The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

Not according to Gov. Connally or his wife.  JBC and others said he turned around to see the President after the first shot.  He said that he turned because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot.  He said that he was hit in the back after turning around to see JFK.  Nellie told Dr. Shires that her husband was turned around to his right when the second shot occurred.  There is simply no such turn before z230.   Where do you see JBC turning around to see JFK after the first shot and before he was hit?  You don't, of course, because you reject the Connallys' evidence.

Obviously I'm talking about measurable observations we see in the Z-film.
Your recourse to contradictory witness evidence shows the weakness of your position.
If you wish to discuss the observations recorded in the Z-film and the ramifications of these observations, fair enough.
I put the video/photographic evidence before the witness testimony.
You don't and it's obvious why you don't.

[Andrew Mason]

Obviously I'm talking about measurable observations we see in the Z-film.
Your recourse to contradictory witness evidence shows the weakness of your position.
If you wish to discuss the observations recorded in the Z-film and the ramifications of these observations, fair enough.
I put the video/photographic evidence before the witness testimony.
You don't and it's obvious why you don't.

Actually, you put your interpretation of the film/photographic evidence before witness testimony.  If you take the position that there is some kind of inherently superior quality to certain kinds of evidence that entitles you to ignore large bodies of other evidence, you are making up your own rules.  The trier of fact has to carefully assess all the evidence and draw conclusions based on all the evidence. Juries are told this in every trial.

The weight given to one's interpretation of the film/photographic evidence depends how that interpretation fits with the rest of the evidence.  Where the film/photographic evidence is unequivocal, it is entitled to a great deal of weight, which is not a problem because the witness evidence doesn't conflict with it.  We see the head shot at z313 and conclude that that coincided within a couple of frames of a very loud rifle sound. And, guess what, that is not inconsistent with what all the witnesses said. 

Although the zfilm is not unequivocal with respect to the times of the other shots, we can conclude:

• that there were three shots only because the vast majority of witnesses said there were exactly three loud noises. 
• that the last two shots were close together because the vast majority of witnesses independently recalled that pattern. 
• that the first shot struck JFK because the vast majority of witnesses observed his reaction after the first shot and before the second. Not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot.
• that Governor Connally turned around after the first shot and before he was hit because the witnesses - JBC, Nellie, Gayle Newman, and others recalled this.  And the zfilm shows this. 

While there are witnesses who thought that there may have been a shot after the headshot at z313, there are many witnesses who said it was the last shot (Connally's, SSAgents in the QM, Dave Powers, bystanders close by).  The zfilm does not tell us it was the last shot.  We have to look at all the witness evidence, not just the witnesses who recalled whether the headshot was the last shot.  It is the witness evidence as to the first and second shots that confirms that the headshot was the third and last shot.

[Dan O'meara]

Actually, you put your interpretation of the film/photographic evidence before witness testimony.  If you take the position that there is some kind of inherently superior quality to certain kinds of evidence that entitles you to ignore large bodies of other evidence, you are making up your own rules.  The trier of fact has to carefully assess all the evidence and draw conclusions based on all the evidence. Juries are told this in every trial.

There is an "inherently superior quality" to the evidence provided by the Z-film over the contradictory evidence of witness accounts.
That doesn't mean witness statements are ignored. To suggest I'm ignoring "large bodies of other evidence" is mystifying, particularly when it is you ignoring the evidence before your eyes in the Z-film and scrabbling around for cherry-picked, selected statements that prop up your failed model. A model that has failed spectacularly in key areas.
When I observe the headshot at z313 is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe JFK sat in a limo is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe radical, extreme and rapid physical reactions, is that "my interpretation"?
I think not,
It is notable you have completely abandoned trying to argue against the video evidence I have presented showing multiple extreme physical reactions occurring at the same time.
You are right to to try to switch the focus to vague lawyerly philosophy. It's a pity you can't bring yourself to accept a new way of looking at things.

The weight given to one's interpretation of the film/photographic evidence depends how that interpretation fits with the rest of the evidence.  Where the film/photographic evidence is unequivocal, it is entitled to a great deal of weight, which is not a problem because the witness evidence doesn't conflict with it.  We see the head shot at z313 and conclude that that coincided within a couple of frames of a very loud rifle sound. And, guess what, that is not inconsistent with what all the witnesses said. 

The multiple extreme, coordinated and rapid reactions I observe in the Z-film are unequivocal.
They are recorded and measurable.
You cannot escape this fact and it is something that you should be willing to consider more deeply.

