"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
I don't know about that Bob, there appears to be a lot of witnesses who specifically didn't hear the last two shots one on top of the other? Why are your CT mates afraid of confronting any evidence that contradicts their fragile infrastructure?
JohnM
According to Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas, (1976, p. 29) that out of 65 witnesses reporting:
40 said the second and third shots were bunched (closer together)
13 said three shots were evenly spaced
7 said first two shots were bunched
5 said four shots with first two bunched, a pause, then final two bunched
Various studies have been conducted since and despite some differences in interpretation of qualitative witness data, these findings remain basically identical. Then again, witnesses can be mistaken and there?s just too many psychophysical variables in play to conceivably account for, so this data can be used with extreme caution.
Not sure what the point of this thread is.
Most LNs claim the first two shots were closer together than the last two, while the majority of those interviewed who noted a pattern claimed the last two were closer together than the first two, and a great number of these witnesses claimed the last two were bang bang, right after each other. This is a huge problem for those claiming the first shot was heard at Z-160, the second at Z-224, and the third at Z-313.
There's just no getting around that. The fact that some witnesses recalled there being a 3 second or more gap between the last two shots does little to explain why so many more thought the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds. If the shots were evenly spaced, or spaced like most LNs claim, the vast majority of witnesses would think the first two shots were closer together, and that the final shot was delayed. But the reverse is true. The appropriate conclusion then is that the 160, 224, 313 scenario is at odds with the collective statements of the witnesses.
Had the Zapruder film recorded sound, we would likely know the bulk of the witnesses were wrong on the shot sequence as well.
In any case, we should not trust witnesses. Not as individuals. Not as a group based on the idea ?Well, they couldn?t have all made the same mistake?.
And I question that notion that ?Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds?. Playing NFL football is pretty stressful. Rookies commonly find the game too fast for them. If they can stay in the league for a while, they may be able to calm down and find that the game is no longer too fast for them.
Kellerman said the first shot sounded different then the rest, followed by a flurry of shots.
Had the Zapruder film recorded sound, we would likely know the bulk of the witnesses were wrong on the shot sequence as well.
Wherein we see once again that whatever Joe thinks happened is automatically "likely".
In any case, we should not trust witnesses. Not as individuals. Not as a group based on the idea ?Well, they couldn?t have all made the same mistake?.
You mean like the 10th and Patton witnesses?
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emoji-one/104/thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png)
Closest ear witnesses:
1,Harold Norman. 5th floor, right beneath SE corner 6th floor. Heard 3 shots, all 3 fired in a span of approx. 5 secs, given Normans interviews replicating the sequence with his "boom clack clack" description.
2.Amos Euins: Only approximately 30 yds away on the elm st corner looking up at the SE 6th story window. Saw a rifle and man holding it. Heard FOUR shots fired.
3.Majority of other earwitness heard 3 shots, 1st shot, then a few seconds, then 2 shots back to back, and in Lee Bowers example, the last 2 shots within about 1 sec apart, given his rapping his hand on the desk to replicate the timing (filmed interview with Mark Lane).
Conclusion: Low probability all shots were fired by an MC rifle, if these witness observation are correct.
Not sure what the point of this thread is.
Most LNs claim the first two shots were closer together than the last two, while the majority of those interviewed who noted a pattern claimed the last two were closer together than the first two, and a great number of these witnesses claimed the last two were bang bang, right after each other. This is a huge problem for those claiming the first shot was heard at Z-160, the second at Z-224, and the third at Z-313.
There's just no getting around that. The fact that some witnesses recalled there being a 3 second or more gap between the last two shots does little to explain why so many more thought the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds. If the shots were evenly spaced, or spaced like most LNs claim, the vast majority of witnesses would think the first two shots were closer together, and that the final shot was delayed. But the reverse is true. The appropriate conclusion then is that the 160, 224, 313 scenario is at odds with the collective statements of the witnesses.
Closest ear witnesses:
1,Harold Norman. 5th floor, right beneath SE corner 6th floor. Heard 3 shots, all 3 fired in a span of approx. 5 secs, given Normans interviews replicating the sequence with his "boom clack clack" description.
2.Amos Euins: Only approximately 30 yds away on the elm st corner looking up at the SE 6th story window. Saw a rifle and man holding it. Heard FOUR shots fired.
3.Majority of other earwitness heard 3 shots, 1st shot, then a few seconds, then 2 shots back to back, and in Lee Bowers example, the last 2 shots within about 1 sec apart, given his rapping his hand on the desk to replicate the timing (filmed interview with Mark Lane).
Conclusion: Low probability all shots were fired by an MC rifle, if these witness observation are correct.
Questions:
Why isn?t the great bulk of the witnesses saying the limousine stopped or almost stopped a major problem for the notion that we can rely on the witnesses if bulk of the witnesses support a certain observation?
If the great bulk of the witnesses are wrong about the speed of the limousine, why couldn?t they be wrong about the spacing of the shots? [/b]
And I question that notion that ?Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds?. Playing NFL football is pretty stressful. Rookies commonly find the game too fast for them. If they can stay in the league for a while, they may be able to calm down and find that the game is no longer too fast for them.
I said ?likely happened?. Not ?absolutely happened?. Nothing in this world is absolutely certain.
Absolutely. The best quality evidence is the ballistic evidence. The shells matching the gun he was found carrying.
And what the hell was he doing carrying a gun, let alone trying to shoot an officer with it.
And do you feel your remarks are so clever you have to give yourself a thumbs up?
By "flurry" he meant two. ::)
Pat, going with the collective statements from the witnesses, there were 3 shots. Do you agree that Kennedy is hit at Z313 and Z225, and those 2 frames (or very close), account for 2 of the 3 shots?
No, I don't agree. It's quite clear to me that Kennedy is hit before going behind the sign in the Zapruder film, and that Connally is hit circa Z-225. This is one of the many reasons I reject the single-bullet theory, which, in turn, is one of the many reasons I suspect there was more than one shooter firing upon Kennedy.
No, I don't agree. It's quite clear to me that Kennedy is hit before going behind the sign in the Zapruder film, and that Connally is hit circa Z-225. This is one of the many reasons I reject the single-bullet theory, which, in turn, is one of the many reasons I suspect there was more than one shooter firing upon Kennedy.
If the WC believers are suggesting that the 1st shot was fired before Z186, then why are no SS agents looking back, even as late as Z207???? Surely they should have reacted to noise coming from behind at Z 160, or Z 150.. But no... they remain looking forward all the way to Z207.. very strange.
Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard a voice from the back seat and I firmly believe it was the President's, "My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here like this.
Well, presuming Harold Norman was telling the truth, and did hear 3 shots in about 5 seconds,
. . . and combining that with CBS shooter experiment, NONE OF THEM were able to hit ANY targets on their 1st attempt, even without boxes in the way, and foreknowledge of target track and red on black background target, ALL MISSED on their 1st attempt.. NOT A SINGLE HIT???
Yet the WC wants us to believe Oswald without even having the advantages the CBS shooters had, was able to hit 2 of 3 shots, even AS HE MOVED from sitting on the box, taking one shot standing up, and then somehow in about 3 more seconds got off 2 shots that BOTH hit, one of which was head shot. ON HIS 1ST ATTEMPT!!!!
The shots that 2 expert military snipers said were impossible after seeing the 6th story SN, the boxes and the type rifle, the MC bolt action rifle.
But maybe Betzner and Willis are simply wrong, and both of them are mistaking 2nd shot for the 1st shot they both heard, Betzner hearing it just after his photo at Z186, and Willis, right at when he snapped his photo at Z 205.
