copper. And some people say that the absence of copper indicates that the bullet didn’t still have the copper jacket on it.
I believe that the first shot missed, hit the concrete around the manhole cover and ricocheted to hit the curb near Tague. So it appears to me that the copper jacket was separated from the lead bullet core as a result of it hitting the concrete near the manhole area. This would explain why when Carl Day or his team sent the concrete sample from the manhole area to be tested for lead, they found none.
Anyway, the report from the lab for this test might have been archived with the other records from the DPD. And it would be interesting to see if they tested for or found copper in that sample.
The ballistic experts the Haags (father and son) tested carcano ammunition by firing it at asphalt blocks to see how it would respond. They discovered that the bullets simply disintegrated and didn't fragment. And no sparks were generated.
Perhaps the bullet was deflected first - slowed down, had its jacket torn off - and then hit the concrete? Or hit it indirectly and not, as shown below, almost directly? It's all way beyond my meager understanding of the matter.
Scroll/go to the 2:00 mark for the test.
-
The ballistic experts the Haags (father and son) tested carcano ammunition by firing it at asphalt blocks to see how it would respond. They discovered that the bullets simply disintegrated and didn't fragment. And no sparks were generated.
Perhaps the bullet was deflected first - slowed down, had its jacket torn off - and then hit the concrete? Or hit it indirectly and not, as shown below, almost directly? It's all way beyond my meager understanding of the matter.
Scroll/go to the 2:00 mark for the test.
Thanks, I have seen the Haag demonstration before. And it is at a steep angle (directly as you stated). The angle from the sniper’s nest window to the manhole cover is very shallow. I believe that a ricochet is the most likely result of a bullet hitting concrete at that type of angle. And I believe Tague’s scratch just might be evidence of that.
-
The only ‘Shot that Missed’ that I am concerned about is the shot I was supposed to have gotten last month. When can I expect to receive my “Trump” shot in the arm? And I’m not talking about the $ 2,000.
-
Here’s what FBI agent Vince Drain had to say about it in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
Of course, time dims your memory a bit, but as I understand it, Oswald was sitting there looking through the scope with the target moving away at 10–12 M.P.H. It was a very easy target. He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire. The best we could tell when we reenacted it, and we went over this thing from all angles with the finest ballistics’ experts in the country, the first shot went wild which was found down close to a water outlet in the curb. The second shot hit the President in the fatty part of the neck and went through completely hitting Connally in the rib cage driving the bone ahead of it, came out, and part of it hit him in the wrist. The third shot is what caught the President in the back of the head. Now that’s the best that all the scientific people could come up with that happened.
-
The only ‘Shot that Missed’ that I am concerned about is the shot I was supposed to have gotten last month. When can I expect to receive my “Trump” shot in the arm? And I’m not talking about the $ 2,000.
Write your congressional representative...meanwhile please try and stay on topic.
-
I assume you have it ricocheting off various tree limbs and traffic signals in order to reach the manhole area.
No, actually I believe that the first shot was inadvertent due to interference from the conduit closest to the window. It appears to me that the shooter’s left elbow would have been very close to it when he brought the rifle up and began his aim. If his left elbow actually struck that conduit while his other finger was on the trigger, this interference and resulting sudden stop of the movement of the rifle could have caused what is termed an accidental discharge by gun safety instructors. Because he likely wouldn’t have wanted to let anyone below see the rifle ahead of time, I believe that he would have waited until the limo was below him and then been in the process of quickly bringing the rifle up into position for an intended first shot as soon as the target emerged from under the tree limbs cover. Since he likely wouldn’t have been able to physically practice this maneuver (with the rifle) ahead of time, without potentially drawing unwanted attention to himself, he likely wouldn’t have anticipated the interference from the conduit. I believe the inadvertent shot happened before the rifle was fully aimed and that the bullet simply traveled to the manhole cover area without hitting anything beforehand.
Others have theorized the interference from either tree limbs or the traffic signal as reasons for the first shot missing the limo entirely. But the evidence for those scenarios is slim. The theory I believe in explains why the shot missed (it was inadvertent and thus not fully aimed).
As I'm sure you're aware, there is not even the slightest hint of any evidence to support your belief. It is completely a matter of faith.
It makes sense (to me at least) that the assassin would want to get off a shot far earlier than my proposal of z223. I also accept that, for some reason, the assassin chose an unnecessarily cramped spot to take the shot from (he had the whole sixth floor to choose from). What you propose is not beyond the realms of possibility.
My first problem is the difference between the position of the limo in the z130's and the manhole area. Was Qswald swinging the rifle round in a big arc in order to take aim? The difference between the two positions is radical and I cannot envisage how he can be holding the rifle in such a position as to accidentally shoot so far off the mark.
Obviously, my second problem with a shot so early has been discussed elsewhere in depth.
Your theory would also work for the manhole cover strike scenario if the third shot was the one that missed. However, if that were the case, I believe that more witnesses would have described a shot after the headshot in their accounts. Most witnesses seem to believe that the headshot was the last one.
"Most witnesses" do not believe the headshot was the last shot.
Some do and some don't .
-
Here’s what FBI agent Vince Drain had to say about it in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
Of course, time dims your memory a bit, but as I understand it, Oswald was sitting there looking through the scope with the target moving away at 10–12 M.P.H. It was a very easy target. He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire. The best we could tell when we reenacted it, and we went over this thing from all angles with the finest ballistics’ experts in the country, the first shot went wild which was found down close to a water outlet in the curb. The second shot hit the President in the fatty part of the neck and went through completely hitting Connally in the rib cage driving the bone ahead of it, came out, and part of it hit him in the wrist. The third shot is what caught the President in the back of the head. Now that’s the best that all the scientific people could come up with that happened.
"He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"
Drain is stating a two shot scenario. The math is off for a three shot scenario. He states there was a total of three bullets in the gun. The last bullet in the gun was unfired and ejected by Fritz, leaving two shots total having been fired by LHO according to Drain. CE 543, which lacks the indentation from the chamber of the rifle, was ejected prior to the first shot.
-
As I'm sure you're aware, there is not even the slightest hint of any evidence to support your belief. It is completely a matter of faith.
It makes sense (to me at least) that the assassin would want to get off a shot far earlier than my proposal of z223. I also accept that, for some reason, the assassin chose an unnecessarily cramped spot to take the shot from (he had the whole sixth floor to choose from). What you propose is not beyond the realms of possibility.
My first problem is the difference between the position of the limo in the z130's and the manhole area. Was Qswald swinging the rifle round in a big arc in order to take aim? The difference between the two positions is radical and I cannot envisage how he can be holding the rifle in such a position as to accidentally shoot so far off the mark.
Obviously, my second problem with a shot so early has been discussed elsewhere in depth.
Your theory would also work for the manhole cover strike scenario if the third shot was the one that missed. However, if that were the case, I believe that more witnesses would have described a shot after the headshot in their accounts. Most witnesses seem to believe that the headshot was the last one.
My first problem is the difference between the position of the limo in the z130's and the manhole area. Was Qswald swinging the rifle round in a big arc in order to take aim? The difference between the two positions is radical and I cannot envisage how he can be holding the rifle in such a position as to accidentally shoot so far off the mark.
No, I believe that he likely wanted to have the rifle semi-aimed (or at least on his shoulder and pointed toward the vicinity of the area where the limo would emerge on the other side of the tree limbs) ahead of the time when it actually would get there. We see skeet shooters do something similar before they yell “pull” for the release of the target. And, that while in the process of trying to quickly pre-position the rifle he could have had his finger on the trigger and inadvertently fired a shot before he meant to.
I believe that there must be a good reason for that bullet to miss the entire limo. Other potential reasons include Max Holland’s theory that it hit the traffic signal, plus another possibility is that the top box on the window sill interfered with an intended early shot. If he had been sitting on the box and tracking the limo with the rifle in the period immediately before Z133, when it reached the Z133 area the top outer corner of the box was in a position to interfere and the end of the barrel might have hit the box and caused a shot to miss the limo. In this case, it would likely have hit the asphalt and disintegrated similar to Haags’ demonstration posted earlier in this thread.
-
"He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"
Drain is stating a two shot scenario. The math is off for a three shot scenario. He states there was a total of three bullets in the gun. The last bullet in the gun was unfired and ejected by Fritz, leaving two shots total having been fired by LHO according to Drain. CE 543, which lacks the indentation from the chamber of the rifle, was ejected prior to the first shot.
That’s probably the reason (NOT) why most witnesses heard three shots.
-
That’s probably why most witnesses heard three shots (NOT).
The overwhelming majority of "ear-witnesses" heard three shots only.
That is a fact.
-
The overwhelming majority of "ear-witnesses" heard three shots only.
That is a fact.
Yes, I agree. I might should have worded my sentence differently. I think I will edit it accordingly.
-
Yes, I agree. I might should have worded my sentence differently. I think I will edit it accordingly.
This raises the other problem for your scenario - the timing of the shots.
In your scenario (assuming a first shot at z133) the gap between the first shot and the headshot is 10 seconds.
There is only one witness (as far as I'm aware) that proposes such a time gap (Connally)
One witness.
Many describe a pattern where the second two shots are quite close together.
You are proposing - first shot then a gap of 5 seconds, second shot then another gap of 5 seconds to the headshot.
I can't find a single witness proposing such a thing.
-
This raises the other problem for your scenario - the timing of the shots.
In your scenario (assuming a first shot at z133) the gap between the first shot and the headshot is 10 seconds.
There is only one witness (as far as I'm aware) that proposes such a time gap (Connally)
One witness.
Many describe a pattern where the second two shots are quite close together.
You are proposing - first shot then a gap of 5 seconds, second shot then another gap of 5 seconds to the headshot.
I can't find a single witness proposing such a thing.
There are quite a few witnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced. One that I recently came across and took note of (for another reason) was the radio dispatcher for the Sheriff’s office named Watson. He said in his report to the Sheriff dated 11/22/63:
...about that time I heard three loud reports evenly spaced which I presumed to be rifle or shotgun blast. I looked at the time on the radio panel and it was about 40-seconds after 12:30pm...
There are other similar accounts from some of the witnesses.
-
That’s probably the reason (NOT) why most witnesses heard three shots.
You were discussing Drain's testimony which is obviously a two shot scenario. Apparently now you are discussing your opinion. Drain tried to explain there was not a missed shot. In fact he explains there was only two shots.
-
The overwhelming majority of "ear-witnesses" heard three shots only.
That is a fact.
The overwhelming majority of "eye" witnesses describe two shots or second shot as being headshot. All five people just in JFK's car.
Interesting that you would place more emphasis on the opinions of witnesses who did not know what was happening as opposed to those who did.
-
You were discussing Drain's testimony which is obviously a two shot scenario. Apparently now you are discussing your opinion. Drain tried to explain there was not a missed shot. In fact he explains there was only two shots.
Read it again. He most certainly does not.
-
The overwhelming majority of "eye" witnesses describe two shots or second shot as being headshot. All five people just in JFK's car.