Although the zfilm is not unequivocal with respect to the times of the other shots, we can conclude:

• that there were three shots only because the vast majority of witnesses said there were exactly three loud noises. 
• that the last two shots were close together because the vast majority of witnesses independently recalled that pattern. 
• that the first shot struck JFK because the vast majority of witnesses observed his reaction after the first shot and before the second. Not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot.
• that Governor Connally turned around after the first shot and before he was hit because the witnesses - JBC, Nellie, Gayle Newman, and others recalled this.  And the zfilm shows this. 

You're last point is clearly wrong.
The Z-film unequivocally shows JBC reacting in an extreme and rapid manner. I came across the following at the McAdams website:

In 1976 the Itek Corporation, specialists in photographic analysis, looked at the issue of exactly when Connally was showing a reaction to being hit. The following is their report.
By frame 232-234 there is strong evidence that the Governor is reacting to a significant effect on his body; or from other data, to a bullet wound. He placed the time of his reaction at 234. We studied the film in this area to determine if there were any striking changes in his physical appearance which could be interpreted as the onset of a reaction. Five photo analysts studied the original film from frames 222-240. They all concluded independently that somewhere between 223-226 there are signs of the beginning of a significant change in the governor's position and appearance. Some of their comments are paraphrased below.
— As Connally first clears the obscuring sign on frame 221, his facial features are not discernable or distinct. Frames 222 and 223 show no unusual action and Connally's face and features remain frozen (normal). With frame 224, I observe a slight grimace, a minor body twist, a slight arching of the back and a rearward head motion. These reactions continue on frame 225 which includes a slight hiking up in the seat. By frame 226 Connally's head is turned forward which I judged to be a rapid reaction. Frame 227 yields no information due to the high amount of smear, but the following frames 228, 9 and 30 indicate a rapid reaction of the hand holding the Stetson which was flicked up and down quickly.
— I observe a rotation of the Governor's body from right to left beginning at frame 223. It isn't obvious that this is significant relative to the study objective, however I also observe what I would consider an involuntary and unusual motion of his right hand and arm at 225. Before 225, his hand is hidden from Zapruder's view, down below the edge of the door. At 225-226 it can be seen to travel rapidly upward until it is about level with his chin in 228. From 228-230 he flips his hat rapidly. At 229 it appears upside down in his hand with the thin edge of the brim extending toward Zapruder. By 230 the hat has flipped so that one can now see into it. This all takes place within less than 1/3 of a second so it would appear to be somewhat unusual.

— At frame #223 he is turned in the jump seat sitting well into the car. I noticed a facial expression changing between #223 and 224 to a grimacing look. His body has moved forward (toward the edge of the car) with his right shoulder twisting to his left and downward. Between frames #225 and 226 a rapid motion of the Governor's right hand begins, i.e. #225 - his hand inside of car, #226 - his Stetson hat appears over the edge of the car, #228 - the hat is up in front of his chin concealing it. At #229 and 230 he flips his hat from edge on to a view of looking at the inside of it.

Source: "John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis" — Itek Corporation, May 2, 1976, pp. 36-39 Emphasis in original.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm)

You can put the greater weight on contradictory and muddled witness statements. That is your prerogative.

If you want to take this conversation down the road of vague philosophical arguments I won't be following. I'm presenting my model for when the first shot occurred on this thread. Its a strong model and has withstood any attempt to undermine it. We agree on so much, I do not think the step from your model to mine is that great.

[Andrew Mason]

There is an "inherently superior quality" to the evidence provided by the Z-film over the contradictory evidence of witness accounts.

The only thing the witness evidence contradicts is your hunch that the reaction shown in the zfilm after JFK emerges from behind the sign indicates that he was hit in the neck 110 ms earlier.

That doesn't mean witness statements are ignored. To suggest I'm ignoring "large bodies of other evidence" is mystifying, particularly when it is you ignoring the evidence before your eyes in the Z-film and scrabbling around for cherry-picked, selected statements that prop up your failed model. A model that has failed spectacularly in key areas.
When I observe the headshot at z313 is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe JFK sat in a limo is that "my interpretation"?
When I observe radical, extreme and rapid physical reactions, is that "my interpretation"?
I think not,

Of course, that is the classical straw man argument.  I have never suggested that those facts are anything but unequivocal.  Of course the headshot occurs at z313, that JFK sat in the limo and that we see JFK react with extreme and rapid physical reactions.  No one is challenging you on that.  No one.  So why use that in your argument?