Even the JFK limo occupants, Jackie, Connally, Greer, Kellerman, seem oblivious until the head shot. They seem like people who have NOT actually heard 2 shots fired, but are only observing the EFFECT of those 2 shots, which is JFK slumping, and Gov Connally laying back.
Kellerman WC testimony, below.
(https://s13.postimg.org/jfsjd3ubr/kellerman_and_connallys_head_turns.gif)
In the Gif above, you can see Connally turning his head to his right, reacting to something, he then quickly snaps back towards his left, Kellerman, in front of Connally, also moves towards his right, the Zapruder film catches his head in profile view. Kellerman's head is fully in profile at z-151. Kellerman's testimony appears to be consistent, re z-film.
(https://s13.postimg.org/fjf7hejpj/still_frame.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/vgdze26xz/greers_head_turn.gif)
(https://s13.postimg.org/3t19ztoaf/dopey_face.gif)
Do you believe the Zapruder Film can be used for timing or will you pick and choose which frame someone was shot in? I assume you accept it if you are using it for timing in my quote of you above. To me it is clear that JFK was hit behind the sign. He was waving before the sign to the crowd and as he emerges from the sign, he grabs his neck.
Connally continues to look around and shows no evidence of being hit. I will repost my analysis of the Zapruder film which was lost during the forum reset where all threads were lost! Many years later, his wife who I assume was still sleeping with him, should have known where the shots came in at! She really stretches it whenever she is in the media limelight!
Connally and JFK wer looking at the umbrella man located in front of the road sign at frame z-225. At Z-226, JFK grabs his neck. Obviously that bullet was a small calibre bullet that caused the President to slump - certainly not a rifle shot. That is the best shot angle for anyone to take to minimize the risk of ever hitting Connally. The umbrella man and the guy (known as the Cuban), waving his hand in the air beside him are very suspicious! Only one guy with the umbrella and the other one arenot clapping, one with an open umbrella and the other with a hand fully raised in the air! The road sign nicely obscured this event and Zapruder's filming of the event from his pedestal.
| (http://i63.tinypic.com/34xjp1j.jpg) | (http://i67.tinypic.com/hurk93.jpg) |
The current swallower's of the 'lone nut' shot sequence of 166 (into tree), 223 ('magic' bullet), 313 was destroyed by the swallower's very own Warren Commission.
The Warren Report admitted that of the shots sequence that its 3 shots (or more) witnesses the commission knew of,
"a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced.
Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots were bunched together"
(Warren Commission report, page 115)
I never seen anything about the CBS 1967 shooters not being able to hit on their first attempt. Some got one out of three hits. Others two out of three. And one three out of three.
And it appears that Oswald got two out of three hits. And he was lucky with one, the neck shot, that missed the most likely target, the center of the head, by about 8 inches, which will probably cause a total miss, except he happened to miss downward. A miss by 8 inches to the left, or right, or high, would have been a total miss, at least of JFK.
Also, the shooters were trying to get the three shots off in under 6 seconds. Most likely, the three shots were from frames 153 to 312, which covers 8.7 seconds. Oswald had more time to aim then any of the 1967 CBS shooters.
Question:
Where is your source of this claim that the CBS shooters missed with all their shots on their first attempts?
http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/bp1QdGQL/1967-cbs-special-a-cbs-news-inquiry-the-warren-report
Zeon's conclusions:
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper = missed head shot
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper = missed all 3
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper = no comfirmed hits
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer = missed all 3
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder = missed all 3
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman = missed head shot
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician = no hits in orange
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet) = no hits
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot = no hits
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee = no hits
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
Skeptics don?t trust witnesses,
And it appears that Oswald got two out of three hits. And he was lucky with one, the neck shot, that missed the most likely target, the center of the head, by about 8 inches, which will probably cause a total miss, except he happened to miss downward.
Our best ?witness?, whose ?memory? never changes over the years, whose ?memory? is not influenced by what it hears from other people, shows:
** A probable shot at z153
**** strong camera jiggle at frames z158-z159
**** Kennedy, Connally and Rosemary Willis seemingly reacting to something by the z160?s
** Almost certainly a shot at z222
**** strong camera jiggle at frame 227
**** Connally?s coat movement at frame z224
**** Connally and Kennedy both jerking their right arm up at z226
**** The other reactions Connally and Kennedy make during the z220?s
** An absolutely certain shot at z312
**** strong camera jiggle at frame 318
**** Obvious explosive head wound that is first visible in frame z313
and the 2 military combat vet snipers:
Craig Roberts was a former Marine sniper who later wrote a book on the JFK assassination called ?Kill Zone.? Roberts visited the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and instantly realized that Oswald could not have performed the shooting feat because he knew that he himself could not. And he was a professional.
Roberts interviewed Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor at the Marines Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. Roberts asked Hathcock if he thought Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did. Hathcock said no.
Hathcock reconstructed the assassination at Quantico: the angle, moving target, time limit etc. he told Roberts, ?I don?t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn?t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.
http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html
No, the film shows what it shows. What you are describing is what you as somebody witnessing the film thinks he is seeing. And as you said, skeptics don't trust witnesses.
5+ seconds is the correct time to use. The idea there was an early missed shot is unsupported complete nonsense. JFK reacted to the first shot which is exactly what the eyewitnesses stated happened. An early missed shot is nothing more than an attempt to try to explain away the 2.3 second cycle time of LHO's carcano.
CTers expound the 5 second scenario to argue the shots were impossible (they still would not be).
The Zapruder film does not prove the shots were all over 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 9 seconds or 14 seconds. So to prove the shots are impossible, one would have to prove they are impossible over a period of time of 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 9 seconds or 14 seconds. Although I would be satisfied if it could be showed they were impossible over a 9 second interval.
The best support for the 5 seconds scenario is to assume that the same set of witnesses who were wrong about the limousine stopping or almost stopping, were not wrong about the shots covering a span of about 5 seconds.
Just visit youtube to see how fast a Carcano can be fired.
Limp wristed amateurs may struggle yes.
Just visit youtube to see how fast a Carcano can be fired.
After reading some posts by CTs, like this example "Not merely a "large number."..... The vast majority of the witnesses reported that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous...... That's impossible with a bolt action rifle...." so I did a quick collation of a number of witnesses who said the shots were roughly about evenly spaced or the spaces between were longer than virtually instantaneous. Btw some witnesses guessed that the length of time was greater between shots 2 and 3 than 1 and 2 but a lot of these witnesses didn't specify a specific length so cannot be counted by either side.
Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they were pretty well even to me.
BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.
Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately 10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate on the time that passed from the first to the last shot?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Very short. It seemed to me that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third.
Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there have been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were relatively the same.
Mr. BELIN - The shots seemed to be how far apart?
Mr. FISCHER - That's hard to say. I've been thinking about that. And--uh--I'd guess--3 to 4 seconds.
Mr. BELIN - Was that between the first and the second or between the second and the third?
Mr. FISCHER - Between both. As far as I can remember, the shots were evenly paced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4 seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They rang out pretty fast.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall whether or not the statement is accurate in that you told the police officials at that time that there was a time span of 8 seconds between the first and second shots and a time span of 3 seconds between the second and third shots?
Mr. ROWLAND - I think I did tell them that, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. I see. Did you tell them that you heard the bolt action of the rifle?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And that you heard the expended cartridges fall to the floor?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; I heard them making a sound.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
JERRY HAYNES from WFAATV who was there with JAY. @17:37
....we heard one shot then a second or two later we heard another shot and then another second or two later the third shot.
JAY WATSON from WFAATV who ran straight back to the studio gave this account @27:28
I can best explain it in my own words, we were a hundred yards....yada yada yada
Jerry Haynes and I were standing there and we heard one shot and immediately thereafter heard another shot and then a third little bit later.
