LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Joe Elliott]

Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?


Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled.:


Loftus, Eliz. F., Eyewitness Testimony, (Cambridge, MA: 1979), Harvard University Press at p. 27

 In this case, a large number of people recalled details relating to the number of shots. 80% recalled exactly 3 shots and I expect you agree with them.  How is it that they are so right on that but so wrong on other easily recalled facts?  (This has nothing to do with pre-existing beliefs).

The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.

Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:

This KLIF bulletin from Dallas: Three shots reportedly were fired at the motorcade of President Kennedy today near the downtown section. KLIF News is checking out the report. We will have further reports. Stay tuned.

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.

I think it is possible that people might not remember the number of shots, as surprising as that may seem. The motorcycles backfired a lot. People might think it was a backfire. As late as z-312, it is clear that most people, not in the limousine or the follow up Secret Service car, realized that shots had been fired. Many were still clapping at that point. Without realizing in real time, that shots had been fired, and pre-occupied with seeing the President, they likely would not have kept a count of the number of "backfires/shots".

Why would people be wrong so much about the timing of the shots?

It would be easy to mistake the last shot, the shot at z-312, as two separate shots. A rifle shot makes a "Crack-Thump" sound, a double sound. This would be most distinct for the final shot, the one at 88 yards. For the shots at 43 and 63 yards, the "Crack-Thump" might come too close together to recognize as two separate sounds. Also, a fragment from the third shot struck metal, the windshield frame. This did not happen with the first shot.

I, of course, am not an expert on the perception of rifle sounds, but is plausible that at a shorter range, the "Crack-Thump" are too close together to perceive as two separate sounds. But at longer ranges, they are. And, for all I know, that transition may happen at around 75 yards.

If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.

If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".

In short, there are two different reasons a lot of witnesses get the spacing wrong. The third shot is the one most likely to be mistaken for two shots right on top of each other. And witnesses may have been influenced by over-hearing other witnesses, particularly over-hearing a "Bang-Bang" witness.

[Jerry Organ]

Yes. Like how many shots were there? Where did the shots come from?   Why is it that witnesses are wrong only on facts relating to the SBT?

Witnesses can be wrong. Sure. But studies show that they are generally right on details that a high number of witnesses recalled.:

Mason could have written this:

    "In this study, Palamara summarizes the reports of 59 
     witnesses who reported observing the Presidential limousine
     either slowing dramatically or coming to a complete halt
     after bullets began to be fired. This supports allegations
     that photographic evidence, including the Zapruder film,
     has been subjected to extensive alteration"

And here's a chart Mason could have prepared:



Per Mason-think, these are "witnesses are more trustworthy" things.

[Andrew Mason]

The witnesses were often wrong. Like on the direction of the source of the shots. A majority said the shots came from behind, but a large minority said they came from the front.

But there is a big difference between a human's ability to hear and count the number of shots and its ability to determine the direction of the source.  It is not hard to hear three shots and recall the number of shots correctly, particularly if there was a pattern, such as 1, a space and then 2 together.  Direction is an entirely different matter and our brains are easily fooled or confused by nearby surfaces that reflect sound.

There is an easy way to tell if witnesses are simply poor witnesses or if they have been fooled or confused bu something they have in common.  There is no reason to think that poor witnesses will tend to collect in a certain area. Their geographical distribution should be random.

The difference in perception of the direction of the shots (which is determined by our brains from the difference in time between the arrival of the sound wavefront at each ear) is not random. If they were just poor witnesses, perception would not depend on where they were situated at the time of the shots - but they were.

Most of the witnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD or near the corner of Houston and Main were located near that corner or were in the TSBD itself (ie. the three men on the floor below the SN, Secret Service Agents behind the President, the Cabells, occupants of the press car).  The witnesses farther along Elm or Houston St.  where reflections from nearby surfaces such as the Pergolas or from the Triple Underpass were much more likely to report that they thought the shots came from a different direction (eg. Mary Woodward, John and Faye Chism, Chief Curry, Richard Dodd, S.M. Holland, Jean Hill, Orville Nix).  Many were just confused as to where the shots came from, which may have been because echos from multiple reflective surfaces nearby created uncertainty.