It is notable you have completely abandoned trying to argue against the video evidence I have presented showing multiple extreme physical reactions occurring at the same time.

It is film evidence, not video evidence, btw.  I have never argued against the film or photographic evidence.  It is not the film or photographs that are in issue.  Rather it is the interpretation of what has happened to cause those things we see and when they happened.  All I am saying is that in order to determine what is happening you have to listen to the people who were there.  You have already concluded that those frames show JFK's reaction to the first shot.  You have reached that conclusion because of the overwhelming strength of independent witness evidence.  I agree with you on that.  But others are convinced that he is reacting to the second shot and completely discount all that witness evidence. 

You are right to to try to switch the focus to vague lawyerly philosophy. It's a pity you can't bring yourself to accept a new way of looking at things.

Saying you have to look at all the evidence is not a "vague lawyerly philosophy".  It is the way to accurately draw facts from evidence based on centuries of fact-finding by courts. There is no switch of focus. That has always been my focus.

The multiple extreme, coordinated and rapid reactions I observe in the Z-film are unequivocal.
They are recorded and measurable.
You cannot escape this fact and it is something that you should be willing to consider more deeply.

Again, there is no question about that.  That is a strawman argument.  No one is arguing that. I am certainly not. That is not the point on which we disagree.  The point on which we disagree is your hunch that JFK was shot in the neck 110 ms before z225.  The zfilm does not tell us that.  That is you.  That is your guess based on no evidence. Your intuition is not evidence. And I am merely pointing out that your intuition conflicts with the known evidence. 

You're last point is clearly wrong.
The Z-film unequivocally shows JBC reacting in an extreme and rapid manner.

For the umpteenth time, I agree.  That is not the issue on which we disagree. The issue on which we disagree is your hunch about how long before z225 JFK was hit.

You can put the greater weight on contradictory and muddled witness statements. That is your prerogative.

If you want to take this conversation down the road of vague philosophical arguments I won't be following. I'm presenting my model for when the first shot occurred on this thread. Its a strong model and has withstood any attempt to undermine it. We agree on so much, I do not think the step from your model to mine is that great.

You are right.  There is not much difference. We differ in 23-28 frames or 1.25 to 1.5 seconds on when the first shot occurred.  We also differ on whether the head shot was the last. You think it was the second and that there was a shot after z313.  I say that the evidence shows that it was the last.

[Dan O'meara]

The point on which we disagree is your hunch that JFK was shot in the neck 110 ms before z225.  The zfilm does not tell us that.  That is you.  That is your guess based on no evidence. Your intuition is not evidence. And I am merely pointing out that your intuition conflicts with the known evidence.

I get it. I've not provided the evidence that "JFK was shot in the neck 110ms before z225"

There has been a lot of info in my last few posts and this may have gone under the radar:

“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.”
[https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]

So, for a simple touch stimulus we're looking at a reaction time of around 150 ms. But JFK's body is reacting to severe trauma. I found this on the McAdams website:

"While human reaction times tend to require hundreds of milliseconds, "One of the fastest [neural feedback] loops is from arm sensors to spinal cord and back out to arm muscles: it takes 110 milliseconds for feedback corrections to be made to an arm movement." (William H. Calvin, "The unitary hypothesis: A common neural circuitry for novel manipulations, language, plan-ahead, and throwing?" in Tools, Language, and Cognition in Human Evolution, edited by Kathleen R. Gibson and Tim Ingold. Cambridge University Press, pp. 230-250, [1993].)

So there could already be a reaction of a subject's arms in as early as 110 milliseconds, the equivalent of two Zapruder frames. But, of course, with JFK and Gov. Connally shot between 223 and 224, we should not be able to discern a significant reaction before frame 226. While only a few milliseconds later, this would still be too late.

However, an experiment cited by conspiracist Milicent Cranor demonstrates that even less time may be required.

Cranor summarizes a study published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):

Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:

Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)
Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)

Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)

Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)

Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)

Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)

The authors concluded:

"The most generalized startle response to the standard sound stimulus employed consisted of eye closure, grimacing, neck flexion, trunk flexion, slight abduction of the arms, flexion of the elbows and pronation of the forearms. There was considerable variation in the degree to which this response was expressed, and in some subjects only eye closure and flexion of the neck was apparent."

