Shot Spacing
The Dutchman
challenge, or suggestion, for Professor McAdams and his students, or
anyone else, for that matter: A study that tries to quantify, using
statistics, the spacing of the shots. There seem to be so many accounts of
the 2nd and 3rd shots being close together, but is this really the case? I
should first ask, does the "indeterminite-ness" of this endeavor make it
even worth attempting? You have a statistical nightmare--the maze of shock
wave, muzzle blast, and echo factors, and even the sound of the head
impact itself, as sickening as that is to imagine.
The Dutchman
I should have added in my above post, that although the destination in
the survey, study, whatever, that I'm proposing may be unreachable
because of the complex nature of the task, It doesn't mean we wouldn't
learn a lot along the way.
claviger
> There have many surveys done on the number and direction of the shots. A
> challenge, or suggestion, for Professor McAdams and his students, or
> anyone else, for that matter: A study that tries to quantify, using
> statistics, the spacing of the shots. There seem to be so many accounts of
> the 2nd and 3rd shots being close together, but is this really the case?
people have done exactly that who came up with surprising results. The
one causing the most reaction was a new theory offered by Max Holland
and Johann Rush.
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2007/11/nyt.html#comments
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scearce.htm
> I should first ask, does the "indeterminite-ness" of this endeavor make it
> even worth attempting?
Yes.
> You have a statistical nightmare--the maze of shock wave, muzzle blast,
> and echo factors, and even the sound of the head impact itself, as
> sickening as that is to imagine.
A cacophony of confusing sounds causing differing auditory impressions
on the ear witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
bigdog
The problem is that unless we want to give credence to the much
discredited acoustical evidence, it requires us to rely strictly on
the memory banks of witnesses who were completely caught off guard by
a bewildering set of events which happened over the course of less
than 10 seconds. The human brain does not come equipped with a built-
in DVR. Few people can remember things like this perfectly. We have
images of sights and sounds but piecing those images together in their
proper sequence is extremely difficult, especially for events for
which we are not prepared.
John Fiorentino
You probably could work up some sort of statistical analysis, perhaps the
best approach would be a Bayesian model.
The problem is, simply on the input side, for example; would you include the
"shot" timing from the DP Dictabelt? Include those who heard only 2 shots?
Include those who heard more than 3?
Many thought the 2nd and 3rd shots were "closer together" than the 1st and
2nd. Many thought the shots were about evenly spaced.
I think there is a myriad of reasons for these various perceptions. However,
it is now rather apparent from a viewing of the Z-film, that we can fairly
well determine the timing between the 2nd and 3rd shots.
So, all in all, I think it would be a pointless exercise.
John F.
"The Dutchman" <kks44...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b85cfc5-42d0-43e0...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Not exactly. We also have the BEST WITNESS, the limo.
jas
The shot echo factor in Dealey is one aspect of the assassination that
cannot be accurately and fully re-created, therefore we must let it go.
The rifle shots occurring that day were carried off in that strong breeze.
The acoustic mathematics and physics of when the rifle shots -- combined
with their echoes -- reaching the various spectators' ears, and the
distances from each person to the different hard surfaces in Dealey is
finite and could be figured out. For example, the exact position where
Zapruder was standing is known, and the shot- noise -- and echoes -- times
can be calculated by shooting a Carcano with similar ammunition Oswald
used from the 6th floor SN and using the known distances to the location
and the time elapsed to when they reach a recording device. The same could
be done for each of the witnesses whose locations during the shooting can
be determined with archival photos and film.
However --and this is a huge however -- along with the distances and
timing of actual shots and echoes to the various witnesses, a researcher
would have to take into account all the ambient noise occurring during the
actual Nov 22 1963 shooting sequence, i.e., motorcycle and car engine
noise, talking, people's screams and utterances, wind velocity, actual
decibel levels of the shot and echo sounds, and -- last but not least --
each person's own unique *perception* of these sounds and when they
thought they heard them in relation to the visual events, something that
would be impossible to recreate.
It's the old "what if" cunundrum. Had there been a camera there with sound
recording ability, then we could come to some final conclusions. But there
wasn't, so we can't.
Robert Harris
<1b85cfc5-42d0-43e0...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
The Dutchman <kks44...@gmail.com> wrote:
There was no confusion at all. Shots from high powered rifles would be
many times louder than any other sounds in DP that day. They generated
levels from 115-130 db, and probably more for the one at 312.
You can easily see when such shots were fired by watching the startle
reactions of the passengers in the limo and by reading the testimonies of
the witnesses. The large majority of them stated that the final shots were
closely bunched.
And they were corroborated by the highly visible and dramatic startle
reactions of the limo people, separated by 1.5 seconds at the end of the
attack. This video goes into detail about that:
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
The shots at frames 160 and 223 could not have come from a high powered
rifle. Only one of them was even noticed by most witnesses and it was
frequently described as much different from the ones at the end.
HSCA's tests confirmed that the MC was extremely loud. Even when they
brought in motorcycles the rifle shots completely drowned out all other
noises. They stated that they couldn't understand how anyone would have
thought they were backfires or firecrackers.
The only reason this issue SEEMS complex is, that conspiracy deniers have
had to manufacture so many excuses for why the early shots were totally
different from the much more powerful shots at 285 and 312.
Robert Harris
The Dutchman
> On Nov 24, 11:39 pm, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:> There have many surveys done on the number and direction of the shots. A
> > challenge, or suggestion, for Professor McAdams and his students, or
> > anyone else, for that matter: A study that tries to quantify, using
> > statistics, the spacing of the shots. There seem to be so many accounts of
> > the 2nd and 3rd shots being close together, but is this really the case?
>
> This is an interesting approach that does make sense. A couple of
> people have done exactly that who came up with surprising results. The
> one causing the most reaction was a new theory offered by Max Holland
>
> > I should first ask, does the "indeterminite-ness" of this endeavor make it
> > even worth attempting?
>
> Yes.
>
> > You have a statistical nightmare--the maze of shock wave, muzzle blast,
> > and echo factors, and even the sound of the head impact itself, as
> > sickening as that is to imagine.
>
> A cacophony of confusing sounds causing differing auditory impressions
> on the ear witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
Claviger, thanks for your response, and for the 2 URL's as well. I've come
across the first one but not the second. Extremely interesting. (Now all
I've gotta do is find at least 2 stills, one with no evidence of a dented
traffic light pole, and one with, and then find some tie points in linear
time!) Thanks, Dutchman.
WBurg...@aol.com
While I find "ear witness" testimony not completely reliable, there does
come a time when the BANG.....BANG..BANG sequence of the shooting needs to
be addressed as it was heard by such a majority of people, including
journalist Robert Mc Neil of NBC News, a very respected journalist., whose
account is detailed on youtube.
The Dutchman
project like this one, excepting, of course for the collateral knowledge
one picks up during a discussion of this type. That's why I joined this
board. I can learn more here in one day than I could in a year on youtube!
claviger
> On Nov 24, 11:39 pm, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:> There have many surveys done on the number and direction of the shots. A
> > challenge, or suggestion, for Professor McAdams and his students, or
> > anyone else, for that matter: A study that tries to quantify, using
> > statistics, the spacing of the shots. There seem to be so many accounts of
> > the 2nd and 3rd shots being close together, but is this really the case?