Interesting that you would place more emphasis on the opinions of witnesses who did not know what was happening as opposed to those who did.
What are you talking about?
Are you saying the people in the limo were the only ones who knew the limo was being fired on?
Are you saying people outside the limo didn't see JFK being shot?
Are you saying more than 150 witnesses who heard 3 shots only were wrong?
-
Read it again. He most certainly does not.
He most certainly does. Drain: "He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"
You chose to quote Drain. How do you read it? One empty shell CE 543 on the floor prior to LHO preparing to fire, followed by two shots, one unfired cartridge by Fritz still in the chamber of LHO's rifle. Seems pretty straight forward.
-
What are you talking about?
Are you saying the people in the limo were the only ones who knew the limo was being fired on?
Are you saying people outside the limo didn't see JFK being shot?
Are you saying more than 150 witnesses who heard 3 shots only were wrong?
Once again, do you place more value on the "ear" witnesses standing in an echo chamber over the eyewitnesses who could see and also hear what had happened? It appears you do.
Are you saying the people unable to see what was happening in the limo knew more than the people who were in the limo?
Are you saying people outside the limo didn't know JFK had been shot because the could see it as well as hear it?
Are you saying more than 150 witnesses who heard noises knew more than the people who actually witnessed the shooting?
-
Once again, do you place more value on the "ear" witnesses standing in an echo chamber over the eyewitnesses who could see and also hear what had happened? It appears you do.
I don't know what you're saying here.
Nobody was stood in an echo chamber.
All I'm saying is that the vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard three shots. That's a fact. Why is that somehow discounted if they didn't actually see the bullets hit the target?
Are you saying the people unable to see what was happening in the limo knew more than the people who were in the limo?
No. That's a ridiculous thing to ask
Are you saying people outside the limo didn't know JFK had been shot because the could see it as well as hear it?
What??
Are you saying more than 150 witnesses who heard noises knew more than the people who actually witnessed the shooting?
Many of the people who heard the 'noises' also witnessed the shooting. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
The fact so many people heard three shots can lead us to conclude three audible shots were fired. That's it. What is it you think I'm saying?
-
He most certainly does. Drain: "He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"
You chose to quote Drain. How do you read it? One empty shell CE 543 on the floor prior to LHO preparing to fire, followed by two shots, one unfired cartridge by Fritz still in the chamber of LHO's rifle. Seems pretty straight forward.
Drain goes on to describe what they believe happened with three separate shots. Therefore, he didn’t indicate that CE 543 was already empty as you contend, quite the opposite.
-
I don't know what you're saying here.
Nobody was stood in an echo chamber.
All I'm saying is that the vast majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard three shots. That's a fact. Why is that somehow discounted if they didn't actually see the bullets hit the target?
No. That's a ridiculous thing to ask
What??
Many of the people who heard the 'noises' also witnessed the shooting. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
The fact so many people heard three shots can lead us to conclude three audible shots were fired. That's it. What is it you think I'm saying?
Is this statement no longer true?
O"Meara: The overwhelming majority of "ear-witnesses" heard three shots only.
That is a fact.
Another fact, the majority of the eyewitnesses stated there was only two shots, second shot head shot, etc.
Once again, do you think the witnesses who could only hear know more about the assassination than the people who could see and hear.
-
Drain goes on to describe what they believe happened with three separate shots. Therefore, he didn’t indicate that CE 543 was already empty as you contend, quite the opposite.
There were three shells discovered on the floor and one unfired cartridge found in the rifle. That is a total of four. Drain states there was only three live cartridges total in his statement. That is all. Whatever point you are trying to make maybe you need a different witness. Drain's statement is contradictory to what you are stating.
Drain is trying to convey there was only two shots--- believe him
-
Most of the witnesses were interviewed long after the 3 shot narrative was firmly planted in the public psyche.
-
There were three shells discovered on the floor and one unfired cartridge found in the rifle. That is a total of four. Drain states there was only three live cartridges total in his statement. That is all. Whatever point you are trying to make maybe you need a different witness. Drain's statement is contradictory to what you are stating.
Drain is trying to convey there was only two shots--- believe him
Drain states there was only three live cartridges total in his statement. That is all.
Drain doesn’t state any such thing. He is conveying that the bolt action only needed to be cycled twice to fire three shots. Here is his statement again:
Here’s what FBI agent Vince Drain had to say about it in “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed:
Of course, time dims your memory a bit, but as I understand it, Oswald was sitting there looking through the scope with the target moving away at 10–12 M.P.H. It was a very easy target. He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire. The best we could tell when we reenacted it, and we went over this thing from all angles with the finest ballistics’ experts in the country, the first shot went wild which was found down close to a water outlet in the curb. The second shot hit the President in the fatty part of the neck and went through completely hitting Connally in the rib cage driving the bone ahead of it, came out, and part of it hit him in the wrist. The third shot is what caught the President in the back of the head. Now that’s the best that all the scientific people could come up with that happened.
I highlighted the sentence you are referring to.
1. If the shell in the chamber was empty (as you contend), then it wouldn’t be ready. Now would it?
2. Drain goes on to describe what happened to three different bullets, not just two.
3. Drain simply doesn’t mention the fourth cartridge (found in the rifle after the shooting). He is discussing the shots. Not the condition of the rifle when it was found afterwards.
-
Is this statement no longer true?
O"Meara: The overwhelming majority of "ear-witnesses" heard three shots only.
That is a fact.
Another fact, the majority of the eyewitnesses stated there was only two shots, second shot head shot, etc.
Once again, do you think the witnesses who could only hear know more about the assassination than the people who could see and hear.
The fact I quoted is from the work of Pat Speer. Speer has done a comprehensive study of the witness statements concerning the assassination, specifically regarding the shots, and concludes:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 294 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 294, 89 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together. Another 13 heard the last two shots fired closely together, and yet another could only swear to hearing two shots, but thought there may have been a third, which was wholly consistent with the last two being fired closely together. This means that 173 of the 205 witnesses described the shots in a relatively consistent manner. "
!60 of the 205 witnesses who reported something related to the shots, reported there was three shots.
When you say:
"Another fact, the majority of the eyewitnesses stated there was only two shots, second shot head shot, etc."
Where are you getting this 'fact' from?
Are you just making this up?
-
Drain states there was only three live cartridges total in his statement. That is all.
Drain doesn’t state any such thing. He is conveying that the bolt action only needed to be cycled twice to fire three shots. Here is his statement again:
I highlighted the sentence you are referring to.
1. If the shell in the chamber was empty (as you contend), then it wouldn’t be ready. Now would it?
2. Drain goes on to describe what happened to three different bullets, not just two.
3. Drain simply doesn’t mention the fourth cartridge (found in the rifle after the shooting). He is discussing the shots. Not the condition of the rifle when it was found afterwards.
Drain does not support whatever point you are trying to make. He is trying to tell you there was only two shots. If you can read there is more than three live cartridges being discussed it is only because you want to. Good luck with it.
-
The fact I quoted is from the work of Pat Speer. Speer has done a comprehensive study of the witness statements concerning the assassination, specifically regarding the shots, and concludes:
"...we’ve looked at the words of 294 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 294, 89 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together. Another 13 heard the last two shots fired closely together, and yet another could only swear to hearing two shots, but thought there may have been a third, which was wholly consistent with the last two being fired closely together. This means that 173 of the 205 witnesses described the shots in a relatively consistent manner. "
!60 of the 205 witnesses who reported something related to the shots, reported there was three shots.
When you say:
"Another fact, the majority of the eyewitnesses stated there was only two shots, second shot head shot, etc."
Where are you getting this 'fact' from?
Are you just making this up?
Pat Speer did an excellent job of compiling the witness statements. I have not looked at it in years but read his analysis as to how many times he refers to three shots with the last two being close together as really having been only two shots.
Separate the eye witnesses from the ear witnesses. A different picture of the assassination emerges. The initial statements of the eyewitnesses was there was only two shots. Altgens, the only news reporter that was an eye witness, reported what he saw and heard and his news bulletin was broadcast on TV. His bulletin was that there was only two shots. Unfortunately Walter Cronkites stating what Merriman Smith reported, an earwitness, was reported first and then continuously repeated and ended up coloring the statements of many witnesses.
-
Drain does not support whatever point you are trying to make. He is trying to tell you there was only two shots. If you can read there is more than three live cartridges being discussed it is only because you want to. Good luck with it.
Good luck with your nutty idea that there were only two shots fired.
-
Good luck with your nutty idea that there were only two shots fired.
As opposed to a thread talking about a shot that there is absolutely no proof of ever having even been fired? A shot that cannot be explained or defined? A shot that is purely faith based with no substance?
In their conclusions both the Warren Commission and HSCA postulated there was only two shots having been fired and the witnesses stated by the witnesses were influenced by the media coverage.
Now would be a good time to provide all your proof there ever was a third shot
-
As opposed to a thread talking about a shot that there is absolutely no proof of ever having even been fired? A shot that cannot be explained or defined? A shot that is purely faith based with no substance?
In their conclusions both the Warren Commission and HSCA postulated there was only two shots having been fired and the witnesses stated by the witnesses were influenced by the media coverage.
Now would be a good time to provide all your proof there ever was a third shot
Do you even know the difference between evidence and “proof”?
-
Do you even know the difference between evidence and “proof”?
Can you provide either?
-
As opposed to a thread talking about a shot that there is absolutely no proof of ever having even been fired? A shot that cannot be explained or defined? A shot that is purely faith based with no substance?
In their conclusions both the Warren Commission and HSCA postulated there was only two shots having been fired and the witnesses stated by the witnesses were influenced by the media coverage.
Now would be a good time to provide all your proof there ever was a third shot
Can you provide either?
For what it is worth, evidence is something - a memory or recollection of an event or fact provided by a person's testimony or statement, something physical, an expert opinion - that is probative of the existence of a fact. Proof relates to the sufficiency of evidence to satisfy a trier of fact ie. whether a judge or jury is satisfied that a fact or set of facts has been established to the requisite standard of proof.
To suggest that there is no evidence of a third shot is simply wrong. There are over a hundred witnesses who recalled exactly three shots and many of those also recalled a specific pattern to the shots. There is also physical corroborating evidence of three shots in the shells in the TSBD. All of that is evidence.
Whether this amounts to "proof" of three shots depends on how this evidence is treated by the trier of fact.
In my view, not only does the evidence prove to my satisfaction that there were three and only three shots but that it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was any other number of shots. While there is evidence that there were only two shots, the fact that so many heard three shots is difficult to reconcile with only two shots having been fired. So it is not possible - if one is being reasonable - to reach a firm conclusion that there were actually only two shots and that three is not reasonably possible.
-
Can you provide either?
I think that you might want to consider learning to use the English language more precisely.
I cannot provide either.
I can cite much evidence which was developed by the authorities during the investigation.
Why don’t you just go ahead and tell us all about why you believe all this evidence is wrong.
-
Good luck with your nutty idea that there were only two shots fired.
Cool rebuttal bro
-
Cool rebuttal bro
Thanks! 8)
-
Okay.