~snip~
JohnM
But we do have a time machine, of sorts. It is the Zapruder film. We can observe it over and over again. We can see the movements of Rosemary Willis, Connally and JFK.
Scientific knowledge, it could be said, is based on eyewitness observation. But these are observations that can be made repeatedly, over and over. If one scientist makes an observation, he could repeat the experiment. And other scientists can repeat the experiment. Under these circumstances, eyewitness observation is reliable.
If we had a time machine where witnesses could travel back in time, to confirmed their observations, I would be a lot more confident in witnesses. Particularly if I and anyone else could also travel back in time over and over again to confirm and reconfirm what happened.
But witnesses only witness something once. And their impressions can be false. Or change over time. Or be influenced by what others tell them, possibly within a few minutes of the event. That makes them unreliable.
But we do have a time machine, of sorts. It is the Zapruder film. We can observe it over and over again. We can see the movements of Rosemary Willis, Connally and JFK. We can see the film over and over again to confirm when they move and how they move. And conclude the forward spray seen in frame 313 implies a shot from behind and is not the result of me misremembering what I saw, that the spray when backwards or there was no spray at all.
Good post.
And if a witness has a false memory, it can appear as real and vivid in his mind as an actual memory. Memories are mental reconstructions that can be honesty skewered by impressions, biases, perceptions, distractions, etc.
People may best remember salient items ("I saw the President and Jackie") but be weak--though "real" in their minds--on secondary events ("the limousine stopped"). Problem could be that in an investigation, the salient facts ("the President and Jackie travel on Elm in Dallas") are established easily while the secondary events (the ones more likely to be mis-recalled) take on a new importance.
"Memories are mental reconstructions that can be honesty skewered by impressions, biases, perceptions, distractions, etc."
Like the DA or Chief of Police on local media claiming the case is cinched and Oswald is guilty etc.
Many changed their minds of where the shots came from.
Seems their memories got better the farther away from the event they got.
Yeah, I would say the witness pool was corrupted as the conspiracy kooks "got to" them.
The witness list is all very interesting but is lacking a large number of eyewitnesses and what their very first statements contained. None of these posts even remotely relate to proving the belief there was an early missed shot. The actions of a child running past a woman stepping up on the curb with her cane/umbrella sticking out is somehow being presented as evidence of a shot that no adults standing along Elm Street including her parents stated ever happened.
| (http://i61.tinypic.com/1zdab86.jpg) | (http://i61.tinypic.com/243q3ow.jpg) | (http://i62.tinypic.com/fvxoau.jpg) |
Maybe the psychology question that needs to be answered is what would influence the belief that such an absurd theory as an early shot not heard by anyone is the answer to the shot sequence of the assassination which does not fit the cycle time of the carcano and what is seen on the Zapruder film?
"Memories are mental reconstructions that can be honesty skewered by impressions, biases, perceptions, distractions, etc."
Like the DA or Chief of Police on local media claiming the case is cinched and Oswald is guilty etc.
Many changed their minds of where the shots came from.
Seems their memories got better the farther away from the event they got.
The witness list is all very interesting but is lacking a large number of eyewitnesses and what their very first statements contained. None of these posts even remotely relate to proving the belief there was an early missed shot. The actions of a child running past a woman stepping up on the curb with her cane/umbrella sticking out is somehow being presented as evidence of a shot that no adults standing along Elm Street including her parents stated ever happened.
Maybe the psychology question that needs to be answered is what would influence the belief that such an absurd theory as an early shot not heard by anyone is the answer to the shot sequence of the assassination which does not fit the cycle time of the carcano and what is seen on the Zapruder film? Attempting to discredit the numerous eyewitnesses as having faulty recollections is actually beyond belief and shows how weak and ridiculous the whole early missed shot theory really is.
. . .
I struggled with the early missed shot. To miss the car entirely and also miss the spectators seems like a huge stretch especially if it was early and pretty close range. As a former Infantry soldier it had me really curious so I looked at it hard for a long time.
Connolly's statement works for an early missed shot as does Jackie Kennedy's and Nellie Connolly (sort of). Also Robert croft who took a photo prior to any shots. There are others I don't remember who. At least one claims to have seen something hit the road.
The car occupants testimonies matched with their movements in the Z film, together with Robert croft's statement would make the shot somewhere in the z150's in the Z film.
So realising it was maybe might be kinda possible left the question...how the hell could he miss??? Beats me. Maybe he was nervous and had an accidental discharge across the city who knows. Maybe there's a bullet hole somewhere in the 6th floor or he hit the tree. Who knows. Maybe the scope was way way off. It would have to be really off to miss the whole car at that range.
Someone who armour plated the limo after the assassination said there was a hole somewhere in the floor pan of the car, only visible with the seats and carpets removed. He didn't photograph it though so no corroborating support and it seems it was never investigated. Missed shot? Who knows.
Based on all that pondering and I wouldn't bet my life on it, but It does seem to me the first shot was early in the Z150's and he missed by a country mile for reasons unknown. Took me a while to come to it because I didn't want to believe it somehow but that's where I'm at. Oswald had that rifle lying around and being transported about in cars with luggage and furniture. Who knows if he ever even zeroed it. Seems unlikely to me he wouldn't but again who knows.
Well, I didn't present Rosemary Willis's running/stopping in isolation like that, like it alone was the only reason for a early missed shot. But if one does isolate it, I suppose it makes it seem less reliable.
I don't know for sure why Rosemary in particular decided to slow and ultimately stop, other than she once said it was in response to hearing the first shot.
And was the woman banishing a cane or umbrella with her right hand as she steps backwards? Or were both her arms simply wearing dark gloves?
(http://i61.tinypic.com/1zdab86.jpg) (http://i61.tinypic.com/243q3ow.jpg) (http://i62.tinypic.com/fvxoau.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelm/zapruder/mischd/store/z153-2500x1406.jpg)
There seems to be a closed umbrella shape dangling from the woman's left arm, but it's not in the path of the girl running.
I guess one of the ways to get "an early shot not heard by anyone" is to isolate Rosemary Willis, and then proclaim her account is suspect because of some long object supposedly in her path.
One of Rosemary's parents, her father Phil, did testify that the first shot caused Mrs. Kennedy to turn from his side of the street to the opposite side. She does this beginning in the low-Z170s.
"In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead,
and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of
the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the
right toward him and he more or less slumped forward, and it
caused me to wonder if he were hit, although I couldn?t say."
Willis 04 was taken about Z133.
I struggled with the early missed shot. To miss the car entirely and also miss the spectators seems like a huge stretch especially if it was early and pretty close range. As a former Infantry soldier it had me really curious so I looked at it hard for a long time.
Connolly's statement works for an early missed shot as does Jackie Kennedy's and Nellie Connolly (sort of). Also Robert croft who took a photo prior to any shots. There are others I don't remember who. At least one claims to have seen something hit the road.
The car occupants testimonies matched with their movements in the Z film, together with Robert croft's statement would make the shot somewhere in the z150's in the Z film.
So realising it was maybe might be kinda possible left the question...how the hell could he miss??? Beats me. Maybe he was nervous and had an accidental discharge across the city who knows. Maybe there's a bullet hole somewhere in the 6th floor or he hit the tree. Who knows. Maybe the scope was way way off. It would have to be really off to miss the whole car at that range.
Someone who armour plated the limo after the assassination said there was a hole somewhere in the floor pan of the car, only visible with the seats and carpets removed. He didn't photograph it though so no corroborating support and it seems it was never investigated. Missed shot? Who knows.