>
> This is an interesting approach that does make sense. A couple of
> people have done exactly that who came up with surprising results. The
> one causing the most reaction was a new theory offered by Max Holland
>
> > I should first ask, does the "indeterminite-ness" of this endeavor make it
> > even worth attempting?
>
> Yes.
>
> > You have a statistical nightmare--the maze of shock wave, muzzle blast,
> > and echo factors, and even the sound of the head impact itself, as
> > sickening as that is to imagine.
>
> A cacophony of confusing sounds causing differing auditory impressions
> on the ear witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
What Holland and Rush are considering is one simple aspect of the shot
pattern. If we can measure the elapsed time by number of frames from the
second shot to the third shot, then we can estimate where the first shot
must have been, assuming the auricular perception by the majority of ear
witnesses is correct. That perception is the second two shots were closer
together than the first two. If true, the first shot could have occurred
just before Zapruder restarted his camera.
It has been pointed out that rifle shots create multiple sounds depending
on where a witness is standing relative to the trajectory. Some have
speculated the two shots on top of each other could have been one shot
with two sound waves or echo. SSA Clint Hill testified it sounded
different from the first shot he heard.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which was splattered with blood and brain matter in front of JFK's
position. But the limo is not the best witness. Zapruder's camera was.
It too shows the dispersal of blood and brain forward from JFK's head.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The problem with relying on people's recollections for the spacing of the
shots is that when people are under stress, things seem to happen faster.
Athletes recognize this phenomona when they move from one level to the
next, high school to college, college to the pros. They talk about how
quickly things seem to happen when they first play at the next level but
after time, they become more comfortable and they talk about how the game
slows down. In the case of the JFK assassination, the first show, which
missed, may have caused more puzzlement in people's mind rather than
stress. For many, the thought was probably more along the lines of "what
was that?". When the second shot rang out, and JFK reacted by raising his
hands in front of his throat, that is probably when people began to
realize what was happening and the stress levels elevated. Suddenly things
would seem to be happening very fast. It is for this reason that any
estimates for the spacing of shots should be taken with a grain of salt.
ShutterBun
> On Nov 24, 11:39 pm, The Dutchman <kks44910...@gmail.com> wrote:> There have many surveys done on the number and direction of the shots. A
> > challenge, or suggestion, for Professor McAdams and his students, or
> > anyone else, for that matter: A study that tries to quantify, using
> > statistics, the spacing of the shots. There seem to be so many accounts of
> > the 2nd and 3rd shots being close together, but is this really the case?
>
> This is an interesting approach that does make sense. A couple of
> people have done exactly that who came up with surprising results. The
> one causing the most reaction was a new theory offered by Max Holland
>
> > I should first ask, does the "indeterminite-ness" of this endeavor make it
> > even worth attempting?
>
> Yes.
>
> > You have a statistical nightmare--the maze of shock wave, muzzle blast,
> > and echo factors, and even the sound of the head impact itself, as
> > sickening as that is to imagine.
>
> A cacophony of confusing sounds causing differing auditory impressions
> on the ear witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
Not to mention a sample group that is NOT AT ALL random, which ANY
statistical survey ought to include. For one: not all earwitnesses
were questioned at all. For another, not all were asked as to the
spacing. For a third point: what criteria constitutes a genuine
"recollection"? An FBI report from that weekend? Later WC
testimony? HSC testimony? ANY statement they EVER gave?
I agree that, given a certain set of criteria, eventually a
preponderance of evidence (or at least a general trend) will emerge,
but since that means (by definition) that a great number of dissenting
witnesses were mistaken, mightn't that be a good reason to simply
throw ALL of their timing estimates out, owing to simple human
fallability?
I realize that the spacing of the shots is of particular interest to
those who seek to exhonerate Oswald via sheer physical impossibility,
but surely there have been plenty of other murder cases (without the
benefit of silent movies) which have been solved without such undue
scrutiny?
The CT'ers, it seems, as opposed to justifying the existence of some
piece of evidence (a bullet fragment, a shell, a witness to a second
gunman, etc.) are instead trying to manufacture "reasons" why they
think the official record is incorrect. In other words, there's no
*real* reason (i.e. physical evidence or unambiguous eyewitness
evidence) to suspect there was a second shooter, but we still think
there was one, so let's see if we can't prove that "mathematically,
there HAD to be a second shooter."
jas
> In article
> <1b85cfc5-42d0-43e0-a4ab-0c49c3292...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
No, it IS complex when you factor in 3 sudden loud gunshots, COMBINED
with their echoes, due to the multiple hard reflective surfaces in
Dealey, as well as the initial confusion in people's minds due to the
sudden and completely unexpected violent events unfolding so quickly
in front of them.
For some reason, some conspiracists as yourself have the completely
unrealistic viewpoint that the assassination happened in some sort of
weird vacuum -- like a slow-motion scene in a movie -- with nothing
else in the environment or in people's unique personal perceptions,
i.e, the HUMAN BRAIN, affecting their initial taking-in, and then
subsequent processing of the events. In reality it doesn't work that
way. In reality, when sudden occurrences such as the JFK assassination
happen they happen very quickly and in a convoluted and busy
environment -- with all sorts of factors affecting people's auditory
and visual perceptions.
And, while we're at it, there was no shot at 285. You think there was
because that's what happens when you don't consider ALL the evidence;
when you derive your conclusions only from an isolated particular few
frames of the Z-film, then over-scrutinize it frame-by-frame thousands
of times until your eyeballs are popping out of your head. You start
seeing/believing things that just aren't there.
Step back, take a breath of fresh air, and then study ALL the
evidence. Only then will you understand there was no shot at 285.
Anthony Marsh
No, it shows blood and brain being blow upwards.
Brigette Kohley
studied many times, and the conclusion has always been that the
perception of time slows down, by roughly half, for people while under
great stress. In other words, people would be far more likely to think
the first two shots were bunched, should the shots have been fired
evenly, than the last two.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
The motorcyclists behind JFK were covered in brains and blood. Jackie
climbed out of the limo to get a piece of skull/brain that had blown
rearwards. I don't recall aver reading anything about Mr and Mrs
Connally being splattered with Kennedy's blood and brains?
Robert Harris
<184e2d50-c929-4c62...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 4:25?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1b85cfc5-42d0-43e0-a4ab-0c49c3292...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
LOL!!
If it was so complex, then why did the large majority of witnesses only
hear one of the two shots at 160 and 223?
Why is it that not even ONE law enforcement professional heard more than
one shot prior to the very end of the attack?? Shouldn't those poor,
confused witnesses have heard at least three or four early shots, all
mixed in with the echoes?
Or, did you really mean that it was only "complex" when you need it to
be?
And how do you explain the reactions and testimonies that confirmed a
shot at 285? Do you think it was an "echo" of the 223 shot the no-one
heard, 3.5 seconds earlier??
The HSCA people conducted listening tests in DP and had no trouble at
all, differentiating the gunshots from the echoes. The DP witnesses
didn't either.
Robert Harris
jas
Yes, the *perception* of the events slow down in people's minds, NOT the
actual events. They play out in real time. And, each person has their own
unique way of remembering things. It is not an "across the board"
equal-among-everyone experience.