[See Cranor, "Neurology and Jiggle Analysis"]

The experiment demonstrated that, in response to an auditory stimulus, quantifiable physical reactions can be observed occurring most quickly in muscles the shortest distance from the brain: in the neck as quickly as 40 milliseconds (less than one Zapruder frame), in the paraspinal muscles as quickly as 48 milliseconds (less than one Zapruder frame), in the forearm flexors as quickly as 60 milliseconds (slightly more than one Zapruder frame), in the forearm extensors as quickly as 62 milliseconds (slightly more than one Zapruder frame), in the thumb as quickly as 75 milliseconds, and in the back of the hand as quickly as 72 milliseconds.

Hit the start button above to see frames where Kennedy and Connally are hit by the Single Bullet. Note that Kennedy's hand is moving downward between Zapruder Frames 224 and 225. Connally's torso hunches between 224 and 225, and both men have shocked expressions on their faces. Clip produced by Ken McDonald.
This means that it is possible for JFK and Gov. Connally, if struck between frames 223 and 224, to display quantifiable reactions originating in the men's necks and paraspinal muscles — and, depending on how many milliseconds elapsed between the shot and the exposure of frame 224, possibly even their forearm flexors, forearm extensors, and hands — as early as frame 225."


There is solid science behind such a quick reaction time.
A hit at z223 could indeed trigger the beginnings of the extreme, co-ordinated and rapid reactions that are unequivocally shown in the Z-film.

[Andrew Mason]

I get it. I've not provided the evidence that "JFK was shot in the neck 110ms before z225"

There has been a lot of info in my last few posts and this may have gone under the radar:

“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.”
[https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]

So, for a simple touch stimulus we're looking at a reaction time of around 150 ms. But JFK's body is reacting to severe trauma.

Yes. But we don't know whether JFK's reaction is to:
1.  the bullet strike; or
2.  the impairment of bodily function caused by the bullet;

Being shot does not always cause an immediate "reflex" reaction.

I found this on the McAdams website:

"While human reaction times tend to require hundreds of milliseconds, "One of the fastest [neural feedback] loops is from arm sensors to spinal cord and back out to arm muscles: it takes 110 milliseconds for feedback corrections to be made to an arm movement." (William H. Calvin, "The unitary hypothesis: A common neural circuitry for novel manipulations, language, plan-ahead, and throwing?" in Tools, Language, and Cognition in Human Evolution, edited by Kathleen R. Gibson and Tim Ingold. Cambridge University Press, pp. 230-250, [1993].)

So there could already be a reaction of a subject's arms in as early as 110 milliseconds, the equivalent of two Zapruder frames. But, of course, with JFK and Gov. Connally shot between 223 and 224, we should not be able to discern a significant reaction before frame 226. While only a few milliseconds later, this would still be too late.

However, an experiment cited by conspiracist Milicent Cranor demonstrates that even less time may be required.

Cranor summarizes a study published in the British journal, Brain (Brown P, Rothwell JC, Thompson PD, Britton TC, Day BL, and Marsden CD. New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain 1991; 114:1891-1902):

Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:

Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)
Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)

Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)

Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)

Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)

Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)

The authors concluded:

"The most generalized startle response to the standard sound stimulus employed consisted of eye closure, grimacing, neck flexion, trunk flexion, slight abduction of the arms, flexion of the elbows and pronation of the forearms. There was considerable variation in the degree to which this response was expressed, and in some subjects only eye closure and flexion of the neck was apparent."

[See Cranor, "Neurology and Jiggle Analysis"]

The experiment demonstrated that, in response to an auditory stimulus, quantifiable physical reactions can be observed occurring most quickly in muscles the shortest distance from the brain: in the neck as quickly as 40 milliseconds (less than one Zapruder frame), in the paraspinal muscles as quickly as 48 milliseconds (less than one Zapruder frame), in the forearm flexors as quickly as 60 milliseconds (slightly more than one Zapruder frame), in the forearm extensors as quickly as 62 milliseconds (slightly more than one Zapruder frame), in the thumb as quickly as 75 milliseconds, and in the back of the hand as quickly as 72 milliseconds.