Based on all that pondering and I wouldn't bet my life on it, but It does seem to me the first shot was early in the Z150's and he missed by a country mile for reasons unknown. Took me a while to come to it because I didn't want to believe it somehow but that's where I'm at. Oswald had that rifle lying around and being transported about in cars with luggage and furniture. Who knows if he ever even zeroed it. Seems unlikely to me he wouldn't but again who knows.
This brings me to Robert Croft. Croft's famous photo was taken at Z-160. He never said anything to indicate this photo was taken after the first shot. He made a point, however, of stating that his fourth and final photo (which didn't come out) was taken simultaneously with the fatal shot. This suggests, then, that he would have said something if his third photo was taken less than a half second after the first shot. And yet he said nothing. Near him, moreover, were two other photographers, Betzner and Willis. Betzner's photo was taken at Z-186. He said the first shot came just after. And Willis' photo was taken at Z-202. He said the first shot led him to click the camera. This is one of the many reasons some believe the first shot was fired circa Z-190.
The evidence is conflicting all round as we all know. What we must do at some point is decide which is reliable. Is the Z film accurate? If so who's testimonies can be corroborated by the film and testimony of others.
You're starting to understand, John.
You're starting to understand, John.
I've always understood.
The evidence is conflicting all round as we all know. What we must do at some point is decide which is reliable. Is the Z film accurate?
If so who's testimonies can be corroborated by the film and testimony of others.
The Zapruder film is accurate. It would be wildly difficult to fake it and all the other films.
Can you imagine the follow conversation of the conspirators:
Mr. Evil: We need to place the shooters behind the limousine, to best simulate a shot from the patsy.
Mr. Minion: No, we need triangulation of fire. Instead, we could have a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. And them simply modify the Zapruder film to move the two ladies off of the street while keeping in the President falling backwards.
Mr. Evil: What about the other films.
Mr. Minion: We can simply modify those as well.
Mr. Evil: But we would have to be careful that the films don?t conflict with each other.
Mr. Minion: Yes, we will just have to be careful.
Mr. Evil: How much time to we have to do all this?
Mr. Minion: Well, have to modify them before anyone can show this to the public. Plus, we want to publish at least a few frames within a couple of weeks. So, we need to get it all done within a few days.
Mr. Evil: But what about the films we don?t know about?
Mr. Minion: Well, we need to keep a close eye on the crowd and hope we don?t miss anyone.
Mr. Evil: What about an amateur photographer who develops his own picture?
Mr. Minion: Well, we just have to hope there won?t be anyone like that.
Mr. Evil: It sounds like we should just place all the shooters firing from behind.
Mr. Minion: Oh no, we need triangulation of fire
Mr. Evil: Is this usually done when the target is a single man and not a battalion?
Mr. Minion: No.
Mr. Evil: Well then, why do we need it?
Mr. Minion: Because the target might duck down. If this happens we need a shooter firing from a different direction. We need triangulation of fire.
Mr. Evil: Well, if he ducks, he wouldn?t be visible from the grassy knoll either, would he.
Mr. Minion: I guess not. But I don?t care. We need triangulation of fire.
Mr. Evil: Very well. Make it so.
I think Governor Connally?s testimony is the most reliable. Because we can see what he is doing. He says he heard a first shot and turned to his right. We can see this starting in the z160?s.
In contrast, most/all of the witnesses not riding in vehicles don?t seem aware of any shots are being fired until the head shot at z312. They are clapping their hands and not reacting right up until that time.
I was a rhetorical question. I believe it to be accurate myself. Add Jackie Kennedy s testimony to Connelly. They fit and she is also clearly seen turning in the film.
If you know of an eyewitness that states there was an early missed shot feel free to quote them.
One of Rosemary's parents, her father Phil, did testify that the first shot caused Mrs. Kennedy to turn from his side of the street to the opposite side. She does this beginning in the low-Z170s.
"In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead,
and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of
the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the
right toward him and he more or less slumped forward, and it
caused me to wonder if he were hit, although I couldn?t say."
that would therefore be the shot at Z224.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/b7/03/bJsinoZa_o.gif) |
Referring to this portion of Phil Willis's testimony: "when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward" ....
I think seeing the Z226-228 slump would be considered witnessing a "hit" (or the reaction to a bullet strike).
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you think that the President had been hit by the first shot?
Mr. WILLIS. I didn't really know, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You couldn't tell whether he was hit by the first shot? You couldn't tell whether he had been hit by the first shot or the second shot or the third shot, or by how many shots he had been hit?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir.
From the Clay Shaw Trial:
Q: Mr. Willis, did you have occasion to see any affect
that any shot may have had on any occupants in the
Presidential limousine?
A: Honestly, no, sir, because I was trying to use the view
finder for the camera and I was more interested in getting
the whole car than focusing on an individual. I did not.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_196-vert.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_224-vert-vert.jpg)
I'm pretty sure his view to the President would be blocked by the Z220s. I think more of the Secret Service limousine would be between Willis and Kennedy by then.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Groden_Willis5.jpg)
So if Willis in his testimony is describing that he witnessed a non-hit "slump" prior to taking his Z202 slide, it could be this.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png) (http://i59.tinypic.com/4gt3pg.jpg)
Willis would have seen this small forward slump from behind, and so would not know the President was smiling and not distressed. The animation is slowed.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/_/rsrc/1399221309252/lostbullet/z133-z199/z174.jpg)
There are a few witnesses who thought they saw a bullet strike the pavement. I don't have their quotes right now.
Mary E. Woodward claimed: "I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet." She wrote: "The car proceeded down Elm, and when it was about 40 yards from us, we heard the first noise." I'm going out on a limb to suggest that maybe "yards" should read "feet." There's a Dec. 7, 1963 FBI report where she says the car was "about one hundred feet from her" at the time of the first shot. If we take it literal, the car would have just gone pass Tina Towner (looking eastward) or at the point where the head-shot occurs (looking westward). I don't know if she meant 40 feet, either, but I very much doubt a distance of 100-120 feet.
The term "from us" I take to mean the car was approaching her. So how does Woodward's position relative to the limousine relate to where the car was when the Connallys made their rightward head-turns in the Z160s (supposedly in reaction to hearing the first shot)?
(http://i66.tinypic.com/348hfle.gif)
Woodward also said the President didn't slump until the second shot (Kennedy seems to first "slump" at Z226-228). Woodward collapsed at the scene (it's been suggested this scrambled her recollections) and has stated the first shot occurred as they "went by" (suggestive that the car was at more of a right-angle to her).
Referring to this portion of Phil Willis's testimony: "when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward" ....
I think seeing the Z226-228 slump would be considered witnessing a "hit" (or the reaction to a bullet strike).
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you think that the President had been hit by the first shot?
Mr. WILLIS. I didn't really know, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You couldn't tell whether he was hit by the first shot? You couldn't tell whether he had been hit by the first shot or the second shot or the third shot, or by how many shots he had been hit?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir.
From the Clay Shaw Trial:
Q: Mr. Willis, did you have occasion to see any affect
that any shot may have had on any occupants in the
Presidential limousine?
A: Honestly, no, sir, because I was trying to use the view
finder for the camera and I was more interested in getting
the whole car than focusing on an individual. I did not.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_196-vert.jpg) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_224-vert-vert.jpg)
I'm pretty sure his view to the President would be blocked by the Z220s. I think more of the Secret Service limousine would be between Willis and Kennedy by then.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Groden_Willis5.jpg)
So if Willis in his testimony is describing that he witnessed a non-hit "slump" prior to taking his Z202 slide, it could be this.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/slumpwitnesses/Z172ff-slump.png) (http://i59.tinypic.com/4gt3pg.jpg)
Willis would have seen this small forward slump from behind, and so would not know the President was smiling and not distressed. The animation is slowed.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/_/rsrc/1399221309252/lostbullet/z133-z199/z174.jpg)
And yet Willis also says...
