The First Shot

[John Corbett]

I'm assuming you're talking about the moment JFK is shot for the first time causing his fists to go up to his throat. The question is, if we assume there are three shots from the TSBD, which shot is this - first, second or third?
IMO the shot that caused JFK to raise his fists to his throat occurred at z223. The opening post of this thread is an assertion that no shot took place before z207. Less than one second after this (z223) Kennedy is hit. This leads me to conclude the first shot fired from the TSBD is the one that hits Kennedy in the throat. Quite a number of "ear-witnesses" describe a pattern to the shots - shot, pause, two shots closer together. If this is the case the second shot must be the head-shot with the third shot coming shortly after that.

Ear and eyewitnesses will lead you astray because they are wrong as often as they are right. When I read a witnesses statement for the first time, my initial reaction is, that might be right. It might also be wrong. The only way to determine that is how it fits with the body of evidence as a whole. There is one reliable witness and that is Zapruder's camera. Every other witness should be evaluated on how well or poorly their statement conforms with the Z-film. JBC is the key to determining when the first shot was fired. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder in reaction to the first shot. So is he right or wrong. We see him start to make that turn at Z164. So the question then becomes is he turning in reaction to the first shot which happened earlier or is he turning in anticipation of a shot that would come later. That question answers itself. The only question is how much before that turn did the first shot occur. Opinions vary but my belief is the shot would have been fired in the z147-148 window with the sound reaching JBC's ears at Z149-150. That puts his cognitive reaction about 3/4 of a second after hearing the gunshot. There are a number of witnesses who either did not hear or did not recognize the first sound as a gunshot. That would include Jack and Jackie as well as Clint Hill who only remembers hearing two shots. Agent Glen Bennett did hear the first shot while he was scanning the crowd to the right of the motorcade. He turned to look at JFK and saw the SECOND shot strike JFK in the back about five seconds before the headshot that killed him. Bennett's recollection should be given a good deal of weight because he wrote about this in his notes about AF1 on the flight back to Washington. Bennett would have had no other way of knowing JFK was shot in the back since he was on his back from the time he was wheeled into the ER until he was placed in the casket.

[Royell Storing]

   It is extremely foolish to worship the Z Film as if it were the Holy Grail. Question the validity of eyewitness accounts and then blindly accept "evidence" that went for, "30 pieces of silver"? Not me. These "Scales of Justice" are not balanced.

[Andrew Mason]

Ear and eyewitnesses will lead you astray because they are wrong as often as they are right.

It all depends on how well equipped witnesses are to observe a fact. Counting the shots was not a problem. 132 out of 178 witnesses recalled three shots. The next largest group was 17 people who recalled only two shots. Determining that the third shot was the last shot was not a problem. Determining what colour Jackie was wearing or where she was sitting was not a problem. Determining where the shots were coming from was a huge problem because of the many reflective surfaces in Dealey Plaza. Brandt remarked that there was "tremendous reverberation".  That is not a problem with witnesses being accurate in recalling an observation. It is a problem that witnesses were unable to make the observation ie. discerning the direction of the source of shots.

JBC is the key to determining when the first shot was fired.

So why do you not accept his evidence that the car had gone about 150-200 feet along Elm St. when the first shot struck?

He said he turned to look over his right shoulder in reaction to the first shot. So is he right or wrong. We see him start to make that turn at Z164.

The "We" does not include me.  He said turned around to look at JFK. He makes not even the slightest attempt to do that until after z230.

So the question then becomes is he turning in reaction to the first shot which happened earlier or is he turning in anticipation of a shot that would come later. That question answers itself.

If you follow the evidence, that was not the turn he was referring to.  It was a turn at about the same time as JFK turned to his right and started smiling and waving at Mary Woodward and her group who had just shouted to him.  They said that his smiling and waving was BEFORE the first 'horrible ear-shattering noise'.

[John Corbett]

   It is extremely foolish to worship the Z Film as if it were the Holy Grail. Question the validity of eyewitness accounts and then blindly accept "evidence" that went for, "30 pieces of silver"? Not me. These "Scales of Justice" are not balanced.

The Z-film is the only truly reliable account of the assassination. All human accounts are subject to fallibility.

[John Corbett]

It all depends on how well equipped witnesses are to observe a fact. Counting the shots was not a problem. 132 out of 178 witnesses recalled three shots. The next largest group was 17 people who recalled only two shots. Determining that the third shot was the last shot was not a problem. Determining what colour Jackie was wearing or where she was sitting was not a problem. Determining where the shots were coming from was a huge problem because of the many reflective surfaces in Dealey Plaza. Brandt remarked that there was "tremendous reverberation".  That is not a problem with witnesses being accurate in recalling an observation. It is a problem that witnesses were unable to make the observation ie. discerning the direction of the source of shots.

Everything the witnesses have told us is suspect without corroboration. Witnesses can be wrong about anything and frequents are.

So why do you not accept his evidence that the car had gone about 150-200 feet along Elm St. when the first shot struck?

Because JBC did not have a tape measure with him. He was guessing.

The "We" does not include me.  He said turned around to look at JFK. He makes not even the slightest attempt to do that until after z230.

Next time you view the Z-film, open your eyes.

If you follow the evidence, that was not the turn he was referring to.

Says you. Any reliable source for that?

It was a turn at about the same time as JFK turned to his right and started smiling and waving at Mary Woodward and her group who had just shouted to him.  They said that his smiling and waving was BEFORE the first 'horrible ear-shattering noise'.

"She said" doesn't count for squat unless you can prove what she said is accurate. You simply assume it is because it fits your FUBAR narrative.

[Andrew Mason]

Everything the witnesses have told us is suspect without corroboration. Witnesses can be wrong about anything and frequents are.
Because JBC did not have a tape measure with him. He was guessing.
Next time you view the Z-film, open your eyes.
Says you. Any reliable source for that?
"She said" doesn't count for squat unless you can prove what she said is accurate. You simply assume it is because it fits your FUBAR narrative.

So you are saying that your spidey sense that Connally was referring to the turn at z164 as the turn to look at JFK even though he makes no attempt to look at JFK - even though Mary Woodward said that was before the first shot (along with a few dozen others).  You aren’t relying on the zfilm. You are relying on your spidey senses.  I prefer evidence.

You also have a strange view of what constitutes corroboration. Any independent evidence can provide corroboration.

[Jack Nessan]

Everything the witnesses have told us is suspect without corroboration. Witnesses can be wrong about anything and frequents are.
Because JBC did not have a tape measure with him. He was guessing.
Next time you view the Z-film, open your eyes.
Says you. Any reliable source for that?
"She said" doesn't count for squat unless you can prove what she said is accurate. You simply assume it is because it fits your FUBAR narrative.

Are you ever going to supply the witnesses who stated there was a shot at this point. Your opinion is appreciated but hardly constitutes proof. Despite your constant claims there is nothing in the Zapruder Film to ever indicate there was a shot at Z150. Absolutely nothing. Are the pigeons your witnesses?