The Shot That Missed

[Brian Roselle]

Some agents early on in the film apparently did not react (even Hill seems to not react even up to past the second shot) but some did like Hickey.  I have heard some others suggest Ready and Bennett may have had some early reactions, but this was not used in the analysis.

Some reasons for reacting or not reacting were alluded to earlier. I have the same thoughts on this as Charles, but he states it better than I could.

On a side note, you have mentioned startle reactions before, but because these are usually very small and quick, they are not a good source to try and see happening in individuals on film. I think I calculated that Zapruder’s hand would have only jumped about 1/16 to 1/32 of an inch to cause the purported jiggles in his film. His arms did not go flying up into the air.
I mention this because although seeing a startle reaction in an individual on a film at a distance may be nearly impossible, one may be able to see the effect on the film stability of the cameraman while filming.

Saying that there is no way the reaction time analysis theory can be right may be jumping the gun (no pun intended). One way to check a theory is to see if it can make predictions. This may be difficult in the JFK case, but I think there might be a possibility. The analysis of an early shot half a second before z133 could make a prediction related to camera shake of the person filming closest to the snipers nest. It would make the following IF/THEN hypothesis.  IF a first shot from the TSBD was fired at about ½ second before z133,  THEN given the first surprise/unexpected loud discharge in close proximity to Elsie Dorman at that time it likely would have had some startling effect on her and her filming, as she was the closest person to the sniper nest actively filming at that time.
This Hypothesis was tested via film synchronization:
Dorman’s camera motions while the limo was going by her on Elm are a little unsteady since she wasn’t using the viewfinder at that time but was holding the camera beside her head, but the filming does appear to contain larger startle reactions consistent with a loud rifle report happening at the predicted timing for the first shot (and even the second shot and reduced some by the time of the third shot). You may have to hit play a couple of time for this video to fully load and play.
https://sites.google.com/view/dorman-zapruder-sync-on-elm-st/home

This is one prediction the analysis made that appears to be supported by independent filming.

There are some people that support this analysis, but you clearly disagree. I am fine with that, It’s even good. Getting many people digging into evaluating the event may turn up new things. I encourage your continued exploration of your theories; there are likely still some things to uncover about the events.

[Charles Collins]

Some agents early on in the film apparently did not react (even Hill seems to not react even up to past the second shot) but some did like Hickey.  I have heard some others suggest Ready and Bennett may have had some early reactions, but this was not used in the analysis.

Some reasons for reacting or not reacting were alluded to earlier. I have the same thoughts on this as Charles, but he states it better than I could.

On a side note, you have mentioned startle reactions before, but because these are usually very small and quick, they are not a good source to try and see happening in individuals on film. I think I calculated that Zapruder’s hand would have only jumped about 1/16 to 1/32 of an inch to cause the purported jiggles in his film. His arms did not go flying up into the air.
I mention this because although seeing a startle reaction in an individual on a film at a distance may be nearly impossible, one may be able to see the effect on the film stability of the cameraman while filming.

Saying that there is no way the reaction time analysis theory can be right may be jumping the gun (no pun intended). One way to check a theory is to see if it can make predictions. This may be difficult in the JFK case, but I think there might be a possibility. The analysis of an early shot half a second before z133 could make a prediction related to camera shake of the person filming closest to the snipers nest. It would make the following IF/THEN hypothesis.  IF a first shot from the TSBD was fired at about ½ second before z133,  THEN given the first surprise/unexpected loud discharge in close proximity to Elsie Dorman at that time it likely would have had some startling effect on her and her filming, as she was the closest person to the sniper nest actively filming at that time.
This Hypothesis was tested via film synchronization:
Dorman’s camera motions while the limo was going by her on Elm are a little unsteady since she wasn’t using the viewfinder at that time but was holding the camera beside her head, but the filming does appear to contain larger startle reactions consistent with a loud rifle report happening at the predicted timing for the first shot (and even the second shot and reduced some by the time of the third shot). You may have to hit play a couple of time for this video to fully load and play.
https://sites.google.com/view/dorman-zapruder-sync-on-elm-st/home

This is one prediction the analysis made that appears to be supported by independent filming.

There are some people that support this analysis, but you clearly disagree. I am fine with that, It’s even good. Getting many people digging into evaluating the event may turn up new things. I encourage your continued exploration of your theories; there are likely still some things to uncover about the events.

Thanks for the link to the three films synchronization. I knew about the stoppage of the Dorman film at the same time of the proposed time of the first shot. But I somehow wasn’t aware that a similar stoppage existed at the same time as the proposed second shot.

One other film camera that was running during the proposed time of the first shot was the Hughes camera. And it has a very unusual stoppage of 6-frames right at that time. That is only about 1/3 of one second, and I believe that it could very well be a startle reaction to the sound of the first shot.

[Dan O'meara]

Charles, you know my stance on this particular issue as I know yours. It's clear from his last post that Brian has absolutely no intention of dealing with the issues I'm raising and, to be honest, he's right not to as it will reveal the kind of hole he's dug for himself with this. His big problem is presenting his model for the first/missed shot with all the trappings of scientific research. This makes him beholden to things like Logic, Rational Thought and, even, Common Sense.