Mr. LIEBELER. You couldn't tell whether he was hit by the first shot? You couldn't tell whether he had been hit by the first shot or the second shot or the third shot, or by how many shots he had been hit?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; except this one thing might be worthy of mention. When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively. It did cause me to wonder.
Mr. LIEBELER. You say that the President looked toward his left; is that correct? Toward the side of Elm Street that you are standing on, or which way?
Mr. WILLIS. In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward, and it caused me to wonder if he were hit, although I couldn't say.
And that's the thing. He says he heard three shots. He says the first shot happened at the Stemmons sign as he took slide 5, yet he says Jackie snapped her head in JFK's direction at the first shot. She can be seen clearly doing that at late z160's and continues looking at him until the throat shot happens. His (Willis) recollections don't match the Z film, or Jackie and Connolys statements.
The evidence is conflicting all round as we all know. What we must do at some point is decide which is reliable. Is the Z film accurate? If so who's testimonies can be corroborated by the film and testimony of others.
Jackie snaps her head to the right after z-190. This supports Willis' claim the first shot was fired just before 202.
(http://www.patspeer.com/followtheb.jpg)
Jackie snaps her head to the right after z-190.
This supports Willis' claim the first shot was fired just before 202.
(http://www.patspeer.com/followtheb.jpg)
The point is, neither Betzner, nor Willis heard any loud noise like a rifle shot, before Betzners 186 photo.
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lostbullet/z200-z249/z202.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Groden_Willis5.jpg) |
^Willis is refering to his photo at Z205 approx. So if there had been a shot prior, then neither he,nor Betzner heard it.
You can try claim that there is some noise 160 or 170 which is causing the Willis girl to slow down running, but the fact is, its actual about Z190 approx when she ABRUPTLY stops
Those SS agents in the follow car, they dont seem to be responding at all to a loud shot from behind even up until the Z207 frame. Only that SS agent Hickey, moves a little.
Mary Woodward is very clear where the first shot takes place. It is after JFK faces forward which doesn't happen until Z204.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z193.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z204.jpg) |
JFK has already passed her and her friends. Also standing with Woodward was Ann Donaldson and she reported to her hometown newspaper there was only two shots.
"After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right."
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z153.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z162.jpg) |
Jackie snaps her head to the right after z-190. This supports Willis' claim the first shot was fired just before 202.
(http://www.patspeer.com/followtheb.jpg)
Questions:
How does Altgen?s claim that the first shot occurred within a fraction of a second of his picture, at z255, which would mean a first shot after z234, support Willis?s claim of a shot just before he took his picture at z202?
Doesn?t there seem to be a pattern of photographers (Betzner, Willis and Altgens) convincing themselves that their picture was taken at a historically significant moment, just about when the first shot was fired?
Kennedy turns his head forward between Z153 and the Z160s. Kennedy seems to be looking pass Woodward's group by then.
That isn't true and you know it. Actually this is just pathetic. Woodwards group was farther South and she explains what transpired when JFK looks at them.
http://www.blather.net/blather_img/dealey%20plaza%20witnesses%20at%20Z-150.jpg (http://www.blather.net/blather_img/dealey%20plaza%20witnesses%20at%20Z-150.jpg)
Mary Woodward
"After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right."
At Z185 JFK is looking drectly at them and waving to them.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/_/rsrc/1399221409533/lostbullet/z133-z199/z180.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/_/rsrc/1399221409533/lostbullet/z133-z199/z185.jpg) |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z180.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z185.jpg) |
The reason he turns to them is they were calling and making noise to get his attention. That is what "acknowledging our cheers " means.
Later Woodward laments that maybe their faces is the last thing he seen.
A double shot at the end almost simaltaneous
" But one thing I am totally positive of in my own mind is how many shots there were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate -- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second and third shots, I did see the president being hit. I literally saw his head explode."
==============================
Peggy Burney who was standing farther South along Elm Street closer to the Stemons Freeway sign also states where the first shot occurred confirming what the other eyewitnesses stated about the lolcation of the first shot.
BY PEGGY BURNEY
I saw the President die.I was standing at the curb on Elm about a third the way from Houston Street near the overpass.When the President's car made the curve around the corner, he was smiling and waving.He was not standing, as I heard some reports say later. He was sitting, but he was happy and Jackie was happy and smiling as they passed. The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. The President ducked; instinctively I told myself "something is happening," but nobody knew what. Then I heard a second shot. I noticed that Jackie didn't duck - I could no longer see the President. The car momentarily stopped, then veered slightly to the right and speeded off. People around me were screaming; some were falling to the ground. I could not tell whether they were hit, or not - or just dodging. There was pandemonium.
That is not what they said. The only one who said he took the picture instantaneous with the shot was Willis. His claim was the shot made him squeeze the shutter. The statements of these three individuals support each other. Betzner said the shot was a little after his photo, Willis at the time of the photo, and Altgens was a little before the photo. Willis's photo coincides with Zapruder 210.
Altgens said "just about the time" or "a fraction ahead of the photo" not a fraction of a second. That is your addition.
?I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a
firecracker?I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I
recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot?the shot was just
a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much
"The motorcade was moving along in routine fashion until there was a noise like fireworks popping, I snapped a picture of the motorcade at just about that time."
---------------------------------------------------------
Betzner said he was winding his camera after taking a photo
?I started to wind my film again
and I heard a loud noise. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker
or a car had backfired.? [Sheriff?s Department affidavit: 24H200]
-------------------------------------------
Willis
Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.
Altgens said:
I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot? the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle.
Altgens said his picture was taken almost simultaneously with the first shot. That alone make it sound like the two events were almost together, within a second of each other.
In addition, he clarifies this (with a mistake) by saying it was just a fraction ahead of his picture.
Question:
1. What kind of units is Altgens talking about when he said ?fraction?. Units of weight? Units of Length? It?s units of time, correct?
2. What unit of time would he be referring to? A fraction of a minute? A fraction of a fortnight? It has to be a fraction of a second, right?
People, particularly if they are a little nervous, making an official statement in front of others, often skip words. While Altgens didn?t say ?fraction of a second?, that has to be what he meant. The shot occurred with a fraction, almost simultaneously with his picture, just like the pictures taken by Betzner and Willis. But we know those pictures were all spread of several seconds, so one of them, perhaps all three, were wrong.
Since when does a rifle sound like a firecracker, especially when you are within 25 yards of the muzzle and the muzzle is pointing in your direction?
Ever stop and think about why James "Ike" Altgens didn't hear the first shot until he snapped the photo at z255?
As far as why didn?t Altgens hear a shot until z255, I would say that most witnesses did hear the first shot, at around z153. Did not recognize it as a shot. Dismissed it as a backfire or firecracker. And forgot about it. And continued to excitedly watch JFK and Jackie during the few seconds they would be close to them. They only remembered the shots that occurred after they realized something seems to be terribly wrong.
Spot on. Frame 285 of the z film shows a guy still applauding enthusiastically just before the head shot. Don't remember his name but he's a Normandy veteran and still hasn't realised something has gone wrong at that stage.
Altgens was 25 yards from the muzzle? Using Don Roberdeau?s map, I find Altgens was at z255, just beyond where the limousine would reach at z313, 90 yards away. Not 25 yards.
