First shot reactions

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

When all witnesses were asked ---How were they asked? Were they offered answers?  My guess is their answers naturally were influenced or developed over time. Even if you can have a group of the most honest fair-minded people where the consensus is 3 shots. There is still  the variance  that needs to be explained

[Charles Collins]

My comment was directed to the view expressed that Jackie looks "concerned" in that Croft photo.  All I said was that it was dangerous to draw conclusions about a person's mood based on a single photo. You seem to have agreed that the conclusion was drawn from that single photo.
?? My comment was not about Jackie's. expression. It was about your dismissal of the "first shot hit" witnesses on the basis that they thought the first loud noise was a firecracker, which you claim caused them to attribute the reaction of JFK to the second shot.
JBC is turned around as far as he can in z268. To suggest that he is in any way trying to see the President when his head is not even turned rearward is a stretching it an awful lot. Most people can turn their head on their neck.



At Z161 JBC has turned to his left and begins to turn back to his right. JFK has already turned back to his right.
No one is suggesting that witness evidence should be the same.   There are always different points of view and different things noticed by different witnesses.  I am saying that if something did not occur you are not going to get multiple witnesses independently describing the same non-event.  That never happens.   Besides, the witnesses of the shot pattern: 1.........2.....3 were not the same witnesses who described JFK being hit by the first shot and were not the same witnesses who said the first shot was after z186.  Each of those mutually consistent bodies of evidence are inconsistent in different ways with the first shot miss.   (eg. the 1........2....3 shot pattern requires a first shot hitting the President because the second shot would have to be well after z225). You have to reject both all three bodies of evidence simply to cling to the notion of a first shot that missed. There is simply no rational basis for doing that.

You seem to have agreed that the conclusion was drawn from that single photo.

Not at all. That may be the only photo, but not the only evidence.

?? My comment was not about Jackie's. expression. It was about your dismissal of the "first shot hit" witnesses on the basis that they thought the first loud noise was a firecracker, which you claim caused them to attribute the reaction of JFK to the second shot.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

JBC is turned around as far as he can in z268. To suggest that he is in any way trying to see the President when his head is not even turned rearward is a stretching it an awful lot. Most people can turn their head on their neck.

By the time of Z268 JBC had already been shot. And apparently, as a result of the pain, has also turned his torso to his right and is beginning to fall back towards Nellie. He is apparently looking at the President, however if I remember correctly, he said he never saw the President after he himself had been hit. Perhaps he was in too much pain for it to register in his brain, or he mentally blocked it out. The normal accepted range of motion of the neck rotation is 60 to 80 degrees. In Z148 JBC's torso is roughly facing the camera and his face is in profile showing the left side. In Z161 JBC's torso is still in roughly facing the camera and his face is in profile showing the right side. Then by Z179 JBC has turned his head back around to his right and his torso is still roughly facing the camera. I am pretty sure that JBC's eyes could independently move left and right, and that he also had some peripheral vision. It is quite obvious to me that in that short 1.69 seconds he is looking around for either the source of the sound or the President, then checking on Nellie, then looking back to his right for the President.

You have to reject both all three bodies of evidence simply to cling to the notion of a first shot that missed. There is simply no rational basis for doing that.

Let me ask you if anyone has ever agreed with your idea that all three of the shots from the TSBD sniper's nest hit someone in the limo? I have seen you arguing this for years here in this forum and not seen anyone agree with you. Where is the statistical corroboration from other investigators and researchers for your idea? The first shot missed theory appears to be a rational idea to plenty of people.

[Charles Collins]

Willis on the shots "with the first shot I really just thought firecrackers just, you know, in celebration but as soon as the, you know, second and third and maybe SUBSEQUENT SHOTS, you know I have no idea how many, I know there were at least three MAYBE MORE"

Willis on what she saw "I never looked at the school book depository because I was totally entranced by the President"

Well then, just who was that girl that was obviously looking back over her right shoulder as the President passed her by in the limousine?

[Royell Storing]

What "smoke cloud"? Holland saw what he took to be  a "puff of smoke" and, get this, it lingered. Me thinks Holland and you are telling a few porkies.