There were people there who didn't have a clue as to what had happened
until AFTER the shooting and the limo was speeding to Parkland. They knew
SOMETHING happened, just not exactly what.
Jean Davison
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7506572d-689e-493a...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Thalia,
You can open the Connallys' testimony at this link and do a text
search for "blood" and "brain":
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
John Connally said of the third shot:
"....Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on
the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue,
which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers
there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb,
thumbnail...."
Mrs. Connally:
"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling
all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter,
brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of
us."
Roy Kellerman, in the front seat:
QUOTE:
Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that
was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person,
this stuff all came over.
Senator COOPER. What was that?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Body matter; flesh.
[....]
Mr. SPECTER. When did you first notice the substance which you have
described as body matter?
Mr. KELLERMAN. When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.
UNQUOTE
FBI agent Frazier examined the limo that evening:
"There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the
windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump
seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side rails or
tops of the doors of the car."
Your sources didn't mention all that?
Jean
John McAdams
<jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have a whole page on the "gore" witnesses.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
One would think that anybody, after having been embarrassed time after
time when citing as fact something conspiracy books say (and being
corrected by people like you), would begin to be a bit skeptical.
Thalia, are you lurking?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
They testified that they were splattered by the debris after the head
shot like spent buckshot falling on them.
ShutterBun
So, what's all this about "shot spacing" eh?
Oh, you're all hung up on "who got hit with what."
Turns out: when you shoot someone in the head with a rifle, it's basically
a pinata of blood and brains, and anyone in the vicinity is gonna get
splashed. Is this somehow a point of contention with any known faction of
the assassination?
"Splash happens," yes, I think we can all agree on that. I certainly hope
someone isn't pinning their entire "frontal head-shot" theory on something
like this?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Forward and upwards. There is no visual matter behind the point of the
wound. There was a residual amount of backward splatter but not enough
to be captured Z's camera.
bigdog
>
> The motorcyclists behind JFK were covered in brains and blood. Jackie
> climbed out of the limo to get a piece of skull/brain that had blown
> rearwards. I don't recall aver reading anything about Mr and Mrs
> Connally being splattered with Kennedy's blood and brains?
>
That would be significant if the motorcyclists were stationary but they
were not. They were moving forward into the cloud of matter which is why
they got splattered.
I have experienced the same effect myself. I live on a country road with
numerous potholes. There is one near the end of the road just short of a
stop sign. During heavy rains that pothole fills up. When I hit it with my
front left tire, my windshield gets soaked. There is no way the water can
go from the tire to the windshield. What happens is the tire splashes the
water forward and upward and even though I am slowing down for the stop
sign, I still drive through that splash before the water returns to the
ground. This is essentially what happened to the motorcyclists.
John McAdams
>On Nov 26, 9:48=A0am, Thalia <thaliac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 12:45=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The motorcyclists behind JFK were covered in brains and blood. Jackie
>> climbed out of the limo to get a piece of skull/brain that had blown
>> rearwards. I don't recall aver reading anything about Mr and Mrs
>> Connally being splattered with Kennedy's blood and brains?
>>
>
>That would be significant if the motorcyclists were stationary but they
>were not. They were moving forward into the cloud of matter which is why
>they got splattered.
>
>I have experienced the same effect myself. I live on a country road with
>numerous potholes. There is one near the end of the road just short of a
>stop sign. During heavy rains that pothole fills up. When I hit it with my
>front left tire, my windshield gets soaked. There is no way the water can
>go from the tire to the windshield. What happens is the tire splashes the
>water forward and upward and even though I am slowing down for the stop
>sign, I still drive through that splash before the water returns to the
>ground. This is essentially what happened to the motorcyclists.
>
What you are suggesting is exactly what Bobby Hargis *said* happened.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
<Quote on>
Bethell: But the actual - the fact that you were behind the car
suggests that the shot in fact came from the front and right of the
car.
Hargis: Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along,
but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were
moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this,
and of course I run through it.
<Quote off>
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>
> So, what's all this about "shot spacing" eh?
>
> Oh, you're all hung up on "who got hit with what."
>
> Turns out: when you shoot someone in the head with a rifle, it's basically
> a pinata of blood and brains, and anyone in the vicinity is gonna get
> splashed. Is this somehow a point of contention with any known faction of
> the assassination?
Then why wasn't the WHOLE windshield covered with blood? Why only two
drops and those came from Connally?
claviger
Thalia can do two simple experiments. Have a friend stand a few steps in
front with a can of spray paint. The friend will spray a mist up in the
air. Then she can walk under the mist cloud. See if any paint gets on her
head and clothes. Do it over again but this time have a fan blowing behind
the friend. See what happens then.
It has been confirmed the wind direction had shifted to due west by the
time the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza. The Limousine was headed right
into the wind, so it is predictable the motorcycle escort would have some
blood splatter on their uniform and windshield.
charles
> There have many surveys done on the number and direction of the shots. A
> challenge, or suggestion, for Professor McAdams and his students, or
> anyone else, for that matter: A study that tries to quantify, using
> statistics, the spacing of the shots. There seem to be so many accounts of
> the 2nd and 3rd shots being close together, but is this really the case? I
> should first ask, does the "indeterminite-ness" of this endeavor make it
> even worth attempting? You have a statistical nightmare--the maze of shock
> wave, muzzle blast, and echo factors, and even the sound of the head
> impact itself, as sickening as that is to imagine.
Let us examine some of the facts and theories in order to know what is
reasonable or not reasonable in the shooting sequence. The Secret Service
agents Greer and Hickey said the last two shots were one right after the
other. They said there was a pause in the shooting before these last two
shots. Greer and Hickey's accounts are supported by many other accounts.
Okay let's look at the majority of the 'Oswald did it alone' crowd theory.
Single bullet theory shot at approximately Z225 and a missed shot before
this one and a final shot at Z312. We know Zapruder's camera was running
at 18.3 frames per second according to the FBI. So the last two shots
were approximately 5 seconds apart according to the 'Oswald did it alone'
crowd. Let's say the pause before the last two shots was 5 seconds making
the shots equally spaced according to the 'Oswald did it alone' crowd.
That would put the first shot at the approximate instant when Zapruder
first started filming the motorcade. No witnesses exist for this
scenario. Okay then the first two shots were closer together than the
last two according to the 'Oswald did it alone' crowd even though the
majority of the witnesses say just the opposite. If we decide well Z225
was the first shot and the last was at Z312 then the missed shot was in
between then the shots were spaced approximately at 2.5 seconds apart.
But this would mean Gov. Connally was wrong when he said there was a shot
before the one that hit him.
The only thing we can be certain of about the sequence of shots is that
the 'Oswald did it alone' crowd are unreasonable in their theories. They
ignore the majority of witnesses. The shooting did not happen the way the
'Oswald did it alone' crowd said it did.
Charles
claviger
You need to read this article:
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2007/11/nyt.html#comments
According to Gary Mack there was a witness for an early shot named Tina
Towner. Also, witness testimony by Vickie Adams, Emmett J Hudson and
Rosemary Willis indicates an early shot. Perhaps the best witness is Gov.