One more time.
Z 207 hit 1
Z 312 hit 2
Z 350 hit 3
All easy shots.
Check Oswald's range scores.
-
I think that you might want to consider learning to use the English language more precisely.
I cannot provide either.
I can cite much evidence which was developed by the authorities during the investigation.
Why don’t you just go ahead and tell us all about why you believe all this evidence is wrong.
Feel free to start citing, proving, and/or providing the evidence of three shots. Maybe admit you can not because with all the evasive answers that is what it really looks like.
"The shot that missed" and you can't provide any information that there even was a third shot at all. Drain only had a total of three live cartridges in his statement.
-
Feel free to start citing, proving, and/or providing the evidence of three shots. Maybe admit you can not because with all the evasive answers that is what it really looks like.
"The shot that missed" and you can't provide any information that there even was a third shot at all. Drain only had a total of three live cartridges in his statement.
160 ear-witnesses is "information that there even was a third shot at all".
What are you not not understanding about that?
And where are you getting your information from that most eye-witnesses recall two shots? Please cite.
-
Feel free to start citing, proving, and/or providing the evidence of three shots. Maybe admit you can not because with all the evasive answers that is what it really looks like.
"The shot that missed" and you can't provide any information that there even was a third shot at all. Drain only had a total of three live cartridges in his statement.
Drain’s statement did not include the live cartridge found in the rifle after the shooting.
-
160 ear-witnesses is "information that there even was a third shot at all".
What are you not not understanding about that?
And where are you getting your information from that most eye-witnesses recall two shots? Please cite.
What is not understood is why you place more value on an earwitness statement than an eyewitness statement. Sheer numbers? That is it? The earwitnesses were told what took place by the eyewitnesses.
HSCA Sound Analysis determined the echo was almost as loud as the initial shot and reverberated 0.9 seconds later. Sounds like shots two and three and the description of so many three shot witnesses of the second and third as being so close as to almost be one.
If you are interested in knowing look up the eyewitness statements. If you have never actually read through Pat Speer's site you should do so. The accounts are in television interviews, newspaper accounts, affidavits, WC statements, virtually all mediums. The WC and HSCA conclusions clearly state the confusion as to how many shots and why. They could never prove the existence of a third shot either. The HSCA ultimately concluded four shots but also concluded the witnesses were influenced by the news media and inflated the number of shots. It only shows you the last minute addition of the dictabelt info altered the HSCA basic conception of the assassination.
-
Drain’s statement did not include the live cartridge found in the rifle after the shooting.
Drain is talking about only three live cartridges total. There is no way to misinterpret his meaning.
Drain: "He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"
The fact you cannot cite, prove, or provide evidence or proof of a third shot should give you pause to consider that there never was one. Hoover within 14 minutes of the assassination stated there was only two shots.
-
Drain is talking about only three live cartridges total. There is no way to misinterpret his meaning.
Drain: "He had one cartridge in the chamber ready, so he only had two more to put in to fire"
The fact you cannot cite, prove, or provide evidence or proof of a third shot should give you pause to consider that there never was one. Hoover within 14 minutes of the assassination stated there was only two shots.
There is no way to misinterpret his meaning.
One of us has, and it is obviously you. You are taking one sentence out of context and trying to twist it to mean something that is doesn’t. If you read the statement in full the true meaning is apparent. Despite your lame attempt to claim otherwise.
-
Here’s a different independent take supporting an early first shot that missed. Bullet trajectory is not part of the analysis (but I would guess it disintegrated in the pavement as a near miss as there was nothing between the rifle and limo at the time).
Background: Recently there have been two common LN estimates debated for the first shot timing (in the three shot scenario). The more recent one by Holland/DeRonja and an older one by HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. Both are influenced heavily on testimony and especially on Win Lawson’s testimony for Holland/DeRonja and John Connally’s testimony for HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. In addition at times they both have been fueled by theorizing something deflected the bullet (a traffic mast or tree branches). Besides an obstruction, the choice in testimonies that have been chosen to focus on gives two clearly different answers. Is the testimony problem just too much natural variation in witness memories, or the interpretations that researchers try to assign to those memories/testimonies, or both, or some witnesses being misled or even worse lying? (I don’t believe in dishonesty and deceit though)
I wondered what the result would be if no testimony at all was used, but rather a technique using only reactions on film.
The referenced manuscript below did that, and formalizes the work done via a forensic technique based on the science of human reaction times that is applied to the evaluation of surprise gunshot sounds in silent films. It’s an analytical tool that doesn’t rely on any eyewitness testimony, and as such is a good candidate to independently estimate the JFK first shot timing on Elm Street using early reactions identified in the Zapruder film.
https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Estimating-Occult-Timing-of-Surprise-Gunshot-Sounds-in-Silent-Film-via-Observed-Start-of-Human-Voluntary-Reactions-of-Concern-Roselle.pdf
Applied to the JFK case, the analysis technique indicated that the first shot was triggered half a second before z133. In a 3 shot scenario where shot 2 struck around z222 and shot 3 struck just before z313, this would give approximately three equally spaced shots with the duration of the three shot shooting sequence ~10.2 seconds.
How does this compare to those other two completely different based analysis? Well, although notably different, interestingly enough it positions the first shot happening at a very specific point in time which occurred in-between the timing estimates of Holland/DeRonja and that of HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi and a point in time where the limo was at least temporarily essentially in the clear.
-
Here’s a different independent take supporting an early first shot that missed. Bullet trajectory is not part of the analysis (but I would guess it disintegrated in the pavement as a near miss as there was nothing between the rifle and limo at the time).
Background: Recently there have been two common LN estimates debated for the first shot timing (in the three shot scenario). The more recent one by Holland/DeRonja and an older one by HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. Both are influenced heavily on testimony and especially on Win Lawson’s testimony for Holland/DeRonja and John Connally’s testimony for HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. In addition at times they both have been fueled by theorizing something deflected the bullet (a traffic mast or tree branches). Besides an obstruction, the choice in testimonies that have been chosen to focus on gives two clearly different answers. Is the testimony problem just too much natural variation in witness memories, or the interpretations that researchers try to assign to those memories/testimonies, or both, or some witnesses being misled or even worse lying? (I don’t believe in dishonesty and deceit though)
I wondered what the result would be if no testimony at all was used, but rather a technique using only reactions on film.
The referenced manuscript below did that, and formalizes the work done via a forensic technique based on the science of human reaction times that is applied to the evaluation of surprise gunshot sounds in silent films. It’s an analytical tool that doesn’t rely on any eyewitness testimony, and as such is a good candidate to independently estimate the JFK first shot timing on Elm Street using early reactions identified in the Zapruder film.
https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Estimating-Occult-Timing-of-Surprise-Gunshot-Sounds-in-Silent-Film-via-Observed-Start-of-Human-Voluntary-Reactions-of-Concern-Roselle.pdf
Applied to the JFK case, the analysis technique indicated that the first shot was triggered half a second before z133. In a 3 shot scenario where shot 2 struck around z222 and shot 3 struck just before z313, this would give approximately three equally spaced shots with the duration of the three shot shooting sequence ~10.2 seconds.
How does this compare to those other two completely different based analysis? Well, although notably different, interestingly enough it positions the first shot happening at a very specific point in time which occurred in-between the timing estimates of Holland/DeRonja and that of HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi and a point in time where the limo was at least temporarily essentially in the clear.
Thanks, the results of this study appear to be in harmony with what I believe is the most likely timing. I will read it and see what I think about it.
-
Here’s a different independent take supporting an early first shot that missed. Bullet trajectory is not part of the analysis (but I would guess it disintegrated in the pavement as a near miss as there was nothing between the rifle and limo at the time).
Background: Recently there have been two common LN estimates debated for the first shot timing (in the three shot scenario). The more recent one by Holland/DeRonja and an older one by HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. Both are influenced heavily on testimony and especially on Win Lawson’s testimony for Holland/DeRonja and John Connally’s testimony for HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. In addition at times they both have been fueled by theorizing something deflected the bullet (a traffic mast or tree branches). Besides an obstruction, the choice in testimonies that have been chosen to focus on gives two clearly different answers. Is the testimony problem just too much natural variation in witness memories, or the interpretations that researchers try to assign to those memories/testimonies, or both, or some witnesses being misled or even worse lying? (I don’t believe in dishonesty and deceit though)
I wondered what the result would be if no testimony at all was used, but rather a technique using only reactions on film.
The referenced manuscript below did that, and formalizes the work done via a forensic technique based on the science of human reaction times that is applied to the evaluation of surprise gunshot sounds in silent films. It’s an analytical tool that doesn’t rely on any eyewitness testimony, and as such is a good candidate to independently estimate the JFK first shot timing on Elm Street using early reactions identified in the Zapruder film.
https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Estimating-Occult-Timing-of-Surprise-Gunshot-Sounds-in-Silent-Film-via-Observed-Start-of-Human-Voluntary-Reactions-of-Concern-Roselle.pdf
Applied to the JFK case, the analysis technique indicated that the first shot was triggered half a second before z133. In a 3 shot scenario where shot 2 struck around z222 and shot 3 struck just before z313, this would give approximately three equally spaced shots with the duration of the three shot shooting sequence ~10.2 seconds.
How does this compare to those other two completely different based analysis? Well, although notably different, interestingly enough it positions the first shot happening at a very specific point in time which occurred in-between the timing estimates of Holland/DeRonja and that of HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi and a point in time where the limo was at least temporarily essentially in the clear.
Wow, well done Brian. A very impressive document. It doesn’t try to answer the question of why the first shot missed the entire limo. But I believe that a study of the ergonomics of the sniper’s nest identifies two potential objects that could have interfered (the conduit closest to the window and the top outer corner of the box on the window sill) and caused the shot to miss.
What can you tell us about yours and Kenneth Scearce’s background and experience in crime scene reconstruction?
Thanks for posting the link to the report. The approach appears to be a good one. And the methods and conclusions based on good science.
-
There is no way to misinterpret his meaning.
One of us has, and it is obviously you. You are taking one sentence out of context and trying to twist it to mean something that is doesn’t. If you read the statement in full the true meaning is apparent. Despite your lame attempt to claim otherwise.
There are a number of contradictory statements just like Drain's. Nelly Connally as an example. Her original statement was she did not know about a third shot. You are just focusing on the part you like. The fact you cannot provide any evidence of a third shot should be a clue.
-
Thanks Charles, it took longer than initially envisioned to complete/formalize the research.
I agree that the frustrating part of the methodology is that it does not say anything about the disposition of the bullet or why the shot missed, only the timing of a surprise shot. So those others are separate questions, but the timing is a key start. I have considered the limo apparent angular motion as a possibility for a miss, but it seems there could be other reasons as well and I had never thought about the effect that physical constraints of the snipers nest may have had on an early shot, so I like how you are looking into these other possibilities.