    You have viewed the still frame. You have also Seen and Heard Holland. Stop besmirching the man. Anyone can simply be mistaken as to what they See. Accusing Holland of "telling a few porkies" makes you look like a "Johnny Come Lately" that is well beyond his depth. You are better than this. I have Witnessed it.

[Jerry Organ]

    You have viewed the still frame.

You mean this picture?

You have also Seen and Heard Holland.

The Sam Holland I know of started out with ...

    "puff of smoke ... from behind the arcade through the trees"; "I don’t know
     whether it was a shot. I can’t say that"; "a firecracker, or something";
     "could have been the third or fourth [shot]"

By 1966, this had become: "I saw a puff of smoke still lingering among the trees in front of the wooden fence. The report sounded like it came from behind the wooden fence."

Stop besmirching the man.

LOL! I honor his original truthful account.

Anyone can simply be mistaken as to what they See. Accusing Holland of "telling a few porkies" makes you look like a "Johnny Come Lately" that is well beyond his depth. You are better than this. I have Witnessed it.

By 1966 he was being misled by WC critics into saying things that made no sense. A "puff of smoke" that lingers would be from a cannon. And your "Smoke Cloud" demonstrates how critics have exaggerated Holland's account.

[Andrew Mason]

You lawyers sure are dishonest.

Who ever claimed a three-shot witness who initially thought the first shot was a firecracker went on to believe that permanently?

As far as I know, any three-shot witness who said the first-shot was like a firecracker or backfire has always described it as a first impression and that he subsequently realized all three loud reports were gunfire.

Where have I "insisted" all the 2-shot witnesses "forgot" about the first shot or failed to hear it?

You have such poor memory. A legal education might help with fact retention and would also help you understand professional ethics.

You have consistently maintained that Betzner "forgot" about the first loud noise because he thought it was a firecracker and was a "two shot" witness recalling only the two subsequent shots, which is why he thought the shots occurred after his z186 photo.  I can't go back very far because of the lost archives on this board but how about this gem from you in January 2018:

"Betzner thinks he heard more than two shots, but could only recall two shots because they related to things he was doing (winding his camera) or witnessing (the head shot). Some "Bunched" shot advocates claim Betzner missed hearing a shot that occurred between his "winding the camera" shot and the head shot. The "early miss" advocates claim the first shot was more likely to be overlooked or not as distinctively recalled as most thought the first shot was anything but a shot ("firecracker" or "backfire") and were concentrating on seeing the motorcade."

You are certainly an "early miss" advocate.  One has to ignore Betzner's statement to conclude that he recalled only two shots.  He said: "I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise." (that's the first shot).  Then he said he heard two more shots when he was looking down Elm around the time of the head shot: When I saw the following I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the President's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. "  He is recalling the last two shots after hearing the first.

I may have said something remotely like that in a few posts long ago, but I know for the last few years, I have always said (or "insisted"):

• two-shot witnesses might have understandably lost track of a shot in
  their memory (ie: trauma, shock, the last two shots were more vivid
  as a memory because they struck and men reacted);
• some of the two-shot witnesses acknowledge there were one-or-more
  shots but can only reliably describe two because they have something they
  recall in conjunction with the shots.

That does not explain why Betzner would think that the shots occurred after his z186 photo or why Willis said his z202 photo was taken an instant after the first shot before the President had time to react. It does not explain why Hughes who stopped filming at very close to z187 (based on the motorcade car positions and frame timings) stated that he stopped filming before the first shot.

You think two-shot witness must lose track of the middle shot because it was near-simultaneous with the head shot.

No. I have never said that.  I have never ever suggested there was another shot that was nearly simultaneous with the head shot. I have always maintained that the second shot occurred just after z271 and before JFK's hair flies up beginning at z273. That is not to say that the reverberation of the second shot could not have overlapped with the sound of the third shot.  Mary Woodward recalled that the sound of the second shot had not died out before the third shot sounded.