Connally who heard a shot prior to z160.
charles
The actual shooting sequence that took place will not get discussed
here because we will never get passed the eroneous versions of the
'Oswald did it alone' crowd. The article you referred me to is another
theory that cannot be correct. Secret Service Agent Hickey wrote his
account of what took place that very day and he was just feet away
from JFK in the car behind. He said there was almost no time element
in between the last two shots. Now he did make a mistake in his
written account but he wrote what he observed. He said the last shot
hit JFK in the head because the one preceding that caused JFK's hair
to flare up and must have missed. Well, we know by watching the
Zapruder film that the hair flare up was the head shot and the scalp
flap with hair had to be what Hickey saw. Therefore there was a shot
immediately after the shot at Z312.
The first bullet hit the light pole theory ignores the 'Oswald did it
alone' crowd's major first bullet indicator evidence. Namely, the
little girl running and stopping at the sound of the first shot.
There just is not any shot spacing theory put forth by the 'Oswald did
it alone' crowd that is ever going to match the evidence because if
you match the evidence you will prove the shooting was done by at
least two people.
Charles
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:790b2921-9538-4685...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
claviger
The little girl running and stopping is Rosemary Willis mentioned above.
There are several witnesses to an early shot miss. Gov. Connally
recognized the first loud pop as a rifle shot. His body language is
obvious and the expression on his face is grim. The first shot took place
somewhere between z130 and z160, which is less than 2 seconds. So a
possible timeframe of 5.2 - 3.8 seconds from the first shot to the second
shot, and 4.8 sec between the last two shots. The only way for the
majority perception of the ear witnesses to be correct is an early shot
miss. There are other solutions to consider. The majority of witnesses
could have 'lost' the first shot, meaning not register in memory at the
time, and what they heard was the second shot and last shot with an echo
or double sound wave. The other possibility is the Donahue theory.
Anthony Marsh
> Governor Connally NEVER said he heard a shot "prior to Z-160" ! ! !
>
>
Connally never specified Z-160. He did specify that he was hit at about
Z-230 and he heard a shot before that.
Anthony Marsh
I don't get that? Some WC defenders can admit that the shots were not
evenly spaced and some conspiracy believers have minority views about the
spacing. Whether the spacing was close or the first two shots were closer
than the last two does no ipso facto prove conspiracy. Even some WC
defenders could theoretically believe that the first shot hit, the second
shot missed.
> theory that cannot be correct. Secret Service Agent Hickey wrote his
> account of what took place that very day and he was just feet away
> from JFK in the car behind. He said there was almost no time element
So what? He was not as close as the people who were actually in the limo.
And he is not the best witness available. Never rely on witnesses.
> in between the last two shots. Now he did make a mistake in his
> written account but he wrote what he observed. He said the last shot
> hit JFK in the head because the one preceding that caused JFK's hair
> to flare up and must have missed. Well, we know by watching the
> Zapruder film that the hair flare up was the head shot and the scalp
> flap with hair had to be what Hickey saw. Therefore there was a shot
> immediately after the shot at Z312.
>
Sure, but what if Hickey was partially correct? He saw the hair fly up
and then he heard another shot. The last shot from the TSBD, after the
head shot.
> The first bullet hit the light pole theory ignores the 'Oswald did it
> alone' crowd's major first bullet indicator evidence. Namely, the
I don't believe that bullet actually hit the light pole support bar, but a
shot that early is not ruled out by witnesses. It is ruled out by a
careful examination of the acoustical evidence which places the first shot
at about Z-180.
> little girl running and stopping at the sound of the first shot.
I don't think Rosemary ever said it was absolutely the first shot fired.
Just that she stopped when she heard "a" shot. She might not have even
heard the first shot. But the acoustical evidence confirms that she did
hear the first shot and reacted to it by stopping.
> There just is not any shot spacing theory put forth by the 'Oswald did
> it alone' crowd that is ever going to match the evidence because if
> you match the evidence you will prove the shooting was done by at
> least two people.
>
I have yet to find any WC defender brave enough to suggest that Kennedy
and Connally were hit by separate bullets. They can move the SBT around to
different frames to fit their particular spacing, but they still need a
missed shot and few want it to be the second shot.
> Charles
>
Anthony Marsh
He never said that. You are making up crap again. There could have been
an early missed shot, but you can't specify the exact frame.
tomnln
JBC Volume IV page 145 "Between frames 131-134".
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b159023$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
claviger
> He never said that. You are making up crap again. There could have been
> an early missed shot, but you can't specify the exact frame.
There you go again. Here is what Mack put in writing.
Email by Gary Mack in response to Max Holland:
___________________________________________________
"One of the best witnesses is photographer Tina Towner. Tina has
always been specific that the first shot came just a second or two
AFTER she stopped filming; she actually stopped only a second or two
before Z133. Your hypotheses, that the first shot came while the limo
was in the middle of the first pair of road stripes (or earlier),
requires the first shot to have been fired one or two seconds BEFORE
Towner stopped filming. That just can't be true. Take a look at the
full frame Towner film we used in the Discovery Channel show "Death In
Dealey Plaza" and watch for the road stripes. Towner could not
possibly have been confused about when the first shot was fired in
relation to when her film ended.
"Other evidence is even more powerful. A recorded interview with DPD
Sgt. Jim Chaney the afternoon of the assassination places the first
shot at around Z160. Chaney, riding only a few feet to the right rear
of the limo, explained that the first shot came as Jackie was "looking
to her left." She does that, very briefly, around Z160 (see the Croft
#3 photo for reference). That frame happens to fall some two or three
seconds after Towner stopped filming.
___________________________________________________
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/max-hollands-11-seconds-in-dallas.html
Mack says Towner stopped filming "only a second or two before z133",
so the shot could have been right at the time Zapruder started filming
again. Even if we add 1 or 2 seconds to z133 we get z150 - z170.
However, by z160 Governor Connally is already turned his head and is
staring intently to his right with a frown on his face, which matches
his testimony. If he took a split second to turn his head the shot was
more like z150-155.
tomnln
JBC Volume IV page 145 "Between frames 131-134".
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b159023$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
charles
You are grapping at straws with the echo theory. The Secret Service guys
knew how to discern gunfire much better than the average person. They said
the gunfire ended with a double bang. Oswald's rifle was bolt operated and
took 2.3 seconds minimum between shots according to FBI tests. Your only
shot spacing could be the first shot at approximately Z225 then a missed
shot 2.4 seconds later and with the final shot at Z312. The problem is it
does not match Gov. Connally and Rosemary Willis accounts.
If you claim Rosemary Willis did stop running in response to a shot then
it is more reasonable to believe that she was responding to a shot she
heard at about Z180 or so rather than some shot 3 seconds earlier than
that. Witnesses can get things wrong but they also can be very helpful in
matching photo and film evidence with what they heard and saw. If you
wish to say she didn't hear and respond to the shot at Z130 then you are
saying there was 4 shots if you add them up.
There simply is no reasonable shot spacing scenario put forth by the
'Oswald did it alone' crowd. You may delude yourself into thinking there
is one but please don't examine the evidence available with any such
shooting scenario or you will be sorely disappointed.
Charles
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony wrote: I have yet to find any WC defender brave enough to suggest
that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate bullets.
Tony correct me if I'm wrong but don't the FBI believe that Kennedy and
Connally were hit with separate bullets? The FBI to my knowledge does not
go beyond this point to specify a shooting scenario though.