Dan, how many of the witnesses said they initially thought the first one was a backfire or firecracker or something like that? I don’t know the actual count, but it was a large percentage. Do you really believe that the SS Agents were somehow immune to this phenomenon?

I don't know the actual percentage of those who described their perception of the first/missed shot as being something other than a shot (backfire, firecracker etc.) but I agree it's large. I'd go as far to say it's really large. Of course the SS agents are not immune to such a thing and nowhere have I ever said they are so there's no need to ask "Do you really believe..." as if I had made such a ridiculous statement at some time in the past. How can you be immune to perceiving something? It's a really silly thing to say. Here are a few of the Agents describing their initial perception of the first shot:

Youngblood -  'It could have been a firecracker, a bomb, or a shot,' Youngblood, 39, said in an interview. 'I recognized it as an abnormal sound                             and realized some action had to be taken'
Greer-          The President’s automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass
                     under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle

Hill -              On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was
                     visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker.

Ready -          I heard what sounded like firecrackers…

Hickey -         I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear.

I'm sure the point you would like to make is that, if they didn't recognise the first shot as a shot they might not have reacted to it. This would explain the radical reactions of some of the Agents we see in Altgens 6 but why there was absolutely no recognisable reaction to the sound of a gunshot earlier in the Z-film. This, however, is not the case.
In Altgens 6 we see Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD, presumably in response to the sound of gunfire:


Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."

Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."

Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "

Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6. Each of them is describing their reactions to the first shot. Even when they thought the sound might be a firecracker they still reacted to it.

We can clearly see one [Agent Hickey] immediately looking in the vicinity of the limo’s tires. It would appear that he thought it was a tire blowout.

Here we come to Hickey's look over the side of the follow-up car. Brian believes this move is so unusual it somehow indicates Hickey is reacting to the sound of gunfire. Where does he imagine the gunfire is coming from? Underneath the follow-up car? And you are suggesting Hickey thought it was a tire blowout. Let's have a closer look at Hickey's move:



In the Gif above we see Hickey look over the side of the limo. He then looks into the crowd to his left then turns straight ahead. That's it. If it was a blowout he would hardly look into the crowd then resume his position looking straight ahead. The idea that he is reacting to the sound of a gunshot is bizarre. What part of his actions gives this indication. There is nothing. No urgency in his movements and he resumes his original position. This is nothing compared to the barely perceptible head movement of Jackie Kennedy which is being heralded as a sure indicator of an early missed shot. 

What we cannot discern from the photographic record is what the eyes of the SS Agents are doing during the same time that the limo occupants are simultaneously turning their heads and looking around with concerned expressions like they are trying to figure out what that loud noise they just heard was. The SS Agents were likely looking for visual signs of the source or results of the loud noise. They can do this with just movements of their eyes and small movements of their heads.

This is just fantasy. You are fantasising that the limo occupants are "trying to figure out what that loud noise they just heard was."
This is never a good sign when trying to argue for a particular model.

I know what their reports say about “immediately” doing this or that. But I believe that none of them were likely to come out and explicitly say that they thought the first noise was something other than a gunshot, and that that is why they didn’t react immediately after hearing it. Admitting something like that on their reports would tend to make them look incompetent and lackadaisical. I believe that they reported actions that would tend to make them look good, and stuck to their stories. How could they have anticipated that the Zapruder film would show that their reports were inaccurate?

And here we come to the crunch. Anyone who upsets your model is lying. All the SS agents got together and, for some reason void of logic, decided to lie in order to explain why they all took over 7 seconds to react to the first shot!
Really?
Once we get to this level of debate there seems little point in continuing.

[Charles Collins]

Charles, you know my stance on this particular issue as I know yours. It's clear from his last post that Brian has absolutely no intention of dealing with the issues I'm raising and, to be honest, he's right not to as it will reveal the kind of hole he's dug for himself with this. His big problem is presenting his model for the first/missed shot with all the trappings of scientific research. This makes him beholden to things like Logic, Rational Thought and, even, Common Sense.

I don't know the actual percentage of those who described their perception of the first/missed shot as being something other than a shot (backfire, firecracker etc.) but I agree it's large. I'd go as far to say it's really large. Of course the SS agents are not immune to such a thing and nowhere have I ever said they are so there's no need to ask "Do you really believe..." as if I had made such a ridiculous statement at some time in the past. How can you be immune to perceiving something? It's a really silly thing to say. Here are a few of the Agents describing their initial perception of the first shot:

Youngblood -  'It could have been a firecracker, a bomb, or a shot,' Youngblood, 39, said in an interview. 'I recognized it as an abnormal sound                             and realized some action had to be taken'
Greer-          The President’s automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass
                     under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle

Hill -              On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was
                     visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker.

Ready -          I heard what sounded like firecrackers…

Hickey -         I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear.