Hit the start button above to see frames where Kennedy and Connally are hit by the Single Bullet. Note that Kennedy's hand is moving downward between Zapruder Frames 224 and 225. Connally's torso hunches between 224 and 225, and both men have shocked expressions on their faces. Clip produced by Ken McDonald.
This means that it is possible for JFK and Gov. Connally, if struck between frames 223 and 224, to display quantifiable reactions originating in the men's necks and paraspinal muscles — and, depending on how many milliseconds elapsed between the shot and the exposure of frame 224, possibly even their forearm flexors, forearm extensors, and hands — as early as frame 225."

If the reaction of JFK is to the sound of the shot that struck at z223, you have to also take into account the fact that the sound would have arrived 77 ms. after the bullet hit ie. more than one frame after z223 (at 20 degrees C the speed of sound is 1127 feet/sec so the sound takes 177 ms to travel 200 feet whereas the bullet travelling at 2000 fps avg. takes 100 ms. to cover that distance).

There is solid science behind such a quick reaction time.
A hit at z223 could indeed trigger the beginnings of the extreme, co-ordinated and rapid reactions that are unequivocally shown in the Z-film.

But there is not solid evidence that the reaction we see in z225 is the beginning of ANY reaction. We also cannot tell what specific stimulus it is in reaction to. It is certainly not in reaction to sound that has not yet reached his ears or reached his ears less than 50 ms. earlier.  It could be a gradual reaction to being hit followed by a more demonstrative reaction when he tried to breathe.

Other reasons the reaction in z225 is not to being hit at z223:

The fact remains that the evidence is that JFK was struck after z186 and before z202.  Phil Willis' photo, according to his evidence, was taken just after the sound of the shot.  Do you think he was lying about that?  (Jerry does).  Because if he was just mistaken about that and the first shot was at z223, you have to explain how it is that:
1. his daughter Linda also pinpointed the first shot at that time (when JFK was between her and the Stemmons sign - z195-205) (or, if you were Jerry, why she also lied);
2. why TE Moore and Jeanette Hooker said that the first shot occurred just before the President reached the Thornton freeway sign. (z200); (or, if you were Jerry, why they also lied)
3. why occupants of the VP security car said that the first shot occurred just before they completed the turn onto Elm. (z190-210).(or, if you were Jerry, why they also lied)

One would also then have to explain why so many people mistakenly recalled the third shot as being the last, because a first shot at z223 does not fit the 1.......2....3 pattern if the last was at z313.
etc.

[Andrew Mason]

So here we have an example of the sleaze-bag defense attorney going at it. Re-defining the narrative through recasting what I said. O'meara knows about it.

I said Phil Willis said a "white lie" (not a Big Lie like you traffic in) about his picture being taken "simultaneously" with the sound of the first shot.

Ok. I see. I was correct in saying that you allege that Phil Willis lied, just a sleaze bag for failing to distinguish it as "white" and not "Big".  I am not sure why a white lie cannot be a big lie.  The "white" lie that the U.S. civil war was not about keeping slavery" was a pretty big one.

If Willis took his Z202 slide between shots 1 and 2 (say, Z155 and Z222), then it was taken in the midst of shots and echoing, so it could be said his slide was "simultaneous" with the shots, but not the precise moment of the first shot.

You do realize that you are supporting the point I was making which was that the shot  was before Willis' z202 photo and, therefore, it was BEFORE z223.  Are you sure you want to be supporting the sleaze bag defence lawyer's argument?

Objection! I didn't say Linda Willis lied. I suggested she got the Stemmons sign confused with the Thornton sign. She can only see the President and a sign beyond when he is between her and the Thornton sign. She can't see the President at all when he's between her and the Stemmons sign.

I see. Your theory is that she just happened to be mistaken in a way that fits perfectly with the "white" lie told by her father. And her sister just happened to turn her head suddenly toward the TSBD at a time that fits her mistake and her father's lie father (oh, and fits with Moore,  Hooker, the occupants of the VP security car etc.). I understand.

Therefore the second shot occurred about Z220-to-Z240 (I prefer the earlier Z220s because of the simultaneous reaction of both men as they emerge from behind the sign).

So you think they could be reacting before the shot that they were reacting to occurred??

Even if we go with the Z240s as the second shot and team it with your Z195ish "first" shot, that'll get you a 1.....2.......3 shot pattern.

The shot spanning for, say, Z155-to-Z222-to-Z313 is 1.....2.......3. More evenly-spaced.

But if the second shot occurred at z271 as I suggest, that fits the 1.........2....3 pattern. It also fits Greer's turn, the unusual forward movement of JBC, the movement of the wrist or hat, JFK hair flip reported by Hickey etc.