Charles
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> He never said that. You are making up crap again. There could have been
>> an early missed shot, but you can't specify the exact frame.
>
> There you go again. Here is what Mack put in writing.
>
> Email by Gary Mack in response to Max Holland:
> ___________________________________________________
>
> "One of the best witnesses is photographer Tina Towner. Tina has
> always been specific that the first shot came just a second or two
> AFTER she stopped filming; she actually stopped only a second or two
> before Z133. Your hypotheses, that the first shot came while the limo
> was in the middle of the first pair of road stripes (or earlier),
> requires the first shot to have been fired one or two seconds BEFORE
> Towner stopped filming. That just can't be true. Take a look at the
> full frame Towner film we used in the Discovery Channel show "Death In
> Dealey Plaza" and watch for the road stripes. Towner could not
> possibly have been confused about when the first shot was fired in
> relation to when her film ended.
>
Aside from the fact that Gary Mack is a known liar and professional
disinformation agent, I have no problem with witnesses thinking they heard
or hearing an early shot. I also think the first shot missed. It's just
that YOU can't take someone's vague recollection and use it like an atomic
clock. If we add together the two seconds before Z-133, which BTW you have
not proven and then add back in two seconds after that we get around
Z-133. But no one's memory is accurate down to the millisecond and you
have not proven your synchronization of her film with the Zapruder film.
So all you have so far is guesswork. I can guess too. So I guess that the
sychronization was only 1 second before Z-133 and her hearing the shot was
3 seconds after she stopped filming. That puts the shot 2 seconds after
Z-133. At 18.3 frames per second those 3 seconds equals 55 frames. Add
that to Z-133 and you arrive at Z-188, very close to when the HSCA said
the second shot happened. Even using 2 seconds after she stopped filming
gives us 36 frames, which is at Z-169, just a little after when the HSCA
said the first shot missed. All substantially later than Z-150 which is
when some WC defenders say there was a missed shot. My missed shot is not
earlier than Z-133 and I am not sure who has that theory. Harris won't
admit when he thought it came. My missed shot is based almost entirely on
a reexamination of the acoustical evidence. I place it at around Z-180.
I don't know that Max Holland specified an exact frame, but I estimated
that a shot hitting the traffic light support bar would be based on aiming
at where the President was at about Z-152.
A missed shot then is theoretically possible, but it does not show up in
the acoustical evidence.
So, If I fudge the times as I want them instead of the way Mack does I can
find corroboration in Tina Tower that the missed shot was at Z-180. But he
is correct that her recollection does not support a missed shot before
Z-133. I am not sure that Max Holland claimed the exact frame and that he
said it was earlier than Z-133.
> "Other evidence is even more powerful. A recorded interview with DPD
> Sgt. Jim Chaney the afternoon of the assassination places the first
> shot at around Z160. Chaney, riding only a few feet to the right rear
> of the limo, explained that the first shot came as Jackie was "looking
> to her left." She does that, very briefly, around Z160 (see the Croft
> #3 photo for reference). That frame happens to fall some two or three
> seconds after Towner stopped filming.
Again, pretty subjective. Picking an event and then looking for it to
happen ONLY when you want it to happen.
> ___________________________________________________
>
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/max-hollands-11-seconds-in-dallas.html
>
> Mack says Towner stopped filming "only a second or two before z133",
> so the shot could have been right at the time Zapruder started filming
> again. Even if we add 1 or 2 seconds to z133 we get z150 - z170.
> However, by z160 Governor Connally is already turned his head and is
> staring intently to his right with a frown on his face, which matches
> his testimony. If he took a split second to turn his head the shot was
> more like z150-155.
>
>
I personally do not believe the missed shot was that early, but that time
frame matches when the shooter's aim would be blocked by the traffic light
support bar.
Now, I hate to get all technical on you and you can ignore this detail if
it goes above your head (like Walker), but some lurker in the year 3031
may see the importance of a minute detail. Because of tracking and the
very high trajectory of Oswald's bullets, the shooter might think that he
is seeing his target through the scope just BEFORE it is blocked by the
traffic light support bar before Z-150 and squeeze off the shot. But by
the time the bullet leaves the barrel and gets onto its path the bullet is
going farther down Elm than when he aimed, so it then hits the traffic
light support bar.
Anthony Marsh
That is certainly what the FBI believed at the time. But they also thought
it was a conspiracy and did not believe the WC conclusions. I still think
that it is theoretically possible for some WC defender to not accept the
SBT, but I have yet to see it. Connally said that he supported the WC
conclusions, but could never accept the SBT. The WC itself said that the
SBT was not essential to its conclusions.
The FBI said and the WC agreed until Specter dreamed up his SBT, that the
first shot his Kennedy's back, the second shot hit Connally and the last
shot hit Kennedy in the head.
ShutterBun
> On 11/27/2009 1:29 PM, ShutterBun wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, what's all this about "shot spacing" eh?
>
> > Oh, you're all hung up on "who got hit with what."
>
> > Turns out: when you shoot someone in the head with a rifle, it's basically
> > a pinata of blood and brains, and anyone in the vicinity is gonna get
> > splashed. Is this somehow a point of contention with any known faction of
> > the assassination?
>
> Then why wasn't the WHOLE windshield covered with blood? Why only two
> drops and those came from Connally?
I wasn't aware they had blood-typed the windshield splatters, but I have
no doubt you can back that statement up. Although, as we have discussed
in the past, I have my own theories as to the *frontside* of the
windshield.
Why wasn't the whole windshield covered in blood? Well, what can I tell
you? Ride around in a convertible at about 25 mph (the effective
wind-speed of the limo at the time) and spray a bottle of water at a
semi-upward angle from the back seat. See where the water goes. My guess
is: it goes up & forward for a few feet, then flies right back at you.
Granted, we're not talking about bullet-wound velocities here, but the
experiment still has merit. "Inside the Target Car" did a pretty good job
of trying to duplicate this, though I suppose a fertile imagination can
overcome it.
Was only Connally's blood found on the inside of the windshield? Fine
with me. He was both lower and closer to it. Less chance for the wind to
catch it. I'd still like to know how that was determined, though. I
haven't seen that claim made before. I still agree with those who say
there was also matter on the FRONT side of the windshield (courtesey of
your own hi-res photos of same) which suggest that at least some material
travelled forward far enough to be "encountered" by the windshield.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 7:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2009 1:29 PM, ShutterBun wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, what's all this about "shot spacing" eh?
>>
>>> Oh, you're all hung up on "who got hit with what."
>>
>>> Turns out: when you shoot someone in the head with a rifle, it's basically
>>> a pinata of blood and brains, and anyone in the vicinity is gonna get
>>> splashed. Is this somehow a point of contention with any known faction of
>>> the assassination?
>>
>> Then why wasn't the WHOLE windshield covered with blood? Why only two
>> drops and those came from Connally?
>
> I wasn't aware they had blood-typed the windshield splatters, but I have
> no doubt you can back that statement up. Although, as we have discussed
> in the past, I have my own theories as to the *frontside* of the
> windshield.
I think that's my point. That the DOJ refused to blood-type the
windshield splatters.
>
> Why wasn't the whole windshield covered in blood? Well, what can I tell
> you? Ride around in a convertible at about 25 mph (the effective
> wind-speed of the limo at the time) and spray a bottle of water at a
> semi-upward angle from the back seat. See where the water goes. My guess
Not a correct analogy. We are talking about a gunshot.