I know Ken’s interest in the case goes way back, and as an attorney has experience with cases in a courtroom. My interest goes back to that day, I was in 4th grade when it happened and I had to be the one to tell my mom when I got home a little early that afternoon. She hadn’t heard the news yet and was upset because she liked Kennedy but that may have been because of more than just politics. She happened to be a war bride from Ireland that came to America. Her maiden name was the same as JFK’s great grandmother who also came to America, and they both came from the same part of Ireland.
I am not a criminologist (or a criminal to my knowledge), but worked in R&D as a scientist/engineer. I suspect having to understand competitors’ products, how they worked, and developing new products and methods for the company I worked for, was instrumental in helping to do this method development work.
-
Thanks Charles, it took longer than initially envisioned to complete/formalize the research.
I agree that the frustrating part of the methodology is that it does not say anything about the disposition of the bullet or why the shot missed, only the timing of a surprise shot. So those others are separate questions, but the timing is a key start. I have considered the limo apparent angular motion as a possibility for a miss, but it seems there could be other reasons as well and I had never thought about the effect that physical constraints of the snipers nest may have had on an early shot, so I like how you are looking into these other possibilities.
I know Ken’s interest in the case goes way back, and as an attorney has experience with cases in a courtroom. My interest goes back to that day, I was in 4th grade when it happened and I had to be the one to tell my mom when I got home a little early that afternoon. She hadn’t heard the news yet and was upset because she liked Kennedy but that may have been because of more than just politics. She happened to be a war bride from Ireland that came to America. Her maiden name was the same as JFK’s great grandmother who also came to America, and they both came from the same part of Ireland.
I am not a criminologist (or a criminal to my knowledge), but worked in R&D as a scientist/engineer. I suspect having to understand competitors’ products, how they worked, and developing new products and methods for the company I worked for, was instrumental in helping to do this method development work.
I have considered the limo apparent angular motion as a possibility for a miss, but it seems there could be other reasons as well and I had never thought about the effect that physical constraints of the snipers nest may have had on an early shot, so I like how you are looking into these other possibilities.
Yes, there are several possibilities for why the shot apparently missed so badly. LHO used to hunt rabbits with a .22 rifle and was reportedly pretty good at it. So the angular motion possibility seems to me to be less likely (I can believe him missing the head, but not the entire limo). I created a 3-D virtual model of the sniper’s nest and located the target (limo with JFK in right rear seat) at the three different locations. If the sniper was seated on the box on the floor, it appears that the corner of the top box on the window sill would likely interfere with the aiming of the rifle very near the Z133 timeframe target location. So this is one potential possibility. And the conduit nearest to the window would be very close to his left elbow as he raised the rifle up to begin aiming it (even more so if he were attempting an early shot before the tree limb cover came into play). A couple of others here have their own 3-D computer models (which are more elaborate than mine; and all of them are based on actual measurements of Dealey Plaza) and have verified my findings regarding the interference objects. So it all makes sense to me. And your article reinforces the ideas that some of us have regarding the first shot timing. Thanks again for sharing it with us.
-
Maybe this is relevant to your thoughts.
Awhile back, for an early shot limo position, I looked at how much of an error in aim would it take to entirely miss the limo. I don’t recall if I shared that here.
What surprised me was that for a minimum limo miss, the rifle aim (measured at the gun holding/aiming support point on the barrel located around the midpoint of the gun) would appear to only need to be off by around 0.5 inch.
That’s less than I expected and seems like that might not be inconsistent with an error in tracking, or an unexpectedly bumping of the rifle on something (box?) at a point just before triggering, or a combination of both.
The diagram for this is at the link. The sniper nest and boxes, and the Zapruder frame are to help in visualization and do not necessarily imply the exact positioning or time.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hZEgKoRdXBBpzrLArLUZh9JsNA3oIE_E/view?usp=sharing
-
Maybe this is relevant to your thoughts.
Awhile back, for an early shot limo position, I looked at how much of an error in aim would it take to entirely miss the limo. I don’t recall if I shared that here.
What surprised me was that for a minimum limo miss, the rifle aim (measured at the gun holding/aiming support point on the barrel located around the midpoint of the gun) would appear to only need to be off by around 0.5 inch.
That’s less than I expected and seems like that might not be inconsistent with an error in tracking, or an unexpectedly bumping of the rifle on something (box?) at a point just before triggering, or a combination of both.
The diagram for this is at the link. The sniper nest and boxes, and the Zapruder frame are to help in visualization and do not necessarily imply the exact positioning or time.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hZEgKoRdXBBpzrLArLUZh9JsNA3oIE_E/view?usp=sharing
Does the issue of some earwitnesses saying the first shot sounded different than the others mean anything re the angle/time?
And many of the witnesses further down, along the Grassy Knoll, said they didn't hear a first shot. Zapruder, Sitzman, Brehm, the Newmans.....all basically said they heard two shots. Mrs. Newman said there may have been a third.
I find it very odd that many of the spectators further down Elm at the time of the supposed first shot said they only heard two shots.
-
Does the issue of some earwitnesses saying the first shot sounded different than the others mean anything re the angle/time?
And many of the witnesses further down, along the Grassy Knoll, said they didn't hear a first shot. Zapruder, Sitzman, Brehm, the Newmans.....all basically said they heard two shots. Mrs. Newman said there may have been a third.
I find it very odd that many of the spectators further down Elm at the time of the supposed first shot said they only heard two shots.
I find it very odd that many of the spectators further down Elm at the time of the supposed first shot said they only heard two shots.
Some potential reasons for that that I have considered are:
The ambient noise level increases as one moves towards the triple underpass due to the train moving over the underpass at the time of the shots. Also there is the significant noise created by the four Harley Davidson motorcycles which would either be very close to those witnesses and/or between them and the TSBD (source of the rifle shot). The crowd noise is also a factor and would tend to be loudest nearer to the limo. (The crowds which the limo had already passed would most likely have slowed or stopped yelling and clapping after the limo went by.) And also, since there were no overtly obvious indications (like the reactions after both JFK and JBC were hit) the sound of a missed first shot might have blended in with the other noises and just not been recognized as a rifle shot noise.
-
Maybe this is relevant to your thoughts.
Awhile back, for an early shot limo position, I looked at how much of an error in aim would it take to entirely miss the limo. I don’t recall if I shared that here.
What surprised me was that for a minimum limo miss, the rifle aim (measured at the gun holding/aiming support point on the barrel located around the midpoint of the gun) would appear to only need to be off by around 0.5 inch.
That’s less than I expected and seems like that might not be inconsistent with an error in tracking, or an unexpectedly bumping of the rifle on something (box?) at a point just before triggering, or a combination of both.
The diagram for this is at the link. The sniper nest and boxes, and the Zapruder frame are to help in visualization and do not necessarily imply the exact positioning or time.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hZEgKoRdXBBpzrLArLUZh9JsNA3oIE_E/view?usp=sharing
Thanks, that is interesting. I think that someone with the shooting abilities that LHO had is unlikely to miss his target by that much unless there was some interference of some sort. An inadvertent bump on a box corner or elbow to the conduit would seem to be enough.
-
Here’s a different independent take supporting an early first shot that missed. Bullet trajectory is not part of the analysis (but I would guess it disintegrated in the pavement as a near miss as there was nothing between the rifle and limo at the time).
Background: Recently there have been two common LN estimates debated for the first shot timing (in the three shot scenario). The more recent one by Holland/DeRonja and an older one by HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. Both are influenced heavily on testimony and especially on Win Lawson’s testimony for Holland/DeRonja and John Connally’s testimony for HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi. In addition at times they both have been fueled by theorizing something deflected the bullet (a traffic mast or tree branches). Besides an obstruction, the choice in testimonies that have been chosen to focus on gives two clearly different answers. Is the testimony problem just too much natural variation in witness memories, or the interpretations that researchers try to assign to those memories/testimonies, or both, or some witnesses being misled or even worse lying? (I don’t believe in dishonesty and deceit though)
I wondered what the result would be if no testimony at all was used, but rather a technique using only reactions on film.
The referenced manuscript below did that, and formalizes the work done via a forensic technique based on the science of human reaction times that is applied to the evaluation of surprise gunshot sounds in silent films. It’s an analytical tool that doesn’t rely on any eyewitness testimony, and as such is a good candidate to independently estimate the JFK first shot timing on Elm Street using early reactions identified in the Zapruder film.
https://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Estimating-Occult-Timing-of-Surprise-Gunshot-Sounds-in-Silent-Film-via-Observed-Start-of-Human-Voluntary-Reactions-of-Concern-Roselle.pdf
Applied to the JFK case, the analysis technique indicated that the first shot was triggered half a second before z133. In a 3 shot scenario where shot 2 struck around z222 and shot 3 struck just before z313, this would give approximately three equally spaced shots with the duration of the three shot shooting sequence ~10.2 seconds.
How does this compare to those other two completely different based analysis? Well, although notably different, interestingly enough it positions the first shot happening at a very specific point in time which occurred in-between the timing estimates of Holland/DeRonja and that of HSCA/Posner/Bugliosi and a point in time where the limo was at least temporarily essentially in the clear.
Hi Brian,
How do I access the Early Zapruder Film Reactions webpage? Do you have a link that will take me there?
How does your method account for the startling lack of reaction by the car full of SS agents in the follow up car?
Some points about table 2 in your paper:
How does Hickey's casual look over the side of the vehicle qualify as a startle reaction? He looks over the side, looks to the crowd then looks straight forward, apparently unperturbed. He makes no mention of this action in his statements as it is of no significance.
You say Jackie "Starts accelerated head turning left". but in the Z-film she is turned left at the very beginning, something confirmed by the Towner film.
Rosemary Willis? ( ::))
You state she "Begins a quick look away from the Presidential limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository". Really?
-
Hi Brian,
How do I access the Early Zapruder Film Reactions webpage? Do you have a link that will take me there?
How does your method account for the startling lack of reaction by the car full of SS agents in the follow up car?
Some points about table 2 in your paper:
How does Hickey's casual look over the side of the vehicle qualify as a startle reaction? He looks over the side, looks to the crowd then looks straight forward, apparently unperturbed. He makes no mention of this action in his statements as it is of no significance.
You say Jackie "Starts accelerated head turning left". but in the Z-film she is turned left at the very beginning, something confirmed by the Towner film.
Rosemary Willis? ( ::))
You state she "Begins a quick look away from the Presidential limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository". Really?
How do I access the Early Zapruder Film Reactions webpage? Do you have a link that will take me there?
Here is a page that is on the McAdams website that I would think he is referring to. It is well written and the graphics are well done. This article was written by Kenneth Scearce, the coauthor of the article that Brian linked to in his post that you quoted.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scearce.htm (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scearce.htm)
-
Does the issue of some earwitnesses saying the first shot sounded different than the others mean anything re the angle/time?
And many of the witnesses further down, along the Grassy Knoll, said they didn't hear a first shot. Zapruder, Sitzman, Brehm, the Newmans.....all basically said they heard two shots. Mrs. Newman said there may have been a third.
I find it very odd that many of the spectators further down Elm at the time of the supposed first shot said they only heard two shots.
