The shot sequence, bang......bang......bang?

[John Anderson]

Oswalds Carcano functioned just fine.

[Gary Craig]

After reading some posts by CTs, like this example "Not merely a "large number.".....  The vast majority of the witnesses reported that the last two shots were nearly simultaneous......  That's impossible with a bolt action rifle...." so I did a quick collation of a number of witnesses who said the shots were roughly about evenly spaced or the spaces between were longer than virtually instantaneous. Btw some witnesses guessed that the length of time was greater between shots 2 and 3 than 1 and 2 but a lot of these witnesses didn't specify a specific length so cannot be counted by either side.


Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they were pretty well even to me.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.

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. SPECTER. What is your best estimate on the time that passed from the first to the last shot?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Very short. It seemed to me that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third.

Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second shots as well as between the second and the third - or would there have been a difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were relatively the same.

Mr. BELIN - The shots seemed to be how far apart?
Mr. FISCHER - That's hard to say. I've been thinking about that. And--uh--I'd guess--3 to 4 seconds.
Mr. BELIN - Was that between the first and the second or between the second and the third?
Mr. FISCHER - Between both. As far as I can remember, the shots were evenly paced.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.

Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4 seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They rang out pretty fast.

Mr. SPECTER - Do you recall whether or not the statement is accurate in that you told the police officials at that time that there was a time span of 8 seconds between the first and second shots and a time span of 3 seconds between the second and third shots?
Mr. ROWLAND - I think I did tell them that, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. I see. Did you tell them that you heard the bolt action of the rifle?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And that you heard the expended cartridges fall to the floor?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; I heard them making a sound.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

JERRY HAYNES from WFAATV who was there with JAY. @17:37
....we heard one shot then a second or two later we heard another shot and then another second or two later the third shot.

JAY WATSON from WFAATV who ran straight back to the studio gave this account @27:28
I can best explain it in my own words, we were a hundred yards....yada yada yada
Jerry Haynes and I were standing there and we heard one shot and immediately thereafter heard another shot and then a third little bit later.

~snip~

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

But we do have a time machine, of sorts. It is the Zapruder film. We can observe it over and over again. We can see the movements of Rosemary Willis, Connally and JFK.

Agreed (assuming the film is authentic).  But it's your interpretation of their movements that is subjective and biased.

[Jerry Organ]

Scientific knowledge, it could be said, is based on eyewitness observation. But these are observations that can be made repeatedly, over and over. If one scientist makes an observation, he could repeat the experiment. And other scientists can repeat the experiment. Under these circumstances, eyewitness observation is reliable.



If we had a time machine where witnesses could travel back in time, to confirmed their observations, I would be a lot more confident in witnesses. Particularly if I and anyone else could also travel back in time over and over again to confirm and reconfirm what happened.

But witnesses only witness something once. And their impressions can be false. Or change over time. Or be influenced by what others tell them, possibly within a few minutes of the event. That makes them unreliable.


But we do have a time machine, of sorts. It is the Zapruder film. We can observe it over and over again. We can see the movements of Rosemary Willis, Connally and JFK. We can see the film over and over again to confirm when they move and how they move. And conclude the forward spray seen in frame 313 implies a shot from behind and is not the result of me misremembering what I saw, that the spray when backwards or there was no spray at all.

Good post.

And if a witness has a false memory, it can appear as real and vivid in his mind as an actual memory. Memories are mental reconstructions that can be honesty skewered by impressions, biases, perceptions, distractions, etc.

People may best remember salient items ("I saw the President and Jackie") but be weak--though "real" in their minds--on secondary events ("the limousine stopped"). Problem could be that in an investigation, the salient facts ("the President and Jackie travel on Elm in Dallas") are established easily while the secondary events (the ones more likely to be mis-recalled) take on a new importance.

[Gary Craig]

Good post.

And if a witness has a false memory, it can appear as real and vivid in his mind as an actual memory. Memories are mental reconstructions that can be honesty skewered by impressions, biases, perceptions, distractions, etc.

People may best remember salient items ("I saw the President and Jackie") but be weak--though "real" in their minds--on secondary events ("the limousine stopped"). Problem could be that in an investigation, the salient facts ("the President and Jackie travel on Elm in Dallas") are established easily while the secondary events (the ones more likely to be mis-recalled) take on a new importance.

"Memories are mental reconstructions that can be honesty skewered by impressions, biases, perceptions, distractions, etc."

Like the DA or Chief of Police on local media claiming the case is cinched and Oswald is guilty etc.
Many changed their minds of where the shots came from.
Seems their memories got better the farther away from the event they got.

[Jerry Organ]

"Memories are mental reconstructions that can be honesty skewered by impressions, biases, perceptions, distractions, etc."

Like the DA or Chief of Police on local media claiming the case is cinched and Oswald is guilty etc.
Many changed their minds of where the shots came from.
Seems their memories got better the farther away from the event they got.

Yeah, I would say the witness pool was corrupted as the conspiracy kooks "got to" them.

[Jack Nessan]

The witness list is all very interesting but is lacking a large number of eyewitnesses and what their very first statements contained. None of these posts even remotely relate to proving the belief there was an early missed shot. The actions of a child running past a woman stepping up on the curb with her cane/umbrella sticking out is somehow being presented as evidence of a shot that no adults standing along Elm Street including her parents stated ever happened.

Maybe the psychology question that needs to be answered is what would influence the belief that such an absurd theory as an early shot not heard by anyone is the answer to the shot sequence of the assassination which does not fit the cycle time of the carcano and what is seen on the Zapruder film? Attempting to discredit the numerous eyewitnesses as having faulty recollections is actually beyond belief and shows how weak and ridiculous the whole early missed shot theory really is.

The most over riding theme in Psychology seems to be  the mind of a single person. Extrapolating their observations and making a blanket statement that all the witnesses were effected in the exact same way is contrary to what these different Psychologists propose.

The idea there was influence concerning the statements of the witnesses was first proposed by the WC and concerned the number of shots reported by the witnesses who first reported there was two shots then changed there statements to stating there was three. The Media is the only medium that reaches the eyewitnesses en mass and is mentioned by both the WC and HSCA as having influenced the statements of the witnesses, but is only referenced as a source of influence concerning the number of shots from two to three.

[Ray Mitcham]

Yeah, I would say the witness pool was corrupted as the conspiracy kooks "got to" them.

Which "conspiracy kooks" would these be, then Jerry?