> is: it goes up& forward for a few feet, then flies right back at you.
> Granted, we're not talking about bullet-wound velocities here, but the
> experiment still has merit. "Inside the Target Car" did a pretty good job
> of trying to duplicate this, though I suppose a fertile imagination can
> overcome it.
Inside the Target Car was a hoax.
>
> Was only Connally's blood found on the inside of the windshield? Fine
> with me. He was both lower and closer to it. Less chance for the wind to
> catch it. I'd still like to know how that was determined, though. I
> haven't seen that claim made before. I still agree with those who say
> there was also matter on the FRONT side of the windshield (courtesey of
> your own hi-res photos of same) which suggest that at least some material
> travelled forward far enough to be "encountered" by the windshield.
>
Yeah, then SHOW me this matter. You may be looking at an optical illusion.
>
claviger
Remember the driver paused at the very moment of the head shot, so it
certainly is possible for brain matter exploding in plumes above the
Limousine to end up on the windshield. It would be a logical result of
a bullet wound tunnel from back to front. Because the President was
leaning forward and slightly to the left the exit trajectory blasted
out the top of the head spreading cranial fluid upward and forward.
The fact the Connallys were sprayed with bone, blood, and brain matter
corroborates this fact. If the shot had come from the GK then we would
expect to find very little spray in the front and most of it on the
trunk. That didn't happen.
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
A shot at Z160 or Z180 hitting Kennedy, another shot at Z230 hitting
Connally, and the final shot at Z312 of course does not match the ear
witness evidence of 'a shot then a pause followed by two shots in
quick succession'. Anyone who tries to have one shooter using
Oswald's rifle do all of the shooting will not be in harmony with the
available evidence.
Charles
claviger
Here are some lengthy discussions about shot sequence. You can pull
them up using the search box at the top.
1) Missing the first shot
2) The last three loud shots
3) single-bullet logic
4) sbt or single bullet fact?
claviger
I must say this is one of the best messages you have ever posted. Very
well written.
> Aside from the fact that Gary Mack is a known liar and professional
> disinformation agent,
I don’t remember you expressing this opinion when he was a CT advocate
who discovered Badgeman and believed in the acoustic evidence.
> I have no problem with witnesses thinking they heard or hearing
> an early shot.
Nor do I.
> I also think the first shot missed.
Ditto.
> It's just that YOU can't take someone's vague recollection and use it
> like an atomic clock.
I agree, but I do think a couple of seconds is an understandable
concept. We even say “One thousand, two thousand,....” to estimate
passing seconds, so it is something even a child can grasp.
> If we add together the two seconds before Z-133, which BTW you have
> not proven and then add back in two seconds after that we get around
> Z-133.
I assume Mack is quoting correctly from conversations with Tina
Towner.
> But no one's memory is accurate down to the millisecond and you
> have not proven your synchronization of her film with the Zapruder film.
Mack claims Tina Towner relates to the timing of the first loud sound
with her filming of the motorcade.
> So all you have so far is guesswork. I can guess too.
Yes, a lot of guesswork involved in this case. Based on what I’ve read
you are very well experienced in guesswork. In fact, I consider you an
expert guessologist.
> So I guess that the
> sychronization was only 1 second before Z-133 and her hearing the shot was
> 3 seconds after she stopped filming. That puts the shot 2 seconds after
> Z-133. At 18.3 frames per second those 3 seconds equals 55 frames. Add
> that to Z-133 and you arrive at Z-188, very close to when the HSCA said
> the second shot happened. Even using 2 seconds after she stopped filming
> gives us 36 frames, which is at Z-169, just a little after when the HSCA
> said the first shot missed. All substantially later than Z-150 which is
> when some WC defenders say there was a missed shot.
I’m using the assumption that Towner is being quoted correctly and she
remembers the first shot simultaneous with the moment she stopped
filming. Under the circumstances I think that is something a person
would distinctly remember as a witness.
> My missed shot is not
> earlier than Z-133 and I am not sure who has that theory. Harris won't
> admit when he thought it came. My missed shot is based almost entirely on
> a reexamination of the acoustical evidence. I place it at around Z-180.
Possibly, but JBC had already turned to the right by then, so
according to his testimony he heard the sound prior to his position at
z180.
> I don't know that Max Holland specified an exact frame, but I estimated
> that a shot hitting the traffic light support bar would be based on aiming
> at where the President was at about Z-152.
He does not specify an exact frame.
http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
> A missed shot then is theoretically possible, but it does not show up in
> the acoustical evidence.
Doesn’t the “acoustic evidence” indicate 5 or 6 shots? I know that
makes you happy since you believe in a 5 shot scenario, none of which
struck the back of the head.
> Again, pretty subjective. Picking an event and then looking for it to
> happen ONLY when you want it to happen.
The first shot is definitely the hardest one to identify. I’m
convinced it came no later than the first tree on the north side of
Elm Street. That might be early enough to match the auricular
perception by the majority of ear witnesses, but just barely.
> I personally do not believe the missed shot was that early, but that time
> frame matches when the shooter's aim would be blocked by the traffic light
> support bar.
Interesting observation.
> Now, I hate to get all technical on you and you can ignore this detail if
> it goes above your head (like Walker), but some lurker in the year 3031
> may see the importance of a minute detail. Because of tracking and the
> very high trajectory of Oswald's bullets, the shooter might think that he
> is seeing his target through the scope just BEFORE it is blocked by the
> traffic light support bar before Z-150 and squeeze off the shot. But by
> the time the bullet leaves the barrel and gets onto its path the bullet is
> going farther down Elm than when he aimed, so it then hits the traffic
> light support bar.
Very interesting conclusion. This could explain why LHO missed so
completely when a kid with a slingshot could have put one in the
Limousine from the 6th floor window.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 2, 11:11 pm, ShutterBun<shutter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 7:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/27/2009 1:29 PM, ShutterBun wrote:
>>
>>>> So, what's all this about "shot spacing" eh?
>>
>>>> Oh, you're all hung up on "who got hit with what."
>>
>>>> Turns out: when you shoot someone in the head with a rifle, it's basically
>>>> a pinata of blood and brains, and anyone in the vicinity is gonna get
>>>> splashed. Is this somehow a point of contention with any known faction of
>>>> the assassination?
>>
>>> Then why wasn't the WHOLE windshield covered with blood? Why only two
>>> drops and those came from Connally?
>>
>> I wasn't aware they had blood-typed the windshield splatters, but I have
>> no doubt you can back that statement up. Although, as we have discussed
>> in the past, I have my own theories as to the *frontside* of the
>> windshield.
>>
>> Why wasn't the whole windshield covered in blood? Well, what can I tell
>> you? Ride around in a convertible at about 25 mph (the effective
>> wind-speed of the limo at the time) and spray a bottle of water at a
>> semi-upward angle from the back seat. See where the water goes. My guess
>> Granted, we're not talking about bullet-wound velocities here, but the
>> experiment still has merit. "Inside the Target Car" did a pretty good job
>> of trying to duplicate this, though I suppose a fertile imagination can
>> overcome it.
