JFK Assassination Forum

All of your selected witnesses were subject to the same challenges of witnessing a sudden, unexpected, and traumatic event which took place over the course of just 9 seconds. Then were asked to piece together what they saw, in what order they saw it, and the time frames of those events. How could anybody be expected to get it all right under such stressful circumstances.

And, as I said, the same factors apply to counting the shots.  But you accept that evidence.

There is only one witness that wasn't subject to any of these difficulties, and that witness is Zapruder's camera and I know that witness got it right even if it conflicts with all the other witnesses.

I would agree. But I doubt there has ever been a case in which the film unequivocally conflicts with what the vast majority of witnesses said occurred - UNLESS - there is a reason based on evidence that caused the witnesses to make the same mistake.  In any event, the zfilm does not conflict with the evidence at all.  You see JFK and JBC turning their heads right at z164-170 and you say that is in response to the first shot?   Why?  Did anyone say JFK turned his head right after the first shot?  No. In fact, Mary Woodward explained that this turn was immediately after she shouted to the President. She said the President turned, smiled and waved at them and that they were the last people he acknowledged because the first shot immediately followed as his car passed by where she was standing and he turned forward.

You are using JBC's statement that he turned his head in response to the first shot but the turn at z164 not only doesn't fit (he doesn't even try to see JFK, which is why he said he turned) but you ignore actual evidence that the turn of JFK (at the same time) was not in response to the first shot because it was before the first shot.

What isn't easy is corroborating their accounts of the event.How do we know that? Because he said so? You're using Croft to corroborate himself.

No. I am using many others to corroborate his evidence that z161 was before the first shot.  Corroboration of a witness is simply independent evidence that supports the witness recollection. Betzner corroborates him (after his z186 photo). Karen Westbrook corroborates him. Mary Woodward corroborates him. The occupants of the VP car corroborate him. Mrs. Cabell corroborates him. T.E. Moore corroborates him (the first shot occurred as JFK approached the Thornton sign). All those whose evidence puts JFK reacting to the first shot corroborates Croft. All those who said that the last two shots were rapid and noticeably closer together than shots 1 and 2 corroborate him.

A whole bunch of "so-and-so said" accounts without any corroboration for what they said.

You appear to have some odd notion that witnesses cannot independently corroborate each other.  You might want to try your AI on that: "can a witness provide independent evidence that is considered corroboration of what another witness said?

     JOHN-  You mention there being some sort of Zapruder "sight" issue. From that elevated Perch, Zapruder and Sitzman could see the JFK Motorcade turning onto Houston, traveling down Houston St, and then turning onto Elm St. So, an alleged Zapruder "sight" issue did not exist. Dan Rather told the World that the Zapruder Film he viewed the weekend of the assassination showed the JFK Limo turning onto Elm St. And Rather reported this several times. That makes Rather's reporting Not a simple slip-of-the-tongue. Rather reported what he viewed on that Z Film and he did so several times.

I wouldn't believe Rather if he told me water was wet. Even back then, Rather was a creative reporter. He was the one that reported at one school the kids cheered when they heard JFK had been shot. Well sort of. The kids were told they were being sent home early without being told why. What class of kids wouldn't cheer upon hearing that, especially on such a beautiful day weather wise that 11/22/1963 had turned out to be weatherwise.

This is such a silly argument and I don't know why it needs explaining.
Zapruder had about two minutes of film to play with and obviously the main event that he wanted to capture was JFK's Limo driving past him because at the time who knows what he may have filmed, the Limo may have stopped and JFK could have shaken hands with the crowd who knows? So when Zapruder saw the motorbikes turning into Elm he started filming but when there was no Limo, he instinctively stopped filming to conserve the limited precious film, then when he was certain that the Limo was in sight, Zapruder started filming again. The critics must think that Zapruder had unlimited film but the reality is that Zapruder was well aware of his limited resources and wanted every frame to count!!

JohnM

     JOHN-  You mention there being some sort of Zapruder "sight" issue. From that elevated Perch, Zapruder and Sitzman could see the JFK Motorcade turning onto Houston, traveling down Houston St, and then turning onto Elm St. So, an alleged Zapruder "sight" issue did not exist. Dan Rather told the World that the Zapruder Film he viewed the weekend of the assassination showed the JFK Limo turning onto Elm St. And Rather reported this several times. That makes Rather's reporting Not a simple slip-of-the-tongue. Rather reported what he viewed on that Z Film and he did so several times.

Eyewitness "Patricia Ann Donaldson" said that the Limo was in this position when she heard the first shot.

She's not far off. If she was correct, that means the first shot was fired before Zapruder resumed filming, which some have argued but I don't buy.
At frame Z133, the frame Zapruder resumed filming at, the limo was slightly farther down Elm St. than Donaldson thought it was when the first shot was fired.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z133.jpg

I believe the shot was actually fired about one second later than Donahue recalled at frame Z148.

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z148.jpg