The First Shot

[Royell Storing]

As usual, you are wrong.
This is not a case of one or two witness testimonies, as you are insinuating.
As I've pointed out, all ten occupants of both cars are in agreement. That is 100% of the witnesses.
When we have consensus among so many witnesses it can be considered reliable.
You would know all this if you ever properly read the posts you are responding to. But you don't. You get half an idea and run with it, imagining your own opinion is gospel even though it's based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

   My point is, it does Not matter if the eyewitness testimony is restricted to 1 person or 10. It is the credibility of the eyewitness upon which their testimony rises or falls. The blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable" is indicative of not being able to rebut the bottom line issue that is in dispute. The "unreliable" claim is nothing more than character assassination.

[Dan O'meara]

   My point is, it does Not matter if the eyewitness testimony is restricted to 1 person or 10. It is the credibility of the eyewitness upon which their testimony rises or falls. The blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable" is indicative of not being able to rebut the bottom line issue that is in dispute. The "unreliable" claim is nothing more than character assassination.

Nobody made the "blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable"".
Your usual misunderstanding and misinterpretation is, yet again, creating an issue that doesn't exist.
The claim was that eyewitness testimony CAN be unreliable.
Your inability to understand basic English has turned this into a "blanket" claim that ALL eyewitness testimony is ALWAYS unreliable.

[Royell Storing]

Nobody made the "blanket assertion that eyewitness testimony is "unreliable"".
Your usual misunderstanding and misinterpretation is, yet again, creating an issue that doesn't exist.
The claim was that eyewitness testimony CAN be unreliable.
Your inability to understand basic English has turned this into a "blanket" claim that ALL eyewitness testimony is ALWAYS unreliable.

     So proffer cartoon visual aid(s) vs eyewitness testimony with the attached addendum, "....CAN be unreliable"? That's exactly what I mean by "character assassination". As I have repeatedly mentioned, that "car cartoon" of the JFK Motorcade is not accurate. The opening frames of the :40 1st edition copy of the Darnell Film severely damages that JFK Motorcade car cartoon. That erroneous car cartoon is routinely posted on this forum.     

[Zeon Mason]

Well, I just looked AGAIN at that portion of Z-film from Z133-207 that Dan posted at the very start of this thread and it looks like Hickey is actually kind of LEANING to the left side of the car and looking at the side of car or the road.

This is the Z 143 movement approx and this indicates to me that maybe a suppressed shot has  been fired that struck near the rear left side tire of the JFK limo, missing it and ricocheting.

In this scenario , the object is to cause a blow out of the rear tire of the JFK limo which would cause the driver likely to stop or slow down the limo, thus affording the TSBD 6th floor shooter an easier target.

So this might account fur Hickeys leaning movement at Z143.

But there’s also the Willis girl from Z 190-Z200 stopping and looking back at TSBD.

Although SHE is looking back,hardly anyone ELSE is looking back, so it’s seems very improbable that this could be the 1st loud shot fired.

But could this be a 2nd supposed shot fired at the rear left tire of JFK limo, which also missed just like the Z143 suppressed  shot did?

Perhaps one of those 2 suppressed shots that ricocheted caused the gouge on the sewer manhole cover on that left side of Elm st and the uprooted grass beside it?

Both these 2 early suppressed shots most likely would have come from the Daltex building.

[Royell Storing]

Well, I just looked AGAIN at that portion of Z-film from Z133-207 that Dan posted at the very start of this thread and it looks like Hickey is actually kind of LEANING to the left side of the car and looking at the side of car or the road.

This is the Z 143 movement approx and this indicates to me that maybe a suppressed shot has  been fired that struck near the rear left side tire of the JFK limo, missing it and ricocheting.

In this scenario , the object is to cause a blow out of the rear tire of the JFK limo which would cause the driver likely to stop or slow down the limo, thus affording the TSBD 6th floor shooter an easier target.

So this might account fur Hickeys leaning movement at Z143.