So as to not be seen, the rifle was most likely retracted inside the building for the first shot. A few people located inside the TSBD stated they only heard one shot. The dust on BRW hair is also an indication the muzzle blast was inside the building not with barrel sticking outside of the building. BRW is also a two shot witness as was Jarman located next to him.
-
Dan, I'm going to reply to your questions all together, as I'm not familiar with breaking out quotes like everyone else can. I'll eventually figure it out.
Reactions seen early in the zapruder film
https://sites.google.com/site/earlyzapruderfilmreactions/reactions-seen-early-in-zapruder-film
Some apparent total lack of reaction in people in response to a stimulus was a phenomenon that I saw mentioned in one literature reference, but no further elaboration was made. It may be situational based, so I don’t know the exact answer. I can only speculate for this situation. For the crowds I personally believe that it may be as simple as “what grabs, and holds, your attention at that time”. The visual stimulus intensity of seeing the President and First lady right in front of them (many were trying for direct eye contact and a wave response), might well override an auditory stimulus to a firecracker in the background. Now if the auditory stimulus was perceived as a threat, or a real concern, I suspect that perception would override the visual stimulus and they would react to that by looking around. Net the President and First lady right in front of them visually “grabbed and held their attention at that time” over a perceived non-concerning auditory stimulus. For others the first shot sound could be perceived as something that was concerning and they reacted. Again, some speculation, but I wouldn’t be surprised that for those in the Presidential limo and the trailing SS car, there was some sense of relaxation starting to set in, the motorcade was nearly complete, the crowds were much thinner, and the visual field ahead of them was less stimulating than what they had just completed. A surprise loud bang for them may have posed a real concern that grabbed their attention and started a voluntary reaction of concern.
Another point that might come into play is that the most difficult location of a sound for your ears to accurately spatially locate (sound localization) is directly behind and high overhead. I suspect that was the case for individuals in the Presidential limo and the trailing SS car. It may have been hard, based on only one, first unexpected quick sharp bang, to determining exactly what direction the sound came from. Harder to tell which way to look. I can’t say for sure but actually Jackies’ and John Connally’s sweeping head reactions first left and then back right look almost like classical sound localization motions from mammals swinging the head back and forth to locate an unknown sound stimulus.
Regarding your comments on Hickey, I think there are two points to consider. 1) This technique does not use any testimony and further obviously does not use any testimony that is not given, or even testimony that is in error or specific details that were even forgotten or assumed inconsequential within all the chaos. 2) The reactions of Hickey you mention are not startle reactions. They are voluntary reactions, and fit the description as being unusual enough to be unusual voluntary motions of concern, and occur within a timeframe other voluntary motions of concern are observed and consistent with a population perception time model.
Looking at the video in the link above, Jackie starts accelerated head turning left at ~Z143.5, before looking back right. (Similar to John Connally's L-R head motion but starts slightly earlier and ends slightly later than his).
Rosemary Willis in the lower video in the link above appeared to begin a quick look away from the Presidential Limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository at ~Z140 as it appeared to both authors independently using that video.
To note, one advantage to using an average (or median) of multiple samples, if possible, is that this can help buffer mistakes made in sampling. If there were a couple of data points that I changed my mind on to use, I could just throw them out. For example if I decided I didn’t want to use JFK and Rosemary Willis data points, I would throw them out and recalculate. If I did that for this case the predicted first shot timing would only shift about 1.5 frames. If those two points were in error, the original result would have been somewhat buffered by the rest of the data with the original result only being off by less than two frames. Yes, some judgement in context is necessary, but even though I would say those two samples may be a little less clear than the others they still were judged relevant enough to include.
Good questions, hope this helps.
-
So as to not be seen, the rifle was most likely retracted inside the building for the first shot. A few people located inside the TSBD stated they only heard one shot. The dust on BRW hair is also an indication the muzzle blast was inside the building not with barrel sticking outside of the building. BRW is also a two shot witness as was Jarman located next to him.
Did they give earlier, pre-testimony accounts on the number of shots? Because in their testimony they both said they heard three shots.
Jarman's account
Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, 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 was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
William's account:
Mr. WILLIAMS. After the Presidents car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Now, was your head out the window?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I could not say for sure. I do not remember.
Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.
-
"I heard two shots"
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/med_res_d/)
-
Did they give earlier, pre-testimony accounts on the number of shots? Because in their testimony they both said they heard three shots.
Jarman's account
Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, 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 was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
William's account:
Mr. WILLIAMS. After the Presidents car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Now, was your head out the window?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I could not say for sure. I do not remember.
Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.
And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
"And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one."
The motorcade car jumped forward after the headshot. In this account it was Jarman's "second shot"
John Iacoletti posted BRW statement before he added a shot to his narrative. Many of these witnesses would later add a shot.
-
And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.
"And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one."
The motorcade car jumped forward after the headshot. In this account it was Jarman's "second shot"
John Iacoletti posted BRW statement before he added a shot to his narrative. Many of these witnesses would later add a shot.
Thanks. Yes, I recall seeing that Williams' affidavit before but I forgot all about it.
Jarman's account is hard to muddle through. But he said he heard three shots. A third shot AFTER the head shot? And we have Harold Norman, standing right below the window, saying in a 12/4/63 deposition and in his testimony he heard three.
It's maddening to realize these men were standing/squatting right below the window and one heard two shots and another three.
-
Thanks. Yes, I recall seeing that Williams' affidavit before but I forgot all about it.
Jarman's account is hard to muddle through. But he said he heard three shots. A third shot AFTER the head shot? And we have Harold Norman, standing right below the window, saying in a 12/4/63 deposition and in his testimony he heard three.
It's maddening to realize these men were standing/squatting right below the window and one heard two shots and another three.
Don't worry about it. Those guys were working in joe-jobs because they couldn't count.
;)
-
Thanks. Yes, I recall seeing that Williams' affidavit before but I forgot all about it.
Jarman's account is hard to muddle through. But he said he heard three shots. A third shot AFTER the head shot? And we have Harold Norman, standing right below the window, saying in a 12/4/63 deposition and in his testimony he heard three.
It's maddening to realize these men were standing/squatting right below the window and one heard two shots and another three.
Actually BRW, Jarman, and Normam are a good study in what transpired with the witnesses. BRW gave his statement immediately after the assassination (two shots). Jarman gave his two days later 2nd shot the heafdhot) and Norman was four days later (three shots). BRW several days later adds an additional shot.
I assume, trying to determine where the third shot took place is where most of us start to look to find the answer to the JFK assassination. A simple reading of witness statements from locations all aver Dealey Plaze leads nowhere. Making JFK's car the center and working out from there a pattern emerges of two shot witnesses and their subsequent additons of third shot later that in lot of instances does not fit the narrative of three shots. Primarily the eyewitnesses are two shots and the earwitnesses are three shots.
Garland Slack indicates the first shot camee with the rifle retracted inside the building.
Garland Slack is an earwitness who references two shots based on the sound of the bullets impacting JFK. He also refernces the sound of the first shot sounded to him as if it had come from eithin the bulding.
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Garland Glenwill Slack, Address: 4130 Deely [sp?] St., Dallas, Age 59, Phone No. EV 1 2950
Deposes and says:
Today, I was standing on Houston Street, just below the window to Sheriff Decker's office waiting for the parade. I was standing there when the President's car passed and just after they rounded the corner from Houston onto Elm Street, I heard a report and I knew at once it was a high-powered rifle shot. I am a [cross-out] big game hunter and am familiar with the sound of hi [sic] powered rifles and I knew when I heard the retort [sic] that the shot had hit something. Within a [cross-out] few seconds I heard another retort [sic] and knew it also had hit something and all I could see was the highly colored hat that Mrs. Kennedy had on. I couldn't see anything else. I was so sick that I went back to my office but after thinking it over, I came back as a citizen to offer my statement if it could help in any way. During the time I was standing there I did look up into the building where the Texas Book Depository is and saw some people, maybe 12 or 14, hanging out of windows, but I didn't see anyone with a gun.
When the sound of this shot came, it sounded to me like this shot came from away back or from within a building. I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot has come from within a cave, as I have been on many big game hunts.
/s/ G. G. Slack
The witness statements are a wealth of information they are truly the only ones who knew what took place. It should also be understood the media had a large ompact on how their statements changed over time. Pat Speer's website is a great source of information about the witnesses and he should be greatly appreciated for what he has
-
Don't worry about it. Those guys were working in joe-jobs because they couldn't count.
;)
Elitist remark and probably racist as well.
-
Elitist remark and probably racist as well.
So according to you I'm a racist, an elitist, a parrot, a clown, a lemming, a sheep (short back & sides, please) and child-molester
At least I don't take a knee to the little prick who killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
;)
-
It's maddening to realize these men were standing/squatting right below the window and one heard two shots and another three.
It would not be as surprising if the last two shots were close together because the sound would have reverberated in that building. This would be particularly so on the 5th and 6th floors that had no partitions. The reverberations may have made those last two shots less distinct and left an initial impression overall of two loud discharges.
-
So according to you I'm a racist, an elitist, a parrot, a clown, a lemming, a sheep (short back & sides, please) and child-molester
At least I don't take a knee to the little prick who killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
Why should I base my actions on what you claim (without evidence) that somebody did? Add "inflated self-importance" to your list.
-
So according to you I'm a racist, an elitist, a parrot, a clown, a lemming, a sheep (short back & sides, please) and child-molester
At least I don't take a knee to the little prick who killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
;)
Did John Iacoletti really call you a "child-molester"? Surely not.
-
Dan, I'm going to reply to your questions all together, as I'm not familiar with breaking out quotes like everyone else can. I'll eventually figure it out.
Reactions seen early in the zapruder film
https://sites.google.com/site/earlyzapruderfilmreactions/reactions-seen-early-in-zapruder-film
Some apparent total lack of reaction in people in response to a stimulus was a phenomenon that I saw mentioned in one literature reference, but no further elaboration was made. It may be situational based, so I don’t know the exact answer. I can only speculate for this situation. For the crowds I personally believe that it may be as simple as “what grabs, and holds, your attention at that time”. The visual stimulus intensity of seeing the President and First lady right in front of them (many were trying for direct eye contact and a wave response), might well override an auditory stimulus to a firecracker in the background. Now if the auditory stimulus was perceived as a threat, or a real concern, I suspect that perception would override the visual stimulus and they would react to that by looking around. Net the President and First lady right in front of them visually “grabbed and held their attention at that time” over a perceived non-concerning auditory stimulus. For others the first shot sound could be perceived as something that was concerning and they reacted. Again, some speculation, but I wouldn’t be surprised that for those in the Presidential limo and the trailing SS car, there was some sense of relaxation starting to set in, the motorcade was nearly complete, the crowds were much thinner, and the visual field ahead of them was less stimulating than what they had just completed. A surprise loud bang for them may have posed a real concern that grabbed their attention and started a voluntary reaction of concern.
