Question:
Can someone provide us with a list of witnesses, along with a link or something supporting this claim, who reported seeing JFK’s head moving forward as a result of the headshot during the first three days of the assassination?
Note, this cannot include a person who saw the Zapruder film.
What is the purpose of this loaded question?
Is it to somehow "prove" that the head moving forward didn't happen, when we can see in the Z-film that it did?
Want to change reality again?
Is it to somehow "prove" that the head moving forward didn't happen, when we can see in the Z-film that it did?
If you cannot answer the question, then maybe just shut your mouth?
Huh?
Martin, you surely meant to say "backward" here, instead of "forward", right?
Need another conversation you can misrepresent on your blog?
I'm just completely perplexed by your "forward" remark, that's all. It makes no sense at all.
Yes, Martin, I know what Joe wrote. And I understand his comment. What makes no sense (to me) is WHY you would think Joe Elliott would have the slightest desire to want to try and prove that JFK's head didn't go forward at all?
All LNers, as far as I know, are in 100% agreement that JFK's head DID move a couple of inches FORWARD at the moment of impact at Z313. Which is one of the primary LNer arguments to combat the constant CTer refrain of "Back and to the left". I've certainly utilized the "Head Initially Goes Forward" argument many times in the past.
So why would Joe want to "prove" otherwise?
Which is exactly why I asked him what the purpose of his question was. Get it now?
What is the purpose of this loaded question?
Is it to somehow "prove" that the head moving forward didn't happen, when we can see in the Z-film that it did?
Want to change reality again?
The evil intent of my question is for me to know and for you to guess. No, it is not an evil question. It is not intended to be a loaded question. Why do you assume their always has to be some ‘bad intent’ from a LNer? If a LNer asks a question, it must be a loaded question. I think this comes from a subconscious belief that all LNers have to be part of a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. That we all have bad intentions when we make a statement about the JFK assassination. The possibility that we can merely be mistaken in our beliefs does not seem to be the first thing you assume. Let alone the possibility that we may be essentially correct.
In any case, what is my intent? My intent is to confirm that most witnesses, perhaps all, did not remember the movement of JFK’s head immediately after he was shot in the head. If this is so, then it is not strange for Dan Rather to not remember the movement of JFK’s head from his one viewing of the Zapruder film.
I assume that while Dan Rather watched the film, he wasn’t going into to see which direction the head moved. This only became a big question later on. And like most/all Dealey Plaza witnesses, he didn’t remember this detail.
When asked if he noticed the direction the head move, he should have said “I don’t know”. But people don’t do that. If they don’t know, they don’t remember, they try to use logic to figure out what they must have seen. Rather’s logic would likely be that the shot came from the back, therefore the head must have moved forward. And he related this is what he saw. Note, this is not conscious thought. All this takes place subconsciously. He likely would end up with a visual ‘memory’ of JFK’s head moving forward, not realizing that this ‘memory’ was constructed by his subconscious. This is what people do.
Something similar happened to the Dealey Plaza witness. Did JFK’s limousine stop? Most were in a bad position to see it. But many were near the follow up cars, some of which must have stopped, because of the limousine’s sudden slowdown from 14 to 8 mph. Their subconscious concluded that JFK’s limousine must has stopped as well. And may have even ended up with a memory of the limousine stopping, even though it never did and was not even visible to them at the time of the headshot.
And I have a second intent. To illustrate, once again, how unreliable witnesses are, either to a real time event or a one-time viewing of a film.
And my third intent? To argue against CBS being involved in the conspiracy. On the grounds that any conspirators would try to form as small a conspiracy as possible. That is what real-life conspirators do. But some seem to think that a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy is what we should expect. So, it would be natural to expect that CBS would be in on it. This is the classical type of thinking of a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy believer.
Why do you assume their always has to be some ‘bad intent’ from a LNer?
You need to ask?
. . .
Actually, I always assume that an LN is simply mistaken, but then - in most cases - they refuse to have an open and honest discussion, start making up false narratives and ignoring logic and an obvious fact.
Might I recall where you once argued that a police car on it's way to the Tippit scene with full lights and sirene on would stop for a red traffic light?
Or, for that matter, in my mini-debate with Bill Brown you concluded Brown was right because, you said, you followed the evidence (in this case the DPD radio recordings) when in fact those recordingd provided no support for your conclusion at all.