I have just suggested witnesses who did not recall three shots weren't counting shots. There were not many witnesses who said there were ONLY two shots. A number who said they could recall only two but allowed that there could have been another shot e.g. Altgens 7 H 517 who said "I cannot tell you how many shots were in between" the first and last shots; or the Chisms; or Ewell Cowsert; or SA Clint Hill; or SA Paul Landis etc.

Hugh Brennan is considered to be a 2 shot witness but recalled one shot in particular and "definitely heard more than one noise" (FBI report 11/22/63 -Comm. Doc. 5).  SA Glen Bennett is also considered a two shot witness based on his incomplete hand notes.  But in his 11/23/63 written statement Bennett recalled three loud noises. Doris Burns recalled only one shot (she was inside in a hallway on the 3rd floor of the TSBD) but said (6 H 399)  "It must have been the last one because I didn’t hear any more."

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Well then, just who was that girl that was obviously looking back over her right shoulder as the President passed her by in the limousine?

She obviously turns that direction but that does not mean that she looked at the TSBD. If she heard something to cause her to turn that is only part of it. She says many things and is consistent and specific plus she talks about the family's film being tampered with

[Andrew Mason]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your comment was in reply to my original comment in post #69, which has nothing to do with Jackie's expression.

JBC is turned around as far as he can in z268. To suggest that he is in any way trying to see the President when his head is not even turned rearward is a stretching it an awful lot. Most people can turn their head on their neck.

By the time of Z268 JBC had already been shot. And apparently, as a result of the pain, has also turned his torso to his right and is beginning to fall back towards Nellie. He is apparently looking at the President, however if I remember correctly, he said he never saw the President after he himself had been hit. Perhaps he was in too much pain for it to register in his brain, or he mentally blocked it out.

If you have already concluded that he is turned that way because he was shot, you are doing so solely on the basis of the zfilm which is equivocal on that point.

The normal accepted range of motion of the neck rotation is 60 to 80 degrees.

I can easily turn my neck 90 degrees to my shoulder and I can turn my shoulders about another 60 degrees, so while sitting down I can turn my head  about 150 degrees (just as we see JBC doing at z268)

In Z148 JBC's torso is roughly facing the camera and his face is in profile showing the left side.  And  In Z161 JBC's torso is still in roughly facing the camera and his face is in profile showing the right side. Then by Z179 JBC has turned his head back around to his right and his torso is still roughly facing the camera. I am pretty sure that JBC's eyes could independently move left and right, and that he also had some peripheral vision. It is quite obvious to me that in that short 1.69 seconds he is looking around for either the source of the sound or the President, then checking on Nellie, then looking back to his right for the President.

JFK is more than 90 degrees to where JBC is facing.  JBC is looking forward and to the right, not back.  There is no way that he could be trying to see JFK and not be turning his neck.

You have to reject both all three bodies of evidence simply to cling to the notion of a first shot that missed. There is simply no rational basis for doing that.

Let me ask you if anyone has ever agreed with your idea that all three of the shots from the TSBD sniper's nest hit someone in the limo? I have seen you arguing this for years here in this forum and not seen anyone agree with you. Where is the statistical corroboration from other investigators and researchers for your idea? The first shot missed theory appears to be a rational idea to plenty of people.

Factual accuracy is not a popularity contest. The Connallys certainly believed that all three shots hit in the car and they were arguably in a better position to observe that than anyone on this board.

Many people on this board are, like you, unwilling to consider that the SBT is not required for the LN conclusion. So naturally, you think the evidence must be wrong.  I am just pointing out the evidence is inconsistent with the SBT.   3 of the 7 members of the Warren Commission did not agree with the SBT but agreed with the LN conclusion (as did the Connallys).   The FBI originally thought that all three shots struck in the car and that view continued until March or April 1964.  It was thought that the second shot struck JBC around z275, which is just before Greer makes his first rearward turn (which Greer said he did immediately upon hearing the second shot).  All I am saying is that there is abundant consistent and independent bodies of evidence that support such a conclusion.  You don't have to agree with it.  But your lack of agreement does not make the evidence disappear.