Another point that might come into play is that the most difficult location of a sound for your ears to accurately spatially locate (sound localization) is directly behind and high overhead. I suspect that was the case for individuals in the Presidential limo and the trailing SS car. It may have been hard, based on only one, first unexpected quick sharp bang, to determining exactly what direction the sound came from. Harder to tell which way to look. I can’t say for sure but actually Jackies’ and John Connally’s sweeping head reactions first left and then back right look almost like classical sound localization motions from mammals swinging the head back and forth to locate an unknown sound stimulus.
Regarding your comments on Hickey, I think there are two points to consider. 1) This technique does not use any testimony and further obviously does not use any testimony that is not given, or even testimony that is in error or specific details that were even forgotten or assumed inconsequential within all the chaos. 2) The reactions of Hickey you mention are not startle reactions. They are voluntary reactions, and fit the description as being unusual enough to be unusual voluntary motions of concern, and occur within a timeframe other voluntary motions of concern are observed and consistent with a population perception time model.
Looking at the video in the link above, Jackie starts accelerated head turning left at ~Z143.5, before looking back right. (Similar to John Connally's L-R head motion but starts slightly earlier and ends slightly later than his).
Rosemary Willis in the lower video in the link above appeared to begin a quick look away from the Presidential Limo back towards the Texas School Book Depository at ~Z140 as it appeared to both authors independently using that video.
To note, one advantage to using an average (or median) of multiple samples, if possible, is that this can help buffer mistakes made in sampling. If there were a couple of data points that I changed my mind on to use, I could just throw them out. For example if I decided I didn’t want to use JFK and Rosemary Willis data points, I would throw them out and recalculate. If I did that for this case the predicted first shot timing would only shift about 1.5 frames. If those two points were in error, the original result would have been somewhat buffered by the rest of the data with the original result only being off by less than two frames. Yes, some judgement in context is necessary, but even though I would say those two samples may be a little less clear than the others they still were judged relevant enough to include.
Good questions, hope this helps.
Hi Brian,
to be honest you've not really answered the main point I was making concerning the car-full of specially trained Secret Service agents specifically assigned for the protection of the president and the first lady.
I'm aware that your method excludes witness testimony but I assume it doesn't exclude other photographic evidence. Below is a close-up of the Altgens 6 picture focussing on the SS agents. It is beyond doubt that there is a radical and co-ordinated reaction to what we can assume is a gunshot. Three of them are looking backwards, over their shoulders. Nothing in the Z-film shows anything even remotely like this kind of extreme reaction. Just a few head turns made by the occupants of a limo which is the focus of crowds of people on both sides of them. Of course they are going to be turning their heads. But Altgens 6 shows something of a far greater magnitude.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hsb3KjjV/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Below is z255 which is thought to be the frame at which the Altgens 6 pic was taken. It is clear that by this time both JFK and JBC have been hit. To the left we can see the front of the follow-up car and, using the Altgens 6 pic and a little imagination, we can visualise the agents on board the follow-up car twisting round, reacting to the sound of a shot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk2M66HZ/z255.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It must be remembered that the SS agents are visible in the Z-film until z207 (McIntyre, riding the left rear running board is visible until z236. Hill, riding left front running board, is visible until z249.) At no time do any of the agents make a reaction remotely as extreme as the one we see in Altgens 6.
How do your conclusions account for this?
Altgens 6 clearly shows the agents reacting to a shot.
Why doesn't the Z-film show the same thing?
Surely you're not going to suggest that, somehow, the agents didn't recognise the sound of a shot when little Rosemary Willis did or that it took them over 7 seconds to react to the sound of the first shot?
-
Did John Iacoletti really call you a "child-molester"? Surely not.
No, of course I didn't. That's just another empty Chapman claim. I said that I could call him a child molester -- just like he calls Oswald a "killer" -- but that doesn't make it true.
-
No, of course I didn't. That's just another empty Chapman claim. I said that I could call him a child molester -- just like he calls Oswald a "killer" -- but that doesn't make it true.
'I said that I could call him a child molester'
Cite that
-
Dan, I’m sorry if I didn’t address what you were concerned about earlier. Hopefully I won’t still completely miss something, but if I do it shouldn’t turn any heads.
I agree with you that there are agents in Altgens reacting to gunshot sounds.
But I think there were body motions in the early Z film comparable, if not greater in magnitude, to the agents seen in Altgens. If Altgens could have snapped an up-the-road still picture on the presidential limo at about z160 he would have caught 5 heads turned looking around. And based on the Croft photo at that time with Connally and Jackie, one might say there could have been some facial expressions of concern at that time.
Now I could take a stab at what might be going on in Altgens, but I should reiterate that the first shot analysis method is based on a reaction time (better described as perception time) model to a surprise stimulus. It will not apply to after the first shot because a first stimulus can be a strong forewarning signal to subsequent stimuli and can radically change (lower) reaction times. So although the method would not be recommended for anything after a first shot, one might expect subsequent reaction times to become somewhat faster because of this dynamic. The early reactions highlighted in the article method match up exceedingly well to the surprise stimulus perception time distribution expected from the general population, that’s how it pegs the first shot triggered at half a second before z133.
But, just for the sake of it, if we play this out and assumed the second shot was triggered near z219, the muzzle blast would arrive at the limos at about z222.4. If at that point we allow 0.6 seconds for SS follow up limo agents to start voluntary reactions thereafter (this might be a ballpark number to plug in for a mid-level awareness stimulus reaction), we might expect reactions showing in the SS car starting around z233 if reacting primarily after the second shot. It would not be surprising to not see any reactions fully developed at z236. Also It would seem that this would allow enough time for some agents, if they chose to, to turn and be in the position captured at Altgens z255 (about 1.8 seconds after hearing the second shot ) if they didn’t already start looking around a little sooner than that.
At z255 I’m not sure if many of the SS agents had fully realized that that JFK and Connally were seriously shot (but Clint Hill appeared to be looking towards them and you mentioned him not reacting, and I just don’t know how to explain him to you, maybe one who is not as inclined to react?). In any case, hearing a second report about 1.8 seconds earlier than z255 and quickly after that realizing it as a gunshot might have “gotten and held” many of those agents attention at that time, looking for the source, and as seen in Altgens. Alternately though, I would guess the attention of Jackie and Nellie was on their husbands, since from z235 to z255 it looked like there was a lot of chaos going on in the presidential limo back seats with two men having just been shot and their wives reacting to their husbands. Perhaps to be expected Kellerman and Greer looked to react a little slower than the wives did by starting their turns backwards around z252ish, but that is also pretty darn close to the time of the Altgens photo.
Net, this quick run through related to Altgens is just that, a quick take. But I don’t see anything that is really inconsistent with explaining the Zapruder frame around the time of the Altgens photo, and Altgens being primarily related to the second shot rather than the first shot that happened earlier up the road.
-
Dan, I’m sorry if I didn’t address what you were concerned about earlier. Hopefully I won’t still completely miss something, but if I do it shouldn’t turn any heads.
I agree with you that there are agents in Altgens reacting to gunshot sounds.
But I think there were body motions in the early Z film comparable, if not greater in magnitude, to the agents seen in Altgens. If Altgens could have snapped an up-the-road still picture on the presidential limo at about z160 he would have caught 5 heads turned looking around. And based on the Croft photo at that time with Connally and Jackie, one might say there could have been some facial expressions of concern at that time.
Now I could take a stab at what might be going on in Altgens, but I should reiterate that the first shot analysis method is based on a reaction time (better described as perception time) model to a surprise stimulus. It will not apply to after the first shot because a first stimulus can be a strong forewarning signal to subsequent stimuli and can radically change (lower) reaction times. So although the method would not be recommended for anything after a first shot, one might expect subsequent reaction times to become somewhat faster because of this dynamic. The early reactions highlighted in the article method match up exceedingly well to the surprise stimulus perception time distribution expected from the general population, that’s how it pegs the first shot triggered at half a second before z133.
But, just for the sake of it, if we play this out and assumed the second shot was triggered near z219, the muzzle blast would arrive at the limos at about z222.4. If at that point we allow 0.6 seconds for SS follow up limo agents to start voluntary reactions thereafter (this might be a ballpark number to plug in for a mid-level awareness stimulus reaction), we might expect reactions showing in the SS car starting around z233 if reacting primarily after the second shot. It would not be surprising to not see any reactions fully developed at z236. Also It would seem that this would allow enough time for some agents, if they chose to, to turn and be in the position captured at Altgens z255 (about 1.8 seconds after hearing the second shot ) if they didn’t already start looking around a little sooner than that.
At z255 I’m not sure if many of the SS agents had fully realized that that JFK and Connally were seriously shot (but Clint Hill appeared to be looking towards them and you mentioned him not reacting, and I just don’t know how to explain him to you, maybe one who is not as inclined to react?). In any case, hearing a second report about 1.8 seconds earlier than z255 and quickly after that realizing it as a gunshot might have “gotten and held” many of those agents attention at that time, looking for the source, and as seen in Altgens. Alternately though, I would guess the attention of Jackie and Nellie was on their husbands, since from z235 to z255 it looked like there was a lot of chaos going on in the presidential limo back seats with two men having just been shot and their wives reacting to their husbands. Perhaps to be expected Kellerman and Greer looked to react a little slower than the wives did by starting their turns backwards around z252ish, but that is also pretty darn close to the time of the Altgens photo.
Net, this quick run through related to Altgens is just that, a quick take. But I don’t see anything that is really inconsistent with explaining the Zapruder frame around the time of the Altgens photo, and Altgens being primarily related to the second shot rather than the first shot that happened earlier up the road.
Hi Brian,
I must apologise as I don't seem to have clarified what I'm driving at.
The Altgens 6 pic below, in conjunction with the Z-film, utterly refutes your notion of a first shot before z133:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hsb3KjjV/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I completely agree with your analysis of the gunshot reactions we are seeing in Altgens 6:
"...the [Altgens 6] shot was triggered near z219, the muzzle blast would arrive at the limos at about z222.4. If at that point we allow 0.6 seconds for SS follow up limo agents to start voluntary reactions thereafter (this might be a ballpark number to plug in for a mid-level awareness stimulus reaction), we might expect reactions showing in the SS car starting around z233 if reacting primarily after the [Altgens 6] shot. It would not be surprising to not see any reactions fully developed at z236. Also It would seem that this would allow enough time for some agents, if they chose to, to turn and be in the position captured at Altgens z255 (about 1.8 seconds after hearing the [Altgens 6]shot ) if they didn’t already start looking around a little sooner than that."
This seems completely reasonable to me. The three agents who are twisting round, all looking towards the TSBD, have been captured in the Altgens 6 pic reacting to the sound of a shot that occurred less than two seconds before the pic was taken.
The point you seem to be missing is that this is exactly the reaction we should expect to see for a shot before z133. Why aren't the SS agents reacting to the sound of a shot before z133 in exactly the way we see them reacting in Altgens 6 (@ z255)?
The answer to this question is obvious - there was no sound of a gunshot for them to react to before z223.
The SS agents reacted to the first shot (to assume they somehow missed the first shot is silly) and the Altgens 6 pic captures this moment. There was no shot as early as z133. The lack of reaction of the SS agents we can see in the Z-film until z207 clearly demonstrates this.
