Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
\  To test the location of the car either parked along the south (or north) curb of the Elm Extension, as seen in the Wiegman film, I plotted Wiegman’s position with test south curb versus north curb cars on a DP map. The plot showed the north curb car about twice the distance from the camera compared to a south curb car. Then for equal sized cars the north curb car would appear about one half the size of the south curb car to Wiegman’s camera.  I made a quick 3D view animation to demonstrate this and added a 5.5’ black suit man for comparison. It looks to me that the Wiegman car is nearer to the south curb. Note that I gave the test cars a steel-blue color (not white) for the 3D animation for modeling development use.

 



                     This is a very good/clear Wiegman still frame. It shows us: (1) What is behind Fedora Man, (2) What is behind the ladies standing on the edge of the Island, and, (3) What is behind the ladies standing in the street. And what do we see? We see the surface of the street. Why do we see the surface of the street? Because there is No Car parked alongside the Island. Not Yet!
23
Thomas, I have just messaged Bart so he updates the the three girls on the right. You are correct.
24
Studies have shown that even when witnesses were confident about their recollections, they could still be wrong. I don't care if the witnesses were clear in their mind. That doesn't mean what they remember was accurate.
I was asking whether you think a statement containing details that YOU clearly remembered would be reliable.  Apparently not.
25
Since it's survey data, I doubt it took into account the elevation. Adding the elevation increases the distance.It's a miniscule difference but since your data doesn't take into account elevation, it becomes even less relevant.
If you had just clicked the link you would see that it took into account elevation. That is how they determined the distance between the rifle and JFK.

I agree the difference in bullet travel time between an impact on JBC at z271 and and impact on JFK at z313 is not material. I thought you were saying it was. What was your point?

Quote
Why would you think Oswald was would try to fire his rifle as fast as was humanly possible? Was he trying to win a prize?
Maybe because the first two did not kill JFK and he wanted to make other shots before the target too far away
26
One might correctly remember one and not the other.
For the record, I didn't remember either. I was not in Dealey Plaza when the shooting took place. I was in 7th grade math class.
I have said on a number of occasions that I might or might not remember specific details about an event. That makes me the same as the other 8 billion people on the planet.
I wasn’t asking whether you would have remembered those details.  I asked whether, assuming that you gave a statement containing details that you did remember clearly in your mind, you would maintain your statement was not reliable.  I thought it was a rhetorical question.

Apparently, you would make a statement to police authorities containing details that you could not recall with any clarity.

Why would anyone provide a statement mentioning details that they did not remember?

Quote
I would suggest you greatly overestimate the general populace's ability to perceive accurate details of an event, especially a shocking event that happens with no warning and lasts less than 10 seconds.
I would suggest that you underestimate the honesty of innocent average citizens when making statements to police.  You seem to think most would volunteer details that they did not really remember.  And then when the vast majority of the witnesses reported the same details that you think they couldn’t remember, you are ready to conclude that the agreement on those details could be just a random coincidence.

Quote
It's hard to forget something you didn't notice in the first place. Most people did hear 3 shots but some only remembered hearing 2. I find it probable that the one they either didn't hear or didn't remember hearing was the first shot. For whatever reason, that shot didn't seem to register with them.
If they could hear, they heard them. They just were not counting them or afterward could not remember anything that enabled them to say how many there were, such as a shot grouping of one, pause and then two close together.
Quote

….
Do you have a better explanation for why some of the witnesses such as Jackie or Clint Hill only remembered 2 shots?
Many of those who recalled only two shots were occupied doing other things (Landis, Hill, Darnell, Jackie) so their minds were focused on what they were seeing. Jean Newman wasn’t occupied that way but seemed to be really focused on watching Jackie.

 There aren’t that many who recalled exactly two. The 17 total mentioned in the HSCA report aren’t identified. There are not nearly that many in Stuart Galanor’s list of 218 witnesses and there are some listed there as 2 shot witnesses whose statements mention 3 (e. g. Thomas Johns, Royce Skelton).
28
Your whole premise is based on the assumption that these head movements were all cause by the same stimulus and that stimulus was Oswald's first shot. That doesn't seem very compelling proof to me of a shot at virtual Z124. I'd also like to know how you pinpointed it at the instant. I've explained how I have arrived at my conclusion the first shot was fired at Z148. Maybe you have explained it before but I'm not going to search the archives to find it. It would be a needle in the haystack for me to do it. Please give us the Reader's Digest version of how you reached your conclusion as to the specific time of the first shot.