But there’s also the Willis girl from Z 190-Z200 stopping and looking back at TSBD.

Although SHE is looking back,hardly anyone ELSE is looking back, so it’s seems very improbable that this could be the 1st loud shot fired.

But could this be a 2nd supposed shot fired at the rear left tire of JFK limo, which also missed just like the Z143 suppressed  shot did?

Perhaps one of those 2 suppressed shots that ricocheted caused the gouge on the sewer manhole cover on that left side of Elm st and the uprooted grass beside it?

Both these 2 early suppressed shots most likely would have come from the Daltex building.

   Possible shot(s) striking near the manhole cover, the (S) Grass, or even the Tague curb strike, also line up with the "Bushes/Shrubs/Garden". Such being reported by the Hysterical Woman/Officer Smith, Mal Couch, and Bill Newman. The Elm St Extension has Not been thoroughly researched with respect to it possibly being used by a shooter and/or providing clandestine access to a getaway car for shooter(s) inside the TSBD. My discovery of a car moving down the Elm St Ext while the JFK Limo was still on Elm St proves this.

[Dan O'meara]

     So proffer cartoon visual aid(s) vs eyewitness testimony with the attached addendum, "....CAN be unreliable"? That's exactly what I mean by "character assassination". As I have repeatedly mentioned, that "car cartoon" of the JFK Motorcade is not accurate. The opening frames of the :40 1st edition copy of the Darnell Film severely damages that JFK Motorcade car cartoon. That erroneous car cartoon is routinely posted on this forum.     

So proffer cartoon visual aid(s) vs eyewitness testimony with the attached addendum, "....CAN be unreliable"? That's exactly what I mean by "character assassination".

I can see that you're using English words and that they are in some kind of order, but I literally have no idea what you are attempting to say here. I've spent too long trying to work out the meaning of these sentences and I've got nothing.
Your posts are useless. You might as well just be trolling the thread and deliberately trying to derail the discussion.
When they can be understood, the points you make are irrelevant and have no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Mark Tyler's motorcade mapping is probably the most impressive achievement in JFKA research. It's astounding.
You criticising it is like listening to Peewee Herman critiquing Mike Tyson's uppercut.
The vehicle movements are based on every single available scrap of film and photographic evidence that exists regarding that specific time period in Dealey Plaza.
I would bet my house that any criticisms you have of it are based on your usual misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what's going on.
You just make wild, unfounded and unsupported claims that have no basis in any kind of approximation to reality. After a painful and tedious trial of explaining the obvious to you, you finally relent and accept you were talking nonsense all along.

The opening frames of the :40 1st edition copy of the Darnell Film severely damages that JFK Motorcade car cartoon

Here's a mad challenge for you.
Rather than just blurt out this unsupported nonsense, why don't you provide evidence to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.
Post the relevant pictures or footage and present your argument. Show us all how Tyler got it so wrong.

And create a thread on which to do this, rather than clog this one up with your musings.

[Royell Storing]

  You guys need to seriously examine the Darnell Film. For starters, do you really believe that Officer Baker was inside the TSBD in only 30 seconds after the Kill Shot? Read his WC Testimony. The guy was almost knocked off his bike by a wind gust as he was turning onto Houston St. Yet, somehow he is inside the TSBD in only 30 seconds? This is WC  . Officer Baker and Officer Haygood were riding close together in the JFK Motorcade. Have you ever thought about why Baker has already parked his bike at the Elm St curb and has run to the TSBD by the time that Officer Haygood even turns his motorcycle from Houston onto Elm St? How does that work? It does Not!
   And how long do you believe the JFK Limo was really on Elm St? Wiegman jumped out of his camera car, ran down Elm St and somehow filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass? TICK-TOCK Issue. On top of that, the Wiegman Film also shows NO Getaway Car parked alongside the Island. Not just yet. Do Not blindly accept the WC  . Do the research and think everything through. The images do Not fit hand-in-glove. And as they become clearer, this becomes more and more obvious.