I was going to let it go at that but you made a comment in your post that I find so bizarre I just couldn't let it go:
I agree with you that there are agents in Altgens reacting to gunshot sounds.
But I think there were body motions in the early Z film comparable, if not greater in magnitude, to the agents seen in Altgens.
You are obviously aware that everyone here has instant access to the Z-film. Your claim that there were body motions "comparable, if not greater in magnitude" than the agents seen in Altgens 6 is clearly a nonsensical statement. There is absolutely nothing in the Z-film that comes even close to the reactions of the three agents seen in the Altgens 6 twisting around, all heads turned in the direction of the TSBD. The most extreme movement is John Connally's quick head turn and this is nothing compared to the contortions of the SS agents. How you can even suggest this is baffling.
-
Hi Brian,
I must apologise as I don't seem to have clarified what I'm driving at.
The Altgens 6 pic below, in conjunction with the Z-film, utterly refutes your notion of a first shot before z133:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hsb3KjjV/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I completely agree with your analysis of the gunshot reactions we are seeing in Altgens 6:
"...the [Altgens 6] shot was triggered near z219, the muzzle blast would arrive at the limos at about z222.4. If at that point we allow 0.6 seconds for SS follow up limo agents to start voluntary reactions thereafter (this might be a ballpark number to plug in for a mid-level awareness stimulus reaction), we might expect reactions showing in the SS car starting around z233 if reacting primarily after the [Altgens 6] shot. It would not be surprising to not see any reactions fully developed at z236. Also It would seem that this would allow enough time for some agents, if they chose to, to turn and be in the position captured at Altgens z255 (about 1.8 seconds after hearing the [Altgens 6]shot ) if they didn’t already start looking around a little sooner than that."
This seems completely reasonable to me. The three agents who are twisting round, all looking towards the TSBD, have been captured in the Altgens 6 pic reacting to the sound of a shot that occurred less than two seconds before the pic was taken.
The point you seem to be missing is that this is exactly the reaction we should expect to see for a shot before z133. Why aren't the SS agents reacting to the sound of a shot before z133 in exactly the way we see them reacting in Altgens 6 (@ z255)?
The answer to this question is obvious - there was no sound of a gunshot for them to react to before z223.
The SS agents reacted to the first shot (to assume they somehow missed the first shot is silly) and the Altgens 6 pic captures this moment. There was no shot as early as z133. The lack of reaction of the SS agents we can see in the Z-film until z207 clearly demonstrates this.
I was going to let it go at that but you made a comment in your post that I find so bizarre I just couldn't let it go:
You are obviously aware that everyone here has instant access to the Z-film. Your claim that there were body motions "comparable, if not greater in magnitude" than the agents seen in Altgens 6 is clearly a nonsensical statement. There is absolutely nothing in the Z-film that comes even close to the reactions of the three agents seen in the Altgens 6 twisting around, all heads turned in the direction of the TSBD. The most extreme movement is John Connally's quick head turn and this is nothing compared to the contortions of the SS agents. How you can even suggest this is baffling.
Dan, how many of the witnesses said they initially thought the first one was a backfire or firecracker or something like that? I don’t know the actual count, but it was a large percentage. Do you really believe that the SS Agents were somehow immune to this phenomenon? We can clearly see one immediately looking in the vicinity of the limo’s tires. It would appear that he thought it was a tire blowout. What we cannot discern from the photographic record is what the eyes of the SS Agents are doing during the same time that the limo occupants are simultaneously turning their heads and looking around with concerned expressions like they are trying to figure out what that loud noise they just heard was. The SS Agents were likely looking for visual signs of the source or results of the loud noise. They can do this with just movements of their eyes and small movements of their heads. I know what their reports say about “immediately” doing this or that. But I believe that none of them were likely to come out and explicitly say that they thought the first noise was something other than a gunshot, and that that is why they didn’t react immediately after hearing it. Admitting something like that on their reports would tend to make them look incompetent and lackadaisical. I believe that they reported actions that would tend to make them look good, and stuck to their stories. How could they have anticipated that the Zapruder film would show that their reports were inaccurate?
-
Some agents early on in the film apparently did not react (even Hill seems to not react even up to past the second shot) but some did like Hickey. I have heard some others suggest Ready and Bennett may have had some early reactions, but this was not used in the analysis.
Some reasons for reacting or not reacting were alluded to earlier. I have the same thoughts on this as Charles, but he states it better than I could.
On a side note, you have mentioned startle reactions before, but because these are usually very small and quick, they are not a good source to try and see happening in individuals on film. I think I calculated that Zapruder’s hand would have only jumped about 1/16 to 1/32 of an inch to cause the purported jiggles in his film. His arms did not go flying up into the air.
I mention this because although seeing a startle reaction in an individual on a film at a distance may be nearly impossible, one may be able to see the effect on the film stability of the cameraman while filming.
Saying that there is no way the reaction time analysis theory can be right may be jumping the gun (no pun intended). One way to check a theory is to see if it can make predictions. This may be difficult in the JFK case, but I think there might be a possibility. The analysis of an early shot half a second before z133 could make a prediction related to camera shake of the person filming closest to the snipers nest. It would make the following IF/THEN hypothesis. IF a first shot from the TSBD was fired at about ½ second before z133, THEN given the first surprise/unexpected loud discharge in close proximity to Elsie Dorman at that time it likely would have had some startling effect on her and her filming, as she was the closest person to the sniper nest actively filming at that time.
This Hypothesis was tested via film synchronization:
Dorman’s camera motions while the limo was going by her on Elm are a little unsteady since she wasn’t using the viewfinder at that time but was holding the camera beside her head, but the filming does appear to contain larger startle reactions consistent with a loud rifle report happening at the predicted timing for the first shot (and even the second shot and reduced some by the time of the third shot). You may have to hit play a couple of time for this video to fully load and play.
https://sites.google.com/view/dorman-zapruder-sync-on-elm-st/home
This is one prediction the analysis made that appears to be supported by independent filming.
There are some people that support this analysis, but you clearly disagree. I am fine with that, It’s even good. Getting many people digging into evaluating the event may turn up new things. I encourage your continued exploration of your theories; there are likely still some things to uncover about the events.
-
Some agents early on in the film apparently did not react (even Hill seems to not react even up to past the second shot) but some did like Hickey. I have heard some others suggest Ready and Bennett may have had some early reactions, but this was not used in the analysis.
Some reasons for reacting or not reacting were alluded to earlier. I have the same thoughts on this as Charles, but he states it better than I could.
On a side note, you have mentioned startle reactions before, but because these are usually very small and quick, they are not a good source to try and see happening in individuals on film. I think I calculated that Zapruder’s hand would have only jumped about 1/16 to 1/32 of an inch to cause the purported jiggles in his film. His arms did not go flying up into the air.
I mention this because although seeing a startle reaction in an individual on a film at a distance may be nearly impossible, one may be able to see the effect on the film stability of the cameraman while filming.
Saying that there is no way the reaction time analysis theory can be right may be jumping the gun (no pun intended). One way to check a theory is to see if it can make predictions. This may be difficult in the JFK case, but I think there might be a possibility. The analysis of an early shot half a second before z133 could make a prediction related to camera shake of the person filming closest to the snipers nest. It would make the following IF/THEN hypothesis. IF a first shot from the TSBD was fired at about ½ second before z133, THEN given the first surprise/unexpected loud discharge in close proximity to Elsie Dorman at that time it likely would have had some startling effect on her and her filming, as she was the closest person to the sniper nest actively filming at that time.
This Hypothesis was tested via film synchronization:
Dorman’s camera motions while the limo was going by her on Elm are a little unsteady since she wasn’t using the viewfinder at that time but was holding the camera beside her head, but the filming does appear to contain larger startle reactions consistent with a loud rifle report happening at the predicted timing for the first shot (and even the second shot and reduced some by the time of the third shot). You may have to hit play a couple of time for this video to fully load and play.
https://sites.google.com/view/dorman-zapruder-sync-on-elm-st/home
This is one prediction the analysis made that appears to be supported by independent filming.
There are some people that support this analysis, but you clearly disagree. I am fine with that, It’s even good. Getting many people digging into evaluating the event may turn up new things. I encourage your continued exploration of your theories; there are likely still some things to uncover about the events.
Thanks for the link to the three films synchronization. I knew about the stoppage of the Dorman film at the same time of the proposed time of the first shot. But I somehow wasn’t aware that a similar stoppage existed at the same time as the proposed second shot.
One other film camera that was running during the proposed time of the first shot was the Hughes camera. And it has a very unusual stoppage of 6-frames right at that time. That is only about 1/3 of one second, and I believe that it could very well be a startle reaction to the sound of the first shot.
-
Charles, you know my stance on this particular issue as I know yours. It's clear from his last post that Brian has absolutely no intention of dealing with the issues I'm raising and, to be honest, he's right not to as it will reveal the kind of hole he's dug for himself with this. His big problem is presenting his model for the first/missed shot with all the trappings of scientific research. This makes him beholden to things like Logic, Rational Thought and, even, Common Sense.
Dan, how many of the witnesses said they initially thought the first one was a backfire or firecracker or something like that? I don’t know the actual count, but it was a large percentage. Do you really believe that the SS Agents were somehow immune to this phenomenon?
I don't know the actual percentage of those who described their perception of the first/missed shot as being something other than a shot (backfire, firecracker etc.) but I agree it's large. I'd go as far to say it's really large. Of course the SS agents are not immune to such a thing and nowhere have I ever said they are so there's no need to ask "Do you really believe..." as if I had made such a ridiculous statement at some time in the past. How can you be immune to perceiving something? It's a really silly thing to say. Here are a few of the Agents describing their initial perception of the first shot:
Youngblood - 'It could have been a firecracker, a bomb, or a shot,' Youngblood, 39, said in an interview. 'I recognized it as an abnormal sound and realized some action had to be taken'
Greer- The President’s automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass
under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle
Hill - On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was
visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker.
Ready - I heard what sounded like firecrackers…
Hickey - I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear.
I'm sure the point you would like to make is that, if they didn't recognise the first shot as a shot they might not have reacted to it. This would explain the radical reactions of some of the Agents we see in Altgens 6 but why there was absolutely no recognisable reaction to the sound of a gunshot earlier in the Z-film. This, however, is not the case.
In Altgens 6 we see Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD, presumably in response to the sound of gunfire:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DfPPnBm6/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."
Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."
Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "
Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6. Each of them is describing their reactions to the first shot. Even when they thought the sound might be a firecracker they still reacted to it.
We can clearly see one [Agent Hickey] immediately looking in the vicinity of the limo’s tires. It would appear that he thought it was a tire blowout.