Why would witnesses be right about the number of shots? The radio station KLIF reported at 12:38 CST:

It is likely that some witnesses heard this on the radio, or heard people talking about the reports. This could influence them on how many shots they said there were.

Right.  The Secret Service, the Connallys, Mary Woodward, all the people waiting to give statements in the Sheriff's office were listening to KLIF.  Even that fanciful possibility does not explain why they would report a particular pattern to the shots though, does it?

If one looks at the "2nd and 3rd shots closer together" witnesses, a lot of them not only say these two shots were closer together, they say they were right on top of each other, "Bang-Bang".

Not a spacing of:  "Bang" 5-second-pause "Bang" 3-second-pause "Bang"
but more like:  "Bang" several-second-pause "Bang-Bang"

exactly as one would expect from witnesses who mistook the last shot as two different shots coming almost together.

Very few witnesses said that the space between the last two shots was as short as the time between the supersonic compression wave (crack) and the muzzle blast. The ability to hear the "crack" depends on how close one is to the bullet path.  For a person located close to the bullet path at a distance of 100 m from the muzzle, the bullet (610 m/s - travel time 163 ms) arrives 130 ms before the muzzle blast (343 m/s - travel time 291 ms.).  It is difficult to understand how anyone would confuse the two sounds that close as two rifle shots.  Many said there was a distinct space between the last two.

Allan Sweatt: 19 H 531 (Decker exhibit).

• “I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot”.

or Forrest Sorrels: 21 H 548 and 7 H 345.

• “There was to me about twice as much time between the first and second shots as there was between the second and third shots.”

or Eugene Boone: 3 H 292.

• “there seemed to be a pause between the first shot and the second shot and third shots-a little longer pause.

or Arnold Rowland: 19 H 494 (Decker exhibit). 

• “and then in about 8 seconds I heard another report and in about 3 seconds a third report”

or Wm. Shelley: 6 H 329.

• “Well, I heard something sounded like it was a firecracker and a slight pause and then two more a little bit closer together.

or James Romak: 6 H 280.

• Mr. BELIN. Did it sound like the shots were faster than it could be operated with a bolt action rifle?
  Mr. ROMACK. No, sir."

or James Altgens: 7 H 520

• "They seemed to be at almost regular intervals and they were quick.”

or Thomas Dillard: WC 6 H 164.

• "I heard three-the three approximately equally spaced."

If one discards all the "Bang-Bang" witnesses, and only use the "Bang"-pause-"Bang"-pause-"Bang" witnesses, I suspect that they might support a more evenly spaced out series of shots, consistent with "Bang"-4-second-pause-"Bang"-5-second-pause-"Bang".

But you can't simply 'discard' a witness recollection because you have a hunch they might be wrong.  The suggestion that they might have confused a shot sound with a supersonic crack that one can only hear if one is close to the bullet path is not consistent with any of the evidence that I have found except, perhaps, Roy Kellerman. Even Hickey, who was close to the bullet path, described two distinct shots having two different effects.

[Jerry Organ]

It is a matter of NOT interpreting - just read them:
Robert H. Jackson (2 H 159):

• "Then we realized or we thought that it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. ... I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can't be sure. "

Tom Dillard was sitting a few feet in front of Jackson. Reitzes writes:

    "Tom Dillard, Dallas Morning News, said, "the three [shots
      were] approximately equally spaced." (6H163-64) In 1986
     Dillard told Richard Trask, "As distinct as I know I'm talking
     to you, I'm as convinced there were three clear shots. [snip]
     I thought they were fairly evenly spaced." (Trask, pp. 440-41)
          (My abridgement)

Linda Willis (7 H 498):

• "Yes, I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn’t tell where the second shot went. "

Linda can't see the President's right hand nor if he grabbed his throat. At least in the Z150s, she can see the President. But that's over two seconds before your first shot.

Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell(7 H 478)

• "I heard the shot. Mrs. Cabell said, “Oh a gun” or “a shot”, and I was about to deny and say “Oh it must have been a firecracker” when the second and the third shots rang out. There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession. There was no mistaking in my mind after that, that they were shots from a high-powered rifle".

Right. Mr. Cabell had an odd sense of time (15 seconds total):

    "Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately
     10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with
     not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
     Mr. HUBERT - Two to one ratio?
     Mr. CABELL - Approximately that. And again I say that, as you
     mentioned, as a matter of being relative. I couldn't tell you the
     exact seconds because they were not counted."

And he said he wasn't actually counting off the seconds between either of the spans.

Lady Bird Johnson (5 H 564):

• "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession."

I don't quite see how that describes the spanning between the three shots. Could have been three evenly-spaced shots.

Sen. Yarborough sat next to Mrs. Johnson. Dave Reitzes writes:

    "Senator Yarborough said there had been a slight pause
     between the first two shots and a longer pause between the
     second and third." (Tom Wicker, "Kennedy Is Killed By Sniper
     As He Rides In Car In Dallas; Johnson Sworn In On Plane,"
     NEW YORK TIMES, November 23, 1963) "He said there
     seemed to be a pause of a few seconds between the first
     and second shots." "And then, he said, there was an even
     longer pause between the second and third shots." (Carleton
     Kent, "Tells of Hearing Three Shots: Sen. Yarborough Terms It
     'A Deed of Horror,'" CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, November 23,
     1963.) Yarborough later told the Warren Commission just the
     opposite, that "to me there seemed to be a long time between
     the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the
     second and third shots--these were my impressions that day
     ..." (7H440)

Overall, Yarborough's recalling more space between shots two-and-three than between shots one-and-two.

Luke Mooney (3 H 282):

• "The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot."

Somewhat ambiguous.

Right. Maybe they were just drying some wet string.

So you don't know if the string actually represents a specific sequence of shots.

Obviously, it does not represent their final word.  They endorsed the SBT after all.  But you seem to think that one has to be on magic mushrooms or some other hallucinogen to even begin to think that this could be where the shots occurred. I don't think Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford were into drugs.  (Not sure about McCloy).

Maybe this is a good time to ask about what you were on when you ...

... posted stuff like this

... measured like this

Reitzes numbers are, in large part, based on statements made long after the events that are not documented in evidence. Many quotes are from Larry Sneed who claims to have interviewed witnesses for his 1998 book "No More Silence". 

Here's how the use of Sneed affects Dave's tally:

• Shots One-and-Two Closer Together ... 2
• Shots Evenly-Spaced ... 8*
• Shots Two-and-Three Closer Together ... 5

You haven't got much to complain about.

He cites TE Moore as an evenly spaced witness based on something said to Sneed decades after the event, but ignores Moore's original statement in which he said that the first shot occurred by the time the President had reached the Thornton Freeway sign (z200), that he observed the President slumping and then heard two more shots.  That puts the last two shots after JFK starts slumping (ie. after z225).

Given Moore's angle to the limousine and the "Queen Mary" intervening, the only way I can see Moore thinking Kennedy "slumped" was in the Z170s. The car is out of sight to Moore by the Z220s "slump".

Unlike what he said to Sneed, Moore's 1964 statement says nothing about the shot-spacing. You just think you can make it fit using your bias of shot-spacing.

Reitzes uses Emmett Hudson as an "evenly spaced" witness but ignores his 22Nov63 statement in which he stated: “he then heard two more loud reports which sounded like shots, such reports coming in rapid succession after the first shot.”

That's from a November 26th report. It doesn't say anything about the shot-spacing. What does the two shot coming "in rapid succession" mean relative to how soon after the first shot?

Reitzes writes:

    "Emmett J. Hudson said the succession of shots "was
     pretty fast and not too fast either. It seemed like he had
     time enough to operate his gun plenty well -- when the
     shots were all fired. . . . They seemed pretty well evenly
     spaced." (7H564-65)"

I don't interpret.  I read.  He either saw what he said he saw or he was just making it up and lying.  I don't accept that he was lying.