>>
>> Was only Connally's blood found on the inside of the windshield? Fine
>> with me. He was both lower and closer to it. Less chance for the wind to
>> catch it. I'd still like to know how that was determined, though. I
>> haven't seen that claim made before. I still agree with those who say
>> there was also matter on the FRONT side of the windshield (courtesey of
>> your own hi-res photos of same) which suggest that at least some material
>> travelled forward far enough to be "encountered" by the windshield.
>
> Remember the driver paused at the very moment of the head shot, so it
> certainly is possible for brain matter exploding in plumes above the
> Limousine to end up on the windshield. It would be a logical result of
> a bullet wound tunnel from back to front. Because the President was
> leaning forward and slightly to the left the exit trajectory blasted
> out the top of the head spreading cranial fluid upward and forward.
> The fact the Connallys were sprayed with bone, blood, and brain matter
> corroborates this fact. If the shot had come from the GK then we would
> expect to find very little spray in the front and most of it on the
> trunk. That didn't happen.
>
>
THAT is exactly what happened. Very little spray on the windshield and
most of it on the trunk. Thanks for proving my theory!
bigdog
Witness evidence is the most unreliable form of evidence. The human brain
is not equipped with a DVR and most people don't remember things
perfectly, especially events that catch them completely off guard. They
remember bits and pieces, images and sounds but they don't always put them
together in their proper sequence. The fact that witnesses differed on the
number of shots, the direction of shots, and the spacing of the shots
illustrates this perfectly. Whatever went down in Dealey Plaza, one thing
that can be said with absolute certainty is that large numbers of people
got it wrong when the reported what they remembered. If most of the them
had gotten it right, there would be widespread agreement on all those key
points. There is not.
JFK was not his by a shot at about Z160. That shot missed. He and Connally
were both hit by the subsequent shot at or about Z222. Both men are seem
reacting to that shot between frames Z225 and Z226. Z230 is about a half
second after the shot hit.
claviger
Nice try, but not even close. The Connallys were covered with brain
matter. And they weren't sitting on the trunk.
charles
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree witnesses made mistakes in their accounts of what they experienced
but there also are elements of just about everything that happened. For
instance, one witness said that the first shot sounded like a firecracker
but who counts the number of pops in a firecracker. If you examine all
the available evidence you should find that the shooting sounds that day
were 'pop...pop...POW.. (pause)..POW.POW. Three shots from Oswald's rifle
and two from another rifle.
Charles
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
> I must say this is one of the best messages you have ever posted. Very
> well written.
>
>> Aside from the fact that Gary Mack is a known liar and professional
>> disinformation agent,
>
> who discovered Badgeman and believed in the acoustic evidence.
>
Of course you don't remember because you were not at that conference. You
were never at any researcher conference. The moment they showed that Badge
Man theory I said he was a liar.
Gary Mack did not just believe in the acoustical evidence. He is the guy
who thought up the idea that the shots might be on the tape. You also
weren't at the conference where I took Robert Groden to task for his
continued claim about the second rifle seen in the Mentesana film.
>> I have no problem with witnesses thinking they heard or hearing
>> an early shot.
> Nor do I.
>
>> I also think the first shot missed.
> Ditto.
>
>> It's just that YOU can't take someone's vague recollection and use it
>> like an atomic clock.
>
> I agree, but I do think a couple of seconds is an understandable
> concept. We even say ?One thousand, two thousand,....? to estimate
> passing seconds, so it is something even a child can grasp.
Sure, so you think when a witness says one or two seconds that means it
was EXACTLY 2.0 seconds? Then why did he say one OR two? Why did Zapruder
say he couldn't tell if the head shot was one or two shots?
>
>> If we add together the two seconds before Z-133, which BTW you have
>> not proven and then add back in two seconds after that we get around
>> Z-133.
>
> I assume Mack is quoting correctly from conversations with Tina
> Towner.
>
Wonderful. What does that have to do with the issue?
>> But no one's memory is accurate down to the millisecond and you
>> have not proven your synchronization of her film with the Zapruder film.
> Mack claims Tina Towner relates to the timing of the first loud sound
> with her filming of the motorcade.
>
So what?
>> So all you have so far is guesswork. I can guess too.
>
> Yes, a lot of guesswork involved in this case. Based on what I?ve read
> you are very well experienced in guesswork. In fact, I consider you an
> expert guessologist.
>
>> So I guess that the
>> sychronization was only 1 second before Z-133 and her hearing the shot was
>> 3 seconds after she stopped filming. That puts the shot 2 seconds after
>> Z-133. At 18.3 frames per second those 3 seconds equals 55 frames. Add
>> that to Z-133 and you arrive at Z-188, very close to when the HSCA said
>> the second shot happened. Even using 2 seconds after she stopped filming
>> gives us 36 frames, which is at Z-169, just a little after when the HSCA
>> said the first shot missed. All substantially later than Z-150 which is
>> when some WC defenders say there was a missed shot.
>
> I?m using the assumption that Towner is being quoted correctly and she
> remembers the first shot simultaneous with the moment she stopped
> filming. Under the circumstances I think that is something a person
> would distinctly remember as a witness.
>
>> My missed shot is not
>> earlier than Z-133 and I am not sure who has that theory. Harris won't
>> admit when he thought it came. My missed shot is based almost entirely on
>> a reexamination of the acoustical evidence. I place it at around Z-180.
>
> Possibly, but JBC had already turned to the right by then, so
> according to his testimony he heard the sound prior to his position at
> z180.
>
Another Harris type of analysis.
>> I don't know that Max Holland specified an exact frame, but I estimated
>> that a shot hitting the traffic light support bar would be based on aiming
>> at where the President was at about Z-152.
>
> He does not specify an exact frame.
> http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
>
I would guess he is not 100% sure, but thinks it is in the range of the
early Z-150s.
As I said before, I am not sure either, but if the scope was used it
would be at about Z-152.
>> A missed shot then is theoretically possible, but it does not show up in
>> the acoustical evidence.
>
> Doesn?t the ?acoustic evidence? indicate 5 or 6 shots? I know that
> makes you happy since you believe in a 5 shot scenario, none of which
> struck the back of the head.
>
Someone can make an argument for 6 shots, but I would argue against
that. The HSCA said 4 shots. Don Thomas and I say 5 shots.
My match-up of the shot precludes a back of the head shot. Others can.
>> Again, pretty subjective. Picking an event and then looking for it to
>> happen ONLY when you want it to happen.
>
> The first shot is definitely the hardest one to identify. I?m
> convinced it came no later than the first tree on the north side of
> Elm Street. That might be early enough to match the auricular
> perception by the majority of ear witnesses, but just barely.
>
See Six Seconds in Dallas.
>> I personally do not believe the missed shot was that early, but that time
>> frame matches when the shooter's aim would be blocked by the traffic light
>> support bar.
>
> Interesting observation.
>
>> Now, I hate to get all technical on you and you can ignore this detail if
>> it goes above your head (like Walker), but some lurker in the year 3031
>> may see the importance of a minute detail. Because of tracking and the
>> very high trajectory of Oswald's bullets, the shooter might think that he
>> is seeing his target through the scope just BEFORE it is blocked by the
>> traffic light support bar before Z-150 and squeeze off the shot. But by
>> the time the bullet leaves the barrel and gets onto its path the bullet is
>> going farther down Elm than when he aimed, so it then hits the traffic
>> light support bar.