Decibel levels go down by 6 every time the distance from the sound source is doubled.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/isprob2.html
The following list:
http://www.metrogun.com/db_list.html
shows:
firecracker: 150 db
rifle: 163 db
This list does not specify the distance from the rifle or the firecracker or what kind of firecracker or rifle they are talking about. But it does give us a rough measure.
This implies that a firecracker at 20 yards away would be as loud as a rifle at 90 yards away. It is quite possible that Altgens did not know whether he was hearing a rifle from 90 yards away or a firecracker that was closer.
As far as why didn?t Altgens hear a shot until z255, I would say that most witnesses did hear the first shot, at around z153. Did not recognize it as a shot. Dismissed it as a backfire or firecracker. And forgot about it. And continued to excitedly watch JFK and Jackie during the few seconds they would be close to them. They only remembered the shots that occurred after they realized something seems to be terribly wrong.
Charles Brehm. He was a ranger on D-Day. Which means, I believe, he either went up the cliffs Pointe du Hoc. Or over the open beaches of Omaha Beach, as was depicted in the movie ?Saving Private Ryan?. Either way, a hell of a day.
But nobody seen in the Zapruder film is seen to react to shots being fired until z312, the headshot, except for the occupants of the limousine and the standing Secret Service agents in the follow up car.
People were just ignoring, and likely forgetting, the bangs they heard. They dismissed them as firecrackers or vehicle backfires. And continued applauding and concentrating on JFK and Jackie. It was a big deal to them and they were not in a mindset to get distracted.
Are you aware that a rifle at 163 dB is more than ten times as loud as a firecracker at 150 dB?
Willis's photo coincides with Zapruder 210.
Not if the rifle is about 90 yards away and the firecracker is about 20 yards away. At equal distances, a 163 db sound source is about 20 times as powerful as a 150 db sound source. But at about 90 and 20 yards away, respectively, they would sound equally loud.
From the loudness alone, Altgens could not tell if he was hearing a rifle from 90 yards away or a firecracker that was 20 yards away. So, it is reasonable, as Mr. Altgens testified, that he assumed the loud noise he heard, while preparing for an important photograph (that was his job), was probably a firecracker.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/_/rsrc/1399221409533/lostbullet/z133-z199/z180.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/_/rsrc/1399221409533/lostbullet/z133-z199/z185.jpg)
Kennedy's right hand is between his face and the Zapruder camera in Z185
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z180.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z185.jpg)
But we can get a better sense of where his head is turned in Z180. He doesn't seem to be looking in Woodward's direction at all.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/348hfle.gif)
The Woodward group are just gently applauding in the Z160s until they go out-of-frame in the Z180s. One hand (Thornton's?) raises and waves. They don't seem to be shouting or jumping up and down.
Woodward claims the Kennedys looked around after the first shot. This could be when Jackie started her head turn in the Z170s. Kennedy turns his head to his right between Z153 and Z162, and in the Z170s, leans forward a little and turns further right. Don't see anywhere else in the pre-sign footage where the Kennedys turn their heads so much.
This doesn't work too well for your Woodward claim that the first shot she heard must have been after Z204, since that gets close to her second shot where she saw Kennedy slump. It may not have been the slump she referred to, but the first slump supposedly caused by a hit to be seen in the film occurs at Z226-228. If one accepts that as the slump Woodward referred to, then the first two shots Woodward heard (ca. Z204 and Z226) would have been about one second apart followed by the head shot nearly five seconds later.
Sounds like Burney's "first shot" is Woodward's "second shot".
I don't think we should be relying on these accounts too much; some witnesses either literally heard two shots or heard three (or more) and could only recall two. Others recall hearing more than two shots but felt comfortably with taking about two of them. Reasons for that might be that they associate a shot with something they were doing or saw something significant as they heard the shot. Still others, such as Woodward, heard three shots they were able to recall distinctively. A few heard more than three.
Altgens said:
I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker--I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot? the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much---of course at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle.
Altgens said his picture was taken almost simultaneously with the first shot. That alone make it sound like the two events were almost together, within a second of each other.
In addition, he clarifies this (with a mistake) by saying it was just a fraction ahead of his picture.
Question:
1. What kind of units is Altgens talking about when he said ?fraction?. Units of weight? Units of Length? It?s units of time, correct?
2. What unit of time would he be referring to? A fraction of a minute? A fraction of a fortnight? It has to be a fraction of a second, right?
People, particularly if they are a little nervous, making an official statement in front of others, often skip words. While Altgens didn?t say ?fraction of a second?, that has to be what he meant. The shot occurred with a fraction, almost simultaneously with his picture, just like the pictures taken by Betzner and Willis. But we know those pictures were all spread of several seconds, so one of them, perhaps all three, were wrong.
Many people on the sidewalk in front of the TSBD heard the shots as "firecrackers". By the time Altgens snapped his photo at z255, the onlookers had still not reacted to two rifle shots, despite the facts they were very close to the rifle AND the muzzle of the rifle was pointing toward them.
Are you aware how much louder a rifle is if you are ahead of the muzzle, as opposed to standing behind the shooter?
Why did the onlookers in front of the TSBD not display instantaneous startle reactions, as would be expected of people exposed to 163 dB? Why did many of them describe a deafening muzzle blast as a firecracker?
No.
The people under the sniper?s nest, 60 feet below, near the southeast corner of the building, were 60 degrees away from where the rifle was pointing. The bullet might pass right over their heads, about 60 feet above their heads, but in 3-D space the rifle was off of their position by 60 degrees. The rifle was not pointing in their general direction, almost straight down, but only 30 degrees below the horizon.
The people along the north side of the street near where the limousine was at z152 (see the map below):
http://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2017_11/5a1653a2b6d50_DealeyPlazaDetailedMap112217.gif.368da7d606dfb2a91ee3af598949031f.gif
would have the shot muffled by the tree, which blocks the line of sight from the sniper?s nest to the sidewalk more than it does the center of the street.
And even if we ignore the effect of the tree, ignore that the rifle was not pointed within a few feet of them, the sound of the rifle from 45 yards away would be no louder than a firecracker 10 yards away. And for all they knew, someone had set off a firecracker.
Also, we should not forget that the Carcano is not one of the louder rifles. I understand it is not nearly as loud as some. As to be expected from a rifle that fires bullets that travel around 2100 feet per second as opposed to 2800 feet per second. So, while 163 db may be a good estimate for an average rifle, the Carcano was probably less loud than this.
Yes. 163 db. When the muzzle is pointed in the general direction of the observer.
Which is why a much larger firecracker is only 150 db, but a much smaller bullet can produce a much louder noise. Provided the rifle is pointed in the general direction of the observer.
And it is important to remember that in 1963, much more powerful firecrackers were legal then the ones you can legally buy today.
Even in an ?ideal? situation (ideal for hearing a loud noise) with the rifle pointed nearly at the observer, a rifle 90 yards away will only be as loud as a firecracker that is 20 yards away. And a rifle that is 45 yards away can only be as loud as a firecracker that is 10 yards away.
So, it won?t be obvious to an observer, at least one not experienced at being fired at with rifles, from the loudness alone, if they are hearing a firecracker or a rifle from four times further away.
The people who were close, within 60 feet, did not have the rifle pointed in their general direction.
The people who did have the rifle pointed in their general direction, were not that close, but 45 yards away (at z153). And, unless standing in the middle of the street, had a tree between them and the rifle, which would muffle the sound to some degree.
There are indeed witnesses talking about an early shot as shown in this very thread. Regardless of what we each choose to believe it involves discounting some of the witnesses. They can't all be right.