I'm sure the point you would like to make is that, if they didn't recognise the first shot as a shot they might not have reacted to it. This would explain the radical reactions of some of the Agents we see in Altgens 6 but why there was absolutely no recognisable reaction to the sound of a gunshot earlier in the Z-film. This, however, is not the case.
In Altgens 6 we see Agents Landis, Ready and Hickey looking over their right shoulders towards the TSBD, presumably in response to the sound of gunfire:


Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."

Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."

Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "

Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6. Each of them is describing their reactions to the first shot. Even when they thought the sound might be a firecracker they still reacted to it.

Here we come to Hickey's look over the side of the follow-up car. Brian believes this move is so unusual it somehow indicates Hickey is reacting to the sound of gunfire. Where does he imagine the gunfire is coming from? Underneath the follow-up car? And you are suggesting Hickey thought it was a tire blowout. Let's have a closer look at Hickey's move:



In the Gif above we see Hickey look over the side of the limo. He then looks into the crowd to his left then turns straight ahead. That's it. If it was a blowout he would hardly look into the crowd then resume his position looking straight ahead. The idea that he is reacting to the sound of a gunshot is bizarre. What part of his actions gives this indication. There is nothing. No urgency in his movements and he resumes his original position. This is nothing compared to the barely perceptible head movement of Jackie Kennedy which is being heralded as a sure indicator of an early missed shot. 

This is just fantasy. You are fantasising that the limo occupants are "trying to figure out what that loud noise they just heard was."
This is never a good sign when trying to argue for a particular model.

And here we come to the crunch. Anyone who upsets your model is lying. All the SS agents got together and, for some reason void of logic, decided to lie in order to explain why they all took over 7 seconds to react to the first shot!
Really?
Once we get to this level of debate there seems little point in continuing.

His big problem is presenting his model for the first/missed shot with all the trappings of scientific research. This makes him beholden to things like Logic, Rational Thought and, even, Common Sense.

Logically, rationally, and common sense wise, his scientific approach makes him beholden to the methods and science that he is using. You complain that he isn’t dealing with the issues that you are raising. Do you have any issues with the science behind his theory? If so, have you addressed them with him?


Of course the SS agents are not immune to such a thing and nowhere have I ever said they are so there's no need to ask "Do you really believe..." as if I had made such a ridiculous statement at some time in the past. How can you be immune to perceiving something? It's a really silly thing to say.


The reason I asked is because you repeatedly try to use your perception of their inaction as a reason you believe that you can rule out that there was a shot fired before Z223. A possible explanation is that they didn’t perceive the sound as a gunshot (just like a large percentage of the other witnesses). So I contend that you cannot rule that possibility out. Hence the question: “Do you really believe...” .


I'm sure the point you would like to make is that, if they didn't recognise the first shot as a shot they might not have reacted to it. This would explain the radical reactions of some of the Agents we see in Altgens 6 but why there was absolutely no recognisable reaction to the sound of a gunshot earlier in the Z-film. This, however, is not the case.


I am unclear as to what you are trying to say. Brian has described the typical startle reaction as being small and therefore virtually impossible to see in a film of the quality and characteristics of the Zapruder film. And if you refuse to recognize Hickey’s reaction as a reaction to a sudden sound (such as a backfire, firecracker, or gunshot sound) then you are only cheating yourself. Hickey had no need to lean out and look toward the limo’s tires if he (as you contend) was only looking at the crowd. The crowd was still clearly in his line of sight even if he had stayed perfectly upright.


Each agent describes their immediate reactions to hearing the first shot, turning to look over their right shoulders looking towards where they felt the sound came from. This is exactly what we see in Altgens 6.


If it was that easy, why the heck didn’t the Warren Commission adopt it? There is ample evidence of an early first shot. That’s why.


In the graphic you posted, we can see some of the ample evidence.




Not only does Hickey lean way over to his left to look at the President’s limo’s tires, but the three visible agents on the running boards have a similar and close to simultaneous reaction to JBC’s, JFK’s, and Jackie’s. They all turn their heads; first quickly to their left, then quickly to their right. This is indicative of scanning for visual cues to explain the loud noise they just heard. Not fantasy, real visible reactions. Despite your refusal to accept it.


And here we come to the crunch. Anyone who upsets your model is lying. All the SS agents got together and, for some reason void of logic, decided to lie in order to explain why they all took over 7 seconds to react to the first shot!
Really?


There is a difference between outright lying and simply not telling the whole truth. It happens all the time, even with very responsible and moral people. And yes they had opportunities to compare their perceptions before writing their reports. The obvious heroic reactions of Clint Hill made him a good example for them to follow. And he has always said he only heard two shots. Why not just go along with what Clint said he heard?


Once we get to this level of debate there seems little point in continuing.

It is fine with me if you don’t want to continue a debate. Neither of us is likely to change the other’s opinions.

[Bill Chapman]

Why should I base my actions on what you claim (without evidence) that somebody did?  Add "inflated self-importance" to your list.

Lumping me in with, say, lemmings and child molesters, and then trying to say you didn't mean me is pure cowardice on your part.

[John Iacoletti]

Chapman, stop trying to derail every thread with your vapid remarks.

[Bill Chapman]

Chapman, stop trying to derail every thread with your vapid remarks.

You seem the one 'derailed'..