JFK Assassination Forum

It's the best I need in this case.
Yes I did. I noticed Sitzman was behind Zapruder.
So you think sound only travels in a vector?
Oh, goody. Another version of what happened from an ear witness. Just how many different ways do you think the JFKA happened?
Eye and earwitness accounts don't prove anything unless you can prove the witness' account is accurate. I trust people's observed reactions far more than I trust their recollections. The Newmans, who were not far from Zapruder reacted by pushing their kids on the ground and shielding them with their bodies.
You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account. I always get a chuckle when somebody starts and argument with, "So-and-so said....." as if what so-and-so said. People choose to believe the witnesses who support what they want to believe. Because there are so many differing versions of what happened, it's not hard to find a witness who will support your argument. I don't accept any witness' account that can't be corroborated through other evidence. We have visual evidence that Zapruder's camera shook noticeably 7-8 frames after the second shot was fired and 7-8 frames after the third shot was fired. Is that just a coincidence? It would have taken about 4 frames for the sound of the muzzle blast to reach Zapruder's ears which leaves another 3-4 frames for a startle reaction, about what that should take.
That is one of the dumbest things I have read on this forum. It is silly to think the sound of the muzzle blast would have dissipated in just 90 yard. You want to be all your eggs in the Sitzman basket as if her account is the definitive story of the JFKA. Foolish.
Funny how his vertigo only kicked in 7-8 frames after the second and third shots.

As expected, a witness gives evidence undermining your naive understanding of this issue and she is totally dismissed.
This is no great shock.
Your post is full of the usual lunacy but this cannot be ignored:

You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account.

The issue at hand is whether or not the sound of the shots were loud enough to startle Zapruder at his location and create 'jiggle' in the Z-film.
My approach has been to take the witness testimony of someone stood right next to Zapruder. This witness reports the sound of the shots was "far off" and a "far away sound". They were certainly not enough to create 'jiggle' in the film.
The distant nature of this sound might explain why neither Zapruder or Sitzman could confidently recall how many shots they heard.
This is evidence directly contradicting the reliability of Jiggle Analysis regarding the Z-film.
However, you insist there is a "wealth of evidence" countering Sitzman's testimony. This is utter nonsense. It's a falsehood. An untruth.
There is not a single scrap of evidence that the shots were loud enough to create a startle reflex at Zapruder's location - not a single scrap!

The problem is your delusion - you believe you are right no matter what. You believe this "wealth of evidence" must exist because you sooo believe you are right
But it does not.
There is not a chance in hell that you will retract the falsehood you have posted, which will make it a deliberate falsehood - a lie.

Please provide this "wealth of evidence" that the sound of the shots was loud enough to create a startle reflex from at Zapruder's position.

Say what you will about Harvey and Lee, the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor is a goldmine. The snippet I posted above is actually a transcript of an interview with Methodist Hospital ER nurse Lottie Thompson conducted by Earl Holz of the Dallas Morning News. The full transcript is here:

https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/tippitt-shooting-nov.-22-1963-d.o.a.-at-methodist-hospital/690058?item=690059

Official time of death is not always stated precisely as evidenced by JFK's official time of death as 1:00pm CST. The priests who entered the ER to administer the last rights before that time said he was already covered with a sheet when the last rights were administered to the body.

The only reason that I know of why a precise time of death might be important is the provisions of some wills. As executor of my father's will, I know there was a provision that excluded the named heirs in the event they preceded him in death. It also stated that if the order of their deaths could not be determined, it was to be presumed they preceded him in death. I think it would be highly unusual that such a provision would come into play. Perhaps if the people question were both killed in a car or plane crash and both were declared dead at the scene. Hard to say from just a few examples but it looks to me like it might be a common practice to round off the time of death to the nearest 15 minute time frame.

Official time of death is not always stated precisely

That's probably true, but it doesn't mean that the official time is always wrong.

Official time of death is not always stated precisely as evidenced by JFK's official time of death as 1:00pm CST. The priests who entered the ER to administer the last rights before that time said he was already covered with a sheet when the last rights were administered to the body.

The only reason that I know of why a precise time of death might be important is the provisions of some wills. As executor of my father's will, I know there was a provision that excluded the named heirs in the event they preceded him in death. It also stated that if the order of their deaths could not be determined, it was to be presumed they preceded him in death. I think it would be highly unusual that such a provision would come into play. Perhaps if the people question were both killed in a car or plane crash and both were declared dead at the scene. Hard to say from just a few examples but it looks to me like it might be a common practice to round off the time of death to the nearest 15 minute time frame.

Why is the precise time of death the least bit irrelevant to the question of who shot Tippit?

Your attitude toward everything JFKA-related seems to be little more than "Oswald shot JFKA and there's nothing else to talk about" and "Oswald shot Tippit and there's nothing else to talk about." It's not just the proverbial 30,000-foot level, but more like the 120,000-foot level. Yet here you are, day after day, defending your particular version of the LN narrative with a zeal the Jehovah's Witnesses would envy. "There's nothing to talk about" - but you manage to talk about it pretty much all day every day.

The fact is, it seems to me pretty obvious that Oswald shot Tippit. As with all things JFKA-related, however, there are an almost supernatural number of quirks and discrepancies - an extremely tight timeline, odd behavior by Tippit, conflicting witness accounts, yada yada. Greg Doudna has spent a great deal of time on a scenario, which other CTers of reasonably high quality agree with, that doesn't have Oswald shooting Tippit at all. It sounds wildly implausible to me, but at least it suggests there is something worth talking about. The "precise time" at which several things occurred is pretty critical if it potentially pushes the encounter to a time impossible for Oswald to have been there.

To me, it's at least interesting at the level of trying to assess whether there is any "there" there. That's why I'm also interested in the "why" questions that you find irrelevant: Why did Tippit stop Oswald, if that's what occurred? Why did Tippit get out of his car? Why did Oswald shoot him, if that's what occurred? If the most plausible answer to those "why" questions is something other than the standard LN narrative, then where might that lead?

If one just wants to keep parroting the JFKA equivalent of "The Bible is true and you're going to hell," then I don't see the point.