Agreed, again, but now let's apply this to the Tippit witnesses, where the LNs have no problem accepting the fact that all the witnesses at the line ups identified Oswald as the man they saw. There, all of a sudden, all witnesses are correct and none of them just identify the most likely person in the line up. What is your opinion about that?
In any case, what is my intent? My intent is to confirm that most witnesses, perhaps all, did not remember the movement of JFK’s head immediately after he was shot in the head. If this is so, then it is not strange for Dan Rather to not remember the movement of JFK’s head from his one viewing of the Zapruder film.
Comparing apples and oranges. Witnesses at Dealey Plaza were in the action (so to speak) with shots being fired and unaware where they come from. They had very little time and interest, I imagine, to observe what was going on the the limo. Rather, on the other hand, had no such things going on and knew in advance what he was going to see.
But Oswald being found a half hour within a half mile (as I recall) of the murder scene. Oswald being found with the loaded murder weapon that matched shells found at the scene. Oswald being found with bullets in his pocket of the same type used to kill Officer Tippit. Oswald’s suspicious behavior just before entering the theater and within the theater. And Oswald pulling a gun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater. If I can explain away all this, I can explain away any evidence against anyone. All these things I find incredibly incriminating against Oswald.
Yes, I do. It seems strange for me that you would think that LNers have bad intent.
Why do you think that?
Aren’t you implying that you think we are all involved in a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy? Why else would we all have bad intents? By coincidence?
No, I don’t recall saying that. Can you post a link to this?
What I recall saying is that a police car summoned to the Tippit murder scene, but many, many miles away, with other police cars already at scene, or much closer than he, might elect to proceed at normal speed rather than high speed while using sirens and flashing lights. And yes, while proceeding at normal speed, he would not run red lights. If he proceeds at high speed, even with lights and sirens, while running red lights, he is more likely to cause a serious accident, then arrive at the Tippit murder scene in the nick of time.
It would be different if he was just a quarter mile away and it was reported a suspect was getting away and he was the closest to the scene. In that case, yes, flashing lights, sirens, and a high-speed approach would be appropriate. But not from many miles away.
Are you certain you didn’t miss report what I said?
The words are hard to make out but I think that experts who examine the tapes back Brown’s arguments. In any case, I haven’t looked into it very much myself.
Of course, your claims have absolutely no support from the dictabelt tapes. At best, At best, your scenario has no more support than Bill’s.
In any case, any question about what the dictabelt recording says or doesn’t say should not be directed to me or Bill but to our true expert on the subject. Steve Barber.
I always found the Officer Tippit witnesses to be the weakest reasons to think Oswald killed Officer Tippit. Because eyewitness identifying suspects is not reliable.
Where have I said otherwise?
But Oswald being found a half hour within a half mile (as I recall) of the murder scene. Oswald being found with the loaded murder weapon that matched shells found at the scene. Oswald being found with bullets in his pocket of the same type used to kill Officer Tippit. Oswald’s suspicious behavior just before entering the theater and within the theater. And Oswald pulling a gun on the first police officer to approach him in the theater. If I can explain away all this, I can explain away any evidence against anyone. All these things I find incredibly incriminating against Oswald.
Yes. But Rather did not know what he should look for. He did not know he should see which direction JFK’s head moved after being shot. He did not know if he should try to see if Connally and JFK were struck at the same time or different times. All these issues came up later.
Like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, I think Rather was surprised just how bloody awful the head shot was and didn’t note what direction JFK’s head moved.
When asked about it later he, subconsciously, guessed what happened.
In any case, no one can come up with a single Dealey Plaza witness who saw the head move forward. Thus answering my basic question.
This has point has been somewhat lost with you concentrating on other matters that have no bearing on my one question. But it is clear that no one can come up with a single such witness.
Question:
Can someone provide us with a list of witnesses, along with a link or something supporting this claim, who reported seeing JFK’s head moving forward as a result of the headshot during the first three days of the assassination?
Note, this cannot include a person who saw the Zapruder film.
This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.
Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.
This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe. This is why I believe it best to ignore responses from these attackers. Once in a while I get a wild hair and disregard my own suggestion. But I tend to ignore them the vast majority of the time.