ME: Explain in 100 words or less how Roselle and Scearce determined that the first, missing everything, shot occurred about half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133.

Thought for 7s

GROK: Roselle and Scearce (2020) used human reaction-time science on the silent Zapruder film to time the first (missed) shot.

acsr.org

They distinguished fast involuntary startle reflexes (e.g., ~0.06–0.2 sec flinch) from slower voluntary “surprise” reactions (conscious head turns/looks to locate the sound source). Using brake perception-reaction time (PRT) models from traffic studies—adjusted for total surprise—they estimated median perception time to initiate voluntary movement at roughly 0.5–1+ sec (varying with expectancy).

https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf

In early frames, they identified near-simultaneous voluntary reactions by 7 witnesses (JFK, Jackie, the Connallys, Kellerman, Hickey, Rosemary Willis) starting ~Z140–Z150 (e.g., rapid leftward head turns then right). Subtracting typical surprise PRT placed the gunshot sound ~½ sec earlier—at hypothetical Z-124, just before Zapruder restarted filming at Z-133 after his ~17-sec pause.

jfk-assassination.net

This fits eyewitness timing, earwitness patterns, and a pre-tree miss. (≈85 words)

. . . . . . . .

I know you love jiggles, John Corbett, so just for giggles I'd like to share with you what someone by the name of Herb Huskr just posted:

Three synchronized film clips:

1) Elsie Dorman

2) Secret Service reenactment

3) Zapruder clip

Shown with three dubbed-in gunshot sounds at the following times in the three different montages:

Montage 1:  "Z-107" Z-219 and Z-310

Montage 2:  "Z-124" Z-219 and Z-310

Montage 3: Z-160  Z-219 and Z-310

When we watch and listen to montage 2, we see that Dorman, who at a distance of 35 feet was subjected to about 135 dB from the muzzle blast of Oswald's Carcano (whereas Zapruder, at 275 feet, was subjected to only about 119 dB, and Phil Willis at 130 feet was subjected to about 125 dB), was so startled by the sound of the first shot at "Z-124" that she stopped filming altogether (her finger slipped off the button). Then she resumed filming a couple of seconds later and at approximately Z-222 jiggled her camera like all get out and stopped filming again. Interestingly, she doesn't jiggle her camera at right after the Z-313 head shot. Could it be due to her having become habituated to the nearby muzzle blasts? Seems logical to me.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/553546571932211/user/100003268844965

29
I am a lifelong Tiger fan and I read that about him a long time ago. I'm going to guess it was sometime in the mid 1960s that I read that. It's not surprising that you wouldn't have heard that since it wouldn't have been widely reported.

   Lotta the "2/3" type stories float around HOF players. Not saying you didn't read it, but I don't buy it. Kaline was making something like $70,000 in 1968. Deferring 2/3 of something like that way back then? Not likely.
30
You don't think all those other spectators would see a shooter on the overpass or hear his gunshot?

Do conspiracy hobbyists ever think through their theories?

Perhaps they, or several of them, actually did see a shooter and hear his gunshot or see gun smoke... and that is why a crowd gathered there at the bridge (and why Mark Bell panned his camera over this area more than once).
BUT in a conspiracy to cover-up a dirty deed, the people who say they saw something here are the very people you avoid interviewing or dismiss for one or a dozen concocted reasons...

Cancellare caught on camera someone dressed in a police uniform sitting behind the bridge, in the perfect location to make the final shot at the president.

Why should the shooter be alarmed? He's wearing a police uniform and everyone knows he's "sworn to uphold the law."
Why be alarmed? He's part of a conspiracy and knows his co-conspirators are in positions of power and have planned to pin it all on Oswald - or one or two others on the scene - if the Oswald scenario doesn't play out as expected.





(This pic below is a rendition to help viewer orientation)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10