Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?  (Read 14303 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7780
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2018, 05:38:34 PM »
Kellerman said the first shot sounded different then the rest, followed by a flurry of shots.

By "flurry" he meant two.   ::)

Offline Zeon Wasinsky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2018, 06:37:33 PM »
Closest ear witnesses:

1,Harold Norman. 5th floor, right beneath SE corner 6th floor. Heard 3 shots, all 3 fired in a span of approx. 5 secs, given Normans interviews replicating the sequence with his "boom clack clack" description.

2.Amos Euins: Only approximately 30 yds away on the elm st corner looking up at the SE 6th story window. Saw a rifle and man holding it. Heard FOUR shots fired.

3.Majority of other earwitness heard 3 shots, 1st shot, then a few seconds, then 2 shots back to back, and in Lee Bowers example, the last 2 shots within about 1 sec apart, given his rapping his hand on the desk to replicate the timing (filmed interview with Mark Lane).

Conclusion: Low probability all shots were fired by an MC rifle, if these witness observation are correct.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 06:42:55 PM by Zeon Wasinsky »

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2018, 07:06:22 PM »


Had the Zapruder film recorded sound, we would likely know the bulk of the witnesses were wrong on the shot sequence as well.




Wherein we see once again that whatever Joe thinks happened is automatically "likely".

 

I said ?likely happened?. Not ?absolutely happened?. Nothing in this world is absolutely certain.






In any case, we should not trust witnesses. Not as individuals. Not as a group based on the idea ?Well, they couldn?t have all made the same mistake?.




You mean like the 10th and Patton witnesses?


 

Absolutely. The best quality evidence is the ballistic evidence. The shells matching the gun he was found carrying. And what the hell was he doing carrying a gun, let alone trying to shoot an officer with it.

The 10th and Patton witnesses are less reliable evidence.


And do you feel your remarks are so clever you have to give yourself a thumbs up?

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2018, 07:09:37 PM »


Closest ear witnesses:

1,Harold Norman. 5th floor, right beneath SE corner 6th floor. Heard 3 shots, all 3 fired in a span of approx. 5 secs, given Normans interviews replicating the sequence with his "boom clack clack" description.

2.Amos Euins: Only approximately 30 yds away on the elm st corner looking up at the SE 6th story window. Saw a rifle and man holding it. Heard FOUR shots fired.

3.Majority of other earwitness heard 3 shots, 1st shot, then a few seconds, then 2 shots back to back, and in Lee Bowers example, the last 2 shots within about 1 sec apart, given his rapping his hand on the desk to replicate the timing (filmed interview with Mark Lane).

Conclusion: Low probability all shots were fired by an MC rifle, if these witness observation are correct.



You wish to rely on what the bulk of the witnesses say about the shot spacing. Even though the bulk of the witnesses were wrong about the limousine stopping.


Why?

Offline Pat Speer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2018, 08:45:11 PM »
The "limo stop" was not observed by the majority of the witnesses and is, in any event, nonsense. This was demonstrated years ago by researchers such as Tony Marsh and then again in a monster Education Forum thread in which Dr. James Fetzer pushed that it stopped and was challenged by Tink Thompson and myself. People desperate to believe the Zapruder film fake misunderstood or misrepresented the recollections of witnesses holding that the "motorcade" stopped--which it did, just after the shots, when some of the press vehicles stopped to unload reporters--and/or that the limo slowed---which it did, as proven by the photographic evidence--and presented this as evidence the limo stopped. It didn't.

I, myself, have spoken to witnesses such as Mary Moorman and she was quite clear in that the limo slowed but did not stop.

As far as the reliability of witnesses in general... I read dozens of articles and books on the reliability of eyewitness recollections before coming to the conclusion its possible the Parkland witnesses were wrong when they recalled the large head wound as being on the back of the head. So, no, I don't think the majority of witnesses believing the last two shots were closer together than the first two "proves" that's how the shots were fired.

But it is what the evidence suggests. And therein lies my beef with so many single-assassin theorists. They push that the theories pushed by the likes of Bugliosi and Myers are totally in keeping with the evidence, when they are not.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 05:25:24 PM by Pat Speer »

Offline John Agee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2018, 09:23:49 PM »
Not sure what the point of this thread is.
Most LNs claim the first two shots were closer together than the last two, while the majority of those interviewed who noted a pattern claimed the last two were closer together than the first two, and a great number of these witnesses claimed the last two were bang bang, right after each other. This is a huge problem for those claiming the first shot was heard at Z-160, the second at Z-224, and the third at Z-313.

There's just no getting around that. The fact that some witnesses recalled there being a 3 second or more gap between the last two shots does little to explain why so many more thought the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds. If the shots were evenly spaced, or spaced like most LNs claim, the vast majority of witnesses would think the first two shots were closer together, and that the final shot was delayed. But the reverse is true. The appropriate conclusion then is that the 160, 224, 313 scenario is at odds with the collective statements of the witnesses.

Pat, going with the collective statements from the witnesses, there were 3 shots. Do you agree that Kennedy is hit at Z313 and Z225, and those 2 frames (or very close), account for 2 of the 3 shots?

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4270
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2018, 09:29:15 PM »
Closest ear witnesses:

1,Harold Norman. 5th floor, right beneath SE corner 6th floor. Heard 3 shots, all 3 fired in a span of approx. 5 secs, given Normans interviews replicating the sequence with his "boom clack clack" description.