Here we come to Hickey's look over the side of the follow-up car. Brian believes this move is so unusual it somehow indicates Hickey is reacting to the sound of gunfire. Where does he imagine the gunfire is coming from? Underneath the follow-up car? And you are suggesting Hickey thought it was a tire blowout. Let's have a closer look at Hickey's move:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xkTG3y1/Hickey-moves-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
In the Gif above we see Hickey look over the side of the limo. He then looks into the crowd to his left then turns straight ahead. That's it. If it was a blowout he would hardly look into the crowd then resume his position looking straight ahead. The idea that he is reacting to the sound of a gunshot is bizarre. What part of his actions gives this indication. There is nothing. No urgency in his movements and he resumes his original position. This is nothing compared to the barely perceptible head movement of Jackie Kennedy which is being heralded as a sure indicator of an early missed shot.
What we cannot discern from the photographic record is what the eyes of the SS Agents are doing during the same time that the limo occupants are simultaneously turning their heads and looking around with concerned expressions like they are trying to figure out what that loud noise they just heard was. The SS Agents were likely looking for visual signs of the source or results of the loud noise. They can do this with just movements of their eyes and small movements of their heads.
This is just fantasy. You are fantasising that the limo occupants are "trying to figure out what that loud noise they just heard was."
This is never a good sign when trying to argue for a particular model.
I know what their reports say about “immediately” doing this or that. But I believe that none of them were likely to come out and explicitly say that they thought the first noise was something other than a gunshot, and that that is why they didn’t react immediately after hearing it. Admitting something like that on their reports would tend to make them look incompetent and lackadaisical. I believe that they reported actions that would tend to make them look good, and stuck to their stories. How could they have anticipated that the Zapruder film would show that their reports were inaccurate?
And here we come to the crunch. Anyone who upsets your model is lying. All the SS agents got together and, for some reason void of logic, decided to lie in order to explain why they all took over 7 seconds to react to the first shot!
Really?
Once we get to this level of debate there seems little point in continuing.
-
Charles, you know my stance on this particular issue as I know yours. It's clear from his last post that Brian has absolutely no intention of dealing with the issues I'm raising and, to be honest, he's right not to as it will reveal the kind of hole he's dug for himself with this. His big problem is presenting his model for the first/missed shot with all the trappings of scientific research. This makes him beholden to things like Logic, Rational Thought and, even, Common Sense.
I don't know the actual percentage of those who described their perception of the first/missed shot as being something other than a shot (backfire, firecracker etc.) but I agree it's large. I'd go as far to say it's really large. Of course the SS agents are not immune to such a thing and nowhere have I ever said they are so there's no need to ask "Do you really believe..." as if I had made such a ridiculous statement at some time in the past. How can you be immune to perceiving something? It's a really silly thing to say. Here are a few of the Agents describing their initial perception of the first shot:
Youngblood - 'It could have been a firecracker, a bomb, or a shot,' Youngblood, 39, said in an interview. 'I recognized it as an abnormal sound and realized some action had to be taken'
Greer- The President’s automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass
under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle
Hill - On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was
visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker.
Ready - I heard what sounded like firecrackers…
Hickey - I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear.
I'm sure the point you would like to make is that, if they didn't recognise the first shot as a shot they might not have reacted to it. This would explain the radical reactions of some of the Agents we see in Altgens 6 but why there was absolutely no recognisable reaction to the sound of a gunshot earlier in the Z-film. This, however, is not the case.
In Altgens 6 we see Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD, presumably in response to the sound of gunfire:
(https://i.postimg.cc/DfPPnBm6/Altgens-5-close.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."
Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."
Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "
Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6. Each of them is describing their reactions to the first shot. Even when they thought the sound might be a firecracker they still reacted to it.
Here we come to Hickey's look over the side of the follow-up car. Brian believes this move is so unusual it somehow indicates Hickey is reacting to the sound of gunfire. Where does he imagine the gunfire is coming from? Underneath the follow-up car? And you are suggesting Hickey thought it was a tire blowout. Let's have a closer look at Hickey's move:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xkTG3y1/Hickey-moves-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
In the Gif above we see Hickey look over the side of the limo. He then looks into the crowd to his left then turns straight ahead. That's it. If it was a blowout he would hardly look into the crowd then resume his position looking straight ahead. The idea that he is reacting to the sound of a gunshot is bizarre. What part of his actions gives this indication. There is nothing. No urgency in his movements and he resumes his original position. This is nothing compared to the barely perceptible head movement of Jackie Kennedy which is being heralded as a sure indicator of an early missed shot.
This is just fantasy. You are fantasising that the limo occupants are "trying to figure out what that loud noise they just heard was."
This is never a good sign when trying to argue for a particular model.
And here we come to the crunch. Anyone who upsets your model is lying. All the SS agents got together and, for some reason void of logic, decided to lie in order to explain why they all took over 7 seconds to react to the first shot!
Really?
Once we get to this level of debate there seems little point in continuing.
His big problem is presenting his model for the first/missed shot with all the trappings of scientific research. This makes him beholden to things like Logic, Rational Thought and, even, Common Sense.
Logically, rationally, and common sense wise, his scientific approach makes him beholden to the methods and science that he is using. You complain that he isn’t dealing with the issues that you are raising. Do you have any issues with the science behind his theory? If so, have you addressed them with him?
Of course the SS agents are not immune to such a thing and nowhere have I ever said they are so there's no need to ask "Do you really believe..." as if I had made such a ridiculous statement at some time in the past. How can you be immune to perceiving something? It's a really silly thing to say.
The reason I asked is because you repeatedly try to use your perception of their inaction as a reason you believe that you can rule out that there was a shot fired before Z223. A possible explanation is that they didn’t perceive the sound as a gunshot (just like a large percentage of the other witnesses). So I contend that you cannot rule that possibility out. Hence the question: “Do you really believe...” .
I'm sure the point you would like to make is that, if they didn't recognise the first shot as a shot they might not have reacted to it. This would explain the radical reactions of some of the Agents we see in Altgens 6 but why there was absolutely no recognisable reaction to the sound of a gunshot earlier in the Z-film. This, however, is not the case.
I am unclear as to what you are trying to say. Brian has described the typical startle reaction as being small and therefore virtually impossible to see in a film of the quality and characteristics of the Zapruder film. And if you refuse to recognize Hickey’s reaction as a reaction to a sudden sound (such as a backfire, firecracker, or gunshot sound) then you are only cheating yourself. Hickey had no need to lean out and look toward the limo’s tires if he (as you contend) was only looking at the crowd. The crowd was still clearly in his line of sight even if he had stayed perfectly upright.
Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6.
If it was that easy, why the heck didn’t the Warren Commission adopt it? There is ample evidence of an early first shot. That’s why.
In the graphic you posted, we can see some of the ample evidence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xkTG3y1/Hickey-moves-2.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Not only does Hickey lean way over to his left to look at the President’s limo’s tires, but the three visible agents on the running boards have a similar and close to simultaneous reaction to JBC’s, JFK’s, and Jackie’s. They all turn their heads; first quickly to their left, then quickly to their right. This is indicative of scanning for visual cues to explain the loud noise they just heard. Not fantasy, real visible reactions. Despite your refusal to accept it.
And here we come to the crunch. Anyone who upsets your model is lying. All the SS agents got together and, for some reason void of logic, decided to lie in order to explain why they all took over 7 seconds to react to the first shot!
Really?
There is a difference between outright lying and simply not telling the whole truth. It happens all the time, even with very responsible and moral people. And yes they had opportunities to compare their perceptions before writing their reports. The obvious heroic reactions of Clint Hill made him a good example for them to follow. And he has always said he only heard two shots. Why not just go along with what Clint said he heard?
Once we get to this level of debate there seems little point in continuing.
It is fine with me if you don’t want to continue a debate. Neither of us is likely to change the other’s opinions.
-
Why should I base my actions on what you claim (without evidence) that somebody did? Add "inflated self-importance" to your list.
Lumping me in with, say, lemmings and child molesters, and then trying to say you didn't mean me is pure cowardice on your part.
-
Chapman, stop trying to derail every thread with your vapid remarks.
-
Chapman, stop trying to derail every thread with your vapid remarks.
You seem the one 'derailed'..
-
Here’s another account that is indicative of an early first shot:
From FBI report dated 1/10/64 of Mrs. Jeannette E. Hooker, Deputy District Court Clerk:
From Judge WILSON's court room window, she observed the Presidential Motorcade turn west on Elm Street. Mrs. HOOKER estimated that the President's car was almost to the R. L. THORNTON Freeway when she heard three gunshots.
It appears that she heard the first shot before the limo reached the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign. And, from that approximate line of sight, this would be well before the Z223 time frame position of the limo. How much before then is dependent upon what distance she means by “almost to.” And which specific window she was watching from. But this account does appear to exclude the Z223 time frame as being the time of the first shot.
-
Here is an excerpt from an article on HistoryNet:
https://www.historynet.com/president-john-f-kennedy-eyewitness-accounts-of-the-events-surrounding-jfks-assassination.htm (https://www.historynet.com/president-john-f-kennedy-eyewitness-accounts-of-the-events-surrounding-jfks-assassination.htm)
Malcolm Summers: I was within five feet of the curb. They came around and then the first I heard was, I thought, was a firecracker…because the FBI, Secret Service people that was on the back of that car, they looked down at the ground….I think they thought it was a firecracker…I thought in my mind, well, what a heck of a joke, you know, to be playing like that. Then the car kept coming, and then the second shot rang out. And then the third…rang out. I saw Kennedy get hit. I heard Connally say, “They’re going to kill us all!” or “shoot us all.” …And then, I heard Jackie Kennedy scream out, “Oh, God! No, no, no!”
And here is a link to the Sixth Floor Museum’s Oral History interview which I believe is the source of that quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrkGCDQubhQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrkGCDQubhQ)
Hickey can be seen leaning over to his left and looking down towards the President’s limo’s tires shortly after the Z133 time frame. Put this together with Malcom Summers’ account of when he thought that the first shot sounded; and it is credible evidence of an early first shot miss.
-
It is certain that the first shot was at about Z123.
In the simultaneous synchronized footage JFK is shown say 10 ft past the signal arm when the first shot happens.
I prefer that JFK is in line with the arm, which is why i deduct 10 frames from Z133 based on 1 ft per frame.
And as a part of that i place Z133 at the point where the sound of the shot has been inserted, not a half second further down Elm.
But the underlying info that i base all of that on might be in error.
I like the analysis of the delays in perception etc, but i feel that an analysis dealing with the earliest reaction rather than a group average would yield an earlier time for shot-1, nearer my Z123, or even say Z113.
Nearly forgot. The CIA footage looking back at the SN shows a large hole in the signal backboard, which is due to the design/manufacture, but i see a small (bullet) hole next to that hole. However for that corner of the signal to get in the way of Oswald's shot the limo would have to be partly into the left lane. I reckon that there was a multi ricochet involving the pipe & collar & guy rods (& perhaps lastly off the signal), the lead hitting the road & 2 copper fragments finishing in the limo, one ovem glancing JFK's head. Hence i am not going to waste time looking for that bullet hole, although if that bullet then ricocheted off the main body of the signal then that could send the lead towards the road & 2 copper fragment towards the limo.
-
These SS agents are also probably noticing the umbrella man residing his umbrella up and the DC man moving forward with his hand upraised making apparently some kind of gesture