Joe, in my opinion and to the best of my memory, not one eyewitness reported what you are asking about. And I believe that one primary reason for this is that the forward movement was only a short distance and the small fraction of a second that elapsed was too quick for discernment by normal eyesight. Zapruder had an almost perfect angle for detecting the forward movement. But practically everyone who views the Zapruder film at normal motion speed misses the forward motion and only perceives the much slower backward motion that followed. Only a handful of the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza had a similar angle to Zapruder’s angle. I think that those witnesses would be the likely ones to search for any possible reports of what you are asking about. The other eyewitnesses, with views from other angles, I think would be even less likely to be able to detect such a small and very quick forward motion.
I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.
And to clarify, naturally none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza noticed the 1/18 th of a second forward head movement of two inches between z312-z313. But the movement I was asking about was the backwards motion from z313-z318 of about ten inches (as I recall). It seems that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses noticed this at the time. So, it seems reasonable that Dan Rather would also not notice this from his one time viewing of the Zapruder film. Despite what others said, I don't think Dan Rather 'knew' ahead of time exactly what he was going to see in the film and, like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, was so shocked by the head explosion that he did not notice or remember the slow (maximum speed of just under 2 mph) motion of the head and torso backwards during z313-z318.
And on another note, some might claim that Dan Rather did see the brief forward motion of 312-312 of two inches. I don't think that would be possible from a one=time, real time, viewing of the Zapruder film. Certainly highly implausible. It was likely the subconscious of Dan Rather figuring out what he should have seen, not what he actually saw. A common sort of error that people make from a one time viewing of an event, whether in person or on film.
Okay, I think that I understand your question better now, thanks. And I tend to agree with your assessment. But I would appreciate it if you would refresh my memory regarding when, where, and the circumstances of the viewing that Dan Rather had that you are referring to. Thanks!
I think you have good advice. In the future, I will try to ignore responses that seem designed to dodge the question, like bringing up unrelated posts from months ago, and just look for answers.
And to clarify, naturally none of the witnesses at Dealey Plaza noticed the 1/18 th of a second forward head movement of two inches between z312-z313. But the movement I was asking about was the backwards motion from z313-z318 of about ten inches (as I recall). It seems that none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses noticed this at the time. So, it seems reasonable that Dan Rather would also not notice this from his one time viewing of the Zapruder film. Despite what others said, I don't think Dan Rather 'knew' ahead of time exactly what he was going to see in the film and, like the Dealey Plaza witnesses, was so shocked by the head explosion that he did not notice or remember the slow (maximum speed of just under 2 mph) motion of the head and torso backwards during z313-z318.
And on another note, some might claim that Dan Rather did see the brief forward motion of 312-312 of two inches. I don't think that would be possible from a one=time, real time, viewing of the Zapruder film. Certainly highly implausible. It was likely the subconscious of Dan Rather figuring out what he should have seen, not what he actually saw. A common sort of error that people make from a one time viewing of an event, whether in person or on film.
how in the world can you come to any conclusion if you haven't looked into it very much?
This is a simple question that deserves a reasonable response. But instead, we see an unreasonable relentless attack on Joe.
Damn if that doesn’t describe most followers of the WC dogma.
CTer/JAQer/OAKer/TAEer dogma
Nothing is knowable
Nothing is provable
Nothing is believable
Addition;
If all LNs are like Chapman, their all idiots
'their'
LOL So you make yet another typo and I'm the idiot HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
COMEDY PLATINUM!
Dopey bugger
So, I made a typo. Compared to you being born, that's nothing
Of course you are the idiot. So much so that if I told you are sane, you would probably argue against it.
Why do you continuously misquote and/or misrepresent what I said?
I stated that "602" was Butler attempting to let the police dispatcher know that they were leaving the scene en route to the hospital.
Yes.
However...
I never claimed that I had a source for that information. When you asked me to provide one, I basically said that I cannot remember where I first learned it and that I would attempt to find the source.
When you've been a student of the Tippit murder for over twenty-five years, you learn things along the way. You forget where you learned them but you do indeed retain the information.
Stop misrepresenting me.
And as I said a year ago... Callaway is misremembering that particular order of events. Scoggins, Bowley, Benavides and the police tapes tell you so.
As for a response to John Iacoletti, I'm not ignoring it. I am trying to find the source. Some of this stuff I have known for years and have no idea where I first learned it.
As I just said, I never claimed to have a source; only that I was trying to find the source. Exactly as I explained in my previous post.
"Either provide a source or you made it up."
No.
I don't have to play by your rules.
I've already explained.
Yes, and the explanation is that you clearly haven't got a source, lied about looking for that non existing source and thus made it up.