2.Amos Euins: Only approximately 30 yds away on the elm st corner looking up at the SE 6th story window. Saw a rifle and man holding it. Heard FOUR shots fired.

3.Majority of other earwitness heard 3 shots, 1st shot, then a few seconds, then 2 shots back to back, and in Lee Bowers example, the last 2 shots within about 1 sec apart, given his rapping his hand on the desk to replicate the timing (filmed interview with Mark Lane).

Conclusion: Low probability all shots were fired by an MC rifle, if these witness observation are correct.

Harold Norman. 5th floor, right beneath SE corner 6th floor. Heard 3 shots, all 3 fired in a span of approx. 5 secs, given Normans interviews replicating the sequence with his "boom clack clack" description.

Norman would have been the closest IF there had been any shots fired from the SE corner window on the sixth floor....

I would remind you that Norman said he heard the shells falling on the floor above his head and yet when he reproduced the sounds he said he heard he DID NOT reproduce the sound of the shells hitting the floor...

As you've pointed out Norman described what he heard as...  quote..."Boom ...Click...Clack... boom"...unquote.

If he had actually heard the sounds of the rifle being fired he would have heard ...

Boom ( cartridge being fired)----Click   (Bolt being opened)----Ping   (Spent shell falling on the floor) Clack----  ( Bolt being closed)--- Boom ( second cartridge being fired.)

Harold Norman was a damned liar.

Offline Dillon Rankine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2018, 10:10:06 PM »

Questions:

Why isn?t the great bulk of the witnesses saying the limousine stopped or almost stopped a major problem for the notion that we can rely on the witnesses if bulk of the witnesses support a certain observation?

Time perception changes during trauma. The witnesses looking at the limousine would have had a faulty perception of its movement speed during trauma. Attention is also crucial here, as only that to which attention is fixed is properly consolidated in memory.

Time perception on this scale (to horribly oversimplify) is controlled primarily by the flow of an excitatory monoamine neurotransmitter called dopamine, which is also involved in motivation, pleasure, reward, the felling of being correct, etc. This flow starts at the substantia nigra (involved in reward and movement), travels through other basal ganglia and into the anterior prefrontal cortex (involved in a variety of complex cognitive abilities, personality, planning, decision making, etc).

The faster these clock neurons (those dopaminergic cells invloved) fire, the more events we register. This is the brain splitting time up into packets of stimuli or events. If this circuit oscillates once every 1/10 of a second, then we encode one event every 1/10 of a second; which will form our conscious perception of time. If this speeds up, then we encode more data. We encode one event per oscillation.

This can be understood with some pathological examples. Schizophrenia results when there is too much dopamine in the brain, and schizophrenics tend to suffer from something called catatonia?the perception of time moving incredibly slow or even stopping entirely. This is because the circuit is firing at some speeds that it?s encoding every minute detail and forining it into one long conscious experience. Parkinson?s diseas occurs when there is too little dopamine, and is sometimes accompanied by the perception that everything is moving too fast?dopamine is tiring so slow that several clusters of events are encoded as one perception, therefore making time seem like it?s sped up.
(Carter, 2014, The Brain Book, p. 190)

During traumatic events, dopamine is not flowing so well; which means time feels to be slowing down and more details can be detected but these combine to form a slower conscious perception of what?s being observed. But attention to stimuli is still a crucial element here.   

Moreover, as the neuroscientist David Eagleman discovered, people judge the duration of stressful events to be longer after some time has passed.

Quote
If the great bulk of the witnesses are wrong about the speed of the limousine, why couldn?t they be wrong about the spacing of the shots? [/b]

As discussed above, this faulty perception is justified with the fact we know the limo slowed down and that their perception of time was slower due to a halt in dopamine during high stress and trauma. However keep in mind that witnesses probably weren?t interested in counting the number and spacing of gunshots, so they may still be wrong.

Quote
And I question that notion that ?Psychologists have long noted that our sense of time slows as a traumatic event unfolds?. Playing NFL football is pretty stressful. Rookies commonly find the game too fast for them. If they can stay in the league for a while, they may be able to calm down and find that the game is no longer too fast for them.

That?s stress, not trauma. Being in a crowd with loud gunshots echoing and being a rookie footballer and not even slightly comparable.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7780
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2018, 11:18:15 PM »
I said ?likely happened?. Not ?absolutely happened?. Nothing in this world is absolutely certain.

What makes it "likely" other than it's what you want to believe?

Quote
Absolutely. The best quality evidence is the ballistic evidence. The shells matching the gun he was found carrying.

The shells that the police didn't find at the scene were matched to the gun that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket a couple of hours later.

There, I fixed it for you.

Quote
And what the hell was he doing carrying a gun, let alone trying to shoot an officer with it.

Well, Joe, there's no actual evidence that he tried to shoot an officer in the theater.

Quote
And do you feel your remarks are so clever you have to give yourself a thumbs up?

No, I was giving you a thumbs up on admitting that we shouldn't just trust witnesses.

So you can't trust that:

- Oswald was in the 6th floor window
- Oswald owned a rifle
- Oswald brought a bag to work
- Oswald shot Tippit
- Oswald tried to shoot Walker

Shall I go on?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
Re: The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2018, 07:34:17 AM »
By "flurry" he meant two.   ::)

Only two people hit
Guess the 'flurry' shooter(s) should have used a Carcano

 ;)
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 07:37:43 AM by Bill Chapman »

 

Mobile View