Less reading and imagining, and more looking at the images.

I do not think was lying. Hickey stated:

    "After a very short distance I heard a loud report which
     sounded like a firecracker. ... I stood up and looked to
     my right and rear in an attempt to identify it."

Hickey does this after the Z220s. That would be the second shot in my scenario.

    "Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from the time I looked
     to the rear and then looked at the President. He was
     slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening
     up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and
     looked."

The Altgens photo shows Hickey still turned looking backward. Between that moment (Z255) and, say, the Z280s, Hickey would have turned his head around to see the President as he described.

    "At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two
     reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to
     me completely different in sound than the first report and
     were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be
     practically no time element between them. It looked to me
     as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his
     head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed
     because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward
     and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head.
     The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at
     the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his
     left again. - Possibly four or five seconds elapsed from the
     time of the first report and the last.

Here Hickey seems to me to be describing the sound of the rifle report and the impact to the head as "two shots" ("in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them"). The "hair on the right side of his head flew forward" is the explosion of debris on the right side of the President's head captured in Z313. It was 4.9 sec between the Z220s and Z313.

You, on the other hand, see something Hickey couldn't possibly see. Only because it "shoehorns" into your wacky Ash-Heap Pet Theory. I'll bring forward this from earlier ...


Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".

Hickey is clearly describing what happened to the head on impact. ... But nice try.

The turn reaction starts about 1/2 a second after hearing the shot which I place at z271-272. That is not an unusual reaction delay.  He may have been already thinking about turning after hearing the first shot and hearing JBC screaming "Oh, no, no" around z245.

Now you're talking about this ...



And what I wrote regarding it: Since Greer's head is evidently turned sharply rightward in the Altgens photo at Z255, he may be reacting to a second shot heard during the Z220s. Greer would have to be pre-reacting to your "second shot" at Z272.

You believe "Greer turned around immediately "almost simultaneously" after the second shot", a shot in your scenario occuring at ca.Z272. So Greer must be facing forward prior to the Z270s, including the Altgens photo at Z255.



Yet the Zapruder film--when it begins to reveal Greer's head clearly in the late-Z270s--shows Greer already faced fully backward. By the Z280--when you claim Greer first turned his head sharply backward in reaction to your Z272 shot--Greer is not initiating a backward head turn, but instead is coming out of a backward head turn.

[Andrew Mason]

Tom Dillard was sitting a few feet in front of Jackson. Reitzes writes:

    "Tom Dillard, Dallas Morning News, said, "the three [shots
      were] approximately equally spaced." (6H163-64) In 1986
     Dillard told Richard Trask, "As distinct as I know I'm talking
     to you, I'm as convinced there were three clear shots. [snip]
     I thought they were fairly evenly spaced." (Trask, pp. 440-41)
          (My abridgement)

Dillard is one of 10 witnesses who gave statements that were available to the WC indicating that the shots were about equally spaced.  Keep in mind that immediately after the shots he was trying to take a photo of the window from which Bob Jackson said he saw a rifle being withdrawn.

Linda can't see the President's right hand nor if he grabbed his throat. At least in the Z150s, she can see the President. But that's over two seconds before your first shot.

Ok. Let's discount Linda because you think the 14 year old girl was lying....

Right. Mr. Cabell had an odd sense of time (15 seconds total):

    "Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately
     10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with
     not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
     Mr. HUBERT - Two to one ratio?
     Mr. CABELL - Approximately that. And again I say that, as you
     mentioned, as a matter of being relative. I couldn't tell you the
     exact seconds because they were not counted."

And he said he wasn't actually counting off the seconds between either of the spans.

You conveniently omitted the question he was asked, which was:

• Mr. HUBERT. Could you estimate the number of seconds, say, between the flrst and second shots, as related to thenumber of seconds between the second and third shots? Perhaps doing it on the basis of a ratio?

I don't quite see how that describes the spanning between the three shots. Could have been three evenly-spaced shots.