>
> Very interesting conclusion. This could explain why LHO missed so
> completely when a kid with a slingshot could have put one in the
> Limousine from the 6th floor window.
>
That is what Max Holland is attempting to explain.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
I wasn't talking about the Connallys. I was talking about the windshield.
Debris can only exit where there is a hole on the skull.
claviger
> > I don't know that Max Holland specified an exact frame, but I estimated
> > that a shot hitting the traffic light support bar would be based on aiming
> > at where the President was at about Z-152.
> He does not specify an exact frame.http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
The first camera jiggle comes z134.
Anthony Marsh
Thanks. Z-133 is when he starts filming again. Please examine frames 1
through 132 and tell me if any of them have a jiggle.
claviger
I've never paid much attention to jiggle analysis but now that I do it is
very interesting. Per your suggestion I looked at frames z001-132, and saw
several blurring and out of focus frames, but nothing compared to the
sudden reaction like z134 and z158-159. Those look much more pronounced
than the others. So z134 could be a delayed reaction to a shot prior to
z133. The reaction at z158 is very interesting because so many other
indications point to a shot around z160. While I believe the Holland-Rush
theory is plausible, I'm inclined towards the first shot miss near z160.
That would be about a 3.5 sec gap between shot 1 and 2. Plenty of time to
re-chamber and re-acquire the target. Only problem is it contradicts the
auricular perception by a majority of ear witnesses (3.5 vs 4.8), which
makes me think a lot of those witnesses may not have registered the first
loud sound as a shot, and their recognition begins with shot 2 along with
a double sound wave at shot 3.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 6, 10:54 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/6/2009 10:33 AM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony,
>>
>>>>> I don't know that Max Holland specified an exact frame, but I estimated
>>>>> that a shot hitting the traffic light support bar would be based on aiming
>>>>> at where the President was at about Z-152.
>>>> He does not specify an exact frame.http://hnn.us/articles/35445.html
>>> The first camera jiggle comes z134.
>>
>> Thanks. Z-133 is when he starts filming again. Please examine frames 1
>> through 132 and tell me if any of them have a jiggle.
>
> I've never paid much attention to jiggle analysis but now that I do it is
> very interesting. Per your suggestion I looked at frames z001-132, and saw
> several blurring and out of focus frames, but nothing compared to the
> sudden reaction like z134 and z158-159. Those look much more pronounced
Gee, that was fun, wasn't it? And you didn't learn anything in the process.
> than the others. So z134 could be a delayed reaction to a shot prior to
> z133. The reaction at z158 is very interesting because so many other
Again you reveal the fact that you know nothing about the Zapruder film.
You are talking as if frame Z-132 is just a few milliseconds before frame
Z-134. But in fact it is several seconds. Zapruder paused filming for
several seconds between Z-132 and Z-133. So anything you see in Z-134 is
probably not a jiggle reaction to a shot. Could be, but more likely is a
jiggle reaction to pulling the trigger on the camera. Are you supposed to
inhale while you pull the trigger, or exhale while you pull the trigger or
hold your breath or not take a breath?
> indications point to a shot around z160. While I believe the Holland-Rush
> theory is plausible, I'm inclined towards the first shot miss near z160.
So you agree with the HSCA acoustical evidence?
> That would be about a 3.5 sec gap between shot 1 and 2. Plenty of time to
> re-chamber and re-acquire the target. Only problem is it contradicts the
> auricular perception by a majority of ear witnesses (3.5 vs 4.8), which
> makes me think a lot of those witnesses may not have registered the first
> loud sound as a shot, and their recognition begins with shot 2 along with
> a double sound wave at shot 3.
>
>
Maybe, but which witnesses and which double sound wave at what locations?
Some people can not hear the shock wave depending on where they stand.
>
>
>
>
WhiskyJoe
> Bigdog:
> The problem with relying on people's
> recollections for the spacing of the
> shots is that when people are under
> stress, things seem to happen faster.
> Athletes recognize this phenomena when
> they move from one level to the
> next, high school to college, college
> to the pros. They talk about how quickly
> things seem to happen when they first
> play at the next level but after time,
> they become more comfortable and they
> talk about how the game slows down.
>Brigette Kohley:
> bigdog, the effect of trauma on the
> perception of time has been studied
> many times, and the conclusion has
> always been that the perception of
> time slows down, by roughly half,
> for people while under great stress.
> In other words, people would be far
> more likely to think the first two
> shots were bunched, should the shots
> have been fired evenly, than the last
> two.
My own limited experience leads me to believe
that Bigdog is right on this issue. I haven't
been in a lot of stressful dangerous situations
and the few times I have I have no way to gauge
how much real time passed by compared to my
perceptions.
But there was one incidence. I did some
skydiving, about 35 jumps. Typically it
takes a couple of seconds for a parachute
to open once it starts to deploy. If one
is falling in a very stable position, the
parachute might not deploy immediately
because the drogue chute which catches
the wind and pulls out the main chute,
may be stuck in a partial vacuum above
one's back. As soon as one moves a arm
or something, the wind can get to it
and the drogue chute pulls out the
main chute.
One of my early jumps, I pulled after
10 seconds and suddenly realized that
nothing was happening. I was suddenly
scared and immediately found that my
main chute was deploying. What happened
was that as soon as I got scared I forgot
the training and went to pull the reserved
chute, without any conscious thought on my
part. As soon as I moved my arm, the wind
must have hit the drogue chute and pulled
open my main chute, just before I would
have pulled the reserve.
Now I know from experience, that there must
have been two or three seconds, from the
time I realized my chute wasn't deploying
until it did deploy. But it didn't seem
like that to me. Instead, I was suddenly
scared and what seemed be within a second
my chute was deploying. I am certain that
time did not seem to slow down but speeded
up a lot. Three seconds seemed like one
second.
As Bigdog pointed out, maybe with a lot
of experience a person can learn to slow
down time and be a good NFL player.
But I think that for most people, if you
just plugged them into the middle
linebacker position, on run up the middle
play, the ball would be hiked, they would
suddenly get scared and then before they
knew it, get run over. I don't think time
would slow down for most people in that
situation. It would seem to happen a lot
faster than what they see on TV.
Perhaps the key to slowing the game down,
which good players must learn to do,
is to build on small successes, to gain
confidence, which reduces stress and
slows the game down.
****************************************
In any case, the main problem is that
eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
And if one has 100 eyewitnesses that
still doesn't make it reliable.
There can be reasons for the eyewitness
errors to be non random and hence not
balance out and cause systematic errors.
Maybe the stress level was not constant
and that distorted people's perception
of time.
Maybe one rifle shot makes a double sound,
a "crack-thump" and the time interval is
greater the further the bullet travels
and so the sounds are most distinct,
most easily recognized as two sounds,
and so most easily mistaken for two shots,
for the shot that went furthest,
the third shot.
Maybe gravity will drag blood and gore down
so eyewitnesses won't make random errors in
the location of a head wound but will
systematically make the same error and
report the wound being right where
gravity carried the blood and gore,
toward the back of the head.
Anthony Marsh
Well, your speculating if fun even if you don't understand the physics.
But you forgot to mention the echoes. You need a theory that the pergola
acted as a parabola to make a late echo which sounded like a second shot.
Slacker!