"We requested three motorcycles to be running during the test
to provide someback groundnoise that would approximate the orig
inal listening conditions in Dealey Plaza. Unfortunately these
newer motorcycles were not very noisy but the shots were so
loud that any reasonable level of background noise would have
been low in comparison with the shots themselves." HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pg 146
"All observers rated the rifle shots as very, very loud and
they were unable to understand how they could have been described
as a firecracker or backfire." HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pg 148
Question: Did they run the acoustic tests with early 1960?s motorcycles?
Answer: No. They just assumed an early 1960?s motorcycle, having backfires
As the report says, early 1960?s motorcycles were louder than the mid 1970?s motorcycles. Much more prone to backfires, which are particularly loud to people within a few yards of the motorcycles.
In any case, some witnesses reported that they thought they were hearing backfires (indeed, throughout the motorcade, they did hear real backfires). And later realized that those were actually shots. So, it is possible for witnesses to mistake shots for backfires, regardless of what the HSCA experts thought.
Question: In the 1970?s HSCA test, did they set off some early 1960?s era firecrackers, and test to see how loud people thought those sounded compared to the recreated gunshots?
Answer: No. They just assumed that the firecrackers would never sound as loud. Even if the firecrackers were set off within 10 to 20 yards of an observer.
In any case, some witnesses reported that they thought they were hearing firecrackers. And later realized that those were actually shots. So, it is possible for witnesses to mistake shots for firecrackers, regardless of what the HSCA experts thought.
You have to look at all the evidence that bears on shot spacing, not just evidence specifically about shot spacing. You have to look at evidence relating to where the car was the shots sounded; what witnesses say what occurred in response to the shots - particularly the first shot as well as the perceived relative shot spacing. Then you must try to fit all the evidence of witnesses, photographs, film, physical evidence together to figure it out.
After reading some posts by CTs, like this example "Not merely a "large number."..... The vast majority of the witnesses reported that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous...... That's impossible with a bolt action rifle...." so I did a quick collation of a number of witnesses who said the shots were roughly about evenly spaced or the spaces between were longer than virtually instantaneous. Btw some witnesses guessed that the length of time was greater between shots 2 and 3 than 1 and 2 but a lot of these witnesses didn't specify a specific length so cannot be counted by either side.
...
JohnM
Looks like one more example of the witnesses being wrong. In this case these are people specifically placed there to observe the sounds and note them. Under what circumstances are witnesses correct?
Obviously with your extensive knowledge of a carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds you know what the witnesses hear.
No. I don?t have extensive knowledge of Carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds. It is the CTers who argue that we can tell what happened from what the witnesses reported they heard, not I.
No, it's you who argues that you can tell what happened by selectively interpreting jiggles and a little girl who stopped running.
No, it's you who argues that you can tell what happened by selectively interpreting jiggles and a little girl who stopped running.
Exactly John, why let a little thing like reality, evidence, or corroboration of a single adult eyewitness standing along Elm street get in the way of wanting there to be a shot at Z152. Just pretend there is a shot dismiss the lack of evidence and statements of everyone and go with it. Make it up as you go.
The guy (Zapruder) being studied for Jiggle Analysis said there was just two shots. The guy (DR Hartman) doing the study with Jiggle Analysis concluded there was just two shots but ignore that and all the eyewitness statements and claim they are all wrong because they must be deaf and believe there was a shot at a location where there wasn't one.
You have to look at all the evidence that bears on shot spacing, not just evidence specifically about shot spacing. You have to look at evidence relating to where the car was the shots sounded; what witnesses say what occurred in response to the shots - particularly the first shot as well as the perceived relative shot spacing. Then you must try to fit all the evidence of witnesses, photographs, film, physical evidence together to figure it out.
With respect to the evidence of witnesses as to shot spacing, you have to look at all their evidence too, not just what they said they recalled about the shot spacing. For instance, you cite Nellie Connally's evidence as to what she recalled about the spacing being 1..2.....3. But she also gave other evidence that conflicts with this. She said that she looked back at JFK after the first shot and never looked back after the second, which she said she saw hit JBC. The latter statement is inconsistent with her shot spacing recollection because she looks back until about z270. That puts the second shot after z270 and that is evidence of a 1.......2.....3 shot pattern.
Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
Heard 1st shot. Saw President "slump" Heard 2 more shots. Harold Norman, closest ear witness to the shooter.
demonstrates shot timing of 3 shots fired in less than 5 seconds. Harold Norman, closest ear witness to the shooter.
Guess Norman must be mistaken on BOTH his observation AND his memory of the shot spacing, according to WC since if the 1st shot caused the "slumping" then the 1st shot was at Z223 and that would mean Normans other observation, of hearing 3 shots in less than 5 seconds is also correct, since Z223 to Z313 is 4.8 seconds. That would make it not probable that the MC rifle was used.
So the WC must reject most of Normans observation except for hearing 3 shots and hearing shells hit the floor.
There's a slump-like movement here:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/4gt3pg.jpg)
From behind, as Norman was, one would not be aware of the President smiling, so it might appear to be something unusual.
Regarding the severe slumping at Z226-228 with the arms springing up, I think Norman would have said the President was hit. "Slumped or something" seems inadequate.
This is just desperate. So the people alongside the car and in front of the car would not have thought there was a shot and they state where the first shot took place.
Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."That is only a problem if the first shot was at z223. There is a great deal of consistent evidence that it was before z200. JFK became clear of any visual obstruction from the SN when JFK was halfway between the lamppost on Elm and the Thornton Freeway sign, which is about z195. Phil Willis took his photo at z202 which he said was a very short time after the first shot. Betzner said he took his z186 photo just before the first shot. Jack Ready said he turned to the rear in immediately in response to the first shot. He begins to turn at z199. Rosemary Willis turns her head sharply to the rear between z202-204. She said she looked back at that TSBD and saw pigeons flying from the roof.
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
Heard 1st shot. Saw President "slump" Heard 2 more shots. Harold Norman, closest ear witness to the shooter.
demonstrates shot timing of 3 shots fired in less than 5 seconds. Harold Norman, closest ear witness to the shooter.
Guess Norman must be mistaken on BOTH his observation AND his memory of the shot spacing, according to WC since if the 1st shot caused the "slumping" then the 1st shot was at Z223 and that would mean Normans other observation, of hearing 3 shots in less than 5 seconds is also correct, since Z223 to Z313 is 4.8 seconds. That would make it not probable that the MC rifle was used.
So the WC must reject most of Normans observation except for hearing 3 shots and hearing shells hit the floor.
Looks like one more example of the witnesses being wrong. In this case these are people specifically placed there to observe the sounds and note them. Under what circumstances are witnesses correct?
Obviously with your extensive knowledge of a carcano rifle and 1960 motorcycle sounds you know what the witnesses hear.
"She said she looked back at that TSBD and saw pigeons flying from the roof."
If the shooter was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, he would be two storeys down from the roof. As well, there is a five foot high parapet around the perimeter of the TSBD roof.
If the pigeons were on the roof itself, there is a very good chance a shot from the 6th floor would be so well shielded, they might not even hear it.
OTOH, the roof of the Dal-Tex Building is directly across from the TSBD, and a shot from there would send a large sound wave right over top of the pigeons on the TSBD roof.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup.
Are YOU part of the coverup?
FWIW, Mary Woodward's recollections do not remotely support a first shot miss circa 150-160, a second shot hit circa 224, and a third shot head shot at 313.
(11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) : After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt. Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot.
(12-7-63 FBI report, 24H520) She stated she was watching President and Mrs. Kennedy closely, and all of her group cheered loudly as they went by. Just as President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs. Kennedy probably were about one hundred feet from her. There seemed to be a pause of a few seconds, and then there were two more loud noises which she suddenly realized were shots, and she saw President Kennedy fall over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and started crawling over the back of the car.
(Interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988) ?One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how many shots there were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second and third shot I did see the president being hit. I literally saw his head explode.
Woodward saw Kennedy react to a shot fired after he passed her, and then saw his head explode when two more closely bunched shots were fired. Although she later made it sound as if she saw him hit by the second shot, and then hit in the head with the third shot, her earliest statements do not support this, and her continued claim the last two shots were on top of each other undermines this claim.
?One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how many shots there were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound of one did not cease until the second shot.
I'm offering $1000.00 to anybody who will come and take one of my standard carcanos to the range and fire it accurately twice in a manner that the two shots sound as described above.
Com'n LNer's what have ya got to lose?
I don?t think anyone can get off two shots, accurate or inaccurate, within a fraction of a second.
But how about getting a ?Crack-Thump? from just one shot. Would that count as getting two loud sounds, within a fraction of a second of each other? A single shot that could be misinterpreted as two separate shots, almost one top of each other? I think that could be done.
If the first shot, at z152, did not pass by Mary Woodward, she might not hear the ?Crack? of that shot. But she may have been able to hear the ?Crack? of either of the following two shots.
how about getting a ?Crack-Thump? from just one shot. Would that count as getting two loud sounds, within a fraction of a second of each other? A single shot that could be misinterpreted as two separate shots, almost one top of each other? I think that could be done.
You're are right Mr Elloitt..... I've actually experience the sound of three bangs from a single shot.....The bangs were very close spaced and might be confused with separate shots ....
I was down range from a hunter who fired a shot over my head ......I heard the bullet break the sound barrier over my head then the muzzle blast of the rifle, and then the bang of the bullet hitting a nearby tree or something...
All three bangs were very closely spaced.....
So a person down range from a rifle might hear two closely spaced shots...... However in this case then Woodward would probably have hears six bangs ( if there were three shots ) However the sound of a bullet hitting flesh does not create a bang....( it sounds like a hard slap) ....so Woodward should have heard four bangs .....( and a couple of slaps)
but more closely spaced that could be accomplished with a cranky old bolt action rifle.....
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1UlltKKJQH3ey7vHxPalo-76LB1_edm6e) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1zZzGmwthp_RTYOvubmZrP6qD3SHyKGpI) |
FWIW, Mary Woodward's recollections do not remotely support a first shot miss circa 150-160, a second shot hit circa 224, and a third shot head shot at 313.You are quite right. Mary Woodward definitely recalled the last two shots closer together - the reverberation from the first (of the last two) had not died out before the last shot sounded. If her recollection of the shot spacing is correct (and she is supported by dozens of others who reported the same spacing) she must have been wrong in her "hazy" impression that JFK was not hit by the first shot. A possible explanation is that she was watching Jackie more closely immediately after the first shot. She says that they both turned and looked around but only Jackie appears to have turned her head. No one else said that JFK looked around.
(11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) : After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt. Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot.
(12-7-63 FBI report, 24H520) She stated she was watching President and Mrs. Kennedy closely, and all of her group cheered loudly as they went by. Just as President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs. Kennedy probably were about one hundred feet from her. There seemed to be a pause of a few seconds, and then there were two more loud noises which she suddenly realized were shots, and she saw President Kennedy fall over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and started crawling over the back of the car.
(Interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988) ?One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how many shots there were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second and third shot I did see the president being hit. I literally saw his head explode.
Woodward saw Kennedy react to a shot fired after he passed her, and then saw his head explode when two more closely bunched shots were fired. Although she later made it sound as if she saw him hit by the second shot, and then hit in the head with the third shot, her earliest statements do not support this, and her continued claim the last two shots were on top of each other undermines this claim.
FWIW, Mary Woodward's recollections do not remotely support a first shot miss circa 150-160, a second shot hit circa 224, and a third shot head shot at 313.
(11-23-63 newspaper article Witness From the News Describes Assassination written by Woodward for the Dallas Morning News) : After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. My first reaction, and also my friends', was that as a joke someone had backfired their car. Apparently, the driver and occupants of the President's car had the same impression, because instead of speeding up, the car came almost to a halt. Things are a little hazy from this point, but I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet. The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around, as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot.
(12-7-63 FBI report, 24H520) She stated she was watching President and Mrs. Kennedy closely, and all of her group cheered loudly as they went by. Just as President and Mrs. Kennedy went by, they turned and waved at them. Just a second or two later, she heard a loud noise. At this point, it appeared to her that President and Mrs. Kennedy probably were about one hundred feet from her. There seemed to be a pause of a few seconds, and then there were two more loud noises which she suddenly realized were shots, and she saw President Kennedy fall over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and started crawling over the back of the car.
(Interview in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988) ?One thing I am totally positive about in my own mind is how many shots there were. And there were three shots. The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other. They came so quickly the sound of one did not cease until the second shot. With the second and third shot I did see the president being hit. I literally saw his head explode.
Woodward saw Kennedy react to a shot fired after he passed her, and then saw his head explode when two more closely bunched shots were fired. Although she later made it sound as if she saw him hit by the second shot, and then hit in the head with the third shot, her earliest statements do not support this, and her continued claim the last two shots were on top of each other undermines this claim.
A shot at z153 is based on:
** One of the three strongest camera jiggles before z318.
** Rosemary Willis starting to slowdown and stare in the direction of the TSBD in the z160s.
Oh, yes, and Connally saying he heard a gunshot and he turned to his right but could not see the rifle. And then was shot a few seconds later. This indicates a shot just before the z160?s.
There's a jiggle at around Z293 that is just as strong. Why do you disregard that one?
What makes you think she's looking at the TSBD?
Connally said that the first shot he heard struck the president.
How is this "known"? Do you have some data to support that? In any event, according to Alvarez (p. 431 of his 1968 paper (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Alvarez.pdf)) the second biggest camera jiggle in the entire zfilm occurs at z194-95 when and JBC are fully in view.
No, the jiggle at z227, corresponding to z221-z222, had a peak of 2.6.
The jiggle at z291 had a peak of 2.1.
The jiggle at z296 had a peak of 1.7.
Of the seven strongest jiggles before z324:
** four of them correspond with the JFK starting to pass behind the sign. It is known that filming an object that disappears behind another object in the foreground causes camera jiggles similar to those caused by loud noises.
** One jiggle, strength 3.7, was at z318, which corresponds to z312-z313.
** One jiggle, strength 2.6, was at z227, which corresponds to z221-z222.
** One jiggle, strength 2.4, was at z158-z150, which corresponds to z152-z154.
Maybe it?s just another coincidence, but one would expect the camera jiggles, caused by a rifle report from the TSBD SN, to get stronger and stronger, as the rifle gets pointed more and more in Mr. Zapruder?s general direction, can gets louder and louder, with each shot.
Maybe she wasn?t. Maybe she had her eyes closed. But the Zapruder film shows her coming to a stop and staring in that direction for at least two seconds. She might not have been looking at the TSBD but her head remained pointed in that direction.Whatever she was looking at up to z202 (it appears to me that it was the motorcade, possibly the president's car, possibly the QM) she turns her head sharply backward from about z202-204:
Maybe it?s just another coincidence, but one would expect the camera jiggles, caused by a rifle report from the TSBD SN, to get stronger and stronger, as the rifle gets pointed more and more in Mr. Zapruder?s general direction, can gets louder and louder, with each shot.
Maybe she wasn?t. Maybe she had her eyes closed. But the Zapruder film shows her coming to a stop and staring in that direction for at least two seconds. She might not have been looking at the TSBD but her head remained pointed in that direction.
But when talking of his own memory, he couldn?t say if the President was wounded by the first or second shot, because he didn?t see him during the shooting.