Ok. I'll break the sentence: ""Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession." down for you:  "Then a moment" refers to a pause after the first shot. "and then two more shots" refers to two shots occurring after the "moment".  "in rapid succession." refers to the spacing between the last two shots indicating that they occurred without the pause that occurred for a moment after the first shot and before the next.

So you don't know if the string actually represents a specific sequence of shots.

So you don't know how to recognize sarcasm.

Here's how the use of Sneed affects Dave's tally:

• Shots One-and-Two Closer Together ... 2
• Shots Evenly-Spaced ... 8*
• Shots Two-and-Three Closer Together ... 5

You haven't got much to complain about.

It is not just Sneed.  Reitzes uses statements in several other much later sources such as O'Donnell's book (1972), Zeliger (1992), CNN (2003), Trost/Bennett (2003), Turner (2001), Biffle (2000), Weisberg (1976), Savage (1993), Mark Lane (1968), Thompson (1967) and Trask (1994).

Unlike what he said to Sneed, Moore's 1964 statement says nothing about the shot-spacing. You just think you can make it fit using your bias of shot-spacing.

I don't count TE Moore as a 1......2...3 witness.  He just mentioned hearing the last two after hearing the first.  I just pointed out that he said that the first shot occurred much later (by the time JFK reached the Thornton sign), which means the first shot did not miss.

Even if he had fully stood and got his head turned around in one second, Hickey couldn't see where Kennedy's hair fluttered. It's a tiny amount of hair in the Z270s that bounces up 1/2 inch for one frame and then falls downward. You really think a 1/18th second event made this much of an impression on Hickey: "the hair on the right side of his head flew forward".

So it is just an interesting coincidence that only JFK's hair on the right side flies up about 2 seconds before the head shot, just as Hickey described but, you say, did not see.  Just a lucky guess?

Yet the Zapruder film--when it begins to reveal Greer's head clearly in the late-Z270s--shows Greer already faced fully backward. By the Z280--when you claim Greer first turned his head sharply backward in reaction to your Z272 shot--Greer is not initiating a backward head turn, but instead is coming out of a backward head turn.

He is still turning rearward after z283 and does not come out of the rearward head turn until z291.  Here it is in slow motion:

[Andrew Mason]

It's your interpretation of the evidence that I think is wrong. Evidence, per se, is not wrong.

So now you're down to divining what some string on the FBI model at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas means.




You don't know when those strings were placed or for what reason. You don't even know if they represent a sequence of shots. Could be the string to the Z190s merely shows the gap in the tree foliage that was centered around Z186, which the Commission offered as an early shot option to JFK (the WC instead favored the Z210-220s for the SBT shot). The Z290s string might be their best guess for where the car was at Z313. The Z340s string some idea for a shot fired after the head shot.

Actually, the full set of photos that is available in the National Archives contains captions.  The captions explain that the cars represent the locations of the President's car when shots one, two and three were fired. The strings show the trajectories from the SN at that time:

[Jerry Organ]

Actually, the full set of photos that is available in the National Archives contains captions.  The captions explain that the cars represent the locations of the President's car when shots one, two and three were fired. The strings show the trajectories from the SN at that time:

Since they have the head shot at either Z290 or the Z340s, you have to wonder if they had a surveyor or other expert place the strings. Or was it some kind of good-faith best-estimate thing. The Z-frames in the Hearings start at Z171, meaning the Commission apparently didn't think the first shot occurred prior to that.

Did you notice the two white cars in the foreground are even further away from the Depository than they are in photos of the model from the Museum? I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on. Also risky to base a theory on eyewitness reconstruction.

[Martin Weidmann]

Since they have the head shot at either Z290 or the Z340s, you have to wonder if they had a surveyor or other expert place the strings. Or was it some kind of good-faith best-estimate thing. The Z-frames in the Hearings start at Z171, meaning the Commission apparently didn't think the first shot occurred prior to that.

Did you notice the two white cars in the foreground are even further away from the Depository than they are in photos of the model from the Museum? I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on. Also risky to base a theory on eyewitness reconstruction.

I think the model is some generalization that no one should base anything on.

I agree