Or... and this is just thought... Or....
I learned it somewhere many years ago (back when you still believed that Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers were Secret Service agents) and I can't find nor recall where I learned it.
Question:
Can someone provide us with a list of witnesses, along with a link or something supporting this claim, who reported seeing JFK’s head moving forward as a result of the headshot during the first three days of the assassination?
Note, this cannot include a person who saw the Zapruder film.
Now all you have to do is prove that I was making things up.
No. I'm not lying.
Yes, as of about two years ago, I claimed that the first thing Callaway did was get on the radio.
Are we going to continue going on and on? Have you hi-jacked Joe Elliott's thread enough yet?
You're talking about two different things.
No.
You misrepresented something I said and I had to correct you, again. This isn't the first time.
This is real simple. If you don't misquote me, I won't have to jump in.
Dan Rather:Richard Stolley, the Life magazine editor/representative who was shown the original film by Zapruder that Saturday morning after the assassination:
"I challenge anyone to watch for the first time a twenty-two second film of devastating impact... then describe what they had seen in it's entirety, without notes."
The observable motion of the head and body is definitely back and to the left. Unless one is able to slow the film down, the forward motion which lasts 55-75 ms (from frame 312-313 and perhaps a bit more before 314 is exposed), is not observable to the eye.
In any case, what is my intent? My intent is to confirm that most witnesses, perhaps all, did not remember the movement of JFK’s head immediately after he was shot in the head. If this is so, then it is not strange for Dan Rather to not remember the movement of JFK’s head from his one viewing of the Zapruder film.
I assume that while Dan Rather watched the film, he wasn’t going into to see which direction the head moved. This only became a big question later on. And like most/all Dealey Plaza witnesses, he didn’t remember this detail.
When asked if he noticed the direction the head move, he should have said “I don’t know”. But people don’t do that. If they don’t know, they don’t remember, they try to use logic to figure out what they must have seen. Rather’s logic would likely be that the shot came from the back, therefore the head must have moved forward. And he related this is what he saw. Note, this is not conscious thought. All this takes place subconsciously. He likely would end up with a visual ‘memory’ of JFK’s head moving forward, not realizing that this ‘memory’ was constructed by his subconscious. This is what people do.Dan Rather may have seen the plume of blood and brain matter spewing forward and outward from the head and had the overwhelming sense of a shot from the rear, which his mind translated into the head moving forward.
Something similar happened to the Dealey Plaza witness. Did JFK’s limousine stop? Most were in a bad position to see it. But many were near the follow up cars, some of which must have stopped, because of the limousine’s sudden slowdown from 14 to 8 mph. Their subconscious concluded that JFK’s limousine must has stopped as well. And may have even ended up with a memory of the limousine stopping, even though it never did and was not even visible to them at the time of the headshot.Witnesses can be mistaken for a variety of reasons. But if they are mistaken, unless the mistakes are induced by a factor that is common to the witnesses, the mistakes tend to be randomly distributed over the range of possible mistaken answer and only the non-mistaken witnesses will converge around the correct answer. If the correct answer requires an estimate of distance or time, the witnesses may be accurate observers but poor estimators of time and distance.
And I have a second intent. To illustrate, once again, how unreliable witnesses are, either to a real time event or a one-time viewing of a film.
The probability that there were not 3 shots and that this kind of distribution occurred by chance is extremely low.
But it wouldn’t be by chance. People were influenced by media reports.How do you know that? Studies have shown that these kind of reports have a modest influence that grows as time after the event grows and the memory fades (Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, Ch. 4). But the recollections of the vast majority of witnesses as to the number of shots were taken shortly after the events, many within hours.
The observable motion of the head and body is definitely back and to the left. Unless one is able to slow the film down, the forward motion which lasts 55-75 ms (from frame 312-313 and perhaps a bit more before 314 is exposed), is not observable to the eye.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/31/dc/7Tn13bWv_o.gif) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Allow animation to fully load so regular speed can begin. |
But the recollections of the vast majority of witnesses as to the number of shots were taken shortly after the events, many within hours.
But it wouldn’t be by chance. People were influenced by media reports.
