Author Topic: The Shot That Missed  (Read 2722 times)

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: The Shot That Missed
« Reply #80 on: January 11, 2021, 03:15:16 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 03:18:50 AM by Charles Collins »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4235
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: The Shot That Missed
« Reply #81 on: January 12, 2021, 05:24:49 AM »
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.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8350
Re: The Shot That Missed
« Reply #82 on: January 12, 2021, 07:46:06 AM »
Chapman, stop trying to derail every thread with your vapid remarks.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4235
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: The Shot That Missed
« Reply #83 on: January 12, 2021, 12:04:28 PM »
Chapman, stop trying to derail every thread with your vapid remarks.

You seem the one 'derailed'..

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: The Shot That Missed
« Reply #84 on: January 13, 2021, 01:01:57 AM »
Here’s another account that is indicative of an early first shot:

From FBI report dated 1/10/64 of Mrs. Jeannette E. Hooker, Deputy District Court Clerk:

From Judge WILSON's court room window, she observed the Presidential Motorcade turn west on Elm Street. Mrs. HOOKER estimated that the President's car was almost to the R. L. THORNTON Freeway when she heard three gunshots.

It appears that she heard the first shot before the limo reached the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign. And, from that approximate line of sight, this would be well before the Z223 time frame position of the limo. How much before then is dependent upon what distance she means by “almost to.” And which specific window she was watching from. But this account does appear to exclude the Z223 time frame as being the time of the first shot.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: The Shot That Missed
« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2021, 03:36:11 PM »
Here is an excerpt from an article on HistoryNet:

https://www.historynet.com/president-john-f-kennedy-eyewitness-accounts-of-the-events-surrounding-jfks-assassination.htm


Malcolm Summers: I was within five feet of the curb. They came around and then the first I heard was, I thought, was a firecracker…because the FBI, Secret Service people that was on the back of that car, they looked down at the ground….I think they thought it was a firecracker…I thought in my mind, well, what a heck of a joke, you know, to be playing like that. Then the car kept coming, and then the second shot rang out. And then the third…rang out. I saw Kennedy get hit. I heard Connally say, “They’re going to kill us all!” or “shoot us all.” …And then, I heard Jackie Kennedy scream out, “Oh, God! No, no, no!”

And here is a link to the Sixth Floor Museum’s Oral History interview which I believe is the source of that quote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrkGCDQubhQ


Hickey can be seen leaning over to his left and looking down towards the President’s limo’s tires shortly after the Z133 time frame. Put this together with Malcom Summers’ account of when he thought that the first shot sounded; and it is credible evidence of an early first shot miss.

 

Mobile View