I find that really hard to believe, but if you have specific data on that I’d love to see it.It took me a few minutes to go through just the A's and B's, which you can check for yourself here (https://www.maryferrell.org/DealeyPlazaWitnessDB.html#witness=Ault) or here (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm). This is a summary of the witnesses who commented on the number of shots they heard:
| Witness | No. of Shots | First Statement |
| Victoria ADAMS | 3 | 24Nov63 |
| James ALTGENS | 3 | 22Nov63 |
| Danny ARCE | 3 | 22Nov63 |
| Cecil AULT | 3* | 9Jan64 |
| Marrion BAKER | 3 | 22Nov63 |
| Virgie BAKER | 3 | 25Nov63 |
| Welcome BARNETT | 3 | 16July64 |
| Glen BENNETT | 3 | 22Nov63 |
| Jane BERRY | 3 | 25Nov63 |
| Glen BENNETT | 3 | 22Nov63 |
| Eugene BOONE | 3 | 22Nov63 |
| Lee BOWERS | 3 | 22Nov63 |
| Charles BREHM | 3 | 24Nov63 |
| Howard Brennan | 3 (2+1) | 22Nov63 |
| Doris BURNS | 1 | 19Mar64 |
Depending on which reports people were listening to they would most likely believe what they were being told.Would you report what you were told or would you report what you recalled hearing?
Depending on which reports people were listening to they would most likely believe what they were being told.
Would you report what you were told or would you report what you recalled hearing?
Would you report what you were told or would you report what you recalled hearing?
Witnesses are supposed to report what they saw, not what they were told, or “know”. But they commonly don’t do that.
People’s memories are affected by what they are told, or learn. We edit our memories without being aware of that. That is how, even after more than fifty years, I can still remember hitting 400-foot home runs while in little league. Actually, I don’t, but my memory may be off.
Based on my memory, which I think is accurate (but might not be) a motorcycle policeman, following up about 100 yards behind the president, reported in 1976 (?) that he remembered seeing Jackie climbing out onto the trunk of the limousine. However, he made no such claim in 1963. Plus, at the time Jackie was climbing onto the trunk, he was just turning onto Elm Street. So, because of the slope of the street, it would be difficult for him to see the limousine. Plus, there would many vehicles in the way, blocking his view.
So, what is more likely, is that the officer saw the Zapruder film, and incorporated his memory of this film into his memory. He ‘edited’ his memory. And now remembered seeing, in person, in real time, Jackie climbing out onto the trunk of the limousine, while he was riding his motorcycle.
People’s memories are affected by what they are told, or learn. We edit our memories without being aware of that. That is how, even after more than fifty years, I can still remember hitting 400-foot home runs while in little league. Actually, I don’t, but my memory may be off.
_I regularly hit the ball 400 feet, I like to tell people.
Yep... 200 feet up, 200 feet down: I popped out a lot.
Witnesses are supposed to report what they saw, not what they were told, or “know”. But they commonly don’t do that.So why are the witnesses who reported 3 shots from the TSBD right despite all the news media, but the witnesses who reported the 1......2...3 pattern to the shots wrong despite virtually no media reports about that pattern?
People’s memories are affected by what they are told, or learn. We edit our memories without being aware of that. That is how, even after more than fifty years, I can still remember hitting 400-foot home runs while in little league. Actually, I don’t, but my memory may be off.
Based on my memory, which I think is accurate (but might not be) a motorcycle policeman, following up about 100 yards behind the president, reported in 1976 (?) that he remembered seeing Jackie climbing out onto the trunk of the limousine. However, he made no such claim in 1963. Plus, at the time Jackie was climbing onto the trunk, he was just turning onto Elm Street. So, because of the slope of the street, it would be difficult for him to see the limousine. Plus, there would many vehicles in the way, blocking his view.
So, what is more likely, is that the officer saw the Zapruder film, and incorporated his memory of this film into his memory. He ‘edited’ his memory. And now remembered seeing, in person, in real time, Jackie climbing out onto the trunk of the limousine, while he was riding his motorcycle.
There apparently is no way to get the reported dates from Galanor’s list without going though each name one by one.Is there any other way to do it? At least with Stuart Galanor's list you can see the original statements with the click of a button.
But I note that even in Andrew’s small sample, 3 of the 15 are many months later.So ignore those. Just look at the ones taken on 22Nov63. 86% of those (6/7) in the A-B sample said there were 3 shots. (Altgens was somewhat ambiguous about the number of shots - he reported two bursts of sound. Given that many reported the last two in rapid succession it is not clear whether he was reporting the bursts (esp. the second burst, which he said struck JFK